. . . because much of the content relates both to Washington, D.C., and "outside the beltway" -- the heartland, specifically Iowa -- and because after going from Iowa to Washington via Texas and California I subsequently returned, From DC 2 Iowa.
State 29 on Earthpork, Economic Development, Campus Security
State 29 is a popular blogger. No one's ever seen him or her or knows where he is (I'll just use "he"). All of which makes his self-appointed service as chair of my exploratory committee in what he believes should be my primary race against Senator Tom Harkin a reason why it remains a committee of one.
He's very productive, irreverent, funny, and creative. His blog may not be exactly something you'd want to show your mother or use as a substitute for Junior Scholastic in your elementary school. But no one can complain that he's not an equal opportunity offender; this is not a partisan apologist.
What follows are some illustrations of his comments (to let you see how mild and respectful I am by contrast), and updates from him on some of the issues he and I both track -- while I've been off keeping an eye on the Board of Regents and University of Iowa.
Earthpark
Earthpark -- what State 29 dubbed "Earthpork" -- is the latest name for a project supported by some pretty influential Republicans: Senator Chuck Grassley, former Governor Bob Ray, former Republican candidate for governor and Earthpark CEO David Oman, the most recent Republican candidate for governor, Jim Nussle, and Des Moines businessman Ted Townsend (campaign contributor, whose idea it was, and whose $10 million pledge got it started 11 years ago). Through the years it's been called "Iowa Child," "Iowa Education/Environmental Project," the "Environmental Project," and now "Earthpark."
I've been speaking out about it since January 2001 (including 14 published articles, and 15 speech texts and other unpublished pieces), and maintaining a rain forest Web site that contains what I believe to be the most thorough collection of material about it available anywhere on the Web (links to stories and commentary).
The project has also been a major focus of the colorful style of State 29 over those years. In fact, that's what first brought him to my attention.
(Basics:The project's most serious financial problem is its inability to articulate, from among its many shifting purposes and features over the years, exactly what it is. Necessarily there is, therefore, a lack of basic business plan data. Most independent evaluators believe it has little to no chance of sustaining its operating costs regardless of what it becomes.
After evaluation the following Iowa cities have turned down the "opportunity" to become its home: Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Iowa City, Coralville, Dubuque, Tiffin, and Grinnell. "It" (whatever "it" is at this point) is now in Pella.
These devastating defects have been largely overlooked by the media and public officials who -- to the extent they have been willing to interrupt their cheerleading routines for reality -- look only to construction costs. Raising the construction costs seems a task as daunting as figuring out how to pay for its operation. Townsend started it off ten or 11 years ago with a $10 million pledge of his own money. Aside from that, the project has not raised one dime of private money in the past 10 years. Although the promoters now talk of a $155 million project (it was originally $300 million), their own consultants have warned them it needs to be at least 50% more than that.
At this point they have nothing, nada, in the bank (that they have documented). Senator Grassley got them a $50 million earmark, but after they started using it for Oman's salary and other ongoing expenses (unrelated to construction) he pulled the plug, and said they'd get no more of it unless they could come up with $50 million by December 2007.)
Since the Regents' disastrous disbanding of UI Presidential Search Committee I in November 2006 -- which happened to coincide with the rain forest's dropping beneath the media's radar -- State 29 has been doing the Earthpork tracking.
Here are some excerpts from some of his blog entries during the past week or so regarding Earthpork.
The excerpts will typically start with an indented quote from whatever news source he quotes, followed by (back to the margin) his commentary, and ending with a link to the full text of his blog entry.
[All that follows are his words, not mine, unless in [brackets] and beginning with "NJ:".]
# # #
[NJ: Here's his comment on the Des Moines Register story revealing David Oman's efforts to get money from this last legislative session.]
"Backers of Earthpark - a combination rain forest, aquarium and education center to be built near Pella - are trying to build support in the Legislature for a package of financial incentives for that project."
I guarantee that Republican David Oman will not get a single dime from this Democrat-run Iowa Legislature, much less Democratic Governor Chet Culver, especially after this:
As of Monday, Oman only has 223 days (December 1st) to come up with cold hard cash matching funds in order to get the rest of weasel Senator Chuck Grassley's deficit-financed $50 million pork pledge.
[NJ: The next day State 29 quotes from a statement of Governor Chet Culver:]
"'Throughout the campaign, I said that we had so many other priorities,' ["other" than the Earthpark, that is] Culver says. 'It was not helpful in terms of our federal deficit.' Culver says no one from the Earthpark board has contacted him to plead their case and he's not prepared to provide any state support to the project."
[NJ: And he reproduces comments readers placed on the Des Moines Register site (which I'll just link to, rather than excerpt).] "Anti-Earthpark Comments," April 23, 2007.
Economic Development
[NJ: Investing in infrastructure, things that benefit all Iowans -- roads and bridges, schools and colleges, parks and libraries -- may or may not make sense economically, but many believe it can help attract new business, and the investments at least are in 100% public projects. But State 29 and I believe that transferring taxpayers' money to for-profit ventures virtually never makes sense, for a long list of reasons from economic, to ideological, to political, to practical.
Here's State 29's take on Governor Culver's statement about his new "Iowa Power Fund":]
"Now is the time for Iowa to take the lead in the race to become the energy capital of the world.
"What we need is an exciting, forward-thinking plan and coordinated effort to explore our new energy frontier. We can create the jobs of the future in Iowa that will keep your kids and my kids at home where they belong.
"Simply put, what we need is the Iowa Power Fund."
What Chet Culver is doing here is basically saying "Fuck You" to Norman Borlaug by taking all that food Iowa is growing and burning it in our cars and trucks.
So much for the rest of the world's moral right.
And what is this bullshit about Iowa becoming the energy capital of the world? Iowa imports nearly 97% of the fuel necessary to create electricity, power your home computer, or drive a car. When is some non-ass-kissing Iowa reporter going call the Big Lug on his misinformation? Oh, that's right. NEVER.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all in favor of turning NW Iowa is a giant windfarm and upgrading the grid in order to export electricity to nearby metropolitan areas, but it costs a pretty penny to do so. The Iowa Pork Power Fund will likely be about doling out taxpayer-financed checks to politically-connected ethanol producers and Big Agriculture rather than doing anything substantive to make Iowa energy independent. "Chet Culver on the Iowa Power Fund," April 23, 2007.
