On University Rankings, Poorly Educated Legislators, and (the Spilt Milk of) Reputations

Its the beginning of the new school year, and we've all had the chance to look over the 2011 US News and World Report National University Rankings.  Sure, the top 10 are the same, they look (and act) like the top clubs in the British Premier League, but the rankings do not stop there.  The Tier 1 rankings go to 200.  Essentially, this is a list of the top 200 Universities in the country, even if we disregard the ultimately negligible ordering of the top 25.  These rankings, and our place in them, should matter, right?  The basic talking points have been the following: 1)  the UA fell 18 points last year, from 102nd to 120th, and 2) President Shelton has responded to the rankings with, “I just don’t pay much attention to these rankings since they are designed to favor well-to-do private schools with high dollar-to-student ratios, we have a broader mission.”  Clearly, Pres. Shelton knows that he can't complain about our meager standing, in effect, he acknowledges that we can't compete, so we won't.  He has absolutely nothing to stand on with respect to these rankings, and we all know it.  We should feel lucky to still have jobs, he might intimate, and we should thank our State legislators, our Governor in fact, for fighting to keep University funding from foreclosing on us.  And he would be right.  It should escape no one that for the last three years the "broader mission" has been staying afloat.  Yes, thank you, Gov. Brewer, we really like our jobs.

But there's also the matter of those two state bills unilaterally signed into law earlier in the summer by that same Legislature and Governor, SB1070, and HB2281.  (Again, thank you?)  If you were away for the summer, God bless you if you were, but you might have missed all the fuss these laws precipitated.  People were outraged; and other people were outraged by the outrage.  Local news coverage was atrocious, as always.  Then came the countdown to July 29.  THEN, came the ruling by U.S. District Judge, Susan Bolton, that temporarily enjoined the most controversial aspects of SB1070 from taking effect until it is ruled upon in a higher court.  The ruling, found here, reads like a Professor evaluating an undergraduate's final paper.  With the ease of an experienced educator (and as if with a red pen in hand), Judge Bolton simply thrashes the new law, publicly humiliating its authors for their failure to account for the one thing that every American lawmaker cannot neglect: the Constitution.  What the ruling demonstrated, and clearly put on display, was how sophomoric this law really was; a law ultimately written by "coasting" undergraduates just trying to get by with the least amount of work. In other words, if laws like this pass for jurisprudence in Arizona, and if this law can be dispatched so easily, so quickly, so singlehandedly, and so conclusively, then our legislators are a serious problem, and a source of utter embarassment for Arizona Universities.  Let me be clear: they are a problem/embarassment not because they choose to write xenophobic and reactionary laws, but because they couldn't write them properly enough.  They are bad lawmakers in the strictest sense of the term: they just don't know how to write laws that can withstand the scrutiny of even an undergraduate course.  And further, Gov. Brewer, the person who signed off on them, couldn't also tell the difference.  I imagine that half of these legislators once walked the halls of ASU and the UA.  And I imagine half of those actually managed to scrape by with a degree of some sort.  And I'm sure they were very proud of themselves then at their graduation as they were last May when Gov. Brewer signed that poorly written bill into law, in effect, giving that bill an "A", when it deserved to be sent back to be rewritten.  Had Brewer proofread that hastily produced 'final paper,' she might not have had to face the humiliation of a federal judge telling her that law isn't worth the paper is was printed on, and that its authors are some of the most poorly educated lawmakers she has ever had the displeasure of dealing with.  But again, Brewer can't tell from poorly drafted laws.

I admit, I delighted in witnessing the humiliation on display that day.  As I did the next day, watching Brewer on the news desperately trying (and failing) to answer questions about the ruling, the language and concepts of which, of course, she just didn't understand.  Again, I was watching an undergraduate trying to defend the merit of a paper that had been given a failing grade; she just will never understand how it got an "F". Yet, I cannot also deny that, simutlaneously, I too felt embarrassed and humiliated by the entire course of events, and for everybody. I somehow felt that, much to my disgust, the UA and its "broader mission" had a role to play in all of this.  That we, in effect, also failed everybody involved.

