Resources for Life - Fairness - Updates

July 7, 2007, 7:15, 8:15, 9:30, 10:40, 11:40 a.m. [times reflect additions to the entry -- for the benefit of those few individuals who check back occasionally during the day -- as well as reflecting the fact that what is called "life" occasionally interrupts blogging]

Resources for Life Conference Today. You might want to consider attending the Resources for Life Conference, 10:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m., today July 7, Iowa City Public Library, Meeting Room A. From 3:15 to 4:00 p.m. I'll be speaking and moderating a discussion with those in attendance on what the conference organizer has titled, "Activism: Having a Positive Impact on the World." You can find more details about the conference here.

The way I think about Resources for Life, which primarily exits as a very extensive Web site, is as a non-commercial, non-partisan, non-denominational, free offering of a range of online and other resources dealing with virtually every aspect of living -- as reflected in the links from that opening Web page. It is the production of Gregory Johnson (who works -- and teaches a free course at the Public Library -- as a computer consultant) and is best known in other circles as the president of the Small House Society.

His small house movement has been the subject of features in -- among a great many other media -- the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Australian Broadcasting, Time Magazine, Better Homes and Gardens, National Public Radio, Oprah Winfrey -- and locally in the Iowa City Press-Citizen, and The Gazette, as well as numerous local television stations. He doesn't sell the houses, but will probably be saying something about his house, and approach to simpler living generally, during the conference.

(Full disclosure: Gregory Johnson is my son.)

The Fairness Doctrine Today's a slow enough news day that I can finally turn to State29's request. A week or so ago State29 asked my opinion about what he calls the "unfairness doctrine" of the FCC (State29, "Who Decides What's Fair?" June 27, 2007) ("Considering that Iowa's own Nicholas Johnson was the FCC Commish during part of the Johnson and Nixon years, I'd be interested in reading his current opinion on a possible revival of the Unfairness Doctrine").

I started by Googling "Nicholas Johnson" and "fairness doctrine" just to see what I've written about it over the years. There were 422 hits on things I either didn't know about or had long since forgotten. I only looked at a few before finding what I thought was the best short answer -- though longer than what I'm going to write here this morning. It's contained in Nicholas Johnson, "With Due Regard for the Opinions of Others," California Lawyer, vol. 8, August 1988, pp. 52-55. If State29 is still interested, or there is anyone else reading this who is, I'd suggest starting with that. It's short, and yet pretty thorough.

For the views of U.S. Supreme Court justices in an 8-0 decision invoking an analysis of the issues and law similar to that which I set forth a year earlier, see Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969). It's very readable; take a look at it, you'll see.

Meanwhile, here are some summary points; most are spelled out in that piece.

I believe "with great power goes great responsibility" and that none has greater power in our time than those controlling the mass media. The "great power" I described in Nicholas Johnson, "The Media Barons and the Public Interest: An FCC Commissioner's Warning," The Atlantic, June 1968 (still maintained 40 years later on The Atlantic's Web site, though available only to subscribers) has multiplied many fold since then.

Even if one ignores, or believes no longer applicable, the earlier rational underpinnings of the Fairness Doctrine -- "the public owns the airwaves" (i.e., station "owners" are limited-term licensees, licensed to serve "the public interest, convenience and necessity"); the government's intrusion into the allocation system makes the licensee's station the equivalent of a "public forum" open to all views; the relative shortage of frequencies (there are still more people who would like to broadcast than there are available frequencies) results in a First Amendment requirement that some provision must be made for a range of views -- the requirements of a democratic society, and the moral obligations of those sitting astride a democracy's mass media, still require some equivalent of the Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine requires no more than what a profit-maximizing media owner, or responsible professional journalist, would do anyway. Its requirements are but two: a licensee must make some effort to deal with "controversial issues of local importance" (i.e., it cannot just be "a jukebox with commercials"), and when presenting controversial issues it must make some effort to present a range of views. "Controversy" sells papers and attracts viewers. Presenting a range of views is what creates, or perpetuates, the controversy. It was never much of a problem for responsible broadcasters, and news directors often actually welcomed it as a defense against aggressive sales managers (wanting to preserve advertising revenue by killing stories advertisers wouldn't like).

That the requirements are so minimal is probably a part of the reason that no station ever lost its license solely because of Fairness Doctrine violations. (See California Lawyer article, linked above.)

And what does the Fairness Doctrine prohibit? Essentially nothing.

There are limitations on a broadcaster's speech. They may be subject to a defamation suit. They may violate the copyright laws. They may engage in false and misleading advertising. They may reveal national security secrets. Other agencies and interests may wish to affect broadcasters' speech, but those are not matters for the FCC.

And there are essentially no limitations -- or detailed requirements -- of the Fairness Doctrine. Subject to the non-licensing restrictions mentioned above, a broadcaster can say anything he or she wants; there are no FCC limitations; they can attack others, misrepresent, be outrageously partisan, even be defamatory -- the FCC doesn't care, and the Fairness Doctrine doesn't require anything affecting their speech.

There is no requirement that any given programming be put on the air -- or taken off. There are no requirements as to format. There is not a requirement of "equal time." There is no requirement that each program be balanced; the Fairness Doctrine only addresses the overall programming of the licensee. (To respond to a charge of those opposing the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, there are two reasons why Rush Limbaugh would not only not be taken off the air but would not be affected in any way by application of the Fairness Doctrine: (1) he is not a licensee, he is a program supplier, and (2) there is no Fairness Doctrine requirement that his program be balanced.) There is no requirement that a particular contrasting view be aired. The Fairness Doctrine does not trigger a right in any given individual to respond. (The station can use its own personnel if it wishes, or anyone it chooses.)

Essentially the only limitation the Fairness Doctrine did impose was that a licensee could not use the public's airwaves as an unrelieved instrument of propaganda for a single viewpoint while censoring all other views.

Our founders believed a "marketplace of ideas" an essential foundation for a self-governing people. I believe they were right. But as I've often said, "the ideas of the marketplace [i.e., advertising-dependent programming] do not make for a marketplace of ideas." Moreover, the more concentration of control of the mass media we have the greater this problem becomes.

This is only a sampling of things I could say -- and have said -- on the subject. Anyone interested in more please check the links, above.

Wellmark's College Since my prior blog entries here even more have joined the chorus of "What were they thinking?!" regarding UI administrators seriously proposing to rename the UI College of Public Health the "Wellmark Blue Cross-Blue Shield College of Public Health."

Editorial, "Honor People, Not Businesses at UI," The Gazette, July 7, 2007, p. A4.

Diane Heldt, "Wellmark naming rejected by faculty; They fear naming college for insurer would affect research," The Gazette, July 6, 2007, p. A1.

Lenni W. Kangas, "Regents Should Junk Proposal," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 6, 2007.

Brenda M. Cruikshank, "Major Ethical Issue in Renaming School," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 7, 2007, p. A13.

State29 now has a follow-up on the subject to his earlier State29, "Enron Field," July 3, 2007: State29, "Enron Field, Part Deux," July 6, 2007.

On a related topic (though not having to do with naming rights) the Register takes Wellmark to task for a proposal and secret process that is "not how it should work" and "not in the public's best interest." Editorial, "Public still in dark about hospital plans; Building proposals should get state review," Des Moines Register, July 7, 2007.

And in . . .

. . . Other News One of our boys made it -- deservedly. John Deeth looks good in his raspberry beret on page one of The Gazette. Rod Boshart, "Clogged With Blogs; For Better or for Worse, 1.5 million blogs bring seismic Change to Political Landscape," The Gazette, July 6, 2007, p. A1.

And, to no one's surprise, The Register has come out flatfooted to acknowledge that it really thinks it would be a cool move to shift taxes from those who own property to those who can't afford it. Editorial, "Vote 'Yes' to this Tax Increase; It's an Investment in Region's Quality of Life," Des Moines Register, July 5, 2007 (there has been a consistent drumbeat of opposition to the Register's stories and opinion supporting this tax shift from wealthy to poor, summed up succinctly in the first comment on the page: "The Register must think its readers are stupid"). And see Jeff Eckhoff, "More than $357,250 was spent on consultants for 'Destiny' project," Des Moines Register, July 7, 2007.