# # #
[NJ: As you might suspect, the prospect of Iowa's taxpayers subsidizing the multi-billion-dollar Google didn't get State 29's suppport:]
"That web portal bill is potentially huge," [Iowa Department of Economic Development Mike] Tramontina says. On Friday, the House voted 95 to one to provide a tax exemption on equipment and electricity for web portal firms. Tramontina is hoping for quick action in the Iowa Senate. He says targeting computer companies for state incentives makes sense because they're "huge, non-polluting industries" that offer high wages."
Want to know why your property taxes are going through the roof, Iowa? It's because of the pro-corporate welfare, bought-and-paid-for, and crooked politicians in the Iowa Legislature. They exist on BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE.
Update: I got an email from a clearly Democrat-siding reader asking about whether any members of the Iowa GOP are working on rights legislation or campaign finance reform. Like I would know. All I know about the Iowa GOP is that they're a bunch of spineless corporate welfare enthusiasts or bank robbers who take money from mob-affiliated companies that prey upon the stupid poor. As far as I'm concerned, the only somewhat sane fiscal conservative in the Iowa Legislature in recent years was Ed Fallon, but he no longer holds a seat. Don't go off on me about Fallon's socialized medicine desires. You already have the State (and Feds) paying the medical bills of the poor/poor children. Regifting socialized medicine into a neat little marketing package is a far different astral plane than letting big companies opt out of paying their fair share of property and other taxes or giving away tax break packages left and right to finance risky schemes that the private sector won't smell. The only positive thing I can say about the GOP (and this is while holding my nose and wallet simultaneously) is that they occasionally are interested, when in power, in lowering income tax rates for all. Democrats can't even handle that. When was the last time in recent history the Democrats ever proposed lower tax rates? Never, that's when. And Project Destiny doesn't count because it's a tax increase on everybody, especially the poor. "Iowa Senate Approves Google Corporate Welfare," April 26, 2007.
[NJ: To what extent are these corporate subsidies the result, in at least some part, of the increasing role of campaign contributions doing to Des Moines what they have long since done to Washngton, D.C.? It appears that its a pretty touchy subject for a citizen to raise with Iowa Senate Majority Leader Gronstal, as the group that did so, and produced the following story, found out:]
"Like a petty tyrant who has finally been called on his bad behavior the Senate Majority Leader lost it. Gronstal squared off with the older gentleman and said, 'That's the lowest blow that anyone's ever dealt me. You can kiss my ass!'
"Visibly shaken, Gronstal stormed off. He walked a short distance away from the group and then lifted his head up to the top of the Capitol and SHOUTED "F*ck You!" A large group of elementary school children were touring the Rotunda while this was happening."
It's not surprising that Iowa's lamestream media missed this one.
Do a Google News search for gronstal fuck or gronstal expletive or gronstal swear and there's nothing. I didn't even see anything about this until I checked Jan Mickelson's feed from this week and discovered mention of it on Wednesday and I guess Gronstal's belated apology yesterday. Oh well, better late than never.
What's amazing is that Gronstal said this to fellow Democrats.
Can't handle a little inter-party debate, Mr 25 Years Experienced Entrenched Fat Assed Nicotine Addicted Corrupt Piece Of Shit Need Your Moustache-Riding Ass Kicked Out Of Office Majority Leader?
Common Iowan had a post recently about the VOICE legislation, along with some links.
As I said before, I'd be in favor of taxpayer-financed campaigns, but only if the campaign season was whittled down from two years to about two weeks. "Mike 'Kiss My Ass!!! Fuck You!!!' Gronstal," April 27, 2007.
Campus Security
[NJ: I've written here about the need to approach campus security as part of policies that have, hopefully, been in place and at least annually routinely reviewed and revised since the Texas Tower shooting in 1966.
State 29 has had some recent entries about the kind of over reactions that can occur when the focus is on after-the-fact knee-jerk reactions to the latest tragedy rather than that kind of governance model policy guidance:]
"The box of 500 condoms that spurred an investigation and partial evacuation at Des Moines Area Community College was intended for a human sexuality class. . . .
"The 'suspicious package' led school officials Thursday to call police and postal investigators, who evacuated several classrooms but determined it was not a bomb.
"Last December, another bomb scare at the college turned out to be a plastic exercise step wrapped in several layers of duct tape."
Upper Iowa University locked down Thursday after a student reported a man with a gun. Officials later determined the person was an off-duty police officer visiting campus as a guest.
"'They just grabbed me, pushed my hand behind my back, and then they searched me,' Walker said in an interview with The Daily Iowan, adding that officers didn't tell him why he was being searched until they determined he was not armed.
"Later in the afternoon, UI officials released Walker's name and home address to all faculty, staff, and students, and banned him from campus for five months because he had raised suspicions after wearing a ski mask to his lecture."
Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. (As of January 25 the count has run from January 21, 2006, rather than last November.)
For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most column. Going directly to FromDC2Iowa.Blogspot.com will take you to the latest. Each contains links to the full text of virtually all known media stories and commentary, including mine, since the last blog entry. Together they represent what The Chronicle of Higher Education has called "one of the most comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006.
Searching: the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References." A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 is also available. And note that if you know (or can guess at) a word to search on, the "Blogger" bar near the top of your browser has a blank, followed by "SEARCH THIS BLOG," that enables you to search all entries in this Blog since June 2006.]
Board of Regents. The Agenda for the Board of Regents May 1 meeting in Iowa City is now available as an online pdf file, as are the texts of some 46 agenda items themselves (item 23 of which indicates there will be an oral report to the Board from the chair of presidential search committee II) -- and as a reminder, all the emails from one Board member (or the executive director) to all Board members since February 2007 are also available online (some of which relate to May 1 agenda items).
Presidential Search Committee II. The Press-Citizen report of Friday's (April 27) Search Committee II meeting indicates that it revealed little new. Brian Morelli, "Search Ponders Latest Prospects,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 28, 2007. Here are some excerpts:
"search committee members still are coming up with new possibilities and making the rounds with constituent groups.
