text:
tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-301304442016-06-24T10:14:46.834-05:00FromDC2Iowa. . . because much of the content relates both to Washington, D.C., and "outside the beltway" -- the heartland, specifically Iowa -- and because after going from Iowa to Washington via Texas and California I subsequently returned, From DC 2 email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-57807647193234896082016-06-17T07:06:00.000-05:002016-06-17T07:07:27.962-05:00Welcome to FromDC2Iowa: Contents & Guide<big><big>Welcome to FromDC2Iowa, a collection of well over 1,000 blog posts and pages on a wide variety of topics, created and maintained by Nicholas Johnson since 2006.

 Quick Links
* Most recent blog essays: "Focus on Muslims Misplaced After Shooting," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 17, 2016, p. A5

 "Keeping Up With ISIS; There Is Another Explanation for Orlando," June 14, 2016

 "On Being, Doing and 'Compromise;' What's Next for Senator Sanders' Revolution? Here's My Suggestion," June 9, 2016

 "When 'The Morning After' Looks Even Worse," June 8, 2016

 "Searching for the Media's Soul," June 7, 2016

 "My Take on Supervisor Race," June 4, 2016

 "Breaking Through Power: The Media," May 29, 2016

 * Most recent UI & President Harreld-related items & comments:

 "What Putin Can Teach Rastetter," May 9, 2016, as published in The Daily Iowan, May 6, 2016, p. 4

 "What Russia's President Putin Can Teach Regents' President Rastetter," April 16, 2016 (an expanded version of The Daily Iowan's excerpt, above)

 UI President Harreld - Feb. 2016," February 1, 2016

Cessation of Ongoing Harreld Repository [Feb. 29]. </big>For the past six months, since the Iowa Board of Regents' selection of Bruce Harreld as president of the University of Iowa, September 1, 2015, this blog has endeavored to compile a relatively complete repository of links to, and comments about, the news stories and opinion pieces dealing with the Board of Regents, President Harreld, and related items of relevance to higher education in general and the University of Iowa in particular. They are contained in the blogs for September-October, November, December, 2015, and January and February, 2016 (all linked from this page). I thought it would be a useful resource for those looking for a single source to follow the saga, as well as for those in future years wishing to do serious research, or merely inform themselves, about this important slice of UI's history. Response from readers indicates it has at least provided the former function. Now as they say, "as a concession to the shortness of life," and a desire to get back to other writing, I am going to reclaim those daily hours of research for other tasks. As major UI stories worthy of individual blog essays come along they will, of course be blogged about from time to time.

 For research beyond February 29, 2016, you might start with this list (any omissions were inadvertent; email me suggestions for more):

 University of Iowa AAUP, https://twitter.com/UIowaAAUP

 Mark Barrett, Ditchwalk, http://ditchwalk.com (look for Harreld Hire Updates)

 Iowans Defending Our Universities, https://twitter.com/IowansDefending

 John Logsdon, https://www.facebook.com/johnlogsdon.jr, and on Twitter, https://twitter.com/JohnLogsdon

 Josiah Pickard, https://twitter.com/uimemory

 . . . and well-crafted search terms in Google. -- N.J., February 29, 2016<big>

 _______________
 More Detailed Contents, Links & Guide

The most recent blog essay (as distinguished from the entries listing UI-related material) is:"Breaking Through Power: The Media," May 29, 2016

 See more, below.

 University of Iowa, most recent: The most recent month's collection in the ongoing repository of news, opinion pieces, and documents regarding the University of Iowa, its current president, Bruce Harreld, the Iowa Board of Regents, and related matters is: UI President Harreld - Feb. 2016," February 1, 2016

 University of Iowa, earlier: Earlier collections of, and individual blog essays about, the repository of news, opinion pieces, and documents regarding the University of Iowa, its current president, Bruce Harreld, the Iowa Board of Regents, and related matters are:
 UI President Harreld - Jan. 2016," January 1, 2016

 "UI President Harreld - Dec. 2015," December 1, 2015

 "UI President Harreld - Nov. 2015," November 1, 2015

 "Business Background: Enough for University President?" September 2-October 31, 2015

 Recent terrorism-related blog essays

 Recent TIF-related blog essays

Recent other than (1) University of Iowa, (2) terrorism, or (3) TIF-related topics:

"Breaking Through Power: The Media," May 29, 2016

 "What Putin Can Teach Rastetter," May 9, 2016, as published in The Daily Iowan, May 6, 2016, p. 4

 "What Russia's President Putin Can Teach Regents' President Rastetter," April 16, 2016
 "The Constitution, Supreme Court and People's Voice: Senate Ignoring the People's Voice," March 21, 2016
 "Why Won't Media Give Bernie a Break?" March 23, 2016
 "The Constitution, Supreme Court and People's Voice," March 21, 2016
 "Random Thoughts on Tuition-Free Iowa Universities," March 11, 2016
 "Water," February 29, 2016
 "The State of the Media," February 28, 2016
 "Our Communities' Second Priority," February 7, 2016
 "Bernie's Extraordinary, Unacknowledged Accomplishment," February 3, 2016
 Why Nobody 'Wins' the Iowa Caucus," February 1, 2016
 "Caucus With Your Heart And Head -- For Bernie," January 28, 2016
 "Why I'm Caucusing for Sanders and You Should Too," January 22, 2016
 "Reasons for Hope in 2016," December 25, 2015
 "Feeling the Bern at The Mill," December 9, 2015
 "Anyone for Democracy," November 22, 2015
 General instructions on searching by heading, date, or topic

 (1) If you've come to FromDC2Iowa and landed on this page, rather than what you are looking for, it is because this is the default page, the opening page, for this blog.

 (2) Many visitors are looking for recent blog posts. At the bottom of this page you will find suggestions. At this time they include: (1) material related to the Iowa Board of Regents process for selecting President Bruce Harreld, and his ongoing performance in office, (2) terrorism, ISIS and Syrian refugees, and (3) TIFs, and other transfers of taxpayers' money to the wealthy.

 (3) It is also possible to go directly to specific blog posts within this blog. Here's how:

 First, go to the top of this page where you will see the headline, "Welcome to FromDC2Iowa: Contents & Guide" and click on it there (not as reproduced in this sentence). That will clean this page by removing blog posts from earlier this month.

 In that right hand column you will find two ways of accessing individual blog posts:

(1) Blog Archive. The first is under the bold heading "Blog Archive.". You will see the years from 2006 to the present. Click on a year, and the months of that year will appear. Click on a month and the individual headlines for the blog posts during that month appear. Click on a headline and you will be transferred to that blog post. (Once there, you will see the unique URL address for that blog post that you can use in the future, or share with a friend, as a way to reach it directly.)

 (2) Google Search Nick's Blog or Website. Immediately beneath the Blog Archive is the bold heading "Google Search Nick's Blog or Website," followed by an empty box, and the instructions, "Insert terms above; then click here." (Although it offers the option to search the "Nicholas Johnson Web Site" as well, it is set to the default: "FromDC2Iowa Blog.") Use whatever search terms you think most appropriate, such as "University of Iowa," "terrorism," "TIFs," or "Harreld." Your click will open up a Google search Web page listing the relevant blog posts (if any) with the links you can click on to see them.

 University of Iowa's new President Bruce Harreld.

Looking for the blog post containing extensive repository of documents, news, opinion pieces (updated daily) from September 2 through October 31, 2015, regarding the Iowa Board of Regents' process, and early selection of UI President-elect Bruce Harreld? -->Click here<--

 For November 2015 coverage -- with documents, news stories, and opinion pieces -- from his first day on the job, November 2, through November 30, 2015 -->Click here<--

 For the December 2015 coverage -->Click Here<--

 For the January 2016 coverage -->Click Here<--

 In addition to these blog posts, which primarily contain chronological lists of documents, news articles and opinion pieces -- along with some relatively brief commentary about some of the items -- there are also the following more traditional blog essays and newspaper columns by Nicholas Johnson on these subjects:

 "Hiring Candid, Courageous University Presidents," August 29, 2015

 "Should Bruce Harreld Be Given Serious Consideration in UI Search?" embedded in "Business Background: Enough for University President?" September 2, 2015

 "Better Ways to Pick a New UI President," The Gazette, September 27, 2015, embedded in "Seven Steps for Transitioning Universities," September 27, 2015

 "UI's President Could Have Been Chris Christie," October 3, 2015

 "Parallels Between School Systems Staggering," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 10, 2015, embedded in  "UI and Higher Education in Context," November 9, 2015

 "Trouble in River City: Corruption Creep," December 13, 2015

 "Quick Draw Harreld and Why Language Matters," December 17, 2015

 Terrorism, ISIS, Syrian Refugees.

Understanding Terrorist Thugs," The Daily Iowan, December 3, 2015

 Nicholas Johnson, "Sober Risk Assessment Needed to Respond to Terror," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 28, 2015

 Nicholas Johnson, "Syria's Refugees: Job One and Job Two," The Gazette, November 1, 2015

 "Is U.S. Response Strengthening ISIS?" September 19, 2014

 For additional speech texts, columns and blog posts on these subjects, see "Samples of Nicholas Johnson's Prior Writing on Terrorism and War"

 TIFs and Other Crony Capitalism Schemes For links to 44 blog essays on these topics since 2006 see, "TIFS: Links to Blog Essays"

  # # # </big></big>firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-54839402132631516652016-06-17T07:03:00.000-05:002016-06-17T11:22:20.590-05:00Focus on Muslims Misplaced After Shooting<big>Focus on Muslims Misplaced After Shooting

 Nicholas Johnson

 Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 17, 2016, p. A5
 </big>[This column appeared in the Press-Citizen's online edition as Nicholas Johnson, "Focus on Muslims Misplaced After Shooting," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), June 16, 2016, 6:51 p.m. It draws upon the earlier blog essay, "Keeping Up With ISIS; There Is Another Explanation for Orlando," June 14, 2016. The column to which today's [June 17] column refers and responds is Ian Goodrum, "Finger-Pointing After Orlando Massacre," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 15, 2016, p. A9.]<big>

Ian Goodrum has reminded us, with writing befitting our City of Literature, of both the causes of the home-grown mass violence in Orlando, and how such tragedies are seized upon by those promoting political or other causes. ("Finger Pointing After Orlando Massacre," June 15.)

 He notes the killers' "common denominator" is that they are "young, angry men," and then provides insight into the pathology of their anger.

 Among those promoting causes, he observes, are "bloodthirsty pundits and politicians" now calling "for state-sponsored discrimination against believers in Islam, along with a general ramping up of our military presence in the Middle East."

 Goodrum's right on all counts, as I see it. Our enemy is not Islam. It's a few of our home-grown, American "young, angry men;" mostly citizens, with a diversity of histories, persuasions, mental conditions, motives, weapons and targets. More domestic hate crimes involve perpetrators who would claim to be Christian than Muslim. Their targets are no more predictable than where a lightning strike may hit — federal buildings, universities, African-American churches, gathering spots for Latinos, Asians, Mormons, Catholics, Jews and the LGBT community.

 To reduce mass violence, we must focus on our young, angry men. Our mission: to treat their anger before we have to treat their victims.

 That is but one of the reasons why focusing on Muslims is counterproductive. Even if it were not unconstitutional and inhospitable, as President Barack Obama points out, it is precisely what ISIS wants us to do — confirm their assertion that we have declared war on Islam and its 1.6 billion followers, giving an enormous boost to their recruiting.

 The "bloodthirsty pundits and politicians" who think more troops and bigger bombs are the answer are clearly not our friends. This is a high-stakes whack-a-mole drama in which all the world is ISIS' stage, where for every bomb we drop more actors come on stage to respond with creative acts of violence.

 ISIS has proven creative and adaptable. When we X-ray passengers for guns, they switch to plastic shoe bombs. When they lose a city, they move elsewhere. When they begin to lose on every battlefield, they invite and train terrorists to execute ISIS-orchestrated slaughter in Europe and elsewhere. When the West's intelligence capabilities to track their messages, movements, and money begins to interfere with such organized efforts, they need a new strategy.

 Here it is.

 Our State Department describes Abu Mohammed al Adnani as the "official spokesman and a senior leader of Isis." In September 2014 he used ISIS' sophisticated communications networks to propagate the following message:

 "If you can kill a disbelieving American or European, French, an Australian or a Canadian, then rely upon Allah, and kill him. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place. Don't try to communicate with us. Don't expect our help, he said. Just do the killing, and pledge allegiance to ISIS."

 Since that time, in each of those named countries, using the itemized means of murder, followed by declarations of allegiance to ISIS, there have been killings.

 Goodrum is right that the Orlando shooting wasn't the result of "direct involvement or orchestration by" ISIS; as were Orlando officials' conclusions the shooter wasn't a "member of ISIS." But ISIS' latest strategy may have been at play.

 None of which changes the numbers. One day in Orlando, 49 were gunned down. But every day in the U.S., nearly 100 die from guns. An Islamophobic focus on this carnage is both self-defeating and close to statistically irrelevant.

 Meanwhile, somebody better tell those "bloodthirsty pundits and politicians" who didn't get the memo that they're three strategies behind ISIS, running a trillion-dollar program as old as Windows 95.
 _______________
 Contact Nicholas Johnson of Iowa City through www.nicholasjohnson.org.

 # # #</big>firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-28506508337759393222016-06-14T07:15:00.000-05:002016-06-17T12:11:05.751-05:00Keeping Up With ISIS<big>There Is Another Explanation for Orlando
 </big>And see, Nicholas Johnson, "Focus on Muslims Misplaced After Shooting," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 17, 2016, p. A5<big>

If you can kill a disbelieving American or European – especially the spiteful and filthy French – or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way, however it may be. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him.

 -- Abu Mohammed al Adnani, the "official spokesman and a senior leader of Isis" according to U.S. Department of State, Yara Bayoumy, "Isis Urges More Attacks on Western 'Disbelievers;' Group Spokesman Adnani Seems to be Encouraging Attacks . . .," Independent, September 22, 2014

All Americans share the grief and heartache of our Orlando neighbors.

 And almost all wonder how that horrific tragedy could have occurred. Was it a hate crime? Was the shooter mentally deranged? Was it the easy accessibility of AR-15 type weapons? Was it an ISIS-directed attack?

 Humans are complex beings whose behavior can be driven by forces of which even they may be unaware. Frustration and anger, focused on one group or another, are often precursors of violence. There seems to be consensus that the shooter was not a "member" of ISIS, communicating with ISIS, following ISIS instructions for this massacre, nor was he trained, funded or otherwise aided by ISIS.

 So then why do I say only "almost all" are wondering? Because surely there are some Americans in our national security establishment who are fully aware of the significance of ISIS' role, and what it means for our global anti-terrorist strategy.

 And what might they know that they haven't shared with the rest of us?

 They know that, however evil ISIS may be, it is also incredibly nimble and adaptive to modern technology and changed conditions. ("Can't bring metal guns or box cutters on planes anymore? OK, let's try undetectable plastic bombs in our shoes.")

 In Iraq and Syria they have to risk their lives placing bombs along the roadside. We can drop even bigger bombs from unmanned airplanes without risking the life of a single pilot. It's no match. Theirs is a terrorist operation. Ours is a military operation. We can leave it to the International Criminal Court to sort out the ethical differences.

 It's not going well for ISIS on the ground. So much so, that they are now discouraging the flow of replacement troops to help defend their new caliphate state.

 They've tried ISIS-trained terrorists executing ISIS drafted plans outside of their territory -- in Europe and elsewhere. Sometimes successful (from their twisted perspective), that approach is also not working as well as it once did. The U.S. and its allies have become better at tracking the movement of their members, money and messages. Besides, it's expensive at a time when cash flow is declining.

 So now they're trying another innovative strategy.

 Officials from Orlando assure us that the shooter was not a member of ISIS, as he claimed, since it would be inconsistent with his claims at various times to have been a member of other terrorist organizations, some of which were opposed to ISIS. Officials are probably right about that -- if not solely for those reasons. And a few years ago that would have cleared both ISIS and the shooter of any ISIS involvement.

 But those observations miss what Paul Harvey used to call, "the rest of the story."

 To understand the latest switch in ISIS strategy and tactics you need to reflect, first, on the expression "practice random acts of kindness and senseless acts of beauty." Are you familiar with it? Do you practice it? I try to.

 Note that, in following it, little if any money or other resources are required -- and certainly no major military operation. It may be simply a kind word or greeting to one of those millions of Americans who go through their days feeling as if they must be invisible to the rest of us.

 Note also that there is no organizational planning or operation. This is not something that your local church, synagogue, or mosque is behind, orders you to do, or assists you in executing -- although it is something that may be consistent with its teachings.

 Now consider, if it is possible for undirected individuals to do "random acts of kindness" all on their own, with little resources and no direction, it is also possible for undirected individuals to do "random acts of violence."

 Indeed, the expression "random acts of kindness and senseless acts of beauty," at its creation, was a rejoinder to the expression "random acts of violence and senseless acts of cruelty."

 And that, like the switch from guns to plastic bombs on planes, is ISIS' latest switch in strategy and tactics for responding to what they view as our war on them.

 Their message, first in the fall of 2014 (as quoted at the top of this blog essay), and repeated this spring, has been (in effect and sometimes literally): "Don't come to the Middle East to fight along side us. Don't travel to training camps to learn terrorist techniques. Stay where you are, use what you have, kill and injure those you can reach. It doesn't have to be a military facility. You don't have to use a bomb. You don't even have to use a gun if you don't have one. You can kill with a knife, or a rock, or a car. You can drop someone from the roof of a tall building. Don't contact us. You don't need additional permission or instructions. But for the sake of keeping the ISIS movement alive, it is very important that you make a public declaration that you have done what you've done in the name of ISIS."

 This is what happened in Orlando. Yes, there was hatred; yes, the shooter is at best a very odd duck; yes, AR-15-style weapons are easily accessible in Florida. But the pattern of violence followed by a statement of allegiance to ISIS is clear.

 This pattern -- random acts of violence, followed by a statement about ISIS -- has evolved from repeated incidents in Australia, Canada, France and the U.S. (involving guns, knives, and automobiles) -- the very countries, and methods, suggested by Adnani. Orlando is just the latest.

 Oh, no, I guess it's now just next to the latest: "The murder of two police officials by a man claiming allegiance to so-called Islamic State (IS) is 'unquestionably a terrorist act,' President Francois Hollande says." BBC -- "30 minutes ago."

 That switch in ISIS strategy makes the job of the NSA, FBI, CIA, military, and local law enforcement even more difficult than it is already. But it's the consequence of our military "success" in Iraq and Syria, so we best confront that reality and pivot as promptly as possible -- starting with a public discussion of what we're now confronting.

 [With thanks to Rachel Maddow.]

 # # #
 The following day [June 15] a story appeared in the Washington Post that provides support for some of the assertions in this blog essay:

"America and Russia stop bombing the Islamic state . . . I pledge my alliance to [Islamic State leader] abu bakr al Baghdadi . . . may Allah accept me," Omar Mateen wrote [in Facebook] . . ..

 Mateen then posted . . .: "The real muslims will never accept the filthy ways of the west" and "You kill innocent women and children by doing us airstrikes . . . now taste the Islamic state vengeance." . . .

 The social media postings corroborate accounts that Mateen was motivated in part by a perceived connection to the Islamic State. The shooter made 911 phone calls during the shooting in which he pledged allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State, . . ..

 FBI Director James B. Comey said . . . there were no signs that Mateen was directly tied to any kind of network, and . . . it remained unclear exactly which extremist group he supported. Mateen's references to terrorist groups have at times been muddled. Officials say he made comments in recent years to co-workers claiming he had family connections to al-Qaeda and was a member of Hezbollah, two opposing terrorist groups that have clashed repeatedly in Syria.
 Kevin Sullivan, Ellen Nakashima, Matt Zapotosky and Mark Berman, "Orlando Shooter Posted Messages on Facebook Pledging Allwegiance to the Leader of ISIS and Vowing More Attacks," Washington Post (online), June 15, 2016, 11:12 p.m.

 _______________</big> email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-74709049842091156852016-06-09T13:01:00.000-05:002016-06-10T10:11:47.871-05:00On Being, Doing and 'Compromise'<big>What's Next for Senator Sanders' Revolution? Here's My Suggestion

In one way, what Sanders and Clinton will be doing is common at the end of spirited nomination battles. . . . Leading Democrats say that this time is different and potentially more difficult.

 For one, Sanders operates outside the Democratic Party structure. He has run in Vermont as an independent and self-described democratic socialist. And although he caucuses with Democrats in the Senate, his ties to the institutional party are decidedly looser than were Clinton's.

 Even more important, however, is that his candidacy . . . generated great enthusiasm and spawned a powerful grass-roots movement made up of independents and others who do not identify with the Democratic establishment.

 -- Philip Rucker and Dan Balz, "Next for Democrats: A Delicate Dance to Broker Peace Between Clinton, Sanders," Wasington Post (online), June 8, 2016.

 For Sanders, as his remarkable White House bid runs out of next stops, the only question is when. Just as important for Sanders is how to keep his campaign alive in some form, by converting his newfound political currency into policies to change the Democratic Party, the Senate or even the country itself, on issues including income inequality and campaign finance reform. . . .

 Clinton told The Associated Press in an interview, "I think it's time that we move forward and unite the party and determine how we are going to defeat Donald Trump, which is our highest and most pressing challenge right now." . . .

 Sanders ended his final California rally with three simple words — "The struggle continues" — but his brief address in a Santa Monica airport hangar felt at times like a valedictory as he thanked supporters for "being part of the political revolution."

 -- Erica Werner and Josh Lederman, "Sanders Under Pressure to Quit as Democrats Look to Unite," Associated Press, June 8, 2016.

 "Being" and "Doing"

In 1960, fresh-faced in my early twenties, I arrived in Berkeley, California, to begin my career as a law professor at Boalt Hall, the University of California's College of Law. It was only two years of judicial clerkships after having been a law student. The offer had come from the Boalt Hall Dean, Bill Prosser -- a colorful torts guru, formerly only known to me as the author of my torts textbook.

 I was so inexperienced, naive, and curious that I once simply asked Dean Prosser straight out, "What is it that law school deans actually do?"

 He smiled and replied, "Nick, it is the job of the dean to do those things that even the janitor refuses to do."

 His reply has stuck with me over the years as colleagues at Iowa, and friends elsewhere, have expressed interest in applying for law school or other deanships. Recalling that a department head has been described as "a mouse training to be a rat," I ask them, "Now tell me, is it that you really want to do what it is deans do, or is it just that you've always wanted to be a dean." When they reply, "I've just always kind of wanted to be a dean," I say, "Very well then; go and be a dean, but my guess is that in two or three years you'll decide you'd really rather do what it is professors do" -- as often later proves to be the case.

 Being and Doing in Politics
 And what applies to teachers and professors aspiring to be educational administrators goes ten-fold for politicians seeking ever "higher" public office. They may talk a good game regarding what they will do for their constituents once elected. It may all be disingenuous, or may be partially sincere, if naive. But for many, it's not what they want to do. The enormous effort and sacrifice that goes into campaigning is largely, even if not exclusively, an ego-driven desire to be -- a congressperson, senator, or president of the United States.

 Clearly, Hillary Clinton has been a legitimate policy wonk -- from her early days on the board of Marian Wright Edelman's Childrens Defense Fund through her unsuccessful efforts with health care reform during her husband's presidency. (Ms. Edelman was later enraged by the harm to children from the Clintons' "welfare reform" efforts. Her husband, Peter Edelman, resigned his White House job over it.) And although her speeches now focus on Trump's less endearing qualities, as the Democrats' earlier presidential primaries moved on she certainly weaved into her stump speeches some of Bernie Sanders' substantive talking points, either in whole or in part.

But equally clearly, Clinton, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Party's Establishment, so-called "superdelegates," and their own major donors, have from the beginning of this year's presidential campaign devoted their efforts to what they wanted Hillary Clinton to be -- namely, president of the United States -- rather than what they wanted her to do. (That is, aside from some Wall Street backers who declared themselves to be quite comfortable with what she would do on their behalf). After all, some 400 superdelegates endorsed Clinton before the primaries even began. Their futures and fortunes depend upon a perpetuation of Establishment control. It's probably fair to assume she has wanted to be president since at least 2000, when she ran, and won, a Senate seat from New York -- if not decades before. At a minimum, since she actually ran for president in 2008, we know what she wants to be goes back at least eight years.

 Compromise Requires Shared Values and Experience
 Those who want to be elected officials, and the campaign advisers and staff who live to experience the excitement of helping them win, have much in common with each other. They know for every winner there's at least one loser. If they want to run again, or work again -- as most do -- they know that, regardless of how vicious the rhetoric the day before, once the winner is obvious it's time to make amends and fall in line.

 Shared experience binds those in many professions, up to and including the military. Most military personnel support the Geneva Conventions -- a sort of "Golden Rule of War." They know what it's like to be a soldier, regardless of whose side you're fighting for. Perhaps one of the most dramatic proofs occurred during World War I. David Mikkelson, "Christmas Truce," Snopes.com.

During World War I, in the winter of 1914, on the battlefields of Flanders, one of the most unusual events in all of human history took place. The Germans had been in a fierce battle with the British and French. Both sides were dug in, . . ..

 All of a sudden, German troops began to put small Christmas trees, lit with candles, outside of their trenches. Then, they began to sing songs. Across the way, in the "no man's land" between them, came songs from the British and French troops. [T]he Germans . . . were able to speak good enough English to propose a "Christmas" truce. . . .

 A spontaneous truce resulted. Soldiers left their trenches, meeting in the middle to shake hands. [T]hey exchanged gifts. Chocolate cake, cognac, postcards, newspapers, tobacco. In a few places, along the trenches, soldiers exchanged rifles for soccer balls and began to play games.

 It didn't last forever. In fact, some of the generals didn't like it at all . . .. After all, they were in a war. Soldiers eventually did resume shooting at each other. But . . . for a few precious moments there was peace on earth good will toward men.

Similarly, those who focus on "being in politics" can ultimately come together. Like James Carville and Mary Matalin, they can sometimes even literally intermarry across party lines. At a minimum, within one's party, so long as the winner is within the circle of reason, all party members can reasonably be expected to fall in line for the good of the party and support the winner. (Donald Trump is an example; he is so far beyond the borders of that circle of reason that even members of the Republican Establishment find it necessary to disassociate themselves from him, or at least criticize his actions and remarks.)

 The Difficulties of Compromise Between Those Want to Be and Those Who Want to Do
 The problem now, for those searching for compromise between Senator Sanders and the Democratic Party Establishment is that it's like trying to find a compromise between rabbits and alligators, bicycles and cruise ships, Iowa summers and snow.

He's just not that kind of politician. Of course, whatever he thought of his chances when he informally declared on April 30, 2015, he could not have been unmindful, as his number of pledged delegates increased along with the size of his crowds, that he might actually win the nomination. But this was not something he and Jane had spent their lives working toward. It was neither the goal of his life nor the centerpiece of his campaign. His was a campaign about doing, not about being. Indeed, he would reject his crowds' chants of "Bernie! Bernie!", from the beginning of the campaign through his Santa Monica rally two nights ago, by telling them that it is they, not just he, who are "part of the political revolution."

 Sanders' campaign was just the latest in a lifetime of doing and saying, blending the analysis from his brain with the warmth in his heart, that government can, and should, focus on the needs of the least of us. He was, and is, a self-proclaimed democratic socialist. He has been advocating the same things over the past 30 years as he was talking about for the last 13 months. His core beliefs, his consistency, authenticity and caring, his desire to build a revolution that could change our government and improve our lives, was not only at the center of his appeal to the millions in his campaign, it is what has made him the single U.S. senator with the highest approval rating from his constituents -- 83%. He had the highest positives among all the candidates. (Clinton and Trump had the highest negative ratings.) He got the largest crowds, the greatest enthusiasm. He was the favorite, not only among the young, first time voters, but those under 45 years of age -- the people any party needs to build its long term growth.

 Put aside the Democratic Party's mistakes -- with Party membership down to 29% of the voters, it needs someone who can attract the independents, new voters (and even Republicans) it often excludes from its primaries. It needs someone who is viewed as a genuine advocate by the poor, working poor, working class, and trade union members -- once the Party's natural, winning constituency. It needs to be able to project the prospect of real change, rather than perpetuation of Establishment control, to the millions involved with the Tea Party, Occupy Movement, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders' campaigns. Everything the Party's leaders do to trivialize, ridicule, and reject Sanders' campaign and proposals, cutting back on opportunities for debates, treating him as a spoiler, putting roadblocks in his way, urging him to abandon his campaign, only drives home the message that the Democratic Party not only does not really care about the less fortunate, it affirmatively rejects those who do.

 Why Bernie Cannot, Should Not, and Need Not "Endorse" Hillary -- But Can Still Help Elect Her
 While conventional politicians can turn on a dime and start endorsing the opponents they've spent a primary season excoriating, those who are leading "revolutions" cannot. For Bernie to now "endorse" Hillary Clinton -- the poster grownup embodying all he finds objectionable in a politics favoring the rich -- would be the end of his revolution. It would be like Dr. Martin Luther King finishing a speaking tour opposing the Viet Nam War, and then announcing he had just accepted a job as spokesperson for a major defense contractor.

 Moreover, whatever Senator Sanders does or doesn't say or do about Hillary Clinton's campaign is not likely to have much impact on his "revolutionaries." Some will end up writing in his name. Some will vote Green, Libertarian -- or even Trump (the Washington Post reports 9% will do so; others report as high as 20%, and 44% in West Virginia). Some will leave their ballot's presidential choice blank. Some will stay home. Some will formally resign from the Democratic Party. And some will end up voting for Hillary Clinton.

 Sanders should certainly be permitted to actively participate in the D.C. Primary, June 14. He should be permitted to continue making the case to superdelegates, to and throughout the Democratic National Convention, July 25-28, that if they really want to beat Donald Trump -- more than they want to perpetuate the Democratic Party Establishment from which they feed -- they might want to consider the poll results showing how much stronger a candidate he is against Trump than Clinton.

 Does this mean he should continue to criticize Clinton by name, even after she has actually, in fact, been nominated by the Convention? Of course not; nor need he do so. What he can do, indeed has already indicated he will do and has begun to do, is to help her cause by campaigning against Trump -- while continuing to spread his lifelong message, and falling short of doing anything reasonably considered an "endorsement" of a candidate who represents much of what he's been fighting against throughout his life. A significant "detail" in this connection is what happens to Sanders' lists of supporters (the email list) and donors. To simply turn them over to the Clinton campaign would also, legitimately, be seen as a betrayal of a movement challenging much of what the Democratic Party Establishment stands for and does. Perhaps a compromise, if one is thought to be needed, could be an "opt-in" email to supporters -- a sort of, "If you wish to remain on the Bernie Sanders list, and not have your name shared with the Clinton campaign, do nothing. If you wish to have your name and information shared with the Clinton campaign, click here. If you wish to be removed from the Bernie Sanders list click here."

 That's the best win-win-win that occurs to me -- for Clinton, Sanders, and the followers of both. That doesn't force him to appear a turncoat to his followers -- thereby reducing further any influence he might otherwise have with them -- while assisting Clinton by beating on Trump. It holds his revolution as together as possible following his failure to win the nomination -- its emailing lists and crowd funding network -- enabling his and his followers' ability to affect the election of progressive candidates and lobby Congress (and the White House) following the election.

 # # #</big>email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-73102793156792230732016-06-08T08:29:00.000-05:002016-06-11T07:46:20.729-05:00When 'The Morning After' Looks Even Worse<big>California Primary Leaves More Questions Than Answers
 Yesterday I wrote about the Associated Press report, the evening before the big California primary, that Hillary Clinton had already won the Democratic Party's nomination for president. See "Searching for the Media's Soul," June 7, 2016.

 I expressly noted that it was not intended as yet another assertion of anti-Bernie media bias. Nor did I suggest there were any dirty tricks involved. It was simply an analysis of the journalistic errors on the part of those who ordered and created the AP story, and the lemming like lapping up and repetition of the story by the AP's clients. It was kind of like the rush to war in Iraq, after the unquestioning acceptance of the Administration's assertion regarding "weapons of mass destruction."

 I noted the report was wrong to include Hillary's superdelegate support, given that asking them their "preference" at this time is little more than a polling exercise, since they can't vote until July 25. The report's mention of number of primary votes received, or primaries "won," were irrelevant since it is pledged delegates that count. And, if Clinton's delegates from what the AP called her "decisive weekend victory in Puerto Rico" had been included in the report's analysis, those numbers were clearly inappropriately used since the votes had not yet been even counted.

 I suffer no illusions that anyone, let alone from the media, is going to pursue this incident with as much, let alone greater, depth.

 But for the record, I'd like to at least put the following on the table.

 First, note the probable impact of the AP's eleventh hour bombshell the day before the California primary.

 Polls at that time indicated the California primary was a toss up, a statistical tie. "Heading into the last big primary day, California's contest looks like a virtual toss-up with Hillary Clinton up two points on Bernie Sanders, 49 percent to 47 percent, as Sanders has closed a double-digit gap there in recent weeks." Anthony Salvanto, Fred Backus, Jennifer De Pinto, Sarah Dutton, "Poll: Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders down to the wire in California," CBS NEWS June 5, 2016.

 "It's hard to know how much the news may depress turnout, but it has easily been the closest contest in a big state, at least in the pre-election polls. . . . [T]he polls are close enough that he could win." Nate Cohn, "Race Appears Over for Bernie Sanders, but California Still Offers Drama," The New York Times (online), June 6, 2016.

 In other words, not only is Bernie virtually tied with Hillary, he has been gaining on her, he has the momentum, he's continuing to draw crowds measured in the thousands, there's a real possibility he might get more votes that she will.

 And the results of that primary, we discover this morning? With 94% of the precincts reporting, it turns out that Clinton has a 13% gap over Sanders (56.0% to 43.1%; 1,841,285 to 1,416,742 votes). "California Primary Results," The New York Times (online), June 8, 2016.