But by the next day the paper had redeemed itself a bit with an editorial totally consistent with my earlier comments about Michael Moore's film, "Sicko," and much more positive than its headline suggests. Editorial, "Yes, 'Sicko' is Propaganda, but it Shows Need for Reform," Des Moines Register, July 6, 2007;

and, speaking of "Sicko," in response to requests for how someone in Iowa City can see it, a Rapid Response entry reports:

"According to Michael Moore's website www.michaelmoore.com

Cedar Rapids: Now showing

Wehrenberg Galaxy 16 Theatres at 6840 Council Street NE"

# # #

Foundation Solution & Great Apes Superiority

July 6, 2007, 6:00 a.m.


Great Apes and The Hustler Magazine Foundation University of Iowa
For some time now, Larry Flynt, publisher of Hustler Magazine has been toying with the idea of a major gift to the University of Iowa. As any fund raiser knows, it takes time -- time at resorts, time playing golf and visiting over dinners -- to successfully bring home the big gifts. But I figured, hey, after all the University has done for me -- from my birth in its hospital, and through all the years since -- if I can help out in this way, why not?

The sticking point, until now, has been naming rights. Larry wanted to call the UI "Hustler University." The Athletic Department and Interim President thought this was perfectly acceptable. In fact, they were quite excited at the prospect of such a generous gift. We were even playing around with referring to our football team as "Those Hustling Hawkeyes" -- thereby diverting a bit of attention from Mr. Flynt's intended reference to his magazine.

But I've done some informal polling of the Regents, and it has been made clear to me that there just aren't the votes for that -- unless, perhaps, more money was involved. And since the Regents have the final say, and I didn't want to disappoint my donor once he was right on the cusp of such a gift, I sort of held off pursuing the matter.

Fortunately, we've now come up with a win-win solution acceptable to all: We'll keep "Iowa" in the name and, since the money was coming from the Hustler Foundation anyway, simply adopt as the University's new name "The Hustler Magazine Foundation University of Iowa." As everyone can understand, there's a big difference between "The Hustler Foundation" and a direct corporate reference to "Hustler Magazine." Brian Morelli, "Resolution Declines Blue Name; Faculty Less Opposed to Foundation Title," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 6, 2007 ("Wellmark Foundation, we think, is not the insurance company. We think there is an important difference.") But see, Editorial, "Even the Wellmark Foundation College of Public Health Won't Do," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 6, 2007; Erin Jordan, "U of I spot may sport Wellmark name; The $15 million deal would make it Iowa's only public college with a corporate-named major academic unit," Des Moines Register, July 6, 2007.

So long as the faculty doesn't blow this Hustler naming opportunity with their ivory tower idealism, the University may just find itself $137 million or more richer after the Regents' August meeting accepting the donation and the name. What a "welcome to Iowa" gift for our new fund raising President Sally Mason!

Just as a comment in this blog was the first public revelation of the renaming of one of the UI's colleges recently, so today this blog is the first to reveal this "win-win" solution in the naming of the University itself.

I was so excited about this accomplishment that I decided to celebrate with a day or so in Des Moines.

Ever since I'd first heard about it, I've always wanted to visit Ted Townsend's successful national center for great ape scientific research. I knew it was somewhere around Des Moines. But finding it turned out to be a little difficult.

I looked for the "Townsend Center" or the "Ted Townsend Center" in every local directory in hard copy or on the Internet that I could think of. Nothing.

After all, this guy has put more than $20 million of his own money into this philanthropic venture. That's more than we sell colleges for at the University of Iowa. I just assumed, since he could name it anything he chose, that with that kind of investment he'd name it after himself. Silly me.

It's called "The Great Ape Trust" and has gone from inception to operation in short order. There are a number of scientists on board, including researchers who've come from Washington, D.C., and Atlanta and found they like Iowa. There are 10 apes on premises, two buildings up and running, with more in early stages of design and construction. A major capital campaign is about to get underway, along with more formal relationships with the Regents' universities, other Iowa colleges, and a K-12 program. (My guides included a graduate student from Iowa State and a graduate of Simpson.)

Sometimes I think our only superiority in the animal kingdom is our quantity of human hubris. Virtually anything we can do there is some animal that can do it better. There are animals with superior senses of sight, hearing and smell. There are animals whose athletic prowess puts our Olympic athletes to shame -- and not just in running. Lots of animals make tools and engage in problem solving, and all have superior survival skills to us. I have earlier written here of the superiority of squirrels. Nicholas Johnson, "Governor Bill Richardson and the Natural Superiority of Women" in "UI Held Hostage Day 498 - Barbara Richardson & Friend," June 3, 2007.

This kind of respect for animals -- at least the great apes in residence -- permeates everything about the Great Ape Trust. The facilities seem quite grand compared to many "zoos" (which the Great Ape Trust clearly is not). In fact, they are superior to those we provide many of our own species in our country, where prision construction is our nation's primary public housing program. The universal single payer health care system for the apes is also far superior to that which we provide our own species. See yesterday's, Nicholas Johnson, "Sicko," July 5, 2007.

The research is represented to be, and certainly appears to be, "non-invasive." I'll leave it to the organizations that make it their business to be concerned about such things, but there are already a number that have put their stamp of approval on what's going on.

And what's going on is research regarding, among other things, the ability of the great apes (Bonobos, Chimpanzees, Gorillas and Orangutans) to engage in the one function we've always thought was limited to our own branch of the family: the creation, recognition and manipulation of symbols, otherwise called "language."

Bear in mind, these relatives of ours only differ in their DNA by 1% or 2% from us. It remains to be seen who got the better 1%.

For example, they can understand our language, but we can't understand theirs. So we have to create these elaborate sets of icons for them on touch screens they can operate at
about the speed of a touch typist. Touch an icon, it creates the sound of an English word for us, the less able species, enabling us to talk back in the English language they understand.

Nor is it totally clear who's researching whom. They are patiently trying to teach us sign language, but without really great results so far. (Sometimes they are seen to sneak off laughing after a session.) After all, how many folks do you know with normal hearing who have bothered to learn American Sign Language -- a very practical and courteous thing to do?

The Great Ape Trust has received the attention of the National Geographic, History Channel, and Nova programs. Internationally, the BBC has covered it, and yesterday a German publication, Geo, was on premises. There have been some print stories as well. But it is something that already is, and could become even more, an "Iowa brag" of which all Iowans shoiuild be knowledgeable.

Issues I see:

1. Financing. This thing can't go on forever funded by Ted Townsend. I would think it eligible for federal grants, but they are hard to come by these days. If we're serious about raising Iowans' "science IQ" state funding -- especially with ties to Regents' institutions, such as Iowa State or the Hustler Magazine Foundation University of Iowa -- might make sense. The capital campaign, if successful, certainly can help as has a $250,000 matching grant from Des Moines' "Bravo" group.
And the Trust's "membership" program can provide some funding, although it's probably much more valuable as an educational outreach effort and political base of support. (Townsend is rumored to have turned down Purina's offer of a $2 million donation in exchange for naming the Trust the "Purina Ape Chow Sanctuary." UI administrators have apparently failed in their appeal to Townsend to get him to accept the "Purina Foundation Ape Chow Sanctuary" as the name, citing the new ethical standards of the University in support of their position.)

2. Transparency. Given that the Trust is supported by the private funding of one donor, there's no requirement that the details of its operation be made any more public than they are -- which is quite a bit. But when it's trying to raise money from other sources, unless there is good reason not to, it might be useful to put budget details online along with the rest of its excellent Web site.

3. Research. I am neither qualified, nor have I taken the time, to try to evaluate the research being done: the academic credentials of the scientists on premises, their prior publications and reputations in the field, the peer reviewed publications that have come out of the Great Ape Trust during the first couple years of its existence, and how it fits with and contributes to the current body of literature. I don't think such research needs to be justified on the basis of "practical applications" -- but if there are any it would be helpful to identify them.

