. . . 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.
I'm reminded of a story told about a corporate CEO years ago -- it may have been Alfred Sloan at General Motors. After a brief discussion with a group of his vice presidents regarding a major challenge confronting the company he said, "Well, gentlemen, I see we're all in agreement. That probably means we don't understand the problem. I suggest we think about it some more and meet again in a couple of weeks."
In this case, the Regents are going to meet again in a month.
It's the Mission of Higher Education -- Not the Naming of Buildings
The Regents seem to recognize that the "building naming" issue goes far beyond the mere matter of turning Regents' campus buildings into one of the best advertising buys available to for-profit businesses anywhere, the gift that goes on giving forever: billboards for corporations that will last as long as a building stands.
The Regents are face-to-face with an issue no less significant than the proper role of higher education today in general, and for the Regents' universities in Iowa in particular.
Once the province of religion, with a primary purpose of training ministers, these colleges were followed by land grant universities envisioned to (among other things) assist the agricultural industry.
Once institutions enabling the perpetuation of the socio-economic status of America's elite families, they were expanded to offer opportunity for all -- though still funded by the state, and as close to "free" as possible for students (a goal continued with the GI-Bill following World War II).
Today state funding provides only a small fraction of the cost of running "public universities" that are, in almost every way, the full equivalent of "private universities" -- including the student loan debt that further enriches banks, and impoverishes students, once they graduate (if they do). Once seen as a means to enrich the qualify of one's life over a lifetime other than in a monetary way -- with a greater appreciation of art, music, literature, languages, and a fuller understanding of nature and the products of science that fill our lives -- today a university education is increasingly pursued as (because, in part, it has been advertised as) a way to increase one's income over the course of a lifetime.
Increasingly, higher education is coming to be "corporatized."
Buildings that used to bear the names of ancient scholars now bear the names of donors -- as do faculty and auditorium "chairs," rooms, wings, and even entire colleges.
Facilities are provided for start-up corporations.
Faculty are expected to raise their own salaries from grants -- often, in effect, utilizing university resources and their own talents to increase the bottom line of for-profit corporations, doing research at bargain-basement rates that, but for the lack of state funding, they might not choose to be doing at all.
Universities contribute to the creation of an economy and society in which our very best artists (writers, musicians, graphic artists) are producing the advertising that manipulates consumer demand, and our very best scientists and engineers are paid from defense appropriations to create ever-more-efficient deadly weapons of war.
As I've pointed out in discussing these issues earlier, the primary problem (if such it be) comes from a university's solicitation and acceptance of the money in the first place. Putting the name on the building merely advertises to the world that we're for sale. But what we sold was sold when we took the money -- "with no strings attached."
So that's the issue confronting the Regents -- an issue in which the "naming controversy" is well buried within a substantial pile of more fundamental concerns.
I have my preferences, obviously, but my primary concern is the elimination of hypocrisy.
If our primary role in the 21st Century is to be an "economic engine," if we are simply recognizing our relationship as that of a "subsidiary corporation" in a world that is little more than the Fortune 500, so be it. Let's declare that's the case and do the best possible job we can of pursuing that path, and making those contributions.
Not incidentally, if that's what we decide we are, the controversy surrounding the naming of buildings for our corporate partners and masters thereby becomes a trivial issue to be quickly resolved.
But it's unseemly, in my view, to pretend and advertise that we're here for the students, that we're trying to enrich their lives, that we're committed to the pursuit of a "liberal arts and sciences education," when that's not the case. That's all.
I'd rather we first figure out, and then just declare, what we truly are -- and then start much more aggressively "haggling over price." It's Not About Guns
As for more academic armaments on campus, I'm reminded of the bumper sticker: "Whatever is the question, war is not the answer."
In our case, "whatever is the security issue, weapons are not the answer."
The Regents are also entitled to some praise for wanting to give this one a little more time and investigation as well.
The matter is highlighted by this morning's Press-Citizen.
Bob Patton's editorial cartoons always put the matter most suscinctly, but there is also an excellent column on the editorial page. David Morris, "Guns Aren't Safe Solution,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 20, 2007, p. A7.
What's the greatest security concern on the campus at the moment? The fact that the Iowa City police -- armed or unarmed -- have so far (despite their best efforts) been unable to bring a halt to what is now a string of 30 women assaulted on the streets of Iowa City at night.
There are a number of lessons here.
1. As someone commented in an earlier blog here, the primary risk to the security of students occurs on the streets of Iowa City, not the campus of the University.
2. This, in turn, opens a can of worms about the relationship between the campus police and the Iowa City police. One of the arguments offered by proponents of arming the campus police is that they are responsible for patrolling many areas of Iowa City besides the campus, and that they are sometimes called upon by the Iowa City police to help out. Who made those decisions and why?
3. Thankfully, if I've read all the newspaper reports correctly, every woman attacked was able to defend herself and send the attacker running. Thus, it would seem that (a) this is a matter for the Iowa City police, not the campus police, (b) they are armed, (c) but being armed would not seem to be necessary in this instance, and (d) in any event, armed or unarmed, they have been unable to find and arrest the attacker or protect the women.
4. Thus, as Bob Patton illustrates, and I've discussed at length in other blog entries here (see, e.g., "Politics and Psychology," linked below), arming the campus police is little more than an irrelevant "security blanket," a decision being made at the wrong time (a response to Virginia Tech) for the wrong reasons, that (like our invasion of Iraq) is as likely to decrease rather than increase our security.
As Regent Rose Vasquez observed, under any rational benefit-cost analysis one has to acknowledge that arming campus police has the usual equation backwards: there are virtually no benefits to arming campus police (in saved injury and death of students), while on the other hand there are risks of significant cost (in lost lives). So why are we doing this? My best analysis remains Nicholas Johnson, "On Point, Politics, Psychology, Police and Public Relations" in "Politics and Psychology," September 14, 2007.
[As Radio Iowa reports:
Rose Vasquez of Des Moines says the issue shouldn't be bundled into a larger plan. Vasquez says she's ready to vote on arming officers, saying she's opposed to arming the officers and it won't have anything to do with not beefing up security measures. Vasquez says even after hearing from the directors of the three public safety departments about the threats that face campus police, she did not favor arming the officers.
Vasquez says, "There was no situation that sort of rose up or elevated itself to a level that but for a gun, things would have been different."
This week the Regents seemed to be 7-to-1 in favor of more weapons on campus, but they were unanimous that "campus security" was a much bigger and more complex issue than merely supplying more guns.
Even as to the guns, as I noted earlier,
"the evidence [regarding weapon-toting campus police] was, at best, equally divided as to whether arming campus police would make the UI community safer or more dangerous. The discussion of the issue was not driven by academic inquiry, data -- or even a traditional debate format -- with spokespersons putting forward their best case. It was permitted to be driven by those who advocated bringing more guns onto the campus." Nicholas Johnson, "On Point, Politics, Psychology, Police and Public Relations" in "Politics and Psychology," September 14, 2007.
Finally, I put to the students once again . . .
Think, Students: Do you Really Want More Weapons on Campus?
Students can be a real source of trouble for university administrators.
Sometimes it can be because of what the students do. Other times because of what they say -- or think -- the signs they carry, or the sit-ins they organize.
So while I've never had any difficulty understanding why university administrators would want more, and better armed, police and national guard soldiers to protect their campuses from whatever the administrators may find threatening at any given moment, I'm really bewildered as to why students would want more fully armed "authority" with which to deal.
Here's why.