"It's not out of the realm of possibility that you'd hire someone from the corporate world to lead a university, but it's extremely unlikely," said Gene Parkin, a search committee member and civil-environmental engineering professor . . ..
* * *
The search committee is narrowing in on a group of less than 20 for confidential off-campus interviews . . . [which] will be happening very soon.
. . . Still to be decided is whether those candidates would come to campus for public interviews.
[Committee member] Elizabeth Chrischilles . . . mentioned a process where the semifinalists' interviews would be videotaped and the recordings of the top four would be presented to the regents. The regents would then select the top candidate for a public interview.
Campus Security. Following the shootings at Virginia Tech, the University of Iowa had a couple of incidents of its own. On Tuesday, April 24, the Hardin medical library received emailed bomb threats. Librarians notified the campus police at 7:57, the building was emptied by 8:12, declared free of any danger by 10:54, and reopened at 11:02. The campus administration building, Jessup, was locked down during this time as well as a precaution, even though no threats mentioned Jessup. Stephen Schmidt, "Threats lock down 2 UI buildings,"The Daily Iowan, April 25, 2007. A couple days later a student left class to notify campus police that another student was sitting in class with a ski mask on. The student was eventually found and released without charges being filed. Emileigh Barnes, "Ski-mask incident results in ban,"The Daily Iowan, April 27, 2007; "No Charges Filed Against UI Student, Ban From Campus Dropped,"The Daily Iowan, April 27, 2007.
So what can one say about these events? In large measure what I wrote in Nicholas Johnson, "Virginia Tech and Iowa Regents' Governance" in "UI Held Hostage Day 458 - Regents' Governance and VT," April 24, 2007: The University of Iowa record since the November 1, 1991, shooting has been as good as it has been because policies are reviewed and professionals are in place (as much or more than mere "dumb luck"); policies regarding student safety go far beyond protection from shootings and bombs (e.g., natural disasters like tornados and the consequences of alcohol abuse); knee-jerk, "post-dramatic stress disasters" focus on new "should-a" policies (rather than regular, routine, annual review of preventive policies) is precisely the wrong way to provide security; and, all the current confusion surrounding Regents governance, noted in the blog entry above, and in Nicholas Johnson, "An Open Letter to Regents on 'Governance'" in "UI Held Hostage Day 451 - Open Letter to Regents," April 17, 2007.
Note that the University already had under review the range of student safety policies and procedures. Taryn Deutsch, "UI refines policy on violence,"The Daily Iowan, April 27, 2007. And, as well as the library and Jessup lockdowns were handled, the campus police immediately reviewed how it went, with the Assistant Vice President for UI Police, Charles Green quoted as saying, "I think there's always room for improvement." Emileigh Barnes, "UI Reviews Reaction,"The Daily Iowan, April 25, 2007.
The ski masked student case raised some questions about the balance between public security on the one hand and the privacy rights of "persons of interest" who have not been (and in his case, never are) charged with any offense. (His name had been released to the media.) This case will undoubtedly result in review of this issue as well. Editorial, "UI must strike right balance when assessing threats,"The Daily Iowan, April 27, 2007.
Regents President Michael Gartner and Executive Director Gary Steinke have weighed in once again on campus security issues in general, and arming campus police with guns in particular, published as a part of a Press-Citizen focus on campus security (look for April 28) with a number of opinion pieces. Michael Gartner and Gary W. Steinke, "Regents working on governor's request, studying facts before making decisions,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 28, 2007. Their call for calm and considered evaluation of security measures is wise and appreciated. But the issuance of the op ed at all is still subject to the issues raised in "An Open Letter to Regents on 'Governance,'" and "Virginia Tech and Iowa Regents' Governance," linked above.
UI Athletics Program Ties to Gambling Industry. And if you've been following this blog's coverage of UI issues, you'll recall the internal and external controversies regarding the ties between the UI's athletic program and the gambling industry, in particular the Riverside Gambling Casino and the Iowa Lottery. Well, it took quite a beating from the Faculty Senate, and even the President's Council on Athletics. But those expressions of campus approval can be ignored. "The deciders" are the Garys: Athletic Director Barta and Interim President Fethke. In an interview on April 20 Fethke said, "We'll have a response, a hard decision in a couple of weeks." Ashton Shurson, "Fethke discusses lottery, campus safety,"The Daily Iowan, April 20, 2007. Since the two weeks runs out the middle of this week, I assume we can expect his answer then.
# # #
More on Earthpork Although it would seem to be a no-brainer The Register found it necessary to repeat that "backers of the Earthpark environmental center . . . say they need to demonstrate to unnamed private contributors that there is state support for the project. The process should work the other way around: Earthpark should demonstrate that it has a solid financial commitment from private investors and local governments before asking other Iowa taxpayers for their support." Editorial, "Earthpark should assure private investment first; Then ask state taxpayers for support,"Des Moines Register, April 24, 2007. Since then we've learned that the legislature adjourned without providing any state money for the project.
Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. (As of January 25 the count has run from January 21, 2006, rather than last November.)
For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most column. Going directly to FromDC2Iowa.Blogspot.com will take you to the latest. Each contains links to the full text of virtually all known media stories and commentary, including mine, since the last blog entry. Together they represent what The Chronicle of Higher Education has called "one of the most comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006.
Searching: the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References." A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 is also available. And note that if you know (or can guess at) a word to search on, the "Blogger" bar near the top of your browser has a blank, followed by "SEARCH THIS BLOG," that enables you to search all entries in this Blog since June 2006.]
There's a lot to comment about today, so this blog entry may expand from time to time throughout the day beyond what are, for now, entries about Jack Valenti, and the start of one about the Pella rain forest. Now (12:30 p.m.) with an entry on the return of "Bill Moyers Journal," opening with Jon Stewart -- a must see for fans of either or both!
Jack Valenti: September 5, 1921-April 26, 2007
Jack Valenti died yesterday. If you're unfamiliar with this extraordinary man, one of the more thorough morning-after obits is Adam Bernstein, "A Hollywood Promoter on Both Coasts,"Washington Post, April 27, 2007, p. A1.
I first met Jack Valenti in February of 1964.
