Trangressive Journalism at University of Missouri?

Have you heard of the word "trangressive"?  Here's a definition:

Transgressive may mean:

• Transgressive art, a name given art forms that violate perceived boundaries
• Transgressive fiction, a modern style in literature
• Transgressive Records, a United Kingdom-based independent record label
• Transgressive (morphology), a form of verb in some languages
• Transgressive phenotype, a phenotype that is more extreme than the phenotypes displayed by either of the parents
• Transgressive segregation
• Cinema of Transgression, film movement using shock value and humor

Journalism was not listed in these descriptions of trangressive practices, probably because journalism was originally taught and centered on reporting the facts.   The female student editor of the University of Missouri student newspaper, The Maneater, wrote a "trangressive" journalistic piece for April Fools Day that wasn't appreciated by many readers.  She used terminology offending certain groups and like the word "teabaggers", she used a word which insinuated sexual practices.  From the editor's mea culpa letter:

Although many parts of this edition were vulgar and offensive, I want to first take the time to explain the masthead. I truly did not know that “carpet eater” is a derogatory term used for a lesbian. Had I known, I would never have even considered using it. I chose the masthead because I thought the pairing of the play on words of “The Maneater” with the sexual innuendo of that term could be funny. I realized there was a sexual connotation in this term, but I did not realize it was derogatory toward the LGBTQ community. Not knowing is not an excuse, however, and I’m sure that if I had brought this to every member of the 24-person editorial board, and made sure that every single person had read it, someone would have known this was a slur. Unfortunately, I did not do this, and my ignorance has harmed other people. I could not be more sorry about this. I’d also like to note that the negative connotation that masthead carries does not reflect the opinion of the editorial board. 

Other derogatory words toward women were also printed in this edition, such as “cunt,” “slut” and “whore.” This was a massive oversight on our part. I allowed these to be printed because my thinking was that, as they were used in a satirical way and mostly as plays on words, the context in which they were used did not speak to women and the treatment of women. My poorly thought out rationale, which I realize now was wrong and potentially dangerous, was that since they were not used in a way that glorifies the mistreatment or objectification of women, they were not offensive. I realize now that these words in and of themselves can contribute to further prejudice, no matter the context. In addition to offending people on a personal level, the April Fool’s issue could detract from the work campus organizations and individuals have done to create a more inclusive campus. These words communicate beliefs that neither The Maneater editorial board nor I believe. Language and context is a false dichotomy, and the language in this edition was not at all acceptable. 

I can't locate a copy of the original April Fools piece but there are several sites reporting on the Maneater publishing a questionable article.  The reader comments from letters to The Maneater's editor are quite interesting.

Jill said:

How many times are we expected to accept apologies from this newspaper? This is at least the third egregiously offensive Maneater publishing that's taken place this semester. (The first two being "Grindr lovin', had me aghast" by Emma Woodhouse, and 'Jane Eyre: Prude 'n' proud" by Claire Landsbaum.) As an MU student I cannot stress enough how sick and tired I am of hearing about what the Maneater's done now. Do you realize that every offensive, insensitive, disgusting thing you print negatively affects the image of our entire university? And our journalism school? If any of you expect to be taken seriously in the world of journalism, I'd advise that you think cautiously about what exactly you've permanently tagged your names to, and remember that future employers, and professors, and classmates, won't forget your names or this garbage you've written. Like a previous comment stated you are not the Onion. You are not the New Yorker, you are not even the Missourian. You are the Maneater. Trying to 'shock' people into reading your paper, writing 'humor' that does not translate, or having to release a letter of apology once a month doesn't bode well to increase the credibility of your product, or of you as individuals. So grow up, knock it off, and remember that you represent our university. 

A different point of view:

Mark said:

The fact that this apology needs to be written is offensive to me. Not because I was displeased by any article in the April Fool's edition, but because no one seems to have a sense of humor or skin thicker than tissue paper. The offense that people have taken to this issue is more disgusting to me than every profanity, slur, vulgarity in the English language. Since I am so outrageously offended by other people's offense, I demand the immediate apology from everyone who claimed to be harmed, because overly-sensitive, self-righteous, sanctimonious umbrage is repulsive to me. Oh wait, that's not how things work. If you're offended by words used purely for humor's sake then your offense is completely manufactured and corresponds to nothing in the real world. Words are not inherently offensive; they are only hateful when they are intended to demean or degrade another person. As anyone with an I.Q. above 14 would be able to tell you, the April Fool's edition clearly did not use the terms maliciously, so any hurt feelings are purely the result of someone looking to be offended. If you think the word choice was childish, immature, or otherwise below the journalistic standards that the Maneater ought to adhere to, then you'll find no argument from me. If you're upset because you think the word "cunt" is always, in every circumstance, in any context whatsoever, unacceptable, then you are incalculably more immature and unprofessional and pathetic than anything contained in the April Fool's edition of the Maneater. Grow up. If you're legally an adult, you should start behaving like one.

