text:
The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Janet Napolitano has been confirmed as the new President of the University of California on 18 July 2013. This position comes with an annual salary of approximately $570,000, an increase of $370,000 over her salary at DHS. More importantly, her selection as the new UC President reflects not only a lack of experience with educational institutions, and a lack of transparency by the Regents, but a failure of the Regents to recognize the harm and terror inflicted on millions of families who continue to suffer the impact of a deportation and detention regime that increased during her tenure.
President Obama praised Napolitano for "taking steps to make our immigration system fairer and more consistent with our values." But one wonders what these values are: Napolitano, after all, proposed the draconian "Secure Communities" program (popularly known as S-Comm). Originally S-Comm permitted communities to "opt-out" from collaboration between local state police agencies and federal immigration agents, but Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents reveal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deliberately misled state and local officials about the programs ostensibly non-compulsory nature, apparently to stem opposition. DHS insisted on mandatory collaboration, and the policy "churns roughly 400,000 detainees through 32,000 beds each year." These detainees are routinely denied legal counsel and moved from state to state without notice. "While DHS has published a manual that sets forth standards for immigration detainees' access to counsel, the manual is not binding."
The concerns of local law enforcement appear to have been well founded: experts on the topic of immigration have identified an increase in insecurity in those communities that fear calling the police due to the S-Comm program. A lawsuit filed against the DHS during Napolitano's tenure, identified the incarceration of lawful permanent residents, inconsistent conditions of confinement, substandard and abusive detention conditions, widespread detainee mistreatment, lack of training of ICE employees, and inadequate medical care that has led to numerous deaths, 33 of which occurred since the start of Napolitano's tenure at DHS. It is worrisome that these actions be celebrated as examples of "our values" by President Obama. It is even more alarming that this history would be welcomed by the Regents of the University of California, the leading public university system in the nation.
Moreover, Napolitano has overseen the privatization of detention centers and use of subcontracted guards. The privatization of detention centers has invited a rise in the number of detentions and increased periods of incarceration that include indefinite detention. Despite a decline in unauthorized border migration to a 40-year low, in 2011 ICE detained a record number of 429,000 immigrants. In 2012, investors in these prisons accrued $2 billion dollars of tax-payer money. Furthermore, Napolitano supports the security measures that will ensure the ongoing privatization of detention centers and direct profits to a burgeoning biometric industry. These measures, costing $46 billion dollars, are part of the current immigration bill under discussion in the House of Representatives.
Napolitano's recent statements of support of the DREAM Act are contradicted by administrative actions she has taken as the head of the Department of Homeland Security: the broad scope of prosecutorial discretion regarding deferred action, an ongoing culture that maximizes arrest rates, and limitations on the right to legal counsel. The National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild argues that limits on prosecutorial discretion for deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA) (which may include rejecting applications for infractions such as possession of one marijuana cigarette) remain weak. Additionally, ICE requires DACA applications by individuals in immigration detention to contact adeportation officer or the ICE Office of the Public Advocate, but ignores that this office was defunded in March 2013. Revelations of bonus programs that award thousands of dollars to border agents (incentives that invite harassment and intimidation) for increased arrests irrespective of legal status and ongoing limitations on access to counsel throughout DHS raise questions on ICE's ability to fairly process DACA applications. This concern is compounded following a federal district court ruling this month involving a FOIA suit regarding noncitizens' access to counsel in interactions with ICE that resulted in hundreds of redacted pages by the agency, which reveals a lack of transparency in the DHS. Napolitano's systematic denial of the legal right to counsel, abuses by ICE personnel, and an "ongoing culture of secrecy" may very well impede information regarding DACA applications and thereby dilute the DREAM Act.
Immigrant youth, or "DREAMers," who have participated in mobilizations for equitable access to education and immigration reform have pressured President Obama into instituting Deferred Action; a new Executive Order that allows students, youth and ex-military who meet certain eligibility requirements for a two year amnesty from deportations. Thanks to their efforts, approximately two million undocumented youth who attended school in the U.S. may be eligible for naturalization upon passage of the immigration reform bill. These "DREAMers" members of immigrant communities that have sacrificed to improve the lives of their children, who have also sacrificed in meeting and exceeding their obligations as students, have pressured Obama into supporting an amnesty as part of the new immigration reform bill, but now will have to confront someone who has created a noxious environment for their families and communities in the pursuit of their academic dreams.
At a time when the Latino/a population will comprise a plurality of California in 2014 and the rate of Latino/a high school graduates pursuing higher education (69%) that surpasses whites (67%) nationally, the confirmation of Napolitano as the next UC President risks Latino/a gains, especially among first generation college students with significant proportions of the undocumented. The appointment of Janet Napolitano sends at best a mixed message to "DREAMers" about the commitments of the next UC president, who spent the last five years focused on hard-line implementation of security laws rather than on educational advancement, and threatens the mandate to public education across the nation.
Labels: Academic Freedom, Diversity, guest post, Janet Napolitano, Politics
Despite calls from students, faculty, the LAT and the Sacramento Bee to allow greater public discussion and debate over the appointment of Janet Napolitano as President of UC, the Regents moved ahead and quickly named her to the position. In so doing, they have forfeited what little moral and ethical authority they retained as leaders of the University of California. They retain, of course, the legal power to act as they please and as they have done. But we should be clear that they have rejected the idea of a University and have declared that they see UC as simply another bureaucracy to be managed from the top.
They should be ashamed of themselves.
I should make clear that I, like basically everyone else, have no idea what sort of President Janet Napolitano will make in the end. But that is precisely the problem. President-elect Napolitano has no experience within higher education, has demonstrated no deep engagement with questions of education or scholarship, was shielded--with the apparent consent of the Academic Senate Leadership--from widespread contact with, or questioning by, the wider university community, and the public debate over her appointment was ignored or dismissed with boilerplate pablum from the Regents and their allies. It is possible that she will prove a better advocate for the University than her two immediate predecessors but that is a pretty low bar; as is the fact that as Governor she supported higher education more than did Arnold Schwarzenegger. I do hope she proves an effective President; it is in all our interests.
But the more fundamental problem is the Regents. That only Student Regent Cynthia Flores thought that Secretary Napolitano's record at Homeland Security needed to be addressed is a clear sign of the indifference of the Regents to the nature of a University. That the Regents seem to think of the President as largely a political post demonstrates they don't even understand the nature of the institution they presumably direct (a point reinforced by the Regents confusion over the nature of Shared Governance). If the rumors are true that Napolitano's two strongest competitors were not distinguished academics but rather scions of the military-industrial complex (Colin Powell and Leon Panetta) then the failure of the Regents to care that they direct an educational institutions becomes even clearer.
Let's look at some of the symptoms of the Regents' incapacity:
1) As numerous people have pointed out, the Regents' intensely secretive appointment process ran against the very nature of a public university. To be sure, this secrecy was in keeping with their long-standing resistance to providing full public access to their discussions and proceedings (if you need proof of this just follow Dan Mitchell's heroic efforts to make Regents' public sessions available on audio for listeners who can't stay glued to their computers during the live proceedings.)
But even for the Regents, this process was incredibly secretive. No possibility was allowed for public discussion or questioning during the search process, the nomination was made in the middle of July one week before the full Board voted on it, at the point of nomination perhaps half of the Board even knew the result, or had ever met the candidate.
Regent Lansing sought to defend the secrecy by claiming that a more open process would have scared off qualified candidates. But this claim is fatuous. The University of Texas has an open process as do other universities; every other academic appointment (whether to faculty or administration) that I know of has open campus visits without losing qualified candidates (and most people I know tell their home institutions when they have on-campus interviews even though this is not required); and Lansing doesn't seem to consider whether career aims of the candidate should trump the interests of the institution. Or for that matter, what it means that someone aiming to lead the leading public university system in the country would only apply if the process was conducted in secret.
2) Many people have also pointed out that the secrecy of the appointment process mirrors the secrecy of Secretary Napolitano's job as Secretary of Homeland Security. I won't belabor that point here.
But it is striking that the Regents would consider her background--as an attorney general, governor, and Secretary of Homeland Security--appropriate for directing a University. The Regents and their defenders all deploy the rhetoric of unconventional choices or thinking "outside of the box." But the idea that because a person has managed one bureaucracy focused on one task s/he can lead a different bureaucracy with a different task is entirely conventional from the perspective of contemporary managerial ideology.
From this perspective it matters not what the purpose of an institution is--since all you need is to replace one manager with another. But this ignores two points:
First, as Chris already pointed out any notion of "meritocracy" depends on demonstrating your skill and success in a chosen field--otherwise it is simply who you know.
But just as importantly, managerial ideology ignores the reality that different institutions serve different purposes and have different functions.
In truth things are quite different. Educational institutions may adopt certain techniques from business but they should not be modeled on businesses: the purpose of a business is to make profit, the purpose of a University is scholarship, that is to say to teach and to do research. Universities depend on values of openness and debate, and flourish when the community as a whole searches for answers; state bureaucracies are top down and, in the case of Homeland Security or Attorney General Offices, deeply concerned with controlling information. The Regents simply do not understand the nature of the institution they rule.
3). If the Regents seem not to understand the nature of Universities in general, they also do not seem to understand the structure of the University of California in particular. It is only by ignoring their own Standing Orders that they could conceive of the Presidency as primarily a political position whose fundamental role is in Sacramento. In reality President Napoitano will have tremendous power over the internal life of the University. Perhaps the Regents have not read their own description of her power as laid out in Standing Order 100.4.
Here is Standing Order 100.4 (a)
The President shall be the executive head of the University and shall have full authority and responsibility over the administration of all affairs and operations of the University, excluding only those activities which are the responsibility of the Secretary and Chief of Staff, Chief Investment Officer, General Counsel of The Regents, and Senior Vice President - Chief Compliance and Audit Officer. The President may delegate any of the duties of the office except service as an ex officio Regent.
