Mediaboss Marketing

Taiwan's universities are reeling from accusations that they are indulging in widespread academic censorship to secure lucrative fee-paying exchange students from the Chinese mainland.

This week the Ministry of Education launched an emergency probe of pledges allegedly signed by universities with their Chinese counterparts to uphold Chinas official view on Taiwans status and avoid teaching sensitive content like Taiwanese independence.

The controversy has struck at a particularly sensitive time, with the island nation smarting from a strong rebuke last weekend by Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, who warned that China would not tolerate any activity attempting to separate Taiwan from the motherland.

Taiwan, a democracy of 23 million, has its own parliament, military and foreign policy, but Beijing views it as a renegade province that will eventually be reunited with the mainland by military force if necessary.

The Education Ministry refused to confirm press reports that at least 80 out of 157 universities may have compromised their academic independence to attract Chinese students, until it completes its full investigation next week.

But Yang Min-ling, head of the ministrys International Department, warned that any institution found guilty of violating laws governing cross-strait relations between Taiwan and China could face fines of up to $16,000.

Fearful that Beijing is trying to erode their jealously guarded academic liberties, Taiwanese professors and students are in revolt.

A new campaign against political restrictions on academic freedom by Professor Fan Yun, who teaches sociology at National Taiwan University, has been supported by professors and students from over 20 institutions.

Universities are supposed to protect the democratic values of a society, says Fan.

I visit Hong Kong universities and whats happening there is quite depressing. They already lost the freedom to talk about what they want to. So I hope that we are overworried, but we dont want to wait until its too late, she argues.

We still want to facilitate academic exchange with China, but we have to have our bottom line.

With Taiwans low birth rate fueling fears of a future shortfall in students, however, that line appears to be flexible for many universities competing for funding. Taiwan, which has a glut of universities, gratefully receives over 30,000 Chinese exchange students every year.

The latest controversy began at Shih Hsin University in the capital, Taipei, after it revealed that in letters to some mainland Chinese students it vowed to avoid sensitive subjects.

A spokesman, Yeh I-jan, argued that the letters were nonbinding and only necessary for about 5% of the institutions annual 1,500 Chinese students.

Shih Hsin and other universities claim such documents are a formality to placate the Chinese authorities, denying that teaching standards are compromised. But Yeh did recall several instances where Chinese students had complained about the content of lessons and stopped attending.

Young activists in both Hong Kong and Taiwan have irked Beijing in recent years by pushing for greater autonomy or even independence. In 2014, hundreds of students formed the Sunflower Movement and occupied Taiwans parliament to protest Chinas political influence.

Lin Fei-fan, one of Sunflowers leaders, is alarmed that the letters issued by universities have both violated Taiwans academic freedom and burdened visiting Chinese students with self-censorship. But he also sees an opportunity.

This incident actually gives us a rare chance to rethink how a democratic Taiwan can engage with an authoritarian and inimical neighbor country through education exchange, he says.

Concerns about China using its overseas students for political leverage have occurred elsewhere.

In San Diego, Chinese students protested against a decision by the University of California to invite Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama. Meanwhile, the Chinese embassy in the U.K. is said to have warned students at Durham University against engaging with human-rights activist, Anastasia Lin.

Its part of how they want to promote their cultural and social agenda in other societies, particularly in Taiwan, said Hsu Yung-ming, a legislator with the government-aligned New Power Party.

We worry that our universities maybe have some under-the-table compromise with China.

But Jason Hsu, a legislator from the opposition party, the Kuomintang, warned the government against a kneejerk reaction.

While opposing pledges to Chinese universities, Hsu believes that the Ministry of Education probe, with the threat of financial penalties, is also overreaching.

He asks: Do we want zero students from China in Taiwan, or do we want to promote more exchange and understanding towards each other? I think I would vote for the latter.