4. Conflicts. I have noted in another context that trying to do serious research while surrounded by visitors would be like doing hydraulic engineering experiments at another Des Moines institution: the Adventureland waterslide. One of the hallmarks of the Great Ape Trust's success so far has been its focused mission: scientific research. But zoos are popular attractions, and within them the apes and monkeys have always been especially so. Watching apes communicate with humans could become a "tourist attraction." I don't think that's what Ted Townsend has in mind (though I cannot know for sure), and I suspect it's not what the project's scientists would want. Building public confidence in, and support for, the project by permitting some visitation, while limiting it sufficiently to make research possible, is a delicate balance. The Trust has so far managed that relatively well, but the potential conflict will only increase with the project's publicity and popularity -- and the prospect of needed revenue provided by visitors.

So there you have the contrast starkly seen:

The Great Ape Trust (with no reference to "Townsend Engineering" or the "Townsend Engineering Foundation" -- or even the name of the sole private donor of over $20 million -- and no significant conflict of interest even if he did chose those names)

vs.

The Hustler Magazine Foundation University of Iowa administrators seriously advocating the selling off of its College of Public Health for a mere $10 to $15 million in exchange for naming it The Welmark Blue Cross-Blue Shield College of Public Health (with all the very serious conflict of interest issues that would raise). (Using the "Wellmark Foundation" instead was clearly a heavily resisted fall-back position.)

It's just another example of the Great Apes' Superiority. Great Apes 1, Humans 0.

# # #

Sicko

July 5, 2007, 6:00 a.m.

As it happened, there was no news this morning crying out with an urgent need for my commentary.

So I took a couple of early morning hours to watch -- for the first time -- my copy of Michael Moore's new feature film "Sicko."

Make sure you see it. Trust me.

If it doesn't make you as angry as you've ever been, if it doesn't cause you to shed a tear for what we're doing to America's neediest, and for what America could be, you probably are in need of a full range of health care services yourself -- and deserve what you're paying for what you're getting.

Then, make it clear to every elected official you encounter -- especially the candidates for president, and the U.S. Senate and house -- that you expect them to watch it, and then to tell you how much money they've taken from the health care industry lobbyists and corporations, and to provide you the reasons they are still opposing the universal, single-payer health care systems available around the world. These are countries that spend less on health care than we do, and yet provide a level of service that results in better life expectancy, infant mortality and other statistics than in this country.

There are many things the capitalist system can do better than any other alternative imaginable. Handing over to profit-maximizing corporations the delivery of anything as basic as health care to all of a nation's citizens just turns out not to be among them.

As a friend of mine, a candidate in a previous presidential campaign, was fond of saying, "I don't want every American to have health insurance. I want every American to have health care." It's an important distinction. And so far, once again, most of the candidates are still talking about health insurance.

Curious as to why? I won't say more. Just watch it. "Sicko."

Now I'm off for the day on an investigative trip I'll be reporting to you here, hopefully tomorrow.

# # #
[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story . . .

This blog began in June 2006 and has addressed, and continues to addresses, a number of public policy, political, media, education, economic development, and other issues -- not just the UI presidential search. But that is the subject to which most attention has been focused in blog entries between November 2006 and June 2007.

The presidential search blog entries begin with Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006. They end with Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 505 - Next (Now This) Week," June 10, 2007 (100-plus pages printed; a single blog entry for the events of June 10-21 ("Day 516"), plus over 150 attached comments from readers), and Nicholas Johnson, "UI Hostages Free At Last -- Habemas Mamam!," June 22, 2007.

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 entry related to the UI presidential search contains links to the full text of virtually all known, non-repetitive 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.

My early proposed solution to the conflict is provided in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 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.]

# # #

Name Game & Other Moral Dilemmas

July 4, 2007, 6:00, 7:00 a.m. [addition of links and excerpt from "Conflicts, Cover-Ups and Corruption"], 8:35 a.m. [addition of "Other News" links], 3:10 p.m. [addition of links to photos of Coralville 4th of July parade (in "Other News" section)]

Other News, below

More on "The Name Game"
Yesterday morning, on reading the Press-Citizen's page one story that the University of Iowa was seriously considering the unprecedented step of naming one of its colleges after a corporation, I made an effort to think through some of the issues this raised in my mind. The blog entry on the subject ended up with 11 categories of issues involved in "The Name Game" surrounding the naming rights to universities, their colleges and buildings. Nicholas Johnson, "Wellmark's College of Public Health" in "The Corporate College of . . .," July 3, 2007.

By this morning it was obvious that I was not the only one who was concerned. Governor Culver, Board of Regents member Bob Downer, and numerous others were raising some of the same points that I had blogged about yesterday, reported in page one stories in the local press. E.g., Brian Morelli, "Possible Naming Raises Concerns; Some Fear Conflict of Interest with Wellmark, College," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 4, 2007, p. A1.

State29, apparently blogging on these issues about the same time that I was, came up with a similar analysis -- although, as always, expressed in much more colorful language. State29, "Enron Field," July 3, 2007.

What's happening, as I see it, is but a tiny sub-set of a much larger, looming challenge that I wrote about in an earlier blog entry. Nicholas Johnson, "Greed, Conflicts, Cover-Ups and Corruption" in "Conflicts, Cover-Ups and Corruption," June 26, 2007.

Our so-called "public universities" (increasingly "private" in terms of operating budgets and escalating tuition and other student expenses) are in a period of transition -- although to what is not altogether clear. I wrote about these alternative futures in a Press-Citizen op ed. Nicholas Johnson, "Where Are We Going? Who's Going With Us?" Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 19, 2007.

Faculties, funded by grateful legislatures and protected by tenure, used to debate issues such as whether it was still necessary to require all Ph.D. candidates to exhibit some fluency in Latin and Greek. Most professors probably did not know -- and would have seen little reason why they should -- anything about their university's taxpayer-funded budget (aside from their own salary).

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.

We are familiar with the "conflicts, cover-ups and corruption" in business. When State29 headlines his blog entry about the Welmark College of Public Health "Enron Field" it's a shorthand we all immediately understand.

Indeed, there are some who would suggest that "business ethics" is an oxymoron. Notwithstanding our business schools' courses in the subject the scandals continue to fill the pages of our newspapers, the reports of our congressional hearings, and provide grist for feature films. (Michael Moore's "Sicko" is only the latest in a long line.) See, Nicholas Johnson, "'The Corporation' and the Search for Agreement," October 1, 2004 (reflections and suggestions following a UI College of Business viewing, and discussion, of the film "The Corporation").

But the business community has some awareness of the inherent conflict of interest it confronts on an hourly and daily basis. The recent reports regarding products from China -- from pet food, to human medicine, to children's toys to automobile tires -- are reminiscent of our own history of business (not all of it ancient history). Off-shore tax havens, outsourcing manufacturing, reducing quantities while increasing prices, pumping up stock prices with "creative accounting," raiding pension funds, cartels and price fixing among competitors -- the examples are endless.

It is said, "You get what you measure." And when all you measure is what falls to the bottom line (and bounces back in the form of ever-increasing stock prices) there is a great temptation to let moral and ethical values fall as well.

Unlike the business community -- and ironically in some ways -- the academy is much less experienced, sophisticated or reflective about such moral dilemmas. Moreover, we're handicapped -- as are the clergy and many politicians -- with the genuine belief that, because we, our mission and goals are so pure of mind and spirit and set apart from worldly matters, anything we do is of necessity equally pure and commendable. Those in business, by contrast, are aware of the moral and ethical pitfalls. They may choose to ignore ethical issues and focus only on maximizing ever-increasing profits, but at least they are aware of what they are doing. They know what the ethical standards are; they know what they're doing.

Academics often do not.

To help explain, let me repeat some of what I wrote in "Conflicts, Cover-Ups and Corruption." At the time, of course, I had no idea the University of Iowa would ever actually consider selling off the name of a college, or building, to a corporation. I was merely writing about the kinds of potential conflicts of interest, and tough ethical and moral dilemmas our new President, Sally Mason, will necessarily find herself having to address. The discussion helps to set "The Name Game" in the context of a range of ethical dilemmas. Here's an excerpt:

The story illustrates another problem with greed. Once money becomes the sole coin of the realm, and the need for profits is replaced with ever-increasing pressure for ever-increasing profits, conflicts of interest become ever more difficult to resolve ethically.

