GradNews

Gym Fee Hike

2009-09-19T23:40:00.006-04:00

Welcome to the new school year!
This is Samantha Lyon, the Campaign Coordinator at GSS.

GSS is working with the labor coalition to eliminate or lower the gym fee increase, which was
raised from $40/semester to $125/semester this year. This affects all
graduate students, staff and faculty ($150/semester for faculty/staff).

Check out the Facebook group at
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?id=1060598398&pid=271160#/group.php?gid=141139552834&ref=ts

Please do not buy the gym membership in the meanwhile, as a
demonstration that we're committed to affordable rec facilities for
ALL grad students.

FYI, the gyms are free until the new rec center opens.

Send your complaints to:

Administration & Finance general contact email: admfin@admin.umass.edu
Joyce Hatch, Vice Chancellor of Administration & Finance: hatch@admin.umass.edu
John McCutcheon, Athletic Director: jmccutch@admin.umass.edu
Zulma C. Garcia, Director of Campus Recreation: zcgarcia@admin.umass.edu

Contact: umassgss [AT] gmail [DOT] com. Subject: Gym Fee Hike

Also: contact GSS with concerns about the new $200 deductible for individuals on the Aetna health plan this year, $600 for families.

Out with the old ...

2006-07-18T18:05:00.000-04:00

The torch has been passed. Today was the day I managed to wrench the password from Uri (the old, aged GSS President) to this blog, and I hope to continue to the tradition of keeping people posted here.

It's the middle of July, and lots of stuff has happened in the office. Here's the brief overview:

The hiring committee has filled the GSS positions for this coming year:

Office Manager: Ian Wang
Graduate Women's Network Coordinator: Eboni Rafus
Voice Editor: Nick Archer
Educational Access/Student Affairs Coordinator: Rushika Patel

The GSS Office is open during the summer from 10A.M. to 4P.M., Monday through Friday. The staffing is limited to 3 people, so between meetings and lunch breaks, if you want to guarantee that someone is in the office, call (413-545-2897) or email (gss-info@resgs.umass.edu) ahead of time.
The 2 necessary childcare forms are up on the front of the GSS homepage (http://umass.edu/gss). The deadline for those forms is September 19, 2006.
The website is in the process of being revamped: Look for a more complete, functional site soon!
We spend at least an hour or two every day going through old files in the office, trying to organize the clutter. With all due respect to the old regime, filing was not their strong point. We've made a decision to move all pre-2006 documents that don't deal with Graduate Student Organizations (GSOs) or other important documents out of the office; there's just way too much stuff. Old files had taken over entire desks, and were even stored in mobile carts in the office. When we're done, there should be a desk for every staff member in the office.
While there might be a desk for every staff member, we're lacking in computers. Furthermore, we're operating in a deficit, so buying stuff outright isn't an option. This is obviously a problem that isn't limited to the GSS office, but to all GSOs and anyone who wants funding through GSS for the coming year. I've got several ideas for fundraising, and hope to get feedback from people about them in the coming weeks.

More to come soon!

WRONG!

URI's BACK!

preliminary results of officer elections

2006-04-29T10:50:00.000-04:00

these are not official until they are ratified by senate.

president:
Jeff Napolitano 358
Neeraj Deshpande 238

vice president:
Flavia Stanley 345
Srinkanth Dasari 252

treasurer:
Hasan Tekguc 358
Ahmed Hassan 242

executive officer:
Sai Madivala 372
Nerendra Meka 226

candidate statements here.

trustee and SGA election update

2006-03-28T14:35:00.000-05:00

the tallies and percentages from the student trustee and SGA president elections, held two weeks ago, are as follows. votes are listed first, followed by percentage of the total vote.

trustee:

mishy leiblum: 1560, 55%
john williams: 677, 23.9%
matt fox: 464, 16.4%
ed cutting: 125, 4.4%
all others: 8, 0.3%

SGA president:

elvis mendez: 1562, 56.1%
shawn robinson: 659, 23.7%
mike makarski: 382, 13.7%
rob shepherd: 117, 4.2%
eoin moore: 58, 2.1%
all others: 8, 0.3%

gargano's blog

2006-03-28T07:45:00.000-05:00

looks like gargano has learned how to blog. or, more likely, he got one of his work study students to log him in.

but there's something a little fishy about his blog, though. maybe it's that there are no spelling or punctuation errors. or that there is none of his usual repetitive "elating phrases".

i guess his work studies must be proofreading for spelling, grammar and style.

admin now trying to destroy SCERA

2006-03-22T03:24:00.000-05:00

the attacks by gargano and his minions on the office of ALANA affairs are well-known. the attacks on the commuter services office are less known but have been discussed. mostly undocumented have been the attacks on the SCERA (student center for educational research and advocacy) office.

recently, the administration failed a search for the director of the SCERA office. this is at least the second time that a search which turned up qualified candidates has been failed. if you follow student affairs at umass, you know why: any qualified candidate would presumably do their job, i.e. work for the benefit of students- an intolerable offense for a student affairs professional at umass. so the hard work of many people is being arbitrarily trashed, presumably so the reactionary freak can install someone in his own image as director, contrary to good practice, past practice, and in all probability university policy.

in another recent event, the graduate assistant at SCERA has been informed mid-semester that he will no longer be paid to work there. this is, of course, illegal, but that seems to be of no concern.

there are some indicators that election results are next. is gargano enough of a fascist thug to throw out the results of student government elections? no doubt he is. will he dare? stay tuned.

my lawsuit against the university (and state)

2006-03-19T22:42:00.000-05:00

note: this is something i'm doing in my spare time, and without the use of any privileged resources.

Hampshire, ss. SUPERIOR COURT

CIVIL ACTION NO. _________________

COMPLAINT

Uri Strauss,
Plaintiff

v.

Alan N. Cote, in his official capacity as Supervisor of Records for the Massachusetts Public Records Division, an agency of the Commonwealth,
Defendant

Dr. Esther Terry, in her official capacity as Director of the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst,
Defendant

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff brings this case challenging the actions of defendant Terry in failing to provide him with public documents to which he is legally entitled, without the burden of substantial and unreasonable costs, and the actions of defendant Cote in determining that the cost assessed by defendant Terry is reasonable. Plaintiff claims that defendant Terry's and defendant Cote's actions violate the Massachusetts Freedom of Information Act, M.G.L. c. 66, sec. 10. He seeks an order compelling the disclosure of the requested documents, and/or judicial review of defendant Cote's determination that the cost assessed is reasonable.

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff Uri Strauss was at all pertinent times a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

3. Defendant Dr. Esther Terry was at all pertinent times the Director of the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

4. Defendant Alan N. Cote was at all pertinent times the Supervisor of Records for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

FACTS

5. Between November 2004 and March 2005, Plaintiff served the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, as a member of the Commission for Campus Diversity, charged with investigating diversity at the University and making pertinent recommendations to the Chancellor. The Commission was asked to make structural recommendations with a view towards long-term impact. No specific charges related to personnel were delivered, and internal discussions of the Commission made it clear that the Commission interpreted its charge as specifically excluding personnel recommendations. Defendant Terry, the University's Associate Chancellor for Equal Opportunity and Diversity, was also an appointed member of the Commission.

6. At the press conference announcing the formation of the committee, UMass Amherst Chancellor John Lombardi promised in public that the Commission's proceedings would be fully open and transparent.

7. On the first full day of the Commission's meetings, Andres Gomes, then a student of the University, entered the room in which the Commission was meeting, upon which Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Michael Gargano called security to escort him out. As he was being escorted out, he protested to Vice Chancellor Gargano that the Commission's proceedings were supposed to be open and transparent.

8. The same day or the next, a group of students at the university complained to Dr. Orlando Taylor, chair of the Commission on Campus Diversity, about the Commission's proceedings not being open as promised. Dr. Taylor agreed to meet with concerned students after the end of the Commission's meeting on that day. At that meeting, he promised the students that the transcripts of the Commission's proceedings would be posted on the University's website. He repeated this promise to an individual student, Marisha Leiblum, in an e-mail communication.

9. On Feb. 3, 2005, Vice Chancellor Gargano testified before the commission. During his testimony, he was chastised by Commission members for his evasiveness. After his departure, critical remarks were made by Commission members about his impact on diversity and his competence as an administrator.

10. On March 15, 2005, plaintiff sent an e-mail to Commission Chair Orlando Taylor, asking him to make the transcripts public, as promised. This was not done at the time, or since.

11. On Oct. 31, 2005, plaintiff requested, via letter, from defendant Terry a detailed budget of planned and YTD spending of money in a diversity fund administered by her, as well as the full, unedited transcripts from all meetings of the Commission on Campus Diversity, except the public forums, pursuant to the Massachusetts Freedom of Information Act. As Director of the Equal Opportunity and Diversity Office, defendant Terry is the administrator responsible for these records.

12. On Nov. 9, defendant Terry provided the requested budget of the diversity fund. In response to the request for the transcripts of the Diversity Commission, she responded that the full transcript is 4500 pages long, and that payment would have to be provided for photocopying the document and for screening the transcript for "materials or data relating to specifically named individuals, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy". She cited Section 7(26), exemption (c) of the M.G.L. as justification for withholding such records. The total cost estimate provided was $373.12 for search and segregation costs, reflecting 32 hours of search and segregation time at $11.66 per hour; and either $450 or $900 for photocopying, depending on whether plaintiff opted to make the copies himself, or wanted defendant Terry's office to make the copies for him.

13. On a date not recorded in November 2005, plaintiff spoke via telephone with a lawyer in the Secretary of the Commonwealth's office, believed by plaintiff to be Rebecca Murray. Plaintiff described the events discussed above. The lawyer advised him to appeal the assessed cost.

14. On Nov. 14, Plaintiff sent to defendant Terry a letter thanking her for the budget information, and modifying the request for transcripts, narrowing it down to the portions of the daytime part of the Feb. 3, 2005 Commission meeting pertaining to Vice Chancellor Gargano. He requested a revised cost estimate in light of the revision to the information request.

15. In a letter received on Dec. 13, defendant Terry responded with a cost estimate of $500, not offering a breakdown into search and segregation costs and photocopying costs.

16. On the same day, plaintiff appealed defendant Terry's cost assessment to defendant Cote. Plaintiff presented three grounds for the appeal, described in 17 - 19.

17. Plaintiff reasoned that an analysis of the $500 cost estimated by defendant Terry in her communication shows that the search and segregate portion of the cost must be larger than $373.12, and that therefore the search and segregate cost assessed by defendant Terry for a small portion of the document is greater than the search and segregate cost assessed for the full document. Plaintiff charged on this basis that defendant Terry's revised cost assessment was arbitrarily set at an unreasonably high dollar amount in order to deter plaintiff from pursuing his request.

18. Plaintiff asserted that based on his complete knowledge of the contents of the transcript, there are no reasonable grounds for believing any portions of the document to be subject to the privacy exemption.

19. Plaintiff pointed out that Chancellor Lombardi, who convened the Commission on Campus Diversity, made a public commitment to the complete openness of the Commission's proceedings, and that Chair Taylor made the same promise privately.

20. On Jan. 24, 2006, Defendant Cote denied plaintiff's appeal in a letter, disputing plaintiff's reasoning presented above in 17, and finding defendant Terry's cost assessment to be reasonable. Defendant Cote stated that 32 hours is a reasonable amount of search and segregation time and asserted that "while a more specific request may decrease the costs of copying the documents, the overall cost may not be greatly reduced because the same large amount of documents must be culled in order to provide the appropriate records". As the basis for this assertion, defendant Cote cited a telephone conversation between Attorney Rebecca Murray and defendant Terry on Jan. 24, 2006, in which defendant Terry asserted that in order to comply with plaintiff's request, approximately 4500 pages must be examined. Defendant Cote's letter does not mention any attempt to verify the truth of defendant Terry's claim. Defendant Cote's letter also contains no evidence that plaintiff's grounds for appeal described in 18 or 19 were considered.

21. On Feb. 3, plaintiff and defendant Terry were both present at a meeting between university administrators and a search committee on which plaintiff served. After the meeting, plaintiff asked defendant Terry whether she believed that her refusal to provide the information without substantial costs was legally defensible. Defendant Terry told plaintiff not to bother her with legal questions, and added that her desire to withhold information was motivated by "professional courtesy".

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Defendant Terry's refusal to produce the requested documents within ten days of the receipt of Plaintiff's formal request without the burden of substantial costs is a violation of M.G.L. c. 66, sec. 10 and 950 C.M.R. 32.00 et seq. WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that this court determine and order:

1. That the requested documents are public records.
2. That defendant Terry make them available to plaintiff without the burden of substantial costs.
3. That the plaintiff recover his costs.
4. That the court grant any further relief it deems just and equitable.

22. Plaintiff is also seeking judicial review in connection with denial of appeal of a surcharge, pursuant to M.G.L.A. c. 30A, # 14.

