community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
MLK day at CMU
by vincent
Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2004 at 2:37 AM
eirene@lm.com
mlk day at cmu at warner hall / forbes and morewood 1pm rally for peace
for the last 16 years pittsburgh activists and cmu folk have beed trying to get cmu to declare mlk's b-day a holiday. performance provided by the circus against western capitalism.
MLK Day is Admirable
by George K.
Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2004 at 9:06 AM
vine_swinger_chuckie@yahoo.com
The honor of MLK through the setting aside of a day to meditate upon his accomplishments is an admirable thing to do, worthy of a peace-loving person.
The goal of many of the activists that seek to pursue the lofty goals of this man also seem to be people who are adamant in the removal of many holidays from the roster of public life, such as Easter and Christmas. In my humble opinion, Christmas and Easter are as much holidays that are religeous as they are holidays to honor the peaceful philosphy espoused by the historical figure "Jesus Christ". In my tenure as a student at the University of Pittsburgh, Easter was not honored as a holiday (in fact, final exams were scheduled on that holiday), and MLK day was recognized.
I point this incongruity out as a point for you to ponder, Mr. Eirine, since you are seeking to honor peace-loving men, be they white, black, or indian.
A second point that I would like to make, though, is that, as an essentially PRIVATE institution, CMU bears no obligation to set aside a day for anyone. The institution of CMU does not have to bend to your or anyone elses will, except as mandated by law, and the law does not require that the institution recognize this day as a holiday.
If you can attract any CMU students to your minor affair, ask yourself and the crowd what you are doing there.
Are you there only to advance your own agenda and exert your individual power and charisma to coerce a group of students to attempt to force the University to bend to "your" will? Or are you actually interested in utilizing this day to study the ideas presented by MLK? From the sound of your "call to action", you are leaning towards a personal power-play. You are only tangentially concerned that the day has been designated "MLK Day".
You want to be on the nightly news, speaking on the "groups behalf", as the "organizer", to "force the Impersonal University" to "Honor Peace".
You are getting old and need to get your name in the paper more and more before you pass to the big activist march in the netherworld.
George K's comments
by bugg
Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2004 at 12:18 PM
George,
There is a huge difference beteween moral and legal obligations. Nobody has said that Carnegie Mellon has a legal obligation to make MLK Jr. Day a holiday, but that does not mean they are free of moral obligation.
Finally, your ad homenim arguments as well as your attempt to deflect this conversation away from CMU and MLK and towards religion has been noted, and I for one, do not appreciate them.
Actually, George
by Mary H
Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2004 at 1:45 PM
mary@indypgh.org
I don't see Vincent as grandstanding at all. I think Vincent walks the walk to a degree that most of us would not think of doing.
Personally, I don't like the idea of people being homeless, but I haven't opened my home up and said "come on in" as Vincent and his family have.
To my way of thinking, the point is not whether or not Vincent talks about things; it's the fact that he doesn't *just* talk about them.
Not Disputing
by George K.
Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2004 at 6:17 PM
vine_swinger_chuckie@yahoo.com
1). The deflection towards the "Jesus" issue / comparision was obviously intentional, and for a very good reason. You are focusing on such a small slice of time that you have lost perspective. Why are you so concerned with forcing a large institution to bend to your will?
2). I am not detracting from Mr. Eirines past accomplisments, but this impotent effort is a poor way to get his good name in the news. Someone should highlight his compassionate actions to a multitude of people. Another drudgery of a sixties-style chantfest for MLK-day at CMU is not the way to get any type of message across.
3) As a general note, I find it humorous when people post messages that say they do not appreciate others' POV. This is an open media. Expand your sphere of "connecting the dots". Religion does not necessarily have to be an issue here.
CMU PROFF AND MLK DAY
by vincent
Thursday, Jan. 15, 2004 at 5:31 PM
eirene@lm.com
�
The following paragraphs, updated by the author, are based on remarks by
Dave Demarest, a retired CMU English prof, at a demonstration on Martin
Luther King's Birthday in front of CMU's Warner Hall, Jan. 19, 1998.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Greetings from half-day U . . .
I want to point out that CMU only recognized the National King Holiday
formally several years ago � and then, of course, to award it only a half
day off.
In an odd footnote, CMU in fact made its decision on the very same day that
Wall Street � by contrast � announced it was recognizing King with a full
day's holiday.
It seemed to me that if Wall Street was doing it, why was CMU so grudging?
