Conflict of Interest at the University of Minnesota

Steve Miles steps up to the plate and hits home run...

I sent this email to President Bruininks and Med School Dean Frank Cerra this morning:

toRobert Bruininks,
Frank Cerra

Dr. Steve Miles, one of the country's most well-known and respected bioethicists has criticized the latest draft COI policy at the University on Gary Schwitzer's Healthcare News blog.

It is imperative that anyone with an interest in COI at the University read this:

Bioethics expert criticizes UMN conflict of interest plan

Among other things Miles says:

The document identified as Administrative Policy: Individual Conflicts of Interest (DRAFT 11/09/09) (text downloaded from http://blog.lib.umn.edu/bgleason/pt/Coi_draft.pdf) is an incomplete and flawed document that will do little to regulate the kinds of misconduct and concerns that have brought this University and many other United States universities before Congressional inquiries or harsh media scrutiny. I agree with those who are also frustrated with the lack of transparency of the drafting of this fourth generation document.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

___ added later ___

Comment left on Gary Schwitzer's blog:

Bill Gleason | December 4, 2009 8:54 AM | Reply

Thanks so much for posting this, Gary.

Although the medical school and the University of Minnesota have ignored complaints from people like you and me, it is very difficult to dodge these serious criticisms by one of the country's most well-known and respected bioethicists.

Let us fervently hope that the folks in Morrill Hall and the AHC will finally wake up and face their responsibilities.

Sincerely,

Bill Gleason

So Sheep May Safely Graze

UD (aka Margaret Soltan) has a post up at Inside Higher Ed with the above title.

She had a great earlier post that I put up at the PT2, under the title: "How others see us - Disposition Assesment and TERI at Minnesota."

Her latest:

By UD December 3, 2009 7:31 pm

Today it's the University of Minnesota.

Each new revelation that some school of education in this country continues to force its students to undergo disposition and cultural competency scrutiny is a kind of pedagogical bimbo eruption -- a moment when embarrassing people lurking on task forces and subcommittees break free and strut their stuff on the national stage.

Heirs of the zealots who forcibly evaluated "teachers' mental hygiene and personality" in the mid-twentieth century (Laurie Moses Hines elaborates on the generational continuity), the new crop of scrutinizers has the same unseemly interest in the "emotional life of the teacher," which becomes, in place of knowledge and its transmission, "the focus of teacher preparation." Contemporary mental hygienists consider themselves entitled to palpate and subject to testing, writes William Damon, "virtually all of a candidate's thoughts and actions."

Hines points out that everything other than the intimate mental life of ed school students is already appropriately reviewed elsewhere:

If the purpose is to ensure that access to children is denied to those who are truly deviant (sexual predators) or those who could harm children (drug dealers, felony offenders, child abusers), then it seems the assessment is best made by the government, which has the resources and responsibility to identify these people. If the purpose is to ensure that potential teachers have basic characteristics like honesty or fairness, existing standards such as university honor codes in higher education should suffice. If the purpose is to see how a teacher acts in a certain environment (be it an urban, suburban, or rural school, with a diverse or homogeneous student body), then perhaps those in that environment can best perform that assessment, taking into account the standards, mores, and preferences of the community. The ultimate employers of teachers, local school districts, can and do screen for the characteristics they want in their employees.

If, on the other hand, what you really want to do is "evaluat[e] students on the basis of their political views," writes Hines, then the endless teasing-out interviews, multiple choice personality tests, and group gropes of disposition scrutiny are just the thing.

*******************************************

Of course, as Frederick Hess notes, no scientific evidence supports the belief that enforcing certain attitudes toward race, class, and gender improves teaching. Rather, he says, "Screening on 'dispositions' serves primarily to cloak academia's biases in the garb of professional necessity."

One thing screening doesn't cloak is love of power. The real precursor model for the disposition enthusiasts in the academy is the deadest whitest malest form of hierarchical life imaginable: The traditional German university professor. Totally powerful, he regarded his students as sheep eager to imitate him in all things. Their job was to scrutinize him in order to figure out exactly who he wanted them to be; his job was to keep an imperial eye on them for signs of deviation.

Thus, Paul Tarc opposes disposition assessment because it makes it very likely that "students will comply and perform the desired dispositions to get a good grade."

*************************************************

Actually, that's reason number three Tarc why objects.

Number One: Litmus tests expose schools of education to "allegations of political indoctrination."

Number Two: They result in "downplaying of knowledge to sentiments." Which is what I meant up there by group gropes: Let's not bother reading and discussing arguments about justice and equality. Tell me how you feel. Tell all of us how you feel.

Heather MacDonald dubs the prevailing reality of many ed schools "Anything But Knowledge. Schools are about many things, teacher educators say (depending on the decade)—self-actualization, following one’s joy, social adjustment, or multicultural sensitivity—but the one thing they are not about is knowledge."

Desperate for places where education students can think rather than feel, where they can be left alone to study and then apprentice in classrooms, rather than be mussed up day and night by ideologues, New York State, reports the New York Times, "will consider letting alternative teacher training programs certify teachers, expanding the role that for decades has been exclusively performed by education schools."