Following my Supreme Court clerkship with Justice Black I accepted a professorship at the University of California Law School in Berkeley, "Boalt Hall," where my teaching and legal writing was focused on "administrative law" -- encouraged by Ken Davis, Walter Gellhorn, Frank Newman and others in the field. The Washington law firm, Covington & Burling, had long felt I should be practicing law instead, and repeatedly gave me the opportunity to do so. Feeling that a little experience with administrative agency practice might be a worthy compromise -- if I could limit it to a two-year leave of absence -- the firm agreed to those terms and the family headed to Washington.
One day I received a call from the White House advising me that Bill Moyers wanted to see me. Although there are newspaper accounts from the time asserting that Bill and I were roommates at the University of Texas, they were not true. We were both married at the time, lived with our wives rather than each other, in fact never even met in Austin, and -- as you'll soon see -- never met that day in February either.
So I was totally mystified as to why he would want to see me. Not only did I not know Bill Moyers, I didn't know any other member of President Johnson's staff, either, and I had never met the President. I didn't know any senators or members of congress or party campaign contributors. I was working on a sort of "administrative procedure act" for anti-dumping procedures and involved with some airline matters before what was then the Civil Aeronautics Board, but I couldn't imagine that anyone in the White House would even know, let alone care, about that.
I had only been at the White House once before as a high school student for a rose garden event with President Harry Truman, and was looking forward to seeing the West Wing for the first time. So I went over, and waited -- and waited, and waited. It was about 45 minutes past the time for what I had been told was my appointment with Bill Moyers when a fellow tapped me on the shoulder and told me to follow him. We went down a corridor, he opened a door, pointed to the chair where I was to sit, and left.
It was only later I would discover that my White House tour guide had been Jack Valenti -- though I more quickly figured out that the room where he'd told me to wait was the Oval Office. (The rest of that story is that the only other occupant of the room was President Johnson, who eventually engaged me in conversation about something called the Maritime Administration and all the reasons why my country needed me to be Maritime Administrator. I made the mistake of telling the President all the reasons why I didn't think that was a good idea, and why I wanted to return to Covington and then to Berkeley. Why a mistake? Because he wisely realized that anyone who would want to be Maritime Administrator was probably unqualified to hold the office -- and as it turned out I was the only name on his list who didn't want the job.)
(Although Bill Moyers and I later did meet and become friends, I found it a little ironic in later years to discover that Bill, at age 29 and one of the principal advisors to the President of the United States, was alone among Johnson's staff in thinking that I -- also 29 years old -- was "too young" for the responsibilities of the Maritime Administrator. The Senate Commerce Committee members, by contrast, thought my prior shipping experience -- which I candidly explained to them was limited to the rather unsuccessful operation of a canoe on the Iowa River -- fully qualified me for the position.)
Jack Valenti and I stayed in contact over his Johnson years and subsequently during his tour as President of the Motion Picture Association of America. With his skills as a speaker and publicist, his contacts in Hollywood and Washington, he rapidly became, and remained, the most effective lobbyist in Washington.
One of his numerous advantages was that he had a lavish private dining room and theater where he could invite Washington's powerful to sit down with Hollywood's beautiful to watch the best of his industry's movies. Those were evenings that I, and any other guest, long remembered. (He was also the supplier of films to the occupants of the White House, for showings at Camp David or "at home.")
During the 1970s, when I was enjoying my own "15 minutes of fame" as a young single man in Washington, I developed a friendship with Kathleen Nolan, the national president of the Screen Actors Guild who had recently been appointed to the board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Watching her function in Washington and Los Angeles during those bi-coastal years with her gave me new insight into Jack Valenti's lobbying advantage.
She could pick up the phone and call the Speaker of the House, the Secretary of Labor -- or even the President -- and suddenly they would have nothing better to do that afternoon than to invite her to come see them.
Jack Valenti had the same kind of access. Partly it was those dinners. Partly it's just that people with power like to associate with other people with power. And power can come from celebrity as well as from wealth, corporate or political and governmental power. Jack, of course, had all five.
Kathleen was -- and remains -- a skilled actor with hundreds of credits, charming, attractive, energized and fun. But, like Jack, she was probably also seen by politicians as a possible way of getting to other Hollywood celebrities who, if one could get them to attend one's Los Angeles fundraisers, might be helpful in raising campaign contributions.
A part of Jack's effectiveness was his strategic sense. There was a time when, as chair of the National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting, I was involved in what I believe may have been the only successful effort to reduce levels of violence in television programming. (We tied it to the advertisers on the most violent programs.) Years earlier, following official inquiries into the causes of civil disorders in the late 1960s, the movie industry was also taking heat -- as now once again -- for the impact of media and movie violence on real life violence.
Other industries' lobbyists didn't even bother to put a velvet glove over their steel fist; they just came out slugging, threatening members of congress, bullying, attacking their "enemies" -- the sort of approach that earned Tom DeLay his nickname: "The Hammer."
Jack, seeing what was coming in the form of potentially heavy handed government regulation, decided to seize, rather than seethe, the day. Rather than attack the industry's critics, he expressed compassion for those concerned about movies' content, suggested they were entitled to protection, and proposed the movie "ratings" system that is still with us today. It was a brilliant stroke, and preserved the movie industry's artistic freedom for decades.
[In response to "Anonymous'" 8:22 a.m. Comment added to this blog entry ("Wasn't Jack Valenti the same guy who wanted the VCR made illegal in the early 1980s?") I don't mean to leave the impression that Valenti's every lobbying effort took "the public interest" into full consideration, or that he was a paragon of virtue in all respects of life. Only that he was very skillful as a lobbyist.]
His campaigns on behalf of his industry's copyright rights helped impress upon me that, while there has been corporate abuse of copyright, extending its terms and protections well beyond what many of us believe was intended by those who wrote it into the Constitution, one can understand the concern of someone who has put $80 million into a feature film only to find it available in DVD format on the streets of Beijing, Moscow and Singapore before it even reaches theaters in the U.S.
I won't go on with Jack Valenti stories. Read the Washington Post piece. It also refers to a number of his books. His was a life worth knowing about, one I am pleased to have intersected in the few ways I did -- starting with that day in February 1964 when I was supposed to meet with Bill Moyers.
