I learn something new each day-  today I learned that “ROTC discriminates against gays”.  (Not something I would doubt)

I also learned on my first day that Chancellor Herman’s admission, in the view of some, should be denied.  Not quite sure what it really means, but I always get a kick out of it when I see it written on sidewalks and benches.

I especially enjoy the calls to “end rape”, “save the environment”, and “protect human rights”, but my favorites are the random sayings adhered to telephone poles and street lights.

Just thought I’d give a shout out to the guys and gals who help lift up my spirits after many sleep-inducing lectures.

Max

Dear Professor Fireman,

I’m currently enrolled in your Stat 100 class at UIUC.  Thank you for your policy on textbooks.  When I entered your lecture on the first day, I had with me a copy of the 4th edition of “Statistics” by Freedman.  This book was listed as “required” by the Illini Union Bookstore, and carried a price tag of over $90 dollars.

After class started, you asked us if anybody had purchased the book.  I raised my hand, and you told me to come down to the front of the lecture hall.  You asked me how much I paid, and I said $95.  Your response…?  “You just paid $85 too much for that book.” 

Thank you Professor Fireman for advising me to return that prohibitively expensive textbook and instead consider purchasing a used copy of the previous edition on ebay for only $5.

Thank you Professor Fireman for telling us that the only thing you required were the “Incomplete Lecture Notes” since they contained all the material needed for the course.

Thank you Professor Fireman for letting us know that you have copies of the textbook that can be borrowed while we’re studying in the statistics lab.

And to folks at the Illini Union Bookstore— SHAME ON YOU!!!  Why didn’t you guys have used copies of the 3rd edition?  And to professors who require new editions of books that haven’t changed much—SHAME ON YOU TOO!!!

Best regards for a wonderful year,

Max

Obviously not in the view of the University of Illinois.

The scene in ground south soon after the waters began rushing in

Hi!  I’m a political science major living in Allen Hall (and am a freshman).  I look forward to blogging about what I think is right and wrong with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.  First off… what happened at Allen Hall last night?

It seemed to be an idyllic evening for me- no homework, no reading, and no studying.  I was even able to spend a few enjoyable minutes camped out in the CRCE hot tub.  The rain came, and us carefree college students enjoyed a moment of uncomplicated bliss splashing around in the four inch puddle that was beginning to form.  Where would those puddles go you might ask?  All of the residents of ground south and the staff members in the Unit One hallway would soon find out.

Returning to my room from the rain dance, I found a large group of fellow Allenites crowded around the ground south hall.  A piercing siren was going off, and a wide stream of water was dauntingly advancing down the hall.  Some students lined their doors with towels and took all of their personal belongings out from under their beds.  Many simply sat in front of their doors, begging the water not to cross through their doorways.  Amid the chaos there was no effort by maintenance staff or building service workers attempting to slow the advance of the water or suck up the large puddles that were forming over the carpet.  Where were all of the staff members that are paid Illinois taxpayer dollars to ensure that our state facilities are operated smoothly and safely?

We were herded out by our diligent RAs and were told to gather up some personal belongings for the next day.  We would be spending the night in the Allen Hall main lounge.

After a few more matches of residence hall slip-and-slide we ambled up into the lounge and were greeted by an upper level Housing director who went on to explain to us that in a few hours “extraction teams” from all around Champaign County would be converging upon our rooms, sucking up the water, and bagging up/laundering our soaked possessions.  She explained to us the bureaucratic red-tape that we would have to cross in order to receive claims for our damaged goods.  In an oh-so not motherly voice, she explained that the process for claims could take up to months because of all the departments that are required to review those claims.   She also noted that though residential life staff would be contacting the emergency dean, our teachers would be “in no way obligated” to make any accommodations for us.

After an uncomfortable night of “sleeping” on the floor of the main lounge, we were allowed at 6:30 a.m. to return to our rooms.  The standing water was (finally) gone, the hall reeked of mold, and the carpeting was soaked.  Thankfully my room and possessions were spared.