Go here to read the rest:
Taiwan's Need For Chinese Students 'Leading to Censorship' | Time ... - TIME

Climate change has a long list of known human health consequences, not the least of which is a set of adverse impacts on mental health. As more and more people are directly affected by destructive floods, heat waves, drought, deadly storms and other extreme weather events all worsened by increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide experts predict a steep rise in mental and social disorders: anxiety, depression, PTSD, substance abuse, increased suicide rates, and outbreaks of violence. Hardest hit will be children, the poor, the elderly, and those with existing mental health problems: collectively, this amounts to about half the US population! Worse, the consensus seems to be that the mental health profession is unprepared to handle these challenges.

Just three days after the presidential inauguration, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) announced in a terse email that it was cancelling a three-day conference, the Climate and Health Summit, that was to take place in Atlanta from February 14-16. With the translation of science to practice as the planned theme, scientists were to present their most recent research on the physical and mental health effects of climate change, and conferees were to explore ways to improve interagency cooperation and stakeholder engagement. Though no official reason was given, it quickly became evident that the CDC had engaged in self-censorship. President Trump has alleged that global warming is a notion invented by the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing noncompetitive and, more recently, that climate change is a hoax. This strategic retreat, as one scheduled speaker characterized it, was the result of a fear-based decision to shut down the event preemptively, before the new administration had a chance to shut it down for them, absent any foreknowledge or hint that they would.

As taxpayers who underwrite interagency federal climate science to the tune of about two billion dollars a year, we should be as intolerant of self-censorship as we are of outright censorship of government information. The unfettered communication of research findings regarding climate change impacts across regions and sectors is necessary for public awareness, preparedness, and sound policymaking. As global temperatures rise, all will be better served if civil servants inoculate themselves against the chilling effect that normally accompanies the sort of tyrannical rule weve already witnessed from our new President. In all likelihood, the CDC Summit was not on the White House radar, and could have proceeded unimpeded. Instead, Al Gore and several health-related organizations swooped in, came to the rescue, and sponsored a distilled down, one-day version they called the Climate & Health Meeting. But it is not the responsibility of private citizens and organizations to pick up the slack when agencies cower.

Source: http://bit.ly/2niCFcN

Truth be told, climate change is scary; the only thing scarier, we argue, is a culture of repression in which government employees opt for the safety of silence over the invaluable service of disclosure. Fear appears to be the common denominator: deep-seated fear often underlies psychological suffering in response to dangerous conditions, and fear of retaliatory budget cuts and potential job loss motivated CDC conference organizers to cut bait in an act of anticipatory surrender. If we subscribe to the notion that knowledge is power and empowering, it only follows that the more we can know and understand how our climate system is changing and what sorts of abnormal weather patterns we can expect where we live and work, the more we can prepare ourselves across the board, including mentally and emotionally. Were calling on the CDC and all federal and state entities conducting climate research to be fearless, to stand up in defiance of those who prefer to bury their heads in the sand and insist everyone else do the same. The stakes are too high to remain in the dark.

Climate change is already taking an emotional toll, but affects people differently. Dismissive, doubtful, disengaged, cautious, concerned, and alarmed: these words have been used to describe the wide-ranging responses people have to climate change. Those who are dismissive simply refuse to accept mounting scientific evidence, and often put forth bogus arguments in an effort to disprove global warming. There are at least two underlying explanations. As can happen with a diagnosis of life-threatening cancer, some people are thrown into fear-based denial. Simple greed or zealous protection of a financial interest can also motivate some to be dismissive and deny outright the veracity of the climate threat. Some treat climate change as if it were a religion, and declare a disbelief in climate change. To this, Neil deGrasse Tyson often says that the good thing about science is that its true whether or not you believe in it. It is as ridiculous to say, I dont believe in global warming as it is to say, I dont believe in gravity both are simple laws of physics.

Those who are doubtful are reluctant to accept climate change as a reality, and tend to defend carbon-intensive lifestyles while pointing to unsettled science and denier rhetoric to defend their view. Then there are people who simply havent plugged in, are disengaged, and have failed to notice climate change as a problem that may affect them. Still others react more neutrally, are cautious, and neither fully embrace nor reject the threat of climate change, and take a wait-and-see attitude.

