It is veterans day today where we honor those who take of the uniform of defenders of our freedom. Today, that comes from an unlikely source-the Daily Illini with no less than three articles espousing the importance of our service men and women.
In one such article is the revelation of the U of ILL's hostility to making veterans collegiate experience an adequate one. No news here, as the UI has a long history of laying veterans on the sidelines. Yet, if the TASSers in the DI had done their job properly in the past, the University of ILL's poor standings in the Best for Vets list would come as no revelation.
No doubt the sycophantic praise of veterans and pro-veteran policies-both of which the DI has abhorred since 2001, is the result of verbal, and (if its copious advertising for the Global Campus fiasco is of any indication) a very likely monetary directive.
Yet the DI all but ignored the revelations back in 2007 when the University of ILL conspired to revoke and remove its promised MBA scholarships to veterans in the College of Business. Championed by Rob Van der Hooning with support of Pat Quinn and Rahm Emanuel, the scholarship program was removed by administrator's including BJ White, Herman, Ghosh, DeBrock, and Ikenberry (David). White later used his position and via then-Chancellor Sylvia Manning to weed out Van der Hooning. When he objected to the railroading of the veterans who were promised, not to mention the unethical actions by we have all come to expect now by the clout-filled crowd, he was illegally fired.
We could go on, but for a much better summary, read it at Marathon Pundit.
Ghosh's rationale that there were "too many jar heads" and his attempt to run them out of the program by bumping up deadline dates without informing the applicants, besides being underhanded, strikes us as pandering as well. After seeing the racist and hate-filled harangues concerning veterans coming from the likes of employees such 9/11 "Truther" David Green (who now has sunk to a new low accusing veterans of enlisting just because "they think it's cool to blow people away) , or even DI employees such as Chelsea Fiddyment or Amy Allen, we are left with no doubt exactly who the administrators concerned are pandering to.
More telling is the status of those involved: the ethically-challenged BJ White is now continuing to extort the taxpayers behind a near-invincible fortress of tenure. Ghosh is imperator now of economic development, not to mention clout appointments of state senators' spouses. DeBrock now is dean of the College of Business, and one of the clout masters.
Meanwhile the DI only printed a few words from Van der Hooning, and an entire accusation from Robin Kaler. The TASSers at the DI spout their false praise for the day, knee deep in their own complicity.
Posted by Hound No. 9
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Thursday, September 9, 2010
V is for Victory, Vindication, and Valdosta
There was some uplifting news from Georgia today: T. Hayden Barnes has emerged victorious over Valdosta State concerning his unlawful expulsion by former-president, Ronald Zaccari.
As FIRE writes, the importance of the case demonstrates that "no president is above the law." To be sure, the major victory of this case, even beyond the return of Mr. Barnes lost rights of speech and due process, is the black eye against abuse of sovereign immunity by administrators and public officials in these cases. Judge Parnell ruled that Zaccari is "personally liable" for his actions. People like Mike Nifong, John Fallon, Rod BLAHgo, and Charles Steger can longer hide behind their roles as "good-intending" public stooges, but without the public accountability checks in place. The case can only further the backlash of government institutional abuse in a season and time where public loathing of government waste, corruption, and insularity is at an all-time peak.
Others have also weighed in with some observations which we believe are vital to the fight to combat the erosion of students rights across the nation.
The Student Press Law Center in particular states that the case highlights the promising trend of student handbooks and codes acting as legally-binding documents for schools that violate student rights; not only in public schools but private (emphasis added) as well:
Posted by Hound No. 8
The Hounds of TASSers'ville
As FIRE writes, the importance of the case demonstrates that "no president is above the law." To be sure, the major victory of this case, even beyond the return of Mr. Barnes lost rights of speech and due process, is the black eye against abuse of sovereign immunity by administrators and public officials in these cases. Judge Parnell ruled that Zaccari is "personally liable" for his actions. People like Mike Nifong, John Fallon, Rod BLAHgo, and Charles Steger can longer hide behind their roles as "good-intending" public stooges, but without the public accountability checks in place. The case can only further the backlash of government institutional abuse in a season and time where public loathing of government waste, corruption, and insularity is at an all-time peak.