Years ago magazines aimed at women said little to nothing about the fact that the number of women dying from lung cancer was increasing, ultimately surpassing the number dying from breast cancer. Editors knew the story, they knew lung cancer's relationship to increased cigarette consumption by women, they knew manufacturers were targeting women -- and doing so in significant measure with the ads the companies were running in their magazines. But they needed the advertising revenue and, well, "women probably aren't interested in reading those stories anyway."

The NCAA wants to distance itself from sports gambling, and the gambling industry generally, in every way possible. It expressly forbids association with gambling casinos at NCAA events or in its advertising. It highly recommends that NCAA schools follow the same practice. It has written the UI athletic program with regard to its partnership with the Riverside Gambling Casino. And yet our football program tries to rationalize the gambling partnership while refusing to do anything about it.

This morning's Daily Iowan reports, Ashton Shurson, "Mason, Barta Set to Work Together," The Daily Iowan, June 26, 2007, that our new president has paid proper respect to the athletics program and its director. The story quotes Interim President Fethke as saying, "You have to respect the athletics director's opinion and point of view and trust that person."

Fethke's "respect" was so substantial that he's never (so far as I know) said anything critical in public regarding the NCAA's slap in our face about our gambling partnership with the Riverside Casino. Will the leadership that Mason brings include the ethical, moral and legal issues this relationship raises -- or will she continue the deafening silence from Jessup Hall on the issue because, after all, the athletic program is increasingly responsible for raising its own money, they have to get it where they can, and a university president must show "respect" to the athletic director?

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.

How will she decide whether to accept a major contribution from a donor who wants a faculty member fired (or hired), or a program established that is antithetical to the university's mission?

We've already stopped naming colleges and buildings for scholars and started naming them for donors. Are there any limits? The CEO of Home Depot gave $200 million to the Atlanta museum. Would we, for an equivalent amount, become "The Home Depot University of Iowa"? What if Larry Flynt would offer $300 million if we'd change the name to "Flynt University"? (After all there's a "Stanford University" and a "Duke University" -- named for a guy who made his money from tobacco.) Why not a "Flynt University"? We need his money as much as Barta needs the gambling industry's money.

What about a corporation that is willing to underwrite a multi-million-dollar research program -- so long as it gets a disproportionate share of the benefits from what it produces?

How candid should she be about, or should she even acknowledge at all, a potential scandal that could deal a blow to fund raising?

The question is not whether she will confront such conflicts. Of course she will. It goes with the territory in an age in which what used to be educational institutions with public support have developed more in common with for-profit corporations. The question is how she will respond to them. These conflicts often involve shades of gray. The more profitable choice can often be rationalized in some way -- as Barta tries to do with gambling money.

How many bars are there within walking distance of the campus -- 40? They are so profitable -- and therefore so politically powerful -- that the City Council seems incapable of doing anything meaningful to curb students' binge drinking. Well, who are these customers anyway? They are students. The University's students. Our students. At a time when the University is in need of every source of income it can find, when it issues lucrative monopoly contracts to Coca Cola (so it can raise its prices) notwithstanding the product's health impact on students, why just wink at the profits from binge drinking when the University could be sharing in them? With a little ingenuity I think the University could be pulling in the lion's share of that money with its own entertainment venues. Something to think about.

I imagine that even President Mason cannot now imagine the choices -- the potential conflicts, cover-ups and corruption -- she will have to confront or how she will resolve them.

This morning's Register story illustrates how "just a little harmless doctoring of the promotional literature" is not only morally wrong, but can backfire. If those putting comments on that Register story represent the majority they may be, that may just be "all she wrote" on the sales tax for the wealthy.

The University's story? That's yet to be written.

Nicholas Johnson, "Greed, Conflicts, Cover-Ups and Corruption" in "Conflicts, Cover-Ups and Corruption," June 26, 2007.

# # #

Other News:
Pictures of the Coralville Fourth of July Parade, with emphasis on presidential candidates (listed alphabetically by last name, Democrats and then Republicans) and other elected officials, separated by shots of other floats and scenes.

Note: As always, The Gazette's stories can be found at its main Web site.)

The Fourth of July: Speaking Truth to Power

Leonard Pitts, Jr., "America is at War With Itself," The Gazette, July 4, 2007 ("it seems to me it is not the people who make America great, but America that has made the people great -- [the idea of America] the idea of American exceptionalism")

And thanks to The Gazette for reminding us, today, of the full text of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776, The Gazette, July 4, 2007, p. A7 -- the ultimate speaking of truth to power that made possible the birth of our nation.

Senator Biden's and Clinton's Visit

Here are the photos on my Picasa Web site for the Senator Biden event July 2, and Senator Clinton event July 3.

As always, John Deeth is the best (most thorough) source for political events. See John Deeth, "Biden Time on the Ped Mall," July 2, 2007, and "Clinton and Clinton Live at U Iowa," July 3, 2007 (with photos -- better than mine).

Rachel Gallegos, "Clintons visit Iowa City; Hillary Clinton talks health care, education in campaign stop," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 4, 2007

James Q. Lynch, "Former First Lady Ready to Lead, Clintons Tell I.C.," The Gazette, July 4, 2007, p. A1.

Thomas Beaumont, "Clinton Says Her Campaign Has Recovered from Slow Start," Des Moines Register, July 4, 2007.

Wellmark College of Public Health

Brian Morelli, "Possible Naming Raises Concerns; Some Fear Conflict of Interest with Wellmark, College," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 4, 2007, p. A1.

Diane Heldt, "Wellmark College at the UI?; Plan to put corporate name on school in exchange for gift prompts concern," The Gazette, July 4, 2007, p. A1.

Greg Thompson, "Some New Names for Other UI Departments," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 4, 2007.

State29, "Enron Field," July 3, 2007.

Our "Destiny"? Shifting Taxes From the Wealthy to the Backs of the Poor

Melissa Walker, "'Destiny' to hurt poor the most, economist says; Those living on fixed incomes spend more of their money on taxable goods, they say," Des Moines Register, July 4, 2007.


# # #
[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story . . .

This blog began in June 2006 and has addressed, and continues to addresses, a number of public policy, political, media, education, economic development, and other issues -- not just the UI presidential search. But that is the subject to which most attention has been focused in blog entries between November 2006 and June 2007.

The presidential search blog entries begin with Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006. They end with Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 505 - Next (Now This) Week," June 10, 2007 (100-plus pages printed; a single blog entry for the events of June 10-21 ("Day 516"), plus over 150 attached comments from readers), and Nicholas Johnson, "UI Hostages Free At Last -- Habemas Mamam!," June 22, 2007.

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 entry related to the UI presidential search contains links to the full text of virtually all known, non-repetitive 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.

My early proposed solution to the conflict is provided in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 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.]

# # #

The Corporate College of . . .

July 3, 2007, 6:00 a.m., 7:15 p.m. [addition of photos from Senator Biden, and Senator Clinton events], and 8:25 p.m. [addition of response to attached reader comment, and reference to earlier blog entry, "Greed, Conflicts, Cover-Ups and Corruption"]

Other News, below

Wellmark's College of Public Health
The possibility of Wellmark buying the University of Iowa's College of Public Health came up in an exchange of comments added to a prior blog entry, Nicholas Johnson, "Gambling, Taxes and Cats," July 1, 2007. Today the story has moved from the blogosphere into the mainstream press as the lead story in this morning's Press-Citizen, Brian Morelli, "UI College May Get New Name; May be Named for Wellmark Foundation," July 3, 2007, p. A1.

There are a number of issues and concerns regarding the naming of public buildings in general and academic buildings in particular -- and the possibility of a Wellmark College of Public Health raises almost all of them.

* Should buildings be named for anybody?

* If so, should the naming be limited to ancient scholars, inventors, researchers, creative persons, and so forth -- such as the names that surround one of the buildings on the Pentacrest?

* Or, can the naming include more contemporary such individuals -- but only after they have died?

* And, if so, what about naming them for such individuals while they are still alive?

* Is it appropriate that the names of buildings and colleges be "sold off," in effect, to major donors -- with the symbolic consequence that an academic institution appears to be bestowing its greatest honors on wealth in preference to wisdom?