 Was there a relationship between the AP story the day before the primary, and the results the next day? As the Washington Post put it, "Tuesday's primaries were somewhat anticlimactic, given the AP's tally Monday of Clinton's support among superdelegates — the elected officials and other party elites whose convention votes are not bound by the primary results in their states. The AP count showed her reaching 2,383 pledged delegates and superdelegates, the exact number she needs to clinch the nomination." Anne Gearan, Robert Costa and John Wagner, "Clinton Celebrates Victory, Declaring: 'We've Reached a Milestone,'" Washington Post (online), June 8, 2016.

 And see, "Although Tuesday had promised to be a watershed moment in the nation's political history, it proved anticlimactic after The A.P. reported Monday night that Mrs. Clinton had secured enough delegates to clinch the party's nomination. . . . Sanders advisers were on edge over the declaration that Mrs. Clinton had locked up the nomination, worried that it would depress voter turnout in California. And Mr. Sanders told NBC on Tuesday evening that he was "upset" and "disappointed" that The A.P. had made its call based on a survey of superdelegates, party officials who can shift their allegiances as late as the convention." Patrick Healy and Jonathan Martin, "Hillary Clinton Wins California, Boosting Claim to Nomination," The New York Times (online), June 7, 2016.

 And, Matt Pearce, "'It Was Just Chaos': Broken Machines, Incomplete Voter Rolls Leave Some Wondering Whether Their Ballots Will Count," Los Angeles Times (online), June 7, 2016

 Of course, polls have been inaccurate predictors before. But this seems a particularly great disparity.

 Was it merely a coincidence that the AP survey of superdelegates ended up with precisely the number -- 2,383 -- that Clinton need to be nominated? It almost seems like someone kept looking until they reached that number and then stopped and published the story.

 What role did Clinton campaign staff, or supporters, have in encouraging the AP to make these inquiries? Did they prepare just enough delegates and then pass their names to the AP group?

 See, "On 6 June 2016, the Associated Press reported that Hillary Clinton had 'clinched' the Democratic nomination. Shortly thereafter, a Twitter user published a video about an e-mail sent by the Clinton campaign . . . The video showed the e-mail on the screen; when the [Twitter] user clicked to save the embedded graphic, she claimed that it then showed the following filename: a.hrc.onl/imageman/2016_Q2-Email/20160605_hfa_graphic/secret-win-V2-060416c_02.png. The graphic was hosted on what appeared to be a Clinton campaign 'intranet' inaccessible to the general public and probably used to host campaign-related content. According to the video, the graphic appears to have been created on 4 June 2016, two days before to the AP's pre-primary call . . . It is true that the Twitter video's claims checked out." Jeff Zarronandia, "Clinton Campaign 'Secret Win' Controversy; After the AP called the Democratic presidential nomination for Hillary Clinton on 6 June 2016, social media users questioned a campaign graphic that appeared to be dated 4 June 2016," Snopes.com (a typical Snopes-balanced account, which notes that this does not definitally prove the Clinton campaign's early influence in the AP's story and decision to publish on June 6).

 Who at the AP was behind this effort and why? When and why was the decision made to (a) include superdelegates in the count, knowing that they don't vote until July 25, and (b) release the story the night before the big California primary?

 I don't have, let alone argue for, answers. And probably no one else will even ask the questions.

 But for me, from the perspective of today, the morning after looks even worse than the day before.

 # # #</big>email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-33359303692259628722016-06-07T17:17:00.000-05:002016-06-07T17:17:54.298-05:00Searching for the Media's Soul<big>When Wishing Can Make It So

"We have searched our souls. We must use this responsibility very carefully. Some day in our time, because of this technological and journalistic ability [to predict election outcomes and prematurely declare winners], all the polls in the United States -- in the 50 states -- will close at one time."

-- Fred W. Friendly, President, CBS News, 1964
 [Robert Bendiner, "The Danger of Declaring Winners by Computer; Quickie 'Results' Could Sway the Election," Life Magazine, September 18, 1964, pp. 125, 133]

 Last evening (June 6) the Associated Press sent out a story asserting that Hillary Clinton was now the Democratic Party's presidential nominee. Hope Yen, Stephen Ohlemacher, Lisa Lerer and Caterine Lucey, "AP Count: Clinton Has Delegates to Win Nomination," Associated Press, June 6, 2016. The AP's account was picked up by everything from The New York Times, to National Public Radio, to local papers around the country. As the Los Angeles Times headlined, Chris Megerian, "Hillary Clinton Clinches Democratic Nomination in Historic First," Los Angeles Times (online), June 7, 2016, continuing with the lead sentence: "Hillary Clinton has secured enough delegates to claim the Democratic presidential nomination, the Associated Press said Monday night . . .."

 As the AP reported, "The former secretary of state, New York senator and first lady reached the 2,383 delegates needed to become the presumptive Democratic nominee on Monday with a decisive weekend victory in Puerto Rico and a burst of last-minute support from superdelegates."

 This is wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin.

 And that's without even addressing what to all appearances has been an anti-Bernie Sanders orientation on the part of some media organizations and reporters since the beginning of this presidential campaign.

</big>(Full disclosure: I have been, and remain, a Bernie Sanders supporter who has fought against the Democratic Party's transformation over the past 25 years into a 21st Century equivalent of the 1960s and '70s Republican Party of Nelson Rockefeller and Richard Nixon. Gallup reported last January that 42% of Americans identify as independents, 29% as Democrats, and 26% as Republicans. Given these numbers, why would the Democratic Party elite not want to make a bona fide effort to serve, energize and thereby retain, its original, natural base of the poor, working poor, and working class -- with whose support they could win every election from city councils to the White House?

 In fairness to the thousands of professional, independent journalists who recognize the importance and responsibility associated with their role, as the bumper sticker has it, "The 'liberal media' are only as liberal as their conservative owners permit them to be." Having said that, however, it does seem fair to note that the media seems to have had a preference for Hillary over Bernie -- a subject I have addressed before: "Why Won't Media Give Bernie a Break?" March 23, 2016; "Bernie's Extraordinary, Unacknowledged Accomplishment," February 3, 2016; "Why Nobody 'Wins' the Iowa Caucus," February 1, 2016.)<big>
 So, putting aside the pro and con arguments about a media Bernie Sanders bias, what's the problem?

 For starters, the Democratic Party's nomination requires a candidate receive the affirmative votes of 2383 delegates. As of last evening, Clinton had 1812 pledged delegates -- those who had been chosen in caucuses, primaries and conventions, and are required to vote for her on the first ballot.

 Second, the votes in that "decisive weekend victory in Puerto Rico" (the delegates from which were apparently counted among her 1812) had not even been counted Monday. Puerto Rican officials stayed up late Sunday night counting ballots, only got through about half of them, and decided to take Monday off. ("It will be a little while longer before final vote totals are known in Puerto Rico's Democratic presidential primary, because the U.S. territory's election commission workers took the day off on Monday." Danica Coto, "Vote Count Stalls in Puerto Rico as Officials Take Day Off," Associated Press, June 6, 2016.) That assertion of a "decisive victory" was based on projections from the votes that had been counted. And as we've all seen from numerous elections over the years, the actual, future, final result is not really known until all the votes have been counted. Nor would the 60 Puerto Rican delegates, even if she ends up with all of them, be enough to bring her to the necessary 2383.

 Third, the AP "Clinton Clinches Democratic Nomination" story contains a single sentence with a number of errors: "Indeed, Clinton's victory is broadly decisive. She leads Sanders by more than 3 million cast votes, by 291 pledged delegates and by 523 superdelegates. She won 29 caucuses and primaries to his 21 victories."

(1) "She leads by more than 3 million cast votes." (a) Clinton did comparatively better in primaries than caucuses; Sanders did comparatively better in caucuses than primaries. (In my Johnson County, Iowa, precinct, there were over 500 who caucused for Bernie, and about 90 for Hillary.) Since the number of primary voters are reported (and apparent from the total votes) and the numbers of caucus attendees are known only to those attending a given caucus, and "cast votes" excludes Bernie's caucus "voters," it's not surprising that Hillary would appear to have the larger number. (b) Votes, "cast" or otherwise, are irrelevant in this process. It's delegates that matter. Clinton apparently has 291 more than Sanders -- though not enough to say she's already "clinched" it. It will be the same story in the general election next November; the total, national popular vote is not irrelevant, but neither is it decisive. It's the Electoral College vote that picks the president. Just ask Al Gore who had 543,895 more votes than George Bush in 2000 (50,999,897 to 50,456,002) and yet watched President Bush take the oath of office.

 (2) "She won 29 caucuses and primaries." A presidential candidate in a general election can be said to have "won" a state (meaning the votes of its electors in the Electoral College), because it is a "winner-take-all" election. Whoever gets a majority, or plurality, of a given state's popular votes usually gets all of that state's electoral votes. But most of the Democratic Party's primaries and caucuses were not winner take all; they resulted in a proportional allocation of delegates. You can say, if you want to, that whoever got the most delegates "won" that state -- as the media has persisted in doing -- but it is meaningless in terms of who gets the ultimate nomination. It is only meaningful because the media (and Hillary Clinton) say it has meaning.
 Fourth, "superdelegates." Superdelegates to the Democratic National Convention are elected officials (all Governors, U.S. House and Senate members) who belong to the Democratic Party along with Party leaders.

(1) As the costs of campaigning have risen over the years, these are the very individuals who have become most dependent upon the contributions of the nation's richest donors, corporations, lobbyists, Wall Street banks, Big Pharma and Oil, and their secret and public PACs. They may hate to ask for money as much or more than the donors hate to have to give it. But they are all in a tight symbiotic relationship from which divorce is impossible, and all of whose futures and fortunes turn on successfully protecting their circled wagons. So at the outset, there is a real question as to whether this Party Establishment's choke hold on the pledged delegates' choice should even exist for a political party that calls itself "Democratic."

 (2) But even if Establishment-superdelegate veto power was appropriate for the Democratic Party, the Party's rules provide that, unlike pledged delegates (whose "votes" are essentially cast early in the primary season), the superdelegates can, by definition and rule, have no more than a "leaning" -- for this day and time only -- prior to the time they cast their first "vote" at the Convention itself. Until then, they are free to change their minds, and leanings, as often as they choose and changing conditions warrant. No matter what the pressures may be from the Clinton campaign, the Party Establishment, and perhaps even the Associated Press, it is inappropriate to designate Clinton as the nominee until the superdelegates have actually cast their votes -- on July 25.

 (3) Stuff happens. This is June 7. The Convention is July 25. That's 49 days of political time -- the equivalent of a light year in space. As those of us following this presidential primary have observed, and as Rachel Maddow has relied upon for a daily show, unexpected events, from the trivial to the blockbuster lie along the path to victory like Improvised Explosive Devices along the roads in Afghanistan and Iraq. Clinton (and Trump) have some of the highest unfavorable poll ratings ever seen. Bernie has one of (if not the) highest positive ratings. Most (all?) polls show him running well ahead of Hillary in a head-to-head match up with Trump. We still don't know if Hillary will be indicted, or what more Trump will uncover and throw at her and how that will affect her standing. She (or Bernie) could have a sudden, serious health problem. Twenty percent of Sanders' supporters say if she's the nominee they'll vote for Trump. Bernie has had both the largest, and the most enthusiastic crowds. Considering where he's come from, his strength has been awesome. He's not just talked about, but demonstrated and used, a funding mechanism that eliminates the need for PACs. There aren't enough members of the Democratic Party to elect Hillary. Bernie has strong appeal with independents, newly-registered and young voters -- needed to build a future Party. When it comes to the crunch, if it looks like Hillary can't win, and that Bernie can, the Party Establishment may still decide they'd rather go down to defeat with her than win with Sanders. But it is not inconceivable that a majority of superdelegates might then decide to switch.
 Fifth, media corruption of the electoral process. CBS News President, Fred Friendly (and then-CBS President Frank Stanton) were broadcasters of the old school during the 1960s and '70s when I was serving as an FCC commissioner. They, and their general counsel, Dick Salant, were not always on the same page with me. But what I admired then, and even more so now, was their sense of public obligation, and responsibility, for their use of "the public's airwaves."

 The Fred Friendly quote, with which this blog essay begins, is an example. They were dealing with mainframe computers that could handle big data, in rapid time, and make much more accurate predictions, sooner, of an election's outcome. Choose the right precincts and do enough exit polling during the day (or vote counting immediately after their polls close) and the final statewide result could be anticipated relatively accurately, and broadcast, before one's competitors. Unfortunately, if done before the polls closed, there was the possible consequence of potential late voters choosing to stay home rather than make the effort to cast a pointless vote.

 Given trans-continental television programming networks (CBS' Edward R. Murrow had the first simultaneous coast-to-coast broadcast November 18, 1951) an even more serious problem emerged in presidential elections. With four (actually more) U.S. time zones (when it's 8:00 p.m. in New York, it's 5:00 p.m. in California), if early projections of Central and Eastern time states' results indicate the ultimate winner, all west coast evening voters may be deprived of a meaningful incentive to vote.

 The point is that back then there were some with the journalistic ethics, and sense of public responsibility, to be concerned about the media's potential interference with the actual process of voting. They agonized over it. They proposed potential solutions: have voting end and polls close at the very same moment all across America, say, 10:00 p.m. Eastern Time, 9:00 p.m. Central Time, 8:00 p.m. Mountain Time, and 7:00 p.m. Pacific Time.

 We all know the expression, "Wishing doesn't make it so." But the power of today's media is such that media owners, and their journalists, who wish for Hillary's nomination, can make it so. Last night's AP assertions, the their viral distribution and acceptance by the rest of the media, are but one example.

 Today's media not only don't propose solutions, they don't even see the problem. They see nothing wrong with proclaiming the nomination process is over -- the very evening before the day of what are arguably (at this point in this campaign's history) the six most significant primaries of the season insofar as the Sanders-Clinton contest is concerned. This would be serious enough if Clinton already had the 2383 pledged delegates. Why discourage letting the primaries run their course, and give everyone a chance to vote? But that they were willing to do this with an inaccurate and misleading analysis is shameful and depressing.

 In Fred Friendly's day CBS' executives were honestly able to say "we have searched our souls" regarding their ethical and legal obligations -- because they still had souls to search. Today neither they nor we can search their souls, for there are none to be found.

 # # #</big>email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-54293670032397810282016-06-04T08:47:00.000-05:002016-06-07T08:54:29.132-05:00My Take on Supervisor Race<big>Why I'm Supporting Kurt Friese (and Rod Sullivan)

Kurt Friese combines a love and knowledge of Johnson County's farms and small towns with the service he provides Iowa City. He applies the same levels of competence and compassion to social programs as to the challenges of running a business. His vision, keen mind, and easy manner will make him a meaningful and welcome addition to our Board of Supervisors."

 -- Nicholas Johnson's Kurt Friese endorsement

 Next Tuesday, June 7, will be a big one for the Democratic presidential primaries, with six states up for grabs (California, New Jersey, North and South Dakota, New Mexico and Montana).

But as former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Tip O'Neill, used to say, "all politics is local." And for Johnson County voters next Tuesday nothing could be more local than the election of three supervisors for the Johnson County Board of Supervisors.

 As the quote with which I led this blog essay indicates, I'm supporting Kurt Friese.

 The only reason I highlight, and lead, with him is because two of the other candidates are incumbents already better known to the voters.

 Rod Sullivan is one of the best public officials I have ever known in any position anywhere in the United States -- because of many things from his personal values, life, and contributions to his public leadership as a supervisor. If you're unfamiliar with that record, you'll find a little more detail here: Rod Sullivan, "Sullivan Lays Out Qualifications, Record," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), May 26, 2016, 3:53 p.m.

 As the Press-Citizen summed it up in its endorsement, "Sullivan, a 12-year incumbent, has amassed an impressive record in his time as a supervisor." Editorial, "Sullivan, Green-Douglass, Friese Our Picks for Supervisor," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), June 4, 2016, 9:20 a.m.

 There's little more that need be said about Sullivan. If you still have questions, read the items linked above.

 Kurt Friese, however, as the Press-Citizen notes in its endorsement of Friese, is a "newcomer."

"The only potential newcomer to the board in our endorsements, restaurant owner Friese would be an essential voice for sustainability and conservation during a time when development is king. As a longtime advocate for local and organic food, Friese has deep roots — pun absolutely intended — with farmers, business owners and activists. Friese is uniquely positioned to represent all these groups in local government and shows a passion for the preservation of farmland unmatched by any other candidate in the race. Johnson County has been blessed with reliable sources of revenue, and in electing a candidate who has so persuasively articulated a need for responsible growth, voters can show their commitment to ensuring a habitable, verdant community for future generations. Though another candidate, Jason Lewis, has agreed with Friese on many of these issues, his direct experience 'in the weeds' makes Friese our pick for the third and final seat."
 Editorial, "Sullivan, Green-Douglass, Friese Our Picks for Supervisor," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), June 4, 2016, 9:20 a.m.

 For more about Kurt Friese, here is his own Press-Citizen column about his candidacy, Kurt Friese, "Friese Running on Issues, Not Allegiances," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), May 25, 2016, 3:36 p.m., his Web page, and his Facebook page.

 The Press-Citizen's editorial says of two more candidates: "another candidate, Jason Lewis, has agreed with Friese on many of these issues" and "Green-Douglass [whom the Press-Citizen also endorsed] has taken to her position well, learning the ropes and ably fulfilling her duty through the remainder of Terrence Neuzil's term." The paper expressed the wish that it could endorse both of them, as do I.

 # # #</big>email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-14282946962255443302016-05-29T12:46:00.000-05:002016-06-01T09:44:52.465-05:00Breaking Through Power: The Media<big>Harnessing Progressive Reform to 21st Century Media

 Nicholas Johnson
May 24, 2016

 Ralph Nader's "Breaking Through Power Conference"
Day 2, "Breaking Through the Media"
Washington, D.C., May 23-26, 2016
 </big>Video of the 20-minute presentation of these remarks can be found here, with many thanks for the efforts of Gregory Johnson's ResourcesForLife.com. YouTube videos of Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, and Day 4 are also available. Here is the Web page providing information about the Conference program and speakers, and Ralph Nader's Web page.<big>

 My name is Nicholas Johnson, and I'm not running for anything.

 What you see here is my old FCC uniform.

I would have come with the long hair, shaggy beard, and cowboy mustache, but there wasn't time to grow them back.

 So I settled on this Bernie Sanders haircut instead.

 Having known and worked with Ralph and his family for the past half-century, it is a great pleasure to be able to share this commemorating conference with him, you, and The Real News Network audience.

He's asked that I say something about the origins and values of American broadcast regulation, the demise of that system, and the past efforts of media reformers – to which I will add some thoughts on the options open to us in this 21st Century.

 Because I am used to speaking for entire semesters at a time, my challenge this morning is putting all of this into my allotted 20 minutes.

 Here goes.

 "Long ago in a galaxy far away," while European countries were choosing government ownership of things like railroads and telephone systems, Americans chose private ownership – modestly restrained by government regulation.

 And so it was with broadcasting.

 Most countries went the way of the BBC – ultimately a non-profit, public corporation.

Its first leader, Lord Reith, set the BBC's public service standard: programming representing "all that is best in every department of human knowledge, endeavor and achievement." He created the equivalent of our Fairness Doctrine, and a BBC as independent of commerce as of government – funding would come directly from listeners' fees. Japan's NHK, Sweden's Sveriges Radio, and other countries followed this model.

 Today's Corporation for Public Broadcasting is the American version.

 In the 1920s, as the sale of radio receivers accelerated to 100 million, so did the number of stations increase. Their signals' interference made intelligible reception difficult to impossible. As has so often been the case, it was the broadcasters who came to the government for regulatory relief. Government licensing was seen as a solution to chaos.

 Of course, an added benefit was the elimination of competition.

Then Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover responded to their request by calling a series of Radio Conferences. From them came the recommendations that ultimately became the Radio Act of 1927 and the Communications Act of 1934.

 It was the usual American compromise between the ideology of private ownership and the pragmatism of regulation through licensing. But the values at the foundation of the Act, shared by broadcasters, government and public alike, were very similar to those of Lord Reith.

 Lord Reith's "public service" standard became the Commission's standard for the granting, renewal, or revocation of licenses – that radio programming serve "the public interest."

 Even broadcasters tended to agree with Secretary Hoover's comment, echoing Lord Reith's judgment, when Hoover said: "It is inconceivable that we should allow so great a possibility for service [for news, entertainment, and education] to be drowned in advertising chatter." [at n. 17]

 Lord Reith's preference for public over private ownership was reflected in the House floor debate about the Act. As Congressman Luther Johnson warned his colleagues, "American thought and . . . politics will be . . . at the mercy of those who operate these stations. . . . [If] placed in the hands of . . . a single selfish group . . . then woe be to those who dare to differ with them." [at n. 31]

 Ultimately, the language of the Act began, "It is the purpose of this Act . . . to maintain the control of the United States over all the channels of radio transmission; and to provide for the use of such channels, but not the ownership thereof . . .."

 Without an FCC license a studio, transmitter, and antenna tower had little more than scrap value. With that license they were worth millions.

 Moreover, the FCC told the licensee where it could build, set its minimum and maximum hours of operation, its transmitter's power, and direction of its signal. There were limits on how many licenses one could hold, maximums on advertising, and required minimums of educational and cultural programming, news, public affairs, and public service announcements. The Commission's 1946 "Blue Book" provided even greater detail.

 Thus, FCC licensees were owners in name only – with little more discretion than government employees or contractors might have when using the public's airwaves; sort of like fast food or motel franchisees.

 When I arrived at the Commission a half-century ago, the FCC was supposedly still regulating broadcasters according to standards at least similar to those in the 1920s and 1930s.

But in Washington, like most industries, broadcasting had its own sub-government [pp. 16-19, nn. 49-59] – dominant corporations, their lobbyists, a trade association, trade press, eating club, agency employees, legislators, their staff, and a bar association for communication lawyers – all of whose futures and fortunes turned on successfully protecting their circled wagons.

 Moreover, the money in this politics flowed upstream. Other industries had to pay to play [pp. 19-24, nn. 60-67]; they gave so-called campaign contributions to seek favor with elected officials. The reverse was true for the broadcasting industry. Elected officials gave most of their campaign contributions to the broadcasters! And the time and attention the broadcasters were selling to politicians was something they could also give for free.

 So if the broadcasters were not successful in winning over the FCC's commissioners and staff with private chats, free meals, receptions, golfing outings, and the prospects of future employment, they could always get what they wanted, or prevent what they feared, by going to their friends on Capitol Hill.

 As a result, I discovered, no matter how outrageous a broadcaster's performance might have been, the likelihood of a license not being renewed was so rare as to be indistinguishable from "never." Rules were adopted, and then waived. Congressman Luther Johnson's warnings about private power had been long since forgotten, as merger after merger was approved.

 That, and more, was what motivated me to write some 400 separate opinions during my term. Charged with unfairly picking only the worst cases, I co-authored a Yale Law Journal article titled, courtesy of the Beatles, "A Day in the Life." In it we itemized an entire week's agenda, selected at random, and demonstrated how every decision that week left much to be desired.

 My term coincided with a citizen activist period in American history – Ralph's "Nader's Raiders" consumer organizing, anti-war groups' protests, civil rights legislation, Black Power demands, the women's movement, protest songs, and "The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour."

 In such times it was inevitable that failures of the media, as well as the Commission and the Congress, would ultimately lead to the creation of a media reform movement as well. As I put it at the time to anyone who would listen, "Whatever is your first priority, your second priority must be media reform."

 It took a variety of forms. Al Kramer's Citizens Communications Center provided the legal support for hundreds of media reform groups in communities across the country. Stations' license renewals were challenged for failure to serve their local communities, or discriminatory employment practices. Some groups wanted to save classical music stations. Others created community, or even illegal pirate radio stations.

Video portapaks, the predecessor of today's ubiquitous smartphone video, led to the interest in video art, guerrilla television, video activism and what became cable television's public access channels.

 Foundations and donors were willing to provide at least minimal financial support for these efforts. And because the uprising had kind of caught the media establishment off guard, there were a few years of media reform Camelot.

 Following this, as at least some of you have lived through, the swamp waters returned. Many in the establishment made a sharp right turn to follow Grover Norquist. As he put it, "I'm not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

 Drown it they did.

 At the FCC this took the form of what was variously called "re-regulation" or more accurately "de-regulation." License terms were lengthened. Restrictions on maximum station ownership were reduced to the point of non-existence. The Commission would not even acknowledge that a license renewal challenge had been filed, let alone address it. Seldom if ever did a merger fail to meet the commissioners' definition of "the public interest."

 As the fickle foundations focused on a new squirrel and lost interest, media reform organizations lost their funding. The courts lost their appeal. The Congress and Commission lost their sense of hearing.

 Which brings us to this day in May of 2016.

 What are we to make of the Tea Party, Occupy movement, and the millions of aware and angry Americans following Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders? Are we on the cusp of another burst of media reform revolution, enthusiasm and possibility?

 Using the name of our day at this four-day conference, what can we do to "break through the media"?

 It would be nice if we could wrap up today with an easily-remembered list of "five things you can do to improve the media!" But it's not so simple. There are even more than five categories of things progressive activists can do before we start listing specific tasks – let alone trying to reinvigorate the FCC.

 Here are a few, with illustrative examples.

 Destination. Let's start with the obvious. What's your goal? How would you know if you or your organization were ever "successful"? As the old line has it, "If you don't know where you're going the odds are very slim you'll ever get there."

 In what specific ways do you wish "the media" were different – and why? Are you trying to increase contributions, or members, for your local organization, and think positive column inches in the paper will help? Or are you trying to improve our political campaigns and the public officials they produce? And your goal is to raise the entire American electorate's interest in articles and programming about the daily diet of policy wonks.

 Opportunity. The lack of a legal right does not remove all opportunity. The Supreme Court has given media owners legal control of content. [at n. 24] But as we've recently observed, one can even win the presidential nomination of a major American political party without paying for broadcast time or newspaper space.

 Progressive causes do not always do all they could to promote their efforts with public radio and television.

 Even commercial media offer us opportunities with op ed columns and letters to the editor in newspapers, guest appearances on television, calls to radio talk shows, developing relationships with editors, producers, journalists and on-air personalities, making use of free kiosks, store windows, and bulletin boards.

 Education. There's something to be said for the suggestion, "if you really want to improve the quality of American media, start by spending more public money on K-12 and higher education" – specifically, in our case, on media literacy. If the media consumer can't tell the difference between the junk news in ABC's evening program and the truly significant there's little more we can do.

 Media. What do we mean by "media"? From the 1920s through the 1960s CBS and NBC were the dominant networks. ABC was said to make it only "a two-and-a-half network economy." Media reformers wanted more diversity. Well, we got it – hundreds of cable channels, thousands of smart phone apps, billions of Internet users and Web pages, Facebook and Twitter accounts.

 The new social media have proven their worth to reformers, from the Arab Spring to the 2016 presidential campaign, and offer constantly evolving applications to all of us.

 They've also required a re-definition of "journalist" – should it include everybody with a Web page, blog, email list, Facebook, YouTube or Twitter account?

 Even more significant is that this increased diversity and quantity of communication brought with it a demise of the wealthy newspapers that formerly provided the electronic media with content.

TV no longer offers a 21st Century version of your grandparents' Walter Cronkite, the most trusted American. It no longer provides a huge swath of the citizenry a shared body of consensus-building quality journalism each evening.

 And the resulting political polarization has paralyzed the Congress and prevented compromise. According to a recent TED talk, it's even reprogrammed our brains.

 Alternatives. Are foundations and nonprofits a part of the answer? The Iowa Center for Public Affairs Journalism is filling some of the void in my home state. Created and run by Lyle Muller, a quality former editor of a major Iowa paper, Iowa Watch is making investigative pieces available to Iowa papers.

 What can we do to encourage our fellow citizens to include within their volunteer activities the possibility of studying, following, and then writing up the work of local institutions no longer covered by a beat reporter – say, a zoning board, county government, local hospital, major corporation, or university?

 Regulation. It's unlikely we'll soon return to the micromanaging regulation of broadcasters of the 1920s through 1950s.

 Nor would it make as much difference today as it did then were we to do so. An increasing source of Americans' audio and video consumption today comes via the Internet, from Web pages, podcasts, YouTube, Netflix, Amazon, and independent cable programming producers. But that doesn't mean the old media are devoid of influence.

 The FCC and Congress are still potential forces worth encouraging to support our efforts – as we've attempted, for example, with maintaining Network Neutrality.

 What we do to use and strengthen the Freedom of Information Act, or whistle-blower protections, are also a form of government support of journalism.

 I might even offer what Donald Trump would call "suggestions" that we consider reinstating a modified Fairness Doctrine – at least as a shared value – and conceptualize an antitrust principle regarding media mergers that goes beyond the economic marketplace to the "marketplace of ideas."

 Pressure. Even without the force of government, pressure from private "regulation" of a sort can have its impact.

 Here are five examples.

(1) So far as I know the only time the levels of TV violence were reduced was as a result of the 1970s efforts by the National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting to identify and publicize the advertisers supporting the most violent programs.

 (2) Project Censored reveals annually the ten most significant stories that failed to receive adequate presentation by mainstream media. FAIR and the journalism reviews provide continual oversight of media performance.

 (3) For 41 years the Minnesota News Council received and publicized citizens' grievances regarding the media.

 (4) The academy can contribute much more than it has in terms of professors' scholarship, seminars, and doctoral dissertations. More of our 15,000 school districts could give their students the tools of media literacy.

 (5) And of course we'll all want to join Ralph's latest venture in breaking through media power, called simply "Voices."
 There's much more to say, but no more time to say it. So I thank you for your attention, and very much look forward to the rest of the presentations at this historic conference.

 # # #
</big>email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-3036798761177420452016-05-09T18:55:00.000-05:002016-05-09T18:55:36.152-05:00What Putin Can Teach Rastetter<big>What Putin Can Teach Rastetter

 Nicholas Johnson

 The Daily Iowan, May 6, 2016, p. 4</big>

 [Photo used in The Daily Iowan's online version of the column; caption: "Iowa Board of Regents President Bruce Rastetter announced the newly appointed President Bruce Harreld during a meeting in the IMU on Thursday, Sept. 3, 2015. Harreld is the 21st president of the University of Iowa. (The Daily Iowan/Margaret Kispert)."]

 <big>Regent President Bruce Rastetter appears to need some mentoring regarding the democratic dialogue between the state Board of Regents and the stakeholders of Iowa's state universities — namely, all Iowans.

 It might be too much of a shock to start with examples from the world's great democracies, such as the British House of Commons Question Time, or President Obama's "We the People Petitions." That would be like Rastetter running naked from a Finnish sauna and jumping into a frigid snow bank. No, it's best he begin with baby steps.

 Perhaps he should start by studying the "formerly communist" countries.

 Russian President Vladimir Putin spent his 20s and 30s with the KGB. Rastetter could begin by aspiring to achieve Putin's style of democratic dialogue.

 So how does this major country's leader, this Donald Trump enthusiast since December 2015, the fellow whose attack jets flew at 500 mph near sea level and within feet of a U.S. Navy destroyer April 11 and 12, how did he go about a dialogue with his people two days later?

 As the New York Times reported, Putin's "live call-in show [ran] three hours and 40 minutes … [Q]uestions poured in about high prices, unpaid wages, rising utility bills, and the closing of schools and hospitals. In all, around 3 million questions …"

 From the opening question, this was no nine-inning softball game. Putin acknowledged how many questions dealt with poor roads. Indeed, the first questioner showed a video of traffic on her roads, complained about the abundance of potholes and even got in some licks about the lack of sidewalks and bicycle paths.

 As for Putin's responsiveness, Rastetter might want to note the Times report that "after the first caller [from Omsk] complained about the poor state of the roads there, the city posted on Twitter pictures of new asphalt being laid down before Mr. Putin was off the air."

 There are a couple other things Rastetter might discuss with President Putin.

 One is the tuition-free university education Russia provides its students and how Iowa might join this expanding group of progressive states and nations. (Russia has the highest percentage of college-educated citizens in the world.)

 The other is how Putin gained a firmer grasp of American politics than Rastetter — who put his money (literally and figuratively) on New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. In December, President Putin had perceived Trump (whom he's praised) as the candidate most likely to win the Republican nomination.

 In summary, both Putin and Rastetter take questions from constituents. But there the similarity ends.

 Putin takes the questions of greatest concern to Russians and answers or otherwise responds to them. Iowans get no responses; it's not clear the regents even watch their video comments.

 Putin gave the exchange nearly four hours, on nationwide television, during convenient times for viewers, in which he was an active participant. Rastetter devotes one hour, during times least likely to encourage participation, in which no regent participates.

 Putin receives 3 million questions from 143 million people. A comparable goal for Rastetter, based on Iowa's population, would be 60,000 inquiries from Iowans.

 Hopefully, of course, he will soon be able to far exceed these minimalist communist standards.
_______________
 Nicholas Johnson

 NOTE: For the full text of the original blog essay from which this material was drawn, see "What Russia's President Putin Can Teach Regents' President Rastetter," April 16, 2016.
 # # #</big>email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-68124541477210999392016-04-16T12:37:00.001-05:002016-05-09T19:03:24.963-05:00What Russia's President Putin Can Teach Regents' President Rastetter<big>

"'It's extremely disrespectful to be talking to a camera instead of human beings,' University of Iowa student Brad Pector said in his address to the regents."

 -- Katelyn Weisbrod, "Concerns Voiced at Regents Public Hearing," The Daily Iowan (online), April 16, 2017

Central to a representative democracy is the existence and efficacy of the dialogue between citizens and their representatives. There are many ways and contexts in which this can be done.

 At the moment we're in the middle of one of them -- the party primaries and caucuses preceding a presidential election, with their accompanying opportunity for at least some citizens (starting with virtually all Iowans) to confront and question candidates one-on-one.