23. Plaintiff is aggrieved by a decision of defendant Cote denying plaintiff's appeal of a charge imposed on plaintiff by defendant Terry.

24. Plaintiff's appeal is based on an assertion that defendant Cote’s finding was not supported by substantial evidence, and/or arbitrary and capricious, and/or contrary to law, and/or in excess of his authority, because:

Defendant Cote made no attempt to verify the statement of defendant Terry that "in order to comply with (plaintiff's) request, approximately 4500 pages must be examined". Defendant Terry's claim is implausible on its face, since the records requested cover only a small subpart of the 4500 page document. This claim by defendant Terry is the sole justification cited by defendant Cote for rejecting plaintiff's appeal.
Defendant Cote responded only to the first of plaintiff's three grounds for appeal. If plaintiff's second or third grounds had been considered and found reasonable, the question of how many pages would have to be examined would be moot, because the entire record would have to be ruled public.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that the court determine and order:

1. That defendant Cote did not fairly evaluate defendant Terry’s statement that "in order to comply with (plaintiff's) request, approximately 4500 pages must be examined".

2. That defendant Cote reconsider plaintiff’s appeal, fairly evaluating defendant Terry’s claim.

3. That defendant Cote consider plaintiff’s appeal in light of plaintiff’s argument that there is no basis for withholding any part of the document, and that therefore no justification for a “search and segregate” charge exists.

4. That defendant Cote consider plaintiff’s appeal in light of plaintiff’s argument that no parts of the transcript may be withheld because both the Chair of the Diversity Commission and the Chancellor of the Amherst Campus of the University of Massachusetts made guarantees that the Commission’s proceedings would be completely open and transparent.

5. That the plaintiff recover his costs.
6. That the court grant any further relief it deems just and equitable.

The Plaintiff

Uri Strauss
26 Graves Ave., Northampton
(413)582-6969

___________________________

Verification of factual allegations

Signed under the penalties of perjury

Dated: February 23, 2006

election results

2006-03-19T22:29:00.001-05:00

last week's elections for SGA president and student trustee were won handily by elvis mendez and mishy leiblum, respectively.

i don't have the results in front of me, so i'll give you rough numbers. both elvis and mishy received in the area of 1500 votes, with the runners up, shawn robinson and john williams, receiving 600 - 700 votes.

voter turnout was higher than usual, with about 16% of undergrads voting.

election results

2006-03-19T22:29:00.000-05:00

last week's elections for SGA president and student trustee were won handily by elvis mendez and mishy leiblum, respectively.

i don't have the results in front of me, but both elvis and mishy received in the area of 1500 votes, with the runners up, shawn robinson and john williams, receiving 600 - 700 votes.

voter turnout was higher than usual, with about 16% of undergrads voting.

elvis and mishy for president and trustee

2006-03-13T19:34:00.000-05:00

it's been almost a month since i've posted. it's not been an uneventful month, rather a month too full of events to be able to pay attention to the blog.

where to begin? i'm suing umass for the transcripts of the diversity commission (text soon); i've written a summary of the university's compliance and noncompliance with the diversity commission's recommendations (text soon); i've put many hours into GEO's personnel committee; i got into several law schools; i got hold of an all-grad-students mailing list (to be used soon); and i've done many other things i don't care to tell you about.

funny story from last week: i got a letter published in the daily collegian last friday, ridiculing gargano for his illiteracy and stupidity (text soon). before publishing the letter, the collegian editorial staff changed a grammatically correct sentence into a grammatically incorrect one. it was an honest accident, i assume (microsoft word didn't like the grammatically correct sentence but liked the incorrect one), but given the tone and substance of my letter, made me look like a fool of garganotuan proportions. so far, the collegian editor has made a private apology but has indicated that the collegian will not print a correction which makes it clear that the error was theirs. i am continuing to insist that they do. we'll see.

these days i'm campaigning for the elvis/mishy ticket. why? they're the candidates with the vision, integrity, experience, guts, and mobilizing ability to get things done for students (does it sound like i've been talking them up for two days straight?). their track record includes involvement in some impressive successes, such as getting lombardi to adopt the faculty union's umass 250 plan to increase the number of faculty; lobbying the state to boost funding to the university by some $26 million; stalling the administration's plan to implement bag searches; restoring upward bound; and getting lombardi to commit $800,000 to new diversity spending; all the while dramatically improving the level of political consciousness at the university.

what were their opponents doing in the meantime? apparently thinking up some lame smear campaigns with almost no connection to reality. they apparently seek to return the SGA to what it was before the bustamante presidency - a high school student council writ large.

board of trustees report

2006-02-16T11:01:00.000-05:00

i was among 30 or so umass amherst students who shlepped to the dartmouth campus for the board of trustees meeting. quick summary:

- the fee hike was approved, but for the first time in recent memory, there was non-unanimity among the appointed trustees. trustees boyle and carlin joined amherst student trustee valerie louis in voting to oppose the fee.

- trustee boyle presented a good argument for opposing fee increases. he pointed out that the board has been raising fees as a general revenue-raising measure, which is normally supposed to be covered by tuition. tuition has been frozen as a matter of state policy, and raising fees as a substitute for tuition means that the trustees are making decisions that ought to be made at the state level. this strikes me as an argument that might be effective at the level of the legislature.

- GEO vice president darren griffis told the trustees that in view of the boards present unaccountability, GEO will be asking legislators to get rid of the practice of appointed trustees, replacing it with elected trustees.

- GSS president uri strauss accused the trustees of failing to engage seriously with students regarding the disastrous administration of the amherst campus, and asked the trustees to become compliant with the state laws regarding campus councils, as a remedy.

- chair of the board james karam made this revealing remark: "you students have more influence with the legislature than we adults do".

the day before at the meeting of the trustees's committee on academic and student affairs, three amherst students - trustee louis, former SGA president eduardo bustamante, and co-chair of the ALANA caucus nate kupel - made a presentation rebutting president jack wilson's rosy report on the state of diversity at umass. president wilson conceded that the student report was correct, and the trustees decided to set up a task force to look into students' diversity concerns.

study on grad school success

2006-02-16T10:49:00.000-05:00

inside higher ed reports the following findings from a new study by Michael Nettles and Catherine Millet, both affiliated with Educational Testing Services, on factors affecting graduate student success.

More than 30 percent of all graduate students never feel that they have a faculty mentor.

Two-thirds of graduate students enter Ph.D. programs without any debt, suggesting that those concerned about expanding the pipeline to graduate education should pay attention to the affordability of undergraduate education.

Students rate their social interaction with faculty members as high in the engineering, sciences, mathematics and education — and relatively low in the social sciences and humanities.

In rating the quality of academic interactions, students in the humanities think highly of their professors while those in the social sciences and math and science are more critical.

Significant gaps exist in the experiences of minority and female graduate students — from admissions to getting teaching or research assistant jobs to publishing research while still in graduate school. Generally, these gaps do not favor minority students.

the article also reports:

The study also found a strong preference among female and minority Ph.D. candidates for mentors and advisers who are from their same groups. The demand for such mentors is particularly hard to fill for the many institutions that lack a critical mass of black faculty members, the authors write, creating “a vicious cycle” in which black students can’t find black mentors, and — if they don’t finish — leave fewer potential mentors for the next cohort.

gargano approves on-campus voting

2005-12-21T10:20:00.000-05:00

shared governance at umass

2005-12-15T14:41:00.000-05:00

according to a paper on university governance written by chancellor lombardi before he came to umass, democracy is "charming" and "well-intentioned", though "ineffective because it doesn't start with the measurable things" and should be set aside.

governance policy at umass is one of shared governance. that means that different administrative areas are governed by different university constituencies, subject to overall control by the board of trustees. in general terms, students govern student affairs, faculty govern academic affairs, and the administration governs administrative affairs. in addition, both students and faculty are entitled "when appropriate" to be consulted in long-term planning and budget issues, as well as other matters affecting the university as a whole. these policies are set out in the trustee document known as the wellman document.

the policy of joint governance at umass dates from the 1970s, and is rooted in principles articulated by the american association of university professors. it is of note that the wellman document gives quite a bit more power to students than AAUP's formulation does. the massachusetts legislature, as well, has enacted laws intended to give students a fair degree of voice in university matters. chapter 75, section 14b of the massachusetts general laws, which requires the board of trustees to pay attention to broadly-constituted campus councils, is a good example of university policy that respects the voices of the different stakeholders.

the benefits of the governance model are clear. the wellman document recognizes that

the variety and complexity of (the university's) tasks require and ensure the interdependence of the governing board, the administration, the faculty, and the students, as well as other groups.

and that

certain components of the University, such as the President’s Office, the campus administrations, and the representative and administrative governing bodies of the faculty and the students have, by virtue of interest, training, and experience, a special concern and competence in certain areas.

not mentioned by the trustees, but equally valid, is that vesting power in multiple constituencies is an antidote to the shortsightedness, narrow vision and slavish devotion to trends that often characterize administrative bureaucracies.

examples of successful organizational initiatives by umass students, faculty and staff abound. the committee for the collegiate education of black and other minority students was founded not by an administrative effort, but through the work of a few faculty members who observed that the lack of support for black students was a major reason for the virtual absence of black students on campus. the program was so successful that it spawned similar support programs for latin@, asian, and native american students. the office of ALANA affairs, originally called the office of third world affairs, was created by students to advocate and provide services for students of color in response to administrative inattention. it remained funded by student government and under student programmatic control until this past july, when it was hijacked by the student affairs office. similarly, the commuter services and housing resource center was created by student governments in response to the administration's unwillingness or inability to provide resources for commuters, and the student legal services office (originally the legal services office) was created by students to respond to students' need for legal services. unions were organized by different groups of campus workers to improve wages and working conditions across campus.

contrast university policy with the vision of chancellor lombardi, articulated in his paper "university improvement: the permanent challenge":

Universities for the most part do not have management; they have governance. Governance is the political process that balances the various competing interests of the institution though a complicated and lengthy process. The characteristic of university governance is consensus. Consensus for a university normally results in modest and superficial change in the general operations of the institution, especially in terms of money and incentives... To improve, the university must have management. It must have direction. The institution must consult, it must meet, it must listen, and it must respond to all the information, opinion, and advice from its many constituencies, but it must nonetheless act, and it often must act without complete consensus.

these lines are quoted approvingly in the lazare report, the final document produced by a trustee-appointed task force on the future of umass amherst, a landmark report that set out the path down which the campus is now being led. in the same paper, lombardi belittles the notions of accountability and (democratic) governance:

Much public conversation turns on elaborate discussions of accountability and governance. Most of this is charming, well intentioned, but ultimately ineffective because it does not start with the measurable things.

lombardi doesn't explain why governance and accountability are at odds with measurement, nor does any reason spring to mind. what is fairly obvious is that different campus constituencies have different priorities, which might be promoted by use of different sorts of measures. lombardi's concerns might be measured in federal research dollars and average SAT scores, while the concerns of employees might be measured in salaries and dollar values of benefits, and the concerns of students might be measured in the dollar values of tuition and fees, or in percentages expressing diversity benchmarks.

there is a contradiction between the stated commitment of the university to shared governance, as formulated in trustee policy, and lombardi's hostility to democratic governance, which the trustees have effectively endorsed by hiring him. if there is going to be investment in the university from students, parents, staff, and other communities in which an accessible university education is seen as a socially desirable goal, this contradiction needs to be resolved in favor of governance, not lombardi-style management.

is umass pricing out kids like joe drury?

2005-12-11T11:21:00.000-05:00

an article in the boston globe sunday magazine talks about the declining accessibility of umass.

monday: informational meeting about income-based housing

2005-12-10T17:04:00.000-05:00

as some of you know, the university is building a new dorm which, it is widely believed, will cost more than the regular dorms, creating a system of housing in which wealthier students will live in nicer dorms than less wealthy students.

there's an informational session this monday about it. 6 pm in the basement of van meter dorm (in central). you can register by calling 5-2100 or e-mailing hao@gw.housing.umass.edu (e-mailing is probably a better bet on the weekend). the deadline for registering was this past wednesday, but nobody knew about this event until today, so don't take no for an answer. there will be free subs and pizza.

EDIT: i've received information that rather than a meeting on monday in van meter, the meeting on monday is in the cance lounge in southwest, while there is a separate forum on wednesday in van meter. both meetings are at 6.

EDIT: the new housing is indeed quite a bit more expensive than other dorms: at the forum, we were told that monthly rent per student will be $700. most questions regarding anything but logistical details could not be answered by the presenters, but a forum with decision makers was promised, where questions about where the dollar figure comes from, concerns about a tiered housing system, and the like could be raised.

my estimate of the value of the house is about $400, if you abstract away from the location. i speculate that cost of housing is being distorted upward because of an overabundance of students from wealthy backgrounds - another negative effect of umass's departure from its public education mission. at the university of british columbia, i lived on campus and paid $367 canadian a month for nicer accommodations than the new umass dorms, and that was in a city with high housing costs. stay tuned.

announcement regarding the search for the SCERA director

2005-12-10T15:42:00.000-05:00

We are pleased to announce that we have selected several finalists for the director position of the Student Center for Educational Research and Advocacy.