Yet, the science behind climate change is well-developed, so it is no surprise that a growing percentage of people are becoming deeply concerned about worsening impacts associated with climate change severe and more frequent flooding, prolonged droughts, heat waves, devastating forest fires, sea level rise, storm surges, ocean acidification, and so on. The less fortunate of us have already been the victims of one or more extreme weather events, such as massive flooding, and have lost homes, livelihoods, even loved ones. Humans are emotional creatures. People who see unchecked climate change as an existential threat, who walk around every day acutely aware of the very real prospect of an increasingly inhospitable climate system most climate scientists are in this group can easily become alarmed.

Climate change exacts a psychological toll. A landmark 2015 report in The Lancet warns that mental health disorders are one of the most dangerous indirect health effects of global warming. Multiple studies, such as those described in the US Global Change Research Programs Third National Climate Assessments Health Chapter, have shown that climate change can cause people to become chronically worried and anxious, frustrated, overwhelmed, exasperated, even clinically depressed. Hyper-vigilance, obsessive-compulsive disorders, even full-blown PTSD can result. Some mental health professionals have dubbed the uncomfortable feeling of anticipatory anxiety pre-traumatic stress disorder. Stress levels can be the greatest for those whose livelihoods are tightly wedded to the natural environment. For example, in some parts of the world, in response to a rapidly changing climate and abnormal weather conditions, farmers are committing suicide at alarming rates.

Even if we are not directly adversely affected by it in our daily lives, simple awareness of the climate threat, via the media and in normal discourse, is enough to cause anxiety. In most areas of the world, its difficult not to notice abnormal weather patterns: higher average temperatures, wild temperature swings, a lot more precipitation, or a lot less. Instinctively, many of us know something is wrong: were experiencing the small drip of climate reality.

The Climate & Health Meeting Al Gore organized was held on February 16 at the Carter Center in Atlanta, Georgia.

Over 300 people attended; Gore made opening remarks; there were two panels, about a dozen speakers, and a lunch keynote address. President Jimmy Carter made a surprise appearance and delivered a few remarks. With the possible disapproval of Congress, the CDC has to be a little cautious politically, he said, adding, The Carter Center doesnt. The Chicago Tribune noted that the move sends a powerful signal: Civil society and academic organizations will try to fill the conversation gaps about climate change left by the new administration. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association (APHA), one of the meeting sponsors, commented, Were committed to making sure the nation knows about the effects of climate change on health. If anyone doesnt think this is a severe problem, they are fooling themselves. The APHA has declared 2017 the Year of Climate Change and Health. Its not clear how many CDC employees who were slated to attend the original conference were at the February 16 meeting. However, it is worth noting that two CDC staffers who did attend Dr. Patrick Breysse,director of the National Center for Environmental Health, and Dr.George Luber, an epidemiologist inthe Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects were requested for media interviews, but a senior CDC press officer declined to make them available. Restrictions on interactions with the press were put in place across all federal agencies soon after Trump took office; reportedly, some of these restrictions are beginning to loosen up, but we still dont know how much this administration will attempt to impede normal communications going forward.

Presenters at the meeting covered a wide variety of topics: air quality, infectious diseases, heat waves, extreme weather, vulnerable populations, state and local initiatives, adaptation measures, and the role of the health care sector. Children are particularly vulnerable, so much so that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a formal statement in 2015 urging pediatricians and politicians to work towards solving the climate crisis to protect the young. An AAP spokesperson noted, Their future is at stake, yet they do not vote and they have no voice in the debate. We have a moral obligation to act on their behalf. Indeed. Washington, DC-based psychiatrist Dr. Lise van Susteren, who presented on mental health at the Climate & Health Meeting (see transcript below), is convinced that the chronic failure of adults to tackle the climate change problem and implement effective solutions puts our children in harms way, and amounts to nothing less than child abuse. Its difficult to disagree; failing to provide our kids with a world thats as safe to live in as the one we were born into is something all parents should do their best to avoid.