 But the goals and methods of public dialogue are equally applicable in less dramatic contexts -- like the Iowa Board of Regents.

On Friday [April 15] Iowa Board of Regents' President Bruce Rastetter, and his supporting fellow Board members, put on a public display of their version of public dialogue with the stakeholders in Iowa's state institutions of higher education. They mounted a video camera in Room 2520C of the University of Iowa's Capital Centre, unattended by any Regent, where any who cared to do so could speak to this cold and unresponsive object of modern technology.

 As if that was not discouraging enough, every other possible thing was done to minimize even the video camera's use.
 * There was minimal notification of this stakeholder opportunity.

 * Indeed, anyone exercising the initiative to search for information on the Regents' Web page would have been misled. Even someone willing to make the effort, who knew how to find the Regents' Web page, and who knew that what they were looking for was misnamed "Regents Public Hearings Schedule," would have discovered from the home page-linked document that the latest "hearing" was held last February.

 * Persistent hunting for a schedule including Friday's opportunity would have required much more initiative, far away from the home page. "Public Hearings Schedule" ("4:00 – 5:00 p.m. University of Iowa University Capitol Centre, Room 2520C").

 * Of all the buildings President Rastetter could have chosen for their "hearing," the "University Capitol Centre" (without providing a street address) would be one of the least well known among out-of-towners, Iowa City residents, and even University old timers and new arrivals. Thus, for some who might want to attend this would at least require some additional modest research.

 * Only a total of one hour of the video camera's time was made available to stakeholders, each of whom would be severely limited to a three-to-five-minute slice of the hour. "Board of Regents, State of Iowa, Notice of Public Hearings Schedule," February 11, 2016, p. 2 (the document linked from the Regents' home page that only references "hearings" in February).

 * Even worse, the chosen day and hour were the worst possible from among the 40 working hours available that week: from 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. on a beautiful, sunny, 70-degree Friday afternoon in April.

 * But of course the greatest deterrent to participation was the futility of doing so. As The Gazette's Vanessa Miller has described these "hearings": "The hearings occur the week before the board meetings, last one hour, and are staffed by institutional transparency officers. No regents attend the hearings in person, and speakers must talk into a video camera. Their messages are recorded . . .. No one verifies board members watch the videos." Vanessa Miller, "Speakers at University of Iowa Hearing Criticize 'Troubling' Regent Communication Process; 'Step Up or, in Fact, Step Down,'" The Gazette (online), February 18, 2016, 7:36 p.m. And for more material regarding this procedure, Mr. Rastetter's support of it, and others' objections, see below "Additional Related News Stories."
 Clearly, Mr. Rastetter needs some mentoring, or at least some exposure to alternative means of promoting the democratic dialogue between himself and those Iowans with a stake in the state's institutions of higher education -- namely, all Iowans.

 Admittedly, it would be as shocking to his system as his running naked out of a Swedish sauna in winter and jumping into a snowdrift to expose him, so to speak, to the contrast between what he is doing and the methods used today by some of the world's greatest democracies -- like the British House of Commons Question Time, or President Obama's Web-based opportunity for constituents to put questions and demand answers. For Rastetter, this is going to require baby steps. "Question Time," Parliament, "How Parliament Works" ("Question Time is an opportunity for MPs and Members of the House of Lords to question government ministers about matters for which they are responsible. [It] takes place for an hour, Monday to Thursday, after preliminary proceedings and private business.") "We the People Petitions," Whitehouse.gov.

Perhaps we should start with one of the world's largest communist countries -- Russia, headed by former KGB official Vladimir Putin. Once Rastetter has studied, practiced, and ultimately mastered Putin's approach to public dialogue, we could slowly introduce him to some of the more sophisticated techniques used in Western democracies.

Admittedly, there are some things that are a little problematical about President Putin. For example, "The White House said on Wednesday [April 13] that Russia had violated professional military norms over the Baltic Sea when one of its planes flew 'dangerously close' to an American ship [on April 11 and 12]. . .."Julie Hirschfeld Davis, "Russian Plane Flew Close to U.S. Ship in Baltic Sea, White House Says," April 14, 2016, p. A8. (Photo credit: U.S. European Command; "An Su-24 Russian attack jet roars by the USS Donald Cook in the Baltic Sea.")

 What could be worse than that, you ask? Putin has endorsed Donald Trump! "'He is a bright and talented person without any doubt,' Putin said, adding that Trump is 'an outstanding and talented personality.' . . . [T]he Russian leader called Trump 'the absolute leader of the presidential race,' according to the Russian TASS news agency. Later Thursday [Dec. 17, 2015], Trump returned the warm words." Jeremy Diamond and Greg Botelho, "Putin Praises 'Bright and Talented' Trump," CNN Politics (online), December 17, 2015, including video of President Putin's endorsement, and Donald Trump's positive comments about Putin.

 So how does this major communist country's leader, this Donald Trump enthusiast since last December, the fellow who was flying his attack jets at 500 mph near sea level and within feet of a U.S. Navy destroyer on Monday and Tuesday, how did he go about a dialogue with his people two days later?

President Vladimir V. Putin held his annual, live call-in show on Thursday [April 14] . . .. [T]he entire marathon [ran] three hours and 40 minutes, the 14th 'Direct Line' session . . .. Russians were clearly feeling vulnerable, as questions poured in about high prices, unpaid wages, rising utility bills, and the closing of schools and hospitals. In all, around three million questions were submitted by telephone and Internet . . .
 Neil MacFarquhar, "Vladimir Putin's Vulnerable Side Is at Fore in Call-In Show," New York Times, April 15, 2016, p. A6.

 For more on this communist approach to public dialogue, including a video of the entire program (with an interpreter in English), see the Russian publication Sputnik News' report, "Topic: President Putin Holds Annual Q&A Session," April 14, 2016, 5:20 p.m.

 I only watched the start of the program, but if the opening question was any indication it didn't sound like a softball question to me. Putin mentioned that a disproportionate number of the three million questions dealt with the deteriorating quality of the roads. Indeed, the first questioner presented video of traffic on the roads in her town, complained of the impact on vehicles of the abundance of potholes, as well as getting in some licks about the lack of sidewalks and bicycle paths.

 As for Putin's responsiveness, Rastetter might want to note the Times report that, "Some problems seemed to be addressed quickly. After the first caller, from the city of Omsk, complained about the poor state of the roads there, the city posted on Twitter pictures of new asphalt being laid down before Mr. Putin was off the air."

 While he's at it, there are a couple of other things, beyond public dialogue and prompt responsiveness, he might ask President Putin about.

 One is the tuition-free university education nations including Russia provide their students, and how we might be able to join this expanding group of progressive nations. "Russia provides free education for all its citizens as guaranteed by their Constitution . . .." "Educational System in Russia," "Graduate Studies in Russia 2016, MastersStudies.com. "State higher education institutions offer courses which are free of charge for Russian citizens . . .." "Tuition Fees," Education in Russia for Foreigners. Whatever Russia is doing, it seems to be producing results: "According to a 2012 OECD estimate, 53% of Russia's adults (25- to 64-year-olds) has attained a tertiary (college) education, giving Russia the highest attainment of college-level education in the world . . .. In January 2016 the US company Bloomberg rated Russia's higher education as the third best in the world . . .." "Education in Russia," Wikipedia.

 The other is how Putin manages to have a firmer grasp of American politics than Rastetter -- who put his money (literally and figuratively) on New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, while President Putin perceived Trump as the candidate more likely to emerge from the Republican contest. See, "UI's President Could Have Been Chris Christie," October 3, 2015.

 In summary, both President Putin and President Rastetter take questions from constituents. But there the similarity ends.

 President Putin receives the questions, he and his staff seem to select representative questions reflecting the issues of greatest concern to Russians, and then Putin answers or otherwise at least acknowledges and responds to them. Iowans cannot know whether President Rastetter and other Board members even watch the videos of Iowans' questions; what Iowans can know is that they will not receive any acknowledgment their questions were even received, and they certainly won't be getting answers, responses, or opportunities for dialogue.

 President Putin, at least on this occasion, devoted nearly four hours of his "Direct Line" program to this dialogue, during hours convenient for the greatest number of people, broadcast nationwide, during which he was an active participant. President Rastetter devotes one hour, during the day and time least likely to encourage participation, in which neither he nor any other Regent participates.

 President Putin receives three million questions from 143 million people. A comparable goal for President Rastetter, based on the comparative population of Iowa, as he slowly evolves the Regents' procedure to the standards of communist countries, would be 60,000 inquiries from Iowans -- something like 10,000 times the current level of participation. Hopefully, of course, he will in time be able to far exceed these mere communist standards.

 # # #

 Additional Related News Stories
 Jeff Charis-Carlson, "UI Commentators Call for New Head Regent; Views Recorded at Public Hearing," Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 16, 2016, p. A3

 Jeff Charis-Carlson, "UI to Break Record for Comments to Regents? Input at Last 2 Video Hearings Set New Records," Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 14, 2016, p. A3

 Vanessa Miller, "Regents President Rastetter Criticizes Behavior at University of Iowa Town Hall for Harreld; Rastetter Praises Harreld's Efforts," The Gazette, February 25, 2016, 5:00 p.m.

 A shorter version of this blog essay appeared in The Daily Iowan as "What Putin Can Teach Rastetter," The Daily Iowan, May 6, 2016, p. 4; and also available as a blog entry here. For the record, the text submitted to the paper was as follows:

Iowa Board of Regents President, Bruce Rastetter, appears to need some mentoring regarding the democratic dialogue between the Regents and the stakeholders of Iowa's state universities -- namely, all Iowans.

 It might be too much of a shock to start with examples from the world's great democracies – like the British House of Commons Question Time, or President Obama's "We the People Petitions." That would be like Rastetter running naked from a Swedish sauna and jumping into a frigid snow bank. No, it's best he begin with baby steps.

 Perhaps he should start by studying the communist countries.

 Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, spent his 20s and 30s with the KGB. Rastetter could begin by aspiring to achieve Putin's style of democratic dialogue.

 So how does this major communist country's leader, this Donald Trump enthusiast since last December, the fellow whose attack jets flew at 500 mph near sea level and within feet of a U.S. Navy destroyer April 11 and 12, how did he go about a dialogue with his people two days later?

 As the New York Times reported, Putin's "live call-in show [ran] three hours and 40 minutes . . .. [Q]uestions poured in about high prices, unpaid wages, rising utility bills, and the closing of schools and hospitals. In all, around three million questions . . .."

 From the opening question, this was no nine-inning softball game. Putin acknowledged how many questions dealt with poor roads. Indeed, the first questioner showed a video of traffic on her roads, complained about the abundance of potholes, and even got in some licks about the lack of sidewalks and bicycle paths.

 As for Putin's responsiveness, Rastetter might want to note the Times report that, "After the first caller [from Omsk] complained about the poor state of the roads there, the city posted on Twitter pictures of new asphalt being laid down before Mr. Putin was off the air."

 There are a couple other things Rastetter might discuss with President Putin.

 One is the tuition-free university education Russia provides its students, and how Iowa might join this expanding group of progressive states and nations. (Russia has the highest percentage of college educated citizens in the world.)

 The other is how Putin gained a firmer grasp of American politics than Rastetter -- who put his money (literally and figuratively) on New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. In December, President Putin already perceived Trump (whom he's praised) as the candidate most likely to win the Republicans' nomination.

 In summary, both President Putin and President Rastetter take questions from constituents. But there the similarity ends.

 President Putin takes the questions of greatest concern to Russians and answers or otherwise responds to them. Iowans get no responses; it's not clear Regents even watch their video comments.

 President Putin gave the exchange nearly four hours, on nationwide television, during convenient times for viewers, in which he was an active participant. President Rastetter devotes one hour, during times least likely to encourage participation, in which no Regent participates.

 President Putin receives three million questions from 143 million people. A comparable goal for President Rastetter, based on Iowa's population, would be 60,000 inquiries from Iowans.

 Hopefully, of course, he will soon be able to far exceed these minimalist communist standards. [For more: tinyurl.com/jpoho97]

 # # #</big>firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-57923724299450130792016-04-08T06:09:00.000-05:002016-04-15T11:54:16.421-05:00The Constitution, Supreme Court, and People's Voice<big>Senate Ignoring the People's Voice

 Nicholas Johnson

 Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 8, 2016, p. A5

 Iowa City Press-Citizen Online, April 7, 2016, 2:15 p.m.
 Des Moines Register Online, April 8, 2016, 8:58 a.m.
 "Examining the 'People's Voice,'" The Gazette, April 10, 2016, p. A3
 The Gazette (online), April 10, 2016, 11:00 a.m.
 "The Constitution, Supreme Court, and People's Voice," The Daily Iowan, April 15,2016, p. 4 (not yet available online, 160415; a shorter version, with full text available below)
 The U.S. Constitution mandates that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint...Judges of the supreme Court." [Art. 2, Sec. 2.]

Following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia on Feb. 13, President Obama sent the Senate his nomination of Judge Merrick Garland. [Photo of Judge Merrick Garland.]

 Of course, any senator can vote "no" on Garland's confirmation.

 That's not enough for today's Republican Senate leadership. It totally rejects all portions of the confirmation process.

 In 1987, President Ronald Reagan nominated Judge Robert Bork for the Supreme Court. Bork's Senate hearing went badly. Nonetheless, his commitment to the Constitution caused him to insist on the full Senate's confirmation debate and vote he knew he'd lose, saying "A crucial principle is at stake...the deliberative process." [fn 1]

 Given that the Republican Party professes as much allegiance to a literal reading of the Constitution as of the Bible, their Senate leaders' refusal to vote is difficult to square with either the language of the Constitution or its interpretation by their poster judge, Robert Bork. [fn 2]

 What justification do they offer? Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says they want to "give the people a voice" in the selection of Supreme Court justices. [fn 3] Let's examine this rationale.

 (1) For starters, the Constitution's drafters were more interested in muffling the people's voice than in sharing the establishment's power with "the people."

 (2) Ours was not to be a direct democracy with decisions made by national referenda. Elected representatives would make the decisions.

 (3) There were severe restrictions on who could vote — initially only land-owning, white males over 21. African-Americans got the vote in 1870 (15th Amendment). Women in 1920 (Amend. 19), and 18-20-year-olds in 1971 (Amend. 26).

 (4) The drafters restricted for whom citizens could vote. Still today, we won't be voting for president next November. The Constitution says our president will be selected, not by the people's voice or vote, but by "electors" appointed by each "State...in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." (Art. 2, Sec. 1.)

 (5) Nor could "the people" even select U.S. senators. "The Senate...shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof." (Art. 1, Sec. 3; changed in 1913, Amend. 17.)

(6) Thus, respect for Justice Scalia's search for "original meaning" should preclude Senators Mitch McConnell's and Charles Grassley's deference to a "people's voice" in the judicial confirmation process. [Photo of Senator Charles Grassley.]

 (7) Even if constitutionally relevant, which it's not, that people's voice was clearly heard with the election of President Obama in 2008 and 2012. And the Constitution offers no hint that a president's judicial appointment power is any less on the last day of their presidency than on the first.

 (8) If the popular vote in presidential elections is "the people's voice," what is it saying? At best, a majority's preference between two candidates.

 (9) Although not constitutionally compelling, theoretically a presidential campaign could turn on one single, dominant issue. But that wasn't true in 2008 or 2012. Clearly, neither of those elections raised, let alone resolved, the Senate's constitutional right to refuse to undertake confirmation proceedings.

 (10) These points are equally applicable to Senator McConnell's insistence that the 2014 election of Republican senators was a people's voice for Senate refusal to hold judicial confirmation proceedings.

 The Constitution's drafters knew the court's justices could only function as intended if the public believed they were independent and non-partisan, able, honest and just.

 The Republican Senate leadership's response to Judge Garland is wrong, both constitutionally and in their "people's voice" rationale. It also further erodes public confidence in our unique and precious judicial institutions.

 Whether they are also wrong that their chosen path will best serve their political self-interest we will only know after the people's voice is unambiguously heard in next November's Senate elections.
 _______________
 Former law professor Nicholas Johnson served as a law clerk at both the U.S. Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and maintains nicholasjohnson.org and FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com. Contact him at firstname.lastname@example.com.

 Notes

 Footnote 1. "There should be a full debate and a final Senate decision. In deciding on this course, I harbor no illusions [regarding the probability of my Senate confirmation]. But a crucial principle is at stake. That principle is the way we select the men and women who guard the liberties of all the American people. That should not be done through public campaigns of distortion. . . . For the sake of the Federal judiciary and the American people, that must not happen. The deliberative process must be restored." ["Bork Gives Reasons for Continuing Fight," The New York Times/Associated Press, October 10, 1987.]

 Footnote 2. In The Gazette's hard copy version of the column, this paragraph was edited to read: "Given that the Republican Party professes a literal reading of the Constitution, their Senate leaders' refusal to vote is difficult to square with either the language of the Constitution or its interpretation by their poster judge, Robert Bork." The numbering is also removed from the numbered paragraphs.

 Footnote 3. "'The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue. So let's give them a voice,' Mr. McConnell said in an animated speech on the Senate floor." Carl Hulse, "Supreme Court Showdown Could Shape Fall Elections," New York Times (online), March 17, 2016, p. A1; and, "'It's not about him because we're living by the principle "let the people have a voice,"' [Senator Chuck] Grassley said." "Grassley, Garland Reprise '90s Court Fight; The Two Are Set to Meet for a Private Breakfast Today," The Gazette, April 12, 2016, p. A1; The Gazette (online), April 12, 2016, 6:05 p.m.

 # # #
 The Constitution, Supreme Court, and People's Voice
Nicholas Johnson
The Daily Iowan, April 15,2016, p. 4 (not yet available online, 160415)
 The Constitution mandates the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court."

 President Obama sent the Senate his nomination of Judge Merrick Garland on Feb. 13.

 Of course, any senator can vote "no" on Garland's confirmation.

 That's not enough for today's Republican Senate leadership. They reject the entire confirmation process.

 President Ronald Reagan's 1987 nomination of Judge Robert Bork went badly. But Bork insisted on full Senate debate and the losing vote because "A crucial [constitutional] principle is at stake . . . the deliberative process."

 Thus, the leadership's refusal to vote conflicts with both their professed allegiance to a literal reading of the Constitution and its interpretation by their poster judge, Robert Bork.

 Senators Mitch McConnell and Charles Grassley say they want to "give the people a voice" in the appointment of judges. Let's examine their rationale.

 (1) For starters, the Constitution's drafters were more interested in muffling the people's voice than in amplifying it. Major issues would be resolved by elected representatives, not national referenda.

 (2) Restrictions limited direct elections. Our Constitution still says our president is selected, not by the people's voice or vote, but by "electors" appointed by each "State . . . in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." Nor could "the people" select U.S. senators. "The Senate . . . shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof" (changed in 1913).

 (3) There were even further restrictions on who could vote — initially white, males, over 21, who owned land. African-Americans got the vote in 1870, women in 1920, and 18-20-year-olds in 1971.

 (4) This history, plus the leadership's respect for the late Justice Antonin Scalia's search for the Constitution's "original meaning," should preclude any reference to a "people's voice" in the confirmation process.

 (5) What is "the people's voice" saying in presidential elections? At best, a majority's preference between two candidates. Even if constitutionally relevant, which it's not, that people's voice was clearly heard in President Barack Obama's 2008 and 2012 elections. And the Constitution offers no hint that a president's judicial appointment power is any less on the last day of their presidency than on the first.

 (6) Theoretically a presidential campaign could turn on one single, dominant issue. Clearly, neither the 2008 nor 2012 election raised, let alone resolved, the Senate's constitutional right to refuse to undertake confirmation proceedings.

 (7) These points are equally applicable to Senator McConnell's insistence that the 2014 election of Republican senators was a "people's voice" authorizing his abandoning the constitutionally mandated confirmation process.

 The Constitution's drafters knew the court's justices could only function as intended if the public believed they were independent and non-partisan, able, honest and just.

 The Republican Senate leadership's response to Judge Garland is wrong, both constitutionally and in their "people's voice" rationale. It also further erodes public confidence in our unique and precious judicial institutions.

 Whether they are wrong that their chosen path will best serve their political self-interest we will only know after the people's voice is unambiguously heard in next November's Senate elections.

 # # #</big>email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-5379521538579582222016-03-23T17:25:00.000-05:002016-03-23T17:26:46.899-05:00Why Won't Media Give Bernie a Break?

<big>First read these quotes from this morning's media coverage of last evening's Democratic primary and caucuses (emphases supplied; footnotes [in brackets] go to sources' links at bottom of this page).

 Second, look at the facts -- the actual percentages of the votes received, and delegates allocated.

 Third, tell me if you think the media's language honestly squares with professional, independent journalism, based on those facts.

 Quotes from Media's March 23 Reports of March 22 Primary and Caucuses
Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump overwhelmed their rivals in the Arizona primaries on Tuesday, a show of might from two presidential front-runners . . .. Mrs. Clinton's commanding victory in Arizona, where 75 Democratic delegates were at stake, gave her the night's biggest prize, and her margin there was substantial enough that Mr. Sanders was unlikely to emerge with significantly more delegates, . . .. [1; (New York Times)]

 Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton scored easy victories Tuesday in Arizona, the largest and most-watched of the day's three electoral contests. . . . The large margin is a blow to her rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders, who had staked a comeback on Arizona. [2; (Washington Post)]

 Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz both campaigned hard in Arizona, hoping to score upsets over their party's front-runner in the most populous of the three states that voted Tuesday. They got crushed. [3; (Washington Post)]

 Clinton's win in Arizona prevented the Vermont senator from cutting deeply into her delegate lead by night's end. [4; (Associated Press)]
 Actual Percentages of Votes Received and Delegates Allocated
Utah Caucus

 Sanders: 79.7% of participants; 24 delegates
Clinton: 19.8% of participants; 5 delegates [5]

 Idaho Caucus

 Sanders: 78.0% of participants; 17 delegates
Clinton: 21.2% of participants; 5 delegates [6]

 Arizona Primary

Sanders: 39.9% of the votes; 26 delegates
Clinton: 57.6% of the votes; 41 delegates [7]

 Total Delegates Allocated

 Sanders: 67
Clinton: 51 [5, 6, 7]

 Professional, Independent Journalism?"
 So, what do you think?

 Do you think Sanders was "overwhelmed" by Clinton's "commanding victory" and "show of might"? Would you say, in this context, that Sanders' 67 delegates are not "significantly more" than Clinton's 51? Would you say that Sanders "got crushed," or suffered a "blow" from her "large margin" of voters and delegates in Arizona?

 The real story of this Democratic primary is not that Clinton has more delegates than Sanders. The man-bites-dog story of this primary is that Sanders has won any delegates. It's the political equivalent of a junior high basketball team somehow sneaking into the NCAA's March Madness, and making it to the final four.

Clinton has been national figure for decades, the presumed ultimate nominee, and started with a substantial army of friends and supporters throughout the country. Sanders had little to no history with the American people outside of Vermont, name recognition in the low single digits and little to no national media exposure.

 Clinton has had the support of the Democratic National Committee, most elected Democratic officials, is married to a two-term popular former president, was appointed to the top cabinet post by another two-term popular president, and had the prior experience of running for the presidential nomination in 2008. Sanders was not even a Democrat -- or a member of any other political party. He's a 74-year-old (she's 68) Jew from Brooklyn, living in Vermont, serving in the Senate as an "Independent," who says he's a "Democratic Socialist." He started with support from few if any Party officials, and had never run for office outside of his tiny home state of Vermont.

 Clinton (and her husband) started with substantial personal wealth, the support of multi-million-dollar PACs, Wall Street banks and hedge fund managers, billionaires and other wealthy persons, access to the nation's most experienced campaign managers, advisers, and former staff of their own, and long time contacts throughout the media. Sanders started with virtually no money at all, and has stubbornly insisted on funding his campaign with small contributions from the American people while refusing to take money from PACs and billionaires.
 I could go on with these contrasts, but you get the idea.

 The point is, given these contrasts, I think the media ought to give their audience, and Bernie, a break. They should acknowledge what an extraordinary accomplishment he represents -- the enormous crowds he attracts, the first time participants he's brought into the Democratic Party, his ability to keep up with, or exceed, Clinton's fund-raising ability, and yes, the number of delegates he has won competing against the Clinton powerhouse. That's the story of this primary season -- and of last night's results, not that Clinton got more voters than he did from Arizona. Given the difference in their inherent political strength, and the Clintons' contacts throughout the sate, it would have been remarkable enough if he had received 20% of the votes in Arizona -- the percentage that she got in Utah and Idaho. That he won as much as 40% is overwhelming. That he actually came out of the evening with more total delegates than she had is unbelievable!

 Finally, a word about a word: "won." It's bad enough that the media turns politics into a horse race rather than a national dialogue about issues and public policy. But applying the word "won" to a primary or caucus in which there is a proportional allocation of delegates based on numbers of votes, or persons, is downright misleading -- whether done intentionally or out of ignorance. It would be especially hilarious if not so serious, when the "winner" is only separated from the "loser" by fractions of one percent. Trump "won" Arizona -- if one insists on using the word -- because, for the Republicans it was a "winner takes all" state. Clinton did not "win" Arizona in that sense -- because for the Democrats the delegates were assigned proportionately, based on percentage of the vote each received.

 Links to Sources
 [1] Jonathan Martin, "Clinton and Trump Win Arizona; Cruz Picks Up Utah; Sanders Takes 2, New York Times (online), March 23, 2016

 [2] Anne Gearan and Jenna Johnson, "Clinton, Trump Win Delegate-Rich Arizona, but Falter in Utah and Idaho," Washington Post (online), March 22, 2016

 [3] James Hohmann, "Arizona, Utah Results Give Stop Trump Movement Reasons to Both Hope and Dispair," Washington Post, March 23, 2016

 [4] Calvin Woodward, "Arizona Goes For Trump, Clinton," Associated Press, March 23, 2016

 [5] "Utah Caucus; Democratic," Google, March 23, 2016

 [6] "Idaho Caucus; Democratic," Google, March 23, 2016

 [7] "Arizona Primary; Democratic," March 23, 2016

 # # #</big>firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-51227086835978578492016-03-21T10:19:00.000-05:002016-04-08T06:13:09.663-05:00The People's Voice, Constitution, and Supreme Court<big>
"Our view is this: Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy."

 -- Republican Senator Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate [Jennifer Steinhaueer, "Mitch McConnell Speaks Out on Garland," New York Times (online), March 16, 2016, 12:21 PM ET]

 The Republican Senate leadership, in the person of Majority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell, greeted Senator Barack Obama's 2008 election as President of the United States with the candid declaration that its purpose, its focus going forward would be to make Obama's a failed, one-term presidency.

 This month that goal has played out in the context of a Supreme Court appointment. Following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia on February 13, on March 16 President Obama sent the Senate his nomination of Justice Scalia's replacement.

 This followed the Constitutional provision that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the Supreme Court . . .." [Article 2, Section 2.]

Following their make-Obama-fail game plan, the Republican leadership's response has taken the form of not just failing to confirm the President's nomination of Chief Judge Merrick Garland -- following one-on-one meetings, committee hearings and floor debate -- but a refusal to even undertake any of those traditional preliminaries to confirmation. [Photo of Chief Judge Merrick Garland, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit; credit: CNN]

 No public official or journalist has suggested that the Senate is required to confirm President Obama's nominee. Each Republican (and Democratic) senator has the constitutional right and opportunity to vote "No" on the confirmation of Judge Garland -- just as they did when they voted down President Ronald Reagan's 1987 nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court (by a vote of 42-58 on October 23).

 The issue is, rather, whether they have the right to refuse to undertake any and all elements of the process the Constitution requires of them.

 It is noteworthy, with regard to this year's Supreme Court nominee, what Judge Bork said following the Senate committee's rejection of his nomination:
There should be a full debate and a final Senate decision. In deciding on this course, I harbor no illusions [regarding the probability of my Senate confirmation]. But a crucial principle is at stake. That principle is the way we select the men and women who guard the liberties of all the American people. That should not be done through public campaigns of distortion. . . . For the sake of the Federal judiciary and the American people, that must not happen. The deliberative process must be restored.
 ["Bork Gives Reasons for Continuing Fight," The New York Times/Associated Press, October 10, 1987.]

 For a political party whose leaders professes as much allegiance to a literal reading of the Constitution as of the Bible, it is a little difficult to square their rejection of the confirmation process with either the language of the Constitution or its interpretation by their poster Judge, Robert Bork.

 All they have been able to come up with is a profession of a desire to "give the people a voice" in the selection of Supreme Court justices (quoted at the top of this blog essay). What they seem to mean by "voice" is postponing the Senate's responsibility until after the next presidential election -- in part, some contend, in a self-serving effort to convince their base how important it is to retain Republican control of the Senate by reelecting the Republicans already there.

 Whatever their motives may be, rational support for this "people's voice" assertion is somewhere between difficult and impossible to find.

 (1) For starters, those who drafted the Constitution went out of their way to insure that the people's voice would be muffled by what we today refer to as "the establishment."

 (2) No one was thinking of a direct democracy, like a New England town meeting. They designed a representative democracy, in which elected officials would make all the decisions.

 (3) And there were significant restrictions on who could even vote -- a privilege first limited to land-owning, white, males over 21 years of age. African-Americans, who weren't even counted for more than 60% of their number (Article I, Section 2), weren't granted a right to vote until 1870 (Amendment XV). Women had to wait until 1920 (Amendment XIX), and 18-20-year-olds until 1971 (Amendment XXVI).

 (4) Even the few who did get to vote weren't trusted with the power to elect, or not, those running for office. To this day, even those who do get to vote don't get to vote for their president. The drafters saw to that. Article II provides that the actual selection of the president will be made, not by the people's voice or vote, but by "electors" (appointed by each "state . . . in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct . . .").

 (5) And, senators take note, nor did the drafters envision that the vote or voice of "the people" would be doing the selection of senators, either. Article I, Section 3 ("The Senate . . . shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof . . .." This was left unchanged until 1913, with the passage of Amendment XVII.)

 (6) In short, the drafters of the Constitution did not envision a role for a "people's voice" in the sense that Senator McConnell is using the words (the results of a presidential election).

 (7) Even if the "voice of the people" was constitutionally relevant in that context, that voice was heard in both 2008 and 2012 -- President Obama not only having been elected, but then re-elected. And there is, of course, no constitutional time limit on the president's judicial appointment power -- he or she has as much of that power on the last day of their presidency as they had on the first day.

 (8) Moreover, to the extent the popular vote in a presidential election can be said to be an expression of the people's voice, that voice does not clearly say anything beyond their choice between the two major parties' nominees for the office. And even that message is not all that clear. Many eligible American voters don't bother to vote. Others hold their nose when they do, picking "the lesser of the two evils."

 (9) Although it still wouldn't be constitutionally compelling, it would be theoretically possible that a presidential election would be fought out between two candidates taking opposite positions on one single, dominant issue -- perhaps like the Lincoln-Douglas debates regarding slavery. But that was not the case in either 2008 or 2012 -- those elections did not even raise (to the best of my present memory) an issue regarding the Senate's constitutional right to refuse to consider a president's judicial nomination, let alone turn on such an issue.

 (10) All of these responses are equally applicable to Senator McConnell's suggestion that the "people's voice" in 2014, re-electing a Republican majority to the U.S. Senate, supports the Republican leadership's current intransigence. (a) Each of those individual senators' elections had multiple variables affecting the outcome. And (b) even if a case could be made that a single dominant issue in all of those campaigns (won by Republicans) was a desire that their senator vote "no" on the confirmation of potential justices perceived as "liberal," that would only support the theory of a "people's voice" for "no" votes on some nominees, not support for the leadership's refusal to engage in the confirmation process at all.

 Therefore, it seems to me, the Republican Senate leadership is wrong in the position it has staked out with regard to President Obama's nomination of Judge Garland -- both as a matter of constitutional interpretation, and in terms of their "people's voice" talking point argument. Whether they are also wrong as a matter of their own political best interests we will only know after we hear the people's voice next November.

 _______________
 I'd like to add a personal note regarding the politicization of the U.S. Supreme Court. From an early age I've been aware of the Supreme Court and its justices. I majored in political science in college, and was blessed with a remarkable constitutional law professor in law school who strengthened those early interests. This was followed with clerkships -- first with a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, and then a justice of the Supreme Court. I've subsequently taught con law, as we call it, on occasion. So my support of the institution of the Supreme Court is emotional as well as intellectual.

 This may reveal a measure of naivete if not outright ignorance, but I can honestly say that I do not recall during my year at the Court (the 1959-60 Term) conversations with, or writings of, justices, law clerks, or other Court employees even revealing partisan (i.e., political party) preferences, and certainly not overt advocacy. The focus was on the facts and the law as revealed in the briefs, oral arguments, our own research, and ultimately our justices' printed opinions.

 I've always thought that orientation was a part of the genius of the idea of a non-political, independent, institution made up of nine individuals with lifetime appointments, not subservient to either the Executive or Legislative branches of our federal government. It made possible the resolution of conflicts between the other branches (and also the states) that might otherwise have thrown our nation in chaos.

 Its power, such as it was, came not from armies, multi-billion-dollar appropriations, or the delivery of votes. It came from a largely unarticulated agreement among Americans regarding their preference for this non-violent means of dispute resolution, and the ethics (rather than campaign contributions) that drove its decisions.

 Theater was used to re-enforce this ideal. Justices wore black robes. They entered the Court from behind a curtain, through which they returned to their chambers after the oral arguments. They sat at a bench raised above the level of those in attendance. In my day the podium for a lawyer arguing before the Court came complete with what were, literally, quill pens. High metal gates closed the hallways leading to their chambers. During my year they very rarely, if ever, appeared in public, or sat for print or television interviews. Their social life was restricted. And in their professional life they had no constituents as such, and were rarely if ever visited by lobbyists, or lawyers with cases pending before the Court. No one but the justices was permitted to be present during their secret deliberations regarding Court opinions. When an opinion was final, they would come out from behind the curtain once again, take their nine assigned seats in the Court, and read the opinions to those in attendance.

