Sandra Finley

Sep 152011
 

Bush’s Toronto appearance cancelled  Published On Wed Sep 14 2011

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1053604–george-w-bush-s-toronto-appearance-canceled

A poster being distributed by students of Tyndale University and Seminary opposed to a fundraising event featuring George W. Bush. Tyndale is a non-denominational evangelical Christian university and seminary. A poster being distributed by students of Tyndale University and Seminary opposed to a fundraising event featuring George W. Bush. Tyndale is a non-denominational evangelical Christian university and seminary. A poster being distributed by students of Tyndale University and Seminary opposed to a fundraising event featuring George W. Bush. Tyndale is a non-denominational evangelical Christian university and seminary.

SUBMITTED IMAGE

Brendan Kennedy Staff Reporter

Next week’s appearance by former U.S. president George W. Bush at an event hosted by a local evangelical Christian university has been cancelled.

The decision came Wednesday, the same day three former students launched a petition http://www.tyndale.co/petitionEND urging the university to cancel the speech. On Tuesday, a class valedictorian and professor publicly spoke out against the appearance following the resignation of another staff member.

Bush was scheduled to speak Sept. 20 to about 150 people at an invitation-only breakfast hosted by Tyndale University College and Seminary, home to about 1,400 students at two campuses in Toronto’s north end.

Tyndale supporter Prem Watsa, chief executive of Fairfax Financial Holdings and sometimes referred to as “Canada’s Warren Buffett,” was sponsoring the event, which the administration said was intended to raise the university’s profile. Watsa did not respond to requests for comment.

A brief http://tyndale.ca/news/breakfast-canceledpostEND on the university’s website Wednesday afternoon announced the cancellation “due to scheduling change” but provided no details, nor did it mention Bush by name.

Tyndale spokeswoman Lina van der Wel confirmed the note pertained to the Bush event, which she said would not be rescheduled. She said she could not explain the “scheduling change,” nor say whether it was the university or Bush who cancelled.

University president Gary Nelson held a town-hall meeting at the school at noon Wednesday, a few hours before the decision to cancel was made public. Faculty reached by the Star refused to discuss what happened at the meeting.

Opposition to Bush’s appearance at the non-denominational evangelical university had been growing within the school’s community since Monday after a story http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1052707–bush-to-make-promotional-appearance-for-christian-collegestorystoryEND was published in the Star.

The following day, a class valedictorian and professor spoke http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1053278spoke out passionately against the visit. The university also confirmed “a valued employee” quit in protest.

Critics accused Tyndale of sacrificing its peaceful ideals to attract wealthy donors with the exclusive event. Many students and alumni also complained they only heard about the high-profile appearance through the news.

“They’re still not even saying his name on their web page,” said Dan Oudshoorn, a former student body president who graduated in 2006 and was part of the group that launched the petition. “I think it shows they were really trying to sneak in a cash grab through a means they know is dirty, they got busted doing it and now they’re trying to sneak back out again without taking responsibility.”

The Bayview Ave. school has a history dating back to 1894 as the Toronto Bible College. Renamed in 2003, it awards bachelor of arts degrees and offers graduate studies in theology.

Sep 152011
 

1.      UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN   

Bring your friends for an energy transfusion!   

Tuesday, Sept 27th 

2-4pm 

Room 241 Arts Bldg  (Neatby-Timlin Lecture Theatre).

Th USFA Academic Freedom Committee is organizing an event featuring 2 speakers  John Valleau  and  Paul Hamel.    They are from the U of T and will be speaking about the issues at the Munk School of International Affairs. 

 POSTER:   p://sandrafinley.ca/?p=3288

 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

2.    UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

 John Valleau,  Great Minds for Whose Future?  http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=3283  

Paul Hamel,  Profs allege donor influence  http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=3285 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

  1. 3.     Concerned Senators Create Website to Address Issues of Corporatization and Transparency at U of S

August 15, 2011.        SASKATOON: A group of U of S Senators called USSWORD (University of Saskatchewan Senators Working to Revive Democracy) launch website to build a bridge between the U of S and the greater Saskatchewan community.

Check it out:  http://ussword.blogspot.com/

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

4.  I will try to maintain a file:   in the righthand sidebar Go to “Knowledge Base”, click on “Take Back the University”.  (Then scroll down past the headers.  You’ll get a listing of more information).

Sep 152011
 

http://thevarsity.ca/articles/38871  

Nov 29, 2010 News 3 

Profs allege donor influence 

The Heritage Mansion is the future site of the Munk School of Global Affairs. Only senior staff and visitors will be able to use the front doors.

RYAN KELPIN/The Varsity 154

 This article was published on Nov 29, 2010 in the News section

Two U of T profs argue philanthropists are shaping academic mission. Provost calls idea “crazy.”

Dylan C. Robertson

Two U of T professors say philanthropists are determining the university’s priorities, and not the faculty and students. Professors Paul Hamel and John Valleau believe there is a possibility that university benefactors could even shape academic work.

“We’re finding that philanthropy is driving the priorities of the university,” said Hamel. “They’re being set by administration, independent of what the faculty or the academy determines should be the priorities.”

The two started probing benefactor influence by examining the donor agreement [PDF] for the Munk School of Global Affairs, