Showing posts with label Campus politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Campus politics. Show all posts
Friday, February 8, 2008
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Ashok, Where you at?
WSUM 91.7 FM, that's where. Tomorrow, on The Badger Herald presents The Jason Smathers Show (although its apparently still labeled as "The Smathers Hour") at 10am, Mr. Kumar will come on to discuss everything from the county board race, his article, the oft-discussed (or alternatively, not discussed) attendance record and anything the listeners would like to call in and ask. CB, SV, Opsal, I'm looking at you.
The number is 608-265-WSUM. Feel free to call in.
The number is 608-265-WSUM. Feel free to call in.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Search and Screen: Why the big deal?
So, as you might have noticed from this blog or (probably more accurately) Mr. Spirn, the search and screen committee was a little heated and contentious.
Now, when we're talking about a search for the next Chancellor, it's obvious that tons of people are going to vie for these two spots and the debate over representation is an important one to have. However, what I saw that night represented both the dedication of ASM to really accurately represent students and their failure to make significant progress.
They started interviewing people at around 5:15, starting with Alex Gallagher of SSFC. After beginning with a little more lengthy presentation, Jeff Wright and the rest of them agreed that they should limit the questioning to two questions and another general question about the time commitment.
After the twelve candidates went through and made their case, ASM members left after the two hour interviews went back to the fifth floor of Memorial Union and debated the candidates. They ended up seeing four candidates as strongest — Alex Gallagher, Suchita Shah, Kaja Rebane and Erik Paulson.
Now, Kaja made a great presentation of her involvement at the graduate level, as she's the co-president of TAA and would certainly be their advocate at the table. Given how strongly she felt about Mr. Wiley's problems with the Legislature, she was obviously going to be very critical of anyone who stepped foot into that room claiming to be Chancellor material.
Then there was Suchita. Who many of us in the blogosphere and at the paper know. Campus Queen? Well, if that's what you label her, maybe it's deserved. While she certainly has the resume, credentials and ideals to back it up, Suchita admitted herself that the presentation and interview she gave was a little weak. However, that was probably just nerves. She impressed much of ASM and that's to be understood — she's a neuroscience major that runs with College Dems, did SOAR, did research on the Charter Plant, the list goes on and on. Perhaps the list is almost sickening to some on campus who would ask, "Yeah, but does she understand the concern of students?"
And when it came down to it, that was the second biggest question: Who's going to represent students best?
The biggest question, however, was of what would be a greater fault — two graduate students representing campus or two ASMers?
I personally felt that two graduate students would be a huge mistake and Jeff Wright and others seemed to agree.
Here's what really angered me about the ASM argument. They were worried that the student body would see this as unrepresentative of campus. Excuse me? So, ASM is arguing that they don't represent students? Great way to boost your legitimacy. As I said there and will say again, if you don't believe ASM is viewed as doing just that, then maybe you shouldn't be part of ASM. Let's not forget, ASM is technically the entire student body. The people who serve on committee are just those who showed more active involvement and engagement (most times) in campus. Even the resume boosters have to know something to get on those committees.
That being said, we all know ASM has major flaws that need to be fixed. But you can't say that they (some of them) aren't trying.
Yet, above all, the most bizarre part of this discussion isn't that it went on for 2 hours or that it came down to two tie votes. Or that some people thought the TAA agenda was something to be supported without opposition. Although given how visible pissed off she was, that certainly did serve as a big dent in her application.
It was that the tone of the discussion wasn't really a debate, even during its most heated portion. It was people making opposite points without criticizing the those opinion. Someone mentions the ASMers problem, then someone mentions the Graduate student experience and how they have a more broad approach then we anticipate. Then someone else mentions the same first point. And someone else broaches the second point again. Very little discussion of the actual qualities involved in searching for the next chancellor occurred, most focused on what the student body is going to best represented by.
Basically, it was like if the debaters had headphones on so as to not hear the other side. There were certainly concerns, but I'm not sure people we're really making their points very well.