 The trust that gives the Court the power we need for it to have is a fragile thing. It is easily destroyed by public anticipation of predictable 5-4 votes, and journalists' talk of "liberal" and "conservative" justices whose votes can be easily guessed if one knows the political party to which they, and the president who nominated them, belonged.

 Those who wrote our Constitution did not conceive of the Supreme Court as yet a third political branch of government. They knew it could only play the role for which they fashioned it if the public believed it was special, trustworthy, independent, honest and just -- and if the public was correct in so believing.

 What today's Republican Senate leadership is doing with regard to President Obama and his nomination of Judge Garland is not only a violation of the Constitution's provisions regarding such nominations, it is also further contributing to the erosion of the public's perception of this unique and precious American institution.

 # # # </big>firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-53104104909269593472016-03-11T12:44:00.002-06:002016-03-11T16:08:35.421-06:00Random Thoughts on Tuition-Free Iowa Universities<big><big> <big>Links to Contents' Sub-Headings
Political Viability
Economic Analysis
Precedent and Incrementalism
Non-Monetary Benefits
Conclusion

 I've been thinking about tuition-free Iowa universities. There are no conclusions, or proposals, at this point; just random thoughts.

 Political Viability
 A tuition-free college education is obviously not a politically viable idea in Iowa at this time. The state's ideologically-driven Republican governor and House of Representatives are focused on cutting taxes while providing financial incentives for business, and privatizing historic governmental functions. The Board of Regents has selected a president for the University of Iowa with a business background whom they hope can "run the University more like a business" while cutting its share of state funding even further.

 But that doesn't mean there's no point in thinking about the idea, or that it would have no political support.

 For starters, we're talking about Iowa's 15 community colleges as well as its three Regents' universities. Indeed, a stronger case can be made for the former than the latter. It costs less to add two years to our K-12 system than to add four. And the benefits might even be greater. As former U.S. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare John W. Gardner wrote in his little book, Excellence (1961), "The society which scorns excellence in plumbing as a humble activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy: neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water."

 Surely families that would like to send their children to college, but cannot afford the tuition, would support such a program -- especially if the child in question would become the first in the family to do so. Iowa's rural communities would have access to more and better trained trades people, entrepreneurs, members of Richard Florida's "creative class," and others necessary to the communities' sustainable growth and quality of life. (See, e.g., James Fallows, "How America is Putting Itself Back Together," The Atlantic, March 2016.)

 Tuition-free college and community college would benefit all Iowans, not just some college bound wealthy elite.

 Economic Analysis
 Admittedly, many of the reasons to provide tuition-free college involve values other than economic -- of which more later. But what arguments might be fashioned to appeal to those who, as the saying has it, "know the price of everything and the value of nothing"?

It's not like this is a wild and crazy radical idea that has never been tried. We provided tuition-free college for returning veterans of World War II as part of the GI Bill. In Michael Moore's film, "Where to Invade Next," he shows a list of some 21 countries that are, today, offering tuition-free or incredibly cheap college (some restricted to their own citizens, but others offering the deal to all students, including Americans). [Photo of Freie Universitat of Berlin]

 Presumably those countries have some data indicating an economic justification for these arrangements. The economic impact of New York's CUNY and SUNY institutions, and California's 1960-1975 "Master Plan for Higher Education" would also be worth exploring. ("The two governing boards reaffirm the long established principle that state colleges and the University of California shall be tuition free to all residents of the state.")

 "Tuition-free" is not "free." Academically qualified high school graduates who cannot afford the costs of board and room, books, and the loss of what would otherwise have been earned over four years, will still be denied higher education. But those who can and do pursue more education will be able to generate more income for their employers, and themselves. Not only will they boost Iowa's economy by spending more as consumers, they will also be contributing the purchasing immediately made possible by the absence of years of paying off student loans' principal and interest.

 What if the data does show that the return on this investment of public funds, in the form of jobs and profits, turns out to be many multiples of its cost? Would there be a point at which even the tax-cutting naysayers might see a proposal for tuition-free college in the way they now view the creation and maintenance of the interstate highway system?

 Precedent and Incrementalism
 It's important to note the distinction between (a) funding a entirely new program, and (b) an incremental increase in funding a preexisting program. To provide tuition-free college and community college education for Iowans would not be the first time public money would be used to educate the state's people. Iowa had its first one-room school in 1830, and by 1910 was one of the first states to have a statewide system of high schools.

 There is not unanimous support for public education; some parents prefer private schools, or home schooling. But for some 250 years in the United States (and in other countries as well) there has been near-unanimous recognition of (a) the citizen's right to education, and (b) the desirability of, indeed society's need for, an educated citizenry. Soon the requirement was not only for citizens' access to free public education, but for their compulsory education. The 1966 "International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights" expressed the right this way: "Higher education shall be made equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity, by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education. . .." Article 13 (2)(c).

 This presidential election year has brought tuition-free higher education into the national discussion of public policy, such as it is. It's one of Senator Bernie Sanders' main talking points. Secretary Hillary Clinton, by contrast, advocates a more needs-based system. So far as I am aware, there has seldom if ever been an argument that free primary and secondary education should be limited to families in financial need, with all other parents paying full cost. If a distinction is to be made for higher education a persuasive rationale for doing so should be provided. (The one exception involves, not tuition, but the fee for a student's lunch. Those able to do so pay the cost of the meal; students of lesser means receive lunch for free, or at reduced cost -- a program subsidized by federal taxpayers.)

 While there is squabbling over precise amounts, there is a clear majority that generally accepts that the societal benefits of free K-12 education exceed its cost to taxpayers. Counting Iowa's primary and secondary schools sources of federal, state, and local revenue, Iowa's approximately 350 school districts receive a total of about $6 billion a year of taxpayers' money. (Extrapolating to America's 50 million school age children, the national commitment would be on the order of $500 billion, or one-half trillion dollars a year).

 To these numbers we would need to add what the three Regents' universities are already receiving: federal, state and local financial support in the billions (federal research projects and Pell grants; state appropriations; and local counties' inability to collect property taxes from the universities' tax-exempt property).

 The point? While the cost of providing Iowans a tuition-free college education is not insignificant, the largest financial commitment to public education already exists. Tuition-free college merely adds two or four years to the 13 years of education we're already funding for K-12.

 Non-Monetary Benefits
 Economists called upon to do benefit-cost analyses of, say, public parks, may calculate the economic "benefits" by totaling what users are willing to spend in the per-mile costs of driving to and from the park. Most of us (including some of those economists) would argue that such calculations are almost worthless. What is the "value" to a family of a day at the beach, public library, or touring some of the Smithsonian's buildings in Washington? What mother, father, or child would measure the value of a day's conversations while fishing -- with or without a catch -- by the cost of the fishing tackle and bait?

 So it is with education. It has economic value, for the society and the individual, as discussed above. But it has so much more. The before and after impact it can have on every moment of one's life is like the difference between watching a TV soap opera on an old small screen black-and-white TV, and being able to understand and enjoy a classic drama, or symphony orchestra (or NFL game) on a high definition, color, big wall screen. Intuitively (and with some supporting data) proportionately more of those with more education are likely to be healthier, happier, wiser investors, more effective parents, and otherwise get more out of day-to-day living than those with less.

 From the beginning of America's public education, one of the perceived needs and driving purposes has been to prepare students for participation -- with information, intelligence, civility, morality, and a sense of responsibility -- as citizens in a self-governing democracy. That need is, if anything, even greater today than 250 years ago.

 These non-monetary values are reflected in the United Nation's 1948 "Universal Declaration of Human Rights," Article 26. Like the "International Covenant," above, it declares that "(1) Everyone has the right to education. . . . [H]igher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit." But it goes on to explain that, "(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms."

 Many would find these non-monetary benefits of tuition-free education as persuasive a reason for funding higher education as for primary and secondary education -- and certainly so when added to the economic benefits.

 Conclusion
 So, is there a conclusion after all? Not yet. However, it is my opinion that the case can be made that adding two to four years of additional education to our publicly-funded K-12 system -- updating it, as it were, from the high school requirements of an agricultural and industrial age over 100 years ago -- is well worth our exploring further.

 As has been said, "When the people will lead, their leaders will follow." Regardless of the ideological orientation of Iowa's elected officials, the first step will have to be something on the order of Bernie Sanders' "political revolution." The people of Iowa will need to care, to study these issues, make higher education a priority, organize, demonstrate, and demand the benefits that tuition-free higher education has to offer for all Iowans.

 # # # </big></big>email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-2901752177178153262016-02-29T06:37:00.000-06:002016-02-29T08:25:41.183-06:00WaterThe Gazette's 2016 "editorial focus" is on "Building Blocks: Working Together to Make Our Communities Great Places to Live." With the current legislative focus on water quality, this week's Writers Circle columns deal with "How Do We Save Our Water?" My first contribution to the 2016 focus was "Design Communities to Support Communication, Interaction and Learning," February 7, 2016. This is my second. -- N.J., Feb. 29, 2016

 <big>Some Basic Facts About Water

Nicholas Johnson

 The Gazette, February 29, 2016, p. A6 Water.

 First, some basic facts.

Life began in water; human life still does. Our bodies are a mix of star stuff and water -– in the same proportions as Earth's surface. We need replenishment of two to three quarts daily.

 But 80% of our society's consumption is used in agriculture (one gallon for each almond). More goes to industry, like fracking.

 We each use about 100 gallons daily. For all Iowans that's 110 billion gallons annually.

 Residents of Flint are right to worry about lead. Thousands of other cities ought to -- 40% of reporting states have more lead poisoning than Flint. And the 15 parts per billion standard's not science based. It's chosen as a standard 90% of cities can pass.

But wait; it's worse. I used to hike where pure water came from springs and ran in streams. Those sources reach us today containing 100 potentially toxic substances that have not been researched, tested, or regulated. Even if they were, one-third of Americans' water sources aren't covered by clean water laws.

 Rain brings air pollutants, runoff brings fertilizer, industrial waste may be dumped, and nitrate removal treatments can leave toxic nitrosamines. More dangerous elements (like Flint's lead) can come from aging water mains, or pipes from the mains to, and inside, the home.

 One of the greatest single "medical" advances for 2.5 billion of the world's people? Not a new AIDS or malaria drug. It would be pure drinking water and sanitary facilities for the two million who die every year without them.

 There are other ways water can sicken or kill you. Worldwide, an estimated 372,000 people annually die from drowning –- the third leading cause of unintentional injury death.

Ocean levels are rising at increasing rates, as warmer water expands and glaciers melt. If all land ice melted, oceans would rise 197 feet. That's not happening. But a possible 20-foot rise by 2100 would necessitate relocating a billion people.

 And all that's the good news. Most serious? The coming severe water shortages and inevitable water wars.

 Kind of puts our Iowa legislative proposals into perspective, doesn't it?

 My proposals?

 1. Prepare to spend $1 trillion on the infrastructure our grandparents built and we, preferring tax cuts, have allowed to rot.

 2. Fund the scientific and medical research necessary to understand the human impact of all the substances in water, and then set standards.

 3. Give Americans free access to test data about what comes out of their own faucets (not just what comes out of their cities' treatment plants).

 4. Finally, elect public officials who care more about our health than their donors' wealth.
 ____________________
 Nicholas Johnson, a former FCC commissioner, writes about public policy in FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com and maintains www.nicholasjohnson.org. Contact: firstname.lastname@example.com

 Sources
 Note: The Gazette has instituted a new procedure for op ed columns, requiring that submitted work be accompanied with sources. This not only provides yet another level of editorial scrutiny regarding the veracity of facts and assertions, but also makes it easier for the occasional reader engaged in topic research to follow up on portions of a column that may be of further interest.

 To serve either purpose it's necessary to provide not only citations and links complete enough to lead to a source, but sufficient accompanying text to indicate what it was about that source that is thought to support the fact or assertion. Sometimes that can be a single phrase or sentence, such as, in the second one below, "About 71 percent of the Earth's surface is water-covered . . .." Other times, when a simplistic assertion in a 436-word op ed column (as this one is) while reasonable, has not been fully explained in the column, a lengthier excerpt is required. An example would be the third source listed below (the supporting sources for the percentage of one's weight represented by water).

 The sources are listed in the same order as the text which they support.

 – N.J.

 "'The cosmos is also within us, we're made of star stuff,' was the famous knowledge bomb that Sagan dropped in his original award-winning TV series "Cosmos" . . .."

Eric Mack, "'We Are Made of Star Stuff': A Quick Lesson on How; Carl Sagan Famously Said That the Death of Ancient Stars Helped to Create Us. Huh? Here's a Quick Primer on What he Meant," CNET, November 3, 2014, http://www.cnet.com/news/we-are-made-of-star-stuff-a-quick-lesson-on-how/

 "About 71 percent of the Earth's surface is water-covered . . .."

U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, The USGS Water Science School, "How Much Water is There On, In, and Above the Earth?" http://water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html

 "Water is of major importance to all living things; in some organisms, up to 90% of their body weight comes from water. Up to 60% of the human adult body is water. According to H.H. Mitchell, Journal of Biological Chemistry 158, the brain and heart are composed of 73% water, and the lungs are about 83% water. The skin contains 64% water, muscles and kidneys are 79%, and even the bones are watery: 31%. Each day humans must consume a certain amount of water to survive. Of course, this varies according to age and gender, and also by where someone lives.

 Generally, an adult male needs about 3 liters per day while an adult female needs about 2.2 liters per day. Some of this water is gotten in food. . . .

 According to Dr. Jeffrey Utz, Neuroscience, pediatrics, Allegheny University, different people have different percentages of their bodies made up of water. Babies have the most, being born at about 78%. By one year of age, that amount drops to about 65%. In adult men, about 60% of their bodies are water. However, fat tissue does not have as much water as lean tissue. In adult women, fat makes up more of the body than men, so they have about 55% of their bodies made of water."

U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, The USGS Water Science School, The Water in You," http://water.usgs.gov/edu/propertyyou.html

 "So how much fluid does the average, healthy adult living in a temperate climate need? The Institute of Medicine determined that an adequate intake (AI) for men is roughly about 13 cups (3 liters) of total beverages a day. The AI for women is about 9 cups (2.2 liters) of total beverages a day."

Mayo Clinic Staff, "Healthy Lifestyle; Nutrition and Healthy Eating; Water: How Much Should You Drink Every Day?" Mayo Clinic, http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/water/art-20044256

 "Agriculture is a major user of ground and surface water in the United States, accounting for approximately 80 percent of the Nation's consumptive water use (see definitions) and over 90 percent in many Western States."

United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, "Irrigation & Water Use; Overview; Background," http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-practices-management/irrigation-water-use.aspx

 "One almond 1.1 gallons of water. . . . Jay Lund, a water expert at the University of California-Davis, says that water problems mean that agriculture may soon play a less important role in California's economy, as the business of growing food moves to the South and the Midwest, where water is less expensive."

Alex Park and Julia Lurie, "It Takes How Much Water to Grow an Almond?! Why California's Drought is a Disaster for Your Favorite Fruits, Vegetables, and Nuts," Mother Jones, February 24, 2014, http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/wheres-californias-water-going

 "Oil and natural gas fracking, on average, uses more than 28 times the water it did 15 years ago, gulping up to 9.6 million gallons of water per well and putting farming and drinking sources at risk in arid states, especially during drought. . . . The amount of water used for fracking in each well varies widely by region. In southern Illinois, an operation can use as little as 2,600 gallons of water each time fracking triggers the flow of oil or gas into a well. In West Texas' Permian Basin surrounding Midland and Odessa, fracking uses between 264,000 and 2.6 million gallons of water each time. In Pennsylvania, Ohio, south and eastern Texas, Arkansas, northern Colorado and Montana, fracking can use more than 9 million gallons of water."

Bobby Magill, "Water Use Rises as Fracking Expands; And Certain Wells Use Far More Water Than Others, a Possible Threat in Dry Regions," Scientific American, July 1, 2015, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/water-use-rises-as-fracking-expands/

 "The average American family of four uses 400 gallons of water per day. On average, approximately 70 percent of that water is used indoors, with the bathroom being the largest consumer (a toilet alone can use 27 percent!)."

United States Environmental Protection Agency, "Water Sense; Indoor Water Use in the United States," http://www3.epa.gov/watersense/pubs/indoor.html

 "Data collected by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention shows that over 40 percent of the states that reported lead test results in 2014 have higher rates of lead poisoning among children than Flint."

Yanan Wang, "Untold Cities Across America Have Higher Rates of Lead Poisoning Than Flint," The Washington Post, February 4, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/04/untold-cities-across-america-have-higher-rates-of-lead-poisoning-than-flint/

 "The E.P.A.'s trigger level for addressing lead in drinking water -- 15 parts per billion -- is not based on any health threat; rather, it reflects a calculation that water in at least nine in 10 homes susceptible to lead contamination will fall below that standard."

 "The biggest hole in the drinking-water safety net may be the least visible: the potential for water to be tainted by substances that scientists and officials have not even studied, much less regulated. The EP.A. has compiled a list of 100 potentially risky chemicals and 12 microbes that are known or expected to be found in public water systems, but are not yet regulated. . . . There are thousands of other chemicals, viruses and microbes that scientists like Dr. Griffiths say the agency has not begun to assess."

 "The Environmental Protection Agency says streams tapped by water utilities serving a third of the population are not yet covered by clean water laws that limit levels of toxic pollutants."
 "[R]esearchers were long unaware that removing nitrates from finished water can leave behind a toxic byproduct, nitrosamines, the cancer-causing chemical found in cooked bacon."

Michael Wines and John Schwartz, "Unsafe Lead Levels in Tap Water Not Limited to Flint," The New York Times, February 9, 2016, p. A1, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/09/us/regulatory-gaps-leave-unsafe-lead-levels-in-water-nationwide.html

 "An estimated 2.5 billion people lack access to improved sanitation (more than 35% of the world's population)"

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Global Water, Sanitation, & Hygiene (WASH); Global WASH Fast Facts," http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/global/wash_statistics.html

 "Diarrhoea [sic] occurs world-wide and causes 4% of all deaths and 5% of health loss to disability. It is most commonly caused by gastrointestinal infections which kill around 2.2 million people globally each year, mostly children in developing countries. The use of water in hygiene is an important preventive measure but contaminated water is also an important cause of diarrhoea."

World Health Organization, "Water Sanitation Health; Water-Related Diseases; Diarrhoea," http://http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/diseases/diarrhoea/en/

 "Inadequate drinking-water, sanitation and hygiene are estimated to cause 842,000 diarrhoeal disease deaths per year WHO 2014, and contribute substantially to the other diseases listed above."

World Health Organization, "Water Sanitation Health; Water-Related Diseases," http://http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/diseases/en/

 "Drowning is the 3rd leading cause of unintentional injury death worldwide, accounting for 7% of all injury-related deaths. There are an estimated 372,000 annual drowning deaths worldwide."

World Health Organization, Media Centre, "Drowning," Fact Sheet No. 347, November 2014, Key Facts, http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs347/en/

 "If all the land ice on the planet were to melt, it would raise sea levels about 197 feet . . .."

Tia Ghose, "NASA: Rising Sea Levels More Dangerous Than Thought," Live Science, August 26, 2015, http://www.livescience.com/51990-sea-level-rise-unknowns.html

 "[H]undreds of millions of people live in areas that will become increasingly vulnerable to flooding. Higher sea levels would force them to abandon their homes and relocate. Low-lying islands could be submerged completely. Most predictions say the warming of the planet will continue and likely will accelerate. Oceans will likely continue to rise as well, but predicting the amount is an inexact science. . . .

 [D]ire estimates, including a complete meltdown of the Greenland ice sheet, push sea level rise to 23 feet (7 meters), enough to submerge London."

"Sea Level Rise; Ocean Levels Are Getting Higher -- Can We Do Anything About It?" National Geographic, http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/

 "According to the United Nations, water use has grown at more than twice the rate of population increase in the last century. By 2025, an estimated 1.8 billion people will live in areas plagued by water scarcity, with two-thirds of the world's population living in water-stressed regions as a result of use, growth, and climate change."

"Fresh Water Crisis," National Geographic, http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater/freshwater-crisis/

 "Off and on for two decades, my colleagues and I have worked on issues involving water, including some discussed here. This experience has led me to conclude that statesmanship must go beyond diplomacy, in particular to championing new agricultural technologies. Without growing more food with less water (land, too) the water-war surprises will come, perhaps not in one year, perhaps not in four, but soon, and long into the future."

Clark S. Judge, "The Coming Water Wars; The Next Big Wars Will be Fought Over Water," U.S.Newsw, February 19, 2013, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/clark-judge/2013/02/19/the-next-big-wars-will-be-fought-over-water

 "The American Water Works Association . . . puts the tab [to provide clean drinking water to all Americans] at $1 trillion in new spending in the next 25 years."

Editorial, "Fixing Our Broken Water Systems," The New York Times, February 14, 2016, p. SR8, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/opinion/sunday/fixing-our-broken-water-systems.html

 "Erik D. Olson, head of the health and environment program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said: '. . . We're mostly living off the investment of our parents and grandparents for our drinking water supply.'"

Michael Wines and John Schwartz, "Unsafe Lead Levels in Tap Water Not Limited to Flint," The New York Times, February 9, 2016, p. A1, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/09/us/regulatory-gaps-leave-unsafe-lead-levels-in-water-nationwide.html

 # # #</big>firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-35181128539806986292016-02-29T06:00:00.000-06:002016-02-29T09:05:41.987-06:00The State of the Media<big>The State of the Media

Nicholas Johnson

 League of Women Voters of Johnson County, Iowa
Sunday Speaker Series

Iowa City Public Library
February 28, 2016, 2:00 p.m.
 The media. Mass media. Mainstream media, or MSM.

 What's in, what's out? What are we talking about? The local publication, Little Village? My blog, FromDC2Iowa? The public's access channel on local cable, PATV? Or, locally, is it just things like the Iowa City Press-Citizen and WSUI?

 "State of the media." What does that mean? Financial health? And, if so, whose -- the income of the owners, or Iowa City's economy, since media is a major driver of the consumer spending that constitutes 70% of our nation's GDP? Broadcast stations are still licensed to serve "the public interest." So what does that mean? And whatever it means, should we evaluate the state of newspapers by the same standard as broadcasting?

 You and I are concerned about the adequacy of the media to support a democracy. And how should that be measured? Is it, like voting, something that we offer citizens but, unlike Australia, do not demand of them? Is it enough that what a citizen needs to know is potentially accessible – like books in this library that are never consulted – or is it the media's responsibility to do whatever is necessary to ensure that a critical mass of citizens actually know what they need to know?

 There are more creative approaches to public education than just serious news and documentaries. For example, health and safety information has been embedded in soap operas for third world audiences. Comedian John Oliver gives his multi-million followers some of the best public policy presentations available on television today. The Harvard School of Public Health reduced auto accident deaths by working with Hollywood producers and writers to include brief shots of police fastening their seat belts.

 Our task of searching for the state of the media is further complicated by what might be called a multiple-variable analysis. That is to say, we are dealing with many streams and trends of change, sometimes in isolation, sometimes overlapping, that impact upon the media.

 Here are but a few.

 We have been witnessing both a concentration of media control and, simultaneously, an increase of citizens' choice of media and an increase in citizen power to affect its content.

 Twenty-five years ago or more, when Time and Warner wanted to merge, a number of us opposed the merger. I asked one of their executives why they wanted this merger. He replied, "Well, Nick, someday there are going to be five firms that control all the media on Planet Earth, and we intend to be one of them."

 For example, when I was a boy there were human owners of the Des Moines Register and the Iowa City Press-Citizen. Today, both are part of the Gannett empire that controls over 90 daily newspapers, nearly 1,000 weekly newspapers, and the national paper, USA Today, with operations – and political influence -- in 41 U.S. states and six countries.

 There have also been efforts to combine multiple media types – with financial advantages for shareholders, and content disadvantages for the audience. A single firm may control significant subsidiaries in newspaper, magazine and book publishing; movie studios, and television production; theaters, TV and radio stations and networks; cable and satellite distribution companies.

 As journalism has morphed from a profession of individuals into an industry of corporations, citizens have lost out. What Wall Street banks and hedge fund managers have done to banking, they have also done to democracy's journalism.

 The Los Angeles Times was doing quite well, thank you, with its 20% profit margins – until Wall Street decided to demand 30% returns. Because of a profusion of alternative sources of news, and a decline in younger persons' interest in newspapers, it was difficult to increase readership. Without an increase in readership it was difficult to increase advertising revenue. The only way to increase profits was to decrease costs. And the easiest way to decrease costs was to fire journalists.

 Here in Iowa City we've seen what Wall Street's pressure on Gannett has done to the Press-Citizen. It tried to increase profits by selling off its building and doing away with reporters and other staff members. Not content with those savings, it has now decided to not only reduce the number of pages in the paper, but to totally eliminate the opinion page on Mondays and Tuesdays – thereby increasing the proportion of the paper devoted to sports fans.

 When I was a commissioner of the FCC I studied media in other countries – Great Britain, Sweden, German, Japan, and elsewhere. I discovered that NHK, in Japan, had more minutes of news about the United States everyday than did NBC. In addition to which NHK also covered news from Asia, Middle East, Africa, Europe – and of course, Japan.

 ABC, CBS and NBC once had foreign news bureaus. I asked an executive about their coverage of African countries. He assured me they had an African bureau. On further inquiry I discovered it had only one reporter, and she was based in Paris. Recently I shared that story with a reporter who informed me she was no longer there.

 We pay a price as a democracy for our lack of information about what's going on in the world and in our own town.

 We are a nation approaching 325 million individuals, many of whom have so little memory of their education, and such obliviousness to basic information, that Jay Leno was able to make an entertainment format out of it on the Tonight show. Our gross ignorance of other countries and cultures helps create everything from "ugly American" tourists to endless, unwinnable wars abroad that actually increase the risk of terrorism at home. Many high school grads headed to Iraq couldn't find Iraq on a map -- 10% couldn't even find the United States.

 Even if you want to engage in wars of choice, which I wouldn't advise, you need knowledge. While I was handling sealift to Viet Nam as U.S. Maritime Administrator, President Johnson asked me to look around Southeast Asia and provide him my reactions. What I said was, "You can't play basketball on a football field." There are some places where war is just not a possible option – when you don't know such things as your enemy's language, history, culture, religion, and tribal relations. I later published an open letter to President George W. Bush with similar observations about his proposed adventure in Iraq.

 I've always been a fan of the BBC since I was a young boy, first listening to its shortwave programming on a World War II surplus radio receiver – later when carried on WSUI during the night, and now with an app on my smart phone. There are countries that may go for a year without even being mentioned by name on U.S. media, and never covered, countries from which the BBC regularly provides us in-depth understanding.

 But wait, it's worse. Not only do our once big-three networks try to present the news without journalists, not only do they devote to it a fraction of the time of public broadcasting systems in other countries. With the time they devote to commercials and self-promotion, the so-called "half-hour news" becomes more like 20 minutes.

 And it's worse than that. It's not just that they don't tell us what we need to know, it's the material they do offer us instead that we'd really be better off not knowing, or is at best is a waste of our time.

 Mary and I watch the local news on the ABC affiliate KCRG that always has an ABC News promo before it feeds into the ABC Evening News (when we switch to the PBS Newshour). I became so appalled at ABC's choice of content that I took notes for a couple of nights.

 The unifying theme throughout ABC's presentation seems to be a play on our emotions -- 15 minutes or more of drama designed to frighten us, increasing our fears and stress, followed by a happy close -- thereby playing with both our adrenalin and our dopamine.

 Nearly 100 years ago, Walter Lippmann wrote that the problems of the media,

 go back to . . . the failure of self-governing people to . . . [create and organize] a machinery of knowledge. It is because they are compelled to act without a reliable picture of the world, that [they] make such small headway against . . . violent prejudice, apathy, preference for the curious trivial as against the dull important, and the hunger for sideshows and three legged calves. . . . [A]ll [of government's] defects can, I believe, be traced to this one.

 ABC's choice of frightening subjects is mostly a herd of three-legged calves interrupted occasionally by, "Oh, look at the squirrel."

 Here are some illustrations.

 A snowfall is a "deadly" storm. The early use of drones becomes a drone "scare." A White House intruder is a security "scare." Notwithstanding the absence of any supporting video, a pre-verdict Ferguson was a "State of Emergency." We were shown an "alarming image" worthy of a "Holiday Alert" that holiday gift packages are about to be stolen from our homes. There was a "mystery" involving a beauty queen. And the happy close? A couple given $14 million for their idea involving digital photos -- with the lottery-like closing line, "Is your idea next?"

 Celebrity news is regularly given time -- the cancellation of Bill Cosby's show, Bono's auto accident, and the death of Motown singer Jimmy Ruffin – items more appropriate for "Entertainment Tonight," or other video versions of People magazine.

 The next night was babies' night. We were warned that our babies fingers might be cut off by their strollers. Another "warning for parents" was the segment headlined "Spying on Your Children," which informed us that the Russians were hacking into our security cameras and streaming the content of our baby monitors. We were told that the car crash tests' results were "the worst ever seen," truly "alarming." And then, as if to drive the point home, and add another threat to our survival to the long list of ABC-engendered fears, we were shown video of "Car Demolishing a Building" -- "an entire building demolished in seconds in a cloud of dust."

 But most of the 20 minutes that night was consumed by Mike Nichols' death and a tribute to his life -- with occasional references to the fact he had been married to ABC's Diane Sawyer. That evening's so-called "news" both opened and closed with lengthy tributes and film clips regarding Nichols.

 By contrast, here's what the "PBS Newshour" included that first night: "A look at the Gulf oil spill after the cameras had gone"; "Will arming school administrators protect students?"; "What's next for NSA reform in Congress?"; "Protecting Afghanistan's Buddhist Heritage"; and "Debating the implications if Obama acts on immigration." There are also differences among commercial networks.

 CBS took a positive, factual approach to the Ferguson story, offered data and insight about "cyber shopping" and Amazon's 15,000 robots filling orders, a significant Supreme Court case regarding threatening speech, and AAA research regarding the safe driving records of those over 65. The network had been tracking remedial programs for high school dropouts and reported on one more.

 You may recall that I earlier mentioned that "We have been witnessing, simultaneously, concentration of media control and diffusion of citizen choice and power."

 So what's the good news?

 When I joined the FCC the world had one communications satellite and three dishes. The number expanded, as first military, and then governments and large corporations, like AT&T, used them. By the time the price of a dish had dropped from $3 million, to $300 thousand, to $35 thousand, the cable industry was using them. When it reached $3000 they started popping up like mushrooms in farmers' yards, and soon thereafter the smaller, pizza-sized little dishes, at $300 were installed on 15 million homes and apartments.

 We're used to sales when prices are cut by 10%, or maybe even 50%. The reduction in price on communications technology is what I refer to as the 99.9%-off sale.

 Such radical reductions in size and price mean that more people can have more electronics, that they can carry, and connect, from more places. There are almost as many mobile phones on Earth as people – 50% more than the number who have toilets.

 Similar reductions in size and price, plus increased competition, and the existence of the Internet, mean that large and small media companies alike are entering many more media modes. Advertising is increasingly focused on telling consumers a company's Web page address. Newspapers' and magazines' online editions present video as well as text and pictures. TV stations' Web pages have text and transcripts. Companies like Netflix and Amazon don't just sell others' DVDs; they stream the content over the Internet – and compete with movie studios making their own movies.

 There are over 1 million apps available for the iPhone. Television and radio programs offer streaming and podcasts. Nor are we limited to our local newspapers.

 President Johnson had two teletype machines in his office, the AP news and the UPI. Both were the size of small refrigerators. Today, on my shirt-pocket iPhone, smaller than a pack of cards, I display links to the news not only from the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal, but from Al Jazeera, BBC, the Guardian of London, Le Monde in Paris, the Kurds' news service Rudaw, and the South China Morning Post, among others.

 But there's another side to this coin. These changes not only give us access to more of others' information in more forms, they also make it possible for us to enter this world of media with our own content.

 We can become book publishers – writing, publishing and promoting the sale of our own books, and make them available through Amazon and other outlets, for little or no money. We can publish our own equivalent of a newspaper – in the form of a Web page, Facebook page, blog, or Twitter account. We can own and be the star of our own streaming radio or television station, by using YouTube – also free.

 And this is where you, and the League of Women Voters, have a role to play. There are a number of models and proposals for a way out of our current "state of the media."

 We don't have time to explore all of them – and none of them is an all-purpose answer anyway.

 But something we can do is what I'll call "citizen journalism." Local newspapers with fewer and fewer reporters need all the help they can get. Our fellow citizens need more reporting from public bodies – school boards, county boards of supervisors -- than the papers can provide. Citizens need more identification, and exploration, of the major local public policy issues.

 That is a major contribution that your organization, and each of you individually, can provide and to some extent already are providing.

 Pick a unit of government, or office within it, or a local issue that interests you. Attend all the meetings, many of which won't have a reporter present. Write up and post on your Web page or blog what you think is most significant about what you've observed or uncovered. Learn the ways you can promote it to more potential readers or viewers.

 As some of you may know, that's what I've been doing over the past six months, tracking the administration of our new UI President Bruce Harreld, providing links to almost all of the news stories and opinion pieces of relevance for anyone interested in this historical period of the University of Iowa.

 In short, we can do more than merely bemoan the current state of the media. We can actually do something to make it better – right here in River City.

