Comments on Organized Against Labor

• More information, please
• Posted by Robert , PhD Student at Big State U on October 12, 2009 at 8:45am EDT

• If possible, could IHE link to one of the complaints? I'd like to know more about the nature of the complaint so I can compare that to AAUP's response.

• Public Good?
• Posted by Wade Hannon , Associate Professor at North Dakota State University on October 12, 2009 at 10:30am EDT

• Using Landmark's logic, then business centers, business incubators and the like, would have to be banned. Landmark is a rabidly anti-worker and anti-union group with its own ideological agenda.

• How the Landmark complaint played out at Evergreen
• Posted by Peter Dorman , Faculty at Evergreen State College on October 12, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT

• The AAUP statement was necessitated, among other reasons, by the willingness of administrators at Evergreen State College to accept Landmark's reasoning. In response to the complaint, Evergreen's internal auditor issued a report demanding that the college's labor center cease activities supportive of unions or expressing opposition to current immigration policies. This report was accepted by top administrators, who have proposed eliminating the center altogether. (This desire to eliminate the center may be due as much to budgetary as ideological reasons, and of course there are always personal/institutional politics to take into account.) Without a line item in the state budget, Evergreen's labor center would already be history. I read the AAUP statement as a direct support for the embattled labor center here in Olympia and a preemptive action against the possibility that other institutions may use Landmark as a convenient vehicle for cutting academic ties to the labor movement.

• Public Good!
• Posted by Mike on October 12, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT

• Mr. Hannon-

  Anti-union is pro-worker and business' are not using tax dollars to promote one ideology over another. They invest their own money in their development programs. I thought diversity and difference of opinion was celebrated at university. Oh right, no debate anymore.
  Administrations will rig the game when not being watched. The ideological agenda you allude to is to make education about the students again and not promote a marxist world view that leads to slavery.

• Anti-union is pro-worker?
• Posted by midwest prof on October 12, 2009 at 2:45pm EDT

• Let's also add up is down and black is white. Everything from child labor laws to the occupational safety requirements to 8 hour work days can be attributed to the efforts of organized labor. Does anyone seriously believe that any of those laws, programs, and practices would exist had unions not existed? Sounds like at least one reader does, or wants other readers to.

• Landmark is neither the government nor a university
• Posted by Edward Sisson , independent writer at self on October 12, 2009 at 2:45pm EDT

• The AAUP statement correctly identifies Landmark as a private entity (a foundation) "external" to the colleges and universities involved. Landmark is not the government, nor is it the administration of any college or university. It is merely a private entity, with no governmental or administrative power, that disagrees with the position the AAUP favors on a particular issue of public policy.

  The AAUP does a disservice to professors by degrading the idea of professorial academic freedom to encompass freedom from inquiry and criticism by a private entity that lacks governmental or administrative power to deter academic inquiry.

  Apparently the AAUP fears that Landmark may cause governmental or administrative authorities to take actions that do infringe on academic freedom. If so, say so. Professors are expected to be more accurate and precise than most other people, and this ought to be upheld even if it means that their press releases and pronouncements are a little more complex than a P.R. specialist would advise. The AAUP should direct its words to the entities that actually do have the power to limit academic freedom -- government and administration -- rather than accuse a private entity of doing something that is outside its power to do, and thereby appear to take the position that all private critics of the academy are opponents to academic freedom.

• Posted by task on October 12, 2009 at 3:00pm EDT

•  

  Labor unions are so closely associated with politics and the political process that a disclosure of how they use their money, methods and ideology, within learning institutions, needs to be vetted. The very opening sentence refers to a "conservative legal organization", not just a legal organization. Most legal organizations have a political flavor that is often less intensive and directional than any union. The words “union”, “liberal” and “democrat” are distinctly indistinct and that is why one need not refer to unions as anti-conservative (liberal) because they are understood to be such. Labor (American citizens) is certainly less partisan than those who take credit to represent them and not alternative interests. Ultimately educational institutions that camouflage political agendas should not hide intentions within course menus under any pretense and especially not under a diversity manifesto, because business is not the other side of the argument. Business is the business of America. No one is stopping the AAUP from exercising any freedom to teach; this is a request for information and not a denial of subject material and for those with nothing to misrepresent the compliance should not be of any concern or difficulty.

   

• Posted by J on October 12, 2009 at 3:00pm EDT

• Landmark Legal's activities, whatever their objective merit, sound like pretty standard complaints about misuse of tax money.

  "an external body (Landmark) is seeking to interfere with work in the academy, on ideological grounds"

  An external body has every right to complain about improper/illegal use of taxpayer funds, even on ideological grounds. The proper response is to address to the complaint, not whine about ideology of the entity making the complaint. Either their argument is valid or it isn't. For the professors reading this, do you seriously think outside organizations don't have a right to complain about what a public, taxpayer financed university is doing?

