Enough is enough.
Tonight, I am taking a stand against the tyranny and oppression being perpetuated against students and faculty by the administration of my alma mater, the University of Alaska Anchorage. Despite potential retaliation, retaliation that could end my academic career, I am exercising my First Amendment right to free speech, and my right to criticize institutions and organizations violating the constitutional privileges and civil liberties of others. I say this because University of Alaska president Mark Hamilton recently issued a virtual gag order against Professors Susan B. Andrews and John Creed, one that restricts them from engaging in political freedom while on campus. According to their article on The Mudflats, Hamilton informed them that they are forbidden to write about Sarah Palin, and any commentary about any current or potential political candidate must be approved by the University's statewide ethics attorney and state attorney general before they share it with anyone including colleagues.
Excuse me?
So, before they say anything, Andrews and Creed have to seek approval for everything from a blog, to a letter, to an article, to a conversation? Good one. Apparently, in Hamilton's mind you can work for the University of Alaska as a professor, you just can't exercise your right to freedom of speech as an American citizen while doing so. I'm sorry, but that is neither patriotic, since Hamilton is a former member of the armed forces; nor appropriate for an institution of higher learning where the freedom to question leaders and social regimes is necessary for developing the skills needed to make informed decisions about the future of everything from a city to a civilization. This gag is an affront to those ideologies, and it is a clear message to anyone daring enough to criticize those who are in control of our university. Hamilton and the administration was party to the forced resignation of Professor Rick Steiner who, as an oil spill expert, emphasized conservation, and decried University of Alaska's bias in regards to their relationship with the various oil companies who have offices in our state.
I can see his point since Conoco-Phillips, BP, and others are regular donors to the university with grants ranging anywhere from the six to seven digits at a time. Therefore, it makes sense that they would sit on their hands, and allow a tenured faculty member to be drummed out for speaking against the hand that so generously feeds them. This isn't the first time U of A has censured or fired staff for refusing to go along with the status quo since in the 1960s, then-president William R. Wood discharged two professors who opposed Project Chariot, the asinine idea of using nuclear weapons to build a harbor off the coast of Alaska.
Needless to say, after researching these antics, I am not a fan of Mr. Hamilton, and I do not support him any longer since his actions are an affront to both academic and constitutional freedom. Although, having said that I admit, I am afraid of retaliation by the administration of U of A for the content of this blog. I have a George W. Bush GPA, a few unpaid parking tickets, and more than a few angry professors under my belt due to my tendency to speak out against practices that are an affront to the human or civil rights of others.
Simply put, this blog could cost me everything.
I could lose my financial aid, I could be expelled should the administration decide to trump up issues from past grievances, I could be suspended, placed on academic probation, or face official censure even though I am a student. I want to get my MA in English from UAA, and eventually work for my alma mater. Yet, I could be denied admission into the graduate program, or blackballed from hire. Even worse, I could lose my degrees in English and Early Childhood Education for my decision to dissent. If this sounds ludicrous, keep in mind a case from 2007 where Stacey Snyder, then twenty-five, was denied her degree in Education from Millersville University because of an image on her MySpace account featuring her drinking beer from a red plastic cup, and sporting the caption "Drunken Pirate". Snyder was of legal age to drink, but the administration felt that this single image was enough to destroy her academic career, so I feel I am more than justified in my concerns about the potential backlash from this post.
It is unfortunate that I need to worry about my academic future simply because of my decision to exercise my right to free speech.
On the subject of academics, with the support of the Board of Regents, Hamilton has begun a process that will raise tuition 22% between 2012 and 2013. It has already increased over 30% since 2005, which means it will take longer for students to graduate, and reduce opportunity for higher education for graduating seniors. If that's not bad enough, raising tuition ensures the creation of an elitist class of individuals who have the money to purchase a college education, and this sentiment was echoed in the 2007 graduation commencement speech given by Chancellor Fran Ulmer. According to her, college graduates are an elite class unto themselves that are responsible for making decisions for the rest of society. A nice passive-aggressive statement that anyone who is not in that class cannot contribute, nor make decisions that concerns the well-being of themselves or their community.