We will be having open forums with these candidates on Thursday Dec. 15 (reading day) in the Dukes Room of the Student Union:

Sara Littlecrow-Russell - 9:00 a.m.
Paul DeMarco - 10:00 a.m.
Liliana Rodriguez - 11:00 a.m.

The candidates' resumes will be available at the forums, and we ask that you fill out evalution forms for all the candidates.

Coffee, Tea, Juice, Fruit and Bagels will be provided.

Mishy Leiblum and Joanne Levinson
Co-Chairs, Student Center for Educational Research and Advocacy Director Search

NYU bans killer coke

2005-12-09T14:04:00.000-05:00

while the graduate workers' strike is getting more attention, anti-coke activists have scored an inspirational viictory by banning coca cola from campus.

campus council

2005-11-30T14:40:00.000-05:00

look what i found in the massachusetts general laws!

CHAPTER 75. UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS

Chapter 75: Section 14B Campus council

Section 14B. The trustees shall establish for each campus a council, broadly representative of the community, alumnae and students, and shall, upon recommendation of the campus president, appoint members thereto. The campus council shall advise the campus president and the trustees and make recommendations regarding said campus, and shall undertake such other activities as shall be determined by the campus president.

essentially what this means is that the board of trustees' current practice of consulting only the administrative leadership about campus issues while dismissing student concerns is at odds with at least the spirit of the massachusetts laws. the nonexistence of a campus council for the amherst council is at odds with the letter of the law.

internship opportunity with ASM

2005-11-28T13:35:00.000-05:00

the associated students of massachusetts, a statewisde organization that umass students helped to found (and which the SGA is a member of), is advertising internships. the program manager internship is for graduate students. the job description reads:

Program Manager (graduate)

• Provide support and direction for interns & internal support as directed by the Equal Board
• Assist in membership recruiting effort

this is a paid internship. for details, contact
Casey: 401.743.4835 cjthomas@student.umass.edu or
Eugene: 714.514.3382 eykim@student.umass.edu

commemorating rosa parks

2005-11-28T13:19:00.000-05:00

thus spake the SGA:

Tomorrow (Tuesday 11/29) from 5pm - 6pm in Campus Center Room 101, the SGA will be hosting a roundtable discussion entitled: "How can we commemorate Rosa Parks at UMass?"

At this event, we will discuss how we can use a portion of the SGA's funds to
commemorate Ms. Parks. Participants are encouraged to come to the event with
ideas and researched proposals of their own. (Should we purchase resources for
New Africa House? For the X? Should we underwrite a joint cultural RSO event?
Should we publish a one-time journal? Should we commemorate a community member, student or faculty?) Come help decide and share your ideas!

For more info, contact Tosin Fagade at sga.secdiversity@stuaf.umass.edu

update on legal services office

2005-11-21T19:56:00.000-05:00

it's been years in the making, but the GSS and SGA have agreed to a change in the bylaws of the jointly-governed student legal services office. the change was approved unanimously at a meeting of the SLSO board earlier in the month, and overwhelmingly at an SGA meeting last week, thanks in large part to the support of the SGA's executive branch as well as its speaker. it had passed unanimously at GSS's september meeting.

previously, the paragraph in the bylaws regarding funding of the SLSO stated that the SGA pays 75% of the cost of the office, while the GSS pays 25%. it has been changed to a formula in which each government funds the office in proportion to the number of fee-paying members in the organization. for example, if the SGA has 18,000 fee paying members and the GSS has 3000, then the SGA's share of the office's budget is 18,000/(18,000+3000) or roughly 85%, and the GSS's share is the remainder. these example figures are roughly the current state of affairs.

the GSS has maintained for years that given the size that the office's budget has grown to, its share is unreasonably large. for example, for fiscal year 2005-6, the board did not approve a budget for the office, but the office requested, and the SGA approved its 75% share of, a more than $400,000 budget. such a budget would make the SLSO about one third larger (in terms of budget) than the GSS, which would make the GSS's 25% contribution more than $100,000, or one third of its budget. the GSS's actual contribution was $52,000, or one sixth of its budget -by far our largest expenditure for any budget line other than staff.

the new language in the bylaws also emphasizes that the SLSO board's recommended budget for the office are not automatically binding on each government - a reality that had existed but had not been emphasized in the language of the bylaws. this state of affairs has contributed to the friction between the SGA and GSS. this past april, for example, the SGA's university policy committee considered a resolution which would condemn the GSS for not paying its share, and threatened a lawsuit to recover what the committee perceived as money owed by the GSS to the SGA.

what this change does is put into policy what's been effectively our practice. since the GSS has for years been unable to meet its 25% obligation, we have been paying in the 15% range and having the SGA cover the rest. this has been probably the main source of friction between two student governments that really ought to have been working together much more closely. with this change in effect, we expect joint governance of agencies - as well as joint work more generally - to be far more collegial than they have been. one benefit of the GSS and SGA working together has been the reactivation of the campus center/student union commission, whose function is to provide student input into management of the campus center and student union buildings.

other things on the agenda for the student legal services office include: getting criminal defense privileges and a new attorney to handle such cases, having the office's operations audited, and equalizing the graduate and undergraduate schedules for service fees.

graduate voice - now online!

2005-11-21T19:49:00.000-05:00

the current issue of the grad voice is now online, thanks to the efforts of our undergraduate work study jeff napolitano.

in the coming months, look for past issues of the voice to be put online as well, thanks to jeff and former voice editor tom taaffe, who spent much of the summer configuring years of articles for the web. and in general, look for much-expanded web content in the near future.

gargano first!

2005-10-28T15:24:00.000-04:00

rumor has it that gargano's about ready to introduce a policy permitting arbitrary searches of individuals entering dorms, as well as arbitrary searches of dorm rooms. it's certainly compatible with statements and presentations that he's made in the past, as well as with his thuggish mentality.

here's a document he ought to read, or maybe i should say ought to have read to him - the fourth amendment to the U.S. constitution:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

one year later: where's the data?

2005-09-22T12:28:00.000-04:00

sept. 2 marked one year since the state of massachusetts ordered umass amherst officials to comply with massachusetts public records law and provide detailed demographic information about umass students to SGA president eduardo bustamante, who had filed the request. the university has yet to give any indication that it will comply with the order, which came from supervisor of records alan n. cote, who works for secretary of the commonwealth william galvin.

in an interview with the collegian last fall following the order, mike gargano continued to maintain that the information requested could not be provided because of FERPA, the federal law designed to protect privacy. this reasoning was effectively dismissed by the state when it ruled that the data requested by bustamante did not fall under FERPA protection. the purpose of FERPA is to protect the privacy of individual records, not of aggregated data, which is what was requested.

the true reason for the university's illegal withholding of the data was explained to me and bustamante when we met with gargano last summer, before the two of us, like the SGA, realized how utterly pointless it was to meet with him. he explained that he won't give us the information because we would "misuse" it. plainly, the university's concern is not privacy but rather what the data would reveal, were it to be made public.

and what would the data reveal? the request, which was printed fully in the first issue of the graduate voice last year, asks for breakdowns of data on racial, gender and income diversity by department, program, school, town of residence, and other such detailed information designed to go beyond the superficial data that the university reports in order to make itself appear to be a more diverse and accessible place than it actually is. the GSS created the staff position of "educational access research coordinator" largely in order to keep the university honest about its track record on diversity and affordability. the university's withholding of information makes it hard for this staffer to do his job.

the university's contempt for any attempt to hold it accountable is not just the province of extreme misanthropes like gargano: it flows from the top down. chancellor lombardi seems to have evaded criticism here for his contempt for the public, but when he was at the university of florida, he was criticized for, among other things, deriding public record laws, calling them "a crutch for lazy newspeople".

right now the case is sitting in attorney-general reilly's office. he is the official responsible for enforcing the law, and has the power to take whatever measures he deems necessary to ensure compliance. unfortunately he has not acted. keep in mind when he declares his candidacy for governor that he does not respect the state's laws enough to enforce them as an attorney-general.

as for the university's contempt for state law, keep it in mind next time the university wants something from you. if the institution won't take the public seriously enough to comply with state orders, there is no reason why anybody else should take it seriously enough to donate money to it or show any respect for it.

grad lounge update

2005-09-09T14:15:00.000-04:00

the grad lounge opening has been delayed from sept. 12 (this coming monday) to the 19th (the following monday).

also: hours will be 9 am to 9 pm. alcohol will be served between 11 am and 9 pm. this is tremendously upsetting to ashkenazim like me, who are accustomed to drinking whiskey at 8 am. rest assured, i do not intend to serve out my term sober.

interdepartmental grad student colloquium series

2005-09-08T14:57:00.000-04:00

some grad students have initiated a monthly (or so) colloquium series where graduate students give talks for a nonspecialist grad student audience. this is a great idea that helps grad students both professionally and socially, and we jumped at the chance to support it. the details of the first meeting are as follows:

DATE: Thursday, September 29, 2005

TIME: 5:00 pm

PLACE: Bartlett 206

SPEAKER: Jessica Butler (Microbiology)

TALK TITLE: Bacteria That Eat Gasoline, Breathe Iron, and Secrete Nanowires

we're #7!

2005-09-08T14:49:00.000-04:00

umass is rated as the #7 most expensive college campus in the US, in terms of tuition and fees.

the holiday formerly known as columbus day

2005-09-07T18:30:00.000-04:00

i discovered the following commitment from the umass administration:

The campus is willing to arrange for Teach-Ins on the day which Massachusetts calls Columbus Day, and to re-name that day appropriately as far as campus usage is concerned. It will remain a State holiday for those State employees who wish to use it that way.

This is from an agreement between students and the administration dating from november 7, 1992 and commonly known as the ALANA accords. it was mediated by an official from the US justice department, and is a legally binding contract.

what shall it be renamed? my personal preference is hitler day, after the brave and visionary, though ultimately flawed, discoverer of europe. GEO prefers "anti-colonialism day", as reflected in its calendar. i'm sure the administration will choose wisely. i can't wait for the teach-ins at the center for student development.

university keeps fucking with students

2005-09-07T11:04:00.000-04:00

the university's exploitation of students continues to intensify, with changes coming so quickly and suddenly that it's hard to keep up. new things i heard yesterday include:

registered student organizations (RSOs) will start being charged for using audiovisual equipment for events. it's expected that they will start being charged for use of space as well, even as room capacities shrink. this is in buildings - the campus center and student union building - that were built with student money, not taxpayer money. meanwhile, the office of ALANA affairs, confined to a cramped office that can't support the kind of staff it requires, has been told by the administration that it no longer has access to the suffolk room, which it has been using as a meeting space.

on the personnel front, the student activities office is being gutted. the number of professional staff advising RSOs will shrink from an already overworked 5 to 3. what's more, RSO's have been randomly reassigned to advisors, with two effects. first, longtime relationships between RSOs and their advisors have been severed; second, advisors can no longer specialize, as they had in the past, in different sorts of RSOs - cultural, political, religious, recreational, etc.

part of the reduction of staff involves a request for one staff member to voluntarily transfer from student activities to enrollment services, with the indication that if nobody transfers voluntarily, there will be a forced transfer. this would be illegal treatment of professional staff, but of course gargano and his crooked bosses don't give a fuck about the law. nor do they care about promises - in june, student activities staff were told that nobody will be transferred out of that office.

grad lounge reopening: update

2005-09-07T10:54:00.000-04:00

we now have a date for the reopening of the grad lounge: next monday, september 12.

hours of operation will be 9 am to 9 pm. the grad lounge will serve rao's coffee, some pastries a little nicer than the blue wall's fare, and sandwiches. there will also be alcohol served during some business hours.

the grad lounge needs your support to succeed - check it out and tell all your friends!

corruption scandals, great and small

2005-08-21T13:32:00.000-04:00

the daily hampshire gazette has a series of stories by tom marshall in this weekend's edition about umass reporting deceptive figures to the attorney-general's office last year, while the office was investigating what it alleged were umass's violations of public bidding laws. the figure presented by the administration last october was $982,926. according to documents obtained by the gazette under public records law, the actual figure was $1,874,290. but even before this document was revealed, the attorney-general's office had found instances of corruption in the process, and had voided one contract between the university and garland construction co. of chicopee, because the company had failed to disclose a family relationship between company a project manager and a university project manager. afterwards, umass went and contracted with garland again, despite the voiding of the previous contract. according to marshall's article, "lawyers familiar with the state's procurement laws say the university subverted the basic purposes of those laws".

to observers of the umass scene, none of this will come as a surprise - except the fact that the gazette was able to obtain documents from the university under public records law. it has been almost a year since the secretary of state's office ordered the university to provide diversity figures to then-president of the SGA eddie bustamante. other requests for public records have been denied since then, including requests for the transcripts of the diversity commission meetings, where it was resolved to recommend the firing of the michael gargano, the vice chancellor for student affairs.

the GSS has been probing possible university corruption for years, including the case of the peoplesoft contract which, with apparent cost overruns in the hundreds of millions of dollars, makes the painting scandal look like chump change by comparison. when the grad voice goes online on the gss website (hopefully in the next few weeks), many articles on this scandal will become accessible. i urge everyone to check it out (i'll announce it on this list when the paper goes online).

going to board of trustees meeting

2005-08-14T16:26:00.000-04:00

i'll be going to the board of trustees meetings in boston on august 23 and 24 to try to persuade them to enforce their own policies and put the kibosh on the most offensive part of lombardi's anti-diversity plan, which also happens to be the most transparent violation of trustee policy - the seizure of the offices of ALANA affairs and commuter services. i'll be addressing the trustees, as will SGA president pavel payano and GEO political organizer (and former president) jen turner.

if you are in boston or can make it there, please try to come. it's important for the trustees to see members of the umass community actively defending these agencies. it looks very much like gargano's next step is to try to seize control of the student activities trust fund, where funds generated by the student activity fee are placed. if successful, this would amount to the complete destruction of an independent SGA. if you think umass is a shitty place now, wait until student government is gone and all programming is controlled by the nimrod and his lackeys. it's important to put up as fierce a fight as possible right now.

the message below gives the details of the trustee meetings. please spread it around.