With every bimbo eruption, schools of education move closer to their own obsolescence.

University of Minnesota Takes Heat for Proposal to Gauge Future Teachers' Sensitivity

From the Chronicle of Higher Education:

The University of Minnesota-Twin Cities has come under pressure to reject a faculty panel's proposal to require students in its education school to doubt the United States is a meritocracy and to demonstrate an understanding of concepts such as "white privilege."

Conservative pundits and a prominent free-speech advocacy group have attacked the education-school panel, called the Race, Culture, Class, and Gender Task Group, which has said future teachers should "understand the importance of cultural identity" and "be able to discuss their own histories and current thinking drawing on notions of white privilege, hegemonic masculinity, heteronormativity, and internalized oppression." The panel also has said prospective teachers should promote social justice and have an understanding of U.S. history that takes into account the "myth of meritocracy in the United States."

Jean K. Quam, dean of the university's College of Education and Human Development, said today in an interview that the proposal was just one of several being offered up by various faculty panels as the college moves to overhaul its teacher-education program to better prepare students to deal with today's classrooms. She characterized the proposal as "a brainstorm of ideas" that the education school had yet to act upon as it develops a sweeping plan to change teacher preparation in the coming academic year.

"We would never impose requirements of how people are required to think or act as part of their teacher education," Ms. Quam said. "We are trying to broaden the way that they think or act and not narrow that view."

An 'Affront to Liberty'

But in a recent letter to the university's president, Robert H. Bruininks, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education argued that the education school had signaled its intent to adopt the proposal in a recent application for grant money and was already advising applicants that such changes may be under way.

The letter from Adam Kissel, director of the group's Individual Rights Defense Program, called the proposed requirements for prospective teachers "unconstitutional and morally unconscionable" and "a severe affront to liberty."

Ms. Quam said the education-school panel had come back with "some pretty strong language about what it wanted to see." She added, however, that she supported its underlying goal of preparing prospective teachers to deal with students from diverse backgrounds, and noted that about 70 languages and dialects are spoken by students in the Saint Paul school system alone.

The controversy over the Minnesota proposal echoes a recent debate over whether it is appropriate for colleges of education to require prospective teachers to display certain professional "dispositions" showing an ability to work with diverse students — a requirement that schools view as ensuring teachers are effective, and critics regard as thinly disguised ideological litmus tests. In response to such criticisms, the governing board of the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education voted in 2007 to stop suggesting that teacher-preparation programs take their students' views on "social justice" into account.

Some comments from the Chronicle Website:

When the phrase, ". . .be able to discuss their own histories and current thinking drawing on notions of white privilege, hegemonic masculinity, heteronormativity, and internalized oppression." we should all be thankful for the opposition to this type of propaganda.

"be able to discuss their own histories and current thinking drawing on notions of white privilege, hegemonic masculinity, heteronormativity, and internalized oppression." Oh, what the Underground Gammarian would have done with this! But for now, I'm imagining the good people down at Lake Woebegone's Sidetrack Tap trying confront the twin demons of hegmonic masculinity and heteronormativity.

Maybe we should back up and challenge the concept of schools of education. What a waste of taxpayer money this is. It is sad we pay people to sit around endlessly discussing sexism, racism, heterosexism while America's students get horrible education. Yes, we should have some diversity discussions when training teachers, but this is outrageous.

It is impossible to take seriously Dean Quam's comment that "We would never impose requirements of how people are required to think or act as part of their teacher education," when the previous paragraph makes it crystal clear that this is PRECISELY the intent of the panel's proposal. Being able to articulate one's views is not the same as a requirement that one's views follow a determined philosophical or political path.

With all due respect to Dean Quam, the fact that any panel of faculty in her college would come up with this kind of nonsense indicates she has problems reaching far beyond the inept stereotyping it represents. ... It may be that those of a more conservative persuasion are the most inflamed by the behavior of the faculty panel that produced this proposal, but let me assure you, there are many of us of the more liberal persuasion who are also incensed by the narrow minded bigotry that has been demonstrated by this particular panel.

I must partially agree with "sullivab" (7) and his invocation of Godwin's Law -- this proposal at U Minn's College of Education is certainly not Nazi. Stalinist possibly -- it does sound like something that might have been promulgated in the Little Red Schoolhouse. It seems to come out of the "Cultural Competence" Movement -- a misnomer to hoot at. What they really mean is MULTI- cultural Competence. Like most educationists they have trouble saying what they really mean, often because they don't know what they really mean. And their notion of competence is pretty shallow.

There's a difference between teaching students how to think and teaching students what to think. Well-intentioned proposals like this one confuse the two. Students need to be taught critical thinking so that they can more intelligently understand the world, including the country, state, city, neighborhoods they live in. The proposal would short-circuit the process, simply leading them straight to the conclusions the planners consider to be indisputably desirable. Students who have not been taught how to read and write and do arithmetic may or may not be capable of critical thinking, but I don't see how it would matter a lot. And I don't think anyone who truly believes in spoonfeeding kids any ideology is demonstrating much facility with critical thinking themselves.