Enter "transgressive" journalism 101:

Jordan said:

I applaud the Maneater for owning up when their words caused backlash. However, if you can't take risks at a student paper, then where else can you? I know the April Fools issue offended some, but I don't believe that the writers were trying to be hurtful. Being transgressive is important; especially for our young journalists. (emphasis added)

And to end the comments:

Sara said:

I'm sorry. I understand this is an apology but how are you that unaware that the word "Carpetbagger" was not extremely offensive? It is sad that the people supposed to have the most knowledge of the world and it's culture can be so socially unaware of this. And also unaware that printing the word "cunt" is not satire, and if this was any other journalist they'd be shamed and fired. I understand this was supposed to be a "joke". But really, your priority is to the students you write to first. And you did not humor them, you insulted. The letter to the editor said it perfectly- "This is not journalism."

Questions:

• If what The Maneater (apparently is has happened before) writes is NOT journalism, then what is it?
• Can/should journalism be described or permitted to be "transgressive"? 
• Why is being "trangressive" important for young journalists?  Is such writing factual or opinion oriented?  
• Is there any difference today between journalism and satire? 
• Is there any difference today between journalism and fiction writing?
• Is it permissible to write derisively about some groups (teabaggers vs carpet eaters) and not others?
• Are these questions raised in journalism classes not only at the University of Missouri but also nationwide?  

Here is an article on this issue ("How The Maneater Pissed Off Mizzou's Campus...Again") from J-School Buzz, a student-run blog about the Missouri School of Journalism that publishes content without prior review from journalism school faculty.  J-School Buzz describes itself:

JSB Editors operate this blog out of a commitment to keeping this journalism school as one of the best in the world. That commitment is expressed through questions and careful examination, with the hope that this blog will only improve the Missouri School of Journalism. JSB wants this J-School to be known as the kind of place that fosters the entrepreneurial spirit and innovation that is more important now than ever in journalism.

It appears JSB does a better job in journalistic techniques and possesses more journalistic integrity than does the school sponsored and state funded journalistic newspaper, The Maneater: "The student voice of MU since 1955".

University of Missouri's Version of Aerotropolis: Exporting Human Capital to China. UPDATED

It has been a wild week in Missouri legislatively speaking. A special session was called to take up some bills, including "Aerotropolis" aka "The China Hub" renamed "Made in Missouri Jobs Package" then renamed "Missouri Jobs Act".

The governor and some legislators have been insistent the state needed to provide $360 Million in tax credits to establish a hub that could import Chinese goods into Missouri and export Missouri beef to China. Citizens questioned:

• why we couldn't use the 18 million feet of current vacant warehouse space-- the plan called for new construction in specific zones designated by the county executive and mayors of municipalities--instead of picking where new warehouses would be built and by whom;
  
• and that beef exports to China are not currently allowed by China so why was this was listed as a selling point for the bill.
  

The plan is reported to be on its last legs as of this writing , as the Mamtek issue has taken center stage in the state. This is a tax credit deal signed off on by the state and the city of Moberly in 2010 for the construction of a Moberly factory owned by a Chinese company to produce artificial sweetener. Governor Jay Nixon boasted last year the deal would create over 600 jobs. The agreement was signed in 73 days, ground was broken, and the company subsequently defaulted on its bond payments.

The finger pointing has started and we have our own mini-Solyndra scandal in Missouri! But it is important, apparently, to keep Missouri's partnership with China for the future. Here's a link describing how two colleges in the Missouri public system are offering courses in new campuses in China:

KSDK-TV reported that Thomas George, chancellor of the University of Missouri-St. Louis, announced the undertaking in a speech Wednesday to faculty and staff.

The new campus is under construction in Sichuan Province, in southwestern China. George said it's about half-built, and approval from the Chinese Ministry of Education is expected later this fall.

UMSL is partnering with Missouri University of Science and Technology in Rolla to offer courses in business, nursing, social work and engineering.

We have a few questions:

• Is the University of Missouri providing any of the building costs of this campus in China?
• Will our social work students learn the Chinese imposed law of one child per family?
  
• Will our social work students learn that religion has little place in a person's life and religious practices outside of governmental approval is frowned upon and in some cases result in imprisonment?
• Will social work students learn a child's primary attachment is to the state vs his/her parents?
  
• Will our business students learn that governmental managed economies are preferable to free market capitalistic models?
• Will the nursing students learn that female babies in utero are not valued and abortions are encouraged and mandated if an urban family already has one child?
• Will the engineering students learn they might as well study in China and live there when they graduate because the manufacturing jobs are practically extinct in the US?
• Will all these students learn political viewpoints different from the government are frowned upon and not allowed without punishment?
  