Now, let me just say, for the people who stayed, that was dedication. To spend two hours deciding over five people can get tedious when you've already spent an additional 2 hours and 15 minutes listening to candidates.
However, when people start defending candidates simply because, "They have a passion" but discount other candidates because, "He talked too much about private fundraising," that's bullshit. Yes, we're a public university, but that comes from how well the chancellor communicates the true position of the university to Rep. Nass and the constant skeptics. Private fundraising requires just as much, if not more work. And it is far less guaranteed.
But I digress. Suchita was finally voted in along with Erik and they adjourned. Jeff looked visibly shaken, but he really held it together well considering the strange isolated debates going on among the crowd.
Apparently they're both going to be holding listening sessions with different schools, so once that starts to happen, I'll go cover that. However, for now, I'm concerned with ASMs role. I only wish I could have been more involved, from an earlier stage, steer it a little.
Wishful thinking.
Now, when we're talking about a search for the next Chancellor, it's obvious that tons of people are going to vie for these two spots and the debate over representation is an important one to have. However, what I saw that night represented both the dedication of ASM to really accurately represent students and their failure to make significant progress.
They started interviewing people at around 5:15, starting with Alex Gallagher of SSFC. After beginning with a little more lengthy presentation, Jeff Wright and the rest of them agreed that they should limit the questioning to two questions and another general question about the time commitment.
After the twelve candidates went through and made their case, ASM members left after the two hour interviews went back to the fifth floor of Memorial Union and debated the candidates. They ended up seeing four candidates as strongest — Alex Gallagher, Suchita Shah, Kaja Rebane and Erik Paulson.
Now, Kaja made a great presentation of her involvement at the graduate level, as she's the co-president of TAA and would certainly be their advocate at the table. Given how strongly she felt about Mr. Wiley's problems with the Legislature, she was obviously going to be very critical of anyone who stepped foot into that room claiming to be Chancellor material.
Then there was Suchita. Who many of us in the blogosphere and at the paper know. Campus Queen? Well, if that's what you label her, maybe it's deserved. While she certainly has the resume, credentials and ideals to back it up, Suchita admitted herself that the presentation and interview she gave was a little weak. However, that was probably just nerves. She impressed much of ASM and that's to be understood — she's a neuroscience major that runs with College Dems, did SOAR, did research on the Charter Plant, the list goes on and on. Perhaps the list is almost sickening to some on campus who would ask, "Yeah, but does she understand the concern of students?"
And when it came down to it, that was the second biggest question: Who's going to represent students best?
The biggest question, however, was of what would be a greater fault — two graduate students representing campus or two ASMers?
I personally felt that two graduate students would be a huge mistake and Jeff Wright and others seemed to agree.
Here's what really angered me about the ASM argument. They were worried that the student body would see this as unrepresentative of campus. Excuse me? So, ASM is arguing that they don't represent students? Great way to boost your legitimacy. As I said there and will say again, if you don't believe ASM is viewed as doing just that, then maybe you shouldn't be part of ASM. Let's not forget, ASM is technically the entire student body. The people who serve on committee are just those who showed more active involvement and engagement (most times) in campus. Even the resume boosters have to know something to get on those committees.
That being said, we all know ASM has major flaws that need to be fixed. But you can't say that they (some of them) aren't trying.
Yet, above all, the most bizarre part of this discussion isn't that it went on for 2 hours or that it came down to two tie votes. Or that some people thought the TAA agenda was something to be supported without opposition. Although given how visible pissed off she was, that certainly did serve as a big dent in her application.
It was that the tone of the discussion wasn't really a debate, even during its most heated portion. It was people making opposite points without criticizing the those opinion. Someone mentions the ASMers problem, then someone mentions the Graduate student experience and how they have a more broad approach then we anticipate. Then someone else mentions the same first point. And someone else broaches the second point again. Very little discussion of the actual qualities involved in searching for the next chancellor occurred, most focused on what the student body is going to best represented by.
Basically, it was like if the debaters had headphones on so as to not hear the other side. There were certainly concerns, but I'm not sure people we're really making their points very well.