What I’d love to know is first why weren’t BSWs (building service workers) dispatched immediately after the first notice of flooding?  Why did it take over an hour to disable the alarm that was going off in the basement, and why did it take in excess of two hours to begin extracting the standing water that was doing irreparable damage to hallway carpeting and residents’ possessions.  And finally, why instead of ripping up the carpets that will soon be laced with mold is housing maintenance simply aiming fans at the floors?  University Housing- I’d love to hear your side of the story!!!

A Tribune investigation which included FOIA requests uncovered hard, damning evidence that the U of I is admitting unqualified students, while turning away qualified students.  The Trib cites a clout list of over 160 students, but even one student getting special treatment is too many.

Leading a state university is a position of public trust.  Administrators have a duty to use basic fairness and equality when admitting students.  Richard Herman and B. Joe White are accountable to all the people of Illinois–to all taxpayers–not just the ones with clout.  Imagine if they were outright selling admission to our competitive law school or business school–trading a seat in the class for an envelope of cash.  In truth, trading for political influence isn’t altogether different.  Especially when those they are catering to are the same people who set their over-inflated salaries.

While it’s true this practice predates the current administration, it doesn’t excuse our leaders from compromising their principle and tarnishing the integrity of the institution.  Whether or not we traded clout for admission in the past, the practice is wrong and must stop.  Whether or not other schools do it to, the practice is wrong and must stop.

If Richard Herman and B. Joe White were men of character they would acknowledge that they owe an apology and an explanation to all of the rejected students with credentials superior to the “Category I” admittees.

But what do they get instead:

From Richard Herman, we get outright lies, excuses and obfuscation.  And he makes two contradictory arguments:

Herman said Category I applicants may have a higher rate of admission “simply because we have more information” about them.  “We are a public institution and I think we have to answer to the state and that means those who support us perhaps through their elected representative, the board who is our governing body, and all the parents who call me up. I feel I have to be able to respond,” he said.

First, Category I applicants are admitted “simply because we have more information.”  This is obviously bullshit.  In the majority of cases, the only new information is someone with money or power wants the student admitted.  That is wholly irrelevant to the young man or woman’s qualifications for admission to the University of Illinois.

Second, which is essentially, the state supports us so we have to trade political favors in exchange for state support.  His constituency is the people of Illinois, not just the Illinois General Assembly or the the members of the Board of Trustees. Shutting down “Category I” won’t shut down state support, it will just make things fair.  And I would love to hear his argument why turning down requests of members of the board, members who have a fiduciary duty to the institution, will harm the institution.

As I mentioned, his second argument contradicts his first: Arg 2: we admit these students as a political favor, Arg 1: they are simply admitted because we have more information about the candidate.

From B. Joe White we have the hugely wasteful Global Campus, an initiative that has enraged faculty members while wasting tens of millions of dollars of resources.  It was a failure of vision, a failure to recognize we were late to the market, and a stubborn refusal to live with that reality on White’s part that cost the University so dearly.

Subsequently, White embarassed the University by botching a political speech issue.

President White is trying to pass the buck instead of accepting responsibility.  And he’s hiding behind the same absurd “more information” argument Herman uses.

President White said it’s not unusual for selective universities to receive input on applicants from interested parties, and it’s important to have a system to track the requests. The additional information can help the admissions office make a more informed decision.”

White is outright lying on the radio when he claims political pressure is not leading to “jumping the que” by less qualified students.  Too late, the Trib busted you.  White argues “we do not admit strictly on the numbers” and he cites legitimate factors like grade trends, overcoming adversity, etc.  However, a name being forwarded by a board members or a political official is not a legitimate factor. He was enabling the process, and his mendacity on the radio is shameful.

Today is a disappointing day for the University of Illinois, and a day where we should all be ashamed of our leaders.  However, there are some encouraging elements, like the courage shown by admissions officers who push back against unethical pressures, all while knowing that Richard Herman is a feckless authoritarian who hates to be disagreed with almost as much as he hates bad publicity.  Also, White’s promise that the practice will be corrected is encouraging, but like everything else he says, I’m not confident we can take him at his word.

I reject the notion that the University has to have a special process for “Category I” students.  If the purpose is just “tracking” then have someone in a clerical role share data with interested parties, instead of someone with decision making power who is likely to be influenced.  I do wonder if there are any privacy concerns with releasing the status of an applicant to a third party, but that is an issue for another day.