"'We would never impose requirements of how people are required to think or act as part of their teacher education,' Ms. Quam said.
Oh, Really!? FIRE does great work....keep it up."

The bruhaha, for those of us who have been following this issue, has not been the call for multicultural sensitivity (however defined). The issue has been the committee's calls for sanctions against prospective teachers that do not espouse sufficent sensitivity. The irony lies in the fact of a committee on diversity permiting no diversity of opinion among prospective teachers and a committee on sensitivity being radically insensitive to differing points of view. The document sounds draconian and totalitarian -- hardly the liberal principles it purports to defend.

Sounds like an attempt to make certain that American teachers are drawn from the bottom 10% of the class.

So, if we think about what UMN is considering here, then perhaps we could agree that telling these future teachers what to think is inappropriate. However, asking them to think about who their students will be, the challenges they might face, and the individualized approaches that all students need to fulfill their potential requires just the type of critical thinking we should promote. Tell them what to think? No. Ask them to consider their role in the education of a diverse population and finding their own ways to be effective in their practice? Yes.

[I'm sure there will be more before this thread is over - I'll add as appropriate. I've not had any response to my invitation to the #TERI proponents to comment on this. Unfortunately, some appear to be Molotov cocktail throwers or would be cyber-blackmailers.

wbgleason Attention you folks pushing #TERI If you are really interested in a discussion rather than name calling go here http://bit.ly/5PTBIE and comment o/o ]

Commenting is now closed on the Chronicle site. Some of the last comments:

A rant from Matthew:

39. matthewcw - December 04, 2009 at 05:38 pm

What is rather shocking to be completely absent from ALL of this is anyone asking...who is this FIRE organization?

[ The mission of FIRE is to defend and sustain individual rights at America's colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience — the essential qualities of individual liberty and dignity. FIRE's core mission is to protect the unprotected and to educate the public and communities of concerned Americans about the threats to these rights on our campuses and about the means to preserve them. - http://www.thefire.org/ ]

We might start by looking at where their money comes from in order to try to understand just how "non-partisan" they really are and WHY they might be attemping to manufacture this "controversy:"

http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Foundation_for_Individual_Rights_in_Education/funders

Now, just because they get money from some pretty high profile, well heeled conservative groups does not mean, in of itself, that their arguments are flawed. But, it might give us some insight into just what they mean by protecting "free speech" and how they use the cloak of "non-partisan" as an attempt to exist beyond reproach (a rather sly rhetorical move). After all, it is always those who claim no agenda at all that can be counted on to be the most dishonest.

But let's be honest with ourselves here...this group is not the second coming of the ACLU. They're not falling over themselves to protect LGBT rights on campuses (and actually have a history of doing just the opposite).

[This guy teaches writing? One of his favorite rhetorical stunts - if you don't agree with him, you're dishonest?]

But their rhetorical dishonesty aside, what is really shameful is how so many "academics" failed to do exactly what we expect many of our own students to do: check your sources first. How many people, once seeing "free speech advocacy" just assumed that whatever they have to say must be true? Seems like an awful lot. Further, the distinction between a primary source and a secondary source is utterly lost in nearly all of these discussions. In fact, this article ITSELF uses a secondary source AS its primary source, a move which I might suggest reveals quite a lot about the intent here. You'll note there are no links to the actual documents from the initiative itself.

Response by author of article:

41. pschmidt - December 04, 2009 at 09:08 pm

Poster number 39, mathewcw, has asked for links to the primary documents (which this article did, indeed, rely upon).

They can be found on a University of Minnesota blog at the following URL:

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cehd/teri/2009/09/task-groups-final-reports-3.html

The central document that this controversy focuses on can be called up by clicking the hot link for the report by the task force on race, class, culture, and gender, on the left half of your screen.

--Peter Schmidt

Matthew - simply put - I think you should be ashamed of yourself.

This stunt and your earlier tweets are very disappointing.

But it is a free country, so far anyway, and you are free to write what you wish - even an opinion that the moon is made of green cheese. This does not, however, mean that you are immune from strong criticism. You are not entitled to throw Molotov cocktails and then whine harassment when you are called on some of your nonsense. This also applies to your stalking horse and fellow traveler, Gameboy.

I hope anyone following this thread will comment if they wish. This offer includes you and Gameboy. Practice what you teach. Short of pornography or vulgarity - comments will not be edited in any way.

o/o

(More) Fiddling while Rome burns....

Center for School Change Moving to
Macalester College
Move from University of Minnesota
Humphrey Institute to
Macalester is "Win-Win"

November 30, 2009 - St. Paul, Minn. - Macalester College will be the new home of the Center for School Change, a nationally known program to improve K-12 education.

“We're delighted to welcome the Center for School Change to Macalester. We are looking forward to developing mutually-beneficial connections, building on the strengths of our Educational Studies Department and other academic programs, and increasing student engagement in our local schools,” said Kathleen Murray, provost. “Simply, it’s a win-win for both the Center and Macalester.”