Now, let me just say, for the people who stayed, that was dedication. To spend two hours deciding over five people can get tedious when you've already spent an additional 2 hours and 15 minutes listening to candidates.
However, when people start defending candidates simply because, "They have a passion" but discount other candidates because, "He talked too much about private fundraising," that's bullshit. Yes, we're a public university, but that comes from how well the chancellor communicates the true position of the university to Rep. Nass and the constant skeptics. Private fundraising requires just as much, if not more work. And it is far less guaranteed.
But I digress. Suchita was finally voted in along with Erik and they adjourned. Jeff looked visibly shaken, but he really held it together well considering the strange isolated debates going on among the crowd.
Apparently they're both going to be holding listening sessions with different schools, so once that starts to happen, I'll go cover that. However, for now, I'm concerned with ASMs role. I only wish I could have been more involved, from an earlier stage, steer it a little.
Wishful thinking.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
And the reps for Search and Screen are...
Erik Paulson, a graduate student in computer sciences dept., former academic staff and undergrad.
Suchita Shah, of College Democrats, The Herald and pretty much anything else you could think of.
I'll elaborate on this a little later, but it was a hard fought battle and it exposes a lot of the strengths and flaws of Shared Gov. That'll come later.
Suchita Shah, of College Democrats, The Herald and pretty much anything else you could think of.
I'll elaborate on this a little later, but it was a hard fought battle and it exposes a lot of the strengths and flaws of Shared Gov. That'll come later.
Friday, November 30, 2007
12 Degrees? And you expect results?
Just got back awhile ago from the College Dems and Republican game. My god. Just a tip next time guys: Have your game at a decent time (when it's light), on a decent field (you know, NOT in front of the Kohl Center.) and when it's not 12 degrees outside.
That being said, the game was a physical one, but much closer than expected. The Republicans pulled out to an early lead, but after two touch downs and a safety, the Democrats began to run away with it. By the end of the first half, the score was 22-15. While "O.K". and his blue bulldozers continued to trounce the self-proclaimed "Patriot" Republicans well into the second half, The CR's came back with a vengeance. Unfortunately, their push came too late. With no timeouts left and no way to stop the Dems on their last possession, the Republicans surrendered to their fate and watched as the Dems ran out the clock.
Final Score: 41-34, Democrats.
That being said, I had barely any idea what I was doing. I'm sure that showed. I was just hoping I didn't have to make any crucial judgment calls.
Speaking of judgment calls, David Lapidus told our reporter, Pedro Oliveria Jr., that he'd be deciding whether or not to run tonight. Everyone I've talked to seems to discuss it like it's a forgone conclusion, and I have to say, I'd be shocked if it turned out any differently from what "insiders" are saying. I guess we'll find out soon enough.
That being said, the game was a physical one, but much closer than expected. The Republicans pulled out to an early lead, but after two touch downs and a safety, the Democrats began to run away with it. By the end of the first half, the score was 22-15. While "O.K". and his blue bulldozers continued to trounce the self-proclaimed "Patriot" Republicans well into the second half, The CR's came back with a vengeance. Unfortunately, their push came too late. With no timeouts left and no way to stop the Dems on their last possession, the Republicans surrendered to their fate and watched as the Dems ran out the clock.
Final Score: 41-34, Democrats.
That being said, I had barely any idea what I was doing. I'm sure that showed. I was just hoping I didn't have to make any crucial judgment calls.
Speaking of judgment calls, David Lapidus told our reporter, Pedro Oliveria Jr., that he'd be deciding whether or not to run tonight. Everyone I've talked to seems to discuss it like it's a forgone conclusion, and I have to say, I'd be shocked if it turned out any differently from what "insiders" are saying. I guess we'll find out soon enough.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
And the Anti-War machine rolls on...
Just saw this on Wispolitics. I guess CAN is far more organized than I anticipated, if this is them. Which, I'm not clear on whether it is.
First off - Defederalization of the National Guard? Wow. Not only is that just way out there, but it's treating this issue like the states are just part of a "coalition of the willing." Sorry guys, but this isn't a volunteering of forces.