(Here's a list of Chinese human rights violations).

Just a thought. Could the move for the China Hub have to do with exporting product from the US and it's not beef? Could it be for our university students? We don't need warehouses; we need more passenger terminals to send our students overseas for an education they apparently can't find in Columbia or Rolla, Missouri.

Why are we sending our students to a communist country for study? Why is it so important to be globally competitive and globally indoctrinated? Do we need an airport for human capital instead of cattle to ship to China? It seems rather silly to write that last question, but maybe there's some validity in asking about the exportation of our citizens. How will this push to send our "best and brightest" to China for study improve our US educational institutions and students, goals of Arne Duncan and the Department of Education?

*************************************
UPDATE. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the courses are being offered to Chinese students who will then transfer after two years of study. American professors will be sent to China and apparently, the costs will be borne by the Chinese government.

The professors will work on curriculum and it will be interesting to see how free market capitalism (if it is still a theory that is taught) will be received in China. I wonder if the social science curriculum will raise any alarm bells in the Chinese government regarding some of the differences between the two cultures. I'm glad American students won't have to study the cultural and legal practice of forced abortions, but I wonder how that subject can or will be handled from an American viewpoint to a Chinese student.

With all the talk about American students not keeping up with the Chinese students, why are we investing in educating their students? I thought this big push for global competitiveness was primarily for American students, not focused on the students we are allegedly falling behind in test scores and performance. According to the article:

The Missouri universities also would split a consulting fee of at least $1,000 for each enrolled student, and could get up to $4 million annually through the partnership.

"This is a money maker for us," George said.

Smurfs' Communism and the University of Missouri Institute Labor Studies Class

The University of Missouri offers an online course on Labor Studies through The Institute of Labor Studies at the Kansas City and St. Louis campuses. At least two of its lecturers have ties to the Communist Party in the USA (CPUSA) so perhaps this youtube selection could be added to its online curriculum.

"Smurfs' Communism" explains the smurf economic and social systems, and division of labor. As the lecturers have communist political leanings, this would be an excellent choice for them to show and explain to these University of Missouri students how communism and labor unions are connected in terms of wages and expectations.

What is Communist Theory and Should Your Tax Dollars Support Communist Speakers in the Missouri University System?

Libero Della Piana, Director of Communication for the National Communist Party spoke to Mizzou students on April 27. If you read the links from the previous post, Della Piana believes in the defeat of the ultra-right and the transformation of America from a capitalistic system to a communist system.

Do college students today understand the tenets of Communism? Della Piana has stated:

We are not a large party anymore, but we have influence in certain segments of the labor movement and the peace movement and remain one of the most important groups on the Left. And we have new appeal among young people who don't even remember the Soviet Union. No other progressive organization, I think, left a greater mark on the country (from culture, literature, film, politics, race relations, etc.) than the CPUSA.

There is not a more appropriate place for Communist leaders and lecturers to deliver their message...college audiences that don't remember the massacres of Mao, Stalin and Che Guevera.

Let's examine the definitions and examples of communism:

Here is one fairly straightforward explanation:

Modern day Communism is based on the writings of two German economists, Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels, who answered the question “What is Communism?” in their collaboration, “The Communist Manifesto” published in 1848. In it they declare that many problems in society are due to the unequal distribution of wealth. To bring about happiness and prosperity for all, the distinctions between the rich and poor of society must be eliminated. And since the rich will never give up their goods or status voluntarily, a rebellion of the poor -- the working class -- is necessary.

Thus, Communism is a distinct socio-political philosophy that is willing to use violent means to attain its goal of a classless society. If capitalism is defined as a social system based on individual rights (and individual wealth), then communism is its direct opposite. Communism believes in equality through force. In its system, individual rights are ground to powder and used to build its idol of absolute government control. It is indeed like the tusk of the elephant. It is sharp. It is dangerous. And it has gored millions of men in its rage through history.


Here's a site that is pro-Communism and answers questions about Communism and Socialism. Here are some excerpts on the goals and ambitions of these political theories:

Will there be democracy and elections under socialism, and will dissent be allowed?

Communist leadership will unleash diverse thinking and action from the bottom up and everywhere else. It will foster dissent, including opposition to the government itself, and provide the means for such viewpoints to be heard. Elections will have a role as one way of selecting and developing leadership, and keeping it accountable to the masses.But one thing that will not be up for vote is whether society should go back to capitalism. A revolution to completely change society requires firm and visionary leadership to enable the masses to hold on to power and to guide the challenging and liberating struggle to get to a communist world:where the division of people into ruler and ruled, and between leaders and led, is finally overcome.

Will people be able to practice religion under socialism?

Yes. People will have the right to worship and hold religious services (and the right not to believe in god). But the schools, and the government generally, will promote a scientific materialist understanding of the natural world and of human society. People will not be forced to give up religion, but there will be society-wide ideological struggle to help people voluntarily cast off enslaving religious belief.


Just from these three excerpts, it is evident when and if the revolution is successful, America will be able to have elections for leadership but not for the style of government. Once this is instituted, we will be ruled by leaders hand picked by the party system (not the people) and we will be perpetually in a system of a communist world. We will be able to have our religion, but we will soon be indoctrinated to understand our religion only enslaves us; it is the government that truly frees us.

And say good bye to the concept of American exceptionalism and individual destiny:

Won’t socialism or communism come up against the realities of human nature and selfishness?

There is no innate or unchanging “human nature.” People’s thinking, behavior, and values are shaped by the economic structure and corresponding institutions and culture of a given society. Ancient Greek society and America’s “founding fathers” regarded slavery as perfectly “normal.” Capitalism is organized around the private accumulation of profit and economic competition. Selfishness, greed, and individualism are rewarded by the workings of capitalism and promoted by the institutions of capitalist society. They are not “hard-wired” into our genes, and neither is racism or male supremacy.


Taxpayers of Missouri, you need to know what your tax dollars are promoting. If you don't like Communist party members and leaders lecturing students urging the overthrow of America and a call to violence as a viable tactic, call the chancellors and the governor's office and voice your displeasure on the use of tax funding for this rhetoric.

National Communist Party Leader Speaks to Students at Mizzou

The content of lectures in University of Missouri classrooms has been of concern to many Missourians as released videos of classes at UMKC and UMSL portray professors advocating violence to achieve labor goals.

There is a video of Tony Pecinovsky, Missouri and Kansas director of the Communist Party of the USA explaining his organization's view that "capitalism is the systemic problem in America". In the video he differentiates the CPUSA from other Marxist organizations and explains how CPUSA understands the necessity of not just working against the state but working within the state.

Mizzou students in Columbia were invited on April 27 to hear Libero Della Piana, Communications Director of the Communist Party USA speak about injustice:

************************************

Social Justice Journalism with Libero Della Piana April 27, 6:30pm, Memorial Union N201

Apr 27, 2011 - Apr 27, 2011

6:30 PM - 7:30 PM

Location: Memorial Student Union

Room/Hall: N201

Price: n/a

Sponsor: ORG- Organization Resource Group

There are two sides to many news stories: the people who get rich, and the people who get ripped off. Journalists and others interested in shining a spotlight on injustice, the people who commit it, and the people who fight back will definitely want to check out veteran journalist and political organizer Libero Della Piana's presentation in Memorial Union N201 on April 27 at 6:30pm. Mr. Della Piana is the Communications Director of the Communist Party, USA, and his writing has been featured in the San Francisco Chronicle, Colorlines, Black Commentator and the People's World.

***********************************

Here is some information on the speaker:

Della Piana looks beyond Obama. He sees the election as a chance to shift the whole U.S. government to the left. By electing more leftist Democrats, the CPUSA hopes to tilt the direction of the U.S. government towards socialism. The Communist Party USA, through their influence in the U.S. union movement wants to completely alter the U.S. political landscape-and to change the world.

Of course, deeper Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and in an increase in progressives in the Congress will also shift the terrain in Washington, opening the way for legislation to turn-back the damage of the Bush years, and to repair the country from 30 years of right-wing rule. This is no time to sit out the election.

We not only have a chance to undo the Bush Agenda, but to win big transformative victories and set the stage for higher levels of struggle. A decisive electoral victory in November will lead the way to passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, the end of the occupation of Iraq and implement some form a of national health care. The working-class has been on the defensive for decades, this election has the chance to put the movements back on offense, to set the agenda for the country.

A big people’s victory in November is not the end of the struggle, but a new beginning on more favorable ground. The mass movements of the people: the peace movement, student movement, civil rights movement, women’s movement, and labor movement have to keep the pressure on to ensure a new Democratic Administration and Legislature keep the promise to meet the people’s needs.

Change the U.S. government and world revolution has no significant opposition.

Together, we can win in November and together we can go on the to change the world.

Do you remember Tony Pecinovsky's stated goal in the CPUSA? The defeat of the "ultra-right" is of utmost importance. Communist members work very closely with unions to achieve their goals. This is the same information Della Piana tells us in his own words.

I wasn't at the speech last night, but based on the philosophical foundation of the Communist Party in the USA, it wouldn't be surprising if this fundamental transformation of the US government was mentioned. "Change the world"...where have I heard that before? Maybe Della Piana was recruiting people of color into a training program which he attended, the Movement Activist Apprenticeship Program. You can read more about Della Piana's beliefs here from a speech he delivered at a US Social Forum in June 2010 in Detroit.