Witness this event from the evening of September 17, demonstrating how the campus police at Florida University, Gainesville, made students "safer" on that campus when one was in the process of merely exercising his First Amendment right in asking former John Kerry a question:
That student in the video, Andrew Meyer, can be grateful that his campus police chose to limit the pain they inflicted to physical violence and the threat (or actual use) of a taser. Based on his screams, however, it sounded like they were pushing tasers to their limits.
Not incidentally, why did this story -- which received widespread national distribution and has been all over the blogosphere, and is certainly related to the current campus BIG STORIES receive nary a mention in the Press-Citizen? (The Gazette at least carried the AP story, with a picture of Meyer. Associated Press, "University of Florida investigating police Tasering of student at forum,"The Gazette, September 19, 2007, p. A5.)
When guns are brought onto a campus to control students the results can be both painful and deadly. In the case of the Kent State Massacre, where armed national guard troops were used, the results were four dead students and nine injured from gunshot wounds.
For those students not old enough to have lived through the Kent State Massacre of May 4, 1970, you might want to review the video below. Because it starts with President Nixon's speech, just substitute "President George W. Bush" for "President Richard Nixon," "Iraq" for "Vietnam," and "Iran" for "Cambodia" to bring it up to date and make it easier to relate to.
Here's another take on those events, from "Democracy Now."
You can't imagine how much safer I feel, knowing that soon the UI will also have access to the deadly weapons necessary to control unruly students.
September 18, 2007, 11:45 a.m., 7:30 p.m. -- Additions (bottom of page) of video of campus police Taser incident Sept. 17 and Kent State Massacre in 1970!!
TIFs, Tiffs, and Sullivan
Rod Sullivan for Supervisor
Every once in awhile a public official comes along who is so outstanding in every way that it is hard for citizen-taxpayers to even fully understand, let alone appreciate, what they have.
Johnson County Supervisor Rod Sullivan is such an official.
Name a positive adjective and it fits: bright, courageous, hard working, creative, leadership, compassionate, friendly, articulate, thoughtful, giving . . . the list is endless.
And there are two reasons why I mention that today. One is that he's just announced his campaign for re-election to a second term on the Johnson County Board of Supervisors. Kathryn Fiegen, "Sullivan decides to seek another term,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 18, 2007, p. A3.
The other is an item in his weekly "Sullivan's Salvos," Monday's edition. (It's available to you, as a free email if you're not already a subscriber: Just email rodsullivan@mchsi.com with "subscribe" in the subject line.) Not incidentally, while we're raving about Sullivan, this is in my opinion the single most useful of all the e-zines and email services maintained by any public official.
Not only does it keep you up to date on what Johnson County (and other counties) are doing, it contains personal items, and other informational pieces as well.
Wellmark Joins Doctors, singing: "Taxpayers, can you spare a dime?"
For example, yesterday's edition of "Sullivan's Salvos" contained the following:
A GREAT book for anyone who might be interested is The Great American Jobs Scam by Greg LeRoy. Are you tired of hearing about governments giving our tax dollars to big corporations so they can "retain jobs"? Me, too.
LeRoy debunks several common myths, such as "Company X would have left the community but for these incentives." LeRoy writes at length about the myths of TIF, Enterprise Zones, and many other common economic development tools used by municipalities in the name of growth.
The book offers important suggestions to the tax code that State lawmakers can use to protect our interests, such as combined reporting. This book also notes the work of UI Professors Peter Fisher and Alan Peters.
I urge everyone to read this book, then ask your state and local elected officials to read it as well. It is available at local libraries.
And speaking of TIFs, the Press-Citizen offered a well-written and balanced assessment of the proposed $600,000 subsidy for doctors on this morning's editorial page: Editorial, "TIF is the Wrong Prescription for Surgery Center,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 18, 2007, p. A11. (Why "balanced"? Because the paper sets forth the reasons for supporting the hand-out offered by the "Iowa City economic development staff . . . [because of the ] cumulative effect of a number of smaller reasons . . .." And the editorial repeats, "We've always asserted that [TIFs] can be a good tool when used effectively." My position has increasingly become that there is no worthwhile, benefit-cost-risk-justified basis for arguing their "effective" use in any circumstances.)
Want another example of outrageous corporate subsidies?
Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield will build a new $175 million headquarters in downtown Des Moines . . ..
Des Moines will provide a number of incentives . . .. [Des Moines] City Manager Rick Clark . . . declined to put a dollar amount on the incentives . . . , but [Wellmark Group Vice President Cliff] Gold said the combination of state and local incentives is more than $10 million.
. . .
The city's incentives will be in four areas, Clark said.
- The city will shoulder the burden of straightening out High Street to provide a little more room for the project.
- Eventually, the city will help extend the downtown skywalk to the building. That may take some time because the nearest connection now is at Ninth Street and Grand Avenue.
- Some type of mass transit encouragement for Wellmark employees to take the bus will be included.
- Tax increment financing will be use to rebate some property tax money to Wellmark. Clark declined to say how much TIF money might be involved.
Among other things, he said, TIF money will be used to make the new building LEED certified, a designation for buildings that are energy-efficient and use environmentally friendly building technology.
The city could also use TIF money to pay some of the cost of removing chemicals from the property now occupied by a dry cleaner.
The city will work with businesses located in the area to find new locations within the city, Clark said. City officials also helped negotiate the sale of parcels of land on the building site not owned by Iowa Health Systems.
. . .
Wellmark has more modest growth plans - perhaps as many as 100 new employees in the next few years, according to Gold. . . .
Advantages to a downtown site include a central location, access to transportation and sticking to a 68-year history with the central business district, Gold said. . . .
Gold said that Wellmark has adequate resources to pay for constructing the building and equipping it.
"We don't think we'll need to borrow," he said.
Note the following:
(1) At best, these corporate subsidies accomplished no more than shifting a building from West Des Moines to downtown Des Moines -- a classic example of intra-Iowa (in this case intra-city!) competition producing no benefit whatsoever for Iowa's taxpayers.
(2) Claims of significant new job creation are often inflated or downright bogus. In this case they were virtually non-existent with a "modest growth" possibility of 100 low wage jobs -- "perhaps."
(3) The real reasons for this corporate decision, as is almost always the case, involved factors other than bribery with taxpayers' money -- as the company's executives revealed they wanted the downtown location because of "a central location, access to transportation and sticking to a 68-year history with the central business district."
(4) Moreover, they didn't need the money. In addition to the fact that they earlier had enough spare pocket change to invest in a 66-acre urban plot they ended up not using, as Wellmark's Executive Vice President Gold put it, "Wellmark has adequate resources to pay for constructing the building and equipping it" and "We don't think we'll need to borrow." Not only does it not sound like low income housing (one of TIFs' original purposes) it doesn't even sound like a gold-plated corporate tin cup in need of additional funds from the taxpayers.
And speaking of Wellmark buildings . . .
. . . UI President Sally Mason would prefer not to have a policy on building naming.
The Regents decided to postpone coming up with a naming policy, but Mason is quoted as saying, "I would prefer our hands not be tied and we look at it on a case-by-case basis."
Sounds like we may be in for weapons in the hands of campus police AND corporate names on UI's building -- "on a case-by-case basis," of course.
Erin Jordan, "Regents Seek New Naming Policy,"Des Moines Register, September 18, 2007, 9:34 a.m. ("New U of I president Sally Mason said last week that the Regents and the universities should remain flexible on the issue. 'I would prefer our hands not be tied and we look at it on a case-by-case basis,' Mason told Des Moines Register editors and reporters Friday.")