 # # # email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-19252138348202371192016-02-07T16:42:00.000-06:002016-02-09T11:26:34.108-06:00Our Communities' Second Priority[On February 7, 2016, The Gazette announced "The Gazette's Editorial Focus for 2016" -- the elements of quality cities: "Building Blocks; Working Together to Make Our Communities Great Places to Live," The Gazette, February 7, 2016, p. C1 (available online -->HERE<---). My first column for that new editorial focus was published that same day and is reproduced below.]
 _______________
 <big><big> Design Communities to Support Communication, Interaction and Learning
 Nicholas Johnson
 The Gazette, February 7, 2016, p. C4
 [online as Nicholas Johnson, "Design Eastern Iowa Communities to Support Communication, Interaction and Learning," The Gazette (online), February 8, 2016, 3:00 p.m.]
 There were a lot of activists' movements during the 1960s and '70s – anti-war, pro-environment, the rights of women and African Americans, among others – their individual first priorities.

 As a commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission during those years, the ways in which those movements were impacted by the role of the mainstream media, and the rules by which commercial media operated and was regulated, became very clear.

 The media reform movement was born and grew out of that awareness. As I put it at the time, "Whatever is your first priority, your second priority has to be media reform" – which ultimately contributed the book title, Your Second Priority (2008).

 It was a new way of thinking about reform of government, politics, and public policy.

 This year, The Gazette intends to focus on our communities' opportunities involving everything from affordable and integrated housing to healthcare, from parks and walkable cities to justice and police relations, economic growth to creative communities.

 Just as activists can benefit by giving attention to the role of the media, so can those concerned about improving our communities benefit by considering the role of communications. Just as we have environmental impact statements, we might benefit from communications impact statements.

 A 400-word column can't begin to identify the hundreds of categories of cities' communications opportunities, let alone explore them. But here are three illustrations.

Housing. Urban planning, the arrangement of suburban homes, or common space in apartment units, the availability of sidewalks and bike paths, can tend to increase, or decrease, chance meetings and conversation. Location of housing and schools can produce either the integration, or the segregation, of socio-economic classes, races and religions.

 Analytics. The early Greeks spoke of analytics, and most city governments and residents have some access to data about their community and themselves. The movie "Money Ball" dramatized analytics' relevance to baseball. But the City of Boston has pushed it to a whole new level.

 Learning communities. Learning can be everywhere – not just museums (Iowa Hall), places (Devonian Gorge), structures (Plum Grove; Mormon handcart site). It can also come from watching a sushi chef, or reading a business building's history on a plaque. There are thousands more words to be written about our communities' second priority. And we haven't even touched on more obvious features, such as public access cable channels, Web sites, blogs, meeting spaces, and libraries.

 Think about it. We can do it.
 _______________
 Nicholas Johnson, a former FCC commissioner, advocates information architecture and visible cities. He maintains nicholasjohnson.org and FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com. Contact: firstname.lastname@example.com

 # # #</big></big>firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-34763951102759380852016-02-03T21:17:00.000-06:002016-02-04T10:23:52.127-06:00Bernie's Extraordinary, Unacknowledged Accomplishment
"Why Nobody 'Wins' the Iowa Caucus; Why the Iowa Caucus Matters – and Why it Doesn't," February 1, 2016, was deliberately written and posted by me before that evening's Iowa Caucus even began – in order to eliminate any suggestion it was designed to favor one candidate over another. In that post I discuss the Caucus' significance in terms of the national parties' nomination process, the candidates' campaigns, and the media. Not surprisingly, I concluded that its primary significance results from how the results are reported in the media. At that time, two days ago, I had no idea how prescient it was.

 <big>Before we get to how the media reported the Iowa Caucus, let's start with some facts.

 The Iowa Poll, considered to be among the most accurate for the Iowa Caucus, is our source for this data, available from "Tracking the Candidates in the Iowa Poll," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 3, 2016, p. A8.

 How have the candidates fared over time? The data is from seven polls conducted in January, May, August, October and December of 2015, and early January, late January – and then the Caucus results on February 1, 2016.

 Most candidates have gone up and down in the polls. Hillary, for example, went from a high of 57% in May to a low of 37% in August, and continued to fluctuate until the Caucus. Ted Cruz was at a high of 31% in December, dropped to a low of 23% in late January, and ended up with 28% in the Caucus. (the most of any Republican). Since August, Trump has ranged from a high of 28% to a low of 19%.

 However, there are two candidates whose poll results have had unbroken increases every time they were measured.

 Senator Marco Rubio started at 3% in January. The numbers in the following polls, in order, were 6%, 6%, 9%, 10%, 12%, 15% and finally 23% on Caucus night.

 Senator Bernie Sanders started at 5% in January, and proceeded to climb in each succeeding poll to 16%, 30%, 37%, 39%, 40%, 42%, to a Caucus finish at 49.6%.

 From December to Caucus Hillary increased from 48% to 49.8%, and Bernie went from 39% to his 49.6%.

 Let's compare these two candidates.

Hillary Clinton has been in the public eye, whether for good or ill, since the 1990s if not before – as the wife of Arkansas Governor and then President Bill Clinton, the point person for the Clinton's health care plan, a United States Senator, previous presidential candidate (2008), a U.S. Secretary of State, and a long-anticipated presidential candidate – indeed, the presumed nominee. She and her husband have access to the financial resources of some of the wealthiest people in the world, in addition to their own wealth from campaign contributions and speaking fees from Wall Street firms, corporate leaders and other wealthy persons here and abroad. Theirs has been described as one of the most powerful political organizations in America, a solid part of "the Democratic Party establishment," which gives them access to resources such as former staffers, friends, hangers-on, and thousands of contacts – including some of our country's most brilliant and experienced political and media advisers. (One of the many ways the Democratic Party Establishment rigs the outcome to favor themselves is the creation of the so-called "Super Delegates" – most of whom are, by definition, from the Party's establishment. That's why, although she and Bernie Sanders have won about equal numbers of the national convention delegates from Iowa, he now has a total of 29 and she, with the Super Delegates already pledged to her, sprints from a starting line way out in front of him, with 385.)

In the opposite corner of what the media insists on portraying as something like a boxing ring, we find a gray haired grandfather with wild hair who cares little for fashion and sometimes speaks with a facial expression, anger and volume reminiscent of Howard Beale in the movie "Network." He's not exactly Hollywood's central casting's vision of a presidential candidate. And yet there's something wonderfully charming about the incongruity of someone once described as a 74-year-old democratic socialist Jew from Brooklyn living in Vermont attracting the largest crowds of any candidate. He's so opposed to the corrupting effect of billionaire's money in politics that he refuses to accept money from the only individuals able to make the multi-million-dollar contributions available to Hillary Clinton. He just started campaigning in Iowa anyway, with neither name recognition nor money. As people heard what he had to say, they came to know the name Bernie Sanders, liked his ideas, and found him to be authentic, consistent in his views over decades, and a really likable guy. His numbers climbed in the polls, and by Caucus night they were high enough that the number of "state equivalent delegates" he received was virtually the same as Hillary Clinton. That was a truly stunning accomplishment, given her overwhelming advantages.

 So how were these results reported by the media?

Coming in third, Rubio might well have been described as having "lost" the Iowa Republican Caucus. After all, he wasn't even second, a "runner-up." But he was not so described. He was described as "surging" or "propelled." The Gazette's headline was typical, "Surge Propelling Rubio in GOP Race; Florida Senator's Third Place is 1 Point Short of Trump's Finish."  James Q. Lynch and Rod Boshart, "Rubio Leaves Iowa with Third-Place Finish, 'Marcomentum;' Florida Senator's Surge to Third Place Propels Him Forward," The Gazette (online), February 2, 2016, 3:32 p.m.; hard copy: James Q. Lynch and Rod Boshart, "Surge Propelling Rubio in GOP Race; Florida Senator's Third Place is 1 Point Short of Trump's Finish," The Gazette, February 3, 2016, p. A1. Note that Rubio was not even compared in the headline with the one who finished with the most support; he was compared with Donald Trump. (The Washington Post home page for February 3 headlined, "Establishment Candidates Target a Surging Rubio.")

 When I wrote "Why Nobody 'Wins' the Iowa Caucus" I wasn't thinking about ties. My point was about the genuine story, and significance of the outcome of this first opportunity for citizens to participate in the nomination process. The Caucus can tell us which candidates demonstrate enough popular support to warrant their continuing to campaign into the subsequent primaries. For this purpose, probably something like 20-35 percent of the "state delegate equivalents" would be enough to warrant continuing.

 There will be a winner and a loser next November 8. One can "win" an election. But there is nothing to "win" in the Iowa Caucus. Even if there were, it is clearly not "winner take all." Candidates are not elected president at the Iowa Caucus; they are not even nominated to run for the presidency. Even if, after the Iowa state conventions, a single candidate ended up with all of Iowa's delegates to the Democratic National Convention it would have a minuscule impact on the Party's ultimate selection of its presidential nominee.

 The media can declare that the Caucus is a competitive contest that one candidate "wins" and all the others lose, but that doesn't make it one –- except for the media owners looking for viewers and subscribers.

 Moreover, to speak of a Democratic Party "winner" of the 2016 Iowa Caucus is even sillier than it normally would be -– because this year it was, from any rational and reasonable perspective, literally "a tie."

 Sanders' accomplishment was remarkable in light of the conventional wisdom that his support was limited to Black Hawk, Johnson, and Story counties, where the Regents' three public universities are located. In fact, as one might expect in a tie, both candidates had support in counties all across the state -– with both usually well within percentages between 40 and 60 percent. However, Sanders' appeal to young people was unprecedented. "Of the estimated 31,000 young people who caucused for the Democrats on Monday, 84 percent supported Sen. Bernie Sanders — a much higher percentage than even Barack Obama garnered during his first run for the White House in 2008. During Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucuses eight years ago, then Sen. Obama won support from 57 percent of both the 17-24 age group and the 25-29 group . . .." Vanessa Miller, "Percent of Youth Caucusing for Bernie Sanders Surpassed that for Obama in 2008; 'They're wanting to be a part of his political revolution,'" The Gazette (online), February 2, 2016, 5:20 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Election 2016: Wide Support for Sanders Among Young Iowa Voters; Obama Received Smaller Ratio in State's 2008 Caucuses," The Gazette, February 3, 2016, p. 8A.

 And Sanders did all of this coming from nothing, an unknown in Iowa, with no pre-existing political machine in place, and no money -- refusing PAC money, he had to pay the bills with 2.3 million contributors averaging $27, finding supporters one at a time, while attracting the largest crowds of any candidate (nationally as well as within Iowa).

 So how was Senator Sanders' incredible accomplishment described by the media?

 The CNN headline was typical: Tami Luhby and Nia-Malika Henderson, "Hillary Clinton Wins Iowa Caucuses," CNN, February 3, 2016, 12:23 p.m.

 In fairness, the Iowa branch of the Democratic Party Establishment contributed to this misrepresentation, whether deliberately or inadvertently, that Hillary was "the winner" (as she herself declared). Erin Jordan, "Slim Win for Clinton Sign of Lengthy Nomination Process; 'Iowans Like a Contest , Not a Coronation,'", The Gazette (online), February 2, 2016, 8:11 p.m.; hard copy: Erin Jordan, "Election 2016: Slim Clinton Win Signals Lengthy Fight Ahead; Close Race Raises Questions of Just How Well Caucuses Were Run," The Gazette, February 3, 2016, p. A1 ("The Iowa Democratic Party declared Clinton the winner at 2:30 a.m. Tuesday with all but one of the 1,683 precincts reporting. . . . Clinton had 49.8 percent of state delegate equivalents and Sanders had 49.6 percent, with 171,109 Democrats participating. . . . 'The Iowa Democratic Party is declaring Hillary a winner and that is a victory for her,' said Chris Larimer, University of Northern Iowa associate political science professor, who did not caucus Monday.")

 So why this disparity in reporting? Why is Hillary "the winner"? Why is Rubio "surging" and "propelled," despite this "loser's" third-place finish? Has not Sanders been "surging" and "propelled" as much or more than Rubio along the same glide path? Yet the media tells us that, notwithstanding Sanders' at least equal, if not much greater unprecedented accomplishment, we should think of him as the "loser" and Hillary as the "winner" of the Iowa Democrats' Caucus. Why is that?

 How could I know the answer? I don't. But there are some things I do know.

"[T] he media's owners are, by definition, well within the 1%. They have every possible financial, political, ideological, and social motive to try to prevent him [Senator Bernie Sanders] being taken seriously. Savvy media employees who wish to stay employed can't help but be aware of the advantages offered them if they will cut back on or eliminate coverage of him (see description of the shameful exclusion of him by "Meet the Press" in "Bernie's Media Challenge," June 19, 2015), and when unavoidable (perhaps because he is getting the largest number of contributors and audience members of any candidate) diminish his reputation with ridicule, marginalization, and dismissal as "a socialist" whose views are "out of the mainstream."

 Second, with rare exceptions, profit-driven media do not have the space or time, or a sufficient number of highly educated, informed and analytical journalists, to present lengthy print, online, or televised discussions of major public policy issues in a way that will involve, inform, and hold an American audience. (See "Three-Legged Calves, Wolves, Sheep and Democracy's Media," Dec. 1, 2014.) Thus, even if media owners were supportive of Senator Sanders' views, they aren't really set up to present anyone's views at length. Thus, political coverage tends to focus on fundraising (e.g., Senator Rand Paul's mediocre contributions; Jeb Bush's $100 million), poll results (e.g., leading Republicans excluded from Fox News debate), gotcha moments (e.g., Governor Rick Perry's 2012 "oops" moment), the bizarre (e.g., Donald Trump's behavior, characterized by Dan Rather as somewhat similar to "a manure spreader in a windstorm"), physical appearance (e.g., the Donald's hair; women's clothing), and those portions of candidates' past history they'd rather forget (e.g., Hillary Clinton's Arkansas Whitewater, 1990s healthcare efforts, Benghazi, 50,000 emails).
 "Senator Bernie Sanders and America's 'Mainstream'," July 25, 2015, 8:45 a.m.

 And, from "Bernie's Media Challenge," June 19, 2015:

Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting's research discloses that between January 3rd and May 3rd of 2015, Meet the Press (NBC; host, Chuck Todd) made no mention whatsoever of Senator Bernie Sanders, notwithstanding 16 mentions of Hillary Clinton, 13 of Jeb Bush, 12 of Scott Walker, 11 of Chris Christie, and 10 each for Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee. In total, 24 presidential candidates received mentions during this four-month period. Bernie? Zero. "Meet the Press Breaks Its Silence on Bernie Sanders," Extra!, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), June 2015, vol. 28, no. 5, p. 3 ("Meet the Press host Chuck Todd . . . declared on the show's May 3 episode . . . 'I'm obsessed with elections.' Yet the one major candidate who had announced he was running that week -- Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who declared on April 30 he was running for the Democratic nomination -- was strikingly ignored on that same broadcast.")

Bernie Sanders is the only avowed "Democratic Socialist" serving in the United States Congress. Defeating both Democrats and Republicans, he served as Vermont's only member of the House of Representatives for 16 years (1990-2006). Sanders has now served in the United States Senate for more than nine years (2006 to the present). As acknowledged by Todd himself . . . , in all those years, Meet the Press never saw fit to have Sanders appear on "America's most watched...Sunday morning public affairs program" until September 14, 2014 when Sanders was interviewed about his "possible" run for the Presidency. (One month earlier than the October date initially cited by Todd in response to FAIR.)
 Ernest A. Canning, "Bernie Who? Media Watchdog Documents NBC's 'Meet the Press' Marginalization of Sanders," The Brad Blog, May 11, 2015
 Only following FAIR's report was an invitation extended, which Bernie accepted. "Meet the Press Transcript - May 31, 2015." While it certainly counted as an after-the-fact "mention" of his candidacy, it was scarcely an effort to explore his past and approach to the issues.

[T]he interview degenerated into full horse-race, candidate-personality mode. Specifically, Todd sought Sanders's views on . . . Hillary Clinton. He began indirectly by asking Sanders to weigh the relative merits of Bill Clinton's presidency versus Barack Obama's. . . . [H]e asked Sanders to comment on Hillary Clinton's apparent leftward movement on a number of issues, including "same-sex marriage, on immigration … on NAFTA, on trade, on the Iraq War, on Cuba. She has moved from a position, basically, in disagreement with you, to a position that comes closer to your view. So I guess is, do you take her at her word?"

 Cue the horse race! To his credit, Sanders refused to take the bait. Instead, he expressed hope that "the media will allow us to have a serious debate in this campaign on the enormous issues facing the American people" and tried to move the conversation to his policy views. Todd, however, had no interest in having a serious debate on the issues . . ..
 Matthew Dickinson, "Bernie Sanders and Chuck Todd's 'Meet the Press' fiasco: 50 shades of bad; Bernie Sanders deftly refused to engage in media-generated controversy and expressed hope that 'the media will allow us to have a serious debate in this campaign,'" Christian Science Monitor, June 1, 2015.

 Both Clinton and Sanders have now agreed to an additional debate this Thursday evening at the University of New Hampshire in Durham. Alan Rappeport, "Bernie Sanders Says Yes to Debate Thursday Night," New York Times (online), February 3, 2016, 11:18 a.m.

 And who has NBC selected as a moderator for that debate, along with Rachel Maddow? That's right, Chuck Todd.

 # # #</big>email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-16267804605878900622016-02-01T14:43:00.000-06:002016-02-01T15:05:20.558-06:00Why Nobody 'Wins' the Iowa Caucus2:43 p.m.
 <big>Why the Iowa Caucus Matters -- and Why It Doesn't
 This blog essay is deliberately being written and posted the afternoon before the evening when Iowa's 1600-plus precincts will hold their Republican and Democratic Party caucuses. It's not designed as spin for any candidate's effort to explain the outcome after the fact.

The caucus process does matter -- just not in the way many people think (because that's the way the media told them to think). It's analogous to the way we will "elect" our president in November -- though, once again, not in the way we think (it is the Electoral College that picks the president).

 One can accurately speak of the "winner" of the Democratic National Convention's presidential nomination process the week of July 25 in Philadelphia. Only one will be chosen from among however many potential presidential candidates there are at that time; the one selected can be said to have "won" the nomination. Similarly, only one of those nominated for president by our country's political parties will get the most electoral votes on November 8, 2016. That person can be said to have "won" the presidency.

 So why does no one "win" the caucus?

 The answer requires a little explanation of the categories of caucus significance.

 (1) The nomination process. Technically, the precinct caucuses are the first step in a process of intra-party governance. The precinct caucuses are like town meetings of everyone registered to vote who has expressed a party preference. They are, subject to those limitations, open to all. What they produce are delegates to the next stage: the county conventions. The county conventions choose delegates to the congressional districts' conventions. They, in turn, select delegates to the parties' state conventions. And it is at the state conventions that the delegates to the parties' national conventions are chosen.

There will be 4,763 delegates at the Democratic National Convention. It will take 2,382 to win the nomination. Of those, Iowa will have 44 -- about 1% (roughly the same as Iowa's percentage of the national population). It is in this sense that even Iowa's ultimate national convention delegates will have relatively little impact on who is ultimately nominated. And if they have little, the delegates to the county conventions, selected in tonight's precinct caucuses will have essentially no impact at all.

 So there will be no "winner" of the caucuses tonight in the sense of impact on the parties' governing processes or ultimate selection of their presidential candidates.

 (2) The campaign. Even in terms of the campaign, except for one possible scenario, the caucus results mean little (separating out the media consequences, discussed next). With 50 states, there are a string of caucuses and primaries between now and the summer, starting with Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. As they progress, and a candidate has a substantial lead in the race to line up the magic number of 2,382 delegates, an individual state's primary may take on relative significance. But in the early stages -- and Iowa is the first -- the outcomes are of relevance primarily in weeding out, or further propelling, candidates. (Of course, with a billionaire's backing, a candidate can stay in the race so long as the money keeps coming regardless of how disappointing the outcomes may be.)

 It is in that sense, so far as the campaign is concerned, that a candidate can be a "loser" -- in the sense that the support proves to be so minimal that the wisest (or only financially feasible) choice is to drop out -- but one cannot be a "winner" in any meaningful sense. Not only is it not a winner-take-all contest, there is really nothing to "win." The result is one of dividing up shares of support. And so long as a candidate's share is above -- name your percentage; I'd say 20-30% with three or fewer candidates, maybe as 10-20% when more -- it is reasonable for him or her to continue on. If you want to call that "winning," OK, but by this definition essentially everyone "wins."

 As of this afternoon it is impossible to know the outcome. But I think it reasonable, based on the polls, to assume that both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders will end up with at least 30% of the "state delegate equivalents" (which is the measure) and rationally conclude there is no reason to consider dropping out.

 (3) The media. It is the media, TV and newspapers primarily, that have turned the Iowa caucuses into a winner-take-all phenomenon in which the candidate who gets the most state delegate equivalents is declared by them to have "won" the Iowa caucuses, while all others have "lost." Given that Donald Trump is not the only American who prefers winning to losing, the declaration by the media of a "winner" is of significance -- even though it could not rationally have been but for their declaration.

 A sub-set of this presentation involves "expectations" -- the candidates who exceed, or fail to meet, the percentages of delegates that the media's pundits said they would have. (It is, in this sense, as much a matter of winners and losers among the media as among the candidates.) But "expectations" in politics, as in sports, can be manipulated by the parties as well. That does not, however, reduce their potential impact in the media-created horse race.

 The media-anointed winner goes on to New Hampshire with the wind at his or her back, and tries to hold on to the title until is is wrest from their grasp by a different candidate in a future primary.

 This is, in the final analysis, why it really is important to be proclaimed the winner -- even though it is of little consequence otherwise in any rational analysis.

 So do go to your precinct caucus. It is important. Besides it is fun. It is rewarding. You are engaging in an important, and meaningful act of responsible citizenship in a democracy.

 But its most meaningful impact will be measured only in terms of the next couple of days' news cycles.

 Nobody "wins" the Iowa caucus.

 # # #</big> </big>email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-22825742676908089192016-02-01T07:52:00.000-06:002016-03-05T10:09:46.381-06:00UI President Harreld - Feb. 2016Note: Cessation of Ongoing Harreld Repository [Feb. 29]. For the past six months, since the Iowa Board of Regents' selection of Bruce Harreld as president of the University of Iowa, this blog has endeavored to compile a relatively complete repository of links to, and comments about, the news stories and opinion pieces dealing with the Board of Regents, President Harreld, and related items of relevance to higher education in general and the University of Iowa in particular. They are contained in the blogs for September-October, November, December, 2015, and January and February, 2016 ( linked below).

 I thought they would be a useful resource for those looking for a single source to follow the saga, as well as for those in future years wishing to do serious research, or merely inform themselves, about this important slice of UI's history. Response from readers indicates it has at least provided the former function.

 Now as they say, "as a concession to the shortness of life," and a desire to get back to other writing, I am going to reclaim those daily hours of research for other tasks. As major UI stories worthy of individual blog essays come along they will, of course be blogged about from time to time. But for thorough research beyond February 29, 2016, I'm referring readers to the alternative of inserting well-crafted search terms in Google. -- N.J., February 29, 2016

 February 1-29, 2016

 Note: The Iowa Board of Regents' process used in the search for, and ultimate selection of, a new president for the University of Iowa has been highly controversial throughout. For the details, with links to hundreds of documents, news stories, and opinion pieces, visit this: repository of links from September 2-October 31, 2015 (which also includes links to additional blog posts).

 The continuation of that coverage, reporting on events and statements from President Bruce Harreld during his administration, is first found in "UI President Harreld - Nov. 2015," for the month of November, starting with the anticipatory stories on November 1, followed by his first day on the job, November 2.

 Equivalent material for December can be found -->HERE<--, and for January 2016 -->HERE<--.

 This blog post, "UI President Harreld - Feb. 2016," is where the continuation of coverage will be found for the month of February, 2016.

 -- Nicholas Johnson, February 1, 2016

 <big>Contents (with links)
February 1-3, 2016
February 4-6, 2016
February 7-9, 2016
February 10-12, 2016
February 13-15, 2016
February 16-18, 2016
February 19-21, 2016
February 22-24, 2016
Nicholas Johnson, "Commentary on President Harreld's First 'Town Hall' Meeting," Feb. 24, 2016
February 25-27, 2016
February 28-29, 2016

 February 1-3, 2016
 Jeff Charis-Carlson, "UI Denies Request to Release Polling Data," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), January 29, 2016, 3:49 p.m.; hard copy: Jeff Charis-Carlson, "UI Denies Request to Release Polling Data; Response Comes Nearly a Month After Concerns Are Raised Over Contract Without Competitive Bids," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 30, 2016, p. A3 ("'The University of Iowa declines your request and restates that the report is of the type which shall be confidential as required by section 22.7(6),' Carroll Reasoner, UI's vice president for legal affairs and general counsel, wrote in a letter dated Friday [Jan. 29] and provided to the Press-Citizen. The response comes nearly one month after FOI Council Executive Director Randy Evans sent a letter raising concerns about UI's refusal to release documents related to polling data done for the university by a company owned by former Iowa Republican Party Chairman Matt Strawn. Evans wrote the letter in response to an Associated Press article concerning how Strawn's company had received contracts worth about $320,000 without competitive bids. AP reported that UI was keeping some of the documents secret under a section of Iowa's open records law that allows for confidentiality for 'reports to governmental agencies which, if released, would give advantage to competitors and serve no public purpose.'")

 The absence of additional links to UI and higher education news and opinion pieces (including my own) during these last four days of January has not been for want of content. Maintaining a repository of the journalistic history of the administration of UI's President Bruce Harreld (along with news of other challenges to higher education generally with implications for the University of Iowa) is a bountiful source of material. The unfolding story remains compelling.

 By way of explanation for readers not residing in Iowa, this break in reporting is a function of the fact that the focus of Iowa news and Iowa citizens' efforts during the last week of January through the night of February 1, 2016, has been on "The Iowa Caucus." However, none of the links to relevant material during this political interlude has been ignored or lost. They will be reported here, and commented upon in due time.

 February 4-6, 2016
 Clearly today's [Feb. 5] top story is Ryan Foley's Des Moines Register revelations regarding the leaked results of the infamous Chris Perkins' polls and focus groups perceptions of the University of Iowa. "Pollster Warned University of Iowa of 'Party School Image,'" Associated Press/Des Moines Register (online), February 4, 2016, 4:35 p.m.; hard copy: Ryan Foley, "Republican Pollster Warned UI of 'Party School Image,'" Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 5, 2016, p. A1

 This is yet one more phase of what has been a duplicitous disaster from start to finish that now rests with a flashing red light in the center of President Bruce Harreld's desk.

 1. The roughly $25,000 contract was set at $24,900, thereby avoiding the competitive bidding required for contracts of $25,000 or more. As Ryan Foley reported at the time, "The University of Iowa has quietly awarded several no-bid contracts totaling $321,900 to a prominent GOP consultant . . .. [It looks] like a sweetheart deal among Republican insiders and a potential waste of money. The university sidestepped a policy that normally requires competitive bidding [on contracts of $25,000 or more; this contract was for $24,900] to ensure services are obtained at the lowest cost . . .. [S]ome of the money has gone for statewide opinion polling that the university is refusing to make public, saying doing so would 'serve no public purpose.'" See "UI President Harreld - Dec. 2015," Section December 7-9, 2015.

 2. It was a part of the Republican insiders self-dealing that has surfaced in a number of other contexts. See the nine headings required to lay out the range of problems in "Trouble in River City: Corruption Creep," December 13, 2015.

 3. UI administrators stonewalled the release of the results (in violation of Iowa law according to one expert), thereby creating increased ill will and suspicion among Iowa media and public -- a fundamental violation of basic crisis management principles. For a little guidance, see "Crisis Communications 101," February 14, 2011.

 4. And today, with Ryan Foley's revelations, we discover that the results of the Perkins' survey are consistent with the common sense intuition of many critics of the University and City of Iowa City's tolerance of students' binge drinking; how the balance has been struck between students' welfare and increased tuition revenues, it turns out, is not only harmful to students' health and academic achievement, it is also so harmful to the University's reputation that it also poses an impediment to the increased enrollment it is designed to encourage. (In the past the UI Administration actually approved a ludicrous rationale for its joint contracts with alcohol manufacturers. See, e.g., "What is this about? The UI is going to do its damnedest to accelerate the consumption of alcohol by our students, and in the process Anheuser-Busch's profits. After all, that's why for-profit corporations advertise, especially with emotionally compelling logos for children, such as Joe Camel (to encourage smoking) or Herky (to encourage drinking). And the school is doing this to accomplish what? To raise money for its 'alcohol harm reduction plan'?" "A Busch in the Hand is Worth . . .," June 16, 2012.)

 Here are some excerpts from Foley's report related to the last point:
A Republican pollster warned the University of Iowa a year ago that its public standing was suffering from an image as a heavy-drinking school where sexual assault was too common, according to a report obtained by The Associated Press that school officials have withheld from the public.

 Washington-based pollster Chris Perkins told university leaders that those perceptions meant the school was no longer considered safe by some parents and students, and had lost some credibility "as a serious academic institution." Perkins, who received the polling work under a controversial university no-bid contract with a GOP insider, recommended specific messages for a communications strategy to combat the image.

 "Iowans believe that cleaning up the party school image at the University of Iowa will result in attracting more students, gaining more research grants and overall improving the education system," Perkins wrote in the 52-page report, which was prepared for university leaders following a statewide poll of 1,000 residents in December 2014.

 Earlier that year, protests erupted when the university's then-president, Sally Mason, said sexual assault could never be completely eliminated because of "human nature." The issue had become an increasing public concern in 2013, when the school started releasing public warnings about reported rapes involving acquaintances. The Princeton Review also named the university the nation's no. 1 party school in 2013.

 The university won't release documents detailing polls and focus groups conducted by Perkin's firm, Wilson Perkins Allen. The AP obtained the undated report from a university employee who requested anonymity because the school didn't authorize its disclosure.

 The school has said that releasing the information would help rival schools and "serve no public purpose." But the secrecy has been pilloried by open government advocates, including Iowa Freedom of Information Council executive director Randy Evans, who suggested this week that the school was illegally trying to hide embarrassing information.
 One of the purposes of this repository of links to news and opinion pieces that collectively record the history of UI President Harreld's administration is to suggest to him, his supporters, and his critics, issues he might want to be thinking about. He can't be expected to have arrived in Jessup Hall with his mind fully informed and irrevocably made up regarding all of them. Nor would it be desirable if he had. A part of his challenge, as he himself has freely acknowledged, is building that base of knowledge and understanding.

 But "leadership" of any organization requires an answer to the question, "is there a 'there' there?" That is, does the leader have a moral compass, a pole star, by which he guides his inquiries, opinions, beliefs -- and public statements. So far, we have very little evidence of this with regard to the dozens of issues that have been laid out in this blog over the course of the last five months. I have praised his assertions regarding his determination to create and maintain integrity in UI's athletic program. Hopefully, he intends to show leadership with regard to integrity throughout the University. We could now use a little of that leadership, a little application of the platform of principles upon which he stands, with regard to this public relations (and substantive) disaster.

 February 7-9, 2016
 The UI's continued stonewalling regarding the poll results it paid for, first laid out in "UI President Harreld - Feb. 2016," February 4-6, 2016, will probably remain a hot issue until the University ultimately complies with the law. Ryan Foley, "Pollster Warned University of Iowa of 'Party School Image,'" Associated Press/Des Moines Register (online), February 4, 2016, 4:35 p.m.; hard copy: Ryan Foley, "Republican Pollster Warned UI of 'Party School Image,'" Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 5, 2016, p. A1 ("In his report, Perkins recommended that the university emphasize messages about 'working to crack down on underage drinking and drug problems' and 'prosecuting sexual assault and harassment criminals.' He said the party school image could hurt student recruitment, and warned that perceived high debt loads for graduates and financial aid shortages were other concerns.")

 The Gazette has now editorialized on the subject. Editorial, "University of Iowa Should Release Matt Strawn Polling Documents," The Gazette (online), February 6, 2016, 6:00 a.m.; hard copy: Editorial, "University Should Release Strawn Polling Documents," The Gazette, February 6, 2016, p. A5 ("Sadly, the University of Iowa again is circling its wagons in the face of a call for transparency. This time, the university is refusing to release documents pertaining to opinion polls and focus groups conducted in 2013 and 2015 by a firm owned by former Republican Party of Iowa Chairman Matt Strawn. More than $320,000 worth of contracts were awarded to Strawn's firm without competitive bidding, a process overseen by UI Vice President for External Relations Peter Matthes. Matthes worked for Republicans in the Iowa Senate while Strawn chaired the party. . . . 'The statute does not require that the report be released just because some member of the public might want to know what was in it,' Carroll J. Reasoner, [UI] vice president for legal affairs and general counsel, wrote in a response. . . . [Iowa Freedom of Information Council's Randy]Evans argues the statute was intended to shield reports from private entities regulated by government, such as business financial data, not reports paid for with public funds. We agree, and find Reasoner's curt response to be sorely lacking.")

 UIHC: The Sick Should Avoid Hospitals. Deaths from iatrogenic disease (conditions caused by hospitals and doctors) are now the nation's third leading cause of death (after heart disease and cancer). There is no reason to think the UI's hospital would be an exception. Marshall Allen, "How Many Die From Medical Mistakes in U.S. Hospitals? National Public Radio/Pro Publica, September 24, 2013. It's yet one more issue for the president of a university with a research hospital to think about. Note the "crisis communications" difference between how President Harreld's office stoewalled while the UIHC went public (albeit, no doubt, motivated in part by a desire to minimize liability). Here's a current example at Iowa.

 Josh O'Leary, "UIHC Warns 1,700 Surgery Patients of Infection Risk," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), February 5, 2016, 12:08 p.m.; hard copy: Josh O'Leary, "UIHC Warns 1,700 of Infection Risk; Patient Infected by a Device Used in Some Heart, Lung and Liver Surgeries," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 6, 2016, p. A3 ("The infection, which is treatable but can be fatal, has symptoms that include a fever lasting more than one week, pain, redness, heat, pus around a surgical incision, night sweats, joint pain, muscle pain, loss of energy and failure in infants to gain weight or grow.")