  "business centers, business incubators and the like, would have to be banned"

  If a business center/incubator is actively engaged in assisting businesses in violating the law, it should be shut down, and the operators prosecuted. Likewise with a labor center.

  There's quite a bit more about this here: http://www.wslc.org/reports/2009/February/24.htm#Tuesday

• SUNLIGHT IS THE BEST!
• Posted by MIKE , MISTER/COMMON SENSE at HARD KNOCKS U on October 12, 2009 at 3:00pm EDT

• I don't see where Landmark Legal says to ban these centers. If there are public monies going to support an institution, the tax payers have a right to see what that money is being used for. Why are these centers so afraid of a little sunlight?

• The Understood Function of Education.
• Posted by task on October 12, 2009 at 3:15pm EDT

•  

  Labor unions are so closely associated with politics and the political process that a disclosure of how they use their money, methods and ideology, within learning institutions, needs to be vetted. The very opening sentence refers to a "conservative legal organization", not just a legal organization. Most legal organizations have a political flavor that is often less intensive and directional than any union. The words “union”, “liberal” and “democrat” are distinctly indistinct and that is why one need not refer to unions as anti-conservative (liberal) because they are understood to be such. Labor (American citizens) is certainly less partisan than those who take credit to represent them and not alternative interests. Ultimately educational institutions that camouflage political agendas should not hide intentions within course menus under any pretense and especially not under a diversity manifesto, because business is not the other side of the argument. Business is the business of America. No one is stopping the AAUP from exercising any freedom to teach; this is a request for information and not a denial of subject material and for those with nothing to misrepresent the compliance should not be of any concern or difficulty.

   

• Poor Reporting this is
• Posted by Joseph Somsel on October 12, 2009 at 3:15pm EDT

• As the prior commenter Robert noted, this article does NOT discuss the arguments that Landmark uses in making its complaint. Landmark's action may well have merit but the readers would not be able to make up their own minds on the matter by depending only on this piece.

  tut tut

• Being pro or anti union
• Posted by Law professor on October 12, 2009 at 4:30pm EDT

• Most of the comments seem to ignore the fact that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees freedom of association to workers (working people). The related convention of the International Labor Organization guarantees freedom of association to workers and to employers. One would assume that labor centers study topics related to industrial relations, including collective bargaining, unions, and employers associations -- all perfectly normal topics sometimes covered in labor economics courses and sometimes in other parts of a university. Some of the labor centers identified (e.g., UCLA, UC Berkeley) are longstanding and of acknowledged eminence.
  Whether one is for or against unions is not the issue here. WHY the Landmark Foundation wants information about labor centers within leading universities is the issue.

  I assume that the AAUP would also be opposed to a left wing foundation that filed FOIA requests about the activities of centers within business schools that might be "aiding" employers. Heaven forfend.

• The Corruption of Academic Freedom
• Posted by Shannon Love on October 12, 2009 at 5:30pm EDT

• The ideal of academic freedom rest on the implied contract between the general society and academia that says that academia will use that freedom to explore and question every possible subject from every possible perspective. Academic freedom is a grant of privilege for academics to pursue their own personal agenda using public resources.

  Yet, since the 1960's corrupt leftist have hijack academia to serve their own political interest. This is simply pure corruption in the public sphere on the order of using public resources to support specific political campaigns. Even the very organizational structure of the modern liberal-arts department is built around leftists obsession with race, sex, sexual orientation, imperialism, colonialism etc.

  In short, academics have broken the implied contract. They have abused the freedoms and latitudes granted to them by the broader society for their own selfish and often self-aggrandizing interest. Why should ordinary people grant them any assumption of the privileges of "academic freedom" when they arrogantly refuse to uphold their end of the contract?

  I think that it far past the time when we called this behavior the corruption that it is and rooted it out of public universities. If professors what platforms to advance advance their pet political theories while suppressing dissenting voices, they can do it with private money at private universities. Professors who want public money must accept the responsibility, the expectations of integrity and the accountability that come with public money and public trust.

  It's time to grow up.

• Freedom from criticism desired
• Posted by UC Prof , Prof at UC on October 12, 2009 at 5:30pm EDT

• Landmark and any other group has the right to file FOIA requests.

  If these labor institutes are legitimate they have nothing to hide.

  What's really going on here is that political contributions by labor bosses are being rewarded by providing funding and jobs to incompetent and unqualified hacks. This is the truth that these organizations are scared to have revealed.