100.4 (a) is the heart of Presidential power and it grants to the President authority "over the administration of all affairs and operations of the University." As we have seen under President Yudof, this power extends deeply into the educational life of the University: from online education, through the privatization of Anderson, onto tuition, the creation of new schools and unfunded mandates on campus and the explosion in the numbers of non-resident students. The President is also (100.4.(i)) "authorized to make awards of fellowships, scholarships, and prizes" and we are told (100.4(j)) that she "shall present recommendations to the Board concerning the academic plans of the University and of the several campuses."
It is true that the President is charged with negotiating with Sacramento. It is the 12th section of Presidential powers. For the Regents, though, it appears that section (a) is an afterthought and section (l) the crucial issue.
Now no one would deny that making the case for the University to the Legislature and the Governor is a crucial task of the President. The weak cases that have been made under the last two Presidential administrations are proof of that. But the question is whether or not that case is made most effectively by someone who can represent and explain the fundamental activities of the University or by someone whose expertise lies elsewhere. The Regents, themselves without effective knowledge of the University community think the latter. And with that approach they turn their backs on the University itself.
This criticism is not, I think, academic snobbery. It is instead a recognition that the rule of the professional managers has brought us to the pass we are at: with the value of higher education and of scholarship under attack, with tuition rising, with pressures on students, staff, and faculty increasing, and with bloated administrations. The truly unconventional choice, one that thought outside of the box, would be a person deeply engaged with the life of scholarship (both teaching and research) and able to make the case to the public and the legislature of the value of a public research university that was more than a patent producer. It is no surprise that the Regents cannot see this point: they are themselves representatives of the professional managers. But it is a sign of their lack of competency in leading the University.
It has been just over a year since the University Board of Visitors under the leadership of Rector Dragas tried to purge Teresa Sullivan for over-valuing the importance of undergraduate education and undervaluing the wisdom of Thomas Friedman. The Virginia Visitors were seeking to remove a President and the UC Regents are putting one into office. But the similarities are more striking than the differences. In each case, a Board moved on the conventional wisdom of the chattering classes to trod over the deepest traditions of the Universities they were supposed to protect and in so doing revealed their disregard for the traditions of scholarship and academic life. In each they proceeded in secret to prevent any successful opposition. The Virginia Board of Visitors failed in their efforts to remove President Sullivan. It looks as if the Board of Regents have succeeded in installing President Napolitano.
But like the Virginia Board of Visitors, the UC Board of Regents have failed as stewards of the traditions and values of the Institution they have been appointed to shepherd.
Labels: Academic Freedom, California, Janet Napolitano, Mark Yudof, Politics, Public vs. Private, Strategies & Goals, UC Regents
The spirit of the University of California is the closed, top-down process through which the Regents divulged the nomination of Janet Napolitano only six days before the final vote, and then approved her while, in the words of one old Oakland hand, appearing "completely unaffected by the testimony that they heard."
The spirit of the University of California is the outpouring of critique, questioning, and protest at the appointment discussion itself, captured by this photo of Alex Aldana being led out of the meeting by police, which the LA Times used as its image of the meeting. If nothing else, the Regents' meetings are now producing the UC system's best protests. As as result, we were able to offer Ms. Napolitano a full UC welcome.
Now that the decision is over and done, we need to get real answers to the major questions that were completely absent from the official proceedings.
Many of the strongest objections addressed Ms. Napolitano's status as a top player in the national security establishment. I too had a hard time fathoming that our next president was coming directly from running the Department of Homeland Security. But I won't discuss these questions here: I did one post partially on this, and there are more thorough treatments of the issue by Professors Joe Kiskis (UC Davis) and Mark LeVine (UC Irvine), among others.
The other major problem is her lack of expertise in university affairs. Public universities are still up the creek, and UC, with its very high standards, its full-spectrum research, and its bipartisan austerity politicians, is up it farther than most. What is this A-list Democrat politician going to do that the also-politically oriented Mark Yudof couldn't do before her? What is she going to do given that the core threats come from corporate reformers in her own party? What is she going to do when the threats come from inside the house? When they come from people with whom we have to assume she bascially agrees?
The problem with politicians like Ms. Napolitano is not just the medium but the message. UC's current president, Mark Yudof, was hired with exactly the same theory--we need someone who can work with legislatures. He had a good track record dealing with statehouses in Minnesota and Texas, not to mention with the wrestler-governor Jesse Ventura. But in spite of his experience with the political medium he didn't have the right academic message.
Can Ms. Napolitano do better with major questions that the public and politicians are asking, day in day out? Just having more clout and connections than Mr. Yudof isn't going to do the trick.
Why should public universities have public funding restored? Why can't they just do more with less--perhaps by using more technology like everybody else?
Why should public universities and not just wealthy privates like Stanford and Harvard conduct expensive scientific research? What are the public purposes, or huge scale, or something, that requires lots of public support in the public sector?
What specific types of undergraduate educational improvements would result from restored funding? How would students benefit, exactly, from public reinvestment?
What are the limits of online education for public university students? Why shouldn't UC students spend, say, two of twelve quarters studying off site and online to make better use of resources? What exactly is the harm in that?
What are the limits of competency-based education? Why shouldn't we disaggregate our public colleges into skill-oriented units with semi-routinized instructors and an emphasis on peer-to-peer instruction? Why isn't a collection of "badges" as good as a college degree?
Do we really need as many PhD trained faculty teaching 20 year olds as we have? What do they do that technicians running MOOCs can't do?
Do we really need so much academic research? What are we really learning from political science? Or art history? Or environmental biology?
What is wrong with using post-graduate salary data to grow and shrink majors by statistical evaluation and administrative decree?
Why should the state pay more money when so much is just going into employee pensions, which most Americans no longer have?
What are the educational, intellectual, or social benefits of allowing students to protest? Why should taxpayers support institutions that disgruntled young people use to launch attacks on society? On the other hand, why can't UC keep non-UC police off campus and create a safe space for political speech?
What is the payoff of academic freedom, beyond giving professors protection that few Americans have in their own workplaces?
This is a start on the core questions about the nature, mission, promise, and vision of public universities. The past twenty years of semi-privatization has confused everyone and made them much tougher to answer. Privatization, continuous financial anxiety, and the solicitation of an unending series of sponsors who now call the tune have obscured what the unique public missions actually are. Universities used to be bastions against political influence, and now they aren't, and seem to most of the public to be as political as any other governmental entity or corporation. Universities, thanks to all of their compromises, have not sustained the arguments for public support. This is the world that Ms. Napolitano has inherited, and inherited it without knowledge of its inner workings.
We already know the likely path if she and we can't answer these questions correctly. It's mediocrity--Mark Yudof was right to worry about this--in the institutions being offered to a great generation of students, often first generation, working-class, of color, undocumented, who need more, higher, education from us rather than lesser and lower.
This downgrade is completely unnecessary, and it is something we can stop. I hope that the shame of it--the shame of ripping off this new generation of students--will galvanize Ms. Napolitano and the rest of us into laying the intellectual groundwork for a policy about-face.
Labels: Janet Napolitano, Mark Yudof, Protests, Public vs. Private, Quality, Strategies & Goals, Students, UC Regents
By Joe Kiskis, (Professor of Physics, UC Davis)
Less than one week before the Regents confirmation vote scheduled for Thursday, we were presented with a surprise nomination for the next President of the University of California. Regent Lansing, chair of the search committee and with a background in the movie industry, has characterized the choice as "unconventional," indeed. For the first time since 1888, the nominee is a person who has neither experience as an academic nor experience in the University. What Ms Napolitano does have is name recognition at a national level and a record as a successful politician and competent Secretary of Homeland Security.
As an introduction to this nomination, we have been presented with an uncharacteristically well orchestrated PR campaign of short blurbs from prominent individuals and a summary of her experience as a politician and government administrator. It is disappointing that neither the Regents search committee nor our academic leaders who were advisory to the search have presented a cogent, substantive explanation of their rationale for this selection. So what can we make of this on our own and what questions should be addressed before the Regent vote?
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) includes includes customs and border patrol, immigration, coast guard, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Secret Service, and has responsibility for cybersecurity. Its record on civil liberties and civil rights is controversial. For example, DHS continues to assert and exercise power to confiscate the computers and phones of US citizens at the border without a warrant, probable cause, or suspicion of a crime. They claim and exercise power to search the information content of these devices. They can exercise these extra-constitutional powers within 100 miles of an actual border. When asked to do a Civil Rights/Civil Liberties Impact Assessment, they produced a report that is well summarized by this quote from the executive summary:
"We conclude that CBP's and ICE's current border search policies comply with the Fourth Amendment. We also conclude that imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits."
The Obama administration in which the nominee has served since its beginning has an extremely controversial record on surveillance, drone strikes on US citizens, civil liberties, and privacy.
We must ask how a record of deep connections to federal law enforcement and national security and a questionable commitment to civil liberties matches the values of the university, which privilege the free exchange of ideas, open and public expressions of dissent, the first amendment, the fourth amendment, and the privacy rights of faculty, students, and staff.
Since we have not been provided with the thinking behind this nomination and the strategic shift that it represents, we are left to speculations based on the record of the nominee.
Does this represent a new strategy to justify support for the University by the prioritization of political connections rather than the academic mission?
Does it represent a shift in emphasis from serving the people of California through the Master Plan to serving the needs of the federal government including especially its national security sector with its vast array of industry partners?
What does it say about future tolerance for dissent on campus and about the law enforcement responses to campus protest?
The University community and the people of California deserve a substantive justification for this nomination and an opportunity for dialog before a Regental vote.
Labels: Faculty, Governance, guest post, Janet Napolitano, Politics, UC Regents, UCOP