 Vanessa Miller, "University of Iowa Warns Patients of Potentially Deadly Infection; One Patient Diagnosed with Surgery-Related Illness," The Gazette (online), February 5, 2016, 2:30 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Health Care: UI Alerts Patients to Unlikely but Dangerous Infection; Notices Come as U.S. Officials Warn of Devices Used in Major Operations," The Gazette, February 5, 2016, p. A1 ("The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in October issued a warning . . .. [The UIHC] on Monday [Feb. 1] began sending letters to about 1,500 of its patients potentially subjected to the heater-cooler-related infections in the last four years . . ..")

How to get Harreld's goat: animal rights v. animal research. Here's another ticklish issue for our UI President -- for reasons that won't be elaborated here. There is medical, psychological, and military research affecting humans that either need not be, or cannot be, done with humans. Sometimes the research can be at least begun, and possibly be finished, with the use of animals -- whether fruit flies, pigeons -- or goats. Meanwhile, animal rights advocates believe this use of animals is sometimes unnecessary, and sometimes unnecessarily cruel and hurtful. So apparently the UI is using goats. One escaped, and provided news coverage for ten days. It has now been found and returned, but animal rights folks are complaining about the UI's permitting this to happen with the bitter cold weather we have had during that week.

 Holly Hines, "Elusive Goat Captured by UI Police," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), February 9, 2016, 12:46 p.m. ("The goat escaped from his carrier at the Research Park Jan. 29 while officials were transferring him to a vehicle. The dispatcher said he could not answer any other questions about the goat's capture. . . . [T]he People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals last week argued that the university violated the Animal Welfare Act, saying in a letter to university officials that the goat spent days 'exposed to Coralville's freezing temperatures, alone, frightened and confused, and very likely hungry and thirsty.' [The] group called for the university to relocate the goat to an accredited sanctuary.")

 February 10-12, 2016
 UI's Continued Stonewalling. See above, February 7-9, first item. Today [Feb. 10] the UI's award-winning student paper editorially joins The Gazette and others in condemning the University's refusal to reveal the polling results it paid for. Editorial, "Release Information on UI 'Party School' Report," LThe Daily Iowan (online), February 10, 2016; hard copy: Editorial, "Release Info on UI Report," The Daily Iowan, February 10, 2016, p. A4 ("Chris Perkins, who conducted social research for the University of Iowa, 'warned the university … a year ago that its public standing was suffering from an image as a heavy-drinking school in which sexual assault was too common . . .. [C]ollege campuses have been considered by some to be the notorious prowling ground of sexual predators . . .. The problem persists on the UI campus. On Monday [Feb. 8], two potential sexual assaults were anonymously reported. . . . But given the nature of Perkins' formal warning to the university, and the university's reputation as a top 'party school,' a university setting in which rape culture tends to thrive, UI officials could do more. Though, it seems the administration does not want to, as it may hurt admissions in the coming years. . . . [I]t it is lost to the Daily Iowan Editorial Board exactly how releasing information that could potentially be used to combat a problematic culture perpetuating a history of predation and manipulation serves 'no public purpose.'")

 How to Get Harreld's Goat. See above, February 7-9, third item. As further evidence that public concern regarding the treatment of animals is mainstream politics and journalism these days -- and therefore something research universities have to take into account with regard to their animal research -- The Gazette prominently displayed at the top of its editorial page today [Feb. 10] a column regarding another aspect of the issue (that thankfully, so far as we know, does not involve UI): "puppy mills." Ali Iserman, "Change Animal Welfare Law in Iowa," The Gazette (online), February 10, 2016, 9:52 a.m.; hard copy: Ali Iserman, "Change the Law to Protect Animals in Iowa," The Gazette, February 10, 2016, p. A6 ("Puppy mills are inhumane breeding facilities that produce puppies in large numbers. They are designed to maximize profits and commonly disregard the physical, social and emotional health of the dogs. The breeding dogs at puppy mills often live their entire lives in cramped, filthy cages. They are forced to breed repeatedly, producing litters of puppies that often have physical problems because of the poor conditions. These dogs rarely get the medical attention they need and often are killed once they stop producing puppies.")

 More corporate types stumbling as higher ed leaders. Reported here earlier in UI President Harreld - Jan. 2016," January 1-31, 2016, January 25-27, 2016, "Free Speech on Campus" -- " [St. Mary's U. President Simon] Newman told some faculty members they needed to change the way they think of struggling students. He reportedly said, 'This is hard for you because you think of the students as cuddly bunnies, but you can't. You just have to drown the bunnies . . . put a Glock to their heads.'" Scott Jaschik, "Are At-Risk Students Bunnies to Be Drowned? President's Plan to Weed Out Some Students Soon After They Arrive -- and His Alleged Metaphor for the Plan -- Set Off Furor at Mount St. Mary's U.," Inside Higher Ed (online), January 20, 2016.

 Now the Mount's faculty and students -- and their supporters from around the country -- are in rebellion mode for arbitrary firings of faculty without notice, due process, or cause, at Mount St. Mary's University of Maryland. The asserted grounds? A kind of Mafia-like "disloyalty."

 The Mount's president, Simon Newman, "earned a master of business administration degree from Stanford University's Graduate School of Business, in Palo Alto, California.Mr. Newman has almost 30 years of experience working as an executive with a strong background in private equity, strategy consulting, and operations. He is the former managing director of the private equity fund JP Capital Partners, as well as president and CEO of Cornerstone Management Group, founded in 1997. During his career he has started or co-founded four different businesses, completed more than $33 billion in transactions, and raised more than $3 billion in equity funding for ventures and bids he originated. He has led several business turnarounds and delivered more than $200 million in profit improvements. He started his career in consulting working with Bain & Co and LEK Consulting where he managed the media and entertainment practice working with clients such as Warner Bros., Disney, and Universal Studios. He has also worked at Canal + International, Liberty Media and the investment bank, Wasserstein & Perella." "President Simon Newman."

 For a collection of the current ugly details see, Sarah Brown and Katherine Mangan, "Academic Freedom: Fallout at Mount St. Mary's Spreads as Scholars Protest Firings," The Chronicle of Higher Education (online), February 10, 2016.

 February 13-15, 2016
 Here's how the Iowa Board of Regents define "transparency," "public relations," and "shared governance." Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Regents Set 2016 Schedule for Public Hearings," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), February 12, 2016, 5:32 p.m.; hard copy: Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Regents Set 2016 Schedule for Public Hearings; Most Video Comments Go Unacknowledged," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 15, 2016, p. A1 ("The Iowa Board of Regents has released the 2016 schedule for the public hearings to be held before each of its regular board meetings. Yet most the record-breaking number of people who offered video comment during November's public hearing at the University of Iowa say they have yet to hear anything back from the regents, even an acknowledgement that their comments were viewed.")

 Issues: Is UI's program of proactive prevention of gun and related violence adequate, well-considered and balanced? Should the community have been informed earlier? Was the student accorded due process? Stephen Gruber-Miller, "UI Investigated Threat Referencing Gang Lu," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), February 11, 2016, 6:13 p.m.; hard copy: Stephen Gruber-Miller, "UI Investigated Threat Referencing Gang Lu," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 12, 2016, p. A1 ("University [of Iowa] spokeswoman Jeneane Beck said via email that UI's Threat Assessment Team . . . determined that there was no imminent risk . . .. [I]t seemed to concern comments . . . on the Chinese social media site Weibo . . . : 'I have been studying so hard this semester. If I fail the courses, I will lete (sic) the professors experience the fear of "lugang."' Lu was a UI physics and astronomy graduate student who killed five and paralyzed one in a 1991 campus shooting.")

 And see, "Hangzhou student expelled from University of Iowa after joking about shooting his professors on Weibo," Shanghaiist.com, February 15, 2016 ("The university's response to Ni was undertaken without notifying the campus at large, a fact that [Mason] Clarke protested: 'I definitely think the university should put out a notification of this when it happens. I think that these things should not go under the radar, and people should be made aware.' . . . In January, a 19-year-old Chinese exchange student in Arizona was gunned down inside her car at an intersection after a minor fender-bender. Following the incident, numerous Chinese students in the US said they were thinking about buying a gun to protect themselves.")

 UI President Harreld's pledge to insure the integrity of the athletics program has not yet been evidenced in any comments regarding Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's assertion that the football team "endorsed" Trump (as the quarterback and 11 players stood by his side and presented him with a Hawkeye shirt), or the latest embarrassment: Ryan Foley, "Feds Open Broad Bias Probe Into UI Athletics," Associated Press/Des Moines Register (online), February 12, 2016, 7:04 p.m.; hard copy: Ryan Foley, "Hawkeye Athletes in Fed's Crosshairs; Gender Bias Alleged in 13 Areas; School Providing Info," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 13, 2016, p. A1 ("The University of Iowa is facing a wide-ranging federal civil rights investigation into allegations that its athletics department does not provide equal opportunities for female athletes . . .. The Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education is looking into gender bias allegations in 13 areas, including how the department counts participation levels, awards scholarships, schedules practices and games, and delivers services such as tutoring, medical attention, housing and dining. A team of investigators will visit the Iowa City campus in April . . ..")

 The Washington Post makes this a national story: "Education/APNewsBreak: Feds Open Broad Bias Probe Into Iowa Athletics," Washington Post (online)/Associated Press, February 12, 2016.

 Announced Wednesday, effective Monday?! Whoa!
The University of Iowa is combining its vice presidency for medical affairs and the dean of its medical school into a single position, which will be held by Jean Robillard, the former interim university president.

 The new leadership structure will be effective Monday [Feb. 15], university officials announced Wednesday [Feb. 10] . . . .

 Robillard said the reorganization has been approved by UI President Bruce Harreld.

 Changes this high in the administrative level at one of Iowa's public universities typically require approval from the Iowa Board of Regents, the nine-member board that oversees UI, Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa. The board is next scheduled to meet Feb. 24-25 in Ames.

 Regent officials confirmed Wednesday that the changes will be on the docket for the next meeting and said the board will give retroactive approval.
 Jeff Charis-Carlson, "UI Shuffles Health Care Leadership; Robillard Now Med School Dean," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), February 10, 2016, 3:45 p.m.; hard copy: Jeff Charis-Carlson, "UI to Combine Medical VP, Dean Positions Into a Single Post," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 11, 2016, p. A1.

 February 16-18, 2016
 Issues: effectiveness of UI's anti-binge-drinking efforts; students violating law; athletic program's response to athletes' law violations: Stephen Gruber-Miller, "Reserve Iowa Hawkeyes defensive back . . . charged with OWI," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), February 15, 2016, 1:47 p.m.; hard copy: Stephen Gruber-Miller, "Hawkeye Defensive Back Charged with OWI," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 16, 2016, p. A7 (the UI's entering into a joint marketing agreement with Budweiser is but one illustration of the history of the UI's ambivalence on these issues: For background and commentry on the Anheuser-Busch deal, UI's alcohol programs, and numerous ignored proposals for improvement, see, among many more, e.g.: "UI Administrators 'Shocked' By School's Beer Ads," August 30, 2012; "'We're # 2!' . . . in Campus Drunks," August 21, 2012; "A Busch in the Hand is Worth . . .," June 16, 2012.
 "Football Trash Talk; Iowa City: Where Great Minds Drink Alike," September 12, 2012. And see generally, "Football; FromDC2Iowa: Football-Related Blog Essays," April 30, 2015, and its section on Alcohol.
The name of the athlete has not been included in this blog because I see no reason to add to the athlete's searchable online record with a blog mention.)
 For the record, Iowa's liquor control laws are in chapter 123 of the Iowa Code. "Legal age" is set at 21. Sec. 123.3 (19). Sec. 123.47 (1) forbids providing alcohol to anyone under 21. And Sec. 123.47 (2) forbids those under age to possess alcoholic beverages. The football player is 19 years old. Thus, it is highly likely that someone in addition to him also violated Iowa law. Does anybody care? Probably not.)

 Faculty resignations: "The primary reasons cited by resigning faculty members at Iowa State were 'dissatisfaction with the departmental environment, lack of perceived advancement opportunities, and lack of perceived partner accommodation opportunities,' according to regent documents." So, is the UI really that much more an accommodating and pleasant higher ed environment, or are UI's profs just less candid? Vanessa Miller, "University of Iowa Resignations Surge 36 Percent; 90 Resignations Mark Most Among Iowa Universities Since at Least 2006," The Gazette (online), February 16, 2016, 7:05 p.m. ("The University of Iowa last year saw 90 faculty members resign, marking a 36 percent increase and qualifying as the most in one year at any of Iowa's public universities since at least 2006. . . . That means the 185 UI employees who took advantage of an Early Retirement Incentive Program offered last year in hopes of cutting costs and improving efficiency came in addition to the 90 employees who resigned.")

 Jeff Charis-Carlson, "UI Sees Jump in Faculty Resignations," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), February 16, 2016, 1:31 p.m. ("'It is a jump from the last several years,' said Kevin Kregel, UI's associate provost for faculty. 'We are evaluating where the specific increases are coming from.' . . . Kregel also pointed out that the majority of last year's resignations — 65 of the 90 — come from UI's Carver College of Medicine. . . . UI also has the highest number of resignations from minority faculty members among regents universities, with 25.")

 Issue: Ever-escalating pricing for college education; does rationale for free K-12 education apply to community colleges and research universities? If not, why not? If compromise, what is the proper division between benefit to society (share paid by the state) and benefit to the graduate (share paid by student)? Vanessa Miller, "Iowa's Regent Universities Look to Increase Room and Board Rates; University of Iowa Rates to Increase 2.9 Percent," The Gazette (online), February 16, 2016, 6:45 p.m.

 Campus security, football and rape; this story is back in the news two months later. Danielle Paquette, "The Disturbing Truth About College Football and Rape," The Washington Post (online), December 29, 2015 ("[Texas A&M University economics professor Jason] Lindo . . . and his colleagues analyzed 22 years of FBI data to compare reports of rape to the law enforcement agencies serving students at Division 1 schools on game days to reports on non-game days, controlling for differences expected across different days of the week and times of the year. They found a strong link between football match-ups and an increase in college women, ages 17 to 24, reporting rape. Such reports increased on the days of home games by 41 percent, according to a new study, published Monday [Dec. 28, 2015]. They spiked 15 percent during away games. And after underdog teams unexpectedly beat higher-ranked opponents on campus, reported rapes on average surged a whopping 57 percent.")

 Campus security and the open door policy. Vanessa Miller, "University of Iowa Asks for Student Help in Dorm Security; 'If You Don't Know the Person Behind You, Don't Open It,'" The Gazette (online), February 17, 2016, 5:44 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Dorm Intrusion Serves as Cautionary Tale; University of Iowa Students Becoming More Wary of Letting Others In and Leaving Rooms Unlocked," The Gazette, February 18, 2016, p. A1 ("UI officials on Wednesday said they hope students will learn something from the intrusion, which involved a 23-year-old non-student who police said stole a key to a Burge Hall restroom and videotaped a female student showering inside.")

 Harreld rewards AD Barta with more than doubled wage notwithstanding lawsuits and federal investigation of athletic program's alleged Title IX violations -- from $400,000 starvation wage to $550,000 + $250,000 + $100,000 more in 2018, more than doubling his salary to $900,000 a year!! Marc Morehouse, "Iowa, Barta Agree to Extension; Despite Ongoing Courtroom Battles, Harreld Backs Hawkeyes Athletics Director," The Gazette (online), February 17, 2016, 6:14 p.m.; hard copy: Marc Morehouse, "University of Iowa: Iowa, Barta Agree to Extension; Despite Ongoing Courtroom Battles, Harreld Backs AD," The Gazette, February 18, 2016, p. B1 ("According to UI documents, Barta and UI President Bruce Harreld agreed to a five-year contract extension effective Jan. 1, 2016. Barta's base salary will increase from $400,000 to $550,000 in July. The deal also guarantees $250,000 in annual deferred compensation. Both amounts increase by $50,000 in 2018. . . . [T]he news of a contract extension is up for your interpretation. There have been a lot of great accomplishments and a lot of lawyering up with Iowa athletics in the last year. 'Director Barta is a longtime member of the University of Iowa family and extending his contract was the right thing to do,' Harreld said in a statement Wednesday. 'He and the entire athletics department are committed to the success of our student-athletes both on the field of play and in the classroom.'" And with their OWI violations, he might have added; see Feb. 13-15, first item, above.) [Football and rape study, two items up.]

 February 19-21, 2016
 If it weren't so sad, outrageous, and infuriating, it would be hilarious. "Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Another Record Number at Regents Hearings; Commenters raise concerns about next week's town hall meeting with UI President Bruce Harreld," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), February 18, 2016, 5:14 p.m.; hard copy: Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Hearing at UI Draws Record Number; Nearly All Express Frustration About Hearing System," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 19, 2016, p. A3 ("Nearly all of the 10 commenters expressed frustration about the regents' three-year-old hearing system in which members of the public are asked to gather at one of six sites around the state to offer up to five minutes worth of recorded commentary. 'This entire set up of so-called "public hearings," which are really one-way videotapes with no obligation on your ends to engage with our contributions, speaks volumes about'" the regents' disregard of Iowa's strong reputation for higher education, said Matthew Brown, an associate professor of English at UI.")

 Vanessa Miller, "Speakers at University of Iowa Hearing Criticize 'Troubling' Regent Communication Process; 'Step Up or, in Fact, Step Down,'" The Gazette (online), February 18, 2016, 7:36 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Regents: UI Speakers Sound Off on Format for Public Hearings; Process of Submitting Recorded Comments to Regents Criticized," The Gazette, February 19, 2016, p. A2 ("Most of the 10 people who spoke Thursday during a Board of Regents public hearing at the University of Iowa did not address issues on the board's meeting agenda for next week but instead criticized the board for its management 'failures' and the impersonal public hearing process it uses. 'It's troubling that this is the extent of the dialogue that I get, is speaking into a webcam,' said UI graduate student and teaching assistant Hodna Nuernberg. 'I really would call on you the regents to step up or, in fact, step down and resign. Because I don't think that this is a legitimate process.' . . . No one verifies board members watch the videos.")

 David Pitt, "Iowa State Leaders Appeal Free Speech-Marijuana Logo Case," Associated Press/Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 18, 2016, 6:36 p.m.; hard copy: David Pitt, "ISU Appeals Free Speech-Marijuana Logo Case," Associated Press/Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 19, 2016, p. A6 ("Iowa State University administrators are appealing a federal judge's ruling that they violated the free speech rights of student members of a pro-marijuana group by barring them from using the university logos on T-shirts.")

 Vanessa Miller, "Higher Education: ISU Appeals to Keep Logo Off Marijuana Shirts; Administrators Hopeful that Ruling in Student Group's Favor Will be Reversed," The Gazette, February 20, 2016, p. A3

 Shelton Stromquist, "Past Presidents Can Teach Us Lessons," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), February 16, 2016, 5:51 p.m.; hard copy: Shelton Stromquist, "Past Presidents Can Teach Us Lessons," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 17, 2016, p. A9 ("University of Iowa students, faculty, staff and alumni, and for that matter the citizens of Iowa generally, have been treated in recent months to vague and insubstantial comments by newly-appointed president Bruce Harreld and the Board of Regents about what the future might hold for the University of Iowa. . . . We need to be mindful of what lies at the core of what institutions like the University of Iowa have been and should be in the future, as [UI President James O.] Freedman reminded us, and not be distracted by a transitory siren song for change or the imperatives of marketplace values whose fashions and frills will come and go. And we must challenge the corporate-speak that masks an agenda for undoing a tradition of creative inquiry that universities must uphold, as President Freedman so well understood and so powerfully articulated.")

 February 22-24, 2016
 Erin Jordan provides a useful review and update on the U.S. Office of Civil Rights investigation of the UI's athletic programs and related matters in this morning's online Gazette: Erin Jordan, "Newstrack: Investigation of Gender Equity in University of Iowa Athletics Expands; Office of Civil Rights Site Visit Set for April," The Gazette (online), February 22, 2016, 7:00 a.m.

 Vanessa Miller, "Report: Iowa Universities See Gains in Diverse Employment, But Still Have Work To Do; Regent Schools Still Lag Behind Peer Universities in Diversity Employment," The Gazette (online), February 22, 2016, 6:04 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Iowa Universities Gain in Job Diversity," The Gazette, February 23, 2016, p. A2 ("However, despite the three schools seeing improvement over the past decade, the universities lagged behind universities in their peer groups in nearly every category. When comparing full-time faculty for fall 2014, for example, UI reported 32.2 percent female and 18.5 percent minority compared with a peer group average of 33.4 percent female and 21.5 percent minority, according to the report.")

 Savannah Guyer, "Community Gears Up for Harreld Town Hall," The Daily Iowan, February 23, 2016; hard copy: Savannah Guyer, "UI Gears Up for Harreld; University of Iowa President Bruce Harreld Will Hold His First Town Hall Today," The Daily Iowan, February 23, 2016, p. A1 ("Ruth Bryant, a spokeswoman for the Campaign to Organize Graduate Students [COGS], said what they believe will happen and what they hope will happen at the meeting are two different things. 'We're hoping that we get to ask Bruce Harreld questions and that he responds to them openly and honestly . . . . What we believe will happen — because of the last-minute change to a town hall meeting— we think that he'll try to filibuster the whole time or pass off questions to his colleagues in administration so he doesn't have to be accountable.' . . . Richard Roberts, a retired UI adjunct associate psychology professor and practicing clinical neuropsychologist [said] 'Having a meeting from 4 to 6 on a Tuesday isn't the most considerate idea. . . . It's scheduled during a time when most people are rushing to get home and get their kids to daycare, and it's in a remote location where there's not a lot of family-friendly parking. . . . This is war, and it should be fought to be won.'")

 KayLynn Harris, "Regents Leave Community Cold," The Daily Iowan (online), February 19, 2016; hard copy: KayLynn Harris, "Many Unhappy at Hearing," The Daily Iowan, February 19, 2016, p. A1 ("UI graduate student Hodna Nuernberg said . . . 'that was a transparency hearing, and they weren't even there. . . . I know I'm just a graduate student, but I am a member of the UI community. I think that some acknowledgement and engagement is deserved.'")

 So today [Feb. 23] we'll find out how much "acknowledgement and engagement" is deserved (and received) at President Harreld's "campus town hall." Vanessa Miller, "Regents to Conduct Midyear Evaluations, Including of New UI President Harreld; New University of Iowa President To Be Reviewed Four Months Into Job," The Gazette (online), February 22, 2016, 5:57 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Higher Education: Regents to Conduct Midyear Evaluations; UI Leader to be Reviewed Four Months Into Job," The Gazette, February 23, 2016, p. A2 ("The [President Harreld's] Tuesday [Feb. 23] afternoon town hall has been billed as an opportunity for the UI community to hear from university leaders, ask questions, and share ideas for improvement. Harreld's critics have been calling for a public forum for months, and some have expressed concern that now Provost Barry Butler, Senior Vice President for Finance and Operations Rod Lehnertz, and Vice President for Student Life Tom Rocklin also will be involved. . . . 'We are troubled by the addition of several people to the roster, which seems to suggest less time for direct communication,' according to the group [Iowans Defending Our Universities], which went on to demand at least three-fourths of the two-hour forum be dedicated to 'direct dialogue between President Harreld and the UI community.'")

 Town Hall Details: 4:00-6:00 p.m., February 23, 2016, Pomerantz Center C20 (on East Market Street, one block west of Clinton Street). [Source: UI Office of Strategic Communication, "UI Leaders to Host Town Hall Meeting; UI Community Encouraged to Attend, Participate in Discussion," Iowa Now (online), February 15, 2016, 1:31 p.m.]

 Lee Hermiston, "University of Iowa Police: Hightower Recorded at Least Two Other Women; Incidents Occurred in Dorm Room Bathrooms on Feb. 12 and 13," The Gazette (online), February 23, 2016, 1:55 p.m.; hard copy: Lee Hermiston, "Public Safety: 2 More Recorded in Dorm Showers; Police Say Iowa City Man Secretly Compiled 7 Video Clips of Women After Entering UI's Burge Residence Hall," The Gazette, February 24, 2016, p. A3

 Stephen Gruber-Miller, "Man Charged With Recording More Women in UI Dorms," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), February 23, 2016, 5:16 p.m.; hard copy: Stephen Gruber-Miller, "Man Charged With Recording More Women; Incidents Took Place After Suspect Trespassed in UI's Burge Hall, Stole Bathroom Keys," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 24, 2016, p. A7

 Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Room, Board Hike Proposed at UI, ISU, UNI," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), February 23, 2016, 4:56 p.m.; hard copy: Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Room and Board Increase Planned for UI, ISU, UNI; Costs for Popular Rooms, Meal Plans Expected to Rise in 2016-17," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 24, 2016, p. A10

 Cindy Garcia, "Harreld Town Hall Turns Tense," The Daily Iowan (online), February 24, 2016; hard copy: Cindy Garcia, "Harreld's First Town Hall Turns Testy," The Daily Iowan, February 24, 2016, A1

 "U of Iowa President Criticized, Interrupted at Forum," Inside Higher Ed (online), February 24, 2016

 Vanessa Miller, "Outbursts, Interruptions Dominate First Bruce Harreld Forum; Hundreds Turned Out to Town Hall Meeting, Coming in the Wake of New President's Contentious Hiring Last Year," February 23, 2016, 8:23 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Higher Education: Outbursts at UI Forum; New Leader Seeks Engagement on Issues as Some Detractors Wave Signs and Curse," The Gazette, February 24, 2016, p. A1

 Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Harreld's Critics Take Center Stage During Town Hall," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), February 24, 2016, 6:13 a.m.; hard copy: Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Harreld's Critics Steal Show; Protesters Converge on Town Hall Meeting, Demand Answers," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 24, 2016, p. A1

 Nicholas Johnson, "Commentary on President Harreld's First 'Town Hall' Meeting," Feb. 24, 2016

 [Note: If you're interested in a word-by-word account of the event, here is an audio record of Hour One (4:00-5:00 p.m.) and Hour Two (5:00-6:00 p.m.).]

Almost everything about the "Town Hall Meeting" I attended yesterday late afternoon was wrong. At least some of the responsibility for that must fall on UI President Bruce Harreld. [Photo credit: Nicholas Johnson; "full house"]

 Background. He has to know about the legitimate complaints regarding the process (or lack thereof) used by the Regents in his selection, and he himself has acknowledged how unprepared he is for the position. (Yesterday he added something to the effect of how difficult it was for him during that process to "get information" -- presumably information about the job.) He has to know about the low morale of the UI community -- indeed, he acknowledged it. He has to know that many more than just his most outspoken critics really wanted an opportunity to have an open, question-and-answer exchange with him. He has to have known that the six month wait for this opportunity created a pent-up energy from supporters (if any there be; see below) and critics alike -- resignation, despair, frustration, anxiety, anger.

Expectations. Against that background, it was President Harreld who chose to call yesterday's event a "town meeting" -- holding out hope that a real exchange could take place -- not a monologue "State of the University" report from the president to the community, but a genuine dialogue. [Photo credit: Nicholas Johnson; standing three-deep in back of room; "Resign" banner]

 Frustrating choice of time and place. These hopes were dashed from start to finish. The gathering was held in a relatively inaccessible location, on a relatively inconvenient day and time (a Tuesday from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m.) -- a time when many need to leave the campus for a variety of reasons, and in a facility it was said was required by a class at 6:00, so that even if there were persons wishing to continue the discussion, that would not be possible.

 Failure to inform audience. There was no opening announcement of what was coming. Harreld just started in on what the Press-Citizen's Jeff Charis-Carlson correctly characterized as a "data dump" (of which more below) that dragged on for 37 minutes. Even students in our Colleges of Medicine, Dentistry and Nursing are taught that it's important to let patients know what procedures they are about to undergo and why. Doing so yesterday afternoon was even more necessary.

 Failure to respond to audience. When the hostility mounted to the point that the crowd began chanting, "Questions! Questions! Questions!" Harreld simply tried to talk over the noise. I would have thought a part of Strategic Communications 101 would have been to quit at that point, and take questions.

 Additional speakers. It was bad enough for Harreld to consume the first 37 minutes. Worse still, rather than demonstrate the courage, confidence, and competence to appear alone for an informal Q & A exchange with colleagues, he brought along three vice presidents -- who then also had presentations to make. The net result was that the first hour, from 4:00 until 5:00, was taken up with monologues from the front of the room -- by which time those used to leaving for the day at 5:00 were inconvenienced. Were these presentations necessary (they were not), scheduling them from 5:00 until 6:00 would have communicated a desire to give more people a chance to participate, or at least be present for, the Q & A.

 Wrong subjects. Beyond a few opening words (including a revelation of what was planned for the next two hours) I believe for this occasion there should have been no speeches as such from Harreld, and certainly not from vice presidents. As one member of the audience, economist John Solow, stated, "I didn't really come here to hear about what's going on with the undergraduate student housing crisis."

 What would have been helpful, but what was not addressed, was what John Solow described (quoting President Bush the elder) as "the vision thing" -- with the exception of Harreld's asking the audience to provide him with a vision. Solow suggested Harreld seemed to be talking about which cuts to make. Harreld demurred, saying he was just talking about prioritizing ("I wasn't talking about cutting; I was talking about prioritizing"), and "spreading the peanut butter" differently. Some will get more, others will get less -- "but that's not 'cutting.'" OK.

 Wrong presentation; wrong PowerPoint slides. (a) This was not the occasion for a presentation of least-worst scenarios. (b) If it were, it should not have been done in the form of a "data dump." (c) If it was to be a data dump presentation, it should have been done with better PowerPoint slides. I can't believe a presentation like the one he used would pass muster in a corporate boardroom or the White House. Hareld's screen would fill with dozens of numbers too small to read, but communicating very little, and too fast, even if a larger font had been used. The occasional use of graphics was equally confusing -- occasionally to Harreld himself. (d) It might have been marginally more effective if he had acknowledged the skepticism among many in the academy regarding the U.S. News's ranking procedures; see, e.g., "Random Thoughts on Law School Rankings.", and the limits of marketing-relevant data as the exclusive means of measuring the quality of an educational institution.

 Seemingly no planning for handling questions. No instructions were provided the audience on how questions were to be processed. Some wishing to ask questions stood along the walls near the front, some in the middle of the hall, some gathered in groups, some raised their hands. Persons with microphones wandered the room. And of course some just shouted out their questions. No big deal; questions got asked. But since there are usually announcements, and some order, regarding this process, it seemed odd that there was none on this occasion.

 Critics, but no supporters. Harreld's critics were outspoken -- sometimes to the extent that the audience tried to quiet them. But the critics were expected; after all, we've been hearing from them since the Regents announced their selection. What I found noteworthy was not so much the substantial amount of criticism, but the total absence of any support for Harreld or his positions. No one stood up to say, "I think we should give you a chance," or "I for one really think you are on the right track." Nobody -- not even any of the three vice presidents. [</big>Note: I am not saying that no one in the room might have felt that way, or that there have been no letters to the editor in some Iowa newspapers to that effect, only that no one present was willing to stand and speak on his behalf on this occasion.<big>]

 For more detail regarding the spirit and incidents during the two hours, I refer you to this mornings' newspaper reports, linked immediately above (the content of which, therefore, I did not need to repeat here beyond what I did).

 February 25-27, 2016
 Note: Commentary regarding UI President Harreld's first Town Meeting, February 23, 2016, is immediately above.

 President Harreld tries a different approach, after discovering that preaching UI's doom and gloom at the Town Meeting proved to be kind of a bummer. Bruce Harreld, "Quality Education Rooted in Our Rich History," IowaNow (online), February 24, 2016, 1:07 p.m. ("We must build our future at the University of Iowa on our heritage of strengths. That is particularly true for our mission of teaching and learning . . .. The University of Iowa has a long tradition of excellence and innovation in the classroom.")

 One of the many disparate functions of these lengthy blog collections of links and commentary regarding stories about higher education (here at the UI, and more generally around the United States and other countries) is to highlight for UI's President Bruce Harreld some of the issues he might want to be thinking about preemptively. These are issues about which he would personally gain from study and thought before he's called upon to take a public position or action. They are issues about which he really needs to know his own heart and mind, his own moral compass -- not just the talking points prepared for him by some "strategic communications" adviser. He needs to be able to think, and talk, about them with the confidence that preparation can provide. As you see, I am not suggesting what he should think, least of all that he should adopt my own values and positions.

 This morning [Feb. 25] presents three more: awareness of the facts, opinions and politics surrounding the "animal rights" movements as they impact on universities' research; the necessity, economics, and propriety, of hiring two to get one faculty addition ("faculty partners"); and the economics, popularity, ethics, effectiveness and other impacts of "online" education.

 Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Universities Working to Find Jobs for Faculty Partners," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), February 24, 2016, 5:57 p.m.; hard copy: Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Faculty Partners May Get Job Help; If Approved, UI Would Take Lead On Consortium Linking Schools to Hospitals, Labs, More," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 25, 2016, p. A3

 Vanessa Miller, "Online Education on the Rise at Iowa's Public Universities," The Gazette (onllne), February 24, 2016, 5:40 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Higher Education: Online Learning Spikes at Iowa's Public Universities," The Gazette, February 25, 2016, p. A3

  Vanessa Miller, "USDA Cites University of Iowa Over Escaped Goat; 'Improper Handling Practices' Led to Goat's Escape, Officials Say," The Gazette (online), February 24, 2016, 1:56 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Animal Study: USDA Cites UI in Great Goat Escape," The Gazette, February 25, 2016, p. A2

 Here's an application of another issue discussed before in this blog: how can a university best respond to the consequences of ever-increasing numbers of guns in America along with a simultaneous relaxation on who can have them, when and where -- including campuses and classrooms. Justin Wm. Moyer, "New Kind of Trigger Warning at Texas University Struggling with Campus-Cary law: 'DO NOT Confront a Student,'" The Washington Post (online), February 25, 2016 ("It was the kind of rhetoric that seemed out of place at an institution of higher learning. 'Be careful discussing sensitive topics.' 'Drop certain topics from your curriculum.' 'DO NOT confront a student.' . . . [T]he eye-raising bullet points advised faculty not to 'make provocative statements' or 'cute signs' about the new campus carry law, and to 'only meet "that student" in controlled circumstances.' They advised faculty not to ask students about their "CHL" [concealed-handgun-licensing status] — and not to 'go there' if they 'sense anger.' The bottom line: 'It's in your interest and the University's interest to be very guarded and careful about this issue.'")