We'll be contacting the University of Missouri to determine if they have had any speakers from the more conservative side of the aisle so their students are exposed to diverse political theories.

Call the chancellors and president of the University of Missouri system. Call the governor's office. Ask them if they are aware of these theories being taught in classrooms and lectures and if this is the standard political teaching present at these campuses. Ask them if there are speakers and lecturers extolling the exceptionalism of America and the protection of the United States Constitution, rather than lectures promoting violence, criminal mischief, and the overthrow of the United States government.

U of M Insitute for Labor Studies Teaches Violence and Communist Goals

The University of Missouri system is receiving more than its fair share of national attention this week. Calls for an end of the Institute for Labor Studies at the University of Missouri KC have come from many fronts recently as videos have emerged showing ILS professors advocating the occasional need for violence and industrial sabotage as acceptable methods for "corporate/union negotiations" as well as outlining specific tactics that can be used.

See more at http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/04/25/union-official-professor-teach-college-course-in-violent-union-tactics/and

This is not the first time the UM ILS has been poised under the chopping block. In 2007, in an interview with KC online, then Chancellor Bailey said elimination of the Institute for Labor Studies was being considered "in an effort to comply with a mandate from the University of Missouri Board of Curators that each of the four campuses — Kansas City, Columbia, St. Louis and Rolla — cut spending by 1 percent each year for the next three years to help fund salary increases for faculty." Then state Sens. Victor Callahan and Chris Koster were part of a meeting with UM staff to talk about possible restructuring of the Institute to save it. UofM staff salaries have been frozen since 2009, but clever "structuring" of the pay scale has meant that salary increases have continued, only in the form of promotions that come with automatic pay increases. The Institute survives today, but it seems a shift in message is called for more than a restructuring.

Professor Ancel has had a long consistent history of supporting the unions and a view of the future with unions running the show. Her communist support is apparent. She wrote in a 2009 article for LaborNotes.org "When unions side with nationalism they confuse workers about who our allies are, who our enemies are, and what will advance our own interests. Without alternative strategies economic nationalism seems logical, but our history suggests it will take us onto the rocks...This is the wrong debate, where the alternatives are either corporate-led globalization, with multinationals roaming the world for cheap labor, or protectionist nationalism, with these same multinationals distracting us with a phony show of patriotism to divide us from other workers....Unions gained leverage in the U.S. when we could take wages out of competition by organizing entire industries. In today’s global labor market wages are again in competition, and it’s still our job to equalize wages so that corporations can’t whipsaw us."

She still sees the world as an Us vs Them scenario, where there are allies and enemies. Yet she paints the future of the worker as one where we're all in this together. We'll all receive the same pay, no matter where we go or, by the way, how good we are or how hard we work. In this world one must have an enemy. And, since it is human nature to rationalize doing anything to an enemy, violence against the enemy du jour is totally acceptable. And in her world, that enemy will always be whoever disagrees with the union.

The video shows how far this line of reasoning can go. When asked when something stops being a terrorist action and starts being a revolution, Ancel casually laughs, "When it succeeds, it's a revolution." This is the Saul Alinksy doctrine of the ends justifying the means and results in the escalation of violence until they are successful. And if you really want to be scared, her co-teacher on this online course, Don Giljum, who says industrial espionage has its place, is the Business Manager for the Union that represents workers at the Callaway nuclear plant and all of Ameren UE in Missouri.

Bill Hennessy of Hennesseysview.com and the St. Louis Tea Party, has written to Governor Nixon demanding:

1. Shut down Labor Studies until the department’s been purged of anti-American radicals
2. Fire Missouri state employees who invited Don Giljum and that communist [Tony Pecinovsky] into classroom
   
3. Apologize to Missouri taxpayers who pay $400 million a year for that university system
   
4. Apologize to the students and their parents who sat through that filth

Is Ancel's and Giljum's message one you want delivered in your tax payer funded university system? If not, contact the interim President, Steve Owens, and ask that the ILS be investigated and defunded until its violent anti-American curriculum is removed. Steve Owens, Interim President 321 University Hall Columbia, MO 65211 (573) 882-2011. Or, in case you're having trouble reaching him, try your senator or representative and ask that they investigate how your tax money is being used at the ILS.

New Course Offering from University of Missouri: Industrial Sabotage 101

Missouri college students and/or union workers may very well be learning violence is acceptable and encouraged behavior in labor disputes.

Your tax dollars are paying for this call for violence and industrial sabotage. Contact the University of Missouri system at this email address to demand the firing of the professor and this content be pulled immediately from labor studies coursework:

To: web_office@umsl.edu

Here is some of the latest information from the Columbia Tribune:

Videos showing two University of Missouri instructors advocating for union violence are making the rounds online.