The UC Regents' busy week includes hiring a new president and also voting on more routine matters, including one that has become routine fairly recently. That is a proposal to increase employer and employee contributions to the pension again next year. Each of these increases helps make the pension fund (UCRP) more solvent. Each also amounts to annual cuts to staff and faculty take-home pay.
In 1990, the Regents stopped pension contributions from both the University and from its faculty and staff, when the pension was overfunded, and did not restart them until April 2010, at least ten years after the pension began its decline towards the underfunded state it's in today. The outcome for staff and faculty was summarized in an April 2013 letter from the University Committee on Faculty Welfare (UCFW) to Senate Chair Bob Powell (scroll down past the cover letter):
Between April 2010, the time that employee contributions were restarted, and July 2013, the value of take-home pay will have declined by a total of 10% due to inflation (6.5%) plus the restart of employee contributions (an additional 6.5%), off-set by only one 3% salary increase, in October 2011.
The employee contribution increased 1.5% in the year just started (bringing it to 6.5% of gross pay. The proposal this Wednesday is to increase the employee contribution another 1.5% in 2014-15. In that year, each employee will send a total of 8% of their gross pay to the pension fund.
The Senate has had three general positions on this. The first is that contributions need to be ramped up quickly to fix UCRP's underfunding. To that end, Academic Council voted unanimously to support the proposed 2014-15 rates of 14% from the University and 8% from the employees (cover letter).
The second position has been that the ratio of employee:employer contributions should never be more than 1:2. That principle has now been temporarily set aside by the endorsement of the ratio of 8:14.
Finally, by a vote of 14-3-1, Council ratified UCFW's proposal that Senate approval be contingent on
the increase in employee contributions to 8% [being] accompanied by an across the board pay raise for faculty (and non represented staff) of at least 3%. A 3% increase would merely compensate for the two most recent 1.5% increases in employee contribution rates effective on July 1, 2013 and July 1, 2014; any increase greater than 3% would constitute a small step toward restoring competitive salaries
Unfortunately, such a pay increase has not been budgeted by the state, which foresees a 5% general fund increase (still well below 2007-08 levels) and no tuition increase (page 4).
I hate to depress my colleagues, but we may well be looking at another 1.5% cut in take-home pay next year, bringing the UC cuts to 8% since 2010, or say 12% when we count inflation and subtract the one-time 3% salary increase .
UC's 2013 Accountability report claims that faculty salaries are 85-89% of their comparators (page 70). The net pay gap may be closer to negative 25%.
UC commissions compensation studies, and in the 2000s they generally concluded that while UC faculty and staff salaries lagged, total compensation was as good or better, because pension and health benefits were so good. That was then. As employees pay more to support the pension, the pension becomes a smaller benefit.
At a UCLA event last fall, former Senate chair and benefits guru Bob Anderson reported that the pension became "slightly uncompetitive" with comparison universities when employee contributions hit 5%. At the 2013-14 rate of 6.5%, they are "definitely uncompetitive." So the solution to the uncompetitive salaries--the pension--has now become part of the problem. (The same thing has happened to retiree health benefits, as UC contribution to current employee health costs was also cut from 89% to 70% of total cost over time.)
The state of UC's salary scales is even worse than that of actual salaries. The reason is that 2/3rd of general campus faculty are off-scale. The only way to keep a competitive individual salary is to be off scale, and if you didn't get hired with a large off-scale increment then in general you need to go on the job market, get an offer with a higher salary from a university that is good enough for UC to want to match, and get a salary match in return.
This situation creates a "loyalty penalty" in which faculty who serve the institution more than they serve their own careers are in effect punished for service with lower salaries. In addition, when faculty play the market, administrators need a bigger war chest to retain them. They grow their reserves by keeping allocated lines unfilled and by failing to put any new salary money into fixing the scales. One of the reasons fixing the scales overall has not been a priority is because many executive vice chancellors have opposed it, on the plausible grounds that the fix would come out of their campus funds and reduce their funds for faculty retention and related needs.
Prof. Anderson pointed out that when the University stopped contributing to the pension, it was engaging in hidden deficit spending. Employees were incurring $1.5 billion in annual service credit, a third of that tied to state funding. So at the 1:2 employee:employer ratio, UC artificially suppressed its state funding need by at least $333 million a year.
The same can be said about salaries. The university needs enthusiastically self-overworking loyalists to function at a high level. The avoidance of a two-speed faculty has over decades increased both equity and efficiency, and in particular helped shrink gender-based pay gaps. The new practice of having negative to zero overall net pay increases establishes a two- or three-class structure within the faculty, with attendant operational and equity problems. And it perversely allows the University to lowball its real state funding need in a way that insures correct state funding will never be there.
The salary scales need to be fixed, loyalist pay brought back into line with comparison schools, and faculty in this way encouraged to put more rather than less time developing the university overall. The only way to fix scales (and the pension) is to get state funding back to normal levels. But no one is making the case clearly enough that UC, without renewed investment, is still on the verge of being permanently downgraded as a university.
Salaries and scales are one of those issues where conventional wisdom is wrong, and where you need deep experience to understand why. Pay gaps will be along the new president's major challenges, and I hope the issue will be presented correctly to her.
Labels: Budget, Crisis, Cuts, Faculty, Governance, Income, Pension, UC
The Los Angeles Times reported earlier today that the Regents have picked Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of Homeland Security, as the University of California's next president. I have been hearing various reactions, including from one UC faculty member who has worked with her that "this is a major [positive] step for us." As Arizona governor, Ms. Napolitano was considered a strong supporter of K-12 and higher education. She has convinced the UC faculty Senate chair that she thinks that faculty members are important to a university. Nevertheless, as we await more information, I want to point out three obvious issues and one less obvious one about this choice.
The first issue is that although Ms. Napolitano appears to be a very senior manager with lots of political experience, she is unqualified to be a university president. This would be obvious were the direction of appointment reversed: no mayor or city council would appoint a Dean of Engineering as Chief of the LAPD. None would justify such a choice by explaining, in the words of Regent Selection Chair Sherry Lansing, that the engineering dean will be a great police chief because she "has earned trust at the highest, most critical levels of our country's [engineering profession]."
Meritocracies define "being qualified" for the biggest job in a field as requiring prior experience in other jobs in the field. One is co-pilot before being pilot, a medical intern before being a licensed physician, Provost at Columbia before being Chancellor of UC Berkeley, and so on. The only modern non-academic UC president, the major builder Robert Gordon Sproul (1930-1958), had worked in UC business and finance for 16 years before his appointment. Mark Yudof, also hired for political savvy, had previously been president of two major public research universities, and had put pen to paper on the sector's future. Ms. Napolitano has no experience with university life or management and no known body of organized thought on the subject. It is not easy to make up for this. Being a political heavyweight is not a qualification for being a university president. Earning President Obama's trust is not a qualification. Being the daughter of an academic manager is not a qualification, although this was invoked by Regent Lansing-- "Her father was dean of the University of New Mexico School of Medicine. It is no coincidence that those who know her best say that a passion for education is in her DNA." Passion for education is also not a qualification. That the Regents went forward with this appointment means that they don't think academic experience is a meaningful qualification for presiding over academics.
The second issue is that Ms. Napolitano has spent nearly all of her career in law enforcement. In the Obama Administration, she moved on to "counterterrorism, border security, immigration enforcement, cybersecurity and disaster preparedness, response and recovery." It's true that UC's budget is a disaster from which recovery is essential, so her FEMA experience could come in handy. But even ignoring her possibly mixed record as DHS manager, the overall Homeland portfolio is a kind of disqualification. Universities are the opposite of detention centers. The security function is the opposite of teaching and research. Universities are about discovery, which generally involves ignoring or breaking conceptual rules rather than enforcing them. Universities are about learning, which requires openness, flexibility, freedom and placing fanatical priority on human development, all of which is the opposite of border control, surveillance and deportation (Ms. Napolitano appears to be US history's champion deporter). The UCOP press release mentions research at DHS, but this largely involves weaponizing domestic spaces. One colleague concluded, "They must have wanted a politician who knows surveillance."
Ms. Napolitano has major political skills that could be of use in Sacramento, which Dan Mitchell suggests was her selection's dominant goal. But this brings us to the third issue. She has no political network in California, no local knowledge of the players, no constituency in the state, no national or state-based academic network, no direct understanding of the state's history or current society. She will have at best a mixed record with the state's Latino community, whose educational advancement is crucial to California's future. Lacking any real base, how politically tough can she be? She will be dependent for knowledge and connections on the regents who appointed her, and on the leading figures of the state Democratic Party, Gov. Jerry Brown and Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who also sit on the Board of Regents. She will need to exert university muscle against the very people who hired her, who are the same people who have cut or squeezed the UC budget.
I truly hope I am wrong, but I see little chance of a new UC direction coming from this combination of no experience with universities, deep experience with law enforcement and security, and no independent knowledge of the state's politics and politicians.
Finally, there is internal issue of UCOP's relationship to the university's actual campuses. I've written before about UCOP's decline from its historic function of curating the UC system as a whole into an office dedicated to finance and publicity, and whose function is now deeply political. If Ms. Napolitano's major asset is her status as a political heavyweight, ratified by her national security connections to Sen. Dianne Feinstein and then back to the senator's husband, Regent Richard Blum (Sen Feinstein's endorsement is included in the UCOP press release), then the majority plan must be to use Ms. Napolitano's national stature to shock and awe the pee-wees running the Sacto show, and perhaps to do something similar with our oblivious technology elites. But this kind of function has nothing to do with campus life--with the faculty, staff and student problems that UCOP has neglected and allowed to fester. The deep issue has been not too little executive power but too much--too much top-down executive control, at too great a distance. What are the odds that a former state governor and White House cabinet secretary will stoop to fathom and then facilitate a bottom-up revitalization of the campuses themselves?
The odds are bad. But if Ms. Napolitano does not understand, empower, and re-fund the campuses, her appointment will mean the further collapse of UCOP-Regents into its self-regarding political simulacra, as the campuses pursue with more devotion their separate fates.
Labels: Janet Napolitano, UC Regents, UCOP
Janet Napolitano as Secretary of the Department of...
The Napolitano Appointment and the Regents' Reject...
Some Unanswered Questions for UC President-Elect N...
Celebrity Trumps Substance
Worsening Problems with UC Pay
The Regents Select America's Top Cop as UC Preside...