I am suggesting that these moments (and their aftermath) are not unrelated.  That the UA "doesn't pay much attention" to nationally recognized standards and instead chooses to indulge in its own "broader mission" has been the UA's problem for a long time; meanwhile SB 1070, HB 2281, the Legislature, and Gov. Brewer are the blowback of these undeniably lesser standards and will for some time strike at the core of whatever criteria the UA wants to judge itself by, because they have inextricably become part of our reputation. The credibility of an UA education was once at stake, all doubt has since been removed.  There is no longer any ground upon which to contest our lot.  Despite Pres. Shelton's desire to avoid comparisons, we cannot opt-out of these national rankings even if we wanted to, and I'm glad for that.  Because we fully deserve our ranking as we must also assume full responsibility for our poorly educated Legislature and Governor.  But we still really, really do like our jobs, Gov. Brewer.  Thank you for supporting Education.  And believe me, we regret not having returned the favor.

Rising Trend in Racially Charged Incidents on UC Campuses

It appears that the racially motivated incident that occured just 10 days ago here at the UA (story linked below) is not an isolated incident, but in line with the many other instances of racially charged cases in the UC system.  Below an AP story of how a series of "incidents" targeting minorities that have occurred at UC San Diego, Davis, and Santa Cruz are compounding into a larger social issue on University campuses.

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=YYivF7Gx

Once again, our own peer institutions lead the way by showing us that one does not have to fall for the either/or that we see here at the UA.  They too are suffering devastating tuition hikes, the likes of which, one might add, the UA has never seen.  And yet, our peers (institutions and students alike) consider these racially motivated events a top priority, and make it national news in the process.  The UA and other local media outlets, on the other hand, have effectively buried the UA's own relationship to this string of cases in favor of mobilizing around the absurdedly contingent notion of "as free as possible."  Should we at all be surprised that in Arizona, fiscal issues continue to predominate over issues of diversity and tolerance at the University?

How Self-Respecting Universities (and Students) Handle Their Business––Hate Crime Edition

Its funny how an entire week has passed since the racial terrorizing of a female undergraduate at a UA dorm, and not one university related media outlet has touched it, not even to deny it.  Its also funny (well, not funny haha, but funny oh) that students themselves have not intervened in this silence to make this case an institutional priority.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, there exist people that actually do feel strongly about such issues, and they show this through participation in a flash of collective action that swiftly and effectively demonstrate that racially motivated crimes will not be tolerated by that student body and, in one and the same event, force their university to account for such an offense by demanding educational measures that address the history of race-related violence in the US.  This place is called the University of California San Diego, and last week, after a noose was found hanging in the library, what did the students do?  Well, they stormed the Chancellor's offices in protest.

Talk about a peer institution.  Yes, please!

Hate Crime Being Investigated at the UA––Haven't You Heard?

Colleagues,

I take to this forum once again to bring to your attention a very serious incident that occured in a UA dorm over the weekend.  Haven't heard about it?  Really?  You don't say?

What is important about this incident is that it has NOT been given any coverage whatsoever, except for a very brief story ran by the local nightly news.

http://www.kvoa.com/news/hate-crime-being-investigated-at-ua/

This incident, which the story reports is being investigated as a hate crime, involves the drawing of a confederate flag and the words "Southern Pride" on the entry door of a female, African-American undergrad's dorm room.  Though she has filed a police-report, and working with University officials to relocate her to another residence hall, Dorm officials cannot guarantee that this will not happen again.

Needless to say, this is a terrible thing to have happen to anybody, let alone a young female undergraduate who also indicates she is the only African-American resident in the building.  The latter, in and of itself, testifies to the UA's serious and embarassing issues with diversity on campus; the former––the racially-motivated incident itself––speaks to a sense of entitlement, felt by some students, to vocalize (or in this case write and draw on someone's door) their view that the University is already too diverse for their liking.  One might wonder if the latter students actually came to the UA after looking at the University's diversity stats and felt it would be a good fit?  In either case, this is shameful situation, but further, and once again, the University's silence over it is even worse.

The UA website and the Daily Wildcat have yet to mention one word about this incident (I have been checking).  Has the story been buried?   Where are our student reporters?  Have they been told to stay away from it?  Has it been deemed not significant enough of a story?  Like the previous chalking incidents from last year, institutional silence and silencing is both something to pay attention to, and something that speaks very very clearly.

Updated––Dean of Students drops Code of Conduct violation charges against Evan Lisull ONLY!

Desert Lamp is reporing that the Dean of Students has officially informed Evan Lisull that he will NOT face Academic Code of Conduct violation charges.  No word yet on whether Jacob Miller has received the same notification.  We hope to hear news of Mr. Miller as soon as possible.

Daily Wildcat now reports that ONLY Evan Lisull has been informed by the Dean of Students that his case has been dropped.  The story cannot confirm whether Jacob Miller's case with the DOS too remains open or closed.  We will remain on alert until we hear otherwise.