UPDATE: For those of you who are not on the University’s mailing list, I have posted Chancellor Herman’s response to the Tribune’s article. It is a rather weak response that makes little substantive or potent defense of his words or admissions habits.

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Chancellor Richard Herman <chancellor@illinois.edu> wrote:

Dear Campus Community

I am writing you to respond to today’s story in the Chicago Tribune
regarding admissions policies at Illinois.

Let me state at the outset that I have full confidence in our Office of
Undergraduate Admissions and its professional and dedicated staff led by
Associate Provost Keith Marshall and Director Stacey Kostell. The
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has an admissions process based
on integrity and fairness, one that produces an incoming class that ranks
among the best academically in the nation. Our graduates go on to do great
work in the world and, in turn, they reward us through their support and
loyalty as Illinois alumni.

It is no secret that competition for admission at Illinois is stiff.
Thousands of people contact University administrators and others with ties
to the university every year in regard to the admissions process – 2,300
calls alone are received by the admissions office on the first decision
day. This year, the university received 26,000 applications for only about
7,000 seats in the incoming class. For the Class of 2013, the average ACT
score was 28 and the average high school class rank was in the 88th
percentile. We are proud of this tradition of academic quality.

As a land grant university we remain committed to be inclusive and
accessible in our pursuit of academic excellence. We seek to represent as
closely as we can the full demographic of the state. With that in mind, we
will continue to look at academic qualifications and other pertinent
information included in each application while asking whether we believe
the student will succeed at our university.

Admissions is not a science. However, we welcome the challenge the Tribune
story presents to make every possible effort to ensure the integrity our
admissions process.

But given our high retention rate and the many successes of our graduates,
we believe we mostly get it right.

Richard Herman
Chancellor

Here with his permission, I would like to share the words of my friend and mentor, Dr. Stan Levy, former Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, who worked closely with Chancellor Cribbet when he led our University:

Today’s e-mail brought the news of the passing of   Chancellor Emeritus and Professor Emeritus John Cribbet.  He had been ill for quite some time.

John was a prince of a person, a one of a kind Illinois original.  Distinguished scholar, teacher, college dean and administrator.  community-minded for both the University and Champaign Urbana communities.  Before it was reorganized the Senate Committee

on Student Discipline was totally college deans, and the junior dean was ‘honored’ in serving as its chair.  John received this assignment during some of the most difficult days at UIUC.   When Bill Gerberding elected to leave the Chancellor’s post after only 18 months on the job, John was asked, almost dragooned, into serving first as Acting Chancellor and then as Chancellor at a time when the University was under great stress, athletic issues and significant budget stresses especially.  John distinguished himself in many ways. In the dark days of his tenure, and there were many, he was the ‘cheerleader’ who always saw the silver lining.  He was always upbeat.  His love for the University; his respect for faculty; his gracious way of dealing with his staff; his respect for the young leaders of the community, students, were always present.  His stories – and his speeches – were always insightful and memorable.  His words were always his own; he wrote his own materials.  And then there were his stories:  Ponca City, General Patton, etc., a small array woven into amazing contexts. He was a craftsman of the first rank in his use of language.

He was a terrific leader, a superb boss, a confidant, a good friend, and amazing supporter of what we sought to do in Student Affairs.  He was a gentleman at every turn and time.  His five years as Chancellor helped to change the face of the Campus.  It was a distinct personal pleasure, and constant learning experience to work for John.

May he rest in peace.

A service will be held at 2 p.m. Saturday in Rowe Auditorium at the College of Law.

On April 24, 2009, Bennett posted on his MySpace page an honest, sad, and warm explanation of his whereabouts and his need for hip replacement surgery. In early May, Bennett sued Tweedy for $50,000 in unpaid royalties he felt were owed to him for his role in the documentary I am Trying to Break Your Heart. He may have been desperate for money, as he explains in his MySpace post that he feared his lack of health insurance would prevent him from being able to pay for the hip replacement surgery.