Senator Joins Fruitless Call for Research and Balance on Campus Weapons Issue
Since the Regents are also looking at providing their campus police officers with deadly weapons I thought I might add today that four days ago I wrote, "the evidence [regarding weapon-toting campus police] was, at best, equally divided as to whether arming campus police would make the UI community safer or more dangerous. The discussion of the issue was not driven by academic inquiry, data -- or even a traditional debate format -- with spokespersons putting forward their best case. It was permitted to be driven by those who advocated bringing more guns onto the campus." Nicholas Johnson, "On Point, Politics, Psychology, Police and Public Relations" in "Politics and Psychology," September 14, 2007.
This morning we read that a much more authoritative -- but probably no more persuasive -- source is making similar suggestions: "In a Sept. 10 letter addressed to Iowa State University President Gregory Geoffroy and later sent to the nine members of the Iowa state Board of Regents, Sen. Herman Quirmbach, D-Ames, said the report lacked data-driven analysis, trends in campus crime, assessment of risks and an analysis of possible effects of such a change." Brian Morelli, "Senator questions security report; Quirmbach: Recommendations lack thoroughness, objectivity,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 18, 2007.
Given Governor Chet Culver's last minute jump on the well-armed bandwagon (because of Virginia Tech), my "Politics and Psychology" analysis of this groundswell seems more and more correct with every passing day. Associated Press, "Culver Favors Arming Campus Police,"Des Moines Register, September 18, 2007, 10:48 a.m. ("He [Governor Culver] says the shootings on the Virginia Tech campus in April highlights the need for serious consideration of security on college campuses.")
To no one's surprise, the Regents have now come down with a "firm, possible maybe" on the issue:
The Iowa Board of Regents delayed a final decision to arm campus police for at least a month. The board unanimously approved a motion to develop a comprehensive safety and security plan for Iowa's three public universities. That plan would be approved at a future meeting. The board then voted 7-1 to allow a provision as part of that policy allowing campus police officers to carry firearms in the regular course of duties. Before Regent Michael Gartner voted on the second motion, he clarified that the decision to arm police could still be reversed with a future vote on the comprehensive safety plan.
Regent Ruth Harkin of Cumming says there are many other issues that go into a secure campus, and it's difficult to single out arming campus police. "I just wouldn't want to give the impression that we think we have responded to the security call by voting on a firearms policy," Harkin says. The board asked its staff to develop a comprehensive security plan that would include arming campus officers.
The only Regent to voice opposition to the idea - Rose Vasquez of Des Moines - says the issue shouldn't be bundled into a larger plan. Vasquez says she's ready to vote on arming officers, saying she's opposed to arming the officers and it won't have anything to do with not beefing up security measures. Vasquez says even after hearing from the directors of the three public safety departments about the threats that face campus police, she did not favor arming the officers.
Vasquez says, "There was no situation that sort of rose up or elevated itself to a level that but for a gun, things would have been different."
Think, Students: Do you Really Want More Weapons on Campus?
Students can be a real source of trouble for university administrators.
Sometimes it can be because of what the students do. Other times because of what they say -- or think -- the signs they carry, or the sit-ins they organize.
So while I've never had any difficulty understanding why university administrators would want more, and better armed, police to protect whatever they may find threatening at any given moment, I'm really bewildered as to why students would want more fully armed "authority" with which to deal.
Here's why.
Witness this event from last evening (September 17), demonstrating how the campus police at Florida University, Gainesville, made students "safer" on that campus when one was in the process of asking former Senator John Kerry a question:
That student in the video, Andrew Meyer, can be grateful that his campus police chose to limit the pain they inflicted to a taser. Based on his screams, however, it sounded like they were pushing tasers to their limits.
When guns are brought onto a campus to control students the results are both painful and deadly. In the case of the Kent State Massacre, where armed national guard troops were used, the results were four dead students and nine injured from gunshot wounds.
For those students not old enough to have lived through the Kent State Massacre of May 4, 1970, you might want to review the video below. Because it starts with President Nixon's speech, just substitute "President George W. Bush" for "President Richard Nixon," "Iraq" for "Vietnam," and "Iran" for "Cambodia" to bring it up to date and make it easier to relate to.
Here's another take on those events, from "Democracy Now."
You can't imagine how much safer I feel, knowing that soon the UI will also have access to the weapons necessary to control unruly students.
President Mason Foreshadows Positions on Guns, Naming
One week on the job and our new president -- who has elsewhere said she'll be listening for three to six months before weighing in on current issues -- is serving breakfast to the media at the president's residence and dropping clues as to her positions.
Guns. Although President Mason said, "I am not a fan of guns," here's what else Erin Jordan heard, and reported:
University of Iowa President Sally Mason seems to be leaning toward a recommendation that campus police officers be armed.
"I have not been on a campus before where officers aren't armed," said Mason, who was Purdue University provost before coming to the U of I. "Iowa has had shootings on this campus before, so clearly someone is armed."
. . . "Imagine what he (the shooter) [at Virginia Tech] would have done in the 30 minutes it would have taken them (officers) to go back and get their guns," Mason said.
I don't know how you read that, but it sounds to me like the UI campus police are going to get their wish.
Brian Morelli reported,
UI President Sally Mason said she found it "curious" that UI police don't carry guns. "I have not been on a campus where campus police had not been armed. That was curious to me," she said.
(President Mason's use of "curious" is somehow reminiscent of Regents President Michael Gartner's use of "interesting" -- a suggestion of disapproval buried in an opportunity for subsequent disavowal.)
There is, of course, another view. A Register letter writer draws upon his own experience at Iowa State in opposing armed campus police. Aaron Hurd, "Arming Campus Police Counterproductive,"Des Moines Register, August 7, 2007 ("In fact, the absence of firearms on campus makes DPS more effective; it forces DPS and the students to become partners in keeping campus safe.").
And I've noted in other blog entries the Kent State massacre and Iowa City's Shaw shooting as examples involving armed police and national guard that are consistent with the statistics involving guns in the home. Apparently guns in the home are 16 times more likely to end up causing injury or death to family members than to hostile intruders. What are we to say regarding the deaths of innocent citizens, or students, shot by armed police? Are they, like the tens of thousands of innocent dead and injured civilians in Iraq, just the price we're willing to pay for our "safety and security"?
I've talked at length with police who have unanimously expressed a desire to be armed. Given their occasional need to deal with not very nice people who are (or who may be) armed (drunk and dangerous) the desire for as much security and protection as possible is easily understandable.
Just remember that the answer to this issue is not a slam dunk. There are few instances where having had armed police would have saved lives. (The fact that Virginia Tech's campus police were armed may make the campus community feel more secure, but it didn't make the victims any less dead.) President Mason is right, "Iowa has had shootings on this campus before, so clearly someone is armed." But my belief (I haven't checked the facts) is that had UI police been armed on that occasion it wouldn't have prevented those deaths, either.
Bottom line: (1) The occasions when having armed campus police could actually save lives during the kinds of shootings campuses and schools have witnessed are rare indeed. (2) There is a very real risk that arming campus police will actually increase the likelihood of campus gun deaths (e.g., deliberate and accidental shootings by the police; guns stolen from police during a scuffle and subsequently fired; an increased felt need by those with criminal intent to carry guns to protect themselves from the campus police). (My belief -- again not recently checked against the facts -- is that gun deaths in Great Britain actually increased after the formerly-unarmed police began carrying guns.) Corporate naming. On the other hand, Brian Morelli reports President Mason sounded a little more open to those opposing the naming of colleges for corporations:
On the Wellmark controversy, Mason said UI should not be soliciting gifts where there is a quid pro quo arrangement and said the issue of corporate naming had not been sufficiently vetted before the issue surfaced.
"UI shouldn't be accepting gifts if there is something more expected other than to be good stewards of the gift," she said.
She said it would not be "a good thing" to establish a name that faculty don't like.