Others have also weighed in with some observations which we believe are vital to the fight to combat the erosion of students rights across the nation.
The Student Press Law Center in particular states that the case highlights the promising trend of student handbooks and codes acting as legally-binding documents for schools that violate student rights; not only in public schools but private (emphasis added) as well:
"That finding adds to a growing body of law that makes clearAn example of the crucial ramifications of this decision, we imagine this cannot make Brodhead and his ilk in the faculty and Duke echelons resting easy, since part of the Duke's rather pithy defense of its blatant violation of its own students rights rests on the out-right nullification of the Duke's faculty, student handbooks.
promises made by schools in handbooks, school charters, “Student Rights and
Responsibility” documents and other university statements can provide students
with legal protections that extend beyond those provided by more traditional
law. While most cases have so far involved promises made to students about the
fairness of campus disciplinary systems, the Student Press Law Center has long
argued that schools should also be held legally accountable for violating their
own student media policies and other provisions promising to protect student
speech."
Posted by Hound No. 8
The Hounds of TASSers'ville
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Boss Richard Daley has decided not to seek reelection as Supreme Overlord of the Chicago/Cook county political machine. Citing familial interests, the ILL "Tiger” is off to a new phase in the life of corrupt, Chicago officials. What will the former fat cat do with his time now, we Hounds wonder? Engage in typical post-career activities such as golf or lawn bowling? Or maybe become a sportsman? Fishing, and threatening to stick a rifle up the derrieres of some more journalists?
Posted by
Hound No. 6
Posted by
Hound No. 6
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Sweeping Funds under the Rug?
The second of September marked a surprising addition to a rather uninspiring repertoire of start-of-term publications by the Daily Illini. The article focuses on a small section of a large FOIA documents surrounding the role of the skunk, BJ White, with regards to funds spent to renovate and furnish the University of ILL’s presidential house.
Given the copious amounts of clout, scandal, Worsty Awards, spending, etc. at UI, it is only natural that the general public, students, and concerned alumni would question the necessity of such expenses and (especially if BJ White is involved) any ethics issues related. Based upon the story, there seems little, if anything, objectionable or illegal; certainly nothing to compare to the clout scandal.
Enter the Serial Obfuscator: Tom Hardy.
The electronic equivalent of barking and frothing at the mouth, Tom Hardy posted a rabid harangue on the comment board shortly after 1p.m. the same day, turning it into a mad house, because his bosses reputations may well be in the dog house, all over the costs of the penthouse, while it was the White house, who belongs in the Big House.
Accusing the DI of exploiting a “Gotcha” moment, and launching into several name-calling tirades such as “amateurish” “half-baked” and in violation of fair, objective journalism the post is rather extraordinary since there was little to castigate in the DI’s originally article. Nowhere in that article appears any conclusion or insinuation of wrongdoing warranting the accusation of a “Gotcha” moment that Hardy insulates in his Palpatinian out lashing. Indeed, the DI reported the renovations, attached the price to the rug, and includes the relevant documents. In the second and third paragraphs, the DI identifies the go-between, and the source of the funding. Nowhere in either does the publication insinuate or identify any improprieties-a hallmark nonetheless characteristic of the White regime.
The second to last paragraph merely is a statement of record, concerning White’s fate regarding the admission scandal. Nothing contained therein reported is false-White did resign. He was replaced by Ikenberry and ultimately succeeded by appointment of Michael Hogan. Or would Hardy dare to challenge these facts? Hmmm?
Finally a promise to follow up on the story. If, if we can bear to take Hardy’s word, there are 1200 more pages worth, this hardly seems unrealistic. Needless to say, hardly anything worthy of the boorishly delivered monikers of “half-baked” or unprincipled.