* If an academic institution is going to offer its programs for sale, should there be any individuals whose money should not be accepted for this purpose -- say, convicted felons, those who have made their money in illegal businesses, or from legal but questionable businesses (e.g., prostitution where legal, gambling, or pornography)? If so, how (and by whom) should these standards be established?

* Is there "a difference that makes a difference" between accepting money from an individual donor for these naming purposes, and accepting it in exchange for a name that includes the donor's corporation (or, as in this case, that corporation's foundation), thus putting the name of a business rather than a person on a building or college?

* If it is acceptable to include a corporate name in the name of an academic building or college, are there additional issues raised when that corporation's mission is in some way, directly or indirectly, related to the college's mission? For example, because corporations have their own training centers and "universities" (I once attended one run by IBM) does it risk confusion in the public mind (similar to the concerns in trademark law) to include a corporate name in the name of a university's college or building when its academic mission is similar to that of the corporation? Is this potential problem exacerbated at a university that includes in its mission "economic development" and the provision of space and other resources for the purpose of spinning off for-profit corporations?

* Does it make it better -- or worse -- that there is a commercial relationship between the corporate donor and the college in question? Does Wellmark's purchase of a UI medical college's name somehow compromise the ability of the University of Iowa to negotiate with Wellmark -- something that's already been a little controversial in the past? Will it prevent, or at least substantially impede, the ability of the University to switch providers sometime in the future, should that be seen to be in the University's best interest?

* What if the corporation's mission is actually antithetical to the mission of the college; e.g., what if the company in question had been, say, Phillip Morris, which contributes to one of the leading public health problems in America, rather than Wellmark, which merely profits from one of the leading public health problems in America? Would that have made a difference? (And there's the related question: Would a "Phillip Morris College of Law" be acceptable, although not a "Phillip Morris College of Public Health"?)

* Finally, when corporate money is accepted in exchange for the naming of buildings or colleges, what is the metric, what is the rate card and how is it calculated, in deciding how much to charge? To the extent the naming constitutes a form of advertising, is the advertising market relevant for these purposes? If so, should the fee charged be an annual payment, rather than a one-time payment, as would normally be the case with advertising?

There is a reason why business spends at least $250 billion a year on advertising -- and, since we are talking about public health, a good deal of which involves advertising for tobacco, alcohol and drugs that is viewed by children, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics' report. Advertising works; advertising sells; advertising is an investment that pays returns -- as it will in this case for Wellmark.

Consider what an advertiser gets for naming rights, say, Cellular One's arena in Cedar Rapids (formerly the Five Seasons Center). It's not just its name on a building -- that can be seen for miles around by anyone passing through town. The name is contained in every newspaper ad for a event at the venue. It's on highway signs directing people to the building. It's on the tickets. It's on every piece of stationery.

Wellmark will get the same range of benefits -- and more -- from having its name on a University of Iowa building. And how much more is it worth to gain the reputation and good will of a major university, by association, than just some old conference center?

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?

[There is a related discussion in Nicholas Johnson, "Greed, Conflicts, Cover-Ups and Corruption" in "Conflicts, Cover-Ups and Corruption," June 26, 2007, regarding the challenges confronting our next UI president as she necessarily must balance some of these moral/ethical questions against the fund raising that has been said to be at least one-third of her job. As that blog entry discusses, these potential conflicts go well beyond, of course, those involved in naming buildings and colleges. But in that earlier blog entry I ask,

We've already stopped naming colleges and buildings for scholars and started naming them for donors. Are there any limits? The CEO of Home Depot gave $200 million to the Atlanta museum. Would we, for an equivalent amount, become "The Home Depot University of Iowa"? What if Larry Flynt [publisher of Hustler Magazine] would offer $300 million if we'd change the name to "Flynt University" [or "Hustler University"]? (After all there's a "Stanford University" and a "Duke University" -- named for a guy who made his money from tobacco.) Why not a "Flynt University"? We need his money as much as Barta needs the gambling industry's money.

A comment attached to today's blog entry notes the number of universities -- many quite distinguished -- named for business people who were major donors. This is a useful point, and I appreciate the offering of those examples. The person writing the comment urges no more than an acknowledgment that this names-for-dollars approach is not something new. I agree. However, I would note that:

(a) most of the examples listed -- including the addition of one I earlier noted that is not on the list (Duke; tobacco money) -- are private universities (Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth and Stanford). Admittedly, the University of Iowa -- with something like 13 percent of its budget coming from the State of Iowa -- is now "Iowa" in name only, and ever closer year by year, with its rising tuition and outside funding, to becoming a "private university" named for a state. Private universities are, by definition, with the exception of government grants for research, sustained by private tuition and donors. They have no (or few) alternative sources of funding. "Public universities," by contrast, were for the most part -- at least at their inception -- created with the notion of public funding, and free or virtually free tuition, as a public, non-corporate, institution.

(b) My discussion involves 11 paragraphs. That some universities (for the most part private universities) have been named for donors, and that this has been historically common and accepted, relates at most to the first five. It does not address the issues in the final six -- dealing with the naming of colleges, buildings or universities for corporations -- no examples of which are provided in the list in the comment.]

There are undoubtedly other issues involved as well, but this should be a good start on a few morning thoughts about "Wellmark's College of Public Health."

# # #
Other News:

Gartner praises Fethke; Biden impresses Iowa City yesterday; President and Mrs. President-Aspirant Clinton arrive today; over 40% white males have (or have had) alcoholism or serious drinking problem (and Iowa City's City Council and bars are doing their best to increase those numbers; way to go Iowa City); . . .

and I haven't forgotten State29's request for some commentary about the Fairness Doctrine (the subject of Tom Ashbrook's "On Point" (WBUR-AM) this morning, "Conservative Talk Radio").

Michael Gartner, "Fethke Excelled in Interim," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 3, 2007.

Rob Daniel, "Biden: Iraq Solution Lies in Confederation," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 3, 2007.

Shajia Ahmad, "Biden Details Iraq Solution," The Daily Iowan, July 3, 2007.

James Q. Lynch, "Biden Counts Off Qualifications in I.C.," The Gazette, July 3, 2007, p. B5; Associated Press, "30 Percent Have Abused Alcohol," The Gazette, July 3, 2007, p. A3 (both available at The Gazette's main Web site).

Here are the photos on my Picasa Web site for the Senator Biden event July 2 (yesterday), and Senator Clinton event today (July 3).

# # #
[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story . . .

This blog began in June 2006 and has addressed, and continues to addresses, a number of public policy, political, media, education, economic development, and other issues -- not just the UI presidential search. But that is the subject to which most attention has been focused in blog entries between November 2006 and June 2007.

The presidential search blog entries begin with Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006. They end with Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 505 - Next (Now This) Week," June 10, 2007 (100-plus pages printed; a single blog entry for the events of June 10-21 ("Day 516"), plus over 150 attached comments from readers), and Nicholas Johnson, "UI Hostages Free At Last -- Habemas Mamam!," June 22, 2007.

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 entry related to the UI presidential search contains links to the full text of virtually all known, non-repetitive 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.

My early proposed solution to the conflict is provided in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 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.]

# # #

K-12 Alternatives to Calling Police

July 2, 2007, 6:15, 7:30, 9:45 a.m. [times reflect additions to the entry -- for the benefit of those few individuals who check back occasionally during the day -- as well as reflecting the fact that what is called "life" occasionally interrupts blogging]

Add-Items: Senator Biden in Iowa City this evening;
Register (and me) on tax policy. See below.

In School: There Are Alternatives to Calling the Police

"The number of police calls to area schools has increased sharply in recent years, according to the Sixth Judicial District Juvenile Delinquency Annual Statistical Report.

The report, which includes Johnson County, shows that police responded to 563 complaints within the Iowa City School District."

Rob Daniel, "Police calls to schools on the rise; Report: 563 complaints in district," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 2, 2007

The column that follows was published in 2001. My commentary about today's school news, and why I thought of this old column in that connection, follows the column.

Smaller Schools Are Better
Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City Press-Citizen, "Opinion," August 28, 2001, p. 9A
(available online here)
What do these prestigious organizations have in common?