The Center for School Change, founded and led by Joe Nathan, PhD, was established at the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota in 1990. Under a new agreement, Macalester will house the program, which includes two staff people, and act as its fiscal agent.

“Joe Nathan and the Center for School Change have a record of sustained achievement in advancing K-12 education,” said Brian Atwood, dean, University of Minnesota Humphrey Institute. “We at the Humphrey Institute have shared in this success over the years. We wish Joe all the best as he prepares to write a new chapter of the center's story with Macalester College and are glad that he will retain an affiliation with the Institute going forward.”

Murray explained that Macalester students will benefit from the new relationship through:

• Expanded access to community-based research projects, internship, and service opportunities in K-12 schools
• Involvement in new types of educational research projects
• Opportunities to forge new partnerships with communities and foundations
  Increased national visibility as home to innovative K-12 policy research

“We chose Macalester because its commitment to service and academic rigor complements the Center’s mission and values,” said Nathan. “We are excited about the opportunities this new partnership with one of the nation’s leading liberal arts colleges brings to the Center.” Nathan and Sheena Thao, the Center’s Outreach and Public Information Coordinator, will be moving to Macalester.

The Center for School Change has a record of successfully working with educators, parents, business people, students, policy-makers and other concerned people throughout the United States to increase student achievement, raise graduation rates, improve student attitudes toward learning, their schools, and their communities, and strengthen communities by building stronger working relationships among educators, parents, students and other community members. Current Center projects include work with governors in six states and with public schools in a number of communities to help increase achievement and the percentage of students who graduate ready to do college level work.

The Center is entirely grant and contract-funded. Since its inception, the Center has received support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the U.S. Department of Education, the State of Minnesota, and the Annenberg, Blandin, Carlson, Helzberg, Frey, Rockefeller and Walton, Minneapolis, and St. Paul foundations, among others. The new relationship is budget-neutral to Macalester; the Center will cover the full cost of its space, and grants administration and other fiscal services Macalester will provide. The parties have finalized the partnership agreement and are planning for the Center to move January 1, 2010.

To my untutored eye, this looks like a tremendous loss. Oh, well, we've always got TERI at the U...

TERI on Twitter

Teacher Education Redesign (TERI) at the University of Minnesota College of Education and Human Development

[Note added December 1, 2009

Evidently, Matthew has declined my request for a discussion about #TERI on UThink:

wbgleason Earlier invited @mathewcw to discuss #TERI on UThink http://bit.ly/8dZ7pQ Declined: http://bit.ly/5VnIW3 (comment 29) Molotov cocktail kinda guy?

Added Dec. 2: The Chronicle has just put up a fairly even-handed discussion of the #TERI matter. I've put some of it up and invite those who are actually interested in a discussion rather than name calling to comment there.

Added December 10: Matthew has wisely decided to go underground..

wbgleason Want to flame on in protected mode? Here's how to do it - @matthewcw All for discussion? Why not allow comments on blog? #TERI]

_________________

wbgleason @matthewcw "Much more worth discussing, glad for opportunity." http://bit.ly/8dZ7pQ Or would you rather continue sniping? #TERI #UMN

matthewcw "Preparing teachers to work with diverse learning populations" (http://bit.ly/86ILDs ) Key concept and problem #TERI tries understand. #UMN

wbgleason RT @matthewcw Jean Quam, Dean of CEHD calmly responds to #TERI issue: http://bit.ly/86ILDs . See comments: Dear Dean Quam, #UMN #Minnesota

wbgleason RT @matthewcw Core of #TERI issue: those who believe "Truth" is indepen of race & those who know otherwise}Believe vs. know? How fairminded

matthewcw Jean Quam, Dean of CEHD calmly responds to #TERI issue: http://bit.ly/86ILDs . Much more worth discussing, glad for opportunity. #UMN

matthewcw Core of #TERI issue = 2 incommensurable systems of knowledge: those who believe "Truth" is independent of race & those who know otherwise.

wbgleason RT @JoannaOC @wbgleason Jean Quam's response to KKersten's was a reasonable refutation to the FIRE #TERI Don't agree - disposition business?

JoannaOC @wbgleason I though Jean Quam's response to KKersten's column in the Strib was a reasonble refutation to the FIRE fear-mongering. #TERI

wbgleason RT @matthewcw Can racist teachers be effective teachers in 2009? Apparently so}Is this rhetoric any different from tparty/thall shout? #TERI

wbgleason Once again we find ourselves at #UMN in a situation that leaves us open to national ridicule ... http://bit.ly/z6VpS #TERI #Minnesota

matthewcw The #TERI proposals are starting points for discussion. Sad / unfortunate to see adults acting like the tea-party / town hall shouters #UMN

matthewcw “The problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color-line.” - Du Bois. Race, whiteness, privilege STILL difficult topics #TERI

matthewcw We know how #TERI will be attacked; we've seen this play before from the right wing. Misrepresentation and fear are their tactics. #UMN

wbgleason RT @matthewcw #TERI @ #UMN is merely a proxy, a ... space to express a fear of diversity. }Unsupported assertion & you actually teach here?