text:
Norway's wealth fund urged to extend weapons ban to include killer robots
Published by Brett Wilkins on June 18, 2020 June 18, 2020
By Brett Wilkins
An ethics committee appointed by the Norwegian government is recommending that companies that manufacture lethal autonomous weapons — killer robots — be excluded from investment by the country's $1 trillion sovereign wealth fund.
Bloomberg reports the committee also urged the government to prohibit investment by the Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG) in companies that make submarines and other vehicles that deliver nuclear weapons. Additionally, the panel advised that new rules are needed to ensure that the fund does not hold any investments that could facilitate the sale of arms that might be used in conflicts in which human rights violations occur.
Investment & Pensions Europe reports Ethics Committee chairperson Ola Mestad presented the panel's report to Finance Minister Jan Tore Sanner on Monday, saying that its proposals "build on the existing framework of the fund." Mestad said that the while that framework has worked well, the proposed changes are meant to reflect the evolution of ethical norms over the past 15 years since the Ethics Committee was created by royal decree, and to bring the guidelines up to date with new issues and technologies.
The report states that:
When automation becomes so extensive that it constitutes autonomy, it is not only the use of lethal force, but the very decision to deploy the use of force that is transferred to the machines. At that point, the system itself, absent any meaningful human overview, will be in a position
to select varying degrees of when, against whom and how lethal force should be applied. In the Committee's opinion, it is fundamentally problematic that the critical decisions relating to the use of force are not subject to meaningful human control.
Although the future may see the emergence of technological sophistication capable of meeting the requirements of distinction under humanitarian law, i.e. the capacity to distinguish between military objectives and civilians, such autonomy would still be ethically problematic because of the ensuing erosion and disintegration of accountability implied under humanitarian law.
Activists working to oppose the development and deployment of lethal autonomous weapons applauded the committee's recommendation. Mary Wareham, advocacy director of Human Rights Watch's arms division and global coordinator at the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, an Ethics In Tech partner, called the news "an exciting, welcome and timely development." Wareham was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 along with colleague Jody Williams for their work with the International Campaign to Ban Land Mines (ICBLM).
An exciting, welcome & timely development! Thanks for sharing this news & for the consultations. @BanKillerRobots
— Mary Wareham (@marywareham) June 15, 2020
GPFG, popularly called the oil fund, was created in 1990 to invest surplus revenues from Norway's massive petroleum sector. It currently holds over $1 trillion in assets, including over 1.4 percent of the world's stocks and shares, and is the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world. In May 2018, the fund was worth about $195,000 per Norwegian citizen.
Since 2004, the fund has operated under ethical guidelines banning investment in companies that make cigarettes and other tobacco products, coal and certain weapons. Human rights and climate change must also be taken into account when considering investments. Some critics have called the ethical guidelines ironic and even hypocritical, arguing that the production of fossil fuels is inherently unethical in an age of increasingly severe anthropogenic climate change.
A 2012 investigation by the newspaper Dagens Næringsliv found that the fund had invested more than $2 billion in 15 companies that produced surveillance technology utilized by oppressive authoritarian regimes including Iran, Myanmar and Syria. The Ministry of Finance subsequently announced it would not divest from these companies.
GPFG has also barred investment in companies involved in the illegal Israeli occupation and settler colonization of Palestine. Some of the US firms on the fund's blacklist include Altria and Philip Morris (tobacco), Boeing and Northrop Grumman (nuclear weapons maintenance), Duke Energy (environment), General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon (cluster bombs) and Walmart (human and labor rights violations).
Categories: Ethics In Tech - Curated Articles
Tags: Campaign to Stop Killer Robotsethical investmentGovernment Pension Global FundKiller Robotslethal autonomous weaponsNorwayNorway oil fund
Ethics In Tech - Curated Articles
After thousands of civilians killed, lawmakers urge Biden to overhaul drone policy
January 20, 2022 by Brett Wilkins for Common Dreams A group of 50 Democratic U.S. lawmakers on Thursday sent a letter to President Joe Biden focusing on the "inexcusable" number of noncombatants killed by drone strikes in the Read more…
Lyft makes $14 million donation to keep Massachusetts drivers down
January 19, 2022 by Brett Wilkins for Common Dreams As Massachusetts becomes the latest battleground state in the fight for gig worker rights, advocates on Wednesday accused Lyft of attempting to purchase a law by giving Read more…
Israeli police spied on citizens using NSO's Pegasus
January 18, 2022 by Brett Wilkins for Common Dreams Digital privacy advocates were alarmed but not surprised Tuesday by a report alleging that police in Israel used NSO's Pegasus spyware against Israeli citizens, including opponents of Read more…