Annenberg Foundation, Carnegie Corporation, Center for Collaborative Education, Center for School Change, Gates Foundation, Harvard’s Change Leadership Group, Open Society Institute, Pew Charitable Trusts, and the U.S. Department of Education’s Smaller Learning Communities Program.

Give up?

Each believes smaller is better. Not smaller class sizes. Smaller high schools of 400 to 600 students each.

Many are willing to bet millions of dollars they’re right; $200 million from Gates alone. They have enough data to prove it that, says one, “it seems morally questionable not to act on it.”

In New York’s worst school district, an East Harlem secondary school is one of the city’s best. It graduates 90 percent. And it’s reduced violence without metal detectors. How?

Former Secretary of Education Richard Riley asked top security experts how to improve school safety. Question: Was their top recommendation metal detectors, more police in hallways, or video monitors? Answer: None of the above. It was smaller schools.

I graduated from University High School with 40 classmates in 1952. Then seven percent of high schools had over 1,000 students. Today two-thirds of all high school students attend such schools – including ours.

Smaller schools reduce students’ estrangement. They nurture a sense of belonging. And safety is only one of the benefits.

Smaller schools have better attendance rates, fewer dropouts, more academic achievement and extracurricular participation, more college-bound. Students feel closer bonds with teachers. Teachers with each other.

There are dozens of proposals for improving high schools. Even summaries require something closer to 650 volumes than 650 words. But smaller size is a good beginning.

John Carver says most school boards are incompetent groups of competent people along a continuum from micro-managing at one end to rubber-stamping at the other. All such boards can hope for is to do the wrong things better.

Competent and caring high school teachers confront a comparable dilemma. The system processes 150 students a day along a conveyor belt through their classrooms. They must function with a curriculum and classrooms designed to produce the assembly line workers of a bygone industrial age.

It is not teachers’ fault that, like board members, all they can hope for is to do the wrong things better.

They may be the best source of ideas on how to fix this system, but all the community’s stakeholders must have ownership. And decisions have to come from school boards and administrators.

Our superintendent, Lane Plugge, now chairs Iowa’s Urban Education Network. It’s just stepped up to the plate with a new book-length report titled Redefinition of High School – one of the 650 volumes anyone who cares about these issues ought to read.

The individual authors of its 12 chapters each focus on an issue. Waterloo’s superintendent, Arlis Swartzendruber, cites our school board’s contribution to concepts of board governance. Our own Pam Ehly and Bill Dutton propose “instructional strategies” that if read, understood and implemented would solve many high schools’ problems.

Many chapters note the value of smaller schools.

We’re not about to tear down City and West High and build eight new high schools of 400 each. So how can we gain similar benefits? It’s called “schools within schools.” Four teams of teachers in each. Four “schools” of students with their own portion of a building.

Athletic and music groups continue to draw from all four. Theaters and cafeterias are shared. It’s a best-of-all-possible-worlds win-win. Shared facilities and administration mean lower costs. Smaller schools produce better relationships and climate – and more learning.

Dr. Plugge has thrown an added starter into the board’s consideration of boundaries and educational opportunities: a redefinition, and possible physical redesign, of our high schools.

Architects need to know if clients want a cathedral or a tractor barn. So we’ve begun the process of redefinition.

Now every district stakeholder needs to participate in planning what will, hopefully, include the benefit of smaller schools.
_______________

Nicholas Johnson is an Iowa City School Board member. More information is available on his Web site www.nicholasjohnson.org.

# # #
The Answer is Blowing in the Cyberspace As the organizations cited in this column have concluded, the data is pretty convincing -- and support one's natural intuition -- that as high school size increases above an optimum (around 650 students) there is an increase in bullying, vandalism, teen pregnancy, graffiti, fights, alcohol and drug abuse, absenteeism and dropouts. It only makes sense.

Is manageable size a cure-all? Of course not. But it stands to reason that where a student is known by name by teachers and classmates alike, where adult mentoring becomes logistically possible, where everyone can participate in student activities (rather than just an athletically or musically gifted elite), that social constraints, rather than the presence of police officers, can be a major factor in controlling behavior.

As any regular reader of this blog knows, I'm a big fan of the Internet. It provides public access to orders of magnitude more material than most towns' public libraries can offer their patrons (in hard copy). It permits much more flexible and through searching than hard copy reference works. And it retrieves the material at orders of magnitude faster speeds.

Are there drawbacks? Of course. We don't do a very good job of training students (or ourselves) in effective Google searching techniques, so Internet research experiences are sometimes more frustrating and less fruitful than they could be. And just as everything in hard copy books needs to be verified and confirmed, so sorting through the Internet's content -- open as it is to submissions by anyone -- requires even greater sophistication by users.

During the three years I served on the local school board I wrote a column every two weeks for the Press-Citizen. The column above is one of them. (Links to the full collection can be found here.) Although I had first hand knowledge as a student in the University of Iowa's experimental schools (University Elementary and University High School in a building now called "North Hall") I never attended a College of Education. So I spent a lot of time surfing the Internet while looking for ideas for the columns.

And what I discovered was a variation on Ralph Nader's observation that, "This country has more problems than it deserves and more solutions than it applies." I finally concluded that, with 15,000 school districts in this country, it was likely that there was no problem confronting any given one of them that had not formerly been confronted by another school district (1) identified, (2) addressed, (3) resolved, and (4) written up and made available on the Internet.

When we were considering the $40 million bond issue I noted that the need for that money and additional buildings (at that time) could have been avoided by applying the concept of "cluster schools" for our elementary schools. (Such an approach would also have eliminated, or radically reduced, the problem of disparity in class size.) Had we followed the recommendations of the National Commission on the High School Senior Year for our high schools we could have instantaneously eliminated all of their "overcrowding" and any need for expansion. I noted at the same time the advantages, if additional high school space was to be created anyway, of building high schools for 650 rather than expanding the populations in the two conventional high schools we had. (Tate was deliberately designed for fewer students.)

[Alas, it appears that the National Commission's report is no longer available online. However, a preliminary report and summary is available: The Lost Opportunity of Senior Year: Finding a Better Way, January 2001.]

With "local control of schools" school administrators, parents and taxpayers have the legal and political right to ignore such advice. If they are willing to pay $40 million for the privilege -- and the result is not otherwise criminal or illegal -- they can do whatever they want with their money. And I support local control of schools -- even when it results in plans and policies more driven by their impact on our competitive athletic teams' records than the entire student body's academic records. That's the stakeholders' right.

But there are consequences to those decisions that go well beyond their financial costs.

And our district's school board and administration now confront many comparable decisions as they are coming into the millions of additional dollars to be provided by our local 20% hike in sales taxes.

Prevention is almost always cheaper and more satisfactory than treatment.

Call the cops if you must.

But it seems to me that once you've let things get to the point that you need an Iraq-like surge of additional police in your school it's already too late. You've already lost that battle.

# # #
Add-Items:

Biden. Although you wouldn't know it from the local papers, Senator Joe Biden is making two appearances in Iowa City today.

5:00-6:00 PM SEN. BIDEN TO ATTEND A HOUSE PARTY

Home of Bob and Maggie Elliott
1108 Dover Street
Iowa City, IA

7:00 PM SEN. BIDEN HOSTS A CONVERSATION WITH THE GAY COMMUNITY

Givanni’s Restaurant
109 East College Street
Iowa City, IA

Taxes. I wrote at some length in May about the categories of issues involved in tax reform policy. Nicholas Johnson, "Taxes: Categories of Inquiry" in "UI Held Hostage Day 490 - Search & Taxes," May 26, 2007. This morning the Register editorializes on the subject, Editorial, "Iowa needs full-fledged tax reform; Sales-tax plan is a response to high property taxes," Des Moines Register, July 2, 2007.

# # #
[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story . . .

This blog began in June 2006 and has addressed, and continues to addresses, a number of public policy, political, media, education, economic development, and other issues -- not just the UI presidential search. But that is the subject to which most attention has been focused in blog entries between November 2006 and June 2007.

The presidential search blog entries begin with Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006. They end with Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 505 - Next (Now This) Week," June 10, 2007 (100-plus pages printed; a single blog entry for the events of June 10-21 ("Day 516"), plus over 150 attached comments from readers), and Nicholas Johnson, "UI Hostages Free At Last -- Habemas Mamam!," June 22, 2007.