Bennett is the most recent death among notable artists who have strong childhood or educational ties to Champaign-Urbana. David Foster Wallace, who has been discussed multiple times on this blog, hung himself in September 2008. I remember many years ago being in a Walden Books store with my Grandfather Bill Mills when he insisted that I should read a book called, The Rape of Nanking by Iris Chang. It was a bestselling book in 1997. She grew up in Champaign-Urbana and studied journalism at the University. She seems to have been overwhelmed by bloody horrors of the subjects she wrote about. She shot herself in 2004. I’m sure there are others unknown to me.

There is something weird about Champaign-Urbana, something eerie and mystical. I don’t know what it is. I cannot describe it beyond claiming that it exists. I see it snaking by in the thick night while standing outside of Cafe Kopi talking to Jen, the old Zen poet. I can only say that I believe this shadow causes brilliant people from Champaign-Urbana to leave before they have shared the panoply of their ideas and wonder . . . But, I probably exaggerate.

A local blogger gave an excellent account of his friendship and collaboration with Bennett, “Jay was a genius and quite likely the greatest guitarist of our generation.”

Sleep well, Jay. I hope God cheerfully replaces your broken hip with one of your many instruments. Perhaps the concave corner of an acoustic guitar. I recognize that as a bizarre thought, but it is fitting in my mind.

Goofy Days of Youth and Without Fame. Jay Bennett (Left), Gaper's Blog Author (Center) and Jeff Tweedy (Right). Photo Courtesy of Gaper's Blog: http://gapersblog.typepad.com/photos/2005_holidays/jaykenjeff0002.html

I abhor anyone who would vandalize any art or expression of an idea for hatred of that idea. I especially abhor someone who did so for racial reasons, assuming we can infer that from the actions of the vandal(s). A friend asked me to sign the petition but I refused because I believe the petition goes too far in its demands and that it uses some instances of poor logic.

The vandalism could have been done by one solitary person. If this is so then it undercuts the argument that the vandalism symbolizes a wider antipathy toward Native Americans on campus. The petition extrapolates the vandalism to a wider base of students. I get the sense that the mind of the author has implicitly assigned the vandalism to many students on campus. In other words, even though only one or a small group of people was likely responsible for this act, they assume that the act was supported by a broad base of students or that the vandals were interchangeable with a number of other students. There is racism on this campus. I have never experienced it, but I have heard numerous stories of explicit and implicit racism. The white students on campus rarely suffer racism, so they do not understand the extent that it exists, especially white students (like myself) who grew up in the Chicago suburbs. They underestimate the amount of racism. The collection of minority students that are involved with this petition and with the protest overestimate the amount of racism on this campus. The truth lies somewhere between those two estimates. Racism should not exist at a place that claims enlightenment. I agree. But the vast majority of students would never consider vandalizing Native American artwork. Perhaps I am naively optimistic about my classmates, but that opinion is based on seven years of observation.

The petition makes a total of six demands, which can be read below. I generally do agree with showing a strong reaction to the vandalism. However, the petition goes too far in its demands. They wish for the University to issue a statement that will connect the vandalism “to racism on campus.” That is a broad phrase that cannot be supported. We don’t know how many people were involved or why the art was vandalized. Motivation is important here. If we did know the answers to those questions we would still not be able to make a credible connection to the broader base of white students on campus.

One paragraph in the petition complains that the University did not go far enough in its retirement of the Chief. That retirement was a major victory for the anti-Chief groups, yet they are not satisfied. They always seem to want more. They want to quash all support of the Chief. They object that “the Chief’s presence still remains throughout this institution.” This paragraph sounds a bit too much like the desire to control how people think and what people say, which I vehemently disagree with in any context. It might be a stretch, but I believe their true demand is for uniformity of thought on campus. Some people who strongly promote diversity of thought are secretly irritated and upset when they encounter opposing views. Homogeneity is the covert demand of some diversity advocates. I am careful to use the word “some” because I don’t believe that description applies to all or even most diversity advocates. I am a diversity advocate and have done a number of things on campus to promote it (Dialogues on Diversity Co-Chair, member of the MLK Jr. Committee, a couple of Daily Illini columns, etc.).