wbgleason RT @matthewcw Media outlets fanning fear over #TERI usually have conservative / neo-con ads. #UMN FIRE? It's conservative => it's wrong?

wbgleason RT @matthewcw Let's be honest about the "outrage" over #TERI @ #UMN. This is about race and racism. }So anyone who disagrees is dishonest?

matthewcw At the end of 2009, #TERI is the new #ACORN. Like ACORN, #TERI @ #UMN is merely a proxy, a discursive space to express a fear of diversity.

matthewcw But let's be honest about the "outrage" over #TERI @ #UMN. This is about race and racism in America. Let's not hide from that discussion.

matthewcw Careful readers will quickly note "media" outlets fanning fear over #TERI usually also have conservative / neo-con ads on them.

wbgleason The University of Minnesota redesigns teachers http://bit.ly/8CwKiR #UMN #Minnesota #TERI

wbgleason FIRE Letter to University of Minnesota - Twin Cities President Bruininks http://bit.ly/862GMI #UMN #Minnesota #TERI disposition assessment

wbgleason RT @matthewcw Can racist teachers be effective teachers in 2009? Apparently so: http://bit.ly/85JNa6 #TERI #UMN Racist? Careful...

matthewcw Can racist teachers be effective teachers in 2009? Apparently so: http://bit.ly/65Fjkm http://bit.ly/85JNa6 http://bit.ly/8r6dbZ #TERI #UMN

matthewcw How strange it is that the academic "left" sounds more like right wing talk radio when it comes to defending their own privilege #TERI #UMN

The FIRE Letter to President Bruininks

Concerning Disposition Assessment

at the University of Minnesota

College of Education and Human Development

Selections from the full letter:

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE; www.thefire.org) unites leaders in the fields of civil rights and civil liberties, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of liberty, legal equality, academic freedom, due process, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and religion, and freedom of association on America's college campuses.

FIRE is deeply concerned about new policies at University of Minnesota-Twin Cities proposed by the College of Education and Human Development. According to documents published by the college (see http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cehd/teri), it intends to mandate certain beliefs and values-"dispositions"-for future teachers. The college also intends to redesign its admissions process so that it screens out people with the "wrong" beliefs and values-those who either do not have sufficient "cultural competence" or those who the college judges will not be able to be converted to the "correct" beliefs and values even after remedial re-education. These intentions violate the freedom of conscience of the university's students. As a public university bound by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the university is both legally and morally obligated to uphold this fundamental right.

On the level of "Self," the task group seeks to require that:

Our future teachers will be able to discuss their own histories and current thinking drawing on notions of white privilege, hegemonic masculinity, heteronormativity, and internalized oppression.

Future teachers will understand that they are privileged & marginalized depending on context ... It is about the development of cultural empathy, if you will. Teachers first have to discover their own privilege, oppression, or marginalization and also are able to describe their cultural identity.

Future teachers will recognize & demonstrate understanding of white privilege[.]

Future teachers will understand the importance of cultural identity and develop a positive sense of racial/cultural identity[.]

In addition, this area demands that "Future teachers create & fight for social justice."

In the final section, "What Makes the University of Minnesota's Programs Distinctive from Other Programs in the State?" the task force even presumes to demand commitments from the college's faculty, in violation of their academic freedom:

Every faculty member at our university that trains our teachers must comprehend and commit to the centrality of race, class, culture, and gender issues in teaching and learning, and consequently, frame their teaching and course foci accordingly.

FIRE urges you to consider the Supreme Court's ruling in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), which invalidated mandated allegiances to political ideologies at public schools. Writing for the Court, Justice Robert H. Jackson declared:

Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

FIRE understands that the college intends to consult with the university's general counsel regarding its "dispositions assessment" in the summer of 2010. Let us urge you today not to wait until the college wastes valuable resources in taking several more months to plan such an unconstitutional and morally unconscionable set of demands on future teachers.

Indeed, the university's general counsel should be asked to comment as soon as possible. If the Race, Culture, Class, and Gender Task Group achieves its stated goals, the result will be political and ideological screening of applicants, remedial re-education for those with the "wrong" views and values, and withholding of degrees from those upon whom the university's political reeducation efforts proved ineffective. While the task group appears to have attempted to take matters of "social justice" to heart, it seems to have persuaded the College of Education and Human Development to adopt requirements that, by any non-totalitarian standard, are severely unjust and impermissibly intrude into matters of individual conscience. As these demands for "cultural competence" stand today, they are a severe affront to liberty and a disservice to the very ideal of a liberating education that appears to be behind the task group's ideas. It is a shame that the College of Education and Human Development has embraced such an illiberal view of education.

Please recognize your legal and moral obligation to respect the freedom of conscience of the future teachers of Minnesota. The College of Education and Human Development has a chance to demonstrate that it shares an understanding of the basic premises of a liberal education and truly embraces human diversity on its most profound and essential level. Great teachers come in all shapes and sizes, from all backgrounds and all beliefs. Let the college's policies reflect this reality.

FIRE requests a response by Thursday, December 17, 2009.

Sincerely,

Adam Kissel

Director, Individual Rights Defense Program

Note that there is unfortunately more distressing commentary in the letter - this is only an excerpt.