Hardy’s tirade, in which he attempts to take the moral high ground with claims about “friendly’ facts and a lack of secrets, becomes even more incredible when one bears in mind that, in addition to being called out by the IPA for "thumbing its collective nose" at the FOIA request regarding the cost of presidential searches, he and the university currently face a push for a state ruling by the News-Gazette for failing to adhere to the recommendations of the IL Public Access Counselor. Nor shall we forget that this man previously (in an equally brazenly hypocritical, snide, albeit less hot-headed manner) chastised the DI’s editorial picture for calling into question BJ White’s actions during the admission scandal. The context was the revelation that White (which he testified to) used his position on behalf of a member of his own family, which Hardy bizarrely omitted, in his letter to the DI, ever happened. Hardy's description of White handing himself over to "private" life also causes some scratches to the head (for us behind the ears), given that White is now a golden-parachute faculty member, teaching of all things ethics(!). Given Hardy’s brazen need to completely whitewash White of anything, no one would be surprised if tomorrow Hardy started to insist White’s urine was, in fact, wine (if only “half-baked.”)
Perhaps this was a non-story, and we shall wait to see if it was. But Hardy’s expose of bureaucratic indignation over some fiscal transparency and accountability has replaced it. Regardless of the journalistic merit of White’s unsurprising largess (a topic that has been, and will likely continue to be analyzed, but as Tolkien would say, does not enter into this tail). Tom Hardy IS now the story. We know the DI well. We are forced to read it everyday (this Hound in particular!) This can be a chore. As anyone who reads us knows we have been adamant since the start of the fall term concerning the DI’s failure to update or retract a false rape allegation that it has previously reported. And we know full well, ’amateurish” ’half-baked’ and in violation of “every principle of fair, objective expository journalism “ are accurate, well labeled appellations of the Daily Illini’s journalist apparatus on most days.
But not today. And we challenge Hardy to show specifically where it is otherwise.
Posted by Hound No. 9
***Update 9-2-2010 5:31 P.M.***
The Daily Illini has posted an update regarding the rationale for the publication of this story. Though not by name, it is certainly a rebuke of Hardy's accusations. The Daily Illini's explanation echoes No. 9's post and our own defense of the publication.
Posted by Alpha Hound
Given the copious amounts of clout, scandal, Worsty Awards, spending, etc. at UI, it is only natural that the general public, students, and concerned alumni would question the necessity of such expenses and (especially if BJ White is involved) any ethics issues related. Based upon the story, there seems little, if anything, objectionable or illegal; certainly nothing to compare to the clout scandal.
Enter the Serial Obfuscator: Tom Hardy.
The electronic equivalent of barking and frothing at the mouth, Tom Hardy posted a rabid harangue on the comment board shortly after 1p.m. the same day, turning it into a mad house, because his bosses reputations may well be in the dog house, all over the costs of the penthouse, while it was the White house, who belongs in the Big House.
Accusing the DI of exploiting a “Gotcha” moment, and launching into several name-calling tirades such as “amateurish” “half-baked” and in violation of fair, objective journalism the post is rather extraordinary since there was little to castigate in the DI’s originally article. Nowhere in that article appears any conclusion or insinuation of wrongdoing warranting the accusation of a “Gotcha” moment that Hardy insulates in his Palpatinian out lashing. Indeed, the DI reported the renovations, attached the price to the rug, and includes the relevant documents. In the second and third paragraphs, the DI identifies the go-between, and the source of the funding. Nowhere in either does the publication insinuate or identify any improprieties-a hallmark nonetheless characteristic of the White regime.
The second to last paragraph merely is a statement of record, concerning White’s fate regarding the admission scandal. Nothing contained therein reported is false-White did resign. He was replaced by Ikenberry and ultimately succeeded by appointment of Michael Hogan. Or would Hardy dare to challenge these facts? Hmmm?