She said much of the fuss stems from the emotional attachment to the name "Wellmark" rather than the real issue -- corporate naming. She said those issues need to be separated and the naming policy should be fully discussed.
This sounds like she's open to a policy prohibiting the naming of colleges (and even buildings) for corporations. I have often argued here that we need to separate out the Wellmark controversy and first address the more general issues: university-corporate ties generally, including the naming of anything, from chairs to the university itself. To what extent are the UI's stakeholders willing to assume a role as a subsidiary corporation to the Fortune 500 -- either as a matter of principle ("it's perfectly OK, what we ought to be doing and want to be doing in this corporate, for-profit 21st Century"), or as a matter of "revenue is needed" and principle be damned.
The Register's report of the chronology regarding the Wellmark naming offers some new insights.
As reported last week, Public Health Dean Jim Merchant had praised the gift, and U of I officials had drafted a news release to announce the $15 million gift in June.
"I had to stop them because the foundation board hadn't taken any official action on the gift yet. Thus, you can see why the later outrage from the faculty and the dean ... let alone editorial writers and bloggers ... is really odd," [Wellmark Foundation Executive Director Cliff] Gold wrote.
"The faculty had actually met and approved the gift, was ready to issue a press release, and it had been blessed by the president's office and vetted with the leadership of the regents. Then ... boom!"
"The outrage or change of heart at the college seems to have been caused by the official action taken from the foundation board of directors, which asked that the name be the Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield College of Public Health 'or something similar' (that's what the actual motion that was approved said) while the dean preferred the Wellmark Foundation College of Public Health or just the Wellmark College of Public Health. The issue was never whether the Wellmark corporate name would be on the college."
Gold said foundation and university officials never had a chance to discuss the "or something similar" before the faculty protested.
Dean Merchant. Marvin Pomerantz has called for President Mason to fire College of Public Health Dean Jim Merchant. Morelli reports,
Mason said deans report to the provost, and she has no intention of firing Merchant. "It is not on my priority list," she said.
If I were Merchant I'd like the "no intention of firing" comment, but wonder about the "priority list." Was that a jocular, understated bit of humor? Hopefully; otherwise it comes across as, "I might get around to it at some point, but it is not one of the most important things I have to focus on right now" -- which doesn't ring with as much "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie" as an official under siege might wish for from a university (or United States) president.
Hero Hogan's Replacement. Diane Heldt reports:
Mason . . . said she hopes to appoint an interim provost by Sept. 1. . . . A search committee will be appointed and Mason thinks a provost could be named by early spring. The search will be open and include campus involvement, she said."
UIHC Reorganization and the Athletic Program's Ties to Organized Gambling Industry. There may have been no questions about the UIHC reorganization and the UI partnership with the Riverside gambling casino. There may have been questions but no answers. There may have been questions, but with answers "off the record." Or there may have been answers that were simply not reported by the three papers covering the event. But as of this morning we know no more than we knew yesterday about her views on these equally controversial subjects.
Here are the links to the Jordan, Heldt and Morelli stories:
The collapsing Minneapolis bridge is a sad tragedy, and at least from some reports was an accident that could have been neither accurately predicted nor prevented.
But the phenomenon of "locking the barn door after the horse is stolen" is a human foible that has not disappeared with horses and barn doors. There are techniques for remedying it, and our failure to use them is a significant tragedy in its own right.
There was another example in this morning's Register: "Local emergency management officials in Polk County used the explosion Wednesday to highlight the need for hazardous materials training involving ethanol." Tom Barton, "Electricity sparked blast, officials say;Gasoline was being loaded into a tanker when the explosion occurred,"Des Moines Register, August 2, 2007. Why does it take an explosion to "highlight the need" for such training? Shouldn't that be obvious even before such explosions?
Earlier, the reaction of Governor Culver, and the Board of Regents, to the Virginia Tech shootings was to launch a study of security on our campuses; their reaction to the Wellmark naming controversy mess is a review (and creation) of policies on naming university colleges and buildings.
Recently, there was an explosion in downtown Manhattan from a corroded, underground steam pipe. The response was that, "Hey, maybe we ought to be checking out those steam pipes."
What John Carver calls "ends policies" and most would call "measurable goals" are distinguished from the means to be used by administrators for achieving those "ends" -- the achievement of which is also the administrator's "job description." The board sets the goals, and the administrator's job is to design and execute the means for reaching them. Accomplishment of mileposts along the administrator's (e.g., "CEO's") timelines can then be reported to the board (or governor) with a "management information reporting system" -- without the board's involvement in micromanaging of the details of the administrator's "means."
In fairness, a part of the responsibility for the failure of government, corporations and other institutions to do this job in a rational and effective way falls on the media. "If it bleeds it leads" is TV's motto. "Infrastructure" is neither very visual or very sexy. Most Iowans would probably rather use a Webcam to watch corn growing than watch a TV news report of inspectors looking at bridges. "A bridge collapsed and killed people? Now that's something we have to get on the evening news." And, once it receives media focus officials have to respond -- with an investigation, task force, a fly-over inspection, or promises of how things are going to change.
But the fact is that so many of these disasters are predictable -- not necessarily precisely what's going to go wrong and when, but that something will. Hurricanes, tornadoes and floods. Deteriorating (and exploding) underground pipelines for natural gas, gasoline -- and steam. Toxic waste dumps and hazardous chemical spills at work sites. Aging bridges. Fire hazards and improperly functioning sprinkler systems and smoke detectors. Inadequately maintained railroad tracks. Outbreaks of disease -- possibly as the result of a contaminated food supply. (And I won't even start down the list of potential "terrorist" attacks.)
Management by media coverage of disasters hasn't worked for us very well. Governance models aren't, alone, enough to solve all our problems. But they sure would be a lot better than what we're doing now with our after-the-fact barn-door-locking programs.
Governor Bill Richardson
I attended another Richardson event last evening (where I had the honor of introducing him to a packed Richey Auditorium in the IMU). It was vintage Richardson, and the crowd stayed with him though it all.
This was the second time I've seen him create a collection of questions at the end of the evening -- and then address them all. A staffer says, "Just one more, Governor." And then he says something to the effect of, "Well, I'll just respond once, but let's see if we can't get the questions from these folks with their hands up." Whereupon a staffer makes a list of a dozen or more additional questions which he then puts to the Governor in rapid-fire order.
The guy has had such a range of responsibilities and experiences over the past 35 years (e.g., House Intelligence Committee as Congressman; multiple successful hostage negotiations; UN Ambassador; Secretary of Energy; education, health care and environmental accomplishments as New Mexico's governor; etc., etc.) that these final Q&A sessions turn into a real tour de force display of his wide-ranging knowledge, experience, analysis, policy orientation and proposals. It's very impressive.
Afterwards we had a chance to visit with him informally for an hour or so. "What you see is what you get," on stage and off. He's as friendly, informal, funny, relaxed, considerate of others, and intellectually stimulating as your favorite uncle. (Actually, depending on who your favorite uncle is, that may not be doing Richardson justice -- but you get the idea. He's fun to be with.)
Add to that, as I commented in the introduction, that he's visited more Iowa counties in the last three weeks (five more major stops today) than Senator Grassley visits in a year, and no wonder he's picking up those poll percentages that Clinton and Obama have been losing.
This is not, necessarily, a critical story about Wellmark -- on the merits. The company has involved itself in decisions about "how many hospitals does it take to screw over the public"?
So, in a way, we should be grateful it cares about controlling costs -- costs that ultimately get passed along to us in the form of higher hospital bills and insurance premiums.
But the story is just one more example of what's wrong with providing a service that should be everyone's moral right -- namely, health care -- as yet one more product distributed by profit-maximizing, benefit-cutting private businesses called "hospitals" and "insurance companies."