Political interference in climate communication was a recurring problem in the Bush-Cheney administration. In October 2007, the Bush White House removed six entire pages of Congressional testimony offered by CDC Director Julie Gerberding, which linked climate change to adverse health impacts. Climate Science Watch covered the story of the eviscerated statement and published the unredacted testimony as submitted by Gerberding to the White House for customary review. It was later confirmed that Vice President Dick Cheneys office had pushed for the deletions.

Under the fossil fuel-friendly Bush Administration, many lessons were learned, and some provisions have since been put in place that protect the right to free speech of federal employees wishing to share the results of their research with the media and the public.

Given the rapidly accelerating threat of climate change and associated risks to human populations not just in America but all over the globe political interference in the communication of scientific findings crucial to informing policymakers and the public is literally a life-threatening act of betrayal against current and future generations. Keeping our Constitutional right to free speech requires that we exercise it. Please, no more self-censoring.

CSPW Senior Climate Policy Analyst Anne Polansky has 30 years of experience in public policies relating to energy and the environment, with a strong focus on climate change and renewable energy. She is a former Professional Staff Member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ TRANSCRIPT Mental Health Consequences of Climate Change By Dr. Lise Van Susteren, Psychiatrist

Everything related to climate change either directly or indirectly all the losses, injuries, illnesses, displacements carry with them an attended emotional toll that must be acknowledged as we tally up psychological impacts of climate change. Ill start with a few of the mental health impacts for which we have precise data, and then move onto those for which we do not.

We know of the link between extreme climate and weather events to aggression. For each standard deviation of increased temperature and rainfall, we can expect a four percent increase in conflict between individuals, and a fourteen percent increase in conflict between groups. The findings are valid for all ethnicities and regions.

So, more assaults, murders and suicides, and increase in unrest all over the world should come as no surprise.

Air pollution forms more readily at higher temperatures, with particulate matter crossing of the brain via the olfactory nerve, causes neural inflammation linked to multiple mental and neurologic problems: cognitive decline in all age groups, including Alzheimers and other neurodegenerative disorders, such as Parkinsons disease and ALS. It is linked to autism and to psychiatric disorders. The American Psychological Association reports that children exposed in utero to air pollutants were more likely to have symptoms of anxiety or depression. Emergency room visits for panic attacks and threats to commit suicide are higher on days with poor air quality. Exposing workers to increasing levels of CO2 has significant impact on their cognitive functioning. The testing at indoor concentrations to which Americans are frequently exposed shows the most serious decline in our ability to think strategically, to use information, and to respond to a crisis. Not good.

But, not everything that counts can be counted. Indeed, it is the inchoate, insidious, complex, and unconscious psychological states driven by climate trauma, not lending themselves to studies and precise numbers, that are the most profoundly damaging, and drive systemic emotional conditions society will find difficult to treat and surmount.

We must think about the balance between the need for data with the need to connect emotionally, because emotional connection is at the heart of what moves people to action. Action now turns on our success, in part at least, in stirring empathy. When the place you call home is burned down, blown away, dried up, flooded when you lose your possessions, maybe your pets, your livelihood, your community see injuries, illness and death the mix of fear, anger, sorrow, and trauma can easily send a person to the breaking point. Mental health professionals are seeing a full range of psychiatric disorders: PTSD, major depression, generalized anxiety, a rise in the abuse of drugs and alcohol, domestic violence (most often against women) and a rise in child-abuse.

Some of us are lucky enough to be at a distance from the worlds climate disasters, but were not potted plants sitting here. This is empathic identification with the victims. It is painful seeing people drowned, burned, flooded, starved right? Special populations that are at risk [include] children; the elderly; the sick; the disabled; the mentally ill (of course); the poor, and those living in the bulls-eye, disaster-prone areas: along coastlines and rivers, in tornado alleys, in cities with the heat island effect. [They also include] first responders, and climate Cassandras who suffer from pre-traumatic stress disorder in the grip of images of future disasters they cant put out of their minds.