Finally a promise to follow up on the story. If, if we can bear to take Hardy’s word, there are 1200 more pages worth, this hardly seems unrealistic. Needless to say, hardly anything worthy of the boorishly delivered monikers of “half-baked” or unprincipled.
Hardy’s tirade, in which he attempts to take the moral high ground with claims about “friendly’ facts and a lack of secrets, becomes even more incredible when one bears in mind that, in addition to being called out by the IPA for "thumbing its collective nose" at the FOIA request regarding the cost of presidential searches, he and the university currently face a push for a state ruling by the News-Gazette for failing to adhere to the recommendations of the IL Public Access Counselor. Nor shall we forget that this man previously (in an equally brazenly hypocritical, snide, albeit less hot-headed manner) chastised the DI’s editorial picture for calling into question BJ White’s actions during the admission scandal. The context was the revelation that White (which he testified to) used his position on behalf of a member of his own family, which Hardy bizarrely omitted, in his letter to the DI, ever happened. Hardy's description of White handing himself over to "private" life also causes some scratches to the head (for us behind the ears), given that White is now a golden-parachute faculty member, teaching of all things ethics(!). Given Hardy’s brazen need to completely whitewash White of anything, no one would be surprised if tomorrow Hardy started to insist White’s urine was, in fact, wine (if only “half-baked.”)
Perhaps this was a non-story, and we shall wait to see if it was. But Hardy’s expose of bureaucratic indignation over some fiscal transparency and accountability has replaced it. Regardless of the journalistic merit of White’s unsurprising largess (a topic that has been, and will likely continue to be analyzed, but as Tolkien would say, does not enter into this tail). Tom Hardy IS now the story. We know the DI well. We are forced to read it everyday (this Hound in particular!) This can be a chore. As anyone who reads us knows we have been adamant since the start of the fall term concerning the DI’s failure to update or retract a false rape allegation that it has previously reported. And we know full well, ’amateurish” ’half-baked’ and in violation of “every principle of fair, objective expository journalism “ are accurate, well labeled appellations of the Daily Illini’s journalist apparatus on most days.
But not today. And we challenge Hardy to show specifically where it is otherwise.
Posted by Hound No. 9
***Update 9-2-2010 5:31 P.M.***
The Daily Illini has posted an update regarding the rationale for the publication of this story. Though not by name, it is certainly a rebuke of Hardy's accusations. The Daily Illini's explanation echoes No. 9's post and our own defense of the publication.
Posted by Alpha Hound
Monday, August 23, 2010
The start of term for the University of ILL has started, and the DI has kick-started the semester by holding to its usual standards of journalistic ethics.
On August 7th, Both the News-Gazette and the TASSers at the DI had stories that a report of criminal sexual assault that occurred earlier that day near the Wright and Chalmers (in the general vicinity of the Illini Union Bookstore for those unfamiliar with the area).
Little over a week later, the News-Gazette reported that the sexual assault accusations, according to the UI Police, was "unfounded." The TASSers of the DI reported this on...well, never.
By viewing the link to the DI above, you will see that we Hounds brought this to the TASSers' view that same day (though we were twenty-four minutes behind the first. The DI responded by not even posting the comments (except the one dated August 10) until the evening of the 18th-well after the DI regulated the story far, far away from the news thread. The only way to find it now is via a google search.
In addition, a simple search of keywords, including "Hofstra," at the DI article database tell us a pretty tale. Or rather, confirms one that we noticed some time earlier: According to the DI's reporting (or in this case, lack thereof), no reader would know that the Hofstra students (arguably the most nationally scrutinized false rape next to the infamous Duke Lacrosse Hoax) falsely accused by Danmell Ndoye since the DI did not print a story of any kind.
Do we expect any kind of recanting or clarification? Not really. The DI's parent company, Illini Media, also owns and prints the Buzz. The Buzz prints the "Doin it Well" column by Wantland and Sanger (Jo not Margaret, though they do have a lot in common), which in April of last year, printed a column about the previously-mentioned Duke Hoax that No. 2 thoroughly and appropriately excoriated.