August 2, 2007, 6:30, 9:00 a.m. (see "Putting a Dollar Value on Our Ethics: What Are the UI's Options?" below)
"Revenue is Needed"
Once "revenue is needed" is the Polestar for a university's financial decisions its moral compass begins to spin as if it was located on the North Pole.
Wall Street Journal and Wall Street University. The announcement yesterday that the Bancroft family would, after all, sell the Wall Street Journal and the rest of Dow Jones to media mogul Rupert Murdock is illustrative of the issues confronting the University of Iowa -- and virtually all other institutions of higher education in America.
Murdoch offered $60 a share for stock traded at closer to $37 -- a total of $5 billion. The family resisted: "several members of the Bancroft family -- Dow Jones's controlling owners -- opposed Murdoch's bid, fearing the tabloid king would wreck the integrity of the Journal and use it to further his business and political interests. In the end, nearly two-thirds of the Bancroft family voted for the merger." Frank Ahrens, "Dow-Jones Murdoch Merge in $5.8B Deal; Sides Agree to Create Editorial Board as Buffer Between Murdoch, Wall St. Journal,"Washington Post, August 1, 2007.
What tipped the balance? Apparently, Murdoch's willingness to satisfy some family members' request that he pick up the additional $30 million tab for their lawyers and analysts. David Folkenflik, "Murdoch Clutches Dow Jones," "Morning Edition," NPR, August 1, 2007.
In other words, the Bancroft family, which has owned Dow Jones for 100 years, and is concerned that Murdoch "would wreck the integrity of the Journal and use it to further his business and political interests," is willing to cast aside its concerns for an extra $30 million in a $5 billion deal!
Now consider the University of Iowa's position. There is reluctance to sell off naming rights for the College of Public Health to Wellmark for $15 million. Why? Our integrity is at stake. It is virtually unprecedented among American universities to name colleges for corporations. It would create, if not the reality, at least the appearance of a conflict of interest and raise questions about the integrity of the faculty's research. We are concerned that Wellmark "would wreck the integrity of the [College] and use it to further [Wellmark's] business and political interests."
Unless . . .. Unless what? Unless Wellmark might be willing to offer $20 million.
Here is the earlier discussion regarding "revenue is needed:"
In some ways most disturbing is the observation, reported in the Press-Citizen this morning [regarding the UI athletic program's partnerships with the organized gambling industry] that some "note that UI athletics will be entirely self-funded next year and say the revenue is needed."
This is the rationale for keeping highly sugared soft drinks in high school vending machines -- notwithstanding their contribution to obesity, diabetes and what dentists refer to as "Mountain Dew mouth." "The revenue is needed."
It's the rationale politicians use for accepting large bribes from special interest pleaders. "The revenue is needed."
After public broadcasting was expressly established as a "non-commercial," alternative broadcasting service, that was its rationale for taking the commercials that now clutter these "non-commercial" stations' airwaves. "The revenue is needed."
Of course, the politicians call them "campaign contributions" and the public broadcasting stations call the commercials "underwriting." But no one is fooled.
If "revenue is needed" is the standard, why not a line of cigarettes, or handguns, with Herky emblazoned on them?
Why not change the rules and sell alcohol throughout the football stands (rather than just in the skyboxes)? Better yet, why not have coeds dressed like Hooters waitresses making the sales?
Why just take pocket change from the Lottery and Casino; why not set up our own little gambling casino outside Kinnick and have folks place their bets on the game right there? After all, "revenue is needed."
It may be that arguments can be found justifying a university's ties to the gambling industries -- why those associations contribute in positive ways other than financial to a university's mission -- though none immediately occurs to me. Offer such reasons if you can. All I'm saying is that I don't think "revenue is needed" is a morally sound argument with which to support a university's partnerships with the gambling industry.
Once "revenue is needed" is the Polestar for a university's financial decisions its moral compass begins to spin as if it was located on the North Pole."
"Do as I say, don't do as I do" -- The Impact of Academics' Behavior on the Values of Students. There are many implications and consequences of the attitudes we adults communicate by our behavior as well as our words (especially when our actions don't match our words) with regard to the importance of money, and what we're willing to pay, and to sacrifice, in its pursuit -- up to and including our ethical, moral and religious values.
The point is as applicable to our naming of our College of Public Health as it is to our football program's partnerships with the organized gambling industry.
I don't know how the courses in our Departments of Philosophy, Religious Studies, College of Business -- indeed courses throughout the University -- treat the issue of selling out one's values for money, but I would hope and suspect they would not look kindly on the propriety of monetizing everything. See in this connection Nicholas Johnson, "'The Corporation' and the Search for Agreement," October 1, 2004 (commentary about the film "The Corporation" and a discussion of it at the UI College of Business).
Putting a Dollar Value on Our Ethics: What Are the UI's Options? The core of our present problem -- illustrated by the Wellmark naming controversy, but going far, far beyond it -- is the inherent conflict, and seeming hypocrisy, born of the ambiguity resulting from our failure to state with some precision just who and what we are. Clarification on that score is not a simple, total solution, but it would be better than what we have now -- regardless of how we come out on the issue. Here, it seems to me, are some of our choices:
1. The University as an oasis in a sea (or desert) of corporatization. Like national parks, we are set apart from the profit-maximizing, materialistic society in which we exist. Our mission is to provide a place where faculty can do research and teach, and students can exercise curiosity and learn, in a truly independent setting without need for concern about the impact of our ideas upon the financing of our institution. If that means we will be paid a little less, our buildings will be a little smaller, and we have to lobby the legislature a little more effectively, so be it. Whatever the contributions of corporate productivity may be to our society, there is also a societal value to maintaining places separate and apart from corporate values -- and values measured in a coin other than dollars.
2. "The business of America (and its universities) is business." We admit it. Education -- from K-12 through graduate school -- has always been about training our young for war and for employment by business. Over time the businesses have changed; we're no longer turning out high school graduates for assembly line jobs (though you wouldn't know it at some high schools) -- because there aren't any more assembly line manufacturing jobs now that we've shipped them overseas. But that doesn't change education's role in the economy. Why do students go to college anyway? Because they've been told precisely how many more dollars they'll be paid over the course of their lifetime if they do. Universities' research, as well as their graduates, have been supporting weapons programs and corporation's profit opportunities for decades. There's nothing new about this. And we've been taking their money forever -- Harvard, Duke, Stanford; numerous colleges and buildings, auditoriums and arenas, classrooms and professors' chairs -- are named for corporations and wealthy donors. Get over it. This is a non-issue. We're for sale. The only challenge is to get the maximum dollars we can from our donors. They want their name on a college or building? So, what's the problem -- so long as they pay enough for it, and pay by the year instead of for the life of the building?
3. The security of a slippery scale. We don't want to totally abandon our age-old cloistered role; and we don't want to totally abandon the money either. So we'll just be a little more precise about our rate card -- what's for sale, and what's not, and what the prices are. For example,
we'll accept "gifts" from anyone and any corporation, regardless of their public reputation or how they earned their money. We'll happily do research for the Defense Department or any major corporation -- so long as the money is right. The names of individual persons (even if similar or identical to their businesses) can go anywhere: named chairs, classrooms, buildings, colleges, even the University -- again, so long as they pay by the year, and pay what's on our rate card. However, the names of corporations (or names clearly identified with corporations, such as our "Ronald McDonald House"), as such, can only be associated with non-academic buildings, classrooms and professorial chairs -- not colleges or the University.
