Life Under KBOR

-->

If you’ve been following the news then you know that back in December KBOR approved a social media policy that gave the Executive Administrator of each institution authority to fire any faculty or staff member who used social media in a way that disrupted workplace harmony or implied disloyalty or impaired supervision or was in any way not in the best interests of the University as that individual defines it. Uproar ensued.

A Workgroup comprised of staff and faculty from all seven Regents institutions was charged with revising the policy; they came up with one that was short, affirming and definitely (or defiantly) not punitive and presented it to the Regents at the April meeting. You can find a link to the work group policy here.

Apparently, KBOR wasn’t too happy this new policy. Maybe it wasn’t sufficiently punitive? Anyway, KBOR revised their original policy by adopting some of the language of the Workgroup policy, notably that affirming academic freedom. Much to the disappointment of a lot of people, however, the revised KBOR policy retained the language about harmony, loyalty and discipline. You can read KBOR’s revised policy here.

Included on the agenda for the meeting last Wednesday was a vote on the slightly revised KBOR Social Media policy. To their credit, the Regents gave Emporia State University’s Sheryl Lidzy an opportunity to read—on behalf of the Kansas Council of Faculty Senate Presidents—a statement defending freedom of speech and requesting the Regents to abandon their pursuit of an overly broad and highly punitive policy and to instead adopt the Taskforce policy. You can find Lidzy’s statement here. 

Otherwise, the lead up to the vote was an extremely well-orchestrated and (to me) discredible affirmation of the respect KBOR has for faculty and for academic freedom, beginning with numerous statements by KBOR President Fred Logan and concluding with a summary of the revised policy that underscored a number of ways that it borrows language from the task force policy, as if that were in and off itself proof that KBOR does in fact respect faculty. The vote was, unsurprisingly, unanimous in favor of the KBOR revised policy.

So here’s where things stand: if Kirk Schulz or someone who has his ear, like my department head or dean or any one of the Regents, decides that this post somehow contrary to the best interests of the University or disrupts harmony, loyalty and discipline, then I can be fired from my tenured position, post-haste. Will that happen? I seriously doubt it. But the fact that it could happen . . . well, that’s cause for concern and not just for me or my family or KSU but for the entire state of Kansas.

Next: why I think this has happened.

And the beat goes on (the KBOR beat, that is)

One of my brilliant colleagues in the English Department at Kansas State University published this letter to the editor in the Lawrence Journal World objecting to the decision to revise the really bad social media policy imposed on us by the Regents. Nel says that "“amending” this ill-conceived policy is a bit like hiring an architect after you’ve already built the house."

 It's worth a read, and worth sharing, if you've a mind to.

Also, Kirk Schulz never replied to my recommended revision to his statement about the social media policy. I guess he didn't like it!

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2014/jan/07/opinion-ksu-prof-weighs-social-media-policy/

Kansas Board of Regents, Social Media Policy: A Response to KSU President Schulz

 A lot has been written lately about the Kansas Board of Regents new Social Media Policy. If you aren't up to speed, I recommend that you read Phil Nel's blog which offers insightful analysis of the many deficiencies of the policy and links to the policy itself and other commentary on it. (Thanks Phil).

Today, KSU President Kirk Schulz  finally made a public statement. You can read it here.

Here is the text of the email I sent him:

Dear President Schulz,

Thank you for finally speaking out publicly about this new and extremely damaging policy.

I was especially drawn to the following paragraph:

"When the Kansas Board of Regents voted this policy into place, they made it clear we need to continue a broad-based conversation on social media with all constituent groups. It is my intention to work closely with KU Chancellor Gray-Little and the other presidents in collaboration with the Kansas Board of Regents on modification of the policy to one that is acceptable to all in the Kansas higher education community. This will require continued dialog among the different constituent groups and a willingness by all parties to be patient as everyone has an opportunity to present alternative views."

I am dismayed to observe that you do not specifically mention faculty or staff as "constituent groups." Indeed, you seem to envision a process whereby Regents and high-level Administrators "modify" the policy.

I personally find this to be unacceptable on two counts:

First, the policy is not amenable to "modification." It must be thrown out and completely re-envisioned.

Second, this process of designing a social media polity must involve faculty and staff as well as administrators and Regents. No one constituency should be allowed to dominate the conversation.

Very best wishes,

Christina Hauck

He got right back to me! Here's his reply:

Christina

Thanks for your note - and let me clarify.  Any changes to the policy - and many are needed- must be done with faculty and staff as leaders on the process.  I apologize that I was not more explicit in my letter.

Regards,

Kirk

So I returned the favor:

Dear Kirk,

Thanks for the prompt reply. I am heartened.