+-+-+-+-+

Hello All,

We have a summer request for help: We need you to go to the UMass Board of Trustees meeting in Boston on Tuesday and Wednesday, August 23 and 24th to save the Office of ALANA Affairs and Commuter Services!

Last spring we shut down UMass in order to secure a contract for GEO and to protest Chancellor Lombardi's proposed reorganization of student organizations, support services and advocacy changes. While the A21 boycott secured a contract for GEO (yeah!) Lombardi and Gargano have been sneakily implementing their proposed reorganization while most of the campus has been on summer break. Most notably, the Office of ALANA Affairs and Commuter Services - both student-run agencies that have been essential to UMass's history of activism and student advocacy - are being usurped by the brand new "Center for Student Development" (CSD).

BUT - we have one last opportunity to keep these agencies in students' hands: Valerie Louis, our new student trustee, is putting a motion onto the agenda for the big, upcoming Board of Trustees' meeting. This motion calls for these agencies to remain in students' hands, and to reaffirm the 30 year tradition of student run advocacy agencies.

WE NEED TO SHOW THAT THERE IS POPULAR, STUDENT SUPPORT FOR THESE AGENCIES.
This is our last significant and strategic opportunity to keep the OAA and Commuter Service out of Mike Gargano's hands.

SAVE THE DATE - ask for time off work NOW, and please help us pass out information outside the trustee meetings. Note that WE WILL NOT GO TO THESE MEETINGS IF WE CANNOT GATHER at least 15 PEOPLE TO STAND OUTSIDE the meetings to PASS OUT infromation about the effects of Lombardi's actions for students at UMass.

Save the date!
"Student affairs meeting" - Tuesday, 8/23 at 11:30am @ UMass Boston (if you can only go to one, go to this one)
"Meeting of the whole" - Wednesday, 8/24 at 9:15am @ UMass-Boston

Email contact@takebackumass.com or Mishy at mleiblum@hotmail.com if you can make it to one or both of these meetings. You can also call me for more info, 413.695.4868 - Mishy

***Please forward this to friends and sympathetic list-serves***

grad lounge to reopen

2005-08-12T17:37:00.000-04:00

good news. after being shut down for a couple of years, the grad lounge will reopen this fall. for those of you who haven't been here for long, the grad lounge was a space across from the blue wall mostly used by grad students as a hangout. besides some of the blue wall fare, it served wine and beer. the details are not all set for the reopening, but one definite feature will be rao's coffee. it will be a space where graduate students can socialize, get a coffee, read a newspaper, play a board game or write a paper. and it has a nice courtyard area that can be used when the weather is nice.

here's a pretty good campus watch group

2005-08-09T14:04:00.000-04:00

and here's a pretty awful campus watch group.

housing search cancelled

2005-07-28T13:28:00.000-04:00

breaking news: the search for a new director of housing has been cancelled. instead, there will be promotion from within.

why was a search announced and then cancelled? i don't now, but personnel is not mike gargano's forte. in fact, of all of his shortcomings, dealing with people and personnel might be his worst. maybe he already knows in advance that any external person who is offered the position will decline it.

the KKK of umass

2005-07-20T21:01:00.000-04:00

it's all but official - umass is run by the KKK. i'm not referring to the fact some of our top administrators have worked hand-in-burning-cross with the students of the KKK 9 to dismantle student government. i'm talking about the klowns, kretins and krackers who"manage"
the administrative section of the university, and who now, in a fascist-style reign of terror, are seizing control of those parts of the university that function independently of the administration - all in violation of trustee policy, state law and contractual obligations. oh, for the money to launch a dozen lawsuits!

today, we examine these KKK leaders in their own words. we all know chancellor lombardi got fired from his florida job for his racist remark, calling chancellor adam herbert an "oreo". and we all know vice chancellor mike 'dunk' gargano's famous lines, "if you can't afford umass, go to community college" and "umass needs less old navy and more abercrombie and fitch". here i've collected some lesser-known quotes.

here's lombardi explaining what he meant by "oreo":

"(An oreo is a person) who's black and can operate in a white world"

and here he is on the issue of diversity at umass:

"If I wanted black students, I would buy them like I buy basketball players"

see what i mean by the KKK? gargano, it should be noted, went and parroted this at a different meeting shortly afterward. sometimes incredible stupidity can be as hard to understand as great profundity.

here's lombardi again:

"(Public record laws are) a crutch for news people who are lazy"

this helps explain why umass is run with the same respect for public records laws as the actual KKK.

the next and final quote helps explain why "yo mama" jokes are being replaced by "yo vice chancellor for student affairs and campus life" jokes around here.

"UMass is not a state university. It is a federal university" - mike gargano

recent appointments to councils and committees

2005-06-27T14:24:00.000-04:00

the GSS has recently made the following appointments:

tom heydt-benjamin and julia beyer to the faculty senate's graduate council
arnold ssali to the faculty senate's health council
sally greenhouse and jeannie-marie brown to the university's arts council
nancy deprosse to the university's search committee for the new director of housing
tom taaffe to the university's search committee for the new vice chancellor for the center for student development.

all graduate students with an interest in serving on faculty senate or university councils and committees should contact me at gss-pres@resgs.umass.edu. this is a good way for grad students to provide input into university governance. i am especially interested in finding representatives for the following committees:

the faculty senate's research council
the faculty senate's program and budget council
the faculty senate's status of women council
the faculty senate's status of minorities council
commuter services and housing resource center advisory board (you must be a parent to serve on this committee)

there are also a number of standing and ad hoc GSS committees that we would like to fill, such as child care committee, finance committee, space issues committee, research committee, communications committee, social committee and elections committee. these committees are where much of the work of the graduate student senate gets done. there is no upper limit to involvement in these committees, and the more participation, the better. to get on one of these committees, you need to be appointed by the senate. contact me for more details.

wanted: umass director (of admissions)

2005-06-27T13:35:00.000-04:00

the daily hampshire gazette reports today on the fact that umass has been without a director of admissions for 6 years, with the two finalists from the latest search turning the position down. i've speculated that this might have to do the fact that the position reports to mike gargano, and with the administration's hypocrisy on diversity-related recruitment and support issues. in the gazette article, gargano suggests that it has to do with the perpetually unsure status of state support for umass, and with "an antiquated admissions office that makes it harder to meet recruitment goals".

he adds: "i think the problem, actually, is a lot of folks just didn't know where this institution is headed". no doubt - a lot of folks in particular don't know where student affairs is headed under his own incompetent leadership. some professional student affairs staff don't even know if they'll have jobs at this time next week, and it's anybody's guess when or whether the many offices that have been "decapitated" under his rule - the offices whose directors have been removed and not replaced - will once again be allowed to function at full capacity.

the article notes that the average SAT and GPA of applicants is up this year, and that enrollment is expected to be higher than last year. given the well-known fact that SAT scores tend to correlate well with socioeconomic status, we can speculate that the rise in SAT scores indicates that the trend of purging low-SES students from umass is continuing.

although GPA is supposed to be a better indicator of academic prospects that SAT scores, there is a sociological factor affecting GPA that isn't often mentioned: weighted GPA. in massachusetts, advanced placement (AP) courses can produce "bonus" GPA points compared to regular courses. and AP courses are not offered at all high schools - they tend to be offered in high schools in higher-income neighborhoods. a trusted source in the umass admissions office assures me that the biasing effect of weighted GPA is not an important factor, but the question lingers.

the trend towards boosting out-of-state enrollment, mentioned in the gazette article as one of gargano's priorities, is yet another indication of the departure of umass's admissions practices from the university's responsibility to the massachusetts public. if it's true that umass students continue to come from higher income levels, it suggests that the quality of umass undergraduate students continues to deteriorate, by suggesting that qualified students from low-income backgrounds must obtain higher and higher SAT scores and GPA, and have higher and higher levels of motivation for enrolling in a university which increasingly excludes people like them.

one positive note in the article is that (according to gargano) there is no change in the number of applications from students of color, and a slight rise in the number of students of color putting down deposits. it's not clear to me how to reconcile these facts with the administration's attacks on diversity programs.

another positive point is the new "first choice, early action" program, which rewards students who name umass as their first choice. statistics are not currently collected on what other schools umass applicants apply to, but it's been argued that there are many umass undergraduates for whom umass is a "safety" school - often students who are privileged enough, but not qualified enough, to be able to attend more prestigious private institutions. such students have been blamed for much of the rowdiness associated with umass undergrads. it would seem to benefit the university to admit in their place students who appreciate what umass can offer them.

valley free: online classifieds

2005-06-17T10:07:00.000-04:00

town of amherst planning committee seeks input

2005-06-10T10:40:00.000-04:00

Grad students! The town of Amherst planning committee is looking for input on the future of the town. Should Amherst have more public transportation or less? More retirement housing, more stores, or both? More economic development to help stabilize taxes? More protection for green space or more sprawl? Come voice your thoughts at a public meeting to discuss planning issues.

Time: Thursday, June 16, 7 pm

Location: Parish Hall at 14 Spring Street, behind Grace Church in downtown Amherst.

Need more info? call Niels at the Amherst planning department: 256-4040.

the new umass mission statement

2005-06-09T11:22:00.000-04:00

just got the minutes of the board of trustees series of meetings this past february (what's with the 4 month time lag?).

most of the transpiring were of the routine kind, such as appointments, setting tuition and fees, naming chairs, and financial stuff i don't understand.

one change that i found interesting is the revised mission statement, which reads as follows:

"The University's mission is to provide an affordable and accessible education of high quality and to conduct programs of research and public service that advance knowledge and improve the lives of the people of the Commonwealth, the nation and the world".

i found a different version on the umass amherst provost's website (why not on the trustees' website?), which i take to be the old version. The substantive differences are:

- the new mission statement adds "accessible" to "affordable" as a property of the kind of education that the university provides.

- the new mission statement adds the nation and the world as domains of people who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of the research and public service of the university.

these both seem like improvements to me. "accessible" is a broader notion than "affordability". it implies that the university endeavors to remove restrictions other than financial ones that might impede students' ability to earn a umass education, such as physical or religious restrictions that might require special accommodations. it might also be taken to imply a commitment to combatting the forms of social oppression that LGBT, female, minority and other students have to face during their tenure at umass.

wanna be a radio DJ?

2005-06-06T21:52:00.000-04:00

(from kate harris)

WMUA, the campus/community radio station at UMass/Amherst, begins its summer DJ training this Tuesday, June 7th from 7-9pm at the WMUA studios, which are in the basement of the Campus Center building (take the elevator or escalator down from the concourse).

This training is provided free for all and will meet for four more
consecutive Tuesdays. There is still room - if you're interested, please
contact Glenn Siegel <advisor@wmua.org>, WMUA's Administrative Advisor.

Training specifics are available here.
Info about joining the station is here.