Of course, they must realize how unlikely and impossible this is, but it's actually a smart move on their part. First Halliburton, now the Governor's Office. Looking for press to cover you, aren't you? As much as I figured the anti-war movement would pickup pretty quickly, I didn't imagine it would have demands this nuanced. Simply chanting "Get out of Iraq" is one thing, asking for a principled redistribution based on other needs is something I didn't expect. These activists are finally becoming organized.
I think what we could be witnessing is a return to the Vietnam era style protests. Maybe not this year, but perhaps next year if this thing drags on. Now you have Lori Berquam coming out in favor of these protesters (which I'm surprised she still has her job, actually. Perhaps they'll force her out with a scandal if it continues? I hope not, she actually is making a pretty bold move here.)
However, it all scares me a little bit. Not because it could result in a big mistake on the part of certain protesters and force others to use violence. No, it's because this could actually result in the whole campus joining. And other campus joining. It could result in basically every productive unit of academia shutting force and end to this war. And that could mean serious national tension, which at this point has only two ways out: appease or repress.
Ok, maybe I'm getting ahead of the whole thing. However. It is interesting. And I think I might cover it.
Yet, there is a bigger problem with these protests. On the day of the Halliburton protest, there was a rally (or at least there was supposed to be one) against tuition increases at the Capitol. Ok, now maybe that's not the most pertinent local concern considering the fact that our legislature is still acting like a bunch of babies, (Even after the Healthy Wisconsin drop has been offered, Nice stubbornness, Heubsch.)
but it was something that directly effected students. Instead, more students were drawn to the allure of the CAN protests. Bigger, better.
Lori Berquam was right. We need a return to activism on this campus. However, activism doesn't have to mean protesting for nought. It can mean being a guerrilla lobbyist at the capitol and demanding change where it might actually happen.
Oh well. Wishful thinking I guess.
Iraq War veteran will return his medals
On September 26, 2007 a demonstration will begin at 2PM in Library Mall. We will march up State Street to the Capitol and return Josh Gaines' military service metals to the Governor. Josh Gaines is an Iraq War Veteran. He will return his Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal and National Defense Service Medal to Gov. Jim Doyle.
Protesters will be calling for the de-federalization of the WI National Guard. We believe it is in the best interest of the country that the National Guard remains in the U.S.A. for use in disaster relief and border control. Organizers are asking that other Veterans return Military Service Medals to the Governor along with Gaines.
The demonstration will end with the demand, Mr. Doyle have a public meeting with anti-war students and the public for the de-federalization of the WI National Guard.
Ryan Olander
612.325.8650
dfedwing@yahoo.com
First off - Defederalization of the National Guard? Wow. Not only is that just way out there, but it's treating this issue like the states are just part of a "coalition of the willing." Sorry guys, but this isn't a volunteering of forces.
Of course, they must realize how unlikely and impossible this is, but it's actually a smart move on their part. First Halliburton, now the Governor's Office. Looking for press to cover you, aren't you? As much as I figured the anti-war movement would pickup pretty quickly, I didn't imagine it would have demands this nuanced. Simply chanting "Get out of Iraq" is one thing, asking for a principled redistribution based on other needs is something I didn't expect. These activists are finally becoming organized.
I think what we could be witnessing is a return to the Vietnam era style protests. Maybe not this year, but perhaps next year if this thing drags on. Now you have Lori Berquam coming out in favor of these protesters (which I'm surprised she still has her job, actually. Perhaps they'll force her out with a scandal if it continues? I hope not, she actually is making a pretty bold move here.)
However, it all scares me a little bit. Not because it could result in a big mistake on the part of certain protesters and force others to use violence. No, it's because this could actually result in the whole campus joining. And other campus joining. It could result in basically every productive unit of academia shutting force and end to this war. And that could mean serious national tension, which at this point has only two ways out: appease or repress.
Ok, maybe I'm getting ahead of the whole thing. However. It is interesting. And I think I might cover it.