Dr. King's birthday is a day on which all of us should give some thought to
our personal politics � the responsibility we all have, wherever we work,
for trying to engage ourselves in some form of useful local politics. And
certainly the fact that CMU could only bring itself to a half day off is
indicative of something institutional here that we need to worry about and
discuss.
In the most basic and simple way, the King Holiday is an important symbol
that matters a lot to many Americans. It seems to me insulting that CMU
cannot bring itself to make a simple gesture of respect and solidarity.
I will concede that in its designated half days CMU has run some good
programs. But there's a big list of activities and policies at a school like
this that we should think about.
For instance, we need to be concerned about the heavy commitment to military
research here � the fact, for example, that computer science is largely paid
for by the national Defense Department. Is this situation desirable at a
university, where � many of us feel � the mission should be free and open
inquiry, and the end-product peace? This school is, nationally, one of the
universities most dependent on Defense Department funding for its research.
There are other issues on this campus that we should ask ourselves about.
For example, CMU remains a highly segregated school. It's true we do have a
very small percentage of African American students here, but structurally,
institutionally, we're dominantly a white power school. Even though various
individuals here have tried hard � credit to them � to increase enrollment
of African American students, we are still dominantly a fortress of white
power.
That has to concern us. How do we deal with that fact of life?
An aspect of our segregation is the community position we find ourselves in.
The local community, the inner city � the African American community here in
Pittsburgh � feels alienated from CMU, by and large. They do not want to
come on campus, they do not want to bring their activities here. They don't
feel welcome. That's partly an unfortunate aspect of our institutional
positioning. CMU's an expensive school, relying inevitably on enrolling
relatively well off suburban kids. But there's also too often been a policy
of not being very welcoming on this campus to inner city Pittsburgh. We
could try to change that policy � invite community groups on campus as much
as possible. Make them welcome.
Another area of concern that I always think about is the position of waged
workers on this campus. By and large African Americans have occupied the
lowest paid staff positions. The CMU administration, unsurprisingly (like
all administrations), is anti-union, and there's always the pressure to
squeeze down on wages and benefits such as tuition remission. Are the food
workers on this campus, for example, recognized as full fledged university
employees, with full fledged benefits and privileges? Or are they
subcontracted to off-campus employers?
At CMU there's always an atmosphere that discourages political activism.
This school is famous for the slogan "my heart is in the work," and
it
sometimes seems that the system here is intended to grind students down,
keep them so busy that they won't learn how to protest � to get off their
butt and do something of an inquiring activist political sort.
On the King Holiday, we should not entirely give ourselves over to extolling
a past important political figure but try to use his legacy to bring about
change in our institutions, including this one here � Carnegie Mellon �
where we are at the moment.
Greetings from half-day U.
david demerest
Holidays to Honor People
by George K.
Thursday, Jan. 22, 2004 at 6:35 AM
vine_swinger_chuckie@yahoo.com
I took many points from the most recent post. To address the military contracts, the University accepts these as a source of money, and, as an economic entity, it must accept these contracts if it wants to remain a viable, world-class research institution.
If the University would eliminate this source of income and convert itself to an institution that devoted itself to the study of "non-threatening" subjects (like arts, maybe), then the costs of the university would become astronomical. I fear then that CMU would become a University where the costs would be so high, that it would be akin to an exclusive New England liberal arts school that no student could afford. That would not advance the cause of attempting to attract a more diverse crowd.
As for foisting a holiday to honor the philosophy of someone, for example MLK, legislating this purpose is not a way to do achieve this end. This is "thought-control". How can a government-endorsed holiday force people to honor someone? People must come to understand why a person's ideas are worthy of contemplation. I comprehend why MLK is such a man, but to many people, this has become just another "day off". If people are forced to attend functions for a half-day or a full day, they resent being indoctrinated.
The real goal is to reach people in a passive way so they see the reasons for honoring MLK. They should not feel that "white-guilt" is a reason for attending these functions. An institution should not create a holiday to "quiet" the activists, since no one has succeeded: the activists have not changed anyones way of thinking (in fact the activists may have caused general resentment), and the institution has lost by changing its guidelines and responsibilites to its general student population.
University money
by mary
Thursday, Jan. 22, 2004 at 12:03 PM
mh5r@andrew.cmu.edu
A point about money & tuition @ CMU: money from military sources does *not* offset tuition. Teaching (at the undergraduate level) and research are generally separate streams and funded through separate sources. Military money funds "research". The sort-of exception to this is that PhD students are often funded (that is, their tuition is paid and they recieve a stipend) for doing some work on a research project. Salary money for teaching faculty (for the portionof their time devoted to teaching as opposed to research) would not come from grants/contracts from the military. So, CMU could still be a fine "teaching" university w/o military money. The relationship between teaching & research is not simple. It's not necessarily the case that the best researchers are the best teachers.