_______________ Bill Moyers Journal Returns Tonight: Jon Stewart
Speaking of Bill Moyers, his "Bill Moyers Journal" returns to public television tonight, Friday, April 27, and his first guest is Jon Stewart. You won't want to miss that one!
And if you missed it, check out his "Buying the War: How Did the Mainstream Press Get it So Wrong?" It is a 90-minute "special" that aired Wednesday, April 25, but is available in video, and as a transcript, at the site linked just above. I watched at a house party in Iowa City organized by Free Press -- a media reform organization very much worth checking out. (As I've been saying for 40 years: "Whatever is your first public policy reform priority, media reform has to be your second priority. With it you have a prayer; without it you don't.") Prior to the broadcast Free Press provided a telphone hookup to livingrooms all across America for an exchange between Moyers and media activisits. The Huffington Post report of that half-hour (Timothy Karr, "Moyers' Three Factors in the Media's Iraq Failure," April 26, 2007, with a link to the audio of the conversation) has been made available by Free Press.
As the title suggests the program deals with the Iraq War, and necessarily therefore the Bush Administration's handling of it. But it is much more in terms of its analysis of how the media, especially the Washington press corps, deals with government, corporations and advertisers generally. It's really a kind of "must see" for teachers and students of communications studies, First Amendment law, journalism, and political science.
_______________
Two Old Rain Forests
There are two old rain forests kicking around these days. One, apparently misplaced some 300 million years ago, was recently found in Illinois. (As my mother used to say when I'd lost something, "Oh, don't worry about it. It will show up.") Sara Goudarzi, "Giant Fossil Rain Forest Discovered in Illinois,"National Geographic News, April 24, 2007.
The other seems like it's been around that long, but it's really only been 10 or 11 years. Variously called over the years "The Iowa Child Project of the Iowa Child Foundation," the "Iowa Environmental/Education Project," the "Iowa Environmental Project" (and occasionally just "The Environmental Project"), it has recently been renamed "Earthpark."
Joe Sharpnack, http://www.sharptoons.com, who holds the copyright on this editorial cartoon, captured the significance of the constantly changing names on this failing project with his usual sharp wit and insight. The cartoon appeared in the Iowa City Press-Citizen on May 11, 2006. Standing next to the dead horse that is Earthpark CEO David Oman is saying, "Maybe if I change the name again & hit it some more . . .."
Now he's beating that poor old dead horse once again. Even the Des Moines Register, The Gazette, and Iowa City Press-Citizen -- having supported the projecdt over the years -- are now coming to their senses. And State29 is all over it.
The Press-Citizen's editorial put it most succinctly: "Earthpark's lack of private funding, its constantly shifting timetable and its leaders' near pathological inability to provide a straight answer to the most straightforward of questions has led us to discourage any further public support for this project." Editorial, "State lawmakers should just say no to Earthpark,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 26, 2007.
# # #
_____________
UICCU and "Optiva"
The UICCU-Optiva story is essentially behind us. There may be occasional additions "for the record," but for the most part the last major entry, with links to the prior material from October 2006 through March 2007, is "UICCU and 'Optiva'" in Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 406 - March 3 - Optiva," March 3, 2007. Since then there have been two major additions: Nicholas Johnson, "Open Letter to UICCU Board" in "UI Held Hostage Day 423 - March 20 - UICCU," March 20, 2007, and "'Open Letter': Confirmation from World Council of Credit Unions" in "UI Held Hostage Day 424 - March 21 UICCU," March 21, 2007.
# # #
[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story . . .
Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. (As of January 25 the count has run from January 21, 2006, rather than last November.)
For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most column. Going directly to FromDC2Iowa.Blogspot.com will take you to the latest. Each contains links to the full text of virtually all known media stories and commentary, including mine, since the last blog entry. Together they represent what The Chronicle of Higher Education has called "one of the most comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006.
Searching: the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References." A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 is also available. And note that if you know (or can guess at) a word to search on, the "Blogger" bar near the top of your browser has a blank, followed by "SEARCH THIS BLOG," that enables you to search all entries in this Blog since June 2006.]
I'm not going to repeat everything from those two blog entries, but if you've read and reflected upon them you will see the similarity in the analysis needed regarding the latest Regents' foray into the area of ill-considered, disrespectful, dangerous, disadvantageous and counter-productive micro-managing.
What I would like to focus on this time, however, is the substance.
A potential change to the state Board of Regents’ academic freedom policy for faculty of the state universities concerns some University of Iowa professors. Steve Collins, a UI engineering professor, said the regents will discuss the proposed change at a meeting Tuesday [May 1] in Iowa City. Collins and several other professors expressed concern during a Faculty Senate meeting Tuesday.
Collins takes issue with a sentence that says in part that faculty ‘‘should at all times be accurate, exercise appropriate restraint, show respect for the opinions of others’’ when they speak or write as private citizens.
Collins said he agrees with those sentiments, but it’s a problem when it becomes a regents mandate.
‘‘It seems to me this language would impose limitations on a faculty member’s ability to speak as a private citizen,’’ he said.
"I have no idea where this came from," Collins said of the impetus for the policy. "I would assume they want this in there, the board office or the board president."
Collins objected to what he said was language that deals in absolutes.
"I think it is the case that faculty members influence the opinions of others as a part of the university. But that doesn't call for a regential policy," Collins said. "It is important to the health of the university to feel free to speak on academic matters and as a private citizen."
Outgoing Faculty Senate President Sheldon Kurtz said he just found out about it, and that because of shared governance agreements and because it deals with faculty, faculty should have been involved in discussions about the policy.
"The concern is that in the hands of the wrong people this would be used to stifle public criticism," Kurtz said.
Like Steve Collins I, too, "have no idea where this came from." An examination of the Regents' Web site revealed nothing (as of 8:30 this morning) with regard to the agenda for the forthcoming meeting, an exchange of emails, or "news."
The Board, as a Board, should create and control its own agenda. If the proposed agenda item was the work of Gartner, it could be yet one more example of the Board's president acting as if he was the Board. Even if the president is totally unaware the item is to be on the agenda, it is unlikely anyone else would put an item on an agenda knowing of his strong opposition. And if the Board has turned over the preparation of their agenda to others, and all of them are unaware of their own agenda until it is presented to them, then we have yet another goverance issue of considerable significance.
