May 22, 2015, 11:09:36 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Congrats, Juan and Derrick!
 
   Home   Search Login Register   *
Resources

UDM 4
Recent Posts
[Today at 10:58:26 PM]

[Today at 10:47:27 PM]

[Today at 10:33:53 PM]

[Today at 10:18:03 PM]

by MattVelazquezSays
[Today at 10:00:08 PM]

[Today at 09:59:43 PM]

[Today at 09:44:17 PM]
Please Register - It's FREE!
The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
 31 
 on: Today at 08:02:11 PM 
Started by keefe - Last post by MU82
i understand completely keefe, BUT, now you've trained dudes to rob a store and instead of heeding law enforcement, all they have to do is turn their backs and run...unless the cops can run faster or they have canines or long range tasers, or...?  same with fleeing in cars and the chase rules.

You're right. Shoot the bastards.

And once you've shot 'em and they're lying there on the ground, choke 'em till they can't breathe. And once they're dead, shoot 'em again just in case.

 32 
 on: Today at 08:01:29 PM 
Started by Heisenberg - Last post by keefe
And what about all those students who were honing their masturbation skills as part of the FEMSEX practicum? No doubt they are worked into a lather about this! We need to lend them a hand and probe this very deeply and thoroughly.

Finally, we need to know who fingered Susannah Bartlow. Something is definitely fishy in all this.




 33 
 on: Today at 07:58:33 PM 
Started by 77ncaachamps - Last post by warriorchick
You are correct.  Plaque in the Hyatt lobby.  Any one remember the Lincoln plaque on Schroeder's front lawn?

http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/31048

http://www.suvcw-wi.org/memorials/milwaukee_lincoln.html

It's still there.

 34 
 on: Today at 07:56:43 PM 
Started by wadesworld - Last post by BagpipingBoxer
Can we recruit the producer of that Cheatham video?

 35 
 on: Today at 07:56:05 PM 
Started by Heisenberg - Last post by The Sultan of Sunshine
The usual suspects.  At the risk of implying guilt by association, a friendly reminder that the incoming provost is a sociologist.  With that in mind, another reason why I am glad that this mural was spotted and removed sooner rather than later.

I guess this is the start of the blowback storm.  Stand strong, Lovell!!


He'll take the heat from the faculty because it is easier to weather than the heat he would take from elsewhere.

 36 
 on: Today at 07:54:43 PM 
Started by Heisenberg - Last post by The Sultan of Sunshine
No one can bring back or replace Werner Foerster, he is dead! As long as there is faculty at MU trying to justify his murder my dollars are going elsewhere.

Nobody is "justifying his murder."  Hyperbole doesn't help your argument.

 37 
 on: Today at 07:52:32 PM 
Started by Heisenberg - Last post by Eldon
Below is a letter written to the administration by Heather Hathaway, Associate Professor of English, on behalf of faculty upset with the handling of the dismissal of Susannah Bartlow and the removal of the mural.

Dear President Lovell and Interim Provost Callahan and Members of the Board of Trustees Cc: Incoming Provost Myers

We write to express our alarm about the decision-making process surrounding the removal of the mural in the GSRC and the termination of Director Susannah Bartlow. Though our opinions on the content and placement of the mural itself vary, we are undivided about how the administration’s exclusionary and non-transparent decision-making process compromises our ability to support the administration with regard to issues surrounding race, gender and sexuality. This most recent incident is another in a pattern (see the firing of Jodi O’Brien and the FemSex controversy) of non-consultative decision-making that has caused the university public notoriety and significantly deteriorated both student and faculty morale. As we stand at yet another critical juncture in the University’s leadership, we implore you to break this damaging cycle by living up to University’s stated mission and guiding values of “search[ing] for truth...[by] discover[ing] and sharing... knowledge” and “embrac[ing] new and collaborative methods of teaching, learning, research and service in an inclusive environment that supports all of our members in reaching their fullest potential.”