This is, as I say, only an example. All of these elements can be tweaked up or down. We could, for example, say we would not accept any corporate money that comes with strings, such as naming rights or even designation of purpose. In other words this is just an illustrative template. The point of this third option is simply that we acknowledge that we are, after all, for sale (so we're not caught in the hypocrisy of saying we're not when in fact we are) -- in the great American and corporate tradition -- but we can still claim to have our integrity and values when it comes to, say, our refusal to give corporations naming rights to academic programs.
Are there other options? Perhaps. But this might well be the basis for the beginning of that "full and respectful discussion" that President Sally Mason has called for.
Nicholas Johnson, "Corporatizing Education and Other U-News Updates" in "U-News Updates: Corporatizing Education," July 31, 2007 ("it will be a shame if this is perceived as merely the 'Wellmark-UI College of Public Health Naming Issue' when it is so much bigger and can more usefully be addressed in the larger context of the corporatization of higher education generally, and at the UI in particular. Whatever President Mason's focus turns out to be, it won't be long before we'll get a sense from her statements and decisions as to just how much further the 'University of Iowa, Inc.' is going to slide into the for-profit sector during her tenure."), Nicholas Johnson, "Wellmark Naming" in "Abuses: Wellmark, Insurance, Athletics, Media," July 22, 2007 ("the Register has turned around [with its 'roses and thistles' recognition]; having formerly given the College of Public Health faculty a 'thistle' for turning down the money this morning it took some tweezers and removed that thistle and stuck it in Pomerantz instead."),
Nicholas Johnson, "President Sally Mason's Revelation" and "Spotting the Issue" in "Wellmark, Mason and 'The Issue,'" July 21, 2007, ("The underlying, fundamental issue -- one that is going to continue to arise in hundreds of contexts over the years ahead -- is the extent to which we either want to continue to encourage or to resist, the rapid transition from an academy pursuing knowledge to one pursuing wealth, from a focus on 'we' to 'me,' from a 'Great Society' of social programs for all to a privatized and corporatized profit-maximizing marketplace primarily benefiting the wealthy few, from the values of education and culture to those of conspicuous consumption and hedonism, from a nation that mixes corporatized services with socialized schools, libraries, parks, police, fire protection and armies to one in which all is for-profit and for sale, from one in which many decisions are still made on Main Street to one in which all decisions are made on Wall Street."),
Nicholas Johnson, "Wellmark Naming; Wellmark Reorganization?; Eastern Michigan" in "Wellmark, Rape and Murder," July 17, 2007 ("The case studies from the University of Iowa and the University of Eastern Michigan are each but sub-sets of a much larger issue: the ethical dilemmas created, and confronting university administrators, as formerly public universities' missions are transformed from (a) promoting students' education and professors' independent research into (b) more formal relationships as the subsidiaries of corporate America and the adoption of its profit-maximizing practices and acceptance of its funding."), Nicholas Johnson, "More on 'The Name Game'" in "Name Game & Other Moral Dilemmas," July 4, 2007 ("Today, an ever increasing number of faculty are (a) employed without thenure, and (b) required to personally raise part or all of their own salary and supporting expenses. There's not much talk about Greek and Latin requirements in that environment. But these are changes for which many faculty -- and those among them functioning as deans -- are ill prepared. Not only do they not have experience, or hold degrees in, 'business,' they (like the public-policy-driven aspiring young politician) probably did not spend their early years honing a passion to become, and then spend a significant portion of their lives as, a major fund raiser."),
Nicholas Johnson, "Wellmark's College of Public Health" in "The Corporate College of . . .," July 3, 2007 ("We've long since decided we're willing to sell off the University's good reputation. If you haven't yet guessed, that troubles me. But accepting the reality of where we are at the moment, shouldn't we at least, as George Bernard Shaw suggested, start 'haggling over price'? Don't we have the same obligation to the people of Iowa that we would if we were selling off the state's top soil -- to make sure we get the most for it we possibly can? When we take a lump sum to name a building after a corporation -- forever -- isn't there a great likelihood we're selling out too cheaply?"),
Nicholas Johnson, "Greed, Conflicts, Cover-ups and Corruption" in "Conflicts, Cover-ups and Corruption," June 26, 2007 ("Universities are not immune from the pressures that in corporate American can produce an Enron, or the political pressures that produce a U.S. Congress that simply can't 'afford' to stand up to the pharmaceutical industry. Mason has been advised that as much as one-third of her time should be spent in fund raising. Clearly it's a major part of what she has been hired to do, a major part of the 'performance' that can produce an extra $50,000 a year under her contract. As such, she -- like every other big university's president -- will be subjected to similar pressures as the editor who must decide whether s/he can 'afford' to run an essential story that will cause a loss of advertising revenue, an athletic director who must weigh the advice (and standards) of the NCAA against the revenue that can come from the gambling industry, or a politician in need of campaign contributions deciding how to vote on a measure that will clearly help her constituents but cause a special interest group to cut off her funding."), Nicholas Johnson, "UI Loves Gambling" in "UI Held Hostage Day 410 - March 7," March 7, 2007 ("(1) The Iowa Lottery commercial. Essentially everyone has come to agreement -- after they were caught, and the media was all over it -- that the specific commercial involving the Iowa Lottery and the Iowa Fight Song was a mistake. (The fact that the owner's lawyer pointed out to the litigation-shy University that the commercial was also a copyright violation contributed to reason's ultimate triumph with this one.) (2) UI-Lottery Ties. However, beyond the commercial, views shift. The Interim President and Athletic Director think there's nothing wrong with gambling that sufficient UI revenues won't cure. But yesterday the University's Faculty Council unanimously voted its disagreement. See Diane Heldt's story this morning, linked below. (As Heldt reports, AD Barta thinks 'the relationship with the lottery should continue.') (3) And the Gambling Casino? As I've repeatedly observed, and The Gazette headlined as one of its 'Gomers' Monday, the Iowa Lottery is not the only 'devil's bargain' -- as Professor Michael O'Hara characterized a UI-gambling partnership at the meeting yesterday. There's also the Athletic Department's partnership with the Riverside Gambling Casino. Why would the Faculty Council be so upset over the Lottery and fail even to mention the Gambling Casino contract?"),
Nicholas Johnson, "UI Football Promoting Gambling?" September 16, 2006 ("The Hawkeyes won the game today, and a good one it was. And they've made a lot of money from the gambling industry. But in the process they've certainly fallen far from the educational and moral high ground to which they profess to aspire.").
SAD EXTRA: Well, we've done it again. Mike Hogan, outstanding university administrator and scholar, incredibly decent human being, committed Iowan, much beloved, finalist (some say the favored first choice) in the first UI presidential search, has been run out of town, to follow David Skorton and Mary Gilchrist on to bigger and better things than playing the role of recipient of local abuse. See Diane Heldt, "UI Provost Headed to Connecticut,"Gazette Online, August 1, 2007, 1:24 p.m.; Brian Morelli, "Hogan to Become UConn President,"Iowa City Press-Citizen Online, August 1, 2007, 1:59 p.m.; Associated Press, "University of Iowa Provost Selected as UConn President,"Gazette Online, August 1, 2007, 2:44 p.m.
The Corporatization of America's Higher Education
Once a university gets in bed with corporate America is oral sex "adultery" -- hell, is it even "sex"? Are we still virgins if we don't "go all the way"?
We're already in bed, folks. Now we're just drawing lines and haggling over price.
Why are these Register reporters' efforts so significant? Because they, like I, are trying to put the Wellmark naming controversy in a meaningful context where a "respectful discussion" of the issues can be fruitful.