Perhaps you will consider revising the paragraph to reflect your actual intentions?  I offer the following suggestion:

It is my intention to work closely with KU Chancellor Gray-Little and the other presidents in collaboration with the Kansas Board of Regents on modification of the policy to one that is acceptable to all in the Kansas higher education community faculty, staff, and Adminstrators from all Kansas Regents institutions to craft an alternate social media policy and offer to the Board of Regents for their input and approval."

Very sincerely,

Christina Hauck 

The Will of the People

I've read quite a few comments on various blogs written in response to Judge Walker's lifting the stay on gay marriage. Many of them argue that judges should not overturn the will of the people.

Ted Olso put it pretty eloquently on Fox, asking "Would you like Fox's right to a free press put up to a vote?"

I'd like to know if conservatives would think if the majority of voters decided that women shouldn't vote?

What if the majority decided that it was in their best interests to reinstate slavery?

What if the majority of votes decided that the Emancipation Proclamation was an illegal taking of private property by the Federal Government?

And conservatives reading this? Any reply?

Freedom is Not Free

A comfortable right-wing slogan mean to shut up anti-war activists.

Let's reclaim it, as in:

The price of freedom is being willing to die for your freedom--and being willing to extend your freedom to almost anyone, even if it means you might die because of your generosity.

So let the mosques go up, let the shuls go up, let the temples of Mammon go up, and let the people worship as they will. And if--big big if--one of those worshippers turns fanatical and tries to kill you and your family, defend yourself mightily.

And if you die, let your epithet read: S/he died for freedom.

Conservative Strategy #2

Polarize. Divide the world into friend and foe, good and evil, right and wrong. Say whatever you like about your foes, even if it's false or cruel. Blame everything on your enemy. Broadcast  your point of view as loudly and as frequently as possible. Interrupt anyone who questions your point of view or moderate your claims or ask for facts.

Conservative Strategy #1

Lie. Most of the time the press will print whatever you say as if it were true and without checking facts. Your enemies (anyone who disagrees with you on any point small or large) will have their energies diverted into running around gathering up the evidence that you lied. In the meantime, you can make up more lies.

Inside/Outside

   

  I just bought this painting. It’s called “Still Life with City Scape No. 2.” The artist is Aaron Morgan Brown, formerly of Wichita, Kansas. This is a fairly typical painting by him in that he likes to combine highly incongruous elements, such as placing an electric mixer next to a statue of Cupid (?) and an orange both beneath a Tiffany lamp. What I really like about this painting though is the way that he suggests the interpenetration of realms we normally keep separate. Most obvious is the way that the room has no wall and it appears that a car is about to  drive out of it while another car is about to come in. Little less obvious is painting of the bird, a wild creature captured and immobilized on a canvas framed in gilt and hung on an invisible wall. I am interested also in the fact that the objects “in” the room—the elements of the still life—have been painted in a very precise manner, with clear-cut sharp outlines, while the street scene has been rendered in a much softer somewhat more impressionistic style. This pleases me. It makes the inner seem so much more real than the outer at the same that it undercuts the distinction between them. Perhaps this painting is an allegory of consciousness itself.  

Truth or Consequences?

Four of Ireland's Roman Catholic Bishops have now resigned in the wake of evidence that they permitted decades of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse to be perpetuated against thousands of children. "A fifth bishop [ . . . ], Martin Drennan of Galway, has said that he did not endanger children and will not resign, a position initially taken by the four bishops who have now stepped down."

The two most recent former Bishops of Ireland, Eamonn Walsh and Ray Field, issued a joint statement on Christmas Eve, saying that "they hoped their resignations 'may help to bring the peace and reconciliation of Jesus Christ to the victims' of child sexual abuse.

“'We again apologize to them,' the bishops said. 'Our thoughts and prayers are with those who have so bravely spoken out and those who continue to suffer in silence.'”

Somehow, I don't believe them. Maybe if they walked the length and breadth of Ireland wearing sackcloth and ashes, proclaiming their guilt at every church and begging forgiveness of every person, I might begin to believe that they have truly repented and aren't just putting on some dog and pony show.

And I'm not encouraged by the Arch-bishop's account of their motives, that "the church for too long had placed its self-interest above the rights of its parishioners, particularly innocent children." I mean, come on. What church has any interest greater than the well-being of its members? As long as the Church identifies AS its priests and AGAINST its members, men will continue to use the priesthood as a means to power and self-gratification.

Read the article for yourself here.

Letter to Obama

Here's the letter I just President Obama:

Dear President Obama,

I am very distressed to read on the Huffington Post that you are a) refusing to step up and support your party's efforts in Congress to include in the health care reform bill a robust public option that would let the states opt out and b) throwing your support behind the alternate plan, supported by Senator Snowe and the insurance industry, of a public option with a "trigger." This is unacceptable. Let me be very clear, Sir, and repeat myself: this is unacceptable.