We do not believe these ideals were upheld in the decision to remove the mural without seeking input from the students involved or from faculty with expertise in the area. First and foremost, the decision not to engage the leadership and members of the sponsoring sorority, Alpha Kappa Alpha, sends the very clear message to students that their opinions and concerns are irrelevant to the administration. Such disregard would be appalling in any circumstance, but given that the students involved are African American women—that is to say, members of the Marquette community who are already marginalized by race and gender—this oversight (at best) or blatant incivility (at worst) directly contradicts the University’s stated guiding value of “nurtur[ing] an inclusive, diverse community that fosters new opportunities, partnerships, collaboration and vigorous yet respectful debate.” Though we do not presume to speak for the students themselves, as faculty and staff “whose commitment to students is fundamental to [our] intellectual and professional lives,” we find the lack of dialogue with students to be egregiously disrespectful and profoundly disturbing.

Second, we find it deeply troubling that in a university—a societal institution explicitly designated to exchanging ideas and advancing knowledge—no efforts were made to consult faculty or staff with expertise in the area in order to understand the context and content of the mural itself from intellectual, cultural and historical perspectives. Instead, the reactionary rhetoric of a single faculty member who is currently suspended by the University took precedence over the knowledge of faculty in Africana Studies, Women’s and Gender Studies, History, Sociology, Criminology and Psychology, to cite only a few relevant academic disciplines, who possess years of training and valuable insights into the complexities surrounding race and gender studies generally, and the case of Assata Shakur specifically. Moreover, no efforts were made to consult any of the standing committees of faculty, staff, and students whose purpose is to advise on matters related to the issues at hand. The Advisory Board of the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center certainly deserved consultation given their very charge to guide the Center. The Diversity Advisory Committee, which has been working for the past two years to fulfill a charge given to it by Interim Provost Callahan to create a Strategic Theme on Equity and Inclusion for the University, would have been another logical and helpful resource. So, too,
would have been the Committee on Diversity and Equity, a division of the Academic Senate. If the collective good judgment of these “governing” bodies of the institution is not consulted in moments of crisis, it is difficult to imagine what their function might be.

The objections we raise here are merely those pertaining to the autocratic nature of the decision to remove the student-initiated and funded mural and to fire the director of its sponsoring unit, the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center. We have not even touched upon the wide array of related concerns such as the University’s commitment to the recruitment and retention of racialized students, faculty, and staff; its commitment toward gender equity at all levels; the funding of programs such as the majors in Africana and Women’s and Gender Studies which are designed to educate the Marquette community about these very issues; academic freedom; or the cold climate surrounding race, gender and sexuality in which we must work and live at Marquette. All of these are of grave concern and require attention and action by the new leadership of President Lovell and Provost Myers. We expect to contribute our expertise in this process and challenge you to invite that of Marquette’s most important constituency, the students themselves, as you chart a new, inclusive and collaborative path for the University. Let these most recent failures in leadership come to an end and mark the beginning of a Marquette that is authentically and actually about our guiding values of “collaboration,” “inclusion” and “respectful debate.”

The usual suspects.  At the risk of implying guilt by association, a friendly reminder that the incoming provost is a sociologist.  With that in mind, another reason why I am glad that this mural was spotted and removed sooner rather than later.

I guess this is the start of the blowback storm.  Stand strong, Lovell!!

 38 
 on: Today at 07:49:39 PM 
Started by Heisenberg - Last post by muwarrior69
Below is another letter written by Stephen L. Franzoi, professor in Psychology, regarding displeasure with the handling of the mural issue. It was sent to Marquette faculty and some staff asking if anyone wanted to sign their name to it before it was sent to the administration.

The recent events on campus in response to the mural of Assata Shakur and the subsequent firing of the GSRC director, Susannah Bartlow, demand a response. As faculty, we would hope that a university administration would respond with a critical and careful concern for our students, our faculty, and our staff. In short, the administration should act with discernment following a process of examen and reflection. The university’s response has been the exact opposite.  As a faculty, we submit that the following were not weighed in considering the process for engaging the mural, erasing the mural, and terminating Dr. Bartlow. The incident has raised critical questions that the university ought to have considered before any decisions were made.
 
First and foremost, there was no consideration of the intellectual or scholarly traditions in which Shakur is invoked and engaged. While she is certainly a controversial figure, by adopting the narrative of pure vilification, the university has applied a problematic standard. The opportunity to sponsor a discussion about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the mural’s subject was completely lost.  Any context about race, policing, and the present moment and historical legacy surrounding these issues were ignored, including any reflection on Marquette’s own place within the social justice landscape.