As I've repeatedly alluded here, the issues the UI needs to address go well beyond Wellmark -- indeed, even the Wellmark naming issue can't be intelligently resolved without doing so in context. (Yesterday I wrote: "it will be a shame if this is perceived as merely the 'Wellmark-UI College of Public Health Naming Issue' when it is so much bigger and can more usefully be addressed in the larger context of the corporatization of higher education generally, and at the UI in particular").
As Hicks and Jordan remind us, virtually every university sees corporate infiltration as a potential problem -- and yet draws lines and makes distinctions that vary from campus to campus and don't always appear that persuasive or rational: name a professor for a corporation, but not her department or college; name a building but not a college; name a stadium or auditorium, but not an academic building; refuse to name anything but gladly accept corporate money.
Welcome to Iowa, Sally and Ken Mason! We'll return to this in a moment, but first we want to acknowledge the arrival, and first day on the job, of our new UI President Sally Mason. I don't know when she walked into her office, but by 6:32 a.m. this morning she had already sent the UI community an early morning greeting. Since it's a public document, I've made it available here. The Press-Citizen has also provided her an early morning editorial greeting and bit of advice, "Mason Must Start Job by Moving Forward,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 1, 2007, p. A!!. (It also has a follow-up story on the mysterious "5th Finalist" for the UI president position, Brian Morelli, "Missouri St. Leader 5th Finalist for UI Job; Says He Still Has Work to Do,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 1, 2007, p. A1 -- something I believe was known at the time but which, notwithstanding Missouri State President Mike Nietzel's repeated candid acknowledgment, "College of Dentistry Dean David Johnson, who led the UI search committee, declined to confirm or deny.")
More to come -- perhaps this afternoon (primarily references back to prior blog entries discussing these issues in greater depth (e.g., UI athletics department partnerships with organized gambling industry, etc.)) . . . Sorry, but the "more to come" is going to have to come tomorrow morning. It turned out there were a lot more prior blog entries on all this than I'd remembered. Meanwhile, don't miss the comments, below, on today's blog entry.
Our new UI President Sally Mason formally starts tomorrow, Wednesday, August 1. As Diane Heldt reports, she won't have to wait long for issues to arrive.
One of the most recent big UI issues in the news has been the Wellmark naming controversy. This morning's papers report on revealing e-mails among UI officials and faculty. Mason has not yet tipped her hand, aside from saying she's following the issue and that it warrants a full and respectful discussion.
As I've often written here -- and as these stories, and the Snell column, immediately below, support -- it will be a shame if this is perceived as merely the "Wellmark-UI College of Public Health Naming Issue" when it is so much bigger and can more usefully be addressed in the larger context of the corporatization of higher education generally, and at the UI in particular. Whatever President Mason's focus turns out to be, it won't be long before we'll get a sense from her statements and decisions as to just how much further the "University of Iowa, Inc." is going to slide into the for-profit sector during her tenure.
Another issue, which I'm going to do my darnedest to try to keep on the radar, is the partnership between the UI athletic program and the gambling industry. Interim President Fethke -- to the best of my recollection -- indicated that he would announce the UI position with regard to the football program's partnership with the Riverside Gambling Casino, which has been a matter of concern to the NCAA. So far as I know, nothing further was ever said. Now it turns out the athletic program is back in bed with the Iowa Lottery, after supposedly "severing ties" (accomplished, one assumes, by arguing that "Gee, it's not us, it's those awful folks at Iowa State; we can't help it if we play them in football"). And what say you, President Mason? Rod Boshart, "Lottery to Give Away Hawks-Cyclones Tickets,"The Gazette, July 30, 2007, p. B7
A couple of other stories, in other than a higher education context, further illustrate the potential hazards along the road to corporatization.
Editorial, "Get to bottom of consultant's sweet deal; Why did state lower bar to award bonus?"Des Moines Register, July 30, 2007 (A consultant, hired to help the State cut costs and become more efficient, was paid substantially in excess of actual savings achieved -- contrary to the consultant's representations -- including bonus payments for its poor performance. Those are legitimate journalistic topics. But my more general question would be, "Why are we hiring a consultant in the first place?" Executives -- whether in the for-profit or non-profit sectors -- are paid the big bucks because of the skills they supposedly bring to the job. What more appropriate, central and essential skill than the ability to master what it is your institution is doing, and then move it in ways that will cut costs while improving outputs?)
Other items include an encouraging report regarding Regents' universities-community college cooperation and coordination. (In this case, a "2 plus 2" program enabling what I've long advocated: that we encourage Iowa's community college system to provide the freshman and sophomore years' education and then ease the students' transition to a junior and senior year at a Regents institution. The advantages to all are obvious.) Brian Morelli has another nice piece about Fethke's tour of duty, and the Register has an editorial regarding open meetings and public records (both State and federal) -- an issue with the UI and its Board of Regents (see, e.g., "Regents Dismissed from Suit,"The Gazette, July 31, 2007, p. B3). Editorial, "Community College Degrees Pay Off,"The Gazette, July 31, 2007, p. A4
Not a lot on the radar screen this morning, but there's plenty in this past week's blog entries to satisfy any reader's need for a blog fix.
Meanwhile, a couple of Des Moines Register letters to the editor deal with the Wellmark College of Public Health and the general subject of corporate welfare. Both (along with the comments on the first) provide more evidence, if such was needed, that folks are watching, and thinking, and full well know what's going on around them. We're not as dumb, uninformed and apathetic as some corporate officials and elected officials seem to think we are. Palmer Holden, "What's the going rate for a college?"Des Moines Register, July 27, 2006
If Des Moines businessman Marvin Pomerantz will sell the University of Iowa College of Public Health for $15 million, what would he take to name the university "Wellmark University of Iowa?"
If you are willing to sell your soul for a college, why not a university?
How many people would like to see the "Microsoft Computing Center"?
or the "Viacom Communications Building"?
or the "HarperCollins English Building"?
or the "DeCoster Agricultural College"?
or the "Clear Channel School Of Music"?
or the "Knapp Properties School Of Business"?
or the "Gannett School Of Journalism"!
Reader Comment Posted by: PeaceMom on Thu Jul 26, 2007 8:35 am
Pomerantz is a bully.
Jeff Clingan, "Give incentives to workers, not companies,"Des Moines Register, July 26, 2007 ("Regarding the July 14 story, 'Manufacturer Interested in Newton': It's not too difficult to picture this company's executives gleefully rubbing their hands together at the prospect of watching 1,800 out-of-work people fight over 700 low-paying jobs while simultaneously extorting $2 million from Iowa taxpayers. If Chet Culver wants to hand out $2 million, let him give it to the people who will be taking a giant pay cut.")
Wellmark Lobbies to Prevent Policy Holders' Protection from Fraud
The Register's four-day series on insurance abuses winds down today with another four stories and editorials -- one of which notes that, thanks to lobbying by Wellmark (along with others), Iowa remains the only state in the nation that forbids individual consumers to bring lawsuits under the Consumer Fraud Act. Check the Register's Online edition for all four.
Just in case you needed more persuasion than what's provided in the movie "Sicko" as to why America needs to get the overreaching, health-care-denying, profit-maximizing insurance industry out of health care so we can join the rest of the world with a universal, single-payer system -- well, here it is.
Johnson wouldn't think twice about taking on Zieser's case and others like it if Iowa had what's called a "private right of action."
Iowa doesn't.
It's the only state in the country that doesn't allow individual consumers to hire private attorneys and sue under the Consumer Fraud Act.
. . .
This anomaly in state law affects Iowans in a host of situations - if they believe they have been victimized by a door-to-door salesman, by a roofer who didn't complete the job, or, in the case of the Zieser family, by a long-term-care insurance company.