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 entry related to the UI presidential search contains links to the full text of virtually all known, non-repetitive 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.

My early proposed solution to the conflict is provided in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 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.]

# # #

Gambling, Taxes and Cats

July 1, 2007, 8:00, 10:15 a.m. [times reflect additions to the entry -- for the benefit of those few individuals who check back occasionally during the day -- as well as reflecting the fact that what is called "life" occasionally interrupts blogging]

A number of stories today -- with links and commentary to come: "the beat goes on" (with President Sally Mason's public relations pieces behind us, today is Ken's turn; but when will we learn the true life stories of their three cats?); Iowa's economic future looking up (today is tax shift day and with one more gambling casino now open can Iowans' prosperity be far behind?); Des Moines' voters smarter than Iowa City's (poll indicates 17% hike in sales tax shift from rich to poor seemingly understood for what it is by residents).

# # #
The Gazette gives two stories equal billing on page one below the fold this Sunday: Diane Heldt, "Other Half of Mason Team Has His Own Plans for UI; Hopes teaching, writing background Will Serve Him in IC," The Gazette, July 1, 2007, p. A1; Orian Love, "Ready to Roll: Waterloo Welcomes Isle Casino," The Gazette, July 1, 2007, p. A1 (both available here).

The Gazette notes in its editorial that Iowa City voters were willing to increase their sales tax by 20% notwithstanding that neither they nor the school board had a clue how the money was going to be spent. (It was ostensibly a "school infrastructure local option" sales tax, hence "SILO"). Editorial, "Changes? A Penny for Your Thoughts," The Gazette, July 1, 2007, p. A7.

Meanwhile, thank goodness, the Press-Citizen is able to report that the tax will have no effect on the availability of SHOPPING as locals' primary leisure time activity, not to mention treatment for depression and contribution to Americans' mounting debt. Rob Daniel, "New Tax to Go Into Effect Today; Most Shoppers Say They Are Undeterred," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 1, 2007.

However, in Des Moines, it may not be the "Destiny" of those who don't own property to accept a shift of tax payments from property owners onto the backs of the poor. Apparently they've fallen for "trust me" one time too many. The current poll indicates that, by 61% to 32%, potential voters are saying "No" to "Yes to Destiny." Melissa Walker and Jonathan Roos, "'Destiny' Faces 2-to-1 Opposition; A Poll Finds a Lack of Confidence in Public Officials to Spend the Money in the Best Interests of Residents," Des Moines Register, July 1, 2007, p. 1A.

And Rekha Basu uses "Destiny" as but one example of why the "liberal" and "conservative" labels have become virtually devoid of meaning and utility. Rekha Basu, "Political Labels Not So Clear Now," Des Moines Register, July 1, 2007, p. OP3. Her other examples include immigration reform, single-payer universal health care, environmental protection, and government spending. (I'm not going to repeat how she builds her case for each; if you're interested click on the link and read the column; it's not that long.)

General semanticists make the point that what we say, and the way we say it, is more a function of how the product of our various sensory apparatus is processed into speech by the electro-chemical soup inside our skulls than it is truly reflective of anything going on outside our skins.

They also refer to what they call "purr words" and "slur words." Some words are designed to (at least in part) invoke more of an emotional than an analytical response. They are sometimes used deliberately for that purpose -- in advertising or political speeches, say. And sometimes they've become so common that a speaker may use them without reflecting on their emotional content.

In any event, it seems to me that is what has now happened to "liberal" and "conservative." They have ceased to be very descriptive of anything, and certainly not very helpful in analyzing public policy issues -- for the reasons Ms. Baku points out, and more.

They tell you very little regarding the public policy being discussed -- indeed, very little about the person being described. All they really tell you is that, coming from some people, the charge of "liberal" (like the derogatory terms used for Italians, Hispanics, African-Americans, Jews and others) is that the speaker disagrees with the proposal, or the person, being so described. (Ditto for "conservative" coming from others.)

As Ms. Basu concludes, "each of us needs to carefully examine the issuesbeneath the labels to see who really wins and loses."

# # #

Sally! Sally! Sally! - What's Anyone Worth?

June 30, 2007, 6:00, 9:00 a.m.

"Sally! Sally! Sally!"
On June 28, I wrote:

there were two stories yesterday that I really wish we'd had -- either from Search Committee II or the media, and not just for President Mason but for all the candidates -- during Interview Week.

Erin Jordan, "New UI leader's goal is 'helping;' She knows how college students with tight finances feel. As an undergraduate, the new U of I president had to struggle to pay for school," Des Moines Register, June 27, 2007

Diane Heldt, "New UI leader raring to go; Mason doing her homework by calling key people, listening," The Gazette, June 27, 2007, p. A1.

Nicholas Johnson, "Sally, We Hardly Knew Ye," June 28, 2007.

The cheerleading from the media for President Mason reminds me of the old basketball chant, "Lute! Lute! Lute!" (Hence, "Sally! Sally! Sally!) But I guess a "welcome to Iowa City" feature story/public relations gift is not totally inappropriate for our new UI president.

So if Wednesday was the day the Register and Gazettte simultaneously chose to do their feature pieces about wonder woman, today (Saturday) is the day the Gazette and Press-Citizen simultaneously decide is the day to explain why $1 million in benefits for a university president is really quite reasonable -- and the day for the Press-Citizen to play catch-up with its own wonder woman story.

If you're curious why I would use a figure like $1 million a year, instead of Mason's $450,000 "salary," the analysis is laid out, along with additional commentary on this subject, in Nicholas Johnson, "Executive Compensation" in "Prez Mason & Now What? - Life Goes On," June 23, 2007.

Editorial, "Judging a University President's Worth," The Gazette, June 30, 2007, p. 4A.

Editorial, "Mason Deserves Salary She Will Earn as President," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 30, 2007.

Brian Morelli, "Mason Preps for Iowa; Purdue Provost Ready for Transition to UI President," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 30, 2007; Brian Morelli, "Purdue, UI Offer Many Similarities and Differences," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 30, 2007.

I'll return with some thoughts regarding "just how much is anybody worth?"

# # #
I'm back, with some random thoughts.

Just How Much is Anybody Worth?
At the outset, let me make a couple of points very clear. (1) I think President Sally Mason shows a great many signs of someone with the intellect, social skills, experiences, energy, drive and desire to make her mark as the UI's 20th President. I look forward to watching what she does and how she does it. I welcome her to Iowa City and wish her all the best. While I will continue to blog it as I see it with regard to the University in general and its Regents and administrators in particular, I really do want her to succeed. (2) It is not my position that her $500,000 to $1 million a year in family pay, cost avoidance, and benefits is out of line, or that she is "overpaid" or "not worth it."

OK? Now . . .

Relevance of the Corporate Sector

The Gazette's editorial acknowledges that it's "not obvious" how to measure a university president's performance. But it finds some support for her compensation in the average $15 million paid S&P 500 CEOs, and the $2.24 million paid by Rockwell.

The Press-Citizen's editorial finds justification in similar fashion: the fact that anyone qualified to be a major university president could "succeed in the more lucrative corporate world." In a kind of Lake Wobegon (where "all the children are above average") twist it adds that "it was long past time to increase the UI president's salary to the 'above average' level among peer institutions."

Then, in a burst of realization regarding what had just been written -- after all, not all our university presidents can be paid "above average" -- the editorial reverts to a "I've got mine, Jack; pull up the ladders" with regard to Iowa's other two major Regents universities. Why? Well, because you see "there's a significant difference between the responsibilities faced by the UI president and the presidents of its sister schools."

Can the Differentials Be Justified?

So can we all concede at the outset that "nobody ever said it was rational; nobody ever said it was fair"? The fact is that we don't have an agreed-upon metric for explaining why some people are paid 400-500 times what others are paid when all are working in the same business.

We may have wage scales of sorts, with differences in pay between assistant professors and associate professors, or GS-12s and GS-16s. But that doesn't explain the differentials between departments and colleges for those holding similar titles, or the length of time between their promotions. Nor does it explain the differences in jobs and pay for those working in government jobs.

