| Blog and Media Roundup - Friday, August 2, 2013; News Roundup | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 2 2013, 04:30 AM (316 Views) | |
| abb | Aug 2 2013, 04:30 AM Post #1 |
|
http://dukecheck.com/?p=15069 ✓ Thinking about DKU Posted on August 1, 2013 by DukeCheck A member of the Board of Trustees has told a senior member of the faculty that the attempts to start Duke Kunshan University have gone on long enough — and unless the current application is accepted by the Chinese government before the end of this calendar year, Duke should walk away from the deal. This confidential conversation occurred before classes ended in May, and the faculty member has just gotten the clearance he or she sought to brief a Deputy Duke Checker on “deep background.” There are various meanings of that phrase in journalism; for us it means no names, no quotes, but freedom to write what we know and to use what we learned as the springboard to find out more from other sources. The Trustee did not indicate if his or her frustration is shared by others on the Board. That would probably step over the line of Trustee confidentiality — revealing more than what one Trustee thinks. The timetable that was mentioned for a decision by the end of the year would make the next six weeks crucial, for the Chinese Ministry of Education has a pattern of approving “joint venture” deals with foreign educational institutions in early September and then not again until June, 2014, which is well beyond the deadline set by the Trustee. As the Trustee noted, the idea of DKU has been germinating for five years. So far as we can determine, the initial approaches about establishing DKU were made in 2008. The first stakeholders heard of it was on April 16, 2009 when former Fuqua Business School Blair Sheppard revealed plans for expansion in a Chronicle interview. The Trustees discussed DKU formally — apparently for the first time at a plenary meeting — on December 4, 2009, but the official summary of action was most cryptic: “The Board approved a resolution in support of the development of an international program in the Fuqua School of Business; details to be announced at a later date.” The prospect of creating a full-fledged research university 7,623 miles away has consumed the Broadhead Administration ever since. The Trustee who spoke to the faculty member believes this focus is robbing Duke University of the opportunity to pursue other ideas internationally, as well as depriving it of leadership attention at home. There was also particular concern about how the Kunshan Initiative have morphed: 1) Sheppard’s first discussion stated that we’d be making a profit after two or three years, rather than digging into a sinkhole that seems to have no bottom. The second Chronicle article on DKU assured stakeholders that starting DKU and operating it for six years would have “no direct cost” to Duke. 2) Sheppard talked about DKU’s being the start, with Duke immediately franchising other locations around the world. If that part of the Initiative is still viable, no one is talking about it. 3) What was to be a Chinese institution will now embrace whomever we can get to matriculate, and indeed, it is likely that the government will set one tuition charge for its citizens and a higher one for students from outside China. Given the yawning operating deficits, the pressure will be on to internationalize the student body. 4) The large-scale MBA programs that Sheppard saw as the heart of the start of the new University will not occur. The faculty has objected to a regular day-time MBA, saying it will not “work” in the backwater of Kunshan. And the abbreviated Master of Management Studies one year degree is shaky, of uncertain value and interest to students. The Trustee agreed with two assessments that DukeCheck has made: 1) That while President Brodhead has maintained with great emphasis that the Chinese are anxious to adopt Western-style liberal arts education, there has been no substantiation of that thought whatsoever. Indeed, the Chinese citizen (and Communist Party functionary) chosen as the Chancellor for DKU, Liu Jingnan, has stepped on it, starting in his only substantive interview so far that what may be right in America may not be right for his nation. 2) The Trustee had no inkling from early statements by President Brodhead that we were dealing only with the first — or preliminary — part of the approval process. Thus the e-mail to all stakeholders last August 23rd saying there would be a two step process came as a surprise. As did the reworking of more than 400 pages of the application. As Duke Check has pointed out, Brodhead’s had made earlier assertions that the grand opening was about to occur with all the cards in order. Uncle Dick made a hush hush, rush trip to Beijing and Kunhan, proudly announcing on January 4, 2012, that he had been advised by a Deputy Minister of Education to “plan the celebration.“ The Trustee expressed displeasure with the number of times that the Administration has shifted the timetable without deep explanation. The Trustee did not mention academic freedom, but focused on financial aspects of DKU. There was no information on current progress in construction, and indeed the Trustee seemed surprise to learn of a Chronicle expose that in all of 2012 construction was stalled. The Trustee seemed annoyed at shifting explanations of how DKU would benefit Duke in Durham. In his first formulation, Brodhead said there would be a stream of faculty members from Durham going to China and returning to enrich the home campus. There not only will be no stream, but in his August 23rd e-mail Brodhead explained how important DKU will be to Duke University without ever mentioning this factor. The Trustee confirmed that aside from Administrators, the Board has only heard from former Harvard Dean William Kirby, the T.M. Chang professor of China studies at Harvard who highly favores DKU and was the only consultant brought in by Brodhead. We thank you for reading DukeCheck and joining in love of Duke University. |