No matter; if we must school the DI some more, then never fear. We are the Hounds and it is our job to watch, correct, and educate when the need arises .
Welcome to the start of term!
Posted by Hound No. 9
On August 7th, Both the News-Gazette and the TASSers at the DI had stories that a report of criminal sexual assault that occurred earlier that day near the Wright and Chalmers (in the general vicinity of the Illini Union Bookstore for those unfamiliar with the area).
Little over a week later, the News-Gazette reported that the sexual assault accusations, according to the UI Police, was "unfounded." The TASSers of the DI reported this on...well, never.
By viewing the link to the DI above, you will see that we Hounds brought this to the TASSers' view that same day (though we were twenty-four minutes behind the first. The DI responded by not even posting the comments (except the one dated August 10) until the evening of the 18th-well after the DI regulated the story far, far away from the news thread. The only way to find it now is via a google search.
In addition, a simple search of keywords, including "Hofstra," at the DI article database tell us a pretty tale. Or rather, confirms one that we noticed some time earlier: According to the DI's reporting (or in this case, lack thereof), no reader would know that the Hofstra students (arguably the most nationally scrutinized false rape next to the infamous Duke Lacrosse Hoax) falsely accused by Danmell Ndoye since the DI did not print a story of any kind.
Do we expect any kind of recanting or clarification? Not really. The DI's parent company, Illini Media, also owns and prints the Buzz. The Buzz prints the "Doin it Well" column by Wantland and Sanger (Jo not Margaret, though they do have a lot in common), which in April of last year, printed a column about the previously-mentioned Duke Hoax that No. 2 thoroughly and appropriately excoriated.
No matter; if we must school the DI some more, then never fear. We are the Hounds and it is our job to watch, correct, and educate when the need arises .
Welcome to the start of term!
Posted by Hound No. 9
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
The incoming leader of the University of ILL, Michael Hogan has handily set himself in to the system and repertoire of the institution. Only a month into his tenure, he has managed to lead the institution into a discrimination case for one of his adjunct professors, and he has raised eyebrows about the cost of his services in a time where the state faces record budget deficits, a clear result of fiscal mismanagement, overspending, and conspicuous consumption concerning higher and primary education. An unquestionable benefit resulting from the whole situation is the ever-more stringent scrutiny over university finances, and its disposal of taxpayer monies from the ever-constant shakedowns political allies in the state government undertake on its behalf. Several local news outlets including the News-Gazette and the TASSers at the DI have filed FOIA regarding the costs and identities the U of ILL’s presidential search. While the amount spent on the searches is a story in of itself, there is another result which is even more telling...
Described in a News-Gazette, the U’s reaction is, at least, doubtlessly consistent. All the pertinent names of the candidates and institutions had been blacked out. And airports they may have flown from. And travel agencies. And other expenses
This, in spite of Public Access Counselor Cara Smith's maxim, " the disclosure of this information [said expenses], in and of itself, does not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."
So the university, like so many other institutions, sees fit to rationalize and hide behind FIOA privacy clauses, as well as the misapplied FERPA exemption, in order to protect its own inconvenient truths.
Despite all of Hardy' claims about how we need to protect the privacy of candidates fielded for the leadership positions, he never answers the most fundamental question that arises: why do we need to protect the identities and privacy of the applicants? Should not the shareholders of the university, as the IPA's Craven asserts, be privy to exactly what type of candidates are fielded, especially in a plus-$300k deal? Considering the growling and hissing about how Professor Howell was employed through the Newman Center, why should not the rest of the professtocracy and administrators be held to the same amount of transparency? Hardy obviously subscribes to a much different type of transparency: the B.J. White kind. If, as said, that sunlight is the best disinfectant, the U of ILL could quite easily rival the the brilliance of say, Minakami Village.