For seven years, the Iowa Attorney General's Office has proposed legislation to create a private right of action for certain consumer-fraud violations. Then Iowans would have the same legal recourse as residents in every other state. Last legislative session, Senate File 520 looked as if it might finally pass.
It didn't.
One only has to look at the "Lobbyist Declarations" on the legislation to see why. Powerful interests, including health insurer Wellmark Inc., Allied Insurance, Principal Financial Group and the Iowa Association of Business and Industry, registered "against."
These guys don't even want to take responsibility for the consequences of their own fraudulent practices! And they're willing to pay big money to legislators (not bribes, mind you, these are just "campaign contributions") and lobbyists to see to it that they don't have to. Never mind that in the process they make Iowans the shame, the laughing stock, and the least well protected consumers in the nation.
Hey, it's the great American way. Privatization, the marketplace, profit maximization -- "greed is good" is our mantra. So what's a little fraud along the way? Probably just a "bad apple" -- it's certainly not endemic to the system.
And if we can get our name associated with a prestigious College of Public Health, so much the better.
In other University-related news . . .
Cindy Hadish, "University Hospitals: Botched Discharge Probed; Patient Never Made it Back to Nursing Home,"The Gazette, July 25, 2007, p. B1 ("State inspectors are reviewing procedures at University Hospitals . . .. [Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals] spokesperson David Werning said inspectors were asked to conduct the 'full-blown' survey at the request of the [federal] Centers for Medicare/Medicaid Services . . .. A worst-case scenario, both Werning and hospital officials said, would be the hospital losing its Medicare certification.")
Although neither University administrators nor City Council members see enough wrong with the very profitable bar industry in Iowa City -- and its very impressive record of ever-increasing the community's national reputation for college students' binge drinking -- to actually do anything meaningful about it, a UI junior has just won an entrepreneural competition for a profit-making business plan to provide non-alcohol venues. Dave DeWitte, "Bar Alternatives Winner Seeks Financing,"The Gazette, July 25, 2007, p. B8 ("I don't know how many times, sitting in a classroom, I've heard, 'If there was something else, I'd do it. But there's not, so I'm going to the bars.'")
"Regents Seek to Void Part of Union Contract; Board Claims Portion of Agreement Violates Federal Privacy Act,"The Gazette, July 25, 2007, p. B3 (The union in question is an organization of graduate students, who work as teaching assistants and in other jobs at the University. For the union to function for a group that is so constantly changing in membership it obviously needs information that only the University has regarding graduate students' employment -- names and rates of pay. The union's contract provides that it's entitled to it. Now the Regents and University would like to renege on this provision. I know no more about this case than what's in the story, and I have not researched the law.)
Lisa Rossi, "Study questions universities' bid for 2-year grads; A sizable number of those with degrees from Iowa community colleges are heading out of state for their bachelor's degrees,"Des Moines Register, July 25, 2007 ("Iowa community college enrollment has risen sharply in recent years. The Des Moines Register reported that a record 85,715 students were attending the state's 15 community colleges last fall, up 3 percent from the previous year and up 25 percent from five years ago." Bottom line: (1) Iowa's community colleges are a big, and usually under-reported, story -- 85,715 students! They represent a low cost alternative to providing freshman and sophomore education at high cost research universities. (2) A couple out-of-state schools are treating our community college transfers better than are our Regents' universities. For the system to work we have to get more competitive, integrated and accommodating.)
Brian Morelli, "Mason Following Naming Debate,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 24, 2007, p. A1 (Morelli quotes Mason as saying she wants "what's best for [the University], the College of Public Health and the donors who are so important to our continued success" (emphasis supplied).) Bob Elliott, "A Black Eye for UI State of Iowa,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 24, 2007, p. A11 ("There are dangers attached to accepting enormous financial contributions from individuals such as Marvin Pomerantz, who may then believe they've earned the right to make suggestions as bizarre as firing a college dean because he embarrassed an insurance company").
The Des Moines Register continues its four-day series on so-called "health insurance" and the companies that provide the non-coverage. This morning it has seven more pieces on the subject. (I may or may not identify, and add links to, each of them later. Meanwhile, just check the online Register site. You'll find them -- and yesterday's.)
Meanwhile, the anonymous blog commentator "John Barleykorn" has just kindly emailed me a link to a story in Washington's conservative paper, The Washington Times, regarding the Canadian system. Gregory Lopes, "In Reversal, Canada Dabbles with Health Care Privatization," July 22, 2007. While it must necessarily point out the disadvantages of the Canadian system, and the advantages of the "marketplace" for all purposes, given the source it is a remarkably balanced piece.
Bottom line: No one can question the advantages of the universal, single-payer systems available to all the citizens of the world living in civilized, industrialized nations. It's irrefutably in the numbers. (1) Canadians, for example, enjoy better health than we do, measured by such things as infant mortality and life expectancy. The U.S. ranks well down the list. (2) Every single person is provided this free service; health care is considered a citizen's right (like K-12 education is here) not just one more profit-maximizing corporate corner of the economy. Some 45 million American's don't have the necessary ticket for access to health care: health insurance; and of those who do, for many it only covers them a part of the year, or they discover the condition for which they need health care is the condition their insurance company won't pay for. (3) The total cost of these systems -- even though they cover everyone and our system only covers some lucky few -- are dramatically below the cost of ours.
There are undoubtedly horrible stories of delays and malpractice that can be told by individuals in any nation's health care system -- ours included. (As a kid, with regular U.S. medical care, I often had to wait entire days beyond my scheduled appointment to see a doctor.) There are some problems in our system that don't exist in other countries; some in other countries that don't exist here. There are ways other countries' systems try to hold costs to reasonable levels (the Times story points out that dental is not covered in Canada), and ways our insurance companies do here.
But individuals' anecdotal stories aside, the bottom line remains: other countries provide health care to all as a right, as a result of which their people are healthier and live longer, and it costs them less than what our system costs for providing care to fewer individuals.
And see, below, the anonymous comment from "North Liberty" regarding the possible benefits of a properly structured multiple system (which is, in fact, a variation of what many of the "universal, single payer" systems have in reality).
"Sicko"
The Daily Iowan has a balanced movie review of "Sicko" this morning (Paul Sorenson, "The U.S. Sick System") that tends to focus on the film (as a "movie review" should, of course) more than the public policy questions.
Wellmark Naming
The Gazette awards a Gomer to Marvin Pomerantz for his "childish" my-way-or-the-highway, I'm-taking-my-marbles fit ("Bratish Behavior," p. A4), and the Press-Citizen has another letter to the editor this morning opposing corporate naming of University colleges and buildings (Charles Laudie, "Wrong to Sell Public Education Names") -- in addition to those yesterday.
And don't miss, from "Anonymous'" comment, below, the possibilities of selling off naming righs to athletic teams: "I want Frank Perdue to have naming rights to the football team. We could be the Perdue-Iowa Chicken-Hawkeyes." That one might seriously go for a lot of money, especially with a tie-in monopoly right to sell fried chicken pieces in the stands. Only problem: When the "Perdue-Iowa Chicken-Hawkeyes" play the "Purdue Broiler-makers." You know, "which comes first, the chicken or the broiler?"
Gambling's Gomer
The Gazette awards another of its "prestigious" Gomers this morning to the gambling industry ("Side Effect," p. A4) that, along with increasing its gross revenues in Iowa is increasing the number of gambling addicts and problem gamblers seeking help -- with all the social and economic costs gambling imposes on any people who believe they can gamble their way to a state's economic development.
Bob Patton's editorial cartoons always put the matter most suscinctly, but there is also an excellent column on the editorial page. David Morris, "Guns Aren't Safe Solution," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 20, 2007, p. A7.
