Posts Tagged ‘fraud’

Paul Solomon’s report on PBS.org

Video Link

How one professor’s American dream — teaching — turned into the American nightmare (ARIK GREENBERG)

Adjunct professors now make up half of all college faculties, and 76 percent of instructional positions are filled on a contingent basis, according to the American Association of University Professors’ annual report on the “economic status of the profession.” There’s no starker way to consider adjuncts’ economic status than to hear that they’re paid an average of $2,000-$3,000 per class, with few to no benefits. At SUNY New Paltz, for example, between 1979 and 2008, adjunct pay has fallen 49 percent, while salaries for college presidents have increased 35 percent. The plight of adjuncts — what we’re calling “adjunctivitis” — is the subject on our upcoming Making Sense report.

One of the adjuncts in the broadcast segment is Arik Greenberg, who teaches theology at Loyola Marymount University. He’s been active in the movement to unionize adjuncts, and, at the invitation of the Service Employees International Union and the New Faculty Majority Foundation, recently took his case to the Rayburn building in Washington, DC, where he briefed congressional staffers on the working conditions of these part-time faculty. We wanted to share some adjuncts’ more personal struggles with our readers, and Greenberg was willing to adapt his testimony for the Making Sense page.

Arik Greenberg: I am an adjunct professor of theology at Loyola Marymount University, a major, private U.S. university. I have worked there for over 11 years, teaching consistently almost every semester. Despite the fact that I have the same credentials as my tenured colleagues, there is no opportunity for advancement. There are no full-time tenure-line positions that have opened or been established in my particular discipline at LMU for many years. However, they always seem to have more than enough classes that need to be taught in those very same disciplines, so they hire numerous part-timers to teach them.

As adjunct faculty members, we receive no benefits of any sort. I have never received a merit-based raise or a “promotion” (whatever that is), only the occasional cost-of-living adjustments that everyone else at LMU receives every few years. I have no job security, no assurance of academic freedom, no dedicated office space other than a small designated room that I share with four to five other adjuncts. I am also institutionally ineligible for the grants and professional development monies that tenure-line faculty have access to.

Working numerous jobs, some in the classroom and some in other segments of higher education, such as consulting and low level administrative work for small startup colleges, I have no time to contribute to research and publication in my chosen field. While I have done my best to publish, that part of my dossier is underdeveloped compared to others who hold tenure-line jobs. Their positions allow them to devote time to this; they are paid to do so. But when I should be researching and writing, I have to drive to another job. It has been this way with me for years. So even if a tenure-line job were to arise that I am eligible for, that gap in my dossier would hold me back, even though I have over a decade of highly successful teaching experience.

And even though I give my all to my teaching, my ability to grade and prepare for classes in a timely manner is hindered by the fact that I have to rush to another job. I could be offering more office hours or spending more time developing more effective courses and teaching methods.

Almost immediately after I first began teaching at my school, they hired me for a short-term “visiting” position, which was full-time, non-tenure track. But after two years of this full-time position, they deliberately let my contract lapse so that they would not be in danger of my suing them for tenure — a risk that universities face when employing a short-term contract employee for several consecutive years in a full-time position. This is common practice at our school and elsewhere.

But there was no evidence of my incompetence or lack of excellence in teaching. I had rave reviews from all my students and had wonderful relationships with all my colleagues, several of whom supported my candidacy for a full-time, tenure-track position. In fact, as evidence of my demonstrated prowess, after a short while they brought me back as a part-timer, and I have been employed there every semester since as an adjunct lecturer. I’m good enough to teach their students every semester for many years, but I’m not good enough to hire permanently?

After taking out nearly $140,000 in student loans to pay for grad school, and after years of financial hardship deferments, accrued interest has brought these loans to over $190,000. And on an adjunct lecturer’s salary, even augmented with other side jobs, I can neither support my family nor pay my student loans. My wife and I cannot afford to raise a child on our combined income, so we have waited to raise a family. Now at the age of 43, it may be too late.

And when my parents became ill, I couldn’t afford to move them in with me, arrange proper medical care or take enough family leave to be at my father’s side when he died. With the massive debts that my parents have left me, I risk losing the family home that I grew up in — that my grandfather built for us with his own hands — all because I am living on part-time wages.

Now that my parents are gone, I want to honor them by helping to change academia for the better. University administrations have failed to safeguard their hallowed halls against greed and the service of short-term savings, going the way of big business. And the accrediting bodies have failed to guide and censure them as well. If this situation continues unchecked, it will signal the destruction and disintegration of higher education as we know it, though many tenured faculty still do not recognize the inevitable, morbid outcome if this current trend is not immediately reversed.

I have no intention of letting that happen. My father was a grade school teacher. And he used to say that if not for the unions, teachers would have starved. Now, as an adjunct, I am experiencing what it would have been like for grade school teachers to be unsupported by the unions.