VIDEO

Biggovernment.com Video: Union Official, Professor Teach College Course in Violent Union Tactics

VIDEO

Biggovernment.com Video: How to College Course on Violent Union Tactics

The videos — first posted on Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government website — capture Judy Ancel, director of UM-Kansas City’s Institute for Labor Studies, telling a class “violence is a tactic, and it’s to be used when it’s the appropriate tactic.” She goes on to tell a story of a friend who worked for a utility company in Peru, where it’s illegal to strike.

“They couldn’t get access to” strike, “but they had a lot of cats and they succeeded in putting cats in powerhouses,” she said. “And the cats — now, don’t think about the cats, OK? The cats would run around inside and short out the system and cause power blackouts. And that created enough chaos in the system” to get to “a negotiating position.”

Plus, she joked, they “got rid of a lot of feral cats.”

The course, Labor in Society & Politics, is offered as part of the labor studies certificate. It’s team-taught by Don Giljum of Operating Engineers 148, and Dave Robertson, a UM-St. Louis instructor. It’s unclear whether those in the class are adult workers or college students. The UM System declined to comment, and Ancel was not available Monday afternoon.

In the videos, Giljum advises students to get creative with union strategies. Giljum, who represents Ameren workers, explains how workers at one company printed articles off the Internet about sabotaging equipment and spread them throughout the plant. Additionally, workers would “end up at the same shopping center or church” as the CEO of the company — so much so that he became paranoid and began wearing protective jackets and helmets inside the plant “because he was afraid of being shot,” Giljum said. “There are all kinds of things you can do to be creative.”

Finally, the FBI was called in and the plant became a potential crime scene, giving workers paid time off. In another instance, he said he was charged with instigating riots that “destroyed several police cars.”

Violence is not only a part of union history, he said, violence and sabotage has its place.

The video also shows a student asking when terrorism becomes a revolution, to which Ancel responds that it’s “terrorism until it’s successful. Then it’s a revolution.”

Reach Janese Silvey at 573-815-1705 or e-mail jsilvey@columbiatribune.com.

How Did Education Change from "Achieving the Purpose of Your Being" to "Being Able to Successfully Compete in a Global Society"?

Our researchers here at Missouri Education Watchdog are rather disheartened at what we've discovered over the weekend about the connections and proponents of common core standards and the delivery systems for those standards. It's no wonder we and others in different states are running into brick walls when we talk to our conservative legislators about common core standards and their lack of interest in how they will affect public education. The reasons go back as much as 10 years and involve significant financial involvement by many players on both sides of the aisle.

Conservatives have been betrayed by those who espouse the Constitution as their guiding principles in politics and business, and progressives have been betrayed by those who espouse protection for the masses. The educational reform currently offered to the American people is nothing but a smoke screen for the dot com billionaires (who lean progressive) to make even more money and the conservative billionaires to move the money away from the unions and public education structure to line their pockets. As we have stated in previous posts, this is not about reform, it's about the restructuring of public education into "edubusinesses" complete with standards and assessments that can be neatly packaged into a national box of learning...and perhaps in the future can be aligned to a global standard.

It's not as difficult as you may think. Dangle money in front of cash strapped states and tell them they won't get Title 1 money unless they sign onto standards. Pretend it's voluntary and just close your eyes to the fact that the Federal Government is designing curriculum. Presto. The Federal Government has now taken over education. And what is the goal of the Federal Government's grab of education?

One stated goal would be to profile children and share information with not only the Department of Education, but also the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services. Why in the world would your human capital be important to the Department of Labor? Here's a report entitled "Linking Data Across Missouri's P-20 Data System" from Jason A. Grissom at the University of Missouri and this information is contained on slide 7:

These data also can be linked to external data sets on employment, labor needs across sectors, economic development, community assets, and so forth.

This plan has been in the works for a long time and we will spend the next several days writing about the history of common core standards and systems, and what is in the future for American public educated school children. The education sector is being overtaken by billionaires and those who know nothing about educating children. They know how to make money and are manipulating the system with children and taxpayer funds. The Constitution is being circumvented and the legislators are silent.

It's up to the people to start asking questions. What has happened to education's purpose in 70 years? It has been stated one of the reasons of education today is to supply the work force. Let's examine the purpose of education as written in the book "Modern Philosophies of Education" by John S. Burbacher, Associate Professor of History and Philosophy of Education, Yale University in 1939:

Now what is the attribute or function of the human learner which sets him off from all else? Is it not his rational nature, his capacity to reason? If this abbreviated analysis be accepted, then the cultivation of the intellect becomes the supreme good. The hierarchy of value is graded according to the opportunity afforded for the development of man's rational nature. Social studies and chemistry will be more valuable than stenography or shopwork, because they involve more opportunity for reasoning. Not only selecting the best curricula, but conditioning the child and positing the preferred social system in which education is to operate, will be evaluated according to whether they help or hinder the child in achieving the purpose of his being.