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


prejudice and stigma toward PLHA.
・Experienced contact with PLHA: Yes-No Questions.
HIV voluntarily as well as their intention to get a free HIV test.
ⅱ) Isolation :PLHA should be isolated.
ⅳ) Friends:Unwilling to be friends with infected individuals.
Someone who looks healthy can be HIV infected.
Tranmission of HIV/AIDS by sharing needles.
Transmisson of HIV/AIDS by cough and sneeze.
Oral Contraceptive can protect HIV/AIDS infection.
intension towards HIV antibody testing.
university students towards people living with HIV/AIDS(PLHA).
age of 20.73) with higher education.
thought as a stigmatized conditions in Japan.
overestimating the risk of casual contact (Herek et al., 2003).
and educated programs (Herek et al., 2002).
attitude and knowledge on HIV transmission.
to reduction of prejudice and stigma toward PLHA.
people among adolescents. AIDS care 18(3), 208-214.
Workers in China. Health Psychology 24(4), 435-438.


Shinji caught nice fish on SWING CHATTER.
The colors he used were # S01 BAIT-FISH and # S03 STEALTH – GILL.They were developed and manufactured under the supervision of him.
They will be available for purchase at stores soon!!


text:
Sean Bennett may refer to:
 Sean Bennett (gridiron football)
 Sean Bennett (cyclist)
 Sean Bennett (politician)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Aircalin returns new A330neo to Toulouse after noxious fumes
By Emma Kelly2019-11-28T01:45:00+00:00
Airbus is investigating the cause of noxious fumes in the cabin of a brand new Airbus A330-900 after New Caledonian carrier Aircalin returned the aircraft to Toulouse, following complaints of headaches and eye irritation by cabin crew and passengers.
The Nouméa-based carrier only received its two Rolls Royce Trent 7000-powered A330-900s in July and October, with the aircraft replacing two A330-200s to operate routes from the French Pacific island territory to Australia, Japan, and other Pacific islands.
The aircraft involved, registered F-ONET, was withdrawn from service after a flight from Sydney following complaints of a strong smell of oil in the cabin which caused headaches and eye irritation. Inspections of the aircraft in Nouméa failed to identify or resolve the problem, resulting in the aircraft being returned to Toulouse for further investigation on 18 November, confirms the airline. The other A330-900 remains in service.
"The aircraft has been flown to Toulouse for thorough inspections and to identify the cause of the problem," says Airbus. "We don't have any further comment at this time, pending the outcome of the tests," it adds.
In the meantime, Aircalin says operations are not affected as it has returned one of its two A330-200s to service, which bears the registration F-OJSE.
TAP Air Portugal was reported earlier this year to have encountered similar issues with some of its new A330-900s.
Ops & safety
Emirates launches fifth freedom Singapore-Penang flights
Emirates is extending one daily Dubai-Singapore service to Penang from 9 April, having secured fifth freedom rights between the neighbouring countries. The Dubai-based carrier says it will deploy Boeing 777-300ERs, configured with 354 seats across three classes, bringing nearly 2,500 seats per week on the route. ...
Qantas Group inaugurates Toowoomba pilot training academy
The Qantas Groups has opened its new flight training school at Toowoomba Wellcamp Airport, with the capacity of training 250 pilots annually. "Opening our new Pilot Academy is a historic moment for Qantas, for aviation in Australia and for the thousands of future pilots who will learn how to ...
More Fleets
Azul to sub-lease E195 fleet to LOT and US start-up
Azul is to sub-lease its entire fleet of Embraer 195s to Polish flag-carrier LOT and US start-up Breeze Aviation, in order to accelerate a transition to the more fuel-efficient E195-E2 variant. The Brazilian airline has disclosed a letter of intent for the sub-lease of 18 firm aircraft and ...
ANA's third A380 emerges from Airbus paint shop with orange turtle livery
Japanese carrier ANA's third and final "Flying Honu" Airbus A380 rolled out from the airframer's paint shop in Hamburg on 24 January.
German Airways looks to hire 'dozens' of Embraer pilots
German Airways is to bring in another three Embraer 190s this year as part of its transition to an all-jet fleet. The carrier has emerged from parent Zeitfracht Group's combination of regional operators LGW and WDL. LGW has 15 Bombardier Q400s while WDL has four E190s in service. ...