Good one.
This elitist minority can be found in the administration of UAA, and is little more than a modern aristocracy who believes itself to be better than everyone else because of its member's education and socio-economic status. These are the people who proclaim to be Liberals, but are of the extremist variety that views anyone who does not think, act, or believe as they do to be ignorant and unenlightened. For that, they are willing to increase tuition to ridiculous levels, and therefore deny children of low income families and certain ethnic groups the opportunity to attend college, and acquire information and skills they could use to better themselves and their communities. What are they supposed to do? Follow in the footsteps of those in the early histories of Europe and this country, and beg some wealthy person to be their financial sponsor to they can afford tuition? Even better, join some powerful church entity in order to have a glimpse of higher academics? Do we really want to turn our society into one where only the wealthy and elite are college educated, and the working class has just enough of an education to perform the grunt work? Our ancestors tried that, and failed.
Last, but not least, in this criticism of administrative misconduct, we come to the issue of guns on campus. Recently, a group of pro-carry activists gathered on campus, resulting in the emergence of large signs on every entrance reminding students that it is against the law to carry guns on UAA property. Quite a few people think this is a good idea, especially in the wake of Virginia Tech, but those of us who have survived traumatic events have a different perspective.
Regulations are not going to stop someone from getting a firearm, coming to UAA, and unloading a hot lead shower of death on the locals. No-carry policies are ineffective, and unconstitutional since UAA does not have the same classification as a federal building which prohibits personal weapons. Anti-gun proponents state this wouldn't even be an issue if citizens weren't allowed to carry firearms under the false belief that disarming the masses will create a Utopian world free of violence. Although, if that were the case, then explain how throughout human history we have proven the innovative capabilities of our species by devising ways to kill one another without the advantage of modern weaponry. People have killed others using everything from spears and swords, to big rocks and pointy sticks. Taking away guns isn't going to stop people from killing one another, it's just going to inspire them to find alternative means to doing so. That, and I would like to see these individuals tell subsistence hunters in Alaska's villages that they need to surrender their means for killing the game they and their families rely on, and return to using spears, bows, and arrows to catch their caribou. Trust me, it wouldn't be pretty, and the ACLU would have a field day with all of the lawsuits.
Also, Hamilton's statement that firearms should only be used by qualified individuals is an insult and a joke. For one, we live in a state where a gun can mean the difference between life and death given the prevalence of bears, and other animals who view humans as a meal on two legs. For two, if a person has a gun, it usually means they know how to use it, and have taken the time to learn how to do so in a way that is appropriate and safe.
Because of the prohibition of firearms on campus, I wonder how many of those deaths by moose-stomping could have been prevented by a student who was armed, and could have shot the animal before it had a chance to kill the person it was trampling? How many of the rapes that take place on campus each year could be stopped, and the perpetrator caught by a woman holding them at gunpoint until UPD arrived? How many lives could be saved when an armed perpetrator charges into a classroom, only to be stopped by a student who was carrying their firearm that day?
It's nice to know that our administration not only wants us to be at the mercy of violent criminals, but sit down, shut up, and pay them almost $5K a year to be censored and victimized all in the name of higher education.