Yet, there is a bigger problem with these protests. On the day of the Halliburton protest, there was a rally (or at least there was supposed to be one) against tuition increases at the Capitol. Ok, now maybe that's not the most pertinent local concern considering the fact that our legislature is still acting like a bunch of babies, (Even after the Healthy Wisconsin drop has been offered, Nice stubbornness, Heubsch.)
but it was something that directly effected students. Instead, more students were drawn to the allure of the CAN protests. Bigger, better.
Lori Berquam was right. We need a return to activism on this campus. However, activism doesn't have to mean protesting for nought. It can mean being a guerrilla lobbyist at the capitol and demanding change where it might actually happen.
Oh well. Wishful thinking I guess.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
36.09(5) - Shared Governance or Throwing the dogs a bone?
As you might have read on in the Cap Times or Something Verbose, the Board of Regents voted in favor of Chancellor Wiley on the off-campus rent issue. Basically it means that...
Sex Out Loud!, CFACT and PAVE are relegated to the basement of Memorial Union. The Union is going to pay to renovate their space, as offices are in an old flooded space in the basement. However, according to Alex Gallagher, they have no money for maintenance as that line item was included in Off-Campus Rent. So if they want to keep their basic space running, they'll either need to dip into the reserve board (money left over at the end of each year) or cut other expenditures. Does that mean SOL! will have to hold off on the strap-ons? How will the children know how to properly peg each other?
Wispirg is still shacked up with MCSC and the Jewish Cultural Collective is enjoying a cosy living arrangement with Hillel.
But what about the Roman Catholic Foundation? Yes, they're hanging out with St. Paul's for now, but part of their settlement with the UW stipulates that they have to cut ties with St. Paul's. Does that mean UW has to find space for them as well or do we just wait for another set of lawsuits? Gallagher declined to comment on the UWRCF situation stating, "that's too political, I'm not going to get into that...All I can say is those groups have been able to obtain housing for free." Sounds like I'll have to have another chat with Tim Kruse.
It sets up questions about the future of segregated fees, but the bigger issue on the side of ASM is how this hampers Shared Governance. Alex Gallagher said that having Chancellor Wiley mandate a decision from on high violates shared governance, because he didn't directly consult with ASM.
Board of Regents saw it differently. For them, two years was plenty of time to "consult" with students on the matter and ultimately, Wiley has ultimate authority. Well, I'd definitely agree with the regents about the time element, but "Shared Governance" needs some clarification. Let's take a look at it, shall we?
Ok, right off the bat, it sets out who's in charge. The president, chancellor, board and faculty come first. Now, this is where the ambiguity starts - "active participants in the immediate governance." I feel the students are reading the last part first and the first part last. Yes, immediate governance is taking place, but you're only kids at the table. You get to speak, but not govern. Active participation is such a weak term for something that's supposed to let ASM have their hand in every student decision and activity. As far as I know, "active participation" could be just as deceiving as when Bill O'Reilly tells his guests "As always, I'll give you the last word."
If this were all there is to it, we'd probably not be having this argument. It's the following part that causes heads to be scratched till bloody and raw:
Ahh, so this is where SSFC gets the idea from. It goes to them first and they discuss it with Wiley, but the board of regents has the final say. It's not just saying they get to sit at the table, it says they're digging into the food, as well.
However, here's where the caveat comes in. Notice the one word missing from this section: power. The "powers and responsibilities" are in the hands of the administration, whereas the students only have "responsibilities." In this sense, 36.09(5) doesn't guarantee governance, it guarantees a burden. The administration hands over some of their work to the students, but when they muck it up, mom and dad take back control and chastise them.
The only way ASM and SSFC recovers from this decision is if the state statute is revised to specifically lay out the duties and powers of student governance in regards to student fees, policies and activities. Lots of luck on that one.
Until then, we're nothing more than glorified lobbyists. Yet, it's still important to embrace that role. If you think complaining about segregated fees isn't an issue, consider this: tuition will rise by 5.5%, about $330, for the year. Segregated Fees are rising by around 33%, 125 dollars a semester.