Be Well Solutions is a comprehensive corporate wellness company. Be Well Solutions specializes in full-service wellness including, corporate flu shots, biometric screenings, health risk assessments, wellness programming, health coach solutions, intervention offerings, compliance tracking, corporate wellness incentive tracking and aggregate reporting. Founded in 2005, we are a national corporate wellness company, serving both large and small organizations. We have 25 full-time employees and approximately 40 PRNs including physicians, nurses, certified health coaches, registered dietitians, diabetic nurse educators, and other health care professionals.
Reduce the risk of preventable disease and promote strategies for healthy aging. We focus on helping people reduce their risk of heart attack, stroke, cancer, hypertension, type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome.


text:
IMM eSign
eSign
eSignPlus
New! eReceiptsPlus
eTeller Solutions
Upgrade Request
LiquidOffice
Why IMMeSign
© 2017, Norebro Theme by Colabr.io Team | Privacy Policy | Sitemap
Rahway, NJ | March 6, 2019
IMM Achieves Record Growth in 2018, Adds 155 New Financial Institutions
IMM, the only eSignature provider that specializes in eSignature and Digital Transaction solutions exclusively for financial institutions, has announced that it added a record number of new clients in 2018; 90 banks and 65 credit unions. According to IMM, this surge is being driven by the demand to deliver a more engaging, enhanced consumer experience on the front-end, while optimizing back-office operations with a more streamlined and efficient workflow of processes across the organization. Using IMM's eSignature and digital transaction technology, financial institutions are able to achieve both of these goals, processing end-to-end digital transactions to deliver modern products and services in a much more efficient, faster environment.
"Across the board, financial institutions are adopting digital processes; they are transforming the customer experience as a whole by shifting away from manual and paper processes," said Chuck Klein, CEO of IMM. "IMM is vigilant about providing the best eSignature and Digital Transaction solutions on the market today, and we see the demand for digital-based solutions continuing to grow year over year as banks and credit unions adopt electronic processes across the enterprise."
Additionally, both banks and credit unions indicated IMM's flexible integration capabilities as a key differentiator and listed it as one of the primary reasons they partnered with the company.
IMM has established a strong reputation for delivering seamless interface capabilities with existing business systems such as lending, account opening and ECM/Imaging for archival. These financial institutions are implementing IMM's technology with their existing business systems to simplify the account opening process, streamline loan originations, lending disclosure delivery and digital loan closings. Since IMM's solutions automatically index eSigned documents for direct archival into a bank's Imaging/ECM system, the product is creating a comprehensive, digital transaction lifecycle "end to end" for the institution.
"Digital transaction transformation delivers significant value to financial institutions; however, it does require a strategic focus and an investment in time to ensure they can reap the full benefits," Klein, added. "Technology has enabled individuals to be more connected and empowered, Customers and members, are now dictating when, where and how they engage with financial institutions and have set the standard for how we need to engage with them. IMM wants to ensure that we stay at the forefront of innovation with our solutions."
Financial institutions can also add valuable self-service capabilities to easily facilitate account maintenance or service transactions such as address changes, wire transfer requests, or stop payment orders. IMM eSign is now used by more than 900 financial institutions to power millions of eSignatures and digital transactions each month.
About IMM
For 23 years, IMM has been the premier provider of eSignature and Digital Transaction solutions designed exclusively for financial institutions. Today, more than 900 banks and credit unions use IMM's eSignature and Digital Transaction Management solutions across the Institution to elevate consumer experiences while streamlining back-office processes in a comprehensive, end-to-end digital processing environment.
Subscribe to IMM
© IMM 2021. All Rights Reserved.
We use cookies on this site to understand the performance of our site, provide social media features and better serve you. By clicking ACCEPT or continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. See our Privacy Policy here.Accept


Due to continued investment and growth, our large manufacturing client based in Rochdale requires a number of operatives to undergo priming work of plastic parts on a temp to perm basis.
Our manufacturing client based in Milton Keynes are looking for a number of Assembly Operatives to join their team on a permanent basis. The work will be based at their prestigious, state of the art manufacturing site in Milton Keynes.
Our large engineering and manufacturing client in the Manchester area is looking to recruit a Machine Operator (Turning).
Salary is to be discussed at interview stage.
Our expanding client based in Middleton is looking for Skilled Welders to join their Welding Department on a temp-to-perm / perm basis. It is expected that the successful candidate will, after suitable training play a key role in the successes and growth of the business.


text:
Seagulls advance in FA Trophy with win at Chesham United
PUBLISHED: 15:04 20 December 2017 | UPDATED: 15:08 20 December 2017
Sam Frost
Danny Greenslade has turned down a lucrative offer to leave Weston. Picture: Will.T.Photography
Weston-super-Mare edged closer to a dream day at Wembley after beating Chesham United 2-0 in the FA Trophy on Tuesday.
Goals from Danny Greenslade and Dayle Grubb at The Meadow were enough to book a spot in the second round for Marc McGregor's side.
The Seagulls will welcome Cumbrians Workington to the Woodspring Stadium in the next round on January 13, knowing victory will put them within three games of the famous arch.
McGregor said: "It's really pleasing. This is a tough place to come, I thought they were very good with a good game plan.
"We found it tough to break them down and we didn't pass it great, but that's probably down to them.
"To come here and win 2-0, I'm really pleased with the lads."
The Seagulls boss made two changes to the side which was well beaten by Poole Town in the National League South on December 9, with Jarrad Welch and Ash Kington replacing Naby Diallo and Jake Lee in the 11.
But the better of the opening moments of the game, which was rearranged after being lost to a frozen pitch on Saturday, went to the home side, with Jhai Dhillon and Joey Iaciofano missing the target when well placed.
But the Seagulls grew into the game and went ahead on the half-hour through left-back Greenslade, who is enjoying a superb campaign.
The former Bristol Rovers man picked regained possession after his threatening free-kick from the right flank was cleared, and he ducked inside on his left foot and drilled an unstoppable effort into the bottom corner.
With half-time approaching, the Seagulls almost extended their advantage, but Greenslade's cross was just too firm for Gethyn Hill to reach in the six-yard box, and Welch blazed wide from a promising position.
The home defence was resolute in the second period as the Seagulls looked to put the game to bed, though the Southern League outfit created little concern for Luke Purnell in goal.
And after probing for a second, it finally arrived for Weston in stoppage time when Hill released Forest Green Rovers-bound Grubb, who weaved past a pair of defenders before calmly dispatching into the net.
And the Seagulls will attempt to bounce back from a pair of consecutive league defeats when they host Hungerford on Saturday, before a festive double header against Bath City.


text:
Radio Dead - the new station playing only deceased artists
David Bowie, eligible for airplay on Radio Dead
Published: 08:00 Thursday 15 September 2016
Dead air - that moment when the music unexpectedly stops - is the greatest fear of the radio DJ.
But now, the world's first radio station playing only the music of deceased musicians has been launched.
The man behind the internet station, radio and TV presenter Steve Penk, came up with the idea earlier this year as he reflected on 2016's unusually large number of departed acts, including David Bowie and Prince.
"I developed the radio station format as an uplifting positive tribute to all these wonderful artists who are sadly no longer with us," Penk said.
The former host of ITV's Naughtiest Blunders and TV Nightmares and the man responsible for a prank call to then-Prime Minister Tony Blair on Capital FM, is always prepared to expand a playlist which saw ska legend Prince Buster added just a few days ago.
"Many of the original rock 'n' roll giants are still with us: Jerry Lee Lewis, Little Richard, Fats Domino, but these artists will sadly die in the next few years and of course will be added to the Radio Dead playlist," he said.
Easter holidays 2020: 8 of the best destinations to visit for warm weather in April


An adaptation of Hans Christian Andersen's classic story that served as the basis for Disney's FROZEN animated feature film. A young boy, Kay, is captured by a striking image that appears in his frozen window. It is the hauntingly beautiful woman who travels on the winter wind…the icy maiden known as the Snow Queen. An obsession seizes Kay and one day he disappears with the spectral goddess. But is friend, Gerda, refuses to let him go…and she embarks on a dangerous quest to bring him back home.