It appears that the new Regents' "Academic Freedom" policy comes at least in part from the American Association of University Professors policies. (See, "1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure With 1970 Interpretive Comments," in AAUP Policy Documents and Reports, 9th ed., 2001, ("Academic Freedom," (c), p. 4. And see "1970 Interpretive Comments," 4, p. 6.)
I find that source irrelevant to my analysis.
(1) It is, in my view, a poorly conceived and drafted policy regardless of who wrote it.
(2) There's all the difference in the world between hortatory language from one's own professional group and a formal Regents' policy that presumably carries some significant sanctions -- the least of which, in the case of this policy, is the intimidation and self-censorship it is bound to produce.
Clearly, this is insulting and disrespectful of the faculty. It's like a kindergarten teacher saying, "Now you children play nicely with each other." Moreover, I suspect similar sentiments are already contained in various statements of ethics, policy, sexual harassment, respect for diversity, and so forth.
Beyond that, to say "that faculty 'should at all times be accurate, exercise appropriate restraint, show respect for the opinions of others' when they speak or write as private citizens" is so vague as to be meaningless.
But "meaningless" is not "weak" -- quite the opposite. What's the implied "or else"? Or else what? It's like the FCC threatening million-dollar fines if broadcasters engage in "indecency." It's a much more intimidating standard, one much more effective in producing self-censorship by citizens, than if the Board were to have said, for example, "When referring to the Governor or members of the Board of Regents of the State of Iowa university faculty members who do not on every occasion speak in terms of enthusiastic adulation and glowing praise are subject to being fired."
We once had such standards in this country. It was called the Alien and Sedition Act. We got it from the Brits. So why is the title on this blog entry, "King Michael and Sedition"?
Sedition is the offence of speaking seditious words . . .: if the statement is in writing . . . it is seditious libel. A statement is seditious if it "brings into hatred or contempt" the Queen or her heirs, or the government and constitution, or either House of Parliament, or the administration of justice, . . . or if it promotes discontent among or hostility between British subjects. A person is only guilty of the offence if they intend any of the above outcomes. Proving that the statement is true is not a defence. It is punishable with life imprisonment.
The crime of seditious libel was defined and established in England during the 1606 case "De Libellis Famosis" by the Star Chamber. The case defined seditious libel as criticism of public persons, the government, or King.
The phrase "seditious libel" and "blasphemous libel" were used interchangeably at that time, because of the strong connections between church and state. However, blasphemy is now a separate offence.
The [U.S.] Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 broke with the common law precedent of the time, in that it allowed for truth as a defence, though Judges were not consistent in their rulings.
I do hope that this policy review, and draft, was not the work of Michael Gartner, and that he will not support it if it comes before the Board. It would indeed be a rather odd throwback to the 17th Century to come from a Regents' president once known for his ferocious defense of the First Amendment rights of the media and public.
Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. (As of January 25 the count has run from January 21, 2006, rather than last November.)
For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most column. Going directly to FromDC2Iowa.Blogspot.com will take you to the latest. Each contains links to the full text of virtually all known media stories and commentary, including mine, since the last blog entry. Together they represent what The Chronicle of Higher Education has called "one of the most comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006.
Searching: the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References." A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 is also available. And note that if you know (or can guess at) a word to search on, the "Blogger" bar near the top of your browser has a blank, followed by "SEARCH THIS BLOG," that enables you to search all entries in this Blog since June 2006.]
On April 19, on Board of Regents stationery (which does not yet even have the new Regents names on it), a "Statement from Michael Gartner" was released.
There is much about it that is quite commendable. For example, he says "While it is natural for caring citizens and policy makers to have immediate and strong opinions about how to react to horrible events like the one at Virginia Tech, it is very important that decisions . . . not be made too quickly and without very careful and thoughtful analysis." Gartner says the Board has, "asked the universities to undertake a comprehensive and detailed review of campus security protocols, procedures, technologies, and prevention counseling techniques that are currently in use by the institutions, and to explore process and protocol improvements as well as other improvements they may uncover in the course of this analysis [because] this information will be invaluable . . . to the Board of Regents . . .." Why on earth would I pick this statement as my example? In the aftermath of the Virginia Tech tragedy am I really going to fault a public official for launching an inquiry into our universities' preparedness to deal with such events here in Iowa? Shouldn't student safety be among the highest priorities for a Board of Regents?
It is precisely for those reasons that I pick this example. This is the toughest possible example I could choose to try and make the point that the Regents are in need of a governance model. If I can make the point with this example there should be very little debate about the others.
So what's wrong with what he did -- from the perspective of the governance issues discussed in the blog entry of April 17, linked above?
1. Only the Board speaks for the Board. Most literature about Board governance models advises that Board members only speak as a Board. This is not to say that individual Board members should not speak out as and when they want to -- on any one of a variety of issues. It is to say that it is important for everyone to know that, if and when they do so that they are not speaking for the Board, but only for themselves. It is important for the other Board members to know this, and it is important for the public to know it. It is especially important for the CEO, administration, and others at the institutions for which they have Board responsibilities to know that they are free to ignore the statements of individual Board members, on and off their campus -- as distinguished from Board policies, by which they are governed.
This is not a matter of law. The Regents have the legal power (up to a point) to grant the Regents' President the authority to speak out whenever he wishes, on whatever subjects he wishes, and to endorse in advance (without knowing what he will say) whatever he does say as the opinion of "the Board."
It is only to say that most of those who have studied such matters have concluded that it is not a very effective way to govern any institution, including universities, from the perspective of any of the stakeholder groups involved.
(Now it may be, of course, that Gartner's April 19 statement followed a Board meeting at which the statement was approved, and that it was not merely the statement of its President. But even if that was the case, the statement would better come from "The Iowa Board of Regents" than be -- as the Board's document headlined -- a "Statement of Michael Gartner, President, Board of Regents.")
2. Boards that govern best manage least. However serious student security may be, however tragic the events at Virginia Tech that have been seared into our consciousness, board best practices suggest that the most effective boards govern through proactive policies that look forward (Carver's "ends policies," what others might call measurable goals) not reactive management that looks backward.