Once again we find ourselves at the University of Minnesota in a situation that leaves us open to national ridicule if we continue in our pigheadedness.

That our president and provost - who is a lawyer - tolerate it is disgraceful. Leadership matters. Time for change in Morrill Hall?

Political Litmus Test

for Teachers

at the University of Minnesota?

Please see:

"All signs are that the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities is planning to enforce a political litmus test for future teachers. The university's College of Education and Human Development intends to mandate certain beliefs and values—"dispositions"—for future teachers. Yet that is not enough. It even intends to redesign its admissions process so that it screens out people with the wrong beliefs and values-those who it judges will not be able to be brought around to the correct beliefs and values of "cultural competence" even after remedial training."

Just Say No...

Kabuki Continues on Light Rail

Board of Regents November Meeting

Board of Regents Chairman Blows Off

Request for Meeting With Former Regent

and Met Council Chairman, Peter Bell

[In the above video, Regent Allen claims that no new items have been placed on the table during Light Rail negotiations. He also implies that the U's sole motive for intransigence is protecting the research of the University. Neither claim stands up to scrutiny.]

The Pioneer Press has a good handle on this. I've abstracted a recent article on the Periodic Table: The Arrogance Continues at University of Minnesota...

"Negotiations between the University of Minnesota and Central Corridor light-rail-line officials stumbled again this week, with the U apparently reinstating tens of millions of dollars to its wish list of payouts and Metropolitan Council Chairman Peter Bell alleging "arrogance" in response."

"The dust-up has caught the attention of state lawmakers, and it looks like they're going to step in. On Friday, state Rep. Alice Hausman, a St. Paul Democrat, said she's planning to convene a meeting Wednesday in Ramsey County offices with leading lawmakers and both sides to try to sort things out. "

As for the question of whether the university is hogging taxpayer money that could go elsewhere, O'Brien said: "The university has a great deal of sympathy with others along the line. Our job as officers is to represent the interests of the university."

Bell, himself a former member of the university's board of regents, bristles at comments like that.

"The arrogance is just counterproductive to moving this project forward," Bell said Friday. "They need to understand that, yes, they have a fiduciary duty to the university, but they also have a duty to the public. ... I always say and believe that the university has legitimate concerns. They need to acknowledge that we have legitimate constraints, and they have refused to do that."

Hausman said she was "very disappointed and alarmed" to learn that on Monday the university reiterated prior demands to be reimbursed perhaps $2 million for U-hired consultants, perhaps $20 million for lost revenue from two parking lots that would be disrupted and for a "free-fare zone" for students traveling between stations on-campus.

"It did feel to me that there were suddenly four or five new things plunked on the table," said the St. Paul lawmaker.

Bell said he has requested a meeting to speak directly to the regents. He said he has been refused.

______________

Breathtaking, sad, arrogant.

Ms. Hausman is the person responsible for the upcoming bonding bill in the legislature. The Morrill Hall crowd would be well advised to pay attention to what she has to say...

Leadership matters. How about showing some, President Bruininks?

Board Chair Allen's remarks are also very disappointing and do not seem to be in accord with the facts. The lack of respect shown for Peter Bell is most telling, especially since he is a former member of the Board of Regents.

Perhaps Chair Allen prefers not to engage in a frank and honest discussion with someone who has views other than those of the University of Minnesota administration?

Conflict of Interest Policy at the U of Minnesota

Painful and Unnecessarily Slow Progress Continues

From the Star-Tribune:

Grassley Reacts: In a brief statement, Sen. Charles Grassley said he is concerned that the University of Minnesota's new conflict of interest policy will not provide enough details about faculty's income from outside firms. "Sen. Grassley looks for requirements that the amounts of money to be reported are meaningful and for specificity about what the money is for. We've looked at what's publicly available about the new policy ... It's not clear what the new policy at the University of Minnesota will make public.''

It's time to put an aggressive approach in place.

The new policy, however, doesn't go far enough in querying professors about outside income.

The old policy simply had them check off if they earned $10,000 or more. Under the new plan they would have to check off annual income categories, such as $50,000 to $100,000; its highest category is $250,000 or more. Why not simply disclose the actual amount?

Rotenberg has an unsatisfactory answer: This is the disclosure approach other public entities use. The U should seize the opportunity to set an aggressive standard.

[Par for the course for General Counsel Rotenberg.]

Legislators also need to do their part. A misguided state law that prevents the U from publicly disclosing outside income should be changed. The public deserves to know more about the ties between state experts and industry.

The proposal's language governing industry-funded continuing education also needs sharpening in the months ahead. And the U should make another small but significant change and delete language that allows for consideration of a professor's "unique value" when weighing a potential conflict of interest. Some critics contend it means faculty stars will get special treatment, [e.g. the case of the double dippers?] and it could give opponents ammunition to hold up the proposal.

That would be unfortunate. The university's medical school has been under fire for not putting an aggressive conflict management plan in place sooner. [As well it should.] The U now has a strong, far more comprehensive policy almost ready to go. It's time to put the finishing touches on the plan and make it happen.