WMUA's Objective Statements:

WMUA will serve as a training facility in all facets of management and
operations of a non-profit radio station.
WMUA will promote and support student empowerment.
WMUA will serve as a forum for individuals and groups that historically
have not had access to broadcast media.
WMUA will provide programming and services that promote a sensitivity to
the different social and educational needs of the listening area.

no director of admissions

2005-05-31T18:56:00.000-04:00

so apparently both final candidates for the position of director of admissions rejected our offers, and after more than a year of searching, we are still without a director of admissions.

i don't know what the reasons for the rejections were, but i can tell you why i would never take that position - it falls under gargano in the university's chain of command. i wouldn't be surprised if this played a role in the candidates' decision. who would want to be in charge of admissions at the flagship campus in a diverse state, when your boss makes remarks in public forums about how students who can't afford to go to university should just go to community college? why would a person with expertise in recruiting a diverse student population work at a college that's increasingly shutting students of color out? how could the director of admissions sell umass to prospective students of color and low-income students, when the administration - with gargano at the front lines - is destroying all the programs that help such students adjust? why would anybody with any talent want to work for a vice chancellor who demands complete conformity and will fire any underling who disagrees with him, even in the underling's area of expertise?

this debacle is just one more reason why that clown and his protective boss lombardi should be sent packing.

new executive; new office manager; new social plans

2005-05-31T18:40:00.000-04:00

i haven't been minding this blog lately. but with the crazyness of the end of semester over, and the changing of the guard at the GSS under control, i should be posting more regularly.

the new GSS executive takes over starting tomorrow. that consists of me (uri strauss) as president, anil duman as vice president, ahmed hassan as treasurer, and arnold ssali as executive officer. we look forward to imposing a reign of terror on the graduate students at umass. in the last year, we chastised you with whips. this year, we shall chastise you with scorpions.

we also hired a new office manager, who is a veteran of the GSS - daniel koroma. we look forward to a productive year of working with daniel and our other new staff, to be hired soon.

the GSS social committee, which wasn't able to meet so regularly since its formation in the spring semester, has been meeting regularly this summer. last week we had our first event of the summer - a graduate student get-together at the harp - a pub in north amherst with a nice patio, were we hung out. it as nice, but we need a better turnout than just 7-8 people. we're going again this friday at 5 pm (meet on the patio), and hopefully every friday this summer. we're also planning a BBQ on june 26 - stay tuned for details.

not an ambi-turner

2005-05-06T19:01:00.000-04:00

here's what i learned by sitting in on budget hearings today.
first, i learned that this blog has at least one reader (hi susan!).

second, i learned that while mike gargano is perfectly capable of firing people, he seems incapable of hiring them. every office or program that did not have a director when he became vice chancellor on june 1, 2003, or which lost a director since then, seems to not have a director now. in other words, it seems that no new directors have been hired since the gargano first stumbled into the student affairs office.

what does this remind me of? ben stiller's character in zoolander: the model who isn't "an ambi-turner" because he can turn right but not left.

no wonder when the chancellor's plan calls for a new associate vice chancellor in the student affairs area, implementation falls to associate chancellor terry, while the hiring committee is
chaired by dean vanin.

election results

2005-05-03T13:07:00.000-04:00

The following are the results of the Elections held on 28th and 29th April:

Executive for year 2005-06

President: Uri Strauss
Vice President: Anil Duman
Executive Officer: Arnold Ssali
Treasurer: Ahmed Hassan

Details of the Election are as follows:

President
Uri Strauss: 204
George Liu: 3

Vice President
Anil Duman: 142
Sally Greenhouse: 57
Will Fisher: 1
Martin Robinson: 1
Pankaj Bansal: 1

Executive Officer
Zhixiong He: 64
Arnold Ssali: 138
George Liu: 71
Pilar Robert: 1
Theresa Perrone: 1

Treasurer
Ahmed Hassan: 204
Zhixiong He: 1
Kerry Pierce: 1
Shahadat Chaudhary: 1
Ambarish Karmalkar: 1
Emre Ozberk: 1
Min Chen: 1

Thanks.

Abhishek Ahuja
Pankaj Bansal
Ambarish Karmalkar

higher ed in massachusetts report card

2005-04-30T11:59:00.000-04:00

massachusetts gets As in four categories: preparation (how well students are prepared for college), participation (how many people are able to go to college), completion (how many students who enter college complete their degree) and benefits (how well do colleges contribute to the state). it scores an F in affordability.

some hedges are in order about the A's: when income and race are factored in, there are some concerning trends. the report card notes that the gap in participation between majority and minority students is widening, and that low-income students perform exceptionally poorly on math tests, compared to their peers in other states. it also notes that fewer students are completing high school on schedule, which is no doubt income- and race-stratified, thanks to the MCAS test.

a more detailed report can be read here. studies with more of a focus on the accessibility of higher education to underrepresented minorities can be found here.

the social mission of higher education

2005-04-25T12:11:00.000-04:00

i wrote this for the november 2004 issue of the graduate voice.

uri

+-+-+-+-+-+-+

The Social Mission of Higher Education

We are used to thinking of the missions of higher education as being teaching and research, and indeed this is the view that is usually promoted by university administrators, politicians and business leaders. But from the perspective of poor and working people – the large majority of us – there is an important mission that’s not usually mentioned: the social mission of promoting greater equality. In this article I will briefly try to show why we should consider this mission central to our concerns.

The social mission

It is established that a strong positive correlation exists between educational level and income in the United States. According to the RAND corporation’s report “Breaking the Social Contract”, educational level is the single most important factor in determining income level in the United States. Comparative studies have shown that countries that have achieved relatively high levels of social equality have done it in large part thanks to an accessible higher education system. Increasingly, a college degree is the necessary level of education to qualify for middle-income jobs.

This suggests an important social mission for public higher education: promoting economic and social equality. At times, universities in the United States have served these functions. For example, millions of veterans took advantage of the GI Bill of 1944, in which the federal government covered tuition and most expenses for war veterans going to college. This undoubtedly played a significant role in pulling many people into higher income levels. If social and economic equality are important social goals, then the accessibility of higher education to low income individuals is a crucial necessity.

The fact that universities have a social mission does not mean that they don’t also have other missions, such as research excellence, education and training. The argument is not that universities should be turned into welfare centers. The point is that as a result of the way that higher education institutions are currently structured, qualified students are unable to get a college education, to the detriment of themselves, their communities and society in general. Higher education institutions in general need to be more open to qualified students. And public land grant universities like UMass have an extra responsibility to prioritize the social mission. Our state has its Harvards and MITs, where cutting-edge research in the humanities, pure and applied sciences are supported. If UMass is restructured in an attempt to be a more mediocre version of these schools, we would lose a very valuable potential tool for social equalization.

Free higher education: Affordable

Can higher education be made accessible to every qualified individual who desires it? In a country with the wealth of the United States, the answer is an undoubted, unequivocal yes. The cases of free higher education that we can point to as precedents – the GI Bill, the CUNY system in New York City that provided free education for city residents, the free tuition in European countries and elsewhere – have all been implemented by governments with far fewer resources than our current federal government commands. All of these precedents have been strong successes.

The annual cost of tuition and fees for all students currently in colleges or universities is estimated at $25 billion. In terms of federal expenditures, this is paltry. It is a fraction of the portion of the Bush tax cut that went to the wealthiest 1% of the population. To look at it another way, it is a fraction of the differential between the US military budget and the combined military budgets of the next ten highest spenders.

The issue is one of priorities. An accessible college education is clearly not a priority for the current Republican administration, nor for any Republican or Democratic administration in the recallable past or the foreseeable future. As is often the case with bipartisan priorities, we can see a class dynamic at play: while working and poor people would love to see free higher education, as surely as we would love to see free health care, the wealthiest Americans do not want such a system, so the issue is off the political map.

Accessible higher education: A human right

Besides being a progressive idea, accessible higher education is recognized as a human right by the world’s highest authorities. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes that “higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.” (Article 26). International conventions such as the Convention against Discrimination in Education (1960) and the Declaration of the World Conference on Higher Education (1998) reaffirm this right, and accessibility is enshrined as one of the basic principles of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

The corporatization of UMass

Decisions concerning the accessibility of education belong most naturally at the federal level, secondarily at the state level, which is the level of government where decisions about the funding of universities actually take place. But making higher education accessible is the responsibility of the individual university as well. The decisions that are made by a university's board of trustees and administrative officers can have a significant impact on whether low-income people can get into the university, and if so, whether they can survive it.

Here at UMass Amherst, the main players are the Board of Trustees, President Wilson and his staff, and the administration of UMass Amherst, headed by Chancellor Lombardi. The Board of Trustees is the ultimate decision-making body of the university, and is largely drawn from the world of corporate executives and corporate-friendly bureaucrats. President Wilson is as much an entrepreneur as an academic, if not more so.

Given this type of leadership, along with the inherently conservative nature of bureaucracies, it is not surprising that the concerns of these decision makers are largely the same as the corporate agenda for higher education, which includes innovative research that will result in marketable products and skilled graduates suitable for work in our advanced economy. The social mission of the university is not part of their agenda. In fact, it hampers their agenda, since all else being equal, it's cheaper and easier to produce the research and workers that the corporations want if the raw materials are well-educated students from middle- and upper-income families, and not students from poor areas who went to substandard high schools, if they attended high school at all.

Chancellor Lombardi comes from a bit of a different place - he is an administrator with an academic background. Along with President Wilson, he was hired in order to implement some specific sorts of changes at UMass, namely to consolidate its transformation from an institution that has had some success in implementing its land grant mission - a social mission - into a top-notch research school – an academic mission. The chancellor has for years been involved with initiatives to measure performance - meaning performance in terms of academic and research missions, not social missions - of higher education institutions. His plans for UMass Amherst have been stated clearly and repeatedly, and can be found online in the Executive Summary of the Amherst Campus Strategic Plan.

The chancellor’s priority is to turn this campus into one of the top centers of research in the country. As he readily acknowledges, this requires money, and money that is spent in pursuit of this mission is money that's not being spent on things like health care, child care, student support services, wages for workers, and other expenditures more in keeping with the ideal of an accessible university. It's also money that's extracted from students through higher tuition, service fees and housing costs. This means driving up the cost of a UMass education, pulling it further out of the reach of low-income people. Though not necessarily driven by it, this approach fits well with the corporate agenda for education, and it undermines the goal of social equality.

Tuition and debt up, access down

The corporatization of education at UMass is indicative of a more general trend. The results across the country and the world are worrisome: tuition at public institutions is climbing steadily, in some places skyrocketing. Meanwhile, the traditional way of paying for an education – Pell grants and other non-merit-based grants, are covering less and less of the cost of an education, and are being replaced by loans. As a result, many qualified students are not able to attend college.

Adolph Reed’s article “Majoring in Debt” (The Progressive, Jan. 2004) cites a report by the Congressional Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, which finds that “by the end of this decade as many as 4.4 million college-qualified high school graduates will be unable to enroll in a four-year college, and two million will not go to college at all because they can't afford it.” The same article reports that for the majority of students at four-year public institutions who graduate with debt, the average debt load is $17,000. Undoubtedly this figure will continue to rise. Other students avoid this fate by working long hours outside of school, delaying their graduation or dropping out altogether.

The picture at UMass

At UMass, the result of these trends, together with the state’s slashing of our budget, has been the elimination or scaling back of many services. To mention just a few, we have lost our on-campus pre-school program and our foreign language resource center.
Many of our other programs, including academic departments and all sorts of support services, have sustained cuts at different levels. UMass used to have a highly-regarded ALANA advising program, but as a result of restructuring, many students have been switched over to advising through their academic programs, an unpopular move among the students who have been affected. And tuition and fees continue to climb.

The way forward

The corporatization of UMass is part of the war against the working class and the poor that is happening nationwide and worldwide. It goes hand in hand with Bush’s dismantling of the progressive taxation system, Clinton’s welfare reform, the attacks on unions, and the replacement of social programs with the prison system, which now has more young African Americans “enrolled” than colleges and universities do. The fight against the corporatization at UMass is part of the fight for people’s rights more generally.

We need to keep in mind and to articulate the social role of higher education. We cannot accept the administration’s emphasis on research and teaching excellence as a cover for the dismantling of the accessible university. While supporting high-quality teaching and research, we must demand that the university meet its obligations as a social and economic institution and as a community of human beings. To relent, to allow UMass to degenerate until it is a mere knowledge factory, would be to surrender to the corporate agenda. If we don’t identify with corporate interests, we must fight them at all levels, including at UMass.

report on april 21 walkout/boycott

2005-04-24T21:11:00.000-04:00

a report with photos on last week's walkout/boycott, by umass labor center graduate student and former graduate voice editor bryan pfeifer, can be viewed here.

What apathy? Students rise up across nation

2005-04-24T20:59:00.000-04:00

marc rodriguez wrote this. i'm posting it without permission.

uri

+-+-+-+-+-+

"Right next door to the apathy that is almost universal on U.S. campuses, there has been an amazing revival of student activism unseen for decades in Québec. Yet almost no U.S. students will know anything about it because of a virtually complete black-out in mainstream U.S. media--and very little coverage even on U.S. alternative and left-wing sites. Perhaps that doesn't matter, since most U.S. students seem perfectly content with the status quo. . ."

-Tom Reeves, "Lessons for US Radicals: Students Rise Again in Quebec," 4/15/05,
http://www.counterpunch.org/reeves04152005.html

Amidst continuing anti-military-recruitment work
(http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/145294/index.php), students and allies recently stepped up their struggles for justice on campuses across the U.S., focusing on, but not limited to, issues of fair treatment and compensation for the essential work done by staff and graduate student employees at institutions of higher education, as well as around questions of who has and doesn't have access to these institutions.

