Stationery card

Oh Holy Night Religious Christmas Card

Make a statement with personalized Christmas cards at Shutterfly.

View the entire collection of cards.

Hazing means Brutality in HBCU's band

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/07/143211079/for-some-marching-bands-hazing-means-brutality?sc=fb&cc=fp

For Some Marching Bands, Hazing Means Brutality

The Marching 100, Florida A&M University's band, performs on the field before Super Bowl XLIV, Feb. 7, 2010. The band's director, Julian White, was fired in November after a band member died, allegedly from a hazing incident on a bus.

Every now and then, as a journalist, you want to think that you haven't just done a good "story," but maybe you've actually brought attention to something that can actually do good.

I dared feel that a year ago, when I reported a piece for the HBO show Real Sports With Bryant Gumbel. The story was about violent hazing in the marching bands at HBCUs –– historically black colleges and universities.

At first, as the producer, Josh Fine, outlined the horrors of what was passed off as merely typical old college hazing, I doubted him. I couldn't believe that the premeditated violence that Fine described could possibly be that brutal, that widespread, and that, essentially, enabled by the institutions.

But then, as I interviewed band members at HBCUs, my disbelief grew into shock, as I learned about behavior that was, effectively, institutional torture.

New band members –– called "crabs" –– had to face choreographed assaults, with two-by-fours, belts, baseball bats, beer bottles, suffering literally hundreds of blows from their older compatriots. For example, an Alabama A&M flute player vividly told me about how she'd been attacked, time and time again, by the older flutists.

Yes. Even flute players. Even women. Women battering each other.

The victims also admitted, grievously, that they succumbed to a horrible psychological turnabout, because as painfully injured as they'd been when they were beaten, they themselves willingly became the twisted assailants the next year.

"[It got] your blood boiling for the next person, like a vampire lookin' for blood," one French horn player told me.

And so the brutality continued, validated as a way of building band camaraderie.

And so the excuses continued, because HBCU bands are the headliners –– literally more popular than the football teams that they play for at halftime. The band director at Florida A&M, Julian White, responded to my report by saying that I was just a prejudiced outsider, who "made it seem like black schools are the only places where it's happening. ... That's just not the case."

I'm sorry, but that is precisely the case. It is the culture.

So extreme has been the band torture at HBCUs that some victims have had to be hospitalized. After one crab at Southern University almost died when his kidneys stopped functioning, his assailants were criminally prosecuted, because, an assistant district attorney told me, "To continue that cycle ... somebody was gonna die."

Still, when my piece aired, there were no apologies, and worse: no change in the way things had always been. The bands must play on. Then, last month, a member of White's Florida A&M band died of alleged beatings at the hands of his comrades, in the line of tradition.

White has been fired by Florida A&M, but perhaps now they won't just call this sort of thing hazing anymore, anywhere.

I don't know if anyone is still keeping up with the blogs however I came across this piece and felt it was important.

I found this article extremely disturbing; not because of the hazing but rather the extent of it. I can understand about wanting to build camaraderie however the type of leadership exhibited by the band leader in question, actually the culture in question, is reprehensible. He had full knowledge of what was going on and to what extent. I believe he should be formally charged as an accessory to murder. There is more to it however I would need to take time and reflect on the situation further as such flagrant disregard for the welfare of people under Julian White's leadership simply leaves me at a loss.

Pepper-Sprayed for being Non-Violent?

Wow! The campus police made a big mistake. Students at the University of California at Davis were pepper sprayed as they sat peaceful arms linked together protesting non-violently. And if being pepper sprayed isn’t bad enough, they were also jabbed with police batons. Thank goodness for everyone shooting footage because the public can have an eyewitness account of the unnecessary act of the campus police. The officers who sprayed the students were suspended with pay and according to reports, Chancellor Linda Katehi, is the person who ordered the police to use the pepper spray. Once word got out of this, students and some faculty called for her resignation. Katehi issued a statement saying she would form a committee to investigate what happened and report to the campus community within 90 days.