Some draw different educational conclusions from an argue which, in the main, resembles this perfectionist doctrine. Instead of selecting reason as the cardinal value of distinction, they make all values relative to individual self-realization, which is to be gained through the only eternal values, truth, goodness, and beauty. As he is, the child is immature, imperfect. His lifelong purpose will be a quest for maturity, perfectability. But each self is different from every other self. Therefore the curriculum that will help one realize the eternal verities may prevent another. No subject or type of study, then, can be picked and assigned absolute value, and all the rest arranged in some order of precedence with reference to it.

We will write more about the goals of education as put forth by Dr. Brubacher on Tuesday. You might want to reread those two paragraphs about the meaning of education again and contrast them with the stated goals of common core standards that most states are finding themselves under:

The Common Core State Standards provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them. The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers. With American students fully prepared for the future, our communities will be best positioned to compete successfully in the global economy.

Is education facilitating the "achieving the purpose of his being" (1939) the same as being able to "compete successfully in the global economy" (2011)?

What Mizzou Business Students Should Have Learned from Kenneth Feinberg on Determining Executive Pay

We wrote about Kenneth Feinberg's recent speech at the School of Business at the University of Missouri...it was announcing his appearance and his presentation, "Government Determination of Private Executive Pay: Opportunities and Challenges". We wondered if the speech focused solely on executive pay from bailed out companies, or if this idea would spread to all companies in certain industries, even if they had not received government assistance.

The Columbia Daily Tribune covered the speech and Mr. Feinberg focused mainly on the companies receiving assistance from the Troubled Relief Assistance Program:

To rein in excessive pay, Feinberg capped salaries at $500,000 a year and banned retention bonuses; tied an executive's compensation to company performance; paid executives in stock that couldn't be redeemed for a few years; and prevented executives from being reimbursed until the corporation has repaid the taxpayers 25 percent of what it owes.

"Overall, it was a worthwhile exercise," he said, but he cautioned, "It's not something that should be expanded."

It seems Mr. Feinberg, then, would not be anxious to set executive pay for those companies not needing taxpayer bailout funding. I read a Forbes piece about Mr. Feinberg's actions after the BP spill and was impressed most with the one comment from a reader:

The only thing that management owes to their stockholders is enough information to let them make a rational decision on investment potential. That includes: a. Honesty / Integrity / no "Cooking the Books".
b. A clear Vision and Strategy statement as to their intended course.
c. Transparency and openness, providing all relevant information at appropriate times.

Under this model, stockholders can pick their investments based on the level of risk or conservatism the company is expected to show. Companies with good plans and with a continuing sustainability over time will be sought out by long-term investors and a fair price paid. Consider this the Warren Buffet model of investing. If executives would consider first their legacy to employees, societies and communities, rather than themselves and a limited circle of similarly compensated friends, we would return the respected Executive Statesman to business, rather than the Hired Aristocracy that we have developed.


I highlighted the last sentence because I believe that is the most important point in the reader's comment. Read this article from American Thinker, "American Religion and Religious Morality" and tie it in with the Forbes' article. The government has been instituting more and more rules on businesses and education. This has allowed the government to mandate moral behavior, which government is not constitutionally allowed to do:

Liberals and conservatives both believe that as Americans, we should be moral people. The major difference is where their morality intersects with their politics. Most conservatives believe that our morality should come from religion, separate from government. Most progressives incorporate moral guidance as a function of government.

The humanistic tendencies of the political left assume that morality can be governed by state laws and dismiss religion as an origin and arbiter of moral law. Therefore, government must become a humanist's ultimate authority to address and regulate human nature.

Therein lies the problem with Mr. Feinberg's actions on behalf of the Obama administration and I wish he had pointed this out to the future business leaders at the University of Missouri (from American Thinker):

Governments cannot create and enforce morality -- only law. The more corrupt a government becomes (as our human nature predicts), the more laws are created for power rather than justice -- which is the reason why governments cannot be the arbiters of morality. In addition, when Americans stop taking responsibility for self-regulated morality, then the heavy hand of government must attempt to control human nature and suffocate our free will. If we lose the ability to know not only what is right and wrong, but why it is right or wrong, then we stop being moral. We become simply law-abiding, compliant.

This article explains the difficulty in knowing how to address executives' "excessive pay". If taxpayer money is used to bail out these businesses, the taxpayers should have a say in how the companies are restructured and the company accounts and practices should be scrutinized. But the problem really is deeper and can't be solved by government rules and laws. It IS a matter of morality that needs to be practiced by business leaders AND politicians. It is NOT a matter of new laws and regulations and mandates. THAT is a lesson for college students to understand and integrate into their future professions.