Hello everyone! Stopping by to share some new illustration work for my new portfolio.
As I mentioned I am creating about 20 new illustrations from now until 2020 for my new portfolio. I have put my time in the last 10 years since college etc and have come to a level of skill that I think can be commercially viable. I will be shipping the new portfolio world wide in search of as much commercial work that I can come across. My goal is for my professional status to feature only licensed and approved work so art prints are not going to be available for any of my portfolio examples.
In other news I recently relaunched a Facebook Page for my illustration art to keep my portfolio and illustration published work separate from my original brand Savage Studios work. Please take a minute to like and or share my new illustration page to see all my new illustrations. Thank you!


text:
Never Shout Never is an EP by Never Shout Never which was released on December 8, 2009. The physical release is sold exclusively at Hot Topic. The EP features two songs from his then upcoming Sire Records full-length debut, What is Love?, one song that is a B-side from The Summer EP and one live track.

Track listing

References

2009 EPs
Never Shout Never albums
Sire Records EPs
Warner Records EPs
Albums produced by Butch Walker


For Immediate Release: July 27, 2018 8:30 a.m.
Fire Crews/Resources: 9 engines (BLM, USFS, BIA) and 3 dozers.
Summary: The Grassy Ridge Fire started on 7/26/18 at approximately 3 p.m. off the Red Road. The southwest side of the fire burned into the old Red Road Fire yesterday evening. Dozers and firefighters worked into the early morning hours, but were unable to knock down the fire. The fire is still very active and running to the northwest and east. Crews will continue working to achieve containment.
Photos taken by: BLM Engine Captain Bastian of burn out operations yesterday night and a distance shot of the fire this morning.


This means that there is already a copy waiting for this patron on a hold shelf. If the patron wants to go ahead with checking out the copy in hand AND wants you to cancel the hold sitting on the hold shelf, you must select the Cancel Reserve option and then click the Yes. Check Out button. That way the patron gets the item right away and you have ensured that the item on the hold shelf will be included on that library's next Hold Shelf Action report.


Movies are one of my favorite pastimes. They also can take you to a different world or help us connect with the characters on the screen. The movies could entertain or help us explore or it could just be spending time with our favorite people.
Although I need to check myself as I tend to binge watch movies especially on Netflix.
Based on my Netflix history, it seems I finished watching atleast 48+ movies, complete all seasons and episodes of 4 shows in 2015.
Wow too much of Netflix I guess. Also some of the movies I watched are during my trips on the plane.


In businesses and companies, all employees – no matter what department they are under, no matter what position they hold, all own and wear badges. To be more specific, people always have their name badges with them wherever they go. Badges may not seem that important or special to some, but the truth is that people should give more attention to these underrated items.
A name badge is a truly important personal item firstly because it is a form of introduction. People can immediately know how to address you, especially when you are working in a place that requires you to deal with other people. Customers know whom to turn to should there be any problem or query. It works the same way with name tags do; without it, people won't be able to recognize you properly.
A badge is also a security measure. People can't get pass the gate or pass the security if he or she does not have a badge. It serves like an ID: no badge, no entry. In addition, a badge is a symbol or representation of a company. It can serve as unifying object for team members and people who are in the same department.
And of course, a badge shows recognition for a person's achievements within a company. An employee can proudly show to others what professional and personal successes he or she has done.
For these reasons (or more), lots and lots of companies, no matter how big or small hire other companies that produce name badges for them. For most corporations and establishments, the importance of badges has already stuck to them, and so they prioritize the production of such items.
Check the quality of the badges. It's important for you to see if the material they used is appropriate or if the badges were made to your exact standards. Impeccably made custom name tags or badges can last a long time, so check wisely.
Is the price reasonable? It doesn't mean that if the badges were sold for a large sum of money, it's already excellently done, and it also doesn't mean that if you paid low for it, it's not of good quality anymore. Pay according to your budget, and in keeping with the quality.
Always check the company's service. Do they treat you right? Do they handle your transaction professionally? These may be small things, but they can also make or break your deal with them. A reliable company is always a company for keeps.
There are so many businesses out there that can surely deliver the best. Some even make not only custom badges and name tags; they also make other items that can be quite useful such as fridge magnets for your home, button badges and bars, and others.


Lauren Kramer, the Director of Operations for Retreat & Refresh Stroke Camp, will be shifting to part-time beginning in August to focus on her nursing degree. Lauren's contribution is invaluable to the organization and she does most of the work to ensure that Stroke Camps come off without a hitch. We wish her all the best as she furthers her education.
Kerri Rae Ryan began May 1 in the Peoria office and will be taking over many of Lauren's Stroke Camp duties including planning, packing, running, and unpacking. So when you call the United Stroke Alliance office you can expect to hear Kerri Rae's friendly voice on the other side.
Kim Holmberg has been hired part-time to take on some duties with the Strike Out Stroke program. In addition to working for United Stroke Alliance, Kim is realtor in Minneapolis, Minnesota and has been a marketing representative for the Minneapolis Symphony Orchestra.
After serving as a volunteer for several years, Kyle Wilhelm began working full-time for the United Stroke Alliance on May 1. Kyle is living near Fort Collins, Colorado and will coordinate the newly-established Western Division for Retreat & Refresh Stroke Camp.
Jerry Shelsta has left after three years of directing the Strike Out Stroke program. Thank you, Jerry, we wish you the best!


text:
Interview / Jesse Briton on Messiah
November 19, 2019 by Tom Bailey Leave a Comment
Co-writer and director Jesse Briton tells us who Fred Hampton was, and why his death at the age of 21 inspired his new show Messiah
What is Messiah about?
Messiah is about Fred Hampton, a 21 year-old Black Panther Party leader in Chicago, who was killed by Chicago Police during a targeted raid on the 4th December 1969. Fred was a remarkable figure in the Panthers who negotiated a non-violence pact between the the street gangs of Chicago and other disenfranchised people within the city. His organisation and mobilisation of this block terrified the state. For that reason he became the target of a secret FBI programme called COINTELPRO, aimed at targeting leaders of the civil rights movement.
How did you first hear about Fred Hampton and why did you decide to make a theatre show about his life?
I was watching a BBC documentary about the history of the Black Panthers. It was all new to me. In the middle of the documentary there was a 5 minute section on Fred. As soon as I saw him speaking I was transfixed. It didn't seem like the rest of the footage. It didn't seem old. It felt like they'd taken footage of someone speaking today and turned it into black and white. I'm quite interested in History so i've watched a lot of old black and white footage, but i've never seen anything like that. Fred, and his words, transcended time. I felt like he was in the room with me. I was fascinated and had to learn more. For me, the journey of making the show has also been a process of discovering why I was so affected by that moment.
The Black Panthers' Fred Hampton speaks at a rally in Chicago's Grant Park in September 1969. (Chicago Tribune file photo/TNS via Getty Images)
How do you think the themes of the show chime with today?
Sadly the story of Fred's demise is not so unusual to us: a young black man dying as a result of Police action. But Fred's story goes beyond that. It's an analysis of structural inequality; why people are driven to radical action; the power of state to control the individual; and the potential for revolution that exists in all of us.
It feels like we're at a turning point in history, where established structures and traditions are being questioned and tested. In trying to imagine the future that might await us, we've turned to the past for guidance. I think audiences will be surprised by how contemporary this story feels.
Tell us about your partnership with Paula B Stanic
Paula has been the guiding light of this project. She made her own connection with Fred, entirely separate from mine, and has held on to it tightly; nurturing this delicate and finely balanced show into life. The process has been unusual by traditional writing standards. It's required her to work in response to the devising impulses of actors white the rehearsal room itself, outside the comfort and safety of a writers room! She's flourished within this environment and acted like a homing beacon for us – constantly drawing us back to the knotty, contradictory, and beautiful truths of humanity.
How do you want audiences to leave the show feeling?
I'd like the audience to leave the show feeling energised, aware of the opportunity they have to affect change, and an increased curiosity about the forces affecting their own community. I'd also like them to have a good time. At the heart of the show is the loving, playful and authentic relationship between Fred and his pregnant partner Deborah Johnson. It's joyous just to be in the same room as this couple as they poke, prod and fall in love all over again!
Messiah is at Stratford Circus Arts Centre from 27 – 30 November, then touring – more info and tickets here
Author: Tom Bailey
Tom is a theatre maker and writer based in London, England. He covers news and interviews for Theatre Bubble.
Filed Under: Featured, Interviews Tagged With: Jesse Briton, london theatre, messiah, Stratford, stratford circus
Forced Entertainment announce new award in memory of Huw Chadbourn
Tom Bailey
Facebook1TweetLinkedInEmail