In the first published climate change delusion, a 17-year-old Australian boy had to be hospitalized for refusing to drink water, believing it would cause millions in his drought-ridden in country to die of thirst. The Melbourne childrens hospital doctor who treated him told me he has a clinic full of children with climate anxiety.

Through the result of multiple forces, climate change poses both a threat multiplier and a root cause of the mental health crisis from the explosion of refugees today searching for safety, destabilization of regions, with groups dangerous to world security rising in these feral conditions. In Europe, a sharp turn to the far right politically, the once open question about America was answered in November. In times of peril and scarcity people regress, they turn to what they perceive as strong leaders to protect them and are willing to give up their freedoms and values in exchange for perceived security.

Fears often flip to a more empowering form: anger explaining why hearing about scary climate change can evoke so much aggression. The experiences of citizens stranded at the Superdome in New Orleans in the days after Katrina are an example of how quickly our systems can be overwhelmed, and our faith in them turned upside down. Faith in a functional government is the sine qua non of a stable society.

When disasters are no longer experienced solely as acts of God or nature, but derived from the behavior of humans, it will be much tougher on us, because what happens from intentional negligence is harder to put behind us than what happens accidentally. Carried by an on-off switch, the activation of a human gene for stress in the face of trauma can be passed on to succeeding generations, compounding the toll.

A new term has been coined, solastalgia to describe the pain as seeing lands that once gave the treasured sense of home now lost or irreparably damaged. Should I have a baby? is the question increasingly being asked by young people worried about the carbon cost of bringing another person into the world. A doctoral student in anthropology at Stanford and one of his friends with whom I am in contact are discussing rational suicide in the face of climate and carbon impacts.

As we register the warning that by mid-century, 30 to 50 percent of species may be on the path to extinction, and considering the life-sustaining biodiversity, the overwhelming beauty and complexity of nature, inspiring us with awe and wonder, what our friend Eric Chivian would likely ask, is the cost, not only to human health, but the cost to our souls.

When we put people in harms way, theres a name for it, its called aggression. To our children, though they are not yet calling it this, its clearer every day that destructive inaction on climate and this is my professional opinion will be experienced as child abuse, with all the attendant mental health impacts we would expect.

Thank you.

Excerpt from:
The Insanity of Self-Censorship: Climate Change, Politics, and Fear-Based Decision-Making - Climate Science Watch

Connor Johnson, a former longsnapper on the Oregon football team, said its a bummer how many athletes have to make decisions they dont want to make due to conflicts with sports.

Almost all the time, he said whether its being unable to enroll in certain majors or take classes that conflict with their practice schedules athletes are asked to put sports above their education.

It would be really nice to have the academic people looking out for the athletes so that theyre actually getting a decent education and what they were promised out of high school, Johnson said.

Johnson said he would be in favor of some faculty oversight when it comes to how the athletic department spends its $120 million budget. Because all the athletic departments decisions, he said, boil down to money.

There used to be a Senate committee tasked with overseeing the athletic budget, but it was abolished in November 2016. It was called the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC), and it became so ineffective that then-UO President Michael Gottfredson stopped requiring athletic department representatives to show up to meetings.

Several former IAC members described the meetings as contentious and antagonistic. A few particular faculty members, they said, behaved inappropriately and unprofessionally when athletic department representatives did not provide sufficient answers to their questions. Meetings sometimes escalated to shouting matches, after which people would leave upset, sometimes in tears.

Now, a new committee, the Intercollegiate Athletics Advisory Committee (IAAC), has taken the IACs place. It met for the first time on March 1, and University of Oregon President Michael Schill opened the meeting with a firm message to committee members:

Athletic department finances will not be a topic of discussion.