 What if we thought of individual universities (and other educational institutions) like the NFL thinks about individual teams: a cooperative colaborative enterprise in which everyone gains? (See, "NFL: Just Another Rigged TV Show," January 2, 2015) Here's one example: Vanessa Miller, "Iowa State, University of Northern Iowa Partner on Dual Degree Program; Students Could Get UNI Physics Degree, ISU Engineering Degree in Five Years," The Gazette (online), February 25, 2016, 6:25 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Higher Education: ISU, UNI, Unite on Dual Degree Program; Students Can Get Engineering, Physics Degrees in 5 Years," The Gazette, February 26, 2016, p. A2

 Here's another collaborative innovation. Jeff Charis-Carlson, "UI Opens Early-Entry Academy for High Schoolers," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), February 25, 2016, 12:59 p.m.; hard copy: Jeff Charis-Carlson, "UI Opens Early-Entry Academy for High Schoolers," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 26, 2016, p. A1

 Basic governance principles are sometimes hard to apply to a state research university, despite talk of "shared governance," what with a governor, legislature, board of regents, president and other administrators, faculty, staff, students, parents, and public. Consider this example of disagreement between Iowa Regents and UI administrators regarding the Regents' role in major administration shifts. Vanessa Miller, "Iowa Regents Approve University of Iowa Health Care Changes; Board President Challenges UIHC to Reduce Duration of Medical Education," The Gazette (online), February 25, 2016, 1:12 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Regents OK Changes in Top Ranks at UI Health; Robillard to Head Health System, Medical College," The Gazette, February 26, 2016, p. A2

 Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Regents Approve Administration, UIHC Changes," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), February 25, 2016, 11:56 a.m.; hard copy: Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Regents Approve Administration, UIHC Changes; Former Dean Moved to New Associated Vice President Post," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 26, 2016, p. A4

 Regents concerned about rising students' cost of UI board and room -- but offer few significant suggestions. Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Regents Express Concern Over Room, Board Increase," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), February 25, 2016, 1:49 p.m.; hard copy: Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Regents Express Copnmcern Over Price Increase; Rastetter Calls on Universities to Work Together," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 26, 2016, p. A4

 At Harreld's Town Meeting (see above) he seemed to agree with a questioner who complained about the Regents' system of requiring public comments be videotaped and then never responded to. Harreld noted he had not used that approach with his Town Meeting, and would raise it with the Regents. These stories include the Regents' response. Vanessa Miller, "Regents President Rastetter Criticizes Behavior at University of Iowa Town Hall for Harreld; Rastetter Praises Harreld's Efforts," The Gazette (online), February 25, 2016, 5:00 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Higher Education: Regents President Praises Harreld, Criticizes Behavior at UI Town Hall," The Gazette, February 26, 2016, p. A7

 Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Rastetter: Iowa City Critics Should Be More 'Professional,'" Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), February 26, 2016, 11:11 a.m.; hard copy: Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Rastetter: Video Comments Better; Regents President Maintains Recorded Comments Encourage Professionalism," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 26, 2016, p. A1

 There is so much wrong with Regent McKibben's position it's hard to know where to begin. His position even goes beyond the usual business ideology of "socialism for the rich, and free private enterprise for the poor." The UI, with its history of anti-union practices, is proposing to be guided by marketplace forces. McKibben is saying, "No, I forbid you to pay the going market wage; you must pay less than what the market dictates." He says he wants to avoid raising costs for students. But I rather suspect many student-employees, if asked, would say they'd rather have a market-driven poverty wage, with increases in board and room fees, than a below-market wage and increases in board and room. If he's really so concerned about the relationship between rising price of college education, as it is related to rising on-campus wages, why has he said nothing about the unilaterally granted increase in the athletic director's wage from $400,000 a year to $900,000 a year. That half-million increase could have gone a long way toward covering the $700,000 increase resulting from paying students what is still well below a "living wage." I could go on, but this is already too long. Vanessa Miller, "Regent Raises Concern Over University of Iowa Minimum Wage Increases; 'I Am Certainly Going to Oppose That,' Regent Larry McKibben Says," The Gazette (online), February 26, 2016, 8:41 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Higher Education: Regent Opposes UI Minimum Wage Bump; Competitive Pay Puts Pressure on Room-and-Board Rates," The Gazette, February 27, 2016, p. A1

 The Gazette is editorializing that the protesters at President Harreld's "Town Meeting" missed an opportunity to discuss with him UI's financial challenges. I agree that the future discussions on these subjects that he is proposing are a desirable and necessary thing to do. I strongly disagree that this "Town Hall" was an appropriate occasion on which to do it. See generally, Nicholas Johnson, "Commentary on President Harreld's First 'Town Hall' Meeting," Feb. 24, 2016. Editorial, "University of Iowa Demonstrators Missed an Opportunity," The Gazette (online), February 27, 2016, 7:00 a.m.; hard copy: Editorial, "Critical Questions Lost in the Shouting," The Gazette, February 27, 2016, p. A5

 February 28-29, 2016
 There are dozens of issues and incidents involving African-Americans and higher education in general, and at the University of Iowa in particular. Some have already been identified and commented upon in the blog entries from September 2015 through February 2016 in this series focusing on President Harreld and related matters. This particular lengthy piece by Hardy and Charis-Carlson is one I hope will be read and discussed by the UI community in general and President Harreld in particular. It was, of course, a major issue raised at both of his major public presentations (the public forum preceding his selection, and the "town meeting" February 23) on which he would do well to think through applying his own values and then speak to the UI community. Kevin Hardy and Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Iowa's Universities Tackle Racism Complaints," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), February 28, 2016, 8:45 p.m.; hard copy: Kevin Hardy and Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Black Iowa Still Unequal? Iowa's Universities Tackle Racism Complaints," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 29, 2016, p. A1

 Some 'Follow-Up' to Stories Reported Earlier

 Jeff Charis-Carlson and Kevin Hardy, "UI Housing and Dining to Up Wage Above County Minimum," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), February 29, 2016, 5:29 p.m.; hard copy: Jeff Charis-Carlson and Kevin Hardy, "UI Housing and Dining to Up Wage; To Attract More Student Employees, Hourly Pay Will be Above County Minimum," Iowa City Press-Citizen, March 1, 2016, p. A1

 Katherine Mangan and Nick DeSantis, "Simon Newman Resigns as President of Mount St. Mary's," The Chronicle of Higher Education (online), March 1, 2016 ("Months after he incited a bitter backlash by comparing struggling students to bunnies that needed to be drowned, Simon P. Newman resigned late Monday, effective immediately, as president of Mount St. Mary's University, in Maryland.")

 Room for Debate: College Presidents With Business Ties; Should University Presidents Have to Come From Academia?" The New York Times (online), March 1, 2016 (a discussion among five experts with diverse backgrounds and perspectives)

 Jeff Charis-Carlson, "UI Faculty Group Criticizes UIHC Change, Barta's Contract," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), March 3, 2016, 6:16 p.m.

 "Anatomy of a Missed Opportunity for Bruce Harreld," Bleeding Heartland, March 4, 2016

 </big> # # #email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-85954229625205527412016-01-28T09:26:00.002-06:002016-01-28T16:52:05.468-06:00Caucus With Your Heart and Head -- for Bernie<big>Why I'm Caucusing for Sanders

 Nicholas Johnson
 The Gazette
 January 26, 2016, p. A8
 Some 40 years ago in Washington, D.C., I agreed to host a series of TV interviews with presidential candidates. Questioning the first few proved problematic. Their responses to questions seemed to come from tape cassettes implanted in their skulls. They'd heard the questions before, and we'd heard their answers.

 How to make their performances more revealing? The possibilities of someone tipping over a candidate's chair, or unexpectedly throwing them a baseball, were attractive but rejected by the producer.

 The ultimate solution was found in a question I have put to presidential candidates then, and throughout the years since, often in Iowa living rooms. "Senator, let's make two assumptions. One, those of us here think you are 'right on the issues.' And two, you are elected president. Now tell us, why will coal mine owners have less ability to maintain coal miners' unsafe working conditions than they do now?" (One could substitute the military-industrial complex's control of defense budgets, or oil company subsidies.)

 Some candidates would stare blankly. Some would become angry. Apparently, few if any had ever thought about the problem, and none offered a solution.

 When I put the question to Senator Barack Obama in 2007, he replied, "Well, Nick, I've been a community organizer." I'd visited with Saul Alinsky and read his books. Both Obama and I were familiar with Heather Booth's Midwest Academy in Chicago, where I'd learned community organizing. I too quickly leapt to the conclusion that Obama got it. He would become our national community organizer-in-chief! I was mistaken.

Senator Sanders not only gets it, he makes it explicit. He rejects chants of "Bernie, Bernie" by saying, "this is not about 'me,' it's about 'we.'" "This campaign is about creating a movement of millions of Americans fighting to transform our country with demands that government represent all of us," he's said.

 Of course, like most Americans, I like his specific proposals — increased minimum wage, health care for all, higher taxes on the wealthy, avoiding unnecessary wars, tuition-free college, jobs improving infrastructure, and many more.

 But far more important than the specifics is his belief that government should serve all the people, the socio-economic bottom as well as the top 1 percent. That a government of the major donors, by the lobbyists, for the wealthy is not what the founders had in mind. That when candidates of either the Democratic or Republican parties' establishments talk of proposals, the results look a lot more like capitulation in the cause of campaign contributions than compromise on behalf of the American people.

 Of course, I'm impressed with the more conventional things said about Sen. Sanders. His authenticity. His enormous, enthusiastic crowds, and millions of supporters. That he not only talks against Wall Street and PAC funding, he walks the walk by refusing their money — while raising enough from small donors. He's had experience as a mayor, congressman and senator, one who understands the federal government's working and impact. Up against Republican candidates, he's as easily (or more) electable as the others. He has the best "unfavorable" numbers.

 But most important to me? His lifelong advocacy that governments exist for the 99 percent. His ability to answer my 40-year-old question; his knowledge of what's required before a government can serve the people. A campaign that's already begun building that citizen organization.

 Are you in the 1 percent? There are establishment candidates for you. If not, whether Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Green, it serves your interest and mine if Sen. Sanders' vision and voice comes booming out of Iowa's precinct caucuses, loud and clear across America throughout 2016. It's up to you.
__________
 Nicholas Johnson of Iowa City has held presidential appointments during the administrations of three U.S. presidents, and been involved in presidential elections since 1952. He maintains nicholasjohnson.org and FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com. Comments firstname.lastname@example.com

 [This column appeared online as Nicholas Johnson, "Why I'm Supporting Bernie Sanders for President," The Gazette (online), January 26, 2016, 10:51 a.m.]

____________________
 Why Support Sanders

 Nicholas Johnson
 The Daily Iowan
 January 28, 2016, p. A4
 This is the story of how I came to support Sen. Bernie Sanders. It's a true story — or at least as true as a fading memory can provide.

 Some 40 years ago in Washington, I agreed to host a series of TV interviews with presidential candidates. Questioning the first few proved problematic. Their responses to questions seemed to be coming from tape cassettes implanted in their skulls. They'd heard the questions before, and we'd heard their answers.

 How to make their performances more revealing? The possibilities of someone tipping over a candidate's chair or unexpectedly throwing them a baseball were attractive but rejected by the producer.

 The ultimate solution was found in a question put to presidential candidates then, and throughout the years since, often in Iowa living rooms. "Senator, let's make two assumptions. One, those of us here think you are 'right on the issues.' And two, you are elected president. Now tell us, why will coal-mine owners have less ability to maintain coal miners' unsafe working conditions than they do now?" (One could substitute the military-industrial complex's control of defense budgets or oil-company subsidies.)

 Some candidates stared blankly. Some became angry. Apparently, few if any had ever thought about the problem, and none offered a solution.

 When I put the question to Sen. Barack Obama in 2007, he replied, "Well, Nick, I've been a community organizer." I'd visited with Saul Alinsky and read his books. Both Obama and I were familiar with Heather Booth's Midwest Academy in Chicago, where I'd learned community organizing. I too quickly leapt to the conclusion that Obama got it. He would become our national community organizer-in-chief. I was mistaken.

 Sanders not only gets it, he makes it explicit. He rejects chants of "Bernie, Bernie" with "this is not about 'me,' it's about 'we.' " "This campaign is about creating a movement of millions of Americans fighting to transform our country with demands that government represent all of us," he has said.

 I like his proposals for increased minimum wage, health care for all, avoiding unnecessary wars, tuition-free college, justice for African-Americans, and equal pay for women, among others.

 I'm impressed with his authenticity, enthusiastic crowds, rejection of PACs, and funding a campaign with millions of supporters making $27 average contributions. He's had experience as a mayor, congressman, and senator. He understands the federal government's working and impact. Up against Republican candidates, he's as (or more) electable than the others. He has the highest Net favorability numbers.

 But most important to me? His belief that a government of the major donors, by the lobbyists, for the wealthy is not what the founders had in mind. That the establishment's proposals, whether from Democrats or Republicans, look a lot more like capitulation in the cause of campaign contributions than compromise on behalf of the American people.

 It's his lifelong advocacy that governments exist for the 99 percent; his knowledge of what's required before a government can serve the people — that the people must lead before their leaders will follow. His campaign has begun building that citizen organization.

 Are you in the 1 percent? You have many establishment candidates to choose from. Otherwise, whether you're a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Green, it serves your interest and mine if Sanders' vision and voice comes booming out of Iowa's precinct caucuses, loud and clear.

 [This column appeared online as Nicholas Johnson, "Why I Support Sanders," The Daily Iowan (online), January 28, 2016.

 Earlier, yet a third variation of this material appeared in the Iowa City Press-Citizen as as Nicholas Johnson, "Sanders the Right Democrat for Caucus," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), January 21, 2016, 4:04 p.m., and in the hardcopy edition as Nicholas Johnson, "Sanders the Right Democrat for Caucus," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 22, 2016, p. A7, a copy of which is embedded in this blog site in an entry headed, "Why I'm Caucusing for Sanders and You Should Too," January 22, 2016.]

 # # #</big> email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-912278933304600232016-01-22T07:43:00.000-06:002016-01-22T08:00:48.385-06:00Why I'm Caucusing for Sanders and You Should Too<big> Sanders the Right Democrat for Caucus

 Nicholas Johnson
 Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 22, 2016, p. A7
 This is the story of how I came to support Sen. Bernie Sanders. It's a true story — or at least as true as a fading memory can provide.

 Some 40 years ago in Washington, I agreed to host a series of TV interviews with presidential candidates. Questioning the first few proved problematic. Their responses to questions seemed to be coming from tape cassettes implanted in their skulls. They'd heard the questions before, and we'd heard their answers.

 How to make their performances more revealing? The possibilities of someone tipping over a candidate's chair, or unexpectedly throwing them a baseball, were attractive but rejected by the producer.

 The ultimate solution was found in a question put to presidential candidates then, and throughout the years since, often in Iowa living rooms. "Senator, let's make two assumptions. One, those of us here think you are 'right on the issues.' And two, you are elected president. Now tell us, why will coal mine owners have less ability to maintain coal miners' unsafe working conditions than they do now?" One could substitute the military-industrial complex's control of defense budgets, or oil company subsidies.

 Some candidates would stare blankly. Some would become angry. Apparently, few if any had ever thought about the problem, and none offered a solution.

 When I put the question to Sen. Barack Obama in 2007, he replied, "Well, Nick, I've been a community organizer." I'd visited with Saul Alinsky and read his books. Both Obama and I were familiar with Heather Booth's Midwest Academy in Chicago, where I'd learned community organizing. I too quickly leapt to the conclusion that Obama got it. He would become our national community organizer-in-chief! I was mistaken.

Sen. Sanders not only gets it, he makes it explicit. He rejects chants of "Bernie, Bernie" with "this is not about 'me,' it's about 'we.'" "This campaign is about creating a movement of millions of Americans fighting to transform our country with demands that government represent all of us," he's said.

 Of course, like most Americans, I like his specific proposals — increased minimum wage, healthcare for all, higher taxes on the wealthy, avoiding unnecessary wars, tuition-free college, jobs improving infrastructure and many more.

 But far more important than the specifics is his belief that government should serve all the people, the socioeconomic bottom 50 percent as well as the top 1 percent. That a government of the major donors, by the lobbyists, for the wealthy is not what the founders had in mind. That when candidates of either the Democratic and Republican parties' establishment talk of proposals, the results look a lot more like capitulation in the cause of campaign contributions than compromise on behalf of the American people.

 Of course, I'm impressed with the more conventional things said about Sen. Sanders. His authenticity. His enormous, enthusiastic crowds, and millions of supporters. That he not only talks against Wall Street and PAC funding, he walks the walk by refusing their money, while raising enough from small donors. He's had experience as a mayor, congressman and senator, one who understands the federal government's working and impact. Up against Republican candidates, he's as equally electable as the others. He has the best "favorability" numbers.

 But most important to me? His lifelong advocacy that governments exist for the 99 percent. His ability to answer my 40-year-old question; his knowledge of what's required for a government to serve the people. A campaign that's already begun building that citizen organization.

 Are you in the 1 percent? There are establishment candidates for you. If not, whether Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Green, it serves your interest and mine if Sen. Sanders' vision and voice come booming out of Iowa's precinct caucuses, loud and clear across America throughout 2016. It's up to you.</big>
_______________
 Nicholas Johnson of Iowa City has held presidential appointments during the administrations of three U.S. presidents, and been involved in presidential elections since 1952. He maintains nicholasjohnson.org and FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com.

 # # #email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-28560209646886579482016-01-02T10:23:00.003-06:002016-02-01T08:53:22.421-06:00UI President Harreld - Jan. 2016January 1-31, 2016

 Note: The Iowa Board of Regents' process used in the search for, and ultimate selection of, a new president for the University of Iowa has been highly controversial throughout. For the details, with links to hundreds of documents, news stories, and opinion pieces, visit this: repository of links from September 2-October 31, 2015 (which also includes links to additional blog posts).

 The continuation of that coverage, reporting on events and statements from President Bruce Harreld during his term, is first found in "UI President Harreld - Nov. 2015," for the month of November, starting with the anticipatory stories on November 1, followed by his first day on the job, November 2.

 Equivalent material for December can be found -->HERE<--

 This blog post, "UI President Harreld - Jan. 2016," is where the continuation of coverage will be found for the month of January, 2016. To the extent events warrant, the present plan is to continue to collect items in month-by-month blog posts during 2016, so long as the news and opinion coverage, and blog readers' interest, continues.

 -- Nicholas Johnson, January 1, 2016

 <big>Contents (with links)
January 1-3, 2016
January 4-6, 2016
January 7-9, 2016
January 10-12, 2016
January 13-15, 2016
January 16-18, 2016
January 19-21, 2016
January 22-24, 2016
January 25-27, 2016
January 28-31, 2016

 January 1-3, 2016
 "Leaders speaking badly" makes President Harreld's "should be shot" remark look better by comparison. Ceylan Yeginsu, "Turkey Says Hitler Comment by President Erdogan Was 'Distorted,'" The New York Times (online), January 2, 2015, p. A4 ("Turkey issued a statement on Friday saying that comments by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan — in which he cited Hitler in response to a question about whether a strong presidency was possible in Turkey — had been misinterpreted. . . . His comment also raised the issue of how the leader of one of the world's most influential countries, an American ally and member of NATO, would mention Hitler in the context of his own tenure.")

 Carol deProsse, "Harreld Statement a Sign of the Times," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), January 1, 2015, 3:48 p.m.; hard copy: Carol deProsse, "Harreld Statement a Sign of the Times," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 2, 2015, p. A9

 Greg Timlin, "Harreld Critics Should Look in Mirror," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), January 1, 2015, 3:49 p.m.; hard copy: Greg Timlin, "Harreld Critics Should Look in Mirror," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 2, 2015, p. A9

 Given the recent reports of cronyism and corruption in the Regents' and UI contracting, see, "Trouble in River City: Corruption Creep," December 13, 2015, it's long past time that all the details of this very questionable student housing deal be uncovered and made available to the public. How could something like this have happened? "Editorial: Profiteering Landlords Make UI Housing Less Affordable," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online) [a Des Moines Register editorial], January 1, 2015, 9:27 p.m. ("With apartment-occupancy rates of 95 percent or so, there's already plenty of built-in incentive for private developers to build more apartments in Iowa City. If the university is going to give these developers the use of publicly owned land, there should be a very direct benefit to the public, such as the creation of student housing that is genuinely affordable. . . . This is an issue that deserves not only the attention of the Iowa Board of Regents, but also the Iowa Legislature. . . . The school itself needs to move forward with proposals to form a student-housing task force.")

 January 4-6, 2016
 Josh O'Leary, "Top 10 Iowa City Area News Stories of 2015," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), January 2, 2015, 1:01 a.m.; hard copy: Josh O'Leary, "Top 10 Iowa City Area News Stories of 2015; From the Passing of Reins at UI, to the Rose Bowl, There's Been No Shortage of News," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 4, 2015, p. A3 ("1. Mason Resigns; Harreld Hired. Sally Mason, who announced her retirement plans in January, weathered her share of controversy in eight years as UI's president. But her successor, Colorado business executive Bruce Harreld, found himself embroiled in controversy even before taking the reins as the university's 21st president.
The Iowa Board of Regents selected Harreld, a former IBM executive, from four finalists Sept. 4. The hiring prompted an outcry from many UI faculty members, graduate students and others contesting the hiring of a president whose background was largely rooted in the business world.
Numerous protests have taken place at regents meetings and at the president's office in the months since. And a report from the American Association of University Professors in November added fuel to the fire, declaring that the regents' hiring process was 'tainted from the start.'")

 Leonard Cassuto, "What Will Doctoral Education Look Like in 2025? Predictions and Hopes for the Future of Ph.D. Training," The Chronicle of Higher Education (online), January 3, 2016 ("We've been . . . waiting and hoping to recover that lost time of plenty [post-WWII through 1970s]. But the scales have fallen from our eyes in recent years, so it's a good time to think about what the future might really hold for graduate school. . . . Today graduate school is gripped in a vise. One jaw of that vise is the ever-tightening academic job market, and the other jaw is the increasing corporatization of the academy. . . . The faculty no longer sets the values of the institution. Instead, university leaders now see themselves as agents for the board of trustees, and at public institutions, the legislature. The naming of the businessman Bruce Harreld as president of the University of Iowa is good recent example of that shift. . . . Here's the greatest cause for hope: The conversations about changing graduate school are finally happening. The problems I've described here have been with us for a long while, but for years we weren't ready to face them. Yes, things have gotten worse — especially since the recession of 2008 — but we haven't collapsed yet. Let's fix our house before it falls over.")

 Here's a link to another blog collection of items involving today's challenges for higher education: Michael Meranze and Christopher Newfield, "Remaking the University"

 Issues for Harreld: AIB campus; plus, issue of excessive use of and pay for consultants: Vanessa Miller, "Regents to Pay Firm Up to $91,000 for 'Needs Assessment' for Degrees in Des Moines Area," The Gazette (online), January 5, 2016, 9:34 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Higher Education: Regents Study Des Moines Outlook; Consultants Hired Months After AIB Agreed to Donate its Campus There to the UI," The Gazette, January 6, 2016, p. A3

 January 7-9, 2016
 Gerhild Krapf, "Return Higher Education to People of Iowa," Des Moines Register (online), January 6, 2016, 1:28 p.m.; hard copy: Gerhild Krapf, "Restore Institutions of Higher Education," The Gazette, January 7, 2016, p. A5 ("Touted "shared governance" requires that the Regents have necessary expertise and integrity, requisite humility and respect for the expertise of the faculty, with whom they share governance. Neither is true. . . . The cause of higher tuition is not inefficiency, but diversion of public funds from education to corporate pet projects. . . . It is high time that our hijacked institutions of higher education be appropriately funded and restored to the people of the state of Iowa, whom they are intended to serve.")

 Tough critique of Harreld: R. Jon Roberts, "Harreld Should Abide by Own Standards," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), January 7, 2016, 3:40 p.m.; hard copy: R. Jon Roberts, "Harreld Should Abide by Own Standards," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 8, 2016, p. A5

 If Harreld is to tell the tale of IBM's "turnaround," someone should make sure, for the sake of the students as well as the historical record, that it's factually accurate regarding: (1) how much of it was accomplished before he was even at IBM?; (2) how much was done by others?; and (3) how his contribution (whatever that was) fit in with other time periods and the contributions of others (see, "UI President Harreld - Nov. 2015," Section: November 4-6, 2015; Items: "Harreld and the IBM "turnaround," Items 2, 3 and 4 (e.g., IBM CEO Lou Gerstner, Jr.'s book about the turnaround, Who Says Elephants Can't Dance, makes no mention of Harreld; other authors explain why). Vanessa Miller, "UI President to Participate in Business Course Dissecting IBM Turnaround; Harreld Said He Loves Teaching, Interacting with Students," The Gazette, January 7, 2016, 9:31 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Higher Education: New UI President to Teach Business Students About IBM; Harreld Helped Lead Company's Turnaround," The Gazette, January 8, 2016, p. A3

 More on President Harreld's remarks. Those who find the details in Jeff Charis-Carlson's story of interest may also find the following of help in thinking through the issues they raise: "Quick Draw Harreld and Why Language Matters," and "Nicholas Johnson, "Was It Something I Said? General Semantics, the Outspoken Seven, and the Unacceptable Remark," Institute for General Semantics, New York City, October 30, 2010. Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Harreld Will Continue to Answer Critics Via Email," Iowa City Press-Citizen/Des Moines Register (online), January 8, 2016, 5:03 p.m. ("The new president of the University of Iowa says he will continue to respond to his critics via email despite some respondents later releasing the caustic electronic conversations to the media.")

 January 10-12, 2016
 UI President Harreld told UI Athletics Director Barta that he'd leave the winning to Barta, and personally focus on the program's performance with regard to academics and integrity. So, how does Harreld come out on this matter of integrity: Donald H. Yee, "College Sports Exploits Unpaid Black Athletes. But They Could Force a Change. Disproportionately Black Football and Basketball Players Are Making Disproportionately White Administrators and Coaches Rich," The Washington Post (online), January 8, 2016 ("But after a year when Black Lives Matter protests spread across the country, and at the end of a season when the football team at the University of Missouri helped force the resignation of the school's top two administrators over how the campus handled race-related incidents, we need to stop ignoring the racial implications of the NCAA's hypocrisy. . . . The bargain the NCAA makes with football and basketball players is fairly simple: You play games, entertain fans and make us money, and we'll give you a scholarship, experience, training and exposure you need to make it to the pros.")

 There are many purposes of these collections of stories and opinions during President Bruce Harreld's tenure as UI's president -- an historical record of an interesting and important period in the evolution of the University of Iowa, a time-saving report that can be checked daily by those who wish to follow these events more closely, a presentation of the views of both Harreld's critics and defenders. But an additional purpose is to pose, both for President Harreld and those following his progress, issues in higher education generally as well as locally that he would do well to study, and ultimately develop personal views about -- utilizing his own moral compass -- well before they crash in upon him and the "crisis communication" early responders have to be called to the scene. Below are three more examples:

 Are there limits to the virtues of total transparency by a large institution and its leaders? Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Harreld Will Continue to Respond to Critics Via Email; Reply Process to Remain, Despite Exchanges Being Released Publicly Online," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 11, 2015, p. A1

 Are there circumstances under which the firing of an employee is warranted because some of us, or all of us, find his or her communication (speech, writing -- or sculpture) offensive? Vanessa Miller, "Florida Professor Fired After Sandy Hook Conspiracies Remembered as 'Thoughtful' Student at Iowa; UI Leaders: 'We Are Not Anxious to Claim Him,'" The Gazette, January 10, 2016, 2:26 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Higher Education: Fired Conspiracy Theorist Got Ph.D. at UI; 'We Are Not Anxious to Claim' Florida Professor Whose Belief that Sandy Hook Was Fake Drew National Attention," The Gazette, January 11, 2016, p. A6

 Today's academic research involving human beings ("human subjects research" -- as distinguished from those which only involves, say, fruit flies or mice, which have different standards) is governed by federal and institutional standards enforced by institutional review boards, or IRBs, that must first approve the study. Sometimes these standards and their enforcement involve basic human rights about which virtually all of us would agree; at other times they look a little silly. Guess wrong, or deliberately violate the standards, and an institution can have a major public relations problem -- among other things, like law suits. It's not totally clear from this story what's going on at ISU, but it's another potential issue for the UI for him to inform himself about. Arthur Harrington, "Banana Study Involving Iowa State Raises Questions About Human Testing; Study Will Involve ISU Students Eating Bananas Designed to Raise Vitamin A Levels," The Gazette (online), January 10, 2016, 8:24 p.m.; hard copy: Arthur Harrington, "Research: Study Prompts Concerns Over Human Testing at ISU; Banana Project Aims to Boost Vitamin A Levels Among Africans," The Gazette/Ames Tribune, January 11, 2016, p. A9

 Mark Barrett, "Ditchwalk Says: J. Bruce Harreld and the Crisis in Higher Education," January 10, 2016, 11:37 p.m. (6600 words about UI President Harreld's appointment, performance, and issues that will leave you, as presidential candidate Governor Adlai Stevenson said after losing the election, "Too hurt to laugh, and too old to cry.")

 "A Fair Shake for Faculty; Harreld Committed to Raising Educators' Pay," UI Office of Strategic Communication, Iowa Now (online), January 12, 2016

 What follows are the two local stories about the Regents' latest reliance on "consultants." Bear in mind, (a) this is a job the Regents (and its universities' presidents) need to do themselves: the Google-searching research, the individual reflection and evolution of positions, the consensus-producing discussion; it's not a job to be contracted out to distant strangers. (b) To the extent the Regents want to involve others in this process, they have access to the remarkable academic and research resources of the UI and ISU administrators and faculty, two of the nation's top public research universities, individuals certainly as, and most likely far more, qualified to undertake the task than any available consultants. The questions posed do not require mastery of rocket science -- and even if they did, we have those resources as well among our people.

 Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Regents to Spend $71K on Strategic Plan; Regents Also Approve $91,000 for Educational Assessment of the Des Moines Metropolitan Area," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), January 11, 2016, 12:36 p.m.; hard copy: Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Regents to Spend $71K on Strategic Plan; It Will Reflect the Unique History of the Iowa Schools," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 12, 2016, p. A4

 Vanessa Miller, "Iowa Board of Regents to Pay $71,000 for New Strategic Plan; Process to Involve 'Open Meeting' With Community at Large," The Gazette (online), January 11, 2016, 2:58 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Higher Education: Regents to Pay $71,256 for Evaluation of System; Consultant Will Help Develop 5-Year Plan," The Gazette, January 12, 2016, p. A7 ("Regents will be asked to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to the state's higher education system and suggest their vision for the future . . ..")

 January 13-15, 2016
 UI President Harreld told UI Athletics Director Barta that he'd leave the winning to Barta, and personally focus on the program's academics and integrity. ["UI President Harreld - Nov. 2015," Nov. 7-9, Item 4 ("Harreld said, 'I told Gary [Barta] the winning is yours; I'm all about the integrity and the academics.'")] So, how does Harreld come out on these issues regarding the UI athletic program's integrity?

 Occasionally there is a cluster of news that, together, tells a story more powerful than any one item alone. This is such a time. The Regents are asking the Legislature for $20M for UI, ISU and UNI combined (of which a mere $4M is for UI); Governor Branstad is requesting $8M; sympathetic legislators predict it will be hard to get even that.

 Meanwhile, the UI's football coaching staff -- all of whom are more than handsomely rewarded with high salaries (at $4M Coach Ferentz is Iowa's highest paid public employee) -- will be paid as bonuses an amount equaling near one-half of the additional amount requested from the Legislature for the operation of the entire University of Iowa!

 Bear in mind three things.

 (1) None of these coaches, during the entire football season, performed even one thrown or caught pass, first-and-ten gain, kicked extra point, sack, block or tackle -- let alone touchdown. Of course, they provided coaching and mentoring to the players on and off the field -- just as every other UI faculty member does for the students in his or her field. But only coaches believe this entitles them to all of the cash flow thereafter generated by their students.

 Coaches are like the plantation owners who used to sit on their porches sipping mint juleps, enjoying their bonuses when the price of cotton went up, watching the crop being grown and picked by slaves who received no salary to speak of (beyond board and room) -- and certainly no bonuses -- for their physically demanding labor.

 (2) Under the NCAA and UI rules, those who actually went on the playing field, risking life-long injuries including concussions (talk about "I feel your pain"), those who actually achieved the team's winning season -- the players -- did not even receive salaries (beyond tuition, board and room), let alone bonuses for their accomplishment.

 (3) Is it wise to risk even the appearance of a conflict of interest for a coach weighing (a) the potential risk to an injured, star player's health by encouraging him to return to the game, and (b) the potential million-dollar bonuses that will almost certainly be lost if he does not do so? Admittedly, Coach Ferentz is a class act, but isn't $4M a year enough to live relatively well in Iowa City? Are additional multi-million-dollar bonuses required to provide the necessary incentive for someone to do their job? Are they offered to faculty elsewhere in the University?

 The four stories that follow include the Legislative budget struggle, a repeat of the Washington Post story about the economic exploitation of college football players, an Iowa player injured by coach-required excessive training who has settled his lawsuit, and an itemization of the coaches' bonuses.