Hardy may speak more accurately than he realizes when he challenges the view of the Illinois Press Association counsel, that the U of ILL thumbed it’s nose at the public. A more accurate assessment would be to say it lifted its leg on the public.
Posted by Hound No. 6
Described in a News-Gazette, the U’s reaction is, at least, doubtlessly consistent. All the pertinent names of the candidates and institutions had been blacked out. And airports they may have flown from. And travel agencies. And other expenses
This, in spite of Public Access Counselor Cara Smith's maxim, " the disclosure of this information [said expenses], in and of itself, does not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."
So the university, like so many other institutions, sees fit to rationalize and hide behind FIOA privacy clauses, as well as the misapplied FERPA exemption, in order to protect its own inconvenient truths.
Despite all of Hardy' claims about how we need to protect the privacy of candidates fielded for the leadership positions, he never answers the most fundamental question that arises: why do we need to protect the identities and privacy of the applicants? Should not the shareholders of the university, as the IPA's Craven asserts, be privy to exactly what type of candidates are fielded, especially in a plus-$300k deal? Considering the growling and hissing about how Professor Howell was employed through the Newman Center, why should not the rest of the professtocracy and administrators be held to the same amount of transparency? Hardy obviously subscribes to a much different type of transparency: the B.J. White kind. If, as said, that sunlight is the best disinfectant, the U of ILL could quite easily rival the the brilliance of say, Minakami Village.
Hardy may speak more accurately than he realizes when he challenges the view of the Illinois Press Association counsel, that the U of ILL thumbed it’s nose at the public. A more accurate assessment would be to say it lifted its leg on the public.
Posted by Hound No. 6
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Update on UC Davis
The MSU has appealed the ruling that has put the student group on probation after the groups members conspired to disrupt a presentation given by former ambassador Michael Oren at UC Irvine. In the midst, there has been significant reaction to the issue on the ed blogs and from First Amendment groups.
Yet, we have been disappointed in the coverage of the incident and the subsequent punishment of the MSU involved in the incident. Other than the Los Angles Times, no major commentary on the incident has highlighted a very important part of UC Davis recommendation to suspend. As the recommendation states,
The other sections 102.13 through 15 are free speech matters which most of the commentary has focused on to date. The 02 section, however, we see as the most serious. Regardless of any appeal by the MSU towards their actions at the lecture, giving false testimony ought to be enough to reap some consequences. Given now that emails from members of the MSU and organizers of the disruptions demonstrate that the disruptions were premeditated and were carried out with the blessing of the MSU, contradicting earlier claims by members that the individuals arrested were acting independently.
It is unfortunate that the controversy is a victim of obfuscation by making it something it is not. Like the dog pile with Ward Churchill, this is no longer a free speech issue; now it is a criminal issue.
Posted by Hound No. 8
Yet, we have been disappointed in the coverage of the incident and the subsequent punishment of the MSU involved in the incident. Other than the Los Angles Times, no major commentary on the incident has highlighted a very important part of UC Davis recommendation to suspend. As the recommendation states,
"...the MSU, and each of its authorized signers, violated
the following University Policies:Section 102.02 :
Other forms of dishonesty including, but not
limited to fabricating information, false information, or reporting a false
emergency to the University."
The other sections 102.13 through 15 are free speech matters which most of the commentary has focused on to date. The 02 section, however, we see as the most serious. Regardless of any appeal by the MSU towards their actions at the lecture, giving false testimony ought to be enough to reap some consequences. Given now that emails from members of the MSU and organizers of the disruptions demonstrate that the disruptions were premeditated and were carried out with the blessing of the MSU, contradicting earlier claims by members that the individuals arrested were acting independently.
It is unfortunate that the controversy is a victim of obfuscation by making it something it is not. Like the dog pile with Ward Churchill, this is no longer a free speech issue; now it is a criminal issue.
Posted by Hound No. 8
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)