***
Drunken Pirate Fiasco
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0426072pirate1.html
Andrews and Creed's Article on The Mudflats about Hamilton's Gag Order
http://www.themudflats.net/2010/05/15/voices-from-the-flats-academic-freedom-under-assault-at-the-university-of-alaska/
ADN Covers Proposed 22% Tuition Hike
http://www.adn.com/2010/04/15/v-printer/1227673/uaa-students-protest-proposed.html
Hamilton's Letter About Guns
http://alaskadispatch.com/images/media/files/news/alaska/feb-2010-letter-hamilton-to-hines-04-28-10.pdf
Tonight, I am taking a stand against the tyranny and oppression being perpetuated against students and faculty by the administration of my alma mater, the University of Alaska Anchorage. Despite potential retaliation, retaliation that could end my academic career, I am exercising my First Amendment right to free speech, and my right to criticize institutions and organizations violating the constitutional privileges and civil liberties of others. I say this because University of Alaska president Mark Hamilton recently issued a virtual gag order against Professors Susan B. Andrews and John Creed, one that restricts them from engaging in political freedom while on campus. According to their article on The Mudflats, Hamilton informed them that they are forbidden to write about Sarah Palin, and any commentary about any current or potential political candidate must be approved by the University's statewide ethics attorney and state attorney general before they share it with anyone including colleagues.
Excuse me?
So, before they say anything, Andrews and Creed have to seek approval for everything from a blog, to a letter, to an article, to a conversation? Good one. Apparently, in Hamilton's mind you can work for the University of Alaska as a professor, you just can't exercise your right to freedom of speech as an American citizen while doing so. I'm sorry, but that is neither patriotic, since Hamilton is a former member of the armed forces; nor appropriate for an institution of higher learning where the freedom to question leaders and social regimes is necessary for developing the skills needed to make informed decisions about the future of everything from a city to a civilization. This gag is an affront to those ideologies, and it is a clear message to anyone daring enough to criticize those who are in control of our university. Hamilton and the administration was party to the forced resignation of Professor Rick Steiner who, as an oil spill expert, emphasized conservation, and decried University of Alaska's bias in regards to their relationship with the various oil companies who have offices in our state.
I can see his point since Conoco-Phillips, BP, and others are regular donors to the university with grants ranging anywhere from the six to seven digits at a time. Therefore, it makes sense that they would sit on their hands, and allow a tenured faculty member to be drummed out for speaking against the hand that so generously feeds them. This isn't the first time U of A has censured or fired staff for refusing to go along with the status quo since in the 1960s, then-president William R. Wood discharged two professors who opposed Project Chariot, the asinine idea of using nuclear weapons to build a harbor off the coast of Alaska.
Needless to say, after researching these antics, I am not a fan of Mr. Hamilton, and I do not support him any longer since his actions are an affront to both academic and constitutional freedom. Although, having said that I admit, I am afraid of retaliation by the administration of U of A for the content of this blog. I have a George W. Bush GPA, a few unpaid parking tickets, and more than a few angry professors under my belt due to my tendency to speak out against practices that are an affront to the human or civil rights of others.
Simply put, this blog could cost me everything.
I could lose my financial aid, I could be expelled should the administration decide to trump up issues from past grievances, I could be suspended, placed on academic probation, or face official censure even though I am a student. I want to get my MA in English from UAA, and eventually work for my alma mater. Yet, I could be denied admission into the graduate program, or blackballed from hire. Even worse, I could lose my degrees in English and Early Childhood Education for my decision to dissent. If this sounds ludicrous, keep in mind a case from 2007 where Stacey Snyder, then twenty-five, was denied her degree in Education from Millersville University because of an image on her MySpace account featuring her drinking beer from a red plastic cup, and sporting the caption "Drunken Pirate". Snyder was of legal age to drink, but the administration felt that this single image was enough to destroy her academic career, so I feel I am more than justified in my concerns about the potential backlash from this post.
It is unfortunate that I need to worry about my academic future simply because of my decision to exercise my right to free speech.
On the subject of academics, with the support of the Board of Regents, Hamilton has begun a process that will raise tuition 22% between 2012 and 2013. It has already increased over 30% since 2005, which means it will take longer for students to graduate, and reduce opportunity for higher education for graduating seniors. If that's not bad enough, raising tuition ensures the creation of an elitist class of individuals who have the money to purchase a college education, and this sentiment was echoed in the 2007 graduation commencement speech given by Chancellor Fran Ulmer. According to her, college graduates are an elite class unto themselves that are responsible for making decisions for the rest of society. A nice passive-aggressive statement that anyone who is not in that class cannot contribute, nor make decisions that concerns the well-being of themselves or their community.