Here at UMass/Amherst a coalition of undergraduate and graduate students (represented, respectively, by Take Back UMass [www.takebackumass.com] and the Graduate Employees Organization/UAW [www.geouaw.org]) succeeded in virtually shutting down the campus on Thursday the 21st with a massive class boycott and one-day graduate employee walkout which saw huge pickets of graduate employees and allies as well as a barbeque and outdoor teach-in attended by 1,000 people at its peak.

A loud and boisterous "Critical (U)Mass" bike ride through the campus lifted the spirits and increased the visibility of picketers. Tours of prospective students and their parents were followed by loudly chanting and sign-waving protestors. As the day progressed and the realization of how dead and empty the campus was came over more and more people, the intensity and sense of victory on the picket lines increased. Picketers looked at each other and tried to say "we're winning" in voices that had become barely audible due to the constant chanting and yelling.

Speakers at the teach-in included several leaders and activists from Take Back Umass and GEO, in addition to UMass faculty and professors, author Barbara Ehrenreich, and striking graduate employees from Yale. A message of support from activist-scholar Howard Zinn was read out by a student.

UMass students made it clear that they would not accept the authoritarian, corporatist restructuring proposal being promoted by the chancellor (http://www.takebackumass.com/documents/lombardi-brochure2.pdf), and that cuts to real wages and benefits and the blatantly political and opportunistic targeting of queer union members (http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~geo/gp/barg/barg-latest.html) would not be tolerated.

An amazing day and demonstration of unity and power was pulled off with relatively little time yet an awe-inspiring amount of hard work spent on organizing.

In the days leading up to the 21st, grads and undergrads fliered and talked with their fellow students, phone banked, held teach-ins during classes in lecture halls, dropped banners, chalked the campus, won pledges of support from literally hundreds of faculty members, and in general succeeded in getting a progressive, pro-union and pro-diversity message out to thousands upon
thousands of students who chose either to stay home or attend the teach-ins rather than show up to class on Thursday. Folks who walked through classroom buildings during the day's activities found them to be near empty.

What follows is only a quick roundup of some recent actions across the country (and beyond)... for an excellent write-up on the actions at UMass and their overall political, national and international context (as well as some great photos), see "Student-workers, unions and community a potent force: Spring rebellions show signs of a growing movement" by Bryan G. Pfeifer, available at: http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display/35553/index.php.

-Marc R., GEO; student, UMass Labor Center

>>>

The aforementioned Quebec student strike, involving 230,000 students:
"Québec Students Strike, Occupy, Blockade": http://dominionpaper.ca/canadian_news/2005/03/28/quebec_stu.html

"Campuses With a Cause: Diverse issues inspire students":
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/04/18/diverse_issues_inspire_stud ents/
The Boston Globe takes note of actions across Massachusetts in support of educational access and university employees, including a forum held at UMass/Amherst on the Free Higher Education Campaign (http://www.freehighered.org/).

Protestors at UC Santa Cruz, creating a "tent city" April 18-22 to demonstrate against and symbolize the "displacement of higher education..." and "unjust budget priorities that manifest at our campus, including massive student fee increases and unlivable wages for campus workers," were met with brutal police repression but vowed to continue the encampment anyway:

"It's Our University: Tent University Santa Cruz":
http://ucsc.tentstate.com/

"Tent University Santa Cruz, April 18-22: Claiming UCSC As Our Own":
http://santacruz.indymedia.org/feature/display/17074/index.php

"Tent University Outrage: A Photo Editorial":
http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/17462/index.php

The AFL-CIO reports "Student Fight for Workers’ Rights Spreads Nationwide":
http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/ns04152005.cfm

...as does the Washington Post, "Students' Clout Helping Workers -- and Unions: Colleges Are Bright Spot For Labor Organizing":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35521-2005Apr7?language=printer

Why the strike at Yale and Columbia?
“Bush’s Labor Board Denies Graduate Employees of Rights as Workers”:
http://www.aflcio.org/aboutunions/voiceatwork/ns07162004.cfm

“Yale, Columbia, UMass Amherst grad students fight back: Strikes, walkouts,
boycotts mark week of April 18-22” By Bryan G. Pfeifer:
http://wmass.indymedia.org/newswire/display/4650/index.php

Graduate Student Employees United at Columbia:
http://www.2110uaw.org/gseu/

Graduate Employees and Students Organization at Yale:
http://www.yaleunions.org/geso/

What has become clear to many in the Graduate Employee movement and the overall educational acces movement is the context of exclusion and increasing corporatization of the university. In essence, students in these struggles are fighting for a democratic vision of the university where all are able to attend and fully develop as people regardless of race or economic class. On the other side is a corporate vision in which the university exists to train the future technicians and middle managers of American capitalism, with the university itself serving as a profit-making institution.

This context is clearly explained by GESO President Mary Reynolds in her piece “University's future at stake on picket lines,” where she writes, “We are striking because American universities, like Yale, are run more and more like corporations, with less control by those who do the teaching and research and more focus on the bottom line. We are striking because our university administrations look to shift their teaching and research to people like us -- graduate teachers, postdoctoral fellows, adjunct instructors -- who are a cheap and flexible source of labor…”:
http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=29352

Updates from the Coalition of Graduate Employee unions:
http://coalitionofgraduateemployeeunions.blogspot.com/

Send a message to Bush and the presidents of Yale and Columbia:
http://www.labourstart.org/cgi-bin/solidarityforever/show_campaign.cgi?c=47

Last but certainly not least, April 22nd also marked the anniversary of the 1969 Open Admissions student strike by the black and Puerto Rican students of New York’s City College, and a ceremony was held at “rememberance rock,” where a plaque marks the spot of one of the buildings that was taken over during the strike. Struggles such as those of the CUNY students in 1969 paved the way for us today and continue to be an inspiration as we continue to struggle and organize for a free and democratic university…

“The Politics of Race and Class at CUNY”:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/6353/chrislnr.htm

“memories of the events of May-June 1969 at City College”:
http://theword.hunter.cuny.edu/archive/vol44/aboutcuny/april3.html

230,000 college students on strike in quebec

2005-04-18T11:50:00.000-04:00

ever wonder why canadians are so much better off than we are in this country? well, because they fight for it.

it's amazing that this can happen a few hundred miles from here and yet nobody here has heard of it.

academic integrity and sponsored research

2005-04-11T15:41:00.000-04:00

a blog of interest. thanks to tom taaffe for pointing it out.

clarification concerning this blog

2005-04-11T09:59:00.000-04:00

contrary to some information out there, this blog does not have official GSS status, although it is controlled by the current president of GSS. i post stuff on here that i wouldn't post in an official blog. it's linked to the GSS web page because it's much easier to get announcements out on a blog than on a web page.

review of gargano, m., "a study to determine whether or not the principles of sportsmanship and ethical conduct can coexist with the competing...

2005-04-08T17:00:00.000-04:00

as some of y'all know, our charmingly incompetent vice chancellor of student affairs, mike gargano, wrote his ed.d. dissertation at george washington university. i downloaded his dissertation from proquest digital dissertations, and it's the best 30 bucks i've ever spent. if you like non-sequiturs, bad writing, and errors of punctuation and grammar, you'll love gargano's dissertation. to see what i mean, check out the free 24-page preview of his dissertation here.

for example: read the title - this should take about half a minute. then go to page 18 of the pdf file (the dissertation's page 16) and read the last sentence of the first paragraph, and then the first sentence of the second paragraph. then on page 22 (the dissertation's page 20), look at the last sentence above the heading "methodology". it's like he learned a sentence and just keeps repeating it over and over.

hannah arendt, in her book eichmann in jerusalem: a report on the banality of evil, mentions that adolf eichmann, who was extraordinarily inarticulate, had a collection of stock phrases which he found "elating" and would repeat again and again because of the impact they had on him. maybe this is what's at work here. or maybe he's just plagiarizing himself - i hear this can happen in very dumb people.

final version: umass community action plan

2005-04-02T11:26:00.000-05:00

this is the final version of a document i posted a draft of earlier.

board of higher ed rejects law school

2005-04-01T12:30:00.000-05:00

the massachusetts board of higher education has rejected umass's plan to develop the only public law school in the state.

i've been a little skeptical myself, but i note that the yes voters in the 8-3 vote included the union rep and the student rep, while the no voters came mostly from the corporate world.

in separate state higher education news: here's a good editorial from the republican about the higher ed task force's report.

global rich list

2005-04-01T09:15:00.000-05:00

this week's WHISC ("what's happening in south college" - the linguistics department's e-newsletter) reveals a couple of notable facts.

first, the umass graduate program in linguistics has maintained its #1 national ranking, according to the national research council.

second, i am in the top 12% of income earners, worldwide. in fact, i am the 662,781,372th richest person in the world. so i'm told, with great authority, by the global rich tes t. i'm gonna go myself some champagne to celebrate.

senate task force: public higher ed needs $400 million

2005-03-30T12:48:00.000-05:00

the full report is here. a story from the berkshire eagle can be read here.

among the recommendations, summarized by the berkshire eagle:

$400 million in spending over five to seven years to compensate for budget cuts.
$3 billion in borrowing to fund capital projects over 10 years, including $1.7 million [this should say "billion" - US] for the five-campus University of Massachusetts and $1.2 billion for state and community colleges.
$150 million to fund new UMass laboratories, equipment and facilities to enhance research and development.
$24 million in new funding for financial aid.
$20 million to endow UMass science and technology professorships.
$1 million in work-force training funds to expand high-demand programs such as nursing.

picketing code

2005-03-28T15:45:00.001-05:00

your graduate student senate met last tuesday. it was well attended, in the sense that we barely made quorum. the senate passed several resolutions, including a resolution to reject chancellor lombardi's restructuring plan, and the following resolution, to not recognize the picketing code.

passed: March 22, 2005

Whereas the administration's Picketing Code is unreasonably restrictive, for example setting strict standards for noisiness of demonstrations, and

Whereas the Picketing Code empowers the administration to impose unreasonable punishments for minor infractions, for example permitting the university to expel a student for being noisy, and

Whereas the attitudes and conduct of some administrators towards students have made it clear that they cannot be entrusted with disciplining students, and

Whereas the Wellman Document delegates primary responsibility for student issues, explicitly including student discipline, to student governments, within the overarching power of the Board of Trustees, and

Whereas the Picketing Code exclusively concerns student conduct and discipline, and

Whereas the Amherst campus administration has neither consulted student governments in its formulation of the Picketing Code, and

Whereas the Board of Trustees has not enacted the Picketing Code,

Therefore be it resolved that the Graduate Student Senate does not recognize the Picketing Code to be university policy, and views any attempt to impose punishment based on the picketing code as entirely arbitrary;

Be it further resolved that the Graduate Student Senate work with the Student Government Association to draft a new Picketing Code, which balances the free speech rights of students, and the right to be free from unusually severe punishment, with the need of the university to conduct its business. The administration should be invited to provide input into the process, as appropriate.

from the graduate voice: "the diversity proposal that wasn't"

2005-03-28T15:41:00.000-05:00

here be an article i wrote for "the graduate voice" - now available at newspaper stands all over campus.

The Diversity Proposal That Wasn’t
by Uri Strauss

On March 12, the first day of Spring Break, Chancellor Lombardi posted a plan entitled “On Improving Diversity at UMass: A Draft Action Plan”, ostensibly a response to the set of recommendations contained in the March 1 report of the Commission on Campus Diversity. In reality, the Chancellor has broken his promise to implement the commission’s recommendations. His proposal rejects or ignores most of them, including its main recommendation and all the ones regarding student affairs. Instead, he proposes to destroy independent student government, reversing decades of a proud UMass tradition, while considerably strengthening Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Michael Gargano, who undergraduate students voted no confidence in last November. In this space I’ll present my analysis of the Chancellor’s proposal, as well as an insider’s view of the Commission on Campus Diversity (I was one of two students who sat on the Commission).

Not a diversity proposal

On the first day the Commission met, the Chancellor delivered the charge in his typical plain-spoken, easy-flowing style that fools many people into thinking he’s a straight-talking, no-bullshit kind of guy. During this speech, he made a very clear promise to the Commission: whatever it recommends, he will do. It could not have been said more clearly or less ambiguously. As a result, his subsequent breaking of the promise could not have been more dishonest.

Let’s start with the Commission’s main recommendation: the creation of a senior administrative position to be the main point-person for diversity initiatives. Though it was not flagged in the Commission’s report as being the main recommendation, in internal discussions the Commission treated it that way. Certainly, the fact that it is at the top of the list in the report’s executive summary, and the fact that it in terms of restructuring it is the biggest recommendation, make it more prominent than the Commission’s other 26 recommendations.

The Chancellor rejects this recommendation out of hand, on the pretext that since diversity is a key priority for all areas of the university, and since the Chancellor is the chief official of the university, he himself is the accountable official for diversity concerns. Obviously there’s something wrong with this reasoning. The Chancellor has not been fired nor otherwise held accountable for the serious diversity failings of the University, including the events that led to the formation of the Commission. The reality is that if diversity was truly a core value, like academics, research, administration, and student life, there would be a senior official in charge of it, as there are for those areas. The only reason the Chancellor can get away making such cynical statements about diversity is precisely because it is not a central value of the university.