In terms of CMU's involvement with the military, in one sense it is CMU that gets the money; in another sense it is individual researchers (or groups of researchers and their staff). Individuals decide where to go to look for money, and can decide what entitites they are going to seek money from, and perhaps more importantly, can look at the use to which their work would be put, and whether that work is something they want to be a part of. Everyone who submits proposals and seeks funding is free to avoid the military. So, while CMU could decide that it wasn't going to have any of it's research faculty taking military money, reform is more likely to come, I think, as individual researchers consider the effect of their work and act according to conscience. The university could be helpful in encouraging folks who work there to consider things like this (Vice Provost Indira Nair is one of the people who actively talks about things like this and encourages people to think in this way) and creating an environment conducive to the discussion of ethical issues as part of the workplace, as oposed to ignoring these issues or rewarding other kinds of behavior.
help, his cynicism is killing me!
by anti-cynic
Thursday, Jan. 22, 2004 at 12:04 PM
"To address the military contracts, the University accepts these as a source of money, and, as an economic entity, it must accept these contracts if it wants to remain a viable, world-class research institution."
So to paraphrase: without money from the war machine, a present-day academic institution cannot exist, is that what you're saying? Give me a break.
Where do you think all that research money is coming from George? Does it grow on trees in the White House gardens? If we presume that most of that money is coming from our taxes, which is a pretty safe presumption, then just imagine what could be done with that money if it wasn't going into military research. How about... uhh... better education... How about even... a good education for everyone... How about non-private institutions providing that good education...?
Anyone want to draw up an education plan with an extra budget of, say, 87 billion dollars, for example?
What you are sadly lacking George is a vision, or as someone else once put it, a "dream".
Vision is Wide
by George K.
Friday, Jan. 23, 2004 at 11:22 AM
vine_swinger_chuckie@yahoo.com
This can turn into a History and Philosophy of Science research topic on the �primary funding for research,� and I would find that interesting.
My graduate engineering exposure to the researcher-teacher problem is exactly as you have outlined Mary; there are people that are suited for one or the other, but hardly for both at the same time. I concur that CMU could be a fine University without accepting the military contracts, but the caliber of researcher and the types of programs offered would be different. Advanced robotics, computers, artificial intelligence, materials, etc. would not be funded as heavily. These subjects are what CMU is well known for in science and engineering arenas (I acknowledge the arts too, but we are talking research funding here).
I have studied the History and Philosophy of Science and throughout history, major funding for technology development has generally come from a government, usually to secure advantages over adversaries. Barring the occasional wealthy individual or group, governments were the only entities that have had the resources to invest in basic research that has been leveraged into technology, which then becomes a technology that must have a public policy associated with it (printing press, electricity, nuclear power, cable TV, genetic engineering,).
Universities in no way can fund themselves by tuition alone. Since you are associated with CMU, Mary, you can give the best insight, but from what I know, the endowments are a major portion of income as well, and these endowments are increased when alumnus give back to the universities in greater amounts when the universities' profiles are "raised". Many alums see higher profiles in the form of seeing their universities' name in the paper when a research grant is announced, for example. Despite what you say about their motives, this is true. Also, the more research money a University attracts, the more its reputation is able to grow and attract more research money...another empirical "rule". And when the research bar income is raised, you can be sure that higher-caliber students will seek to study there to be close to "cutting-edge" studies.
To draw this together, the greatest source of research money is generally the US government. Of the many branches of the US government, the Military is well funded and is controversial due to the nature of its existence. The Military utilizes research institutions to gain advantages over adversaries by funding basic and advanced research at learning institutions. CMU is such an institution. CMU benefits from the income and reputation of carrying out this work, and the institution is able to improve itself by attracting �world-class� intellectual capital and resources. CMU will not change this course of action, since this research revenue-stream permits the University to position itself in the upper-echelon of institutions in the US, which will allow CMU to grow its endowment and secure its financial future.
In response to "anti-cynic"...I do have "vision.� It is broad and has depth. It is a vision of a world where no person is injured on purpose by another, and each person is free to explore their chosen intellectual course. Where skin color, sexuality, or any other perceived "difference" does not define how one person interacts with one another. Where each persons sense of self-worth is bolstered to make them as productive to society as they see fit.