 |
 
|
| Quasimodo | Aug 2 2013, 08:31 AM Post #2 |
|
Why was a Trustee "surprised" to learn about a major expose by the Chronicle? Shouldn't a Trustee be expected to keep up on what happens at the university over which he has oversight? And why wasn't he informed through the Admin. that construction had stalled? And did he complain about this to the Admin.? (How well-informed were the Trustees about the lax case? WERE THEY LIED TO? That should be a major point of inquiry.) (MOO) |
|
|
| abb | Aug 2 2013, 01:14 PM Post #3 |
|
August 2, 2013 Yale Continues to Deny Due Process Posted by KC Johnson Yale's latest report on its new sexual assault policy, written by Deputy Provost Stephanie Spangler, is already drawing fire. The feminist blog Jezebel angrily asserts that at Yale, rape "is described as 'nonconsensual sex,' and it's usually punishable by 'written reprimand.'" Anti-due process activists on campus, according to Jezebel, are similarly infuriated. But at Yale, rape and "nonconsensual sex" are very much not the same. By the university's own admission, Yale "uses a more expansive definition of sexual assault" (including such measurements as threatened "economic abuse") than city, state, or federal guidelines require. So there's no reason to believe that a student identified as committing what Yale terms "nonconsensual sex" actually committed rape, as that term is commonly understood. (An easy indication: it appears as if none of the accusers in the cases referenced by Jezebel actually filed police reports, much less had their cases taken to criminal trial.) The real story of the latest report is the university's continued movement away from basic due process in handling sexual assault claims. The report shows that Yale's "informal complaint" procedure--designed, Spangler reminded readers, to give accusers "control over the process, whenever possible"--continues its guilt-presuming approach. The procedure's guidelines deny accused students a right to counsel, cross-examination, or even to introduce exculpatory evidence. In early 2013, one Yale female student filed an informal complaint alleging that a male student "made unwanted sexual advances and physically restrained her. The respondent disputed the allegations." Nonetheless, Yale administrators "counseled the respondent on appropriate conduct, and restricted the respondent from contacting the complainant." Another female Yale student filed an informal complaint alleging that a male student "engaged in certain nonconsensual acts during sexual activity with her. The respondent disputed the allegations." Nonetheless, Yale administrators "counseled the respondent on appropriate conduct." To reiterate: in both of these cases, the accused student disputed the allegations. Yale gave no sign of having investigated the claims. But the accused student nonetheless was punished or "counseled." Guilt is simply presumed. Twice, the Spangler document reveals that the Yale acted--including once against a faculty member--even when complaints were anonymous. When an anonymous graduate student reported that a male faculty member "made inappropriate remarks of a sexual nature, "an administrator of the school reported the incident to the department chair, who will monitor the climate in the department." Yale appears untroubled by the incentive the policy gives to the filing of malicious anonymous complaints. The report continues Yale's unbroken record of not appearing to have investigated any student for filing a false complaint, despite the dozens of complaints received since the new policy was instituted two years ago. Yale accusers, it seems, are a very, very truthful lot. The Jezebel story concludes by urging Yale to imitate Duke, which recently toughened its on-campus sexual assault punishment terms. The idea that Duke--of all institutions--should be viewed as a model of how universities should handle sexual assault cases gives a sense of just how extreme the anti-due process movement has become. - See more at: http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2013/08/yale_continues_to_deny_due_pro.html#sthash.ix02Rija.dpuf |
|
|
|
| Quasimodo | Aug 2 2013, 01:35 PM Post #4 |
|
 Edited by Quasimodo, Aug 2 2013, 01:39 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Quasimodo | Aug 2 2013, 01:53 PM Post #5 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Quasimodo | Aug 2 2013, 01:59 PM Post #6 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Quasimodo | Aug 2 2013, 02:02 PM Post #7 |
|
|
|
|
|
| kbp | Aug 2 2013, 10:44 PM Post #8 |
|
You have to allow for the changing facts encountered. |
|
|
|
| Payback | Aug 2 2013, 11:17 PM Post #9 |
|
"A member of the Board of Trustees has told a senior member of the faculty that the attempts to start Duke Kunshan University have gone on long enough — and unless the current application is accepted by the Chinese government before the end of this calendar year, Duke should walk away from the deal." Any chance of leaving Brodhead behind in Kunshan? |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |
11:41 AM Jul 13