Tough questions and vague answers

The IAACs charge its stated duty is to advise the president on athletic department policies and practices that affect the academic performance and welfare of student-athletes. Its a much narrower version of the the IACs charge, which included advising the president and athletic director on the athletic departments budget. The old IAC charge also required the athletic department to consult the IAC before making decisions that could impact the landscape of athletics or the university at-large.

Faculty Athletics Representative Tim Gleason said the IACs charge was drastically wider and broader than is generally the case in committees at other Pac-12 and NCAA schools.

It had all kinds of things in it, Gleason said. The charge spoke as if the athletic department reported to the IAC, which it didnt and doesnt. The athletic department reports to the president, not the faculty.

(Mary Vertulfo/Emerald)

Biology professor Nathan Tublitz, who helped write the IAC charge, argues that any decision made at a university, including by the athletic department, impacts academics and thus should require faculty input. But he said the athletic department for years has made decisions that ran contrary to UOs academic values, such as moving some sporting events from weekends to school days to cash in on television contracts.

Tublitz said the new committees charge is watered down such that IAAC members cant ask questions about a range of important issues, reducing the facultys role in shared governance.

Its been muzzled and restricted to a very, very limited set of topics, Tublitz said. Unless Im mistaken, this is still an academic institution that has a sports team, not a sports team that happens to have a small academic sidelight.

Before Tublitz became IAC chair in 2011, Kurt Krueger, a former classified staff IAC member, said IAC meetings often consisted of presentations from the athletic department about the positive things it was doing for student athletes. Krueger recalled hearing about tutoring services at the Jaqua Center, the O Heroes volunteer program, athlete scholarships and graduate rates. He said the committee gained insight but didnt actually accomplish much.

That all changed when Tublitz became chair. He, economics professor Bill Harbaugh and a couple other faculty members began digging into athletic department finances and policies and asking tougher and tougher questions. They inquired about for-credit classes designed for student athletes but taught by athletic department personnel, bonds to pay for the new basketball arena and university subsidized student-athlete support services at the Jaqua Academic Center, including engraved Macbooks for each athlete and individual tutors for each of their classes.

The root of each of their questions, Tublitz said, was the more fundamental question, Why are you making a decision that is contrary to our values? Krueger said the athletic department representatives provided vague, not very solid answers. Tublitz and Harbaugh said the athletic department provided minimal answers or none at all.

The athletic department was extremely hard to deal with and extremely reluctant to release information, Harbaugh said. The committee had been dominated for years by people who were quite fond of the athletic department, until Nathan Tublitz and I and a few others started asking hard questions.

Ninety-five percent of the time the athletic department just listened and said, Thank you very much, goodbye. You could just see their eyes glaze over, Tublitz said. Theres no even semblance of listening. And thats what pisses people off.

UO Athletic Director Rob Mullens said the athletic department members were certainly trying to answer their questions.

We were doing the best that we could, thats for sure, Mullens said. We were providing the information that fit with the charge of the committee.

Unprofessionalism and inappropriate behavior

Many former IAC members said the way Harbaugh and Tublitz but particularly Harbaugh approached those discussions was not conducive to productive conversation. Human physiology professor Andy Karduna recalled shouting matches between certain faculty and athletic department representatives. Business professor Lynn Kahle said people often left meetings very upset and sometimes in tears.

Mullens said he became concerned about how his staff was being treated at meetings. Athletic department staffers told him they sometimes felt like they were being targeted, a message Mullens relayed to Gottfredson at their regular meetings.

There probably were some times when it crossed the line to being unprofessional, Mullens said. Some of those meetings I was the target, but that comes with the position.

Its been muzzled and restricted to a very, very limited set of topics Unless Im mistaken, this is still an academic institution that has a sports team, not a sports team that happens to have a small academic sidelight. UO biology professor Nathan Tublitz, who helped write the IAC charge.