• Unions and Conservatives
• Posted by Ilene , Instructor/Humanities at Harold Washington College on October 12, 2009 at 5:30pm EDT

• I concur with the writer who wrote about the serious importance of unions in terms of child laws, work hours, and other necessary conditions for workable environments. I concur with the writer who advises us not to worry about the conservative organization against unions as being anti-academic freedom. I simply want to add one word to his argument; and that is the word, yet. I find in history it is unwise to ignore or dismiss an ideology, movement, or rising beliefs as not being a threat to present circumstances and conditions. It's a cliche` but we still cannot forget Nazis, KKK, and even lesser forms of anti-human madness such as warning signs nobody gave a damn about until people were murdered, maimed, or shocked into a new sense of what can be real--all too real.

• Posted by J on October 12, 2009 at 5:30pm EDT

• "WHY the Landmark Foundation wants information about labor centers within leading universities is the issue"

  Huh? People can't ask questions if you don't approve of why they're asking them?

  "I assume that the AAUP would also be opposed to a left wing foundation that filed FOIA requests about the activities of centers within business schools that might be "aiding" employers. Heaven forfend."

  I'd hope not. The motivation of people filing FOIA requests is not the AAUP's concern.

  Article 19 of the UDHR guarantees the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to, among other things, seek information, even for those associated with conservative legal groups. Not that that makes any difference here.

• Universities don't want to talk about unions because
• Posted by Dar Nirron , Adjunct Instructor at Ivy Tech Community Colleges of Indiana on October 13, 2009 at 2:00pm EDT

• if universities and community colleges talked about unions, they would have to face up to their exploitation of workers. That is, the lowly adjunct instructor, who teaches 60-85% of all classes in higher education.

  I personally receive $1600 per class per semester. No benefits. And we are limited to 5 classes in the regular semester; usually cannot get more than 2 classes in the summer (if we are lucky enough to have classes then at all). 1600 x 12 = $19,200 per year.

• Readers and posters,
• Posted by DFS on October 13, 2009 at 5:30pm EDT

• Do you think that IHE will actually digest your comments before regarding the next item from such a menu?

  Perhaps IHE will begin paying attention to you. I wanted to comment on so many levels, but you had beaten me to the punch.

  (OMG -- that may doom you!)

• "The corruption of academic freedom"
• Posted by Rufus Polson on October 14, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT

• I find Shannon Love's post bizarre. First there is a statement that academia has a responsibility to explore and question every possible subject from every possible perspective. Then the remainder of the post is all about how academia should be stopped from exploring and questioning the wrong subjects or from perspectives the poster disapproves of.
  I also find it strange that numerous posters characterize the AAUP statement as demonizing Landmark and wishing the AAUP would make arguments rather than attacking Landmark, while treating Landmark as merely making requests for information. The AAUP statement does characterize Landmark, probably accurately, but it does also make substantive arguments whether you agree with those arguments or not. Meanwhile, Landmark has not merely made requests for information. The article says "Landmark’s complaints have . . . suggested that they should be eliminated for not advancing a “public purpose,” charging that these centers are simply about promoting a “particular political ideology.”"
  Clearly Landmark, even before acquiring the information it wants, already has a position on the labor centers. And when it comes to demonization and attacking the messenger rather than the message, I'm amazed nobody has remarked on the Landmark quote at the end of the article. When an organization responds to criticism with statements like "We don't need any talking point lectures from an organization whose members have their snouts deep in the public trough", I have to wonder if they have any actual points to make! Presumably with that attitude they must be against the whole concept of publicly funded university education, so I don't see why anyone who understands its importance should listen to a word they say.

• Centers at Universities for every imaginable topic
• Posted by Sunshine , Library Faculty on October 26, 2009 at 7:15pm EDT

• Of course there is an agenda to the Landmark "inquiries." They have a bias that is made clear both by the organization itself (they are self-described as 'conservative' on their home page) as well as in this article. That they are questioning the legitimacy of labor per se as the focus of a research center or collection in itself exposes their agenda as anti-labor. What are you saying, when you say that a subject is not a legitimate course of inquiry? You relegate it to nothingness. Many colleges and universities host many different kinds of research centers. Why any one type of research or study center should be singled out for scrutiny, under the guise of "accountability" is in itself a key indicator of the nature of the campaign. This strategy has been used in other venues and forums as well. The extent of their bias is clear here: http://www.landmarklegal.org/DesktopFrame.aspx?frame=http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/Limbaugh Nobel.htm Which is a press release announcing Landmark Legal's nomination of Rush Limbaugh for the Nobel Peace Prize. (no, that is not a joke) It's not sufficient proof of intent to claim what your intent is. It's your actions the reveal your true intent. Anti-abortion activists question the legitimacy of research centers on reproductive rights, when in fact the goal is not really to engage in thoughful or reasoned inquiry, but to simply shut them all down. This is no different and it is an Orwellian twisting of academic freedom that disrespects the legitimacy of research and study, not only on labor, but on any topic.