The policy is not explicit enough about what sort of gifts to medical students - including textbooks with drug company logos - are allowed. And the question needs to be answered: where does this new policy put us on the American Medical Student Association scorecard? We started out at D and were given, provisionally, a C based on an earlier draft of the policy. Where do we stand now? It should be noted that the Mayo Clinic has received an A rating.

The Arrogance Continues at University of Minnesota...

From the Pioneer Press:

Negotiations between the University of Minnesota and Central Corridor light-rail-line officials stumbled again this week, with the U apparently reinstating tens of millions of dollars to its wish list of payouts and Metropolitan Council Chairman Peter Bell alleging "arrogance" in response.

The dust-up has caught the attention of state lawmakers, and it looks like they're going to step in. On Friday, state Rep. Alice Hausman, a St. Paul Democrat, said she's planning to convene a meeting Wednesday in Ramsey County offices with leading lawmakers and both sides to try to sort things out.

"The stakes are pretty high, so it seems to be a time to try to pull everything together," Hausman said. "It's not just St. Paul. It's Minneapolis and the whole state."

"The FTA has clearly sent the message that this project is not going forward until (an agreement with the U) is done," said Ramsey County Commissioner Jim McDonough, who also chairs the county Regional Rail Authority. "The U continues to say they want to get this resolved, but their actions have not been consistent with that. I'm not so sure that their concern is as paramount as ours, which is getting this done on time and on budget."

So far, the plan is to spend $27 million on the U. Politically, some of those expenses are touchy. For example, negotiations have included discussions on the size of trees to be planted and the design of lampposts along the mall. But on University Avenue in St. Paul — where businesses and residents have been clamoring for assistance — there is no project money for anything. No trees, no streetlights, just tracks and stations.

"This $11.1 million transit mall is going to be, quite candidly, better and nicer than any other station," Bell said.

Hausman said she was "very disappointed and alarmed" to learn that on Monday the university reiterated prior demands to be reimbursed perhaps $2 million for U-hired consultants, perhaps $20 million for lost revenue from two parking lots that would be disrupted and for a "free-fare zone" for students traveling between stations on-campus.

"It did feel to me that there were suddenly four or five new things plunked on the table," said the St. Paul lawmaker.

As for the question of whether the university is hogging taxpayer money that could go elsewhere, O'Brien said: "The university has a great deal of sympathy with others along the line. Our job as officers is to represent the interests of the university."

Bell, himself a former member of the university's board of regents, bristles at comments like that.

"The arrogance is just counterproductive to moving this project forward," Bell said Friday. "They need to understand that, yes, they have a fiduciary duty to the university, but they also have a duty to the public. ... I always say and believe that the university has legitimate concerns. They need to acknowledge that we have legitimate constraints, and they have refused to do that."

Both Bell and O'Brien said they'll be at Hausman's meeting.

Bell said he has requested a meeting to speak directly to the regents. He said he has been refused.

Breathtaking, sad, arrogant...

Mr. Bonzo Cuts Back on Blogging

I will be going on sabbatical/research leave to Brandeis University in Boston from 1/1/10 until 6/1/11. In the next two months I have much to do to prepare for this move, so I am cutting back to posting only on Sundays. This will probably continue while I'm gone.

I appreciate very much the kind words and encouragement that I have received over the years from readers. I also know that the people to whom much of this has been directed - the Morrill Hall crowd - are aware of what has been written on this blog and its brother, The Periodic Table, Too.

The current financial situation at the U is going to force a serious re-evaluation of our mission, values, and priorities. My fear is that the ambitious aspirations of our administration will continue unchecked because of a lack of inclusion and true consultation with students, faculty, and staff.

I wish the University nothing but the best. Honest dissent from the Morrill Hall party line is my responsibility as a Minnesota citizen, and university alum/faculty member.

The Morrill Hall crowd should look on the face of Northrop every day to remind themselves of these profound words:

The University of Minnesota

Founded in the Faith that Men are Enobled by Understanding

Dedicated to the Advancement of Learning and the Search for Truth

Devoted to the Instruction of Youth and the Welfare of the State

It used to be quite easy to walk out the front door of Morrill and read the Northrop inscription. But the front door of Morrill is now locked and only the side and back doors are accessible.

Symbolic of what has been happening in Morrill Hall?

CLA Dean Parente's Vision of Student Debt

Differs from that of the Morrill Hall Crowd at

University of Minnesota

One of my friends sent me a note about a solicitation from CLA for student financial support. This letter admits the pitiful circumstances in which many U of M graduates find themselves because of high tuition. This despite our President's empty claim that additional scholarship money is making up for the increases in tuition.

Obviously this is not the case. Otherwise, why would we raise tuition?

From a recent CLA fund-raising letter:

"Twenty, thirty, forty thousand dollars. That's how much many of today's students owe when they graduate from college. But their debt isn't due to lack of foresight or saving. The cost of higher education has so far outpaced inflation that increasing numbers of students are borrowing more than ever to pay for college. As a result, many students can't afford to pursue their dreams and aspirations that a college degree makes possible.”