Good one.
This elitist minority can be found in the administration of UAA, and is little more than a modern aristocracy who believes itself to be better than everyone else because of its member's education and socio-economic status. These are the people who proclaim to be Liberals, but are of the extremist variety that views anyone who does not think, act, or believe as they do to be ignorant and unenlightened. For that, they are willing to increase tuition to ridiculous levels, and therefore deny children of low income families and certain ethnic groups the opportunity to attend college, and acquire information and skills they could use to better themselves and their communities. What are they supposed to do? Follow in the footsteps of those in the early histories of Europe and this country, and beg some wealthy person to be their financial sponsor to they can afford tuition? Even better, join some powerful church entity in order to have a glimpse of higher academics? Do we really want to turn our society into one where only the wealthy and elite are college educated, and the working class has just enough of an education to perform the grunt work? Our ancestors tried that, and failed.
Last, but not least, in this criticism of administrative misconduct, we come to the issue of guns on campus. Recently, a group of pro-carry activists gathered on campus, resulting in the emergence of large signs on every entrance reminding students that it is against the law to carry guns on UAA property. Quite a few people think this is a good idea, especially in the wake of Virginia Tech, but those of us who have survived traumatic events have a different perspective.
Regulations are not going to stop someone from getting a firearm, coming to UAA, and unloading a hot lead shower of death on the locals. No-carry policies are ineffective, and unconstitutional since UAA does not have the same classification as a federal building which prohibits personal weapons. Anti-gun proponents state this wouldn't even be an issue if citizens weren't allowed to carry firearms under the false belief that disarming the masses will create a Utopian world free of violence. Although, if that were the case, then explain how throughout human history we have proven the innovative capabilities of our species by devising ways to kill one another without the advantage of modern weaponry. People have killed others using everything from spears and swords, to big rocks and pointy sticks. Taking away guns isn't going to stop people from killing one another, it's just going to inspire them to find alternative means to doing so. That, and I would like to see these individuals tell subsistence hunters in Alaska's villages that they need to surrender their means for killing the game they and their families rely on, and return to using spears, bows, and arrows to catch their caribou. Trust me, it wouldn't be pretty, and the ACLU would have a field day with all of the lawsuits.
Also, Hamilton's statement that firearms should only be used by qualified individuals is an insult and a joke. For one, we live in a state where a gun can mean the difference between life and death given the prevalence of bears, and other animals who view humans as a meal on two legs. For two, if a person has a gun, it usually means they know how to use it, and have taken the time to learn how to do so in a way that is appropriate and safe.
Because of the prohibition of firearms on campus, I wonder how many of those deaths by moose-stomping could have been prevented by a student who was armed, and could have shot the animal before it had a chance to kill the person it was trampling? How many of the rapes that take place on campus each year could be stopped, and the perpetrator caught by a woman holding them at gunpoint until UPD arrived? How many lives could be saved when an armed perpetrator charges into a classroom, only to be stopped by a student who was carrying their firearm that day?
It's nice to know that our administration not only wants us to be at the mercy of violent criminals, but sit down, shut up, and pay them almost $5K a year to be censored and victimized all in the name of higher education.
***
Drunken Pirate Fiasco
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0426072pirate1.html
Andrews and Creed's Article on The Mudflats about Hamilton's Gag Order
http://www.themudflats.net/2010/05/15/voices-from-the-flats-academic-freedom-under-assault-at-the-university-of-alaska/
ADN Covers Proposed 22% Tuition Hike
http://www.adn.com/2010/04/15/v-printer/1227673/uaa-students-protest-proposed.html
Hamilton's Letter About Guns
http://alaskadispatch.com/images/media/files/news/alaska/feb-2010-letter-hamilton-to-hines-04-28-10.pdf