I voted for you because you promised change, but letting the Republican Party continue to set the terms of debate on every imaginable issue including health care., and letting corporations set the terms and conditions of Federal oversight--whether it's the banking industry or the insurance industry--simply accelerates our national demise. I have watched and waited for you to step up and start enacting real change. I have defended you against friends and acquaintances who have said that your continual capitulations to the wealthy and the powerful have undermined any effectiveness you might have had.

And now I say to you: stop it. Stop pandering, stop capitulating. I say to you, step up, now, for a robust public option. It's the only hope we have of creating a health care system that takes care of people first and profits last. And believe me, Sir, if you think that this kind of capitulation will protect the Democratic Party or your own re-election efforts, you are seriously wrong, because I and every liberal and every progressive in this country will throw our weight behind whatever third party candidate offers him or herself as the candidate of change.

Your fellow citizen, Christina Hauck.

How I Got My Numbers

In my last post, I suggested that health care reform as it stands now offers us a choice between paying 12.5% or 4.5% of our income for health insurance. The larger figure assumes that the Baucus bill or some close variant of it passes and every American whose employer does not offer medical insurance is required to pay it on the open market. The smaller figure assumes that somehow Congress finds the will to create a single-payer system similar to Medicare.

I have to admit that I haven't actually seen the case put this way before. Here's how I arrived at those two numbers:

The Baucus bill widely assumes that most Americans now buying health insurance on the open market are paying about 12.5% of their income and that it is reasonable to expect them to continue to do so. It offers some kind of Federal tax subsidy for people who can't afford that: I'm not very clear on the details.

According to Representative Anthony Weiner of New York, Medicare currently spends 4% of the money it collects on overhead and administrative costs. Private insurance companies, on the other hand, spend about 30%. So I figure that if we can collect 4.5% of everyone's salary or wage and if we require a matching contribution from employers then we'd have a pool equal to 9% of the nation's payroll and we should be able to insure everyone.

Actually, I don't know how much money that would generate or if it would be enough to actually insure everyone. But my figures seem reasonable.

A Simple Choice

When it comes to health care reform, doing nothing is not an option. And it looks like everyone is going to have to buy some kind of medical insurance. The only question is, how much are we going to have to pay?

The choices seem pretty stark:

Would you rather pay 12.5% of your income for health insurance or 4.5%?

If you'd rather pay 12.5%, then you must be for the Baucus plan. The good news about this plan is that it won't increase the federal deficit for the first ten years of its implementation and will actually decrease the deficit for the next ten years. The bad news is that 12.5% only covers the cost of insurance; it doesn't include your deductibles or co-pays. Have a bad year? You might end up paying 25% of your salary. But don't worry: your federal taxes won't go up.

If you'd rather pay 4.5% (and who wouldn't) then you are probably all for single-payer health care. The bad news? You'd have to pay more in taxes. The good news? Even a child could figure that one out.

Letter to my Congressmen

Here's the letter I sent to my congressmen last weekend (not just Brownback, but Pat Roberts and Jerry Moran, as well). They're pretty conservative guys.

The Honorable Sam Brownback
303 Hart Senate Office Building
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Brownback:

I recently read the following story in the Wichita Eagle:

Mike Levand, a 56-year-old independent contractor in medical sales, has been uninsured since January, when he moved to Wichita from Lenexa. Blue Cross/Blue Shield had covered him while he lived in northeast Kansas, but made him requalify after the move.

Because he had added weight and needed medication for health issues since he originally signed with the company, his premiums more than tripled, from $300 to $1,100 a month, Levand said.

There is no good reason for this man to have to re-qualify for insurance and then to be subject to this kind of price increase. Obviously, we cannot trust Blue Cross/Blue Shield to treat the people of Kansas with any kind of integrity or decency.

The time has come to stop the partisan bickering and find a way to make sure this doesn’t continue to happen everyday here in Kansas and across our nation. I urge you to put aside ideology and fully support a public option supported by premiums paid by subscribers. Without it, we are all at the mercy of an industry that has proven that it does not care about anything except maximizing profit no matter how badly it hurts individuals, families, communities and states.


Sincerely,

Christina Hauck


P.S. You can read the full article at http://www.kansas.com/news/story/959531.html. And if you need any further persuading, I urge you to read about the work being performed here in the Unites State by Remote Area Medical, which formerly only brought medical care to third world countries but which is now offering services in the U.S. I’m so ashamed that we can’t seem to care enough to solve this problem. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111676259

What Americans Want

To judge from the neverending flow of spam that I routinely flush down my computer's toilet, Americans want two things, urgently: smaller bodies and bigger penises.

Even though we have no real stake in the matter, being relatively slender Lesbians, Margaret and I put our heads together and came up with a solution: a surgical technique that suctions unwanted fat from the body and deposits it into the penis.

Maybe this is just the impetus we need to pass a health care reform bill.