One is inevitable and essential. The other is a frills package we don't need. and we CAN stop it. I sincerely believe that.
Edit - Quick correction -- the Chancellor's Office is funding the renovation of the Union, not the Union itself. Thanks Suchita.
Sex Out Loud!, CFACT and PAVE are relegated to the basement of Memorial Union. The Union is going to pay to renovate their space, as offices are in an old flooded space in the basement. However, according to Alex Gallagher, they have no money for maintenance as that line item was included in Off-Campus Rent. So if they want to keep their basic space running, they'll either need to dip into the reserve board (money left over at the end of each year) or cut other expenditures. Does that mean SOL! will have to hold off on the strap-ons? How will the children know how to properly peg each other?
Wispirg is still shacked up with MCSC and the Jewish Cultural Collective is enjoying a cosy living arrangement with Hillel.
But what about the Roman Catholic Foundation? Yes, they're hanging out with St. Paul's for now, but part of their settlement with the UW stipulates that they have to cut ties with St. Paul's. Does that mean UW has to find space for them as well or do we just wait for another set of lawsuits? Gallagher declined to comment on the UWRCF situation stating, "that's too political, I'm not going to get into that...All I can say is those groups have been able to obtain housing for free." Sounds like I'll have to have another chat with Tim Kruse.
It sets up questions about the future of segregated fees, but the bigger issue on the side of ASM is how this hampers Shared Governance. Alex Gallagher said that having Chancellor Wiley mandate a decision from on high violates shared governance, because he didn't directly consult with ASM.
Board of Regents saw it differently. For them, two years was plenty of time to "consult" with students on the matter and ultimately, Wiley has ultimate authority. Well, I'd definitely agree with the regents about the time element, but "Shared Governance" needs some clarification. Let's take a look at it, shall we?
The students of each institution or campus subject to the responsibilities and powers of the board, the president, the chancellor, and the faculty shall be active participants in the immediate governance of and policy development for such institutions.
Ok, right off the bat, it sets out who's in charge. The president, chancellor, board and faculty come first. Now, this is where the ambiguity starts - "active participants in the immediate governance." I feel the students are reading the last part first and the first part last. Yes, immediate governance is taking place, but you're only kids at the table. You get to speak, but not govern. Active participation is such a weak term for something that's supposed to let ASM have their hand in every student decision and activity. As far as I know, "active participation" could be just as deceiving as when Bill O'Reilly tells his guests "As always, I'll give you the last word."
If this were all there is to it, we'd probably not be having this argument. It's the following part that causes heads to be scratched till bloody and raw:
As such, students shall have the primary responsibilityfor the formulation and review of policies concerning student life, services, and interests. Students in consultation with the chancellor and subject to the final confirmation of the board shall have the responsibility for the disposition of those student fees which constitute substantial support for campus student activities.
Ahh, so this is where SSFC gets the idea from. It goes to them first and they discuss it with Wiley, but the board of regents has the final say. It's not just saying they get to sit at the table, it says they're digging into the food, as well.
However, here's where the caveat comes in. Notice the one word missing from this section: power. The "powers and responsibilities" are in the hands of the administration, whereas the students only have "responsibilities." In this sense, 36.09(5) doesn't guarantee governance, it guarantees a burden. The administration hands over some of their work to the students, but when they muck it up, mom and dad take back control and chastise them.
The only way ASM and SSFC recovers from this decision is if the state statute is revised to specifically lay out the duties and powers of student governance in regards to student fees, policies and activities. Lots of luck on that one.
Until then, we're nothing more than glorified lobbyists. Yet, it's still important to embrace that role. If you think complaining about segregated fees isn't an issue, consider this: tuition will rise by 5.5%, about $330, for the year. Segregated Fees are rising by around 33%, 125 dollars a semester.
One is inevitable and essential. The other is a frills package we don't need. and we CAN stop it. I sincerely believe that.
Edit - Quick correction -- the Chancellor's Office is funding the renovation of the Union, not the Union itself. Thanks Suchita.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