One of the biggest challenges that brand advertisers face online is to be able to reach the audience that matters most to their brand. To help advertisers simplify and consolidate the task of engaging with their target audience, Google has recently announced the launch of Affinity Segments in AdWords and YouTube.
Structured with TV-style audiences in mind, Affinity Segments are new ways to bid on Interest Categories in the Display Network. Composed of 80 unique lifestyle segments based on interest categories and demographics, Affinity Segments makes it easier for Brands to reach their target audience at scale, based on their interests.
In order to understand someone's affinity, Google's system takes into consideration a variety of factors, like the types of pages a user visits, the frequency of the visits, and the time spent on such pages.
To use Affinity Segments, you would simply add interest categories to your ad group, in order to reach people interested in products or services that are similar to the ones that your business is currently offering, even when those people are not browsing websites directly related to such products.
In conclusion, you can effectively use Affinity Segments to expand your online reach and focus on engaging with the audience that matters the most to your business. – To learn more about this exciting new Google feature, and how you can earn a higher ROI on your online marketing efforts, contact one of the qualified Marketing Strategists at MoreVisibility.


text:
Definition of Paraben
Uses of Methylparaben
Comparison of Aveda to Generic Shampoos
C9-T11 Fat Burner & Weight Loss
Food Additives & Ingredients to Avoid
Tonalin CLA for Weight Loss
Hydroxybenzoate Side Effects
By Roy Sylvan ; Updated July 27, 2017
Hydroxybenzoate, also known as parabens, is an antioxidant and antimicrobal agent widely used in cosmetic products and as a preservative in packaged food and medicines.
What is Hydroxybenzoate?
This chemical, known on product labels as parabens, is based on para-hydroxybenzoic acid, from which the name "parabens" is derived. It is found in four major forms: metylparabens, propylparabens, ethylparabens and butylparabens, which is most commonly used in commercial products. Frequently, combinations of the forms are used. Parabens are found naturally in plant sources. Methylparaben, for example, is found in blueberries, where it serves as an antimicrobial agent.
Parabens' Commercial Uses
Parabens are commonplace because of their effectiveness as preservatives, their low cost to produce and their long history of safe use. They are believed safe to use in foods because when eaten, they lose most of their capacity to mimic estrogen. Pharmaceutical and cosmetic products use parabens as an antimicrobial agent.
Arguments Against Parabens
Most of the warnings about the dangers of parabens appear in articles on personal websites. If there is evidence--and frequently there is little--they usually cite small-sample studies that claim to show that one of its chemical forms or another is dangerous to your health. These studies are cited to indicate the suspect chemical has made its way into human tissue. For example, one study done in Britain that is often cited reported finding parabens in breast cancer tissue. Without evidence determining the chemical directly caused or contributed to the development of cancer, the finding is not proof of a cause-effect relationship.
Are Parabens Safe?
In 1984, the Food and Drug Administration's Cosmetic Ingredients Review determined parabens were safe for use. The World Health Organization, in its International Programme on Chemical Safety, came to a similar conclusion. Because of the concern about the possibility of causing cancer, the FDA conducted another review of the data in 2003 and again announced no evidence of harm from the use of parabens.
The American Cancer Society also concluded that scientific evidence did not support a claim that parabens' use in cosmetics increased a person's risk of developing breast cancer. They did suggest that "larger studies are needed to find out what effect, if any, parabens might have on breast cancer risk."
If you have normal skin, parabens are generally not irritating. Parabens can cause skin irritation and contact dermatitis in individuals with paraben allergies. Only a small percentage of the general population appears to have this allergy. Parabens' effect on pregnancy is unknown.
Food and Drug Administration: Parabens
International Programme on Chemical Safety: Toxicological Evaluation of Some Food Additives
Roy Sylvan has a Ph.D. in communication studies. He directed a large city department of aging, was COO of a consulting company and provided management training to companies and nonprofits. Writing for more than 40 years, Sylvan has authored articles in trade journals, magazines and blogs, and wrote a how-to book on starting a business.
How Does Bee Pollen Affect Acne?
Protein Powder Toxicity
What Are the Benefits of Apricot Kernels?
What Are the Benefits of Maca Root for Men?
Chasteberry & Estrogen
Health Dangers of Underarm Deodorants


text:
SB Nation DC homepage Horizontal - White SB Nation DC
Follow SB Nation DC online:
Follow SB Nation DC on Twitter
Follow SB Nation DC on Facebook
SB Nation DC main menu
Can The Redskins Recoup Albert Haynesworth's Bonus Money? Probably Not
By Mike Prada Jun 18, 2010, 4:49pm EDT
Share All sharing options for: Can The Redskins Recoup Albert Haynesworth's Bonus Money? Probably Not
Perhaps the worst part of the Albert Haynesworth saga is that he's doing this even after collecting a $21 million bonus check that was owed to him if he was on the team after April 1. Naturally, the Redskins have considered trying to recoup that $21 million after Haynesworth didn't show for Redskins minicamp.
But if the Redskins think they'll actually get that money back, they're in for a harsh surprise, writes Pro Football Talk.
Based on the terms of the contract itself, the Redskins have the right to recover not only the $21 million in signing bonus money paid on April 1 but also $4,285,716 of the $5 million paid to him in 2009. But the contract ignores specific language in the 2006 CBA, which dramatically limits the forfeiture of cash money from signing bonuses to two specific circumstances.
In English, this means that skipping a mandatory minicamp places none of the signing bonus in jeopardy. Ever.
If Haynesworth were to skip some of training camp, this could change, but otherwise, the Redskins are probably stuck. As PFT writes:
If Haynesworth fails to show up for even one day of training camp, the Redskins then can pursue 25 percent of the 2010 allocation of the initial $5 million signing bonus, and 25 percent of the 2010 allocation of the $21 million signing bonus paid this year. But if he shows up for training camp (and he reportedly plans to do) and for every game, he gets to keep his money.
Report: Slimmed-Down Albert Haynesworth To Return To Redskins In A Happier Mood
Albert Haynesworth To Report To Training Camp Forty Pounds Lighter
NFL Players Association President Latest To Slam Albert Haynesworth