Did the administration consider the chilling impact of the erasure of the image within the context of present conversations about police brutality and black life? To disappear the mural with no engagement or conversation was to deny the role of such symbols in the social critique of police and to selectively erase some difficult histories while leaving others untouched. For a university to adopt a position informed solely by police is problematic in that they are but one stakeholder in our community. Students, staff and faculty are the other stakeholders on this campus, and their perspective and knowledge ought to have been weighed.
 
Second, the racial politics of the erasure of the mural were not considered with care. A group of black women students asks for a space to self-educate and explore. They paint a mural of a controversial black female figure. The figure is erased. Were the students consulted? Were they offered an opportunity to engage? To defend their choice? Were they offered opportunities for education and coursework? Was any of the care for their whole persons extended on the part of the university?

Or was their initial request, that for space to invest in the representations of black women on campus, simply denied and stripped away? Where is the care for our students, their desire to engage in serious and difficult conversations? Does the university note that the involvement of Professor McAdams in drawing attention to the mural after its painting on March 24, 2015, means that a white male professor’s voice has taken prominence over the voices of many black female students, and the staff who took their project seriously and sought to give them space for conversation? What is the university planning to do to make those students whole?

There is also the issue of whether similar standards are applied to other figures with problematic legacies, and how the term “terrorist” is itself not a neutral moniker, but one that is deeply racialized and politicized. For example, while Nelson Mandela is honored as a freedom fighter, he and the ANC were literally branded terrorists by the apartheid state in South Africa. Mandela remained on the U.S.’s lists of terrorist until 2008. Conversely, Thomas Jefferson is largely celebrated at the University of Virginia and at many universities across the country as a founding father and celebrated figure in our democratic history.

Simultaneously, a robust and well-documented understanding of his legacy of slave ownership and sexual exploitation is well known in scholarly and popular discourse. As universities, which problematic legacies do we quietly accept, and which do we hold accountable? Is their racial and gender parity in how these standards are applied? Are we condoning some forms of violence while rejecting others?
 
Finally, was the process by which Dr. Bartlow was terminated appropriate and proportional? Was the board of the GSRC asked to weigh in? As the GSRC’s charter dictates that all decisions impacting the operations and future of the center must be vetted through the board, how was the board included in the decision-making process?

Is immediate termination an appropriate course of action given the sequence of events, and was Dr. Bartlow’s contribution to enriching the research and teaching practices on campus outweighed by the perception of transgression in this case? Was her expertise in bringing best practices around LGBTQ advocacy, sexual assault prevention and advocacy, allyship, and student support outweighed by this event? Does the administration consider how difficult it will be to replace Dr. Bartlow and that this hasty decision undermines the momentum of the GSRC, and compromises the students, staff and faculty who depend on the center’s resources and role at the university to enrich our work?  Has the university considered the impact on future enrollments of our student body, or future faculty hires? How will this decision impact the quality of student, staff and faculty life in the future?
 
Given the failures of the administration to act in a manner befitting a scholarly Jesuit institution, we ask the university respond to these queries, put in place processes to secure the future of the GSRC, to support students of color, and to embrace difficult conversations. 

Chiefly, it is clear that as the original recommendations for chartering the GSRC indicated, the GSRC must be directed by a tenured faculty member. In addition, programs such as Africana Studies and Women and Gender Studies must be adequately resourced, and care for our students, particularly students of color, must be exercised in the university’s practices, and not simply its words.

Sincerely,
Stephen L. Franzoi, Psychology

No one can bring back or replace Werner Foerster, he is dead! As long as there is faculty at MU trying to justify his murder my dollars are going elsewhere.

 39 
 on: Today at 07:48:07 PM 
Started by Heisenberg - Last post by The Sultan of Sunshine
Gotta love A&S faculty.

(I am an A&S alum.)

 40 
 on: Today at 07:31:08 PM 
Started by Heisenberg - Last post by Macallan 18
Below is another letter written by Stephen L. Franzoi, professor in Psychology, regarding displeasure with the handling of the mural issue. It was sent to Marquette faculty and some staff asking if anyone wanted to sign their name to it before it was sent to the administration.