I'm not going to draft that "ends policy" here, but the point is that it would deal with results, not techniques, ends not means. It's up to the CEO to choose the means that she thinks will best produce the mandated end -- in this case the minimization of physical harm to students, whether from tornados, excessive drinking, or mass murderers.
This Board, speaking and acting through its President, has recently involved itself in a couple of personnel matters as well -- one involving what was apparently unauthorized access to an individual's e-mail, and another involving the dismissal of an employee. These are additional examples of counterproductive Board involvement in "management by rear view mirror" rather than forward looking policies and goals.
Of course, merely writing policies is not enough. "Governance" also involves a regular annual, or other periodic, review of results, and an evaluation of whether the "ends policies" are being reached, the measurable goals achieved. Measurable goals will contribute little to governance if they only exist in a three-ring binder sitting on a shelf. Indeed, this becomes the process by which the performance of the CEO can be evaluated. He or she knows in advance what the Board expects the institution to achieve, the CEO is left with responsibility for coming up with the means by which to do it, and his or her performance is judged by those results.
As mentioned in the April 17 blog entry, the Board is already doing much of this. That's good.
But that raises another problem. If the Board does not already have in place an ends policy regarding student security then shame on the Board. That would seem to be one of the first policies to which a Board would address its attention. But even if a Board adopts a reactive rather than a proactive policy, we have already had at the University of Iowa a tornado, a shooting, and deaths from excessive drinking. Even a reactive Board shouldn't need Virginia Tech's experience to have prompted it to action years ago.
This editorial cartoon appeared in the April 22 Gazette, is copyright by the Gazette, and reproduced here as fair use for educational and commentary purposes only. Other use may require permission from The Gazette.
It depicts a tombstone with wreaths labeled "University of Texas 1966," "Paducah 1997," "Jonesboro 1998," "Columbine 1999," "Springfield 1998," "Red Lake 2005," "Penn. Amish School 2006," and finally "Virginia Tech 2007" held by a person labeled "Law Makers" who's saying, "Our slow response? We thought the first shooting was an isolated incident."
And that's my point. Any Board of Regents that hasn't long since had a policy in place since 1966, any university that doesn't have contingency plans and procedures for emergencies, has been sleeping with Rip Van Winkle for the past 40 years -- and probably has not had an effective governance model in place during those years either.
If the Iowa Board of Regents really believes there is a need to review and adopt policies and procedures because of what happened at Virginia Tech, if it hasn't long since had both in place, if it doesn't routinely review them -- measuring performance against its "ends policies" -- it's really a little late for it to be starting now.
3. Boards support their institutions. No institution is well served by a see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-speak-no-evil governing board always trying to put a positive public relations spin on bad news. The Board needs to be informed as to what's going on, and to take remedial action when Board intervention is appropriate.
On the other hand, with a well constructed governance model, and regular reviews of progress toward agreed upon goals, there should be relatively little need for such intervention.
Moreover, to call for investigations of this and that, whenever a news item appears, projects -- whether intentionally or not -- the message that the institutions for which the Board has governing responsibility are incompetent, in need of "adult supervision," and constantly messing up. That is not a constructive message for any board to communicate about an institution for which it has responsibility.
I believe this most recent statement from the Board President falls into that category.
The University of Iowa has in place -- as Board members know, or ought to know -- a number of institutional units, procedures and practices for dealing with emergencies in general. Moreover, they have worked pretty well.
The reason we remember the date, November 1, 1991, is because the campus killing that occurred then was somewhere between so rare, and unprecedented, an event. There have not been (so far as I can recall) any handgun killings on campus during the 15-plus years since.
A year ago the University withstood a major tornado that tore up trees, and demolished homes, churches and other buildings. There was not a single death.
This week the University won an award of sorts for the progress it has made controlling the adverse effects of binge drinking.
In a country with 200 million handguns, in an age of open campuses, suicide killers, and the societal forces that contribute to the creation of mass murderers, this record must be, as it would be for any institution, in part simply a matter of dumb luck. No campus is, nor could it ever be, completely, 100% safe from handgun killings.
On the other hand, as Lyndon Johnson used to tell us, "They call me 'Lucky Lyndon,' but I always found the harder I worked the luckier I became." The UI's administrators have worked hard to produce their "luck" as well.
All considered -- whether truly the case or not -- it tends to make the Regents President's statement look more like a public relations effort, and one at the expense of the University at that, than an effort to be supportive of the institution at such a time, and on such an emotionally loaded topic.
That's another consequence and disadvantage of the absence of a Board governance model, leaving the Board little option but to react to events after they've occurred rather than proactively addressing their prevention ahead of time with ends policies and goals.
So that's my story, my case, for a Board of Regents governance model that more precisely defines the roles of the Board on the one hand, and the university president, administration and faculty on the other. It in no way would diminish the authority of the Board; indeed, properly conceived and executed it would strengthen it. But it would make both the Board and the Regents universities into much more effective institutions, eliminate unnecessary misunderstandings and resentments, and make everyone's life more productive and pleasant.
Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. (As of January 25 the count has run from January 21, 2006, rather than last November.)
For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most column. Going directly to FromDC2Iowa.Blogspot.com will take you to the latest. Each contains links to the full text of virtually all known media stories and commentary, including mine, since the last blog entry. Together they represent what The Chronicle of Higher Education has called "one of the most comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006.
Searching: the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References." A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 is also available. And note that if you know (or can guess at) a word to search on, the "Blogger" bar near the top of your browser has a blank, followed by "SEARCH THIS BLOG," that enables you to search all entries in this Blog since June 2006.]
"What did you tell him?" I asked my friend, as we talked over a little interpersonal conflict her son was having. She had given him just two little words of advice: "Be nice."
The words came back to me this past week as virtually everyone in America struggled, together, with the events at Virginia Tech. Amidst the things we come together to do at such times -- prayer services, lowered flags, bell ringing, moments of silence, memorial services, ribbons, and the media, always the media -- my thoughts ranged from resolution of grief to reflections on remedies.