To what extent is the Chancellor’s proposal a rejection of the Diversity Commission’s recommendations? I can think of six levels at which a set of proposals could fail to live up to the diversity recommendations that supposedly form the basis for them. In order of increasing offensiveness, they are: (1) ignoring the recommendations; (2) rejecting the spirit of the recommendations; (3) rejecting the recommendations outright; (4) making proposals that are explicitly against the recommendations; (5) using the cover of the set of recommendations to implement an anti-diversity agenda; and (6) distorting the recommendations in order to make them seem to be supporting the anti-diversity agenda.

The Chancellor’s proposal contains all six of these. Many of the Commission’s guidelines are simply ignored or rejected, and the whole tone of the proposal goes against the values of diversity and inclusiveness that are emphasized in the Commission’s report. A good example is the Chancellor’s theorizing that students’ frustration and dissatisfaction results from student programs being “scattered throughout the campus bureaucracy” in “relative isolation”. The Commission’s report, in contrast, validates students’ own explanation for their frustration and dissatisfaction, which is quite different from the Chancellor’s, and largely has to do with the deprioritization of diversity programs and with the contempt that the campus leadership shows for them, exemplified by the Chancellor’s rejection of students’ own accounts of their frustration.

The proposed restructuring of Student Affairs in the Chancellor’s proposal includes a hostile takeover of SGA and GSS agencies, which directly contradicts the Commission’s insistence that “student voices should be valued and the integrity of student government and its agencies respected”. The proposed Student Affairs restructuring is an attack on diversity under the cover of a diversity proposal, a cynical exercise worthy of George W. Bush. By taking control of the SGA and GSS agencies and putting them under the programmatic control of the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, the proposal hands the reins of the historically most committed and effective advocates for diversity on campus to a man who is well-known for his hostility towards diversity, as well as a range of problematic attitudes towards students.

The most cynical kind of dishonesty that the Chancellor’s proposal exemplifies is its attempt to justify its reactionary agenda by appealing to the Diversity Commission’s recommendations. For example, the Student Affairs part of his plan is directly counter to the spirit and letter of the recommendations, as I have just briefly reviewed. Yet the proposal cites seven of the Commission’s recommendations in an attempt to justify it. Evidently, the author is not aware that such overjustification usually looks suspicious to the intelligent reader. I don’t know whether the author is Chancellor Lombardi, displaying contempt for the intelligence of the reader, or Vice Chancellor Gargano, displaying his own lack of intelligence.

Actually, it seems fairly clear that Gargano had a hand in writing the document. The hodge-podge nature of the proposal, with its reasonably progressive and useful Academic Affairs section and its backwards and pathetically argued Student Affairs section suggest that the former was written by Provost Seymour while the latter was written by Gargano. Some of the language in the Student Affairs section, such as the reference to students of color as “non-majority” students, as well as the pseudo-hippie passages about all students just getting along, are pretty good indicators.

An Alternative Proposal: UMass Community Action Plan

In response to the clear inadequacies of the Chancellor’s proposal, the student members of the Commission – Eddie Bustamante and I – wrote up a set of guidelines along which to implement the Commission’s recommendation, and then wrote an alternative proposal, the UMass Community Action Plan, based on those guidelines, which include being consistent with the Diversity Commission’s report and being written in the spirit of respect for all members of the UMass community. The proposal implements all 27 of the Commission’s recommendations and makes additional suggestions for improvement of the campus.

The UMass Community proposal offers a clear alternative to Chancellor Lombardi’s proposal, one which would improve campus diversity if enacted. It is available on the Take Back UMass website (http://www.takebackumass.com) and will be presented to different sections of the UMass community for feedback and support. The Graduate Student Senate, at its March 22 meeting, rejected Chancellor Lombardi’s proposal and called for an alternative proposal, based on the guidelines of the UMass Community Action Plan.

The Banality of Evil Administrators

One of the Commission’s recommendations that never made it to the final document, for reasons of tact mostly, was the recommendation that Vice Chancellor Gargano be fired. Rather than put it in writing, the Commission asked Chair Taylor to convey this recommendation to Chancellor Lombardi in person. Those who think I’m being too harsh on the Vice Chancellor in this article should read the transcripts of the Commission’s proceedings when they become available. They will provide insight into his character and an understanding of why the Commission was so repulsed by him, while sparing the reader the discomfort of an actual interaction in close proximity to the Vice Chancellor. I’m disappointed that the transcripts have not yet been released – they would have worked well in The Voice’s entertainment section.

What the transcripts would show is the following: our Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs shows an exceptionally poor capacity for understanding simple questions, even when they are asked repeatedly. But his comprehension varies based on the identity of the person posing the question, and he understands questions much better when men ask them than when women ask them. (How would he perform if asked a simple question by a transgendered person? This is an interesting question that can only be investigated empirically.) The Vice Chancellor, in a manner that suggests not linguistic disorder but abnormal psychology, will sometimes use descriptions to refer to himself, rather than first person pronouns, as in: “When the Vice Chancellor came to UMass on June 1, 2003, the Vice Chancellor noticed such-and-such”. Gargano came across as a person constitutionally incapable of accepting responsibility for anything. When particular criticisms or questions of decisions regarding Student Affairs would be raised, he would not address the substance of the criticism, but repeatedly assert that he is not responsible, saying things like, “I came to UMass on June 1, 2003. Anything that happened before then can’t be blamed on me”. When not using that excuse, he was blaming students for problems within Student Affairs, such as lack of cultural programming. All the while, he presented himself to the Commission, in a pathetic, self-pitying tone, as a victim of unfair accusations of racism.

The Commission was not impressed with the Vice Chancellor, and one commission member blasted him more than once (he seemed not to understand). After he left, off-campus members expressed their disbelief, asking, “how could you let this guy become a Vice Chancellor”? The Commission had no trouble reaching the conclusion that Gargano, besides being completely unqualified for his job, is a serious obstacle to diversity at UMass. The only debate that took place was about the best way to recommend that he be fired.

The final decision was to make the recommendation privately to the Chancellor. Clearly, the recommendation was ignored. As I’ve mentioned, Gargano appears to have written a chunk of the Chancellor’s proposal, and without a doubt it is his agenda that has been proposed. I’ve been told that the consolidation of all student services, cultural centers, agencies and organizations into a “Center for Student Development” under two directors and an associate vice-chancellor will create a structure exactly parallel to the Student Affairs structure at George Washington University, where Gargano last worked before coming to UMass. Apparently the reason the proposal leaves the Commuter Services and Housing Resource Center out of the Center for Student Development is that there is no analogous office at GWU, which must have created great conceptual difficulty for the Vice Chancellor.

The Chancellor’s proposal strengthens Gargano’s hand: by creating several new staff positions under him, by consolidating forty organizations directly under him, and by taking control of the student government agencies away from students and putting it in his hands. Gargano has been after these student agencies for a long time, denying the SGA its ability to fill vacant staff positions in the Office of ALANA Affairs and the Student Center for Education, Research and Advocacy, holding up the salary of an employee at the Office of ALANA Affairs, and stopping pay for positions in the Commuter Services and Housing Resource Center, in violation of a signed agreement with student government.

Since the Diversity Commission’s recommendations were made, Gargano has gotten rid of Director of Housing Michael Gilbert, with whom he reportedly had differences of opinion. The vacancy has not been filled – apparently Gargano’s strength is in firing, not hiring. W.H. Auden could have been writing about Gargano when he penned his poem “August 1968”, which reads:

The Ogre does what ogres can,
Deeds quite impossible for Man,
But one prize is beyond his reach,
The Ogre cannot master Speech:
About a subjugated plain,
Among its desperate and slain,
The Ogre stalks with hands on hips,
While drivel gushes from his lips.

That the Chancellor chooses to retain and even strengthen Gargano says something about his priorities. The Chancellor is surely not retaining him for his management skills – Gargano probably couldn’t manage a bowling alley, let alone a major administrative area at a large university. But while he may be very stupid, he does have a talent for senseless destruction – which may be why Lombardi hired him and keeps him around. The destruction of independent student government, a historic UMass institution and a great source of pride to students and alumni, could well be Lombardi’s agenda. It would dovetail with his transformation of the university into a corporation, by replicating the authoritarian model of corporate management, so that the destruction of thepublic university in Massachusetts can proceed without interference from theuniversity community.

The Commission’s Recommendations: Shortcomings

So far my remarks about the Diversity Commission’s recommendations have been positive, and I have limited my criticisms to the Chancellor’s refusal to implement them. However, things are not so simple. On one hand, the Chancellor’s proposal contains some useful parts. I’ve mentioned the parts I believe were written by Provost Seymour, regarding faculty of color recruitment, retention and development, and general education courses. On the other hand, there are some shortcomings in the Diversity Commission’s analysis and recommendations - chief among them the narrow focus on racial diversity.

From the beginning of the process, the two student members of the Commission – supported by others, most notably State Representative Ben Swan – tried to include on the Commission’s agenda other kinds of diversity issues, particularly economic and geographical. The idea is that for UMass to truly meet its mission as a public university, it is not enough to increase the number of people of color on campus, not enough to just improve the campus climate, but it is necessary to make UMass truly accessible to the people of the state. If this goal was reached, students would be able to come to UMass based on their demonstrated potential as university students, rather than as currently, based on their ability to afford a university education and their ability and willingness to tolerate the UMass climate. If the university became seriously accessible, it is a straightforward prediction that racial diversity, as well as diversity in other terms – economics, geography, gender, ability – would follow.

The main way in which we tried to nudge the proceedings in this direction was through the list of invited interviewees. We sought out individuals who could speak to the importance of UMass to residents of the Commonwealth who currently might be shut out of the system because of the difficulty of paying for a college education at the current rate, people who could speak to the philosophy of public education and the university’s mission. We also tried to use the Commission’s information-gathering process as an opportunity to get our hands on the demographic data that the university continues to deny us. Unfortunately, we had little success in these attempts, and the Commission was steered towards a position of considering only racial diversity. A number of individuals testified about the shortcomings of economic and geographical diversity, as well as about oppression based on gender and disability, but these did not significantly impact the committee’s report.

Moving forward

There are two possible responses to the Chancellor’s duplicitous plan: we can give up, or we can fight for what’s ours. We need to keep in mind that we are at a historic decision point. The administration is destroying the student organizations that were built up over the course of generations of struggle, the organizations that have made UMass such an enriching experience for many students and alumni, and which have done a great deal to promote diversity and social justice on campus. If we give up this battle, we will graduate from a university that gives us little to be proud of. If we fight and lose, then at least we can be proud of our integrity, and we will learn the lessons of struggle that will help us down the road. If we fight and win, we will gain so much more.

alternative diversity proposal

2005-03-21T15:40:00.000-05:00

the chancellor's alleged "diversity proposal" blows in a big big way. it has some actual diversity proposals in the academic affairs section, but none in the student affairs section, where it rejects all of the diversity commission's recommendations, and instead proposes a significant weakening of student government and strengthening of vice chancellor gargano, a dim-witted troglodyte who despises diversity almost as much as he despises students.

eddie bustamante and i, with help from mishy leiblum and others from take back umass, wrote up an alternative proposal. it is presented here:

UMass Community Action Plan
A Proposed Implementation of the Diversity Commission’s Recommendations

Preamble

The Commission on Campus Diversity presented its report “Diversity and Inclusion at UMass Amherst: A Blueprint for Change” to Chancellor Lombardi on March 1, 2005. This was to be followed by a proposal by Chancellor Lombardi as to how to implement the report. After the chancellor’s explicit promise to implement all of the Commission’s recommendations within budgetary constraints. Yet on March 12th, 2005 the Chancellor issued a proposed "action plan" that consists of a patchwork of agendas, few of which are concerned with diversity. His proposal is inconsistent with the majority of the Commission’s recommendations, and it rejects the Commission’s main recommendation, as well as all of its recommendations concerned with student affairs.

After the release of the Diversity Commissions' report, the task of pushing forward the diversity agenda has fallen – as usual – to students and other concerned community members.

This alternative proposal was drafted by the two student members of the Commission on Campus Diversity, and it draws on the suggestions and feedback offered by many different members of the campus community. In addition, this proposal draws on the historical diversity demands found in the Living Document (1997) and in the university’s mission statement.

We realize that to support all forms of diversity at UMass will require more than the “review, modification, and adjustment” of the University’s “programs and approach to supporting minority students on our campus.” In addition, we recognize that it will require an analysis of the forces that have led to increased racial tensions and feelings of disenfranchisement on campus. Such an analysis cannot be addressed by a single document or a single commission. Rather, it requires the sustained engagement of the campus community. The Commission on Campus Diversity was one piece of this effort. This report suggests improvements to the campus which will facilitate this ongoing engagement, by improving the campus climate, revitaling existing structures that support diversity, and creating new such structures.