Math professor Dev Sinha said Harbaugh and Tublitz behavior was characterized by sophomoric rudeness, scoffing and guffawing, and a very basic lack of human decency. He said they sometimes brought factually inaccurate information to discussions and used the committee as a vehicle to generate outrage. The unprofessionalism, he said, was all one-sided.

You know when somebody thinks that youre less than human. Thats sort of the basic dynamic, Sinha said. You know when somebody has no professional or even human respect for you, and thats still the attitude some of these folks have.

Harbaugh responded to Sinhas comments saying:

Duck athletics makes millions for the coaches and athletic department staff, but only if they can keep their unpaid athletes academically eligible. Given how much money and how much of the universitys reputation is at stake, the IAC and now the IAAC has to ask uncomfortable questions of the athletic department. So Im not surprised that they and their boosters reacted with personal attacks on me, Nathan Tublitz, and some of the other faculty on the IAC.

A parallel committee

The IAC meetings became unproductive to the point that in March 2014, the IAC chair at the time, Rob Illig, wrote in the IACs annual report to the Senate president that the committee was broken. He recommended withdrawing the administrations and athletic departments involvement, and said the main structural problem was that the IAC was trying to accomplish two competing goals.

It is attempting to be a watchdog committee, aimed at ensuring that the athletics department acts in the best interest of the UO community and does not become the tail that wags the dog. At the same time, it is attempting to be an advisory committee, seeking to influence the faculty athletics representative and athletic department as they make important and potentially controversial decisions, Illig wrote.

Because it is trying to do both, the IAC is accomplishing neither.

In response to Illigs report, President Gottfredson told athletic department representatives they no longer had to attend IAC meetings. Gottfredson then decided to establish a new group, the Presidents Advisory Group on Intercollegiate Athletics (PAGIA), that would run parallel to the IAC until the IAC could fix its structural problems.

We were doing the best that we could, thats for sure We were providing the information that fit with the charge of the committee. UO Athletic Director Rob Mullens.

The PAGIA was ineffective for different reasons. Because the president called the meetings, it only convened four or fives times in two and a half years, even though its charge required it to meet twice per academic quarter. Former PAGIA members cant remember the exact number of meetings, but they agree it wasnt often. Kahle say they met on an as-needed basis.

The PAGIA also excluded the Senate from the decision-making process. The president appointed his own faculty members, its meetings were held in private and its minutes were not made public.

Meanwhile, the IAC continued to meet regularly and athletic department representatives mostly refused to come. Karduna, who chaired the IAC during the 2015-16 school year, spent the whole year working to create a new committee with a revised charge that would serve as a compromise between the IAC and PAGIA.

A fresh start

In November 2016, Karduna brought his proposal for the IAAC to the Senate. The new committees charge would only focus on academic performance and welfare issues related to student-athletes, and the senate would get to select half the faculty members. The senate ended up passing it 30-6.

Harbaugh proposed a motion to keep the IAC around in a watchdog capacity, but the Senate voted it down narrowly, 20-18, thus ending the long-standing and troubled committee.

Now there is no senate committee providing faculty oversight on athletic department decisions. Harbaugh said its ridiculous that faculty shouldnt have a say over the athletic departments funding when the athletic department spends $120 million a year and the universitys entire education, research and general fund budget is only around $550 million.

The athletic department wants us to have no influence over any of those decisions, and thats not good for the university, Harbaugh said. Its good for the people collecting money for the athletic department, but not the for the university as a whole.

Karduna, who helped write the charge for and now chairs the IAAC, said although not all constituents are happy with the charge, at least it enables the faculty to have productive conversations about issues they can actually impact. Hes not against a faculty committee that examines athletic department finances, but said such a committee should not be under the same umbrella as one that deals with student-athlete academic performance and welfare. Sinha, Kahle and Gleason agreed.

When asked whether he thinks faculty should have a role in athletic department decisions, Rob Mullens did not answer the question.

Thats not for me to decide, Mullens said. My job is to run the athletic department.