What started the whole ordeal was police were ordered to remove the students and their tents from the premises. The students were part of the Occupy movement, in which they were protesting against economic inequality, tuition increases, budget cuts at the University of California, and interestingly enough police conduct. The students ignored the request by the police to disperse, so then the students were peppered sprayed and were physically removed one-by-one. Katehi called for a review of student conduct policy to find out if the police did or did not act in accordance with policy. And if they did, then she wants to change the policy so that students can protest within reason and not worry about being harmed by campus police.           

Katehi is drawing much criticism from everyone. The president of the University of California system issued a statement saying the incident was appalling and there needs to be an effort made to ensure peaceful protests go unharmed. On Saturday, the day after the incident, students’ anger rose to which they protested against Katehi by lining the walkway from the office to her car as she exited the campus. Students did not say a word they just stood around her in silence. Katehi did not acknowledge them at all. Katehi issued a statement saying she would address the students in the coming days and that she needs to regain the students’ trust, so the first thing she did was place the chief of police on administrative leave Monday morning after gathering more information. Even observers in the community who do not agree with the Occupy movement, showed sympathy toward the students and agree that the police were out of line with over aggressive actions.

In closing, it will be interesting to see if Katehi retains her position. I feel she has a lot of explaining to do and she obviously does not understand student protest. If she was the person who ordered the use of the aggressive action by campus police, she should be removed or state that she was wrong in her decision. She has yet to do either. I think what she should have done was went out to where the students were protesting and speak to them as her students instead of stereotyping them as an out-of- control mob. One would think that she would have student affairs qualities mastered by now to be able to reach out or show compassion for the students. This was a good lesson for her of what not to do during a non-violent student protest.

 http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/11/21/experts-and-activists-question-use-pepper-spray-davis#ixzz1eRvb7Dfa

       

When is a man a man?

In my other class this semester, I am writing about issues facing women’s colleges in the United States. As I was searching for current events last weekend I ran across a jaw-dropping article in The Chronicle that discussed the policy regarding transgender students at an all women’s school touted to be Virginia’s first chartered women’s college. The rule states, "If a degree-seeking undergraduate student initiates sex reassignment from female to male (as defined by the university below) at any point during her time at Hollins, she will not be permitted to continue attending Hollins beyond the conclusion of the term in which sex reassignment is initiated, and under no circumstances will such student be allowed to graduate from Hollins.”

A transgender policy specialist from Western New England University School of Law believes that expulsion is a punitive response to a student’s decision to make a personal medical decision to begin sex realignment. Although the article does not specify if transitioning students are actually expelled or simply compelled to leave Hollins, I agree that this policy appears to raise questions regarding personal (human) rights versus organizations’ rights. Specifically, is it appropriate for a private institution to bar students who no longer identify as members of their population of focus? The three actions that will lead to a student’s removal from Hollins include: 1. When a student “begins hormone therapy with the intent to transform from female to male, 2. undergoes any surgical process (procedure) to transform from female to male, or 3. changes her name legally with the intent of identifying herself as a man." One key point that strikes me as legally questionable is that the school’s policy requires the departure of students who have initiated gender-reassignment transition (by any of the methods listed above) but are not yet legally considered to be male by the Commonwealth of Virginia, at least with regards to the ability to obtain a new driver’s license with the new gender stated on it.

As I wrote in a previous comment regarding transgender issues and NCAA athletes, the decision regarding when and if to transition must be one of the most significant decisions a person has to make. It seems to me that women’s colleges focus on encouraging women to follow their personal and career aspirations. They are places where women do not have to conform to the traditional paradigms of society. Apparently, this supportive environment ends when a student strays too far from the actual paradigm of socially-constructed gender.

Before you accuse me of ranting, or completely missing the point, please understand that I do realize that private institutions have more freedoms than public institutions. I am also keenly aware that once a person begins the process of transitioning from female-to-male, he is no longer identifying as a woman. But there are a variety of reasons why forcing a student out of school seems wrong to me personally. Can anyone explain to me, beyond the simple reason that a man is not a woman, why a transitioning student should be removed from school?