.....

"Scholarships enable students with ability and desire to realize their potential and avoid graduating with a level of debt that could take a decade to repay. Scholarships also free students from having to work so many hours that there's little time to make the most of the exceptional experience the College of Liberal Arts has to offer. But scholarships don't simply bestow money. They instill something else every student needs to succeed: confidence.

"Please take a moment to make a contribution. Your gift will help ensure that students are able to focus on what matters most right now--getting an education that cultivates their potential and paves the way to better tomorrows.

"Thank you for your generous support.

"Sincerely,

• James A. Parente Jr.

Dean, College of Liberal Arts

On numerous occasions I have asked President Bruininks to explain why our undergraduates have the highest debt load of any public school in the BigTen. This question has never been answered or even addressed. President Bruininks?

Maybe you should explain to Dean Parente your claim that access has not been hindered by high tuition and the problem has already been taken care of by scholarships?

Whose ambitious aspirations are more important, President Bruininks, yours or those of our undergraduates?

See earlier posts on this matter:

The Student Loan Bubble

Time for MoneyBall at the University of Minnesota

Affordability at the University of Minnesota: Priorities for the Short and Long Term

Daily Calls Out U Admin on High Tuition Model

Latest on Light Rail and

the University of Minnesota

From MPR:

The University of Minnesota and planners of the Central Corridor light-rail line are under the gun to work out their differences.

A month ago, the university sued the Metropolitan Council over the nearly billion-dollar transit service that would link St. Paul to Minneapolis. The U of M says the trains would disrupt its sensitive research facilities, some located as near as 30 feet from the proposed tracks.

Ramsey County Commissioner Jim McDonough said when he met with FTA officials in Washington D.C. earlier this month, they made it clear that they're taking the U of M's lawsuit seriously.

"The message we're getting from the FTA -- both the university and us -- is 'get this resolved here, because we don't want this to play out in the courts,'" McDonough said.

McDonough, who chairs the county's rail authority, said the U and project planners are scrambling to close a tentative deal next month.

Met Council chairman Peter Bell said the U has legitimate concerns, and the negotiations are making progress. But Bell said if they can't strike a deal soon, it could jeopardize the project's chances of receiving permission to enter what's known as final design. He said that could ultimately delay the project by a year, adding tens of millions of dollars to the final cost.

"I think Mayor [Chris] Coleman and all of our project partners -- Hennepin County, Ramsey County, Minneapolis -- are all somewhat frustrated that the U hasn't moved quicker and been more concerned about addressing their needs in a cost-effective way," Bell said.

Bell also noted that the project is dealing with a finite pot of cash.

"Every dime we spend at the U is a dime we cannot spend along University Avenue, dealing with the parking issues, business mitigation issues, and the like," he said.

But university vice president Kathleen O'Brien said the U and its partners are working at lightning speed to untangle the technical issues that other campuses have taken years to resolve.

O'Brien didn't have a direct response when asked whether the U's concerns could harm the light-rail project.

"Do I think it could jeopardize the project? I think the Central Corridor will be built," she said. "In my role as vice president of the University of Minnesota, it's to protect ... the public's research university. This is an important project. These laboratories are critical as well."

With so much at stake, O'Brien said the negotiations can't be rushed.

The FTA wouldn't comment on whether the lawsuit could delay the project, but the agency has signed off on the project's lengthy environmental review. In its lawsuit, the university argued the review did not adequately address the transit service's adverse impacts on the institution.

A Brutally Honest Discussion at a University of Minnesota Faculty Senate Committee Meeting on Finance: Fast Shuffle Coming Up At the Fairview/University Interface?

For further information, please see post on Periodic Table, Too:

"Why is the current system not serving the academic mission? This is like trusting the people whose last rocket didn't reach the moon when they say this next one will -- why trust the rocket scientists who failed? Will this arrangement just be in place for the next dozen years and then will there be something new?"

What chunk is falling away from the University, Professor Konstan asked? As he reads the proposal, he said, AHC faculty who are not completely clinical will be University faculty, but a larger percentage of their time will go to the new health system than they would spend on UMP. He said he agreed with Professor Morrison that this proposal would carve off the viable part of the AHC and leave the rest hanging around the University's neck. He said he worries that the University will go down this path without articulating well what will happen--because that would generate opposition.

The role of this Committee is to ask where things are going so "we can shed light on it."

Ms Stahre said that this proposal has an ominous tone and may have much broader implications than just the clinical enterprise.

Ah, but this is the usual modus operandi of the Morrill Hall crowd:

1. Decide what you want to do. Make an org chart.

2. Hire a consulting firm to spin things your way.

3. Get everything ready, secretly, so that you can do it.

4. Spring it on everyone else at the last minute. They will react, scream and yell, or just give up in stunned silence. You can then set up a stacked committee of at least 75% administrators, if someone makes a fuss. Consultation problem solved!

5. See org chart in 1. Implement.

For examples of such strategy in action, see: University of Minnesota Graduate School, General College, AHC Reorganization...

[Would that the Morrill Hall crowd could act as fast on issues like conflict of interest and double dipping?]