Follow Kenny Jacoby on Twitter @kennyjacoby

Go here to read the rest:
Faculty vs. athletics: Fighting for control - Oregon Daily Emerald

Netanyahu's obsessive desire to control the media reveals undemocratic tendencies. He wants to reduce criticism of himself and weaken the power of ordinary citizens, while strengthening the government at their expense.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahus deep involvement in the media market was discussed last year by several gatekeepers. Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit ordered him not to get involved in any issue relevant to Shaul Elovitch, owner of the phone company Bezeq and the Internet news site Walla, due to the conflict of interests that their friendship creates. Later, following a petition to the High Court of Justice, Netanyahu was forced to temporarily give up his role as communications minister altogether and transfer the ministry to Tzachi Hanegbi.

In addition, Netanyahus unacceptable attempts to influence his media coverage by exploiting his governmental powers have been at the center of a police investigation into his meetings with the publisher of the daily Yedioth Ahronoth.

Nevertheless, Netanyahu continues to be involved in legislation aimed at increasing his influence over Israels media. As TheMarkers Nati Tucker reported yesterday, a bill sponsored by the Communications Ministry would give Netanyahu and his government unprecedented control over all broadcast media in Israel. Its goal is to set up a new regulatory agency that would supervise all commercial television stations, including the Channel 2 and Channel 10 news corporations, as well as the multichannel platforms Hot and Yes, the regional radio stations, Army Radio and the new public broadcasting corporation, which includes all the radio stations currently operated by Israel Radio.

The way appointments would be made to the new agency constitutes a significant retreat from the attempts of the last few years to create a buffer between the government and the media. The chairman of the new regulatory body, who will also be its chief executive, is slated to be a direct political appointee of the minister in charge. In addition, the agencys governing council will be an internal government department operating under the ministers direct authority. Via this agency, Netanyahu also seeks to erase the achievement represented by the establishment of the new broadcasting corporation, and in effect to oust the entirety of the corporations governing council and management, thereby killing the attempt to establish independent public broadcasting in Israel.

Netanyahus obsessive desire to control the media reveals undemocratic tendencies. The prime minister wants to reduce criticism of himself and weaken the power of ordinary citizens, while strengthening the government and especially its head at their expense. The proposed legislation would deal a mortal blow to freedom of expression in Israel and seriously undermine the foundations of its democracy.

The above article is Haaretz's lead editorial, as published in the Hebrew and English newspapers in Israel.

Want to enjoy 'Zen' reading - with no ads and just the article? Subscribe today

Originally posted here:
Netanyahu Continues Gagging the Media - Haaretz

The National Council of Negro Women held a vigil last Sunday to reflect on the death of Trayvon Martin.

Myracle Clay-Bennett, President of the National Council of Negro Women has been aware of just how intricate race relations between the government and its people have been for some time. To raise awareness, her organization held a vigil for Trayvon Martin, and afterwards showed the documentary "13th".

"13th" outlines the history of anti-black rhetoric and mass incarceration in our nation's past and how it has permeated the present. According to the documentary, large corporations have an astounding amount of input in legislation.

"Many people are ignorant to the fact, and it's very important to know since the people who the laws affect are the same ones giving their money to these corporations," said Bennet.

One such law was the Floridian "Stand Your Ground" law, a law found to be "inconsistent" with the right to life according to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

I do believe this documentary will open some minds and hearts, but I dont believe it will open everyones, said Kimberly Clark, 2nd Vice President. The country has been trained to dehumanize and reduce the African American community through propaganda, media and ideologies passed down from society.

The "Stand Your Ground" legislation was the defining moment in the Trayvon Martin case and is how George Zimmerman was proven not guilty.

The law was introduced by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a company that writes template legislation for politicians, and numerous corporations have a hand.

If you happened to miss the vigil and are curious, you can still find the documentary on Netflix.

For the National Council of Negro Women, this vigil and documentary was the voice of so many they felt suffered from indignities of the legal system.

See the rest here:
National Council of Negro Women held vigil for Trayvon Martin - The George-Anne