Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Academic Freedom Gets Bumped at Cal?

We were told that a new UC Berkeley calendaring system would allow admin and others to be able to view events like talks etc in convenient time blocks, peruse the list of speakers in a given time frame etc, remember?

That would seem like a basic bell-whistle-functionality, right?

So then how does this happen: "
Who Gets Rescheduled at Berkeley?
It's Not Milo"


Looks like the talks bumped are speakers who are minority, female UC faculty. (There are other talks mentioned as bumped in the comments there btw)
Which could raise its own academic freedom, even Title IX issues for the campus .

It is a reminder of the fact that even that "serious debate" Dirks claims to view as urgently necessary and that his then EVCP, provost C. Christ participated in - which also was held on the same night other similar controversial invited speakers scenario took place a few months ago - and no effort was made to memorialize/record/transcribe -the 'serious important debate' that the previous and current Cal Chancellors claim to want to engage the entire community on,- why no contingency planning to make sure other important scholarly talks are not suddenly falling down as lower priority with no means of archiving them even? Or to, from an administrative angle, plan and understand what other talks might be impacted by having to do something like this in advance?.. so, what's up?
There's endless ad nauseum content on the non academic talks which end up also archived in some form but the academic level talks/debate content goes unarchived, or is incompletely archived, no content or in depth coverage etc- it seems to be more than a trend, is it a strategy?

And this new update: apparently non academic sponsored talks can give the campus less than 12 days notice on major event/events that require high $ value logistics?

"both publicly said they will be speaking on campus during Free Speech Week, the campus cannot confirm exactly when or if they will be here.

“We have repeatedly asked representatives ...to confirm that contracts have been completed between the student organization and each of these speakers; to date they have not,” Mogulof said in his email.

Mogulof added that information ...shared with the campus regarding the scheduling of the proposed speakers conflicts with information ...

According to Mogulof, security arrangements for the week of Sept. 24 are also unconfirmed. Rental fees for venues have not yet been paid and contracts with venues have not been signed, Mogulof said in his email.

“Simply put, the University cannot provide the security and support the student organization has requested, and the campus wants to provide, if we do not receive the essential information,” Mogulof said in his email."

So that's a perk previous classes have not enjoyed, neither as students, alumni, nor staff. But now diff policy, rules? Seems handling differently than hisorical precedent...

And UC Berkeley administration fails to spell out the "critical deadlines" they vaguely mention in their statement,here: http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/09/12/campus-statement-on-announced-plans-for-visits-by-yiannopoulos-bannon/

seems like those deadlines are pretty squishy, lax, and capable of gumming up the UC campus ops pretty easily-- or should we just look upon it as more operational excellence?

See politico for more: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/12/uc-berkeley-says-free-speech-events-with-yiannopolous-bannon-in-doubt-242622

In any case, Berkeley is making it's own planning decisions on all of it as well, likely costs for them in this pre-planning debacle...will they pass on those costs to UC and then UC pass it on to students as more Tuition increases?


Is Christ a place holder?:

Overview of this week UC regents meeting agenda items:

Is this the result of a now predominantly Southern Cal appointed UC Regents board influence?:

No comments:

Post a Comment