When I was running for Congress what was said to be the world's largest tractor factory, John Deere in Waterloo, was in the district. Talking one day with some UAW 838 members who worked in the foundry regarding differentials in pay, I put it to them as follows. "Ask the company president what's the least he'd be willing to take to work your job: heavy work, in 120-degree surroundings, with the constant threat of serious injury or death from molten metal. Then ask yourselves, what's the least you'd be willing to work for to sit at his desk, carpet up to your ankles, in air conditioned comfort, and play golf every Wednesday afternoon."

What Do Administrators Do?

Oh, I hear you say, but you're ignoring the responsibility of administrators, the constant stress in their jobs. No, I'm not. But based on what I've read (and personally experienced) the greatest stress falls, not to them, but to those to whom they can delegate tasks, those who can't "write their own job description" or set their own schedules (let alone those of others dependent upon them), those who must meet rather than set the deadlines, those who can't hand off jobs to others. (As a business executive once told me with leering pride, "I don't get ulcers, I give ulcers.")

Morelli quotes Mason as saying, "The president needs a lot of information, but doesn't need to be doing a lot of jobs. Hopefully, the team that is in place will be doing their jobs well and frees the president up to be the face of the university."

She's right. Or at least that has always been my approach to management as well. I told the office chiefs at the Maritime Administration, "I'm trusting you to do your job. If you want to consult with me before making a decision, and I'm in my office, just walk in and we'll talk about it. If I'm not, don't wait for me. You decide. If you screw up, I'll take the heat at the White House and in Congress -- twice. After that we'll need to talk about it." And the "lot of information" I needed came to me with a management information reporting system I designed for some 90 programs and projects that we called the "Monthly MARAD Review."

I don't mean to belittle the responsibilities -- and potential for great contributions -- of administrators. I'm just trying to put their jobs in context -- and make the point that it doesn't necessarily follow as logical, just and inevitable that the person who

(a) writes their own job description, sets their own schedule (and thereby the schedules of others), can hand off tasks to others, gets the emotional rewards of adulation and being the center of attention, is able to meeting "important" and interesting people and engage in rewarding conversations, can constantly be learning fascinating, cutting edge stuff, and needn't worry about money, should be paid multiples more than the person who

(b) takes orders from others (who are sometimes disrespectful or even abusive), has little flexibility in scheduling for family and personal needs, has no one to whom they can delegate tasks, may work in dirty or otherwise uncomfortable (and possibly unhealthy or unsafe) conditions, doesn't find colleagues especially intellectually or emotionally rewarding, does the same boring stuff day after day, and is constantly worrying about bills.

As someone once observed about the dogs in the 1151-mile Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race, "If you're not the lead dog the view never changes."

Recall "For Want of a Nail"?

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

Who is to say, in that case, that the guy responsible for supplying nails was less important, less worthy of a living wage, or otherwise inferior to the blacksmith, rider, general or king?

The Marketplace

The marketplace? Yes, the marketplace provides 400-500 times the compensation for CEOs as for those who make the products the CEO's company sells. Can't argue with that. Just look at the pay stubs. Our law school graduates, on average, earn more than those with masters degrees in English -- who've put as much time into their education, and may well be able to write better.

There's something a little troublesome about The Gazette's reference to the pay packages for S&P 500 CEOs, and the Press-Citizen's to the "lucrative corporate world."

That's like saying the reason law professors should be paid more than foreign language professors is because if we were working in large corporate law firms (as some of us, like myself, once were) we'd be paid five times as much (or more) as we are as professors. The fact is, we aren't working in those law firms -- and for a reason: we prefer our lives as law professors. (That's not to say there wouldn't come a point at which the differential was such as to send some law professors back to law firms -- or medical school professors back to practice.)

For those who've come up with a new idea (whether intellectual property or an entrepreneur's imaginative filling of a niche for goods or services), and then managed the business into prosperity, while not violating the antitrust laws and otherwise "playing by the rules," I have little problem with their taking a substantial share of the profits. They've played a major role in creating new wealth, and they are (in my view) entitled to share in it.

I am less enthusiastic about the compensation paid "hired hands" as CEOs, individuals who had nothing to do with the founding of the company and its subsequent success, and not much more impact on its success following their arrival than that provided by the many others working there. It is especially upsetting when the salaries, stock options, bonuses and golden parachutes continue to escalate notwithstanding a downturn in sales. It's not much better when the increase in profits is more a function of the economy, or results for the industry in general, than of anything done by the company in question, not to mention its CEO.

When Compensation Comes from Taxpayers

But there are other considerations at play when setting the compensation for a university president -- or a school board superintendent, city manager, or other public employee. Of course, there are similarities of task: budgeting and financial management, human relations, community and public relations, law suits, and so forth. But a university is not -- yet -- a for-profit corporation. It's a different environment, with a different set of missions -- and satisfactions and rewards for its presidents that many of them obviously prefer to those provided by business.

(As The Gazette's editorial points out, rather than profit, "For Mason’s first year, she will be judged on:

* Progress in implementing the university’s mission, vision and strategic plan objectives.
* Cooperation and coordination with other regent institutions and the Board of Regents.
* Responsiveness to the regents’ strategic plan, policies and directives.
* Assisting the state’s economic and work-force development."

I must say, these raise a whole other bunch of questions; but my point for now is that none of them sound like "an increase in sales over last year.")

And, not incidentally, the president's compensation comes, not from the school's "profits" (since there are none), but from the taxpayers -- most of whom, as David Skorton pointed out, are earning less than one-tenth what the president will be paid.

Note in this context that, if recent reports can be believed, the UI's coaches with responsibility for the Hawkeye men's football and basketball programs are now responsible for, in effect, raising the money to pay their own salaries. That is, those programs are to be self-sustaining rather than the recipients of University dollars. The UI president has not -- yet -- been given any variant of a similar challenge.

And so in conclusion, . . .

My points:
- Few nations have sustained for long, without a violent revolution, the disparity between rich and poor that we have -- and are escalating -- in the U.S today
- At some point that disparity becomes a moral issue
- As NASA discovers from time to time, when you're trying to get astronauts to the Space Station and back alive, no one person's job is less important than anyone else's
- There is virtually nothing of "inherent worth," and little in measurable productivity and outputs, to justify taxpayer-funded, public sector executive compensation that reflects what's paid in the for-profit sector
- We should just admit that when it comes to university presidents' compensation we pay what we do for reasons similar to those offered in the children's book about Ping, on the Yanksee River in China, with regard to ducks' behavior: "that's just the way ducks do"

So I'll close by repeating what I said as I began: "(1) I think President Sally Mason shows a great many signs of someone with the intellect, social skills, experiences, energy, drive and desire to make her mark as the UI's 20th President. I look forward to watching what she does and how she does it. I welcome her to Iowa City and wish her all the best. While I will continue to blog it as I see it with regard to the University in general and its Regents and administrators in particular, I really do want her to succeed. (2) It is not my position that her $500,000 to $1 million a year in family pay, cost avoidance, and benefits is out of line, or that she is 'overpaid' or 'not worth it.'"

I just believe we need to do a lot more thinking about compensation in our society than we do, and display more candor and analysis when we talk and write about it. In the process we should acknowledge that there is little of inherent worth to justify the disparities in pay dictated by, as the ad has it "you get what you negotiate," and the supply and demand for labor in a "marketplace" that seemingly knows no bounds.

# # #
[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story . . .

This blog began in June 2006 and has addressed, and continues to addresses, a number of public policy, political, media, education, economic development, and other issues -- not just the UI presidential search. But that is the subject to which most attention has been focused in blog entries between November 2006 and June 2007.

The presidential search blog entries begin with Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006. They end with Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 505 - Next (Now This) Week," June 10, 2007 (100-plus pages printed; a single blog entry for the events of June 10-21 ("Day 516"), plus over 150 attached comments from readers), and Nicholas Johnson, "UI Hostages Free At Last -- Habemas Mamam!," June 22, 2007.

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 entry related to the UI presidential search contains links to the full text of virtually all known, non-repetitive 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.

My early proposed solution to the conflict is provided in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 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.]

# # #