An Open Letter to President Robert Shelton from Concerned Faculty

We, the concerned faculty at the University of Arizona, write to express our relief upon hearing of your decision to dismiss criminal charges against Jacob Miller and Evan Lisull, two UA students unjustly arrested on campus as they were exercising their right to protected forms of speech on September 24 and 28, 2009. At news of their initial arrests we were shocked and outraged, as they amounted to a direct violation of the freedom to organize and to express public opposition on a University campus. These incidents were acutely felt, particularly when the context for the Arizona for Education rally on the 24th was to protest the state budget crisis and the administration’s fiscal and educational decision-making, which thus also made it appear as an attack on the principles of accountable and shared governance at the University. Your decision on Monday, September 28, 2009, to dismiss the criminal charges against these students, as well as to reaffirm the UA’s “commit[ment] to defending, celebrating and hosting free expression” served to calm those fears, from students and faculty alike.

However, in the press release announcing this decision, you also state “that the best course of action is to handle these incidents as possible Code of Conduct violations through the Dean of Students Office.” What we understand by this statement is simply the transfer of unwarranted charges of “chalking” against student activists Jacob Miller and Evan Lisull from the criminal-legal to the administrative arena. In so stating, you continue to commit yourself to treating the actions attributed to these students as punishable, though now within the jurisdiction of the Academic Code of Conduct rather than under criminal law. The very fact that these students continue to be disciplined, even if under a different system, simply perpetuates the incursion by this administration on the principles of free expression, free assembly, and shared governance. We find, ultimately, that this decision does not constitute a resolution to this recent assault on free expression at this University nor is it a restoration of the full protection of civil liberties granted to every individual of this academic community.

Further, we find, this disciplinary transfer actually increases, not reduces, the jeopardy faced by students. Under the criminal system, the University would be required to present evidence and witnesses for rebuttal and would be required to meet the threshold of proving the guilt of these students “beyond a reasonable doubt.” To date, UAPD has demonstrated no evidence that even approaches this threshold. (As of yet, no evidence beyond “unnamed sources” as been presented to actually tie these students to said infractions.) We note that the standard of guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” does not exist for those charged in a Academic Code of Conduct hearing. Instead, the Dean of Students must merely determine that “it is more likely than not that a violation of a Student Code of Conduct has occurred” (5-403 (C) 6), and the students have no right during this procedure to challenge the purported witness(es) who are said to have contacted UAPD. The students only have the right to challenge these witnesses upon appeal to a University Hearing Board, but such appeals are limited to cases in which the Dean’s sanction involves “suspensions, expulsions, and degree revocations” (5-403 (D) 1). Thus, in transferring these charges to the Dean of Students, the administration has made it significantly more likely that these students will be found guilty and punished, whereas the criminal complaint would have most likely failed. This is no victory for sane or humane treatment of students.

Dr. Shelton, though we appreciate your decision to correct the course sparked by the incidents of last week, including the dropping of criminal charges against the students, as well as instructing the UAPD to “avoid citing individuals for criminal damage for similar future events,” we urge you also to reconsider the suggested administrative action against Mr. Miller, Mr. Lisull, and against any student facing a similar situation in the future. And finally, we ask you to renew in both speech and action your commitment to the principles of a truly public university, including freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and shared governance.

Faculty Signatures:

Abraham Acosta, Spanish and Portuguese
Jason Brown, Creative Writing Program
Maritza Cardenas, English
Jenn Croissant, Gender and Women's Studies
Adam Geary, Gender and Women's Studies
Roger Hartley, Government and Public Policy
Fenton Johnson, Creative Writing Program
John Paul Jones III, Geography and Development
Miranda Joseph, Gender and Women's Studies
Elizabeth Kennedy, Gender and Women's Studies
David Plane, Geography and Development
Marv Waterstone, Geography and Development

Charges Dropped, Academic Violation Looms

Some may already be aware that criminal charges against Jacob Miller and Evan Lisull were dropped by President Shelton this afternoon.  However, the Star is also reporting that instead of issuing further criminal citations for chalking, culprits will now be referred to the Dean of Student's Office for a code of conduct violation.  In short, speech acts at the UA will still carry with them punitive consequences.  So though Mr. Miller and Mr. Lisull's criminal charges were dropped, they still face administratively governed ones.  If reflected upon for moment, one can see the same insidious tactic is at play: students will continue to be targeted for speech act violations.    This is not over, and I implore all colleagues not to let up on this issue; as it stands now, our students will no longer have the same right to speech as faculty.