 Vanessa Miller, "Funding Proposal for Regents Well Below Request; Board Wanted $20 Million More for UI, ISU, UNI," The Gazette, January 12, 2016, 7:45 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Higher Education: Governor's Pitch is Far Less Than Board of Regents Wants," The Gazette, January 13, 2016, p. A7

 Donald H. Yee, "College Sports Exploits Unpaid Black Athletes. But They Could Force a Change. Disproportionately Black Football and Basketball Players Are Making Disproportionately White Administrators and Coaches Rich," The Washington Post (online), January 8, 2016 ("But after a year when Black Lives Matter protests spread across the country, and at the end of a season when the football team at the University of Missouri helped force the resignation of the school's top two administrators over how the campus handled race-related incidents, we need to stop ignoring the racial implications of the NCAA's hypocrisy. . . . The bargain the NCAA makes with football and basketball players is fairly simple: You play games, entertain fans and make us money, and we'll give you a scholarship, experience, training and exposure you need to make it to the pros.")

  Andrew Mytelka, "U. of Iowa Settles With Athlete Who Was Hospitalized After Workout," The Chronicle of Higher Education (online), January 11, 2016 ("The University of Iowa has agreed to pay $15,000 to settle a personal-injury lawsuit filed by a former football player who spent a week in the hospital after a mandatory, high-stress workout . . . hospitalized with exertional rhabdomyolysis, in which excessive muscular strain makes muscle tissue deteriorate, dumping proteins into the bloodstream and potentially causing kidney damage. [He] accused the football staff of 'developing and implementing a dangerous, improper training program' . . .. The staff regarded the workout as a test of both stamina and toughness . . . to tell which players 'wanted to be on the team' . . . one of several in recent years in which competitive pressures and college athletes' safety have come into conflict.")

 Scott Dochterman, "Bonuses for Ferentz, Staff Exceed $2 Million," The Gazette (online), January 12, 2016, 3:07 p.m.; hard copy: Scott Dochterman, "Iowa Football: Bonuses Exceed $2 Million," The Gazette, January 13, 2016, p. B1

 "A Fair Shake for Faculty; Harreld Committed to Raising Educators' Pay," UI Office of Strategic Communication, Iowa Now (online), January 12, 2016

 Now here are three more stories, and topics, for President Harreld to think through in coming to his own understanding and personal position:

 The planned diversity of student enrollment; what's appropriate, justified -- and legal -- and what's not; Harvard Board of Overseers considering free Harvard educations, funded by endowment earnings. What would be the appropriate analog for the UI? Stephanie Saul, "How Some Would Level the Playing Field: Free Harvard Degrees," The New York Times, January 15, 2016, p. A1 ("[A] slate of candidates running for the Board of Overseers at Harvard . . . say Harvard makes so much money from its $37.6 billion endowment that it should stop charging tuition to undergraduates. But they have tied the notion to another, equally provocative question: Does Harvard shortchange Asian-Americans in admissions?")

 The NCAA president speaks out on an issue at the UI: are athletes in high-revenue sports, women coaches, and possible coaches, treated equally and fairly? The related issues surrounding coaches' pay are discussed immediately above. Does President Harreld intend to get involved in these issues, or leave them to AD Barta and the coaches? Jim Vertuno, "Emmert Applauds Student-Athlete Activism," Associated Press, January 14, 2016, 8:18 p.m.; hard copy: Jim Vertuno, "Emmert Applauds Activism Among Student-Athletes," Associated Press/Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 16, 2015, p. B5 ("NCAA President Mark Emmert applauded student-athlete campus activism and said Thursday he's disappointed that member schools aren't hiring more women and minorities as coaches. . . . 'If you look at FBS football, there's not any growth in African-Americans getting coordinator positions. That's the feeder into head coaching jobs . . .. Why are women not being attracted into coaching positions as they once were?' Emmert's speech also pushed universities to address 'fairness' for college athletes, from how much time they spend on their sport compared to academics to making sure they are advancing toward their degrees. NCAA surveys show that 75 percent of Division I basketball players think they will someday have a professional career. A vast majority won't, Emmert said.")

 The so called "Town-Gown" conflicts are not limited to Iowa City and the UI; they have been forever with us across the country. The UI is Iowa City's 800 pound guerrilla. Because of the decision to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into the old Kinnick Stadium (rather than building a more adequate facility three or four miles down the road, with plenty of parking, Hawkeye football games end up dumping 70,000 visitors into a neighborhood designed for 200-300 souls. Binge drinking students taking over downtown on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday nights tends to drive away many potential customers. Neighborhoods that used to house families have been bought up by the University, or others, and turned into student housing -- with the expected consequences of noise and far more automobiles looking for parking. What's President Harreld's position on situations like this one? Vanessa Miller, "New University of Iowa Frat House Hinges on City Parking Waiver; Parking Scarcity 'Has Long Been a Major Concern,'" The Gazette (online), January 14, 2016, 6:08 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Plan for New UI Frat House Prompts Parking Concerns; Neighbors Skeptical of Project Requiring City to Waive Its Rules," The Gazette, January 15, 2015, p. A3 ("Iowa City staff have concerns about such a [parking] waiver. 'The scarcity of on-street parking in the area has long been a major concern for neighborhood residents, and as the university grows its population of undergraduate students, the competition for on-street parking is likely to become more intense,' according to a staff recommendation to the board. 'There is also concern about disturbances that have been created by other fraternities in the immediate neighborhood," the staff recommendation states. "The adjacent fraternity to the south has been expelled from its house by its own national organization due to behavioral issues.'")

 January 16-18, 2016
 Presumably President Harreld would like to keep the University of Iowa competitive with regard to graduate students working as teaching assistants, as well a tenured faculty and entering students. The University of Missouri has done a study he might want to review. Megan Favignano, "Graduate Student Benefits Mixed at Other Universities," Columbia Daily Tribune January 17, 2016, 12:00 a.m. ("Two University of Missouri task forces have spent this school year researching graduate student health insurance options . . . and other benefits. . . . Universities offer a range of options when it comes to child care. . . . At the University of Iowa Graduate College, which is of comparable size to MU, student stipend levels are negotiated between the University of Iowa and the graduate employee union and outlined in a contract.")

 Stephen Gruber-Miller, "UI Classes Begin: What You May Have Missed Over Winter Break," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), January 17, 2016, 1:43 p.m.; hard copy: Stephen Gruber-Miller, "UI Classes Begin: What You May Have Missed," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 18, 2016, p. A1 ("More Harreld Controversy. UI's 21st president, Bruce Harreld, is still making headlines after his controversial hiring last year.")

 January 19-21, 2016
 Another of UI's treasures, seldom mentioned let alone promoted: "UI's Museum of Natural History Ranks No. 11," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), January 19, 2016, 4:33 p.m. ("The UI Museum of Natural History ranked No. 11 on a list of "The 30 Most Amazing Higher Ed Natural History Museums" compiled recently by the website www.bestcollegereviews.org. Founded in 1858 by an act of the Iowa Legislature, the UI museum boasts of being the oldest university museum west of the Mississippi River. Located in Macbride Hall, the Natural History Museum complements the Old Capitol Museum on the university's historic Pentacrest area.")

 Bruce Harreld, "Building Momentum This Spring; President Harreld Shares Details About Upcoming Town Hall, Leadership Positions," Iowa Now, January 19, 2016 ("I am looking forward to the continued development of our shared direction and how, together, we will build momentum. As you may know, we started this listening process through our shared governance structure after Thanksgiving break. In order to continue this communication and collaborative planning, we are having a town hall meeting Feb. 23 in C20 Pomerantz Center from 4 to 6 p.m.")

 Vanessa Miller, "Spring Outlook Looks Busy for Iowa's Universities; Politics, Construction, Tuition Debate On Tap," The Gazette (online), January 19, 2016, 4:45 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Students Return for Busy Spring Semester; Iowa's Public Universities Saw Some 80,000 Students Return to Campus Tuesday for a Spring Semester Promising to be More Expensive for Some, More Technologically Accessible for Others and Packed with Politics for All. Here Are Some of the Things Expected to Affect iowa's Campuses This Spring," The Gazette, January 20, 2016, p. A2 ("New UI President. With not even one full semester under his belt, new UI President Bruce Harreld launched the spring semester Tuesday with a message outlining plans to continue a 'communication and collaborative planning' process.")

 Jeff Charis-Carlson, "UI to Remove 'Interim' from Lehnertz's Senior VP Title; UI Eliminates VP for Strategic Communication Position," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), January 19, 2016, 3:43 p.m.; hard copy: Jeff Charis-Carlson, "UI to Remove 'Interim' from Lehnertz's Senior VP Title," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 20, 2016, p. A3

 Vanessa Miller, "UI President Removes Interim Titles, Welcomes Back Students; 'This is Truly an Exciting Time," The Gazette, January 19, 2016, 2:15 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Higher Education: UI President Removes Interim Titles, Welcomes Back Students; Harreld Asks Regents to Approve New CFO and Vice President," The Gazette, January 20, 2016, p. A2

 Jeff Charis-Carlson, "UI Failed to Open Letter from Freedom of Information Council," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), January 19, 2016, 12:58 p.m.; hard copy: Jeff Charis-Carlson, "UI Fails to Open Record Request; Letter Dated Dec. 30 Raises Concerns Over the University's Refusal to Release Documents," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 20, 2016, p. A1 ("University of Iowa officials say they weren't intentionally ignoring a letter from the Iowa Freedom of Information Council. It's just that no one had gotten around to opening the letter until last weekend. . . . FOI Council Executive Director Randy Evans raised concerns about UI's refusal to release documents related to work done for the university by a company owned by former Iowa Republican Party Chairman Matt Strawn. The letter came in response to an Associated Press article concerning how Strawn's company had received contracts worth about $320,000 without competitive bids. AP reported that UI was keeping some of the documents secret . . ..")

 It's a start? Vanessa Miller, "Regents Committee Set to Meet on Safety, Security; Discussion Will Look at Infectious Disease, Active Shooter Scenarios, Mandatory Reporters," The Gazette (online), January 20, 2016, 5:06 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Regents Committee Plans 2nd Meeting on Safety, Security; Discussion Will Look at Infectious Disease, Active Shooter Scenarios, Mandatory Reporters," The Gazette, January 21, 2016, p. A6 ("Committee members . . . are slated to discuss an updated purpose statement and receive information . . .. [G]roup members did not receive any supporting documents in advance of Thursday's meeting, according to board spokesman Josh Lehman.")

 Jeff Charis-Carlson, "UI Plans to Create a Bias Response Team This Semester," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), January 20, 2016, 8:34 p.m.; hard copy: Jeff Charis-Carlson, "UI Plans to Create a Bias Response Team; Official: Group Should be in Place by the End of the Current Semester," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 21, 2016, p. A1

 Paying for the bass drum in the Regents' big brass brand. Vanessa Miller, "Regents Seek Firm to Create New Website; 'The Site Will Focus on Improving Access,'" The Gazette (online), January 19, 2016, 11:22 a.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Higher Education: Regents Willing to Pay for Redesign of Website; Site Will Focus on Improving Access to Board Information," The Gazette, January 21, 2016, p. A6 ("[T]he board in 2014 launched an efficiency review in hopes of finding places on each campus to consolidate and save. The board has spent about $5.4 million on consulting fees and expenses related to that efficiency project, and the bill is expected to grow to at least $5.8 million. . . . Iowa's Board of Regents is looking to pay a firm to design and implement a new official website that will improve access to board information. [Board of Regents' spokesperson Josh Lehman told The Gazette on Monday the board hasn't updated its website in eight or nine years, and no specific concerns or complaints prompted its decision to create a new site. 'We just wanted a fresh look and fresh design,' he said.")

 January 22-24, 2016
 Ryan Foley, "Investigator Sees Possibility of Bias in Iowa Coach's Firing," Associated Press, January 21, 2016, 3:36 p.m.; hard copy: "Field Hockey: Investigator: Bias May Have Played Role in Coach's Firing," Associated Press/Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 22, 2016, p. B1 ("A former Iowa women's field hockey coach has a 'reasonable possibility' of proving that gender or anti-gay discrimination played a role in her firing, an Iowa Civil Rights Commission investigator has found.")

 Cindy Garcia, "Freedom of Information Letter to Harreld Unanswered," The Daily Iowan, January 21, 2016; hard copy: Cindy Garcia, "UI Info Request Delayed," The Daily Iowan, January 21, 2015, p. A1 ("'I will be charitable; I have no reason to doubt what the University said was the reason, but I would say if the president's staff is going half a month without opening the mail, they have bigger issues than we're aware of,' [Iowa Freedom of Information Council Director, Randy] Evans said.")

 Savannah Guyer, "UI Lays Out Diversity Plans," The Daily Iowan (online), January 21, 2016; hard copy: Savannah Guyer, "UI Lays Out Future Diversity Plans," The Daily Iowan, January 21, 2016, p. A1 ("[UI Associate Vice President Georgina] Dodge announced that a . . . Diversity and Inclusion [required course] would begin in the summer of 2017 . . .. Success at Iowa . . . and International at Iowa . . . would collaborate for this year's Orientation . . .. Dodge also touted the Center for Diversity and Enrichment's multipurpose room in the University Capitol Center and said it will be having a grand opening on Thursday.")

 Kaylyn Kluck, "Required Diversity Course in the Works," The Daily Iowan, January 21, 2016; hard copy: Kaylyn Kluck, "Required Diversity Course in the Works," The Daily Iowan, January 21, 2016, p. A5 ("The University of Iowa College of Liberal Arts & Sciences recently announced incoming students will have to fulfill a new diversity and inclusion course requirement. The curriculum update is supposed to replace the old Values, Society, and Diversity requirement by 2017. The decision comes at a time when issues of diversity, whether on university campuses or in the Oscars, make headlines nationwide. Iowa is one of many colleges across the nation seeking out new ways to create a more diversity-friendly atmosphere.")

 January 25-27, 2016
 Free Speech on Campus. A recurring challenge for all college and university presidents, including the UI's Bruce Harreld, is balancing the values behind the First Amendment (and for public institutions its Constitutional requirements, and the reinforcement provided by "tenure") with a school's desire for civil, collegial relations, and respect for all who make up its diverse community. This includes sesitivity in the president's use of language.

 A little over a year ago these issues arose on the UI campus regarding a statute displayed on the campus that some saw as a KKK threat to African-Americans, others saw as an appeal to reason, and the artist saw as simply art. "Threats and Sensibilities: Residents Kim, Lynton and Mason," December 20, 2014.

 A year later, President Harreld "put his foot in it with the current debate surrounding whether he said teachers 'should be shot,' or whether he said he 'should be shot." "Quick Draw Harreld and Why Language Matters," December 17, 2015 (with links to news articles at the time).

 There have been in the past, are now, and will continue to be many more controversies involving the standards applied to on-campus speech and other expression.

 A current story involves another former business person serving as a university president -- one who apparently prefers first drowning students like bunnies before shooting them. ("His biography says that he founded or co-founded four businesses and worked at various times for Bain & Co., JP Capital Partners and Cornerstone Management Group.") Scott Jaschik, "Are At-Risk Students Bunnies to Be Drowned? President's Plan to Weed Out Some Students Soon After They Arrive -- and His Alleged Metaphor for the Plan -- Set Off Furor at Mount St. Mary's U.," Inside Higher Ed (online), January 20, 2016 ("Is a valid strategy to improve a college's retention rate to encourage students at risk of dropping out to do so in the first few weeks, so they won't be counted in the total numbers reported to the U.S. Education Department and others? . . . [St. Mary's U. President Simon] Newman told some faculty members they needed to change the way they think of struggling students. He reportedly said, 'This is hard for you because you think of the students as cuddly bunnies, but you can't. You just have to drown the bunnies . . . put a Glock to their heads.'")

 No one would contend that insulting language, or "hate speech," is "nice" or socially acceptable. But it does not follow that anything and everything done to reduce or punish it constitutes an unmittigated blessing. Does President Harreld hold a view on this new UI program? Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Free Speech Advocates Raise Concerns About UI Bias Team," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), January 22, 2016, 11:16 a.m.; hard copy: Jeff Charis-Carlson, "UI Bias Team Raises Free Speech Concerns; It Would Address Complaints of Racial or Other Bias," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 23, 2016, p. A1 ("The executive director of a national free speech advocacy group says there is 'reason to be wary' of the University of Iowa's plans to move forward with a bias assessment response team . . .. Robert L. Shibley, executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said via email Thursday. 'I think there is also real reason to be wary of giving any agency of the government, including UI, the ability to record every instance of unpopular speech in a giant database. . . . A campus culture that encourages students to report to the authorities about officially disfavored speech, rather than instances of real harassment or threats, is gravely at odds with the idea of a university as a place for the unfettered exchange of ideas,' Shibley said.")

 Here's a case in which university officials at UI's sister university, ISU in Ames, sought to silence student speech -- not because it was hateful, but because it might create some political problems for the schools' administrators. They found out the U.S. Constitution denied state schools that power, and in the process brought negative public relations upon themselves. It's one more free speech context for President Harreld to think through. Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Court Orders ISU to Allow T-shirts with Marijuana Leaf," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), January 22, 2016, 5:21 p.m.; hard copy: Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Court Orders ISU to Allow T-shirts with Marijuana Leaf; Ruling: ISU Engaged in Unconstitutional Viewpoint Discrimination," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 23, 2016, p. A3 ("the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa permanently barred ISU . . . 'from further prohibiting plaintiffs from producing licensed apparel on the basis that their designs include the image of a similar cannabis leaf.' . . . The suit is part of the Stand Up For Speech Litigation Project, overseen by the national organization Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Because university officials blocked the design 'due to the messages they expressed' in an effort to 'maintain favor with Iowa political figures,' the court found that ISU engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.")

 And for a twist that should get President Harreld's attention (sort of like the contrast between fining a Wall Street bank millions of dollars and putting its CEO in a federal prison) see, Vanessa Miller, "Court Backs Iowa State University Students in Marijuana T-shirt Case; ISU Administrators, President Steven Leath, Could Be Held Personally Liable," The Gazette (online), January 25, 2016, 4:39 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Higher Education: Court Backs Students Over Pot T-shirt; Officials Said Design with ISU Logos and Marijuana Leaves Violated Trademark," The Gazette, January 26, 2016, p. A7 ("According to the court order, ISU administrators acknowledged the policy revisions resulted from external criticism, including from those with political prominence. . . . The judge . . . did deny the lawsuit's defendants 'qualified immunity,' which means they could be held personally liable for violating student rights.")

 Vanessa Miller, "E-mails: Some Hoped University of Iowa President's 'Shooting' Comments Would Drive Him Out; 'He Picked the Wrong Thing to Say at Precisely the Right Moment,'" The Gazette (online), January 22, 2016, 9:43 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Higher Education: Some Hoped Harreld's Comments Would Oust Him; Emails Show UI Employees Called President Names and Urged Publicity," The Gazette, January 23, 2016, p. A1 ("Lisa Gardinier, the Latin American & Iberian Studies librarian, has said Harreld told the group that any instructor who goes into a class unprepared 'should be shot.' . . . Harreld has previously said his remark was incorrectly described by Gardinier. 'I never said "teachers should be shot" . . .. I referenced my own experience and commented, "I have learned the hard way that if I go into a classroom without a teaching plan, I should be shot."'")

 More UI Football Issues UI President Harreld has said he'll focus on the integrity and academics of UI's athletic programs and leave the winning to AD Gary Barta. (See Jan. 13-15, above, first item.) Well, this morning's [Jan. 27] news brings a couple of additional integrity issues.

 CTE strikes home. What are the ethical/integrity issues involved in a university using unpaid students to fuel a multi-million-dollar commercial engine if it may result in students' lifetime disabilities from physical injuries or even death from mental injuries? Andy Hamilton, "Former Hawkeye Tyler Sash found to have CTE," Associated Press/Des Moines Register/Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), January 26, 2016, 9:55 p.m.; hard copy: "Ex-Iowa Player Sash Had CTE," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 27, 2016, p. A1 ("Chris Nowinski of the . . . Concussion Legacy Foundation confirmed the diagnosis of [Tyler Sash's] chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE . . .. CTE . . . is directly linked to repeated brain trauma. It is associated with symptoms such as memory loss, impaired judgment, depression, and, eventually, progressive dementia. . . . [T]he severity of CTE in Sash's brain was similar to the level found in the brain of . . . Junior Seau, who committed suicide in 2012 at age 43. . . . [L]inebacker A.J. Edds . . . told The Register . . . 'when you start looking back and connecting the dots, some of the symptoms and signs were there. . . . It tells you about the state and the standing of what football is continuing to do to guys, not just physically but mentally as well.")

 Teams endorsing Trump. "University of Iowa Football Team Endorses Donald Trump," screamed the URL of the news story. The text reports that, with football players and wrestlers at his side on stage at the UI Field House, "'They endorsed Trump,' the real estate mogul announced to the crowd." I hasten to add that there are no backstory facts known to me. Did the team take a vote? Did the players inform the coaches? Did the coaches encourage, approve, or acquiesce in the endorsement? Did the approval go higher up in the UI's administration -- already accused of Republican favoritism in other contexts? Did the Trump campaign contact the players, or did the players reach out to the campaign? I don't know any of that. But the problem created by, at least the appearance of an endorsement, exits regardless of the answers to those questions.

 This is not the time or space for a doctoral dissertation on the subject, but let me also make clear that I see little to no problem with, say, student members of the University of Iowa College Republicans working with the Trump campaign. Indeed, the platform might have been designed with any number of student supporters (identified as such) sharing the stage behind Trump -- as other candidates have sometimes done in the Field House. Indeed, I'd see no problem with one or two athletes being a part of that group. Similarly, I'd not think it a problem if President Harreld, and a smattering of VPs and Deans were a part of a 1000 person audience -- whereas it would seem problematical for them to have played the role the football team did.

 Consider: When Herky appeared at Republican Senator Joni Ernst's "Roast & Ride" event in Boone, the UI was quick to disavow the mascot's endorsement of the senator. Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Cy, Herky Remain Politically Neutral, Schools Say," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), June 12, 2015, 12:17 p.m. ("University officials are reasserting the political neutrality of Herky the Hawk and Cy the Cardinal after both mascots appeared at a Republican political rally last week.")

 Alex Swoyer, "University of Iowa Football Players Endorse Donald Trump: 'What a Team!,'" Breitbart News (online), January 26, 2016 ("GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump was endorsed by several players from the University of Iowa Hawkeye football team on Tuesday night at his rally in Iowa City, Iowa. . . . 'They endorsed Trump,' the real estate mogul announced to the crowd.")

 January 28-31, 2016
 The absence of links to UI and higher education news and opinion pieces (including my own) during these last four days of January has not been for want of content. Maintaining a repository of the journalistic history of the administration of UI's President Bruce Harreld (along with news of other challenges to higher education generally with implications for the University of Iowa) is a bountiful source of material. The unfolding story remains compelling.

 By way of explanation for readers not residing in Iowa, this break in reporting is a function of the fact that the focus of Iowa news and Iowa citizens' efforts during the last week of January through the night of February 1, 2016, has been on "The Iowa Caucus." However, none of the links to relevant material during this political interlude has been ignored or lost. They will be reported here, and commented upon in due time. </big>

 # # #email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-22431002621895947452015-12-25T13:02:00.001-06:002015-12-28T07:27:38.028-06:00Reasons for Hope in 2016Note: The following are substantial excerpts from a New York Times editorial (modified with some additional paragraph breaks), for which the Times holds the copyright. Information concerning subscriptions to the Times, both the hardcopy and digital editions, can be found -->here<--. If representatives of the Times would like for me to remove this blog entry -- along with my personal endorsement of the Times and this subscription information -- please merely contact Nicholas Johnson, at email@example.com, and all will be immediately removed. -- N.J.

 <big>Moments of Grace in a Grim World

 Editorial, The New York Times, December 25, 2015, p. A26
 [I]t might help to . . . tune out the rancor and find reasons to believe in the persistence of better values: humility, conciliation, kindness, dignity and reason.

 The evidence was all around in 2015, nearly everywhere you looked.

 The nations of the world came together in Paris to reach an agreement that may yet halt the march toward an overheated, unlivable planet. It offers the best chance for meaningful global action to avert catastrophic climate change, and 195 countries promised to seize it.

Pope Francis, like the saint he took his name from, a messenger of humility and peace, visited the Americas. He challenged the wealthy and powerful in the name of the poor and the weak. When he spoke to Congress, prayed at ground zero, and greeted, with a smile and a hug, a little girl who jumped a fence to approach his motorcade in Washington, he set a vivid example of welcome for children, immigrants, the forgotten.

 As the Syrian crisis swelled and a human tide poured toward Western Europe, tens of thousands of refugees found open doors and hearts in Germany and other countries. The overall global response remains far from adequate, but the Germans sent a message that rebukes nationalist bigotry, defends human rights and reminds countries like the United States how to confront a humanitarian emergency.

 The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of committed love between two people, affirming the marriage rights of same-sex couples who had been denied equal treatment under the law.

 The use of the death penalty in the United States fell to the lowest levels in two decades.

 A bipartisan movement for criminal justice reform advanced, despite our blighted politics.

 In neighborhoods long scarred by discrimination and police brutality, the Black Lives Matter movement spread a message of peaceable resistance. Its methods and successes evoked those of the older and continuing struggle for immigrants' and workers' rights, which had many victories, like the workers' campaign for a $15 minimum wage.

 Dozens of states and cities, resisting a xenophobic tide, passed laws expanding rights and inclusion for undocumented immigrants, through driver's licenses, legal services and health care. Come January, California, long a leader in this area, will be the first state to forbid discrimination based on immigration status, language or citizenship.

 As with states, many individuals led by example, opposing hatred and fear with courage. Parisians opened their homes to strangers on the night of terrifying slaughter there.

 After a gunman's rampage at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C., victims' families forgave the killer. "A hateful person came to this community with some crazy idea he'd be able to divide," said the mayor, Joseph Riley Jr., "but all he did was unite us and make us love each other even more."

 President Obama spoke at the church about healing racial divisions, then began to sing "Amazing Grace." When the congregation stood and joined him, how sweet the sound. Days later, the Confederate battle flag came down at the South Carolina State Capitol.

 Evil is everywhere, and anger and hatred are loud. The shouting drowns out the quiet; tragedy and disaster block the view of the good. Yet there are always signs of progress toward a better future. Look, or you may miss them.</big>

 # # # firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-78228237588916696262015-12-17T14:45:00.002-06:002015-12-28T07:26:44.313-06:00Quick Draw Harreld and Why Language Matters<big>
During 2010 seven individuals of varying prominence discovered they had something in common. The group included a major corporation's CEO, U.S. Army General, CNN correspondent, Department of Agriculture employee, talk show host, major political party's national committee chair, and a White House correspondent.

 What did they have in common? Each endured the experience of joining the ranks of the unemployed. Because of the economy? No; because of something they said.

 I call them "the Outspoken Seven."
-- Nicholas Johnson, "Was It Something I Said? General Semantics, the Outspoken Seven, and the Unacceptable Remark," Institute for General Semantics, New York City, October 30, 2010 [drawn from an expanded, footnoted, unfinished manuscript with the same title]
 [B]asically we always talk about ourselves. Our statements are the verbalizations of our preverbal tensions. It is these organismic tensions -- not the external reality -- that we transform into words.
-- Nicholas Johnson, What Do You Mean and How Do You Know (2009), Ch. 9, p. 118, Wendell Johnson, "General Semantics and the Neuro-Biology of Communications"
 Communicating with the dead is only slightly more difficult than communicating with the living.
-- Author unknown

 UI President Bruce Harreld has put his foot in it with the current debate surrounding whether he said teachers "should be shot," or whether he said he "should be shot."

</big>"UI's Harreld Sorry for Saying Unready Teachers Should Be Shot," Associated Press/Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), December 15, 2015, 12:28 p.m.; hard copy: "Harreld Says He's Sorry for Teacher Comment; UI President is Under Fire for a Statement About Unprepared Instructions," Associated Press/Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 16, 2015, p. A1

 Vanessa Miller, "Graduate Students Say University of Iowa President Shiould Quit Over 'Should be Shot' Remark; Harreld Apologizes for 'Off the Cuff' Comment Made During a Meeting," The Gazette (online), December 15, 2015, 4:51 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Higher Education: UI President Apologizes for His Remark That Unprepared Lecturers 'Should be Shot;' Graduate Students Say He Should Quit Over 'Off the Cuff' Comment," The Gazette, December 16, 2015, p. A3

 Vanessa Miller, "University of Iowa President Harreld Tries to Clarify 'Teachers Should Be Shot' Comments; 'I Never Said Teachers Should Be Shot,'" The Gazette (online), December 16, 2015, 4:04 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Higher Education: Harreld 'Should Be Shot' Remark Misquoted; The UI President Says His Comment to Staff Inaccurately Reported," The Gazette, December 17, 2015, p. A3

 Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Harreld Tries to Clarify 'Should be Shot' Comment," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), December 16, 2015, 6:41 p.m.; hard copy: Jeff Charis-Carlson, "UI President Harreld Attempting to Clarify 'Should be Shot' Comment," Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 17, 2015, p. A1

 Corey Hickner-Johnson, "Harreld's Comments Out of Line," December 16, 2015, 5:33 p.m.; hard copy: Corey Hickner-Johnson, "UI President's Comments Are Out of Line," Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 17, 2015, p. A9
<big> One could probably organize a seminar around all the categories of issues this suggests for discussion.

 There is the science of communication, and as the last two quotes suggest, the miracle that human communication ever accomplishes what the speakers intend.

 One could inquire into the kinds of punishments that have been imposed on those whose words were found to be unacceptable -- along with an exploration of what our society's standards should be in this context, and the due process that should be followed in the fact finding preceding punishment. (That is the subject of the sources from which the first quote comes. If you'd like to see what the "Outspoken Seven" actually said, how the complaints against them were processed, and some commentary on what might have been preferable punishments to their being fired, click on the links following that opening quote.)

 In the course of this discussion, one might compare Harreld's remarks with those that resulted in the firings of the "Outspoken Seven."

Finally, there is the matter of "executive communication 101" -- what Harreld did, why it was problematical, and how he made it worse for himself -- the subjects this blog entry addresses.

 A law school colleague told me the story of running into a large law firm's hiring partner one day in the school. The partner inquired about a student the professor knew. The professor raved about the student in question -- how bright he was, how he was always prepared to recite in class, his quality writing. At that point the partner interrupted, "No, I know that, or at least assumed it. What I want to know is, can he tie his shoestrings?" In other words, does he have common sense, good judgment, and reasonable social skills -- what my mother's generation would have described as "the sense God gave geese."

 There are people who start every day believing they will be disrespected by others, and then look for examples. Given the attention paid to what executives say, and the difficulties associated with human communication under the best of circumstances, referred to above, they need to be more careful than the rest of us. They need good judgment. An ill considered choice of words, expressions, or stories, can harm an organization's morale, and an executive's reputation among those who may already harbor grievances and a willingness to think the worst -- however unchallenged the language might be among the boys in an all-male boardroom, barroom, or country club locker room.

 As with sexual harassment by supervisors, the words used by Harreld (on the assumption he was not talking about literally shooting any UI employees) suggest a kind of tough guy approach to administration-employee, university president-faculty, relations that creates considerably more intimidation than if it came from a peer, or casual bystander. It reminds me of an occasion when I couldn't help but overhear a passenger in an airline's executive lounge shouting his demands of an employee into the phone. When he hung up, he turned to me, smiled and said, "I don't get ulcers, I give them." That's one style of management -- one I never found useful as a government official. We don't know what Harreld's style will be as he weighs layoffs and budget cuts. But his reliance on forceful figures of speech, like shooting the unprepared, even if not literally likely, are not reassuring.

 There have been shootings of instructors on college campuses, including the one on which Harreld now resides (in 1991), as well as in K-12 schools across the country. As Corey Hickner-Johnson points out in the opinion piece linked above, one should be able to anticipate that attempts at lighthearted references to instructors being shot are probably not going to be well received by instructors -- even if the remarks do not inspire real harm from the deranged.

 Words matter. TV host Glenn Beck infamously advocated that the best way for conservatives to deal with liberals was to "shoot them in the head." A correlation is not a cause, but many suggested that this kind of language from Beck, Sarah Palin, and others may have played some role in subsequently motivating the shot in the head of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, seven months later, on January 8, 2011 (along with the injury and death of 18 others).

 There is an expression in the business literature, and elsewhere, that if you find yourself stuck down in the bottom of a deep hole, the first step to getting out is to stop digging. It has its application in Executive Communication 101 as well. Or, as law professors advise their soon-to-be new lawyers, once you've won your case, stop arguing.

 After his gaff was called to his attention, Harreld's first instinct was his best. In an email exchange with the person who emailed her complaint about his remark, he replied, "I apologize and appreciate your calling my attention to it." She responded that she appreciated his apology and understood his remark to be rhetorical. Had he left it at that he would have taken a lump, but the story probably wouldn't have made it into the next news cycle.

 Not content to leave this resolution alone, and rejecting the wise counsel from the adage that "yesterday's newspapers are used to wrap fish and line bird cages," he kept the story alive. That was his first mistake. The second mistake was that what he came up with by way of a defense made no sense at all. He contended that, in the context of a discussion of UI instructors preparation to teach, while saying that "unprepared teachers should be shot" would be inappropriate, that was not what he said. He claimed he said that if he was, or when he was, an instructor that if he was unprepared "he should be shot."

 He thereby insured a second round of stories in the next news cycle, and since there was no recording of what he said, the rejection of his assertion by some of those present. It also created the sense that although he once seemed to understand what he'd done wrong and apologized for, he was now trying to excuse it as OK -- and with a distinction that was unpersuasive at best.

 Watch this space.

 # # #</big> firstname.lastname@example.com