There is a growing movement of adjuncts who are willing to stand together to stem the tide of the avalanche. So when the union came to our campus in the fall of 2013, I took out my lucky pen and asked, “Where do I sign?” Our grassroots movement will prove to be the best thing that happened to higher education since the advent of the erstwhile tenure model, despite the common public opinion about unions fostering greed and mediocrity.

I’m fully educated; I stayed in school. Two masters and a Ph.D. I’ve published a book. I’ve paid my dues. I’ve followed the rules to realize the American dream, but I am now living the American nightmare. And I am not alone in this. I’m ready to work. All I want to do is contribute to the scholarship in my field and to teach my students effectively and passionately. But I need to earn a decent wage in order to do so.

Trotsky as St George (Victor Deni, 1920)

Trotsky as St George (Victor Deni, 1920)

So I kept the title under 140 characters for twitter but I think the point is clear no?

Governor Christie is being evaluated for future leadership of the American Empire based on how good he is at managing PR difficulties when busted doing what is little more than business as usual among the corporate gangs that run this country. Great criteria to lead a troop of scam artists and be shill-in-chief of the kleptocracy… oh yeah… that IS the job after all.

Meanwhile, the pretend-recovery is so ridiculous that even the corporate-media economist-clerics find it difficult to keep up the charade of how deep in shit the global political-economy is, swaths of the world disintegrate in an accelerated rate with the “help” of our beloved business-leaders and their politician henchmen, and the most “alarmist” environmental predictions turn out to be overly optimistic.

#lemmings #STFU! #Revolution

http://traffic.libsyn.com/blackagendareport/20130108_bd_legalize_it.mp3

Description:

A Black Agenda Radio Commentary by BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon

What if policymakers wanted to make marijuana safe for taxation and corporate profit, but needed to make sure legalization didn’t produce new jobs and economic opportunities for poor and working class communities, or make them lay off any cops and judges, or have to close any prisons or jails? Well, the model in place in Colorado today would be a good start.

Is the End of Marijuana Prohibition the End of the War On Drugs? Probably Not.

A Black Agenda Radio Commentary by BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon

The forty years of so-called “war on drugs” has been the rhetorical excuse for a nationwide policy of punitive overpolicing in black and brown communities. Although black and white rates of drug use have been virtually identical, law enforcement strategies focused police resources almost exclusively upon communities of color. Prosecutors and judges did their bit as well, charging and convicting whites significantly less often, and to less severe sentences than blacks.

The forty years war on drugs has been the front door of what can only be described as the prison state, in which African Americans are 13% of the population but more than 40% of the prisoners, and the chief interactions of government with young black males is policing, the courts and imprisonment. Given all that, the beginning of the end of marijuana prohibition, first in Colorado and soon to be followed by other states ought to be great good news. But not necessarily.

Ask yourself, what would it look like if policymakers wanted to end the prohibition of marijuana, but not necessarily the the war on drugs. What if they desired to lock down the potential economic opportunities opened up by legalizing weed to themselves and their class, to a handful of their wealthy and well-connected friends and campaign contributors? What if they wanted to make the legal marijuana market safe for predatory agribusiness, which would like to claim lucrative patents on all the genetic varieties of marijuana which can be legally grown, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/13/genetically-modified-seed-patent-report_n_2678837.html&#8221; target=”_blank”>as they already try to do with other crops?

If they wanted to do those things, the system in place in Colorado today would be a good start. In Denver today, low income property owners can’t just plant pot in the back yard or on the roof in hopes of making one mortgage payment a year out of twelve, it doesn’t work that way. Ordinary households are limited to <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/homegarden/ci_24782729/growing-your-own-marijuana-colorado-legal-doesnt-mean&#8221; target=”_blank”>3 plants per adult, and for reference only the female plants are good for smoking, and prohibited from selling the weed or the seed. To participate in the marijuana economy as anything but a consumer requires background checks, hefty license fees, a minimum of hundreds of thousands to invest, and the right connections. All this currently drives the price of legal weed in Colorado to over $600 per ounce, including a 25% state tax, roughly double the reported street price of illegal weed.

So to enable the state to collect that tax money, and the bankers, growers and investors to collect their profits from marijuana taxed by the state and regulated in the corporate interest, <a href="http://thegrio.com/2014/01/06/breaking-black-why-colorados-weed-laws-may-backfire-for-black-americans/&#8221; target=”_blank”>cops and judges and jailers in near future, in Colorado and in your state as well, figure to be just as busy as they always have been the last forty years, doing pretty much what they’ve always done… conducting a war on illegal drugs, chiefly in the poorer and blacker sections of town, with predictable results.

The end of marijuana prohibition is not designed to create jobs in our communities, nor is it intended to shrink the prison state. Our ruling class simply does not allow economic growth that they can’t monopolize, and the modern prison state has never been about protecting the public from drugs or crime. Prisons and our lifelong persecution of former prisoners serve to single out, brand and stigmatize the economic losers in modern capitalist society, so that those hanging on from paycheck to paycheck can have someone to look down upon and so that they might imagine that this vast edifice of inequality is, if not just, inevitable.