But don't worry. It won't cost taxpayers a penny. We've crunched the numbers, and we predict that this new procedure, marketed with all the care and expertise given any new medical product, will generate enough new tax revenue to pay for itself. We also expect a huge tax windfall from the sale of the numerous, um, supporting products that hugely endowed American males will soon need, for example, a jock strap capable of supporting a 50 pound penis. Some exceptional males will no doubt need specially designed wheelbarrows to haul around all their junk.

Talk about making her scream.

How Many Ways Can You Spell Hypocrite?

So it seems that the man who got the tip of his pinky bitten off during the anti-health care rally not only provoked the attack by punching the other man in the face, he actually has Medicare and used it to pay for his hospital bill.

I was reading some posts in response to a story about this at the Washington Post but I just don't have the stomach for it. Apparently, when Move-on.Org sponsors a rally that's not civil dissent it's a way of stifling dissent and a prelude to the Nazi takeover. But when conservative whack jobs bring handguns and assault rifles to health care rallies that's not a way of intimidating anyone who disagrees, it's simply an exercise of the constitutional right to bear arms.

Well, this is what we get for refusing to fund our education system: a nation of people who can't think.

Oh, yeah, one more thing: I refuse to refer to the amputee as the "old guy" or the "poor old guy," because he's only 65, and baby, that ain't old.

Stupid, Stupid, Stupid

Read this on the NYT:

“The thing that concerned me most about it was it seemed like a direct channel from the president of the United States into the classroom, to my child,” said Brett Curtiss, an engineer from Pearland, Tex., who said he would keep his three children home. “I don’t want our schools turned over to some socialist movement.”

What a stupid man. Does he not realize that our public school system is "socialist," paid for by tax dollars?

Someone should take his kids away from him.

I Was Right (sort of)

In my last post, I suggested that we might get through the Hysterical People by asking them questions and helping them to focus on certain facts. To a certain extent, I was right.

Apparently, a left-wing Democrat, Rep Anthoney Weiner of New York, got through to a right-wing talk-show host, Joe Scarborough, by asking simple questions: what is an insurance company? what do they bring to the table? why is their overhead 30% when Medicare's is only 4%? why can WalMart offer $4 prescriptions?

But my questions were way to hard and--I'll admit it, sarcastic and hostile.

You can read about it here.

Thanks to Klugman

Paul Klugman's recent column on the health care debate was very helpful. It may offer a way to help the Hysterical People (not all of whom are also Stupid People) understand the various options available to us. Here are some questions I imagine asking a Hysterical Person, if one should cross my path and be too exhausted to emote:

1) So you really think that Britain's Health care system is abyssmally bad and couldn't possibly work here? (Imagine here tearfully sincere nodding.) Then you should be writing your Senator and demanding that we immediately dismantle the VA Hospital System, because that's run almost exactly like Britain's NHS.

(How you can tell a merely Hysterical Person from a Really Stupid Person (or RSP): the RSP will simply deny the truth of what you are saying OR will accuse you of something nefarious, like Not Supporting Our Troops. Sarah Palin, anyone?)

2) And you REALLY don't want us to try anything like the Canadian system, right? (Vigorous nodding.) Well, then, you'd better get on the phone and demand that your Senator sponsor a bill dismantling Medicare right now because Medicare works just like Canada's system.

Klugman's most important point is that what Obama is proposing looks more like the Swiss model of health care, using a combination of regulation and subsidies to make sure everyone is insured. I don't think the Hysterical or the Stupid People need to hear that!

By the way, Klugman thinks the Swiss plan is workable. I think it's not, primarily because the Federal Government tends to draw its regulators from the very industry they are supposed to regulate and they seldom have the will to get the job done.

But I agree wholeheartedly with his last point: "all that stands in the way of universal health care in America are the greed of the medical-industrial complex, the lies of the right-wing propaganda machine, and the gullibility of voters who believe those lies."

Thanks, Paul.

The Nature of Debate

Well, I am still waiting for the Great Health Care Debate to begin. But so far all I've seen is obsessive TV coverage of lunatics who believe every damn lie the Fox Network feeds them and shout and scream and wail and wave their guns around.

(Suppose the anti-war protesters has acted like this way back when Bush was starting his own private Oedi-war. Think we would've gotten a shred of respect?)

So, two ingredients for a good debate: debaters possessed of FACTS not fantasies and a willingness to LISTEN and RESPOND to what the other side is saying.

If We Can Do It For the Military . . .

we can do it for everyone!

Great interview the other night between Bill Kristol and Jon Stewart.

Stuart got Kristol to admit that a) the government runs the best health care delivery system in the country and b) only the military deserves that level of care.

Kristol, who never stops grinning no matter how stupid he looks or sounds, wouldn't admit to the logical inference: the rest of us are getting second-class medical care.

Stewart couldn't stop grinning, and neither could I.