But then I open the Post-Gazette, and read about enough local news about "mans' inhumanity to another man" that I become physically ill. I read international news from widely varied news sources of people who do not want to observe basic human rights in most every country on the planet. I read about millennia-old "blood-grudges" between cultures that are still causing death and suffering, when the people involved now could put aside their reasons for fighting, because those reasons have disappeared and have been forgotten. I read of people who claim that their religion is non-violent, but kill in the name of their God.
So, �anti-cynic�, how is changing CMU going to advance this vision at all? The US still has to defend itself from these outside threats, and these outside threats perceive the US as the threat. The local murders and violence seems nearly unsolvable in the context of this conversation.
So what is your vision?
CMU goes to washington 1996
by vincent
Friday, Jan. 23, 2004 at 1:16 PM
eirene@lm.com
SEI GOES TO WASHINGTON
"MR. DRUFFEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members. I've also submitted a position statement and I'll just summarize the major points that I made in that statement.
The SEI is relatively new among the FFRDCs and certainly among the smallest. We were established in 1984 after a competitive procurement process initiated by DOD. That was started after an industry-led panel reviewed the situation and decided that -- recommended that an SEI be established and that it be at a major university because they did not believe that industry would be willing to do the kind of work that they wanted done. And the SEI is managed by CMU, as with MIT Lincoln Laboratory, without fee. I won't presume to lecture you on software, but let me just spend a moment talking about the importance of software to our defense systems.
rest of the article >>> http://notowar.com/archives/sei.html
Martin Luther King Jr. is in MY MIND the greatest American EVER
by Dorina Prisacaru
Saturday, Jan. 24, 2004 at 11:56 AM
DCGolightly@ecoisp.com
Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech (Dec 1964)
"I still believe that one day mankind will bow before the altars of God and be crowned triumphant over war and bloodshed, and nonviolent redemptive goodwill will proclaim the rule of the land.
Most of these people will never make the headlines and their names will not appear in Who's Who. Yet when years have rolled past and when the blazing light of truth is focused on this marvelous age in which we live -- men and women will know and children will be taught that we have a finer land, a better people, a more noble civilization -- because these humble children of God were willing to suffer for righteousness' sake." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
These are the words that give me hope; these are the words that give me the strength to go on; these are the words that give me the assurance that I am doing the right thing; these are the words that tell me not to live in fear.
Chance to Comment
by George K.
Wednesday, Jan. 28, 2004 at 8:34 AM
vine_swinger_chuckie@yahoo.com
Now I have some time to comment:
As for another of "anti-cynic"'s comments:
"So to paraphrase: without money from the war machine, a present-day academic institution cannot exist, is that what you're saying? Give me a break. "
I did not say that ANY academic institution cannot exist without money from (to use the politically skewed phrase) "the war machine". If you look at my comment, I clearly state "world-class research institution".
"Feel-good" academic institutions exist blight the landscape, but they will award degrees for a reasonable tuition. Elitist acdemic institutions are concentrated in New England, and those institutions charge astronomical tuitions to churn out lawyers and future presidents.
Next Point concerns Mr. Eirenes' Copy and paste from his own website NOTOWAR.COM, of a partial transcript from L. Druffel, Dir., SEI, before a hearing of the Military research and Development Subcommittee of the House National Security Committee for FISCAL YEAR 1997!
Mr. Eirenes' point seems to be that people were misled (?) about SEI? that it was not military? Back that up. Next, you jump on the point that "the purpose of SEI was to do what private industry wouldn't . . . insane". Can you comprehend ANY of the possible reasons of why private industry would not tackle such a project? Such as profit! Private industry would not manage anything for no fee, as CMU does. Private industry would not be willing to do the work [the DOD] wanted because it was pure research without (yet!) a marketable product.
The DOD wants a research institution to perform research that can provide a solution in order to protect military defense/attack assets. These software solutions would go into billion-dollar pieces of equipment that are not mass-manufactured, so cost really is not an issue here.
Private industry wants a shorter timeline on a project, so reletively mass-produced products can use the development, and a profit can be realized over the development costs. This, again, is the reason that the government is usually the source for technology development research money, and not private industry.
Alas, we have diverged from the subject of the honor of MLK. I would truely like to speak with the man and see what he would have to say about the rise of black-on-black crime after blacks became dependent on government programs and money, and not themselves. The sobbing mother on the front page of the Post-Gazette had no one to blame but the black culture for her son killing another black male.
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)