One of the demands reads, “Establish multiple course, cross-disciplinary graduation requirements and an annual employee training requirement that specifically engage issues of power and privilege, including racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, and class inequalities.” This is a big demand. Issues of power and privilege? I actually agree that every undergraduate should be required to take one class that is set up as an open discussion about race and diversity. But the phrasing of this demand makes it sound like the objective of the class will be to teach all non-disabled, white men that they should feel guilty about their “power and privilege.” It sounds more destructive than constructive. I would support a constructive diversity class requirement.

I do agree with this demand, “Provide a monthly public report, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, that specifically documents hate crimes, sexual assaults, stereotyping, or any other acts of violence committed on the UIUC campus, along with actions taken to remedy the situation.” I think that sexual assault is an enormous problem on our campus, so I appreciate that they included that in their list. However, I am confused as to how it applies to their specific cause.

The anti-Chief and the pro-Chief movements have always gone too far. I don’t support either one. Neither group is ever satisfied. Neither can see the other side of the argument. Both make unreasonable and impractical demands. Racism cannot be destroyed by force. The issue is too delicate for force. Racism will be destroyed through the accumulating wisdom of each generation. Our generation might be the most racially tolerant generation in human history. Most societies do not have our diversity, and if they do, they do not celebrate it as the majority of us do.

——————————————————————————————

Here is a link to the petition so that you can sign it if you would like.

To: The Board of Trustees- University of Illinois (U of I); President Joseph B. White- U of I; Chancellor Richard Herman – U of I; National Collegiate Athletic Association c/o Bob Williams;

S.T.O.P. Nevada Street Vandalism at The University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Over the past month, public artwork titled ÒBeyond the ChiefÓ by HOCK E AYE VI EDGAR HEAP OF BIRDS (Cheyenne-Arapaho) located on Nevada St. outside the Native American & Asian American Studies Program, and La Casa Cultural Latina has been repeatedly damaged. The intent of the exhibit is to meaningfully reflect on past and present issues impacting the Native American community. This is the third time in a month that this art exhibit has been vandalized. Not until the third vandalism was a public response or condemnation of the action issued by the UniversityÕs central administration stating that measures were being taken to find the culprits and insure that this type of action does not continue to happen. This behavior is intolerable and unethical for a University that claims a commitment to diversity and excellence.

Whereas the Native American House & Studies Program was targeted three times by vandalism to public artwork by Edward Heap of Birds titled ÒBeyond the ChiefÓ by HOCK E AYE VI EDGAR HEAP OF BIRDS (Cheyenne-Arapaho); whereas the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign continues to display pro-Chief paraphernalia-which was banned in 2007; whereas the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign has not publicly condemned the vandalism and the racism that is pervasive on this campus we, the undersigned, petition the University of Illinois Central Administration and the Board of Trustees with the following demands:

1. The University administration shall issue a clear and unambiguous public statement condemning
the vandalism of the ‘Beyond the Chief’ exhibit, linking it to racism on campus.

2. The University will immediately institute a search for a new mascot for UIUC thereby making it
clear that the chief will never return.

3. The University will take immediate steps to acquire the public art ÒBeyond the ChiefÓ as a
permanent art exhibit.

This vandalism is the latest in a long line of racially explosive incidents for which the University has had little or no response. In the past three or four years different groups of students have been racially targeted: Mexicans were mocked at a “Tacos and Tequila” party where students dressed up as gardeners, and women in Òwife beatersÓ sported pseudo-pregnant bellies; African Americans were negatively depicted in a “Big Booty Hoes and Ghetto Bros” party, and there was even a threat against the life of a Native American student.

Contributing to the hostile racial climate is the lingering presence of Chief Illiniwek — a controversial figure. To some the ChiefÕs March 2007 retirement was initially considered to be a major step towards combating racism. However, the Chief was retired without any mention of its negative impact on the campus climate, especially for Native American and other marginalized students. For this reason both anti-Chief and pro-Chief supporters understand the decision to have been financial rather than moral. This incomplete ‘retirement’ contributes to an environment already tolerant of racist action. It is a disservice to the entire campus and community — including those who are Pro-Chief and hope for its return, and those students who want to move past the Chief controversy — that the ChiefÕs presence still remains throughout this institution.