New blogs are open

Current Issues Students:  the new blog have been created for the second half of the course. Each is based on a student recommendation.  You should receive invitations to join these 5 new blogs this afternoon.  If you do not (or if you need the invitation to go to a different email address), please let me know.  The older blogs will remain open for students who want to post in them for this week.

The new blog titles are: Higher Education in Colorado, For Profit, International, Protest and Conflict, and Graduate Education.

90% Plagiarism in your Publication May Lead to....

Last week, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) found former graduate student, Marija Manojlovic, responsible for research misconduct. In the report, the former University of Pittsburgh student was found to have falsified data in a poster presentation and in an article manuscript submitted for publication. Manjlovic fabricated at least some of the steps taken to collect data and the final data itself.

The ORI is a government organization whose purpose is to oversee research misconduct specifically related to Public Health Service (PHS) research. PHS departments include:

• Office of Public Health and Science
• National Institutes of Health.
  
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  
• The Food and Drug Administration
  
• The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
  
• The Health Resources and Services Administration
  
• The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
  
• The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
  
• The Indian Health Service
• Office of Regional Health Administrators

In 2004, 30 billion dollars of research funding was provided to health researchers. The ORI ensures the money used in this research is not used on irresponsible research.

Institutions receiving funding assure the ORI that they will comply with administrative procedures, outlined by the ORI, regarding research misconduct. Typically, universities complete their own investigation and then turn cases over to the ORI.

In 2009, the ORI received 179 allegations of research misconduct, which include: "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results." This quote is taken from the 2009 annual report published by the ORI.

Of these 179 allegations, 49 were examined in greater detail to determine the need for a potential investigation. Not all of these cases were completed in 2009.

There were 43 cases closed in 2009, 11 of which found research misconduct. Only 1 person was disbarred from PHS research for 10 years; 2 were disbarred for 3 years, and 2 were disbarred for 2 years. Other disciplinary actions most often included not being allowed to be a PHS advisor and/or having research supervised by someone else for a number of years.

Manjlovic's falsification was disciplined by not allowing her to serve in an advisory capacity for PHS and by requiring research supervision for the next 3 years. She is still able to use government funding for her research. According to her LinkedIn page, Manjlovic has been a research assistant at the University of Pittsburgh since 2006. Do you believe these disciplinary actions were appropriate?

Manjlovic

Another recent case investigated Scott Weber. Weber was an assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh in the school of nursing. (The research integrity officer there must be pretty busy!) Weber was found guilty of plagiarizing and falsifying data in two publications and plagiarizing in 2 grant applications. Here is the quote from the report, because I think it does a better job than I could of describing Weber's actions:

In both manuscripts, the Respondent falsified and fabricated tables and figures by using all or nearly all of the data in tables and graphs from the plagiarized articles while altering numbers and changing text to represent data as if from another subject population;

he also copied most of the original bibliographic references but falsified 35% of the copied references from JAANP MS and 25% of the copied references from JGMS MS, by changing volume numbers and/or publication years, apparently to hinder detection of the plagiarism.

The data fabrication occurred when the Respondent altered or added values to Table 2 in each manuscript describing the demographic characteristics of the study population that was never studied.

Weber changed data in tables from another publication to make it seem like they were from his "study." He actually never conducted a study, but created demographic data for a population.

He plagiarized 90% of one of these articles mentioned and 66% of the other article mentioned! Seven of his previously published articles have now been retracted. Weber has been barred from participating in federally funded research for 3 years.

Weber

It has been briefly mentioned in class that faculty are under enormous pressure to publish. Faculty under this pressure are often tempted to commit acts of research misconduct or questionable research practices. Questionable research practices are often defined as actions that stray from accepted practices of the research community. There are a couple of great articles from the counselor education field examining research misconduct and questionable research practices among faculty. I'll put the references at the bottom of this blog.

I have lots of questions for you. This topic is an area of interest for me, so you can see that I have geeked out a bit on it.

I would imagine most people would have issues with Weber's egregious plagiarism. Is his disciplinary action appropriate? For me this brings up questions of whether certain research misconduct or questionable research practices should be weighted differently. Is plagiarism worse than falsifying data? They both feel dishonest to me, yet the disciplinary actions in these cases indicates that they are different.