The recent events on campus in response to the mural of Assata Shakur and the subsequent firing of the GSRC director, Susannah Bartlow, demand a response. As faculty, we would hope that a university administration would respond with a critical and careful concern for our students, our faculty, and our staff. In short, the administration should act with discernment following a process of examen and reflection. The university’s response has been the exact opposite.  As a faculty, we submit that the following were not weighed in considering the process for engaging the mural, erasing the mural, and terminating Dr. Bartlow. The incident has raised critical questions that the university ought to have considered before any decisions were made.
 
First and foremost, there was no consideration of the intellectual or scholarly traditions in which Shakur is invoked and engaged. While she is certainly a controversial figure, by adopting the narrative of pure vilification, the university has applied a problematic standard. The opportunity to sponsor a discussion about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the mural’s subject was completely lost.  Any context about race, policing, and the present moment and historical legacy surrounding these issues were ignored, including any reflection on Marquette’s own place within the social justice landscape.

Did the administration consider the chilling impact of the erasure of the image within the context of present conversations about police brutality and black life? To disappear the mural with no engagement or conversation was to deny the role of such symbols in the social critique of police and to selectively erase some difficult histories while leaving others untouched. For a university to adopt a position informed solely by police is problematic in that they are but one stakeholder in our community. Students, staff and faculty are the other stakeholders on this campus, and their perspective and knowledge ought to have been weighed.
 
Second, the racial politics of the erasure of the mural were not considered with care. A group of black women students asks for a space to self-educate and explore. They paint a mural of a controversial black female figure. The figure is erased. Were the students consulted? Were they offered an opportunity to engage? To defend their choice? Were they offered opportunities for education and coursework? Was any of the care for their whole persons extended on the part of the university?

Or was their initial request, that for space to invest in the representations of black women on campus, simply denied and stripped away? Where is the care for our students, their desire to engage in serious and difficult conversations? Does the university note that the involvement of Professor McAdams in drawing attention to the mural after its painting on March 24, 2015, means that a white male professor’s voice has taken prominence over the voices of many black female students, and the staff who took their project seriously and sought to give them space for conversation? What is the university planning to do to make those students whole?

There is also the issue of whether similar standards are applied to other figures with problematic legacies, and how the term “terrorist” is itself not a neutral moniker, but one that is deeply racialized and politicized. For example, while Nelson Mandela is honored as a freedom fighter, he and the ANC were literally branded terrorists by the apartheid state in South Africa. Mandela remained on the U.S.’s lists of terrorist until 2008. Conversely, Thomas Jefferson is largely celebrated at the University of Virginia and at many universities across the country as a founding father and celebrated figure in our democratic history.

Simultaneously, a robust and well-documented understanding of his legacy of slave ownership and sexual exploitation is well known in scholarly and popular discourse. As universities, which problematic legacies do we quietly accept, and which do we hold accountable? Is their racial and gender parity in how these standards are applied? Are we condoning some forms of violence while rejecting others?
 
Finally, was the process by which Dr. Bartlow was terminated appropriate and proportional? Was the board of the GSRC asked to weigh in? As the GSRC’s charter dictates that all decisions impacting the operations and future of the center must be vetted through the board, how was the board included in the decision-making process?

Is immediate termination an appropriate course of action given the sequence of events, and was Dr. Bartlow’s contribution to enriching the research and teaching practices on campus outweighed by the perception of transgression in this case? Was her expertise in bringing best practices around LGBTQ advocacy, sexual assault prevention and advocacy, allyship, and student support outweighed by this event? Does the administration consider how difficult it will be to replace Dr. Bartlow and that this hasty decision undermines the momentum of the GSRC, and compromises the students, staff and faculty who depend on the center’s resources and role at the university to enrich our work?  Has the university considered the impact on future enrollments of our student body, or future faculty hires? How will this decision impact the quality of student, staff and faculty life in the future?
 
Given the failures of the administration to act in a manner befitting a scholarly Jesuit institution, we ask the university respond to these queries, put in place processes to secure the future of the GSRC, to support students of color, and to embrace difficult conversations. 

Chiefly, it is clear that as the original recommendations for chartering the GSRC indicated, the GSRC must be directed by a tenured faculty member. In addition, programs such as Africana Studies and Women and Gender Studies must be adequately resourced, and care for our students, particularly students of color, must be exercised in the university’s practices, and not simply its words.

Sincerely,
Stephen L. Franzoi, Psychology

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
TinyPortal v0.9.8 © Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.055 seconds with 22 queries.