I'm not going to reflect here on the "big issues" -- Would easier access to handguns make us safer or more at risk? Does the media's reporting of (or fictional programming involving) violence encourage additional real life violence? Was it a mistake to close down our mental hospitals and house our mentally ill in prisons instead?
The fact is that most of our restraints on anti-social behavior are dependent upon a fundamental human quality: the desire to preserve one's own life and happiness. A criminal wants to avoid the possibility of being shot by the police -- or spending years in prison. Once there is no longer that restraint, that desire to stay alive -- whether with a suicide bomber in Iraq or a mass murderer in Virginia -- there is very little that anyone can do to predict, let alone prevent, the carnage they can create (up to and including "weapons of mass destruction" in a briefcase or backpack).
So I'm going to focus on some things that every American can do, from the youngest to the elderly, something to do every day, long after the memorial services are over, the bells have stopped ringing, and the VT ribbons have been lost among the socks in the back of our dresser drawer.
A 2002 federal study on common characteristics of school shooters found that 71 percent of them "felt bullied, persecuted or injured by others prior to the attack."
The report said that "in some of these cases the experience of being bullied seemed to have a significant impact on the attacker and appeared to have been a factor in his decision to mount an attack at the school. In one case, most of the attacker's schoolmates described the attacker as the kid everyone teased."
Cho "would almost be a poster child for the pattern that we saw," said Marisa Randazzo, the former chief research psychologist at the U.S. Secret Service and co-author of the study, conducted jointly with the Education Department.
* * *
Classmates in Virginia, where Cho grew up, said he was teased and picked on, apparently because of shyness and his strange, mumbly way of speaking.
Once, in English class at Westfield High School in Chantilly, Va., when the teacher had the students read aloud, Cho looked down when it was his turn, said Chris Davids, a Virginia Tech senior and high school classmate. After the teacher threatened him with an F for participation, Cho began reading in a strange, deep voice that sounded "like he had something in his mouth," Davids said.
"The whole class started laughing and pointing and saying, 'Go back to China,"' Davids said.
Stephanie Roberts, 22, a classmate of Cho's at Westfield High, said . . . friends of hers who went to middle school with him told her they recalled him getting bullied there.
"There were just some people who were really mean to him and they would push him down and laugh at him," Roberts said. "He didn't speak English really well and they would really make fun of him."
Now let me make clear what I am not saying. I'm not advocating more sympathy for Cho, or that "it wasn't really his fault," or that the sole cause of Cho's horrific act was the fact he was bullied in junior high. I'm not saying that if only he had been treated with greater sensitivity none of this would have happened. I'm certainly not saying those junior high classmates of his are responsible for 32 deaths. Cho obviously had a lot of problems besides his experiences in school. On the other hand, based on the federal study, how he was treated by his teachers and classmates over the years could very well have had some impact on the person he became.
In terms of one's sense of insecurity, there are some other numbers to keep in mind. The odds of any given individual college student being killed by a stranger in a mass murder on a college campus are, as we say, "somewhere between slim and none at all." There are some 30,000 firearm deaths a year, and about the same number of suicides (over half of which involve firearms). That's about 80 for every one of the 365 days each year. [National Safety Council, "What Are the Odds of Dying?"] The 32 killed at Virginia Tech constituted the largest number ever; seldom would it be as many as 85 in a year for the entire nation -- twice the number who die from being struck by lightning. By contrast, among 15-24-year-olds suicide is the third leading cause of death. [American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, "Facts for Families: Teen Suicide," July 2004.]
And while we're trying to imagine the grief of those 32 individuals' friends and family members, try this exercise. Recall the grief you felt for the 32 deaths of individuals who -- most likely -- were personally unknown to you. Now multiply that by imagining if some of them were your children, or bothers and sisters, or good friends. And now multiply that by 2000. That is the grief felt by the people of Iraq for the civilian deaths of 64,000 friends and relatives from the violence of the current Iraq War. [The best estimates range from 62,000 to 68,000 civilian dead. "Iraq Body Count Database," as of April 20, 2007.]
All of which brings us back to the admonition: "Be nice."
There are a lot of things most of us can't do. We can't bring to bear the professional skills of psychiatrists -- because we don't have the training. We can't, single-handedly, change our nation's laws regarding handguns.
We can "be nice" every day, to everyone with whom we interact. Will we occasionally be rebuffed in our efforts? Of course. But rarely. And the benefits are well worth that price. Because we need not be motivated solely by a desire to reduce mass murder. Befriending the lonely and the loners, the least popular of one's classmates; taking their side when they're being ridiculed, excluded, or abused; looking for opportunities to pay a compliment or say "thank you" to those who are most seldom recognized and appreciated; catching ourselves before uttering the words that project our prejudice and deliver another's pain -- these are all things worth doing for their own sake. Not only do they give a little boost to another, they make us feel better about ourselves as well.
Getting to know the students from another country, or from out of state, can be especially rewarding -- for us as well as them. Someone from another country, or for whom English is their second language, who knows no one at their high school or university, for whom everything is new and strange, and who is homesick and may be under the stress of enormous family and colleague pressure to succeed is someone who can really use a friend.
If your reaching out to others happens to contribute in some small way to preventing a future mass murder, that's a very big added blessing.
And that's why, with all of the adult chattering about VT, I was so pleased to see in Thursday's (April 19) New York Times the following:
As masses of mourners assemble at sites like Facebook and MySpace.com . . . a slogan also surfaced. It's a sign of the times, and has unmistakable poignancy for devotees of social-networking Web sites. It's simple: "Reach out to loners."
"After what happened on 4/16/07," read one page,"I'm gonna talk & reach out to every loner."
Others pledged to smile at people on the street, to greet quiet people and even to visit those who seem isolated.
Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. (As of January 25 the count has run from January 21, 2006, rather than last November.)
For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most column. Going directly to FromDC2Iowa.Blogspot.com will take you to the latest. Each contains links to the full text of virtually all known media stories and commentary, including mine, since the last blog entry. Together they represent what The Chronicle of Higher Education has called "one of the most comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006.
Searching: the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References." A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 is also available. And note that if you know (or can guess at) a word to search on, the "Blogger" bar near the top of your browser has a blank, followed by "SEARCH THIS BLOG," that enables you to search all entries in this Blog since June 2006.]