What about the use of federal funding for these behaviors...should students or faculty be allowed to use federal funding for research after committing research misconduct?

Should they be allowed to continue in their programs or maintain their status at the university? Should graduate students and faculty punishment be all that different? When the student mentioned above becomes a faculty member and is under pressure to publish, are they going to resort to research misconduct in order to survive?

What kind of career implications does this have for students or faculty?

References:

Davis, M. S., Wester, K. L., & King, B.(2008). Narcissism, entitlement, and questionable research practices in counseling: A pilot study. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86, 200-210.

Wester, K. L., Willse, J. T., & Davis, M. S. (2010). Psychological climate, stress, and research integrity among research counselor educators: A preliminary study. Counselor Education & Supervision, 50(1), 39-55.

Governing Boards in Higher Education

I came across this article in Inside Higher Ed within minutes of reading about newly appointed board members to my institutions Board of Trustees. I have not really given much thought to the selection process of the board members before this, but in reading the article “A New Tea (M) on the Field”, I began to wonder a lot about the details that go into the selection of a college or universities governing board.
To summarize the article, in case you did not read it, members of the Tea Party are attempting to gain access to seats on the three largest institutional governing boards in Michigan. They are doing this by flooding the caucuses, trying to get their people on the ballot for election. Because most voters tend to vote party-line, and the Tea Party is making large strides in the state, there is a good chance voters will elect Tea Party affiliates to the governing boards. Advocates of the Tea Party argue that new blood is needed on the governing boards of University of Michigan, Michigan State University and Wayne State, arguing that the change in political affiliation will help bring college down to the “average man”. Opponents worry that those elected will not be invested in higher education due to the anti-government philosophies and practices of the Tea Party.
I learned that it is a rare practice/policy/law that voters elect members to a governing board through a yearly ballot. I know that Colorado voters decide who will be on the Board of Regents for the University of Colorado, but I assumed it was typical for states to vote on the leadership at that level for flagship institutions, while other schools had members directly appointed by the Colorado Governor. As it turns out, only 3 schools in the nation have governing boards that are voted on by the public (arroding to the article). In addition to CU, the University of Nevada and the University of Nebraska’s governing boards are elected.
The benefit to an election process is that members of the board would be more likely to reflect multiple political parties, rather than all coming from the same one, which could happen when appointed by t he same public official. The risk of gubeterial appointment, is that boards will start to only represent one side of political thought- the one in which the governor subscribes, which could affect the direction of the institution. In Texas, as the article describes , all members of each of the 6 governing boards are republican because they were all selected and appointed by the current governor, a republican, for example. However, even though this appointment process could skew the political make -up of boards, it is still the preferred method over general elections. I wonder why that is?
Going back to Michigan, one of the candidates running for the board is running on a platform that would encourage high school students to stay in the state of Michigan to pursue higher education. This is one example of a hot issue in Michigan, where a candidate for the board makes their opinion clear and the voters can pick if they support that or not.
Reading the article got me thinking about a variety of aspects pertaining to governing boards. I wonder if board members who are appointed are more or less likely to have an opinion about certain issues in higher education than their elected counterparts? I wonder if there are differences in education and career fields? I wonder, how do faculty get along with the Board? Is that relationship contingent upon election veruses appointment? In general, I am curious about the actual involvement of governing boards on the day-to –day as well as the overall direction of the institution. Does that change based on type of institution?
I looked at the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges website. Having not looked at this site before, I was more curious about the kinds of resources available to members of governing boards. It appears as through the Association subscribes to 5 values: Strengthen, Define, Guide, Identity, and Foster. There is a national conference as well as regional workshops, where the topics are related to educational quality, board assessment, and athletic involvement.
I am curious how many boards, or individual members of boards, participate in this association. Is there training for this type of role? Definitely an area I would have an interest in learning more about. I would also be interested to hear if any of you have sat on the board for any organization. It would be interesting to see how the leadership required for one industry would or would not translate to the skills needed for an institution of higher education governing board.