 |
|
     |
|
|
Novartis and Chapela The article “Novartis: Gone but not forgotten” (February) raises important questions: What does it mean to be a “public” university? Is there any such thing as “independent” research when the results of that research have significant monetary consequences? How can the public know who is framing the questions researchers are asking? Graduate student David Quist’s statement about “fee inquiry” replacing “free inquiry” is worthy of full consideration. Kathie Zatkin ’72 Berkeley The vice provost for academic affairs claims that, in Chapela’s tenure case, “the system worked.” Did it? Despite repeated requests, the Budget Committee has refused to provide information about how often it has gone against the recommendations of the departmental committee, the entire department, the department chair, the dean of the college, dozens of external letters, and its own ad hoc committee--all of which supported Chapela. Nor is there any data on how often a member of the Budget Committee has a personal conflict of interest. Unless these are common practices, Chancellor Berdahl owes the University community a public explanation of why he contradicted the advice of nearly everyone involved in the tenure review process. Jesse Reynolds, M.S. ’00 Berkeley There are other issues behind the tenure case of Professor Ignacio Chapela that have not yet surfaced in the media. Specifically, in the last five years all professors of color have been denied tenure in the Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management (ESPM), while all white professors have been offered tenure. Four minority professors have either been denied tenure or, because of extremely portentous signs, “chosen” to leave before being denied. Tracy Benning fits the last category. The three other professors--Ye Qi, Mahsoud Ghodhrati, and Ignacio Chapela--were all denied tenure. Earth Duarte-Trattner Ph.D. candidate, ESPM As a life member of the Alumni Association, I have often wished the Monthly would take on some of the real stories; and, increasingly, it has. I was very pleased to see your coverage of the tenure case of Ignacio Chapela. I believe it to be a very insidious and dangerous trend for University research to be dominated by the corporate world; certainly there appears to be undue influence in this case. Any light shed on this trend is valuable. George Gibbs Jr. ’68 Redwood Valley As a non-academic staff member in the College of Natural Resources from 1989 to 1999, I would like to add the following key information. Your story mentions that Chapela was chair of the executive committee of the college’s faculty, a prominent and powerful position in the college’s decision-making process. It is important to state explicitly that his appointment was unusual since he was only an assistant, untenured professor. Faculty leadership positions are not usually offered to, nor demanded of, junior professors, for a number of obvious reasons. It is also important to state that he was appointed to this position by then-Dean Gordon Rausser, who very much wanted the Novartis deal and knew it had to go through the executive committee. Connecting the dots: A powerful dean, who has an endowed chair, “asks” a junior faculty member (who can’t say no) to head the college’s most powerful faculty committee, through which the dean’s deal must go. Did the dean assume that this junior professor, new and lacking the protection of tenure, would just go along? Did the dean estimate that this junior professor in particular would support the deal because Chapela had once worked for Novartis? After this junior professor found substantive scientific, procedural, and ethical reasons not to go along with the powerful dean, guess who did not get tenure? Jessea Greenman Oakland Clark Kerr As I read the articles on Clark Kerr, I couldn’t help but think of Ronald Reagan’s battle with Alzhiemer’s. I was struck by the irony of Reagan no longer able to speak--and his machinations to silence Clark Kerr. Kathleen Warner ’75 La Canada Flintridge Joint ventures In “Going to town” (February), we read about a joint venture between the University and the City of Berkeley. Such ventures compromise the integrity of the University. That the purpose of these projects is primarily commercial, not educational, renders them illegitimate. It is the state government’s job to fund the University; if it fails to do so, the University may not go into business for itself without becoming something rather ugly. The University could save some money by getting rid of all its public relations and promotion flaks and getting back to the full-time job of education. P. Goldsmith ’71 Berkeley A few comments: First, the area of the proposed projects does not encompass the entire block bounded by Shattuck Ave., Center, Oxford, and Addison streets; there are privately owned apartment buildings and retail stores (including Scandinavian Designs and Arinell Pizza) that are not part of the project. Second, the funds spent to retrofit the Berkeley Art Museum (BAM) in 2001 did improve the expected performance of the structure in an earthquake and therefore the safety of any people inside. A full seismic retrofit of the building would have cost much more and would have significantly altered the gallery spaces. Lastly, the University’s project manager of the proposed center is Kevin Hufferd, whose name was misspelled. Christine Shaff ’90 UC Berkeley Facilities Services Hillel at 75 I am happy to hear that Hillel is still going strong (“Mazeltov!” February). I met my Irish-American husband, Joe, in the Yiddish class at Hillel in 1962. Joe and I are still going strong, too, having just celebrated our 40th wedding anniversary. Besides being a spiritual home away from home for Jewish students, Hillel is also a great “shatkan” (matchmaker). Pamela Altfeld Malone ’65 Leonia, New Jersey I find it somewhat ironic that I received your puff piece on Berkeley Hillel only the morning after demonstrating against the choice of that organization to sponsor Daniel Pipes to speak on campus. Pipes is both anti-democratic (he seeks political control over what is taught on university campuses) and a racist given to publishing comments about there being too many “brown” people in the U.S. and spreading fear that “the Muslims are coming.” When an official of Hillel was asked why Hillel sponsored such a man, the argument was: in order to have diversity of opinion on Zionist issues. When asked if they would sponsor a non-Zionist Jew, the answer was no: Hillel is a Zionist organization, not a democratic one but a private one, that is, a private political advocacy group, one that picks and chooses among Jewish (and even Israeli) speakers according to their political views. I would defend to the death the right of Hillel to have free speech and to sponsor whomever they wish, including racists who would limit others’ free speech. I protest their masquerading as an organization that is apolitically “Jewish” and represents or serves all Jews on campus. Daniel Boyarin Taubman Professor of Talmudic Culture Berkeley One special event shows the power of Berkeley Hillel. It was 1990, and I had returned from Israel (my junior year abroad) only two months before Iraq invaded Kuwait. Then, over winter break, Iraq was invaded and Israel was bombed. On returning to campus, I felt alone and confused. A progressive who was against the U.S. invasion of Iraq, I have been and always will be deeply connected to Israel. After talking about the situation with the rabbi of Hillel, Rona Shapiro, we decided to create a weekly prayer circle at the foot of the Campanile--away from the politicking on Sproul Plaza. Every week through the month of February, as bombs fell on Tel Aviv, Jews and non-Jews alike who wanted to show their love and support for Israel without comment on the war itself did so with prayer, song, silence, and clasped hands. At a time when it was difficult to create a space for oneself at Cal, Hillel remained my home where I could always be a Jew--any kind of Jew I needed to be. David H. Heller ’91 New York, New York |
 April 2004
| |||||||||||
| About
CAA Contact
Us
Update
your Address CAA Career Opportunities Privacy Policy |
©2008 California Alumni
Association. All Rights Reserved For questions about CAA: info@alumni.berkeley.edu Technical inquiries: web@alumni.berkeley.edu
|
Alumni House Berkeley, CA 94720-7520 Toll-Free: (888) CAL-ALUM Phone: (510) 642-7026 Fax: (510) 642-6252
|