In formulating our proposals, we have done our best to respect the voices of those who use the cultural centers, support services and agencies that promote diversity, social justice and the University's mission, as well as the staff of these offices, who have done a commendable job, despite dwindling resources in recent years.

Guidelines:

The guidelines for our proposal are the following:

1. It is a proposal to promote the closely related values of diversity, social justice, and the University’s mission of providing a high-quality education to all citizens of the Commonwealth. As such, it is written in the spirit of the Diversity Commission’s emphasis on diversity and inclusion.

2. It aims to be consistent with the recommendations of the Commission on Campus Diversity, and it is based on them.

3. The funds necessary for implementing the proposal will not be generated in a way that is likely to promote division in the campus community and generate hostility towards diversity initiatives. Accordingly, it does not propose a tax on general operations. Funding would come from the capital fund and from increased University revenues.

4. The proposal is presented in the spirit of respect for all sections of the campus community.

5. The proposal incorporates the parts of the chancellor’s proposal that we believe will improve diversity.

I. Actions

1. Campus Climate:

Commission’s recommendation 1a: “first and foremost, senior administrators, deans and leaders at all levels must possess a particular leadership style that sends a clear message that the concepts of diversity and inclusion are core values for the entire campus community. Administrators at all levels must be respectful of and responsive to the diverse populations on the Amherst campus. Student voices must be valued and the integrity of student government and its agencies respected as the campus pursues diversity and inclusion goals.”

Commission recommendation 1b: “The Commission believes that the University Police Department should report to the Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance.”

Proposal 1a: The campus will propose a change to the University's mission statement. The University's new mission statement should note a commitment to anti-racism, equal opportunity, and social justice.

Proposal 1b: The University will enact a policy that states that support for diversity, social justice and the University’s mission are core criteria in selecting among candidates for administrative positions.

Proposal 1c: The University will produce a written document stating that it will allow the Student Goverment Association and the Graduate Student Senate to allocate their budgets as they see fit, as long as the allocations are legal and not in violation of Board of Trustees policy or student government policy. The University and the student governments will agree on an arbitrator who will resolve disputes, based on the principles of self-government articulated in the Wellman Document.

Proposal 1d: Change reporting lines so that the University Police report to the Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance.

2. Coordination of Diversity Matters:

Commission recommendation 2a: “The Commission recommends that a senior level administrator be appointed to oversee and coordinate the implementation of initiatives relating to diversity and inclusion on the Amherst campus.”

Proposal 2a: We propose that the University create an Office of Diversity, Social Justice and University Mission, and create the position of Vice Chancellor for Diversity, Social Justice and University Mission to be in charge of this office. The vice chancellor’s responsibilities should include reviewing and coordinating diversity, social justice and university mission activities on campus; developing appropriate programs and plans, collaboratively where appropriate, including incentive and reward systems for individuals and units who initiate special efforts to advance these values; fundraising for initiatives such as “pipeline” programs that reach out to high schools and community colleges with the goal of increasing the enrollment of undergraduate students of color on campus, particularly those from lower-income backgrounds; advocating for diversity, social justice and the university mission campus-wide; and making an annual report to the chancellor and the campus on progress towards achieving these goals. The appointment of this vice chancellor should not substitute for the expectation that all other individuals on campus practice and promote these values; rather, it should reinforce this expectation. The university should commit to a minimal annual budget of $2 million to support the office’s operations, the vice chancellor’s salary, and the incentive/rewards programs.

Proposal 2b: The University should establish an advisory council for the Office of Diversity, Social Justice and University Mission. The council should consist of three undergraduate students appointed by the SGA; three graduate students appointed by the GSS; three faculty members appointed by the Faculty Senate; three administrators appointed by the chancellor; two representatives from the town of Amherst, appointed by Amherst Town Meeting; and one representative each from each of the campus’s unions.

Logic: The values of diversity and social justice, and the University mission of providing a quality affordable education to citizens of the Commonwealth, are considered core values by most segments of the University community, but not always at the top levels of the administration. Consequently, there is a need to create an office to ensure the accountability of the administration to those who hold these values, as well as to promote these values at all levels. The creation of this position will bring the priorities and accountability for diversity closer to the Chancellor. There must be a position with the sole charge to monitor and report the successful implementation of the diversity initiative.

3. Enrollment management:

Commission recommendation 3a: “The Amherst campus must develop a clear strategy for enrollment management and must appoint a highly qualified administrative official to coordinate such an effort.”

Commission recommendation 3b: “The Office of Admissions is better suited for placement under the aegis of the Provost than under the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs”

Commission recommendation 3d: “In the enrollment management plan, it is critical to the UMass Amherst mission that Commonwealth students who achieve against the odds are given the opportunity to attend the flagship campus.”

Commission recommendation 3e: “Encourage the Commonwealth College (Honors College) to increase minority enrollments, including definitions of academic excellence and potential that look beyond such traditional measures as grade point averages and SAT scores.”

Proposal 3a: The Amherst campus will hire a highly qualified administrative official to coordinate an enrollment management plan that emphasizes diversity, inclusion and social justice.

Proposal 3b: Restructure reporting lines so that the Admissions Office reports to the Provost.

Proposal 3c: The University will develop a plan for admissions that will deemphasize standardized test scores and weighted GPA. The Vice Chancellor for Diversity, Social Justice and University mission will also develop a plan for outreach to ALANA and low-income communities.

Proposal 3d: Implement section Ic of Chancellor Lombardi’s draft action plan.

5. Support Programs

Commission recommendation 5a: “UMass Amherst must act decisively to allay the fears of extinction and confusion within the ALANA community as to the worth of the ALANA support services... The administration should find a way, through some possible shift in funding, to signal its support and appreciation of the work that is being done."

Proposal 5a: The University will restore the staff and budget of the ALANA support programs (CCEBS, UALRC, BCP, NASS), the Every Woman’s Center and the Stonewall Center to their 2001 levels. The more than 50% decline in budget for these offices (from $276,000 in 2000 to $126,000 in 2004) will be reversed. Restore pre-major advising for ALANA students to the ALANA support programs.

6. Establish Goals Regarding Diversity

Commission recommendation 6a: “UMass Amherst should establish faculty diversity goals for both junior and senior faculty within each academic unit and within specified timelines.”

Commission recommendation 7a: “In collaboration with the Provost, college and school deans should be required to set annual minority enrollment, retention and graduation targets, held accountable for achieving them, and rewarded for their successes.”

Proposal 6a: Implement section II of the Chancellor’s proposal.

7. Assessment of Progress

Commission recommendation 8a: “Clear benchmarks must be established against which the Amherst campus can measure its progress in diversity and inclusion. A body similar to the Commission on Campus Diversity should be convened in 12 to 18 months to review progress of efforts on the Amherst campus to enhance diversity and inclusion.”

Proposal 7a: The University will set the benchmark that the undergraduate population will reflect the demographic composition of students in the Commonwealth graduating high school, by race, gender, and geographical area.

Proposal 7b: The University will set the benchmark that the graduate student and faculty population will reflect the demographic composition of the Commonwealth’s adult population by race and gender.

Proposal 7c: The Commission on Campus Diversity will be invited to reconvene in 12 months to assess progress towards the implementation of its recommendations. Subsequently, a body similar to the commission will be convened annually to review progress.

8. Faculty Development

Commission recommendation 9a: “The UMass Amherst campus should organize and offer increased opportunities for faculty, staff and administrators to acquire understandings and competencies required to meet the unique issues and needs often faced by students (and faculty and staff) of color on predominately white campuses. Such an effort should be conducted by professionally qualified experts.”

Proposal 8a: Implement Section III of Chancellor Lombardi’s action plan.

9. General Education

Commission recommendation 10a-d: “The UMass Amherst administration should support the development of more General Education Diversity courses that focus on issues of difference, culture, power and privilege.”

Proposal 9a: Implement Section IV of Chancellor Lombardi’s recommendation.

10. Additional recommendations:

Commission Recommendation (Executive Summary): “The college advisors should liaise with the support programs…It is the expectation of the Commission that there be timely issuance of reports from academic units to the support programs to aid their retention efforts, as appropriate and determined in consultation with academic units.”

Commission Recommendation (Executive Summary): “Reduction of Funds in ESL area…should be reviewed with an eye towards reinvestment.”

Commission Recommendation (Executive Summary): “The Presence of other ‘‘isms’ beyond racism that, while beyond the charge to the Commission, deserve attention from the Amherst Campus (e.g. issues revolving around such matters as socioeconomic class, disability, language preference, sexual orientation, etc.)."

Proposal 10a: The University will maintain full funding for the affordable-flexible childcare classroom's voucher program at University Child Care. The University should restore the subsidy it provided to the full-day classrooms at UCC before 2001, so that the center can maintain its high quality and restore affordability. Affordable childcare is a key asset for the University in the recruitment of diverse faculty, students and staff.

Proposal 10b: The University will present a plan to substantially increase need-based financial aid by August of 2005.

Proposal 10c: The University will establish three liaison pre-major advisors to liaise with each of the four ALANA Support Programs. As well as, liaisons with the four support programs in each school/college.

Proposal 10d: The University will allow the four ALANA Support Programs access to member students’ mid-semester academic progress reports on SPIRE.

Proposal 10e: The University will plan and implement an ESL program for students that are motivated and capable but need to overcome the language barrier.

Proposal 10f: The campus will present a plan to make campus buildings accessible to individuals in wheelchairs, and to those who suffer from other disabilities that impede physical access.

Proposal 10g: The campus will convert one bathroom in each building to become a gender-neutral bathroom.

Proposal 10h: The University will end all practices that discriminate against international students, except where required by law. This includes, but is not limited to, higher rates for application fees and ineligibility for health insurance waivers. The University will pledge to not introduce new discriminatory practices.

Proposal 10i: The University will expand its bus system so that there are frequent (at least once an hour during the daytime) buses connecting the campus to Springfield, Holyoke and Greenfield. This system can be phased in, in tandem with the anticipated increase in enrollment from students who live in these population centers.

II. Funding

The Amherst campus’s financial master plan projects steadily increasing revenues for the Amherst campus. Funding for the proposals will come in part from these increases, and in part from the capital campaign.

Appendix A

The extent to which the UMass Community Action Plan is consistent with the Diversity Commission’s report "A Blueprint for Change" vs. the extent to which Lombardi’s diversity proposal is consistent with "A Blueprint for Change"

Lombardi’s Action Plan:

# of Diversity Commission's Recommendations Accepted: 13
# of Diversity Commission's Recommendations Rejected: 14

UMass Community Action Plan:

# of Diversity Commission's Recommendations Accepted: 27
# of Diversity Commission's Recommendations Rejected: 0

social events listserve

2005-03-14T18:02:00.000-05:00

i just joined this listserve, on which social events for grad students get announced. between this listserve and those etiquette classes, my social life - and standing - is sure to improve.

you can subscribe to the list by sending an e-mail to umassgrads-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

code of administrator conduct

2005-03-12T08:18:00.000-05:00

below is a draft version of the proposed code of administrator conduct, to be brought to the student senates shortly.

DRAFT

University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Code of Administrator Conduct

1. Administrators must always treat students in a respectful and professional manner. If the university is to graduate students who are mature, thoughtful, engaged, and proud of the university, administrators must treat students appropriately.

2. Administrators must always tell the truth.

3. In all actions, administrators must respect federal, state, regional and municipal laws and policies, as well as the policies of the university's Board of Trustees.

4. Administrators must act in the interests of the university community, the state, and the public at large. The temptation to chase after money from corporations, the military, and intelligence and security agencies should not override the university's responsibility to the public.

5. Administrators must not use their office to promote their personal interests and agendas.

6. The Amherst campus is part of the Amherst community. Administrators must be mindful that the university's decisions have an impact on the town of Amherst and other surrounding communities. Administrators must be open to input from these communities, and should strive to serve their needs.

7. When making decisions that affect particular segments of the university, administrators must do so in consultation with those communities.

8. The university is a diverse center of learning. Administrators must respect and protect the ideals of diversity and academic freedom, as well as the political and civil rights of students.

9. Except in situations where it is illegal to do so, administrators must share information pertaining to the administration of the university with anyone who requests it.

10. Administrators must support, in word and deed, the public, land-grant mission of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, to provide a high-quality, accessible and affordable university education to all who wish to obtain one, and to serve the community and Commonwealth.

no tasers

2005-03-10T10:39:00.000-05:00

last week, both chancellor lombardi and vice chancellor gargano reported privately that umass is not in the process of purchasing tasers for the police department. they did confirm, however, that police are being trained for using tasers. gargano said that the police are routinely trained for use of all non-lethal weapons. the remarks were made in separate meetings with student and faculty leaders.

this contradicts stories in the springfield republican and the daily collegian, which reported that the taser purchases are in process. why the university has not stated in public that it has no plans to purchase tasers, i don't know.