Do you think business students will find any required courses about morality in college today? I wasn't there, but I didn't see it reported in Mr. Feinberg's speech at Mizzou. We might have fewer problems requiring massive taxpayer bailouts if our leaders had adhered to a moral law rather than the law of unmitigated greed.

Do you remember the title of Mr. Feinberg's speech: "Government Determination of Private Executive Pay: Opportunities and Challenges"? The opportunity he had to challenge the business students to operating/managing businesses from moral beliefs vs legalistic solutions seems to have passed. That's a shame.

Missouri Educational Policies...when Theories Meet Realities...it makes for "Puzzling Agendas" and bafflement.

The journalism students at Mizzou were not invited to sit on the recent chat by Governor Nixon regarding higher educational issues. Other journalists were invited, but not those who have the most invested in these issues--students. We blogged about the students being shut out and we now know what was discussed in this chat.

The Columbia Daily Tribune has a report on this meeting and it is entitled "A puzzling agenda--Governor calls on colleges to do more with less". Here is an idea of the Governor's thoughts:

Educate more students, Nixon instructed, parroting a national goal to increase the number of degree-holding adults from about 37 percent to 60 percent by 2025. In other words, teach hundreds of thousands more students in less than 15 years.

And, Nixon said in the next breath, do so not with the promise of additional state funds but by culling degree programs and sharing services between campuses.

This will indeed be some kind of feat; increasing degree-holding adults by 23% with no additional funding. The goal comes from rhetoric from the current administration. This may not be such an idea that ultimately helps America according to American Thinker:

We can't magically transform our anemic economy into a powerhouse by scraping the bottom of the barrel to find more disengaged kids to process through our credential factories. The truth is that there is no direct connection between national prosperity and "educational attainment."

That is the crucial point Professor Alison Wolf makes in her eye-opening book Does Education Matter? She demonstrates that it's neither necessary nor sufficient for a growing, prosperous economy for a country to get the maximum number of its citizens through college.

Dragooning more people into college won't give us a better workforce or better jobs. It will only give us more credential inflation as employers demand college degrees for mundane jobs.

Why is Nixon pushing this agenda of producing more college graduates in Missouri? Perhaps, as the writer continues, there is an underlying agenda for proposing this line of thinking:

It does, however, have some political advantages for the president and his party. Our higher education establishment is one of the most loyal and vigorous supporters of the Democrats and their "progressive" agenda. Putting more kids through college means more money in the pockets of the overwhelmingly leftist administrators and professors. Furthermore, since the intellectual influence on college students is much more apt to drive them toward statism than toward individual liberty and free markets, the more young people go to college, the bigger the voting bloc for leftist candidates.

Just like the notion that federal deficit spending will revive the economy, the idea that getting more young Americans through college will make the country more competitive and prosperous is utterly mistaken.

This puzzling agenda is not confined to higher education, it also is present in "Vision for Missouri Public Education". Transformational change for K-12 grades consists of relinquishing state control of curriculum and unfunded mandates. The idea of common core standards allowing "individual educational experiences" is a puzzling comment. As we wrote earlier, "individualized mandate" is an oxymoron.

Are Governor Nixon's and DESE's plans making sense? When theory meets reality oftentimes the theory proves to be unworkable because of the reality of the facts:

Although it was the last among Nixon’s list of priorities, funding is at the heart of the discussion. Lawmakers are looking down the barrel of a 2012 budget that lacks the $860 million in federal stimulus dollars padding the current budget. The state could see as much as a $600 million shortfall, and after being protected from significant cuts for two years, colleges and universities could bear the brunt of those budget reductions. Nixon said higher education should expect at least a $50 million cut.

Eliminating degree programs or coming up with cross-campus collaborations won’t solve the 2012 budget puzzle. Those changes will take years to implement.

How will this budget shortfall be plugged? One legislator has the same ideas as the lobbying groups writing the educational policy for K-12 schools:

Quicker remedies would be to beef up collection of Internet sales taxes or to start charging higher sales taxes on cigarettes, said Rep. Mary Still, D-Columbia.

“There are many things we can do to improve our revenue picture just by modernizing and dealing with the world we live in today,” she said.

Governor Nixon is not keen on raising taxes but is committed to his vision:

At the end of the day, “we want excellence,” Nixon said. “We’re taking a much more comprehensive and — in my view — thoughtful view of what we can do to position our institutions to competitively educate more students for years to come.”

What does excellence in higher education entail? A rigorous education or more enrolled students? What does excellence in K-12 education entail? Common core standards or a truly individualized/localized educational experience? As one commenter nicely summed up the issue in the Columbia article:

So the gov is aiming to help fix our educational woes and budget crisis by pressuring the university to cut degrees, which apparently will not save any money and provide less diversity in programs for a populace that needs to be more educated? I'm baffled.