Arguably, this relative inaction of the Upper Administration can lead students at the University to believe that racism is something to be managed indirectly and not condemned, and this moral ambiguity causes many to disengage in any meaningful scholarly or personal reflections.

Therefore, in addition we demand that the University do the following:

1. Provide a monthly public report, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, that
specifically documents hate crimes, sexual assaults, stereotyping, or any other acts of violence
committed on the UIUC campus, along with actions taken to remedy the situation.

2. Establish multiple course, cross-disciplinary graduation requirements and an annual employee
training requirement that specifically engage issues of power and privilege, including racism,
sexism, homophobia, ableism, and class inequalities.

3. We demand that the university embark upon an aggressive and public plan to recruit and retain
faculty, undergraduate, graduate students, and academic professionals from marginalized
populations.

It will be hard for the campus to move Òbeyond the chiefÓ until the University address the root of the problem: RACISM.

We the undersigned support these 6 demands:

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

——————————————————————————————

Dear Campus Community:

The continuing assaults on the Native American public art displays along
Nevada Avenue are not only unlawful and malicious. They are also an
assault on the values and fabric of Illinois. In other words, our
university has also been vandalized.

This is unacceptable and I condemn these recent acts in the strongest
language.

I am confident we will catch the culprits responsible but there is other
work that also demands our full attention.

We need to begin thinking of these crimes differently. First, let us not
view this as happening to someone else. What threatens one member of our
community threatens all of us. We are all diminished in the wake of such
an act. Indeed, Illinois is diminished and that should concern our
community.

Secondly, let us remember what this university stands for. Illinois has
always stood for the respect and dignity of all people and thought. We are
the home of the widest interpretation of free speech and expression. We
are the home of spirited debate along the confines of respect and
civility. But we do not tolerate acts of intimidation, violence or hate.

Let me be clear. This is our very lifeblood. This is our DNA as a great
public university. When our foundation as an inclusive and welcoming
campus is threatened we need to unite as a community and collectively
stand as one voice in condemnation. We have done so in the past and we
will do so at this crucial moment.

Let us reaffirm our commitment to making Illinois a safe, tolerant, and
inclusive environment for everyone.

Richard Herman
Chancellor

——————————————————————————————

First story:  The university is projecting over a billion dollar shortfall in their budget.  They are in the red by over a billion bucks!  Not good.  They cite budget trouble in Springfield, talk about probable tuition raises, cuts, etc.

Second story:  The university is building trans-gender bathrooms on campus.  How large a percentage of the student population are we catering to here?  Now as you all know I am a pretty simple guy, but have we developed a third sex or something that I am unaware of?  I really don’t get off the farm too often, but I thought that the way this thing worked was as follows:

1. Approach a restroom.
2. Look into your pants and determine the brand of tackle you are equipped with.
3. Following this self-examination you make a decision as to the little boys room or the little girls room.  There is no third choice.

Now if we were flush with money (bad pun) maybe ok, but we are a billion in the hole and are wasting money in the name of political correctness?  Is this really a necessity?

There are certain compromises that society dictates that frankly we are stuck with.  (like if you are a boy you go peepee in the boys room and if you are a girl you …..well you know.)  The system has really worked pretty well since the creation of indoor plumbing if you think about it.  I for one wish I could dress like a Spartan in the 300 (cool movie), flowing red cape and loin cloth, maybe strap AK-47s on my back, and partake in public fornication.  Unfortunately, societal norms frown on this type of public interaction.  Certainly my university does not fund the construction of special facilities to cater to my needs in this regard.  Most unfair it now seems.

Third Story:  Some University tenured professor feels the need to waste his tax-payer funded time applying for George Ryan to get a Nobel Peace prize for freeing all the murdering rapists (ok alleged murdering rapists – wait – Convicted murdering rapists) on Illinois’s death row.  Again, call me simple, but I thought we paid our professors to do things like TEACH.  If we are a billion in the hole and we have an overpaid liberal activist drawing professor pay – well I have a problem with this.

Summary:  We are over a billion dollars short on the budget but we have monies to build transgender potties and to pay a guy to promote giving an award to a convict.  Folks – something has got to give here.   All this in a half hour news segment.  It is just too much.

This should be our stepping stone into the top 25.