For Black Agenda Radio, I’m Bruce Dixon. Find us on the web at <a href="http://www.blackagendareport.com.

“>http://www.blackagendareport.com/”>www.blackagendareport.com.

Bruce A. Dixon is the managing editor at Black Agenda Report and the co-chair of the Georgia Green Party. He lives and works in Marietta GA and can be reached through this site’s contact page or at bruce.dixon(at)blackagendareport.com.

This content comes from:
Black Agenda Radio Commentaries

URL:
http://blackagendareport.libsyn.com/rss

“Infomercial: For-Profit Online University”

Posted: 2013/12/20 by Punkonomics (@dearbalak) in Links/Articles/Video
Tags: ,

Nonprofits are also following this model.

Let’s get this straight: AIG execs got bailout bonuses, but pensioners get cuts

No one has accused city workers in Chicago or Detroit of bringing down the economy, but they could face pension cuts
Dean Baker for The Guardian (9-12-13)
A pensioner protests pensions cuts in Detroit

This would have forced AIG into bankruptcy. However Lehman had declared bankruptcy the day before and the world was still engulfed in the aftershocks. The Bush administration and the Federal Reserve board decided that they would stop the cascade of failing financial institutions and bail out AIG. As a result, the government agreed to honor all the CDS issued by AIG and effectively became the owner of the company.

Chicago has been in the news recently because its mayor, Rahm Emanuel, seems intent on cutting the pensions that its current and retired employees have earned. Emanuel insists that the city can’t afford these pensions and therefore workers and retirees will simply have to accept reduced benefits.

If the connection with AIG isn’t immediately apparent, then you have to look a bit deeper. Folks may recall that AIG paid out $170m in bonusesto its employees in March 2009 with its top executives receiving bonuses in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

These were people who not only shared responsibility for driving the company into bankruptcy; they also had been at the center of the financial web that propelled the housing bubble into ever more dangerous territory. In other words, the bonus beneficiaries were among the leading villains in the economic disaster that is still inflicting pain across the country.

The prospect of executives of a bailed out company drawing huge bonuses at a time when the economy was shedding 600,000 jobs a month provoked outrage across the country. President Obama spoke on the issue and said that unfortunately no one in his administration was smart enough to find a way that could keep the bonuses from being paid. The problem according to Larry Summers, then the head of President Obama’s National Economic Council, was that the bonuses were contractual obligations and they had to be honored.

This provides a striking contrast to what might happen to current and former city employees in Chicago and may happen to current and former employers of the state of Illinois and Detroit. In these cases, it seems that the contracts workers had with their employers may not be honored. Employees who worked decades for these governments, with part of their pay taking the form of pensions in retirement, are now being told that these governments will not follow through on their end of the contract.

The differing treatment of contracts in these situations is striking for several reasons. First, the AIG executives stood to gain much more money with their bonuses on a per person basis. In contrast to the six-figure bonuses going to top executives, pensions for Detroit’s workers average just $18,500 a year. Pensions for Chicago’s workers average over $33,000 a year, but almost none of these workers will get Social Security, so this will be their whole retirement income.

In contrast to the top AIG executives, who played a role in bankrupting their company and sinking the economy, no one has accused workers in Chicago or Detroit of doing anything wrong. These were people who taught our kids, put out fires, and picked up garbage. They did their jobs.

They also might be excused for thinking that they could count on the governments involved to fulfill their end of the contract. After all, both Michigan and Illinois have provisions in their constitution stating that pensions earned by public sector workers cannot be cut. Since cities like Detroit and Chicago are creations of the state governments, workers for these cities, like workers for the state government, might have thought the state constitution protected their pensions. Apparently they should have hired lawyers who could have explained to them why this is not the case.

There is yet another connection between the plans to cut pensions and AIG. The bond rating agencies played a prominent role in both cases. In the case of AIG meltdown, the bond rating agencies gave investment grade ratings to trillions of dollars of mortgage backed securities (MBS). They often gave these ratings to dubious issues for the simple reason that they were being paid. As one analyst from S&P said in an e-mail, they would rate a new MBS if it “was structured by cows“.

The bond rating agencies played a similarly disastrous role in the pension problems facing state and local governments. In the stock run-up in the 1990s, they green-lighted accounting that essentially assumed that the stock bubble would continue in perpetuity, effectively growing without limit. This meant that state and local governments didn’t have to contribute to their pensions since the stock bubble was doing it for them. States like Illinois and cities like Chicago clung to this habit even after the bubble burst.

There is one final noteworthy connection between AIG and the Chicago pension situation. Chicago’s Mayor, Rahm Emanuel, was President Obama’s chief of staff at the time that no one could figure out how to avoid paying the AIG bonuses. Apparently Emanuel has learned more about voiding contractual obligations now that it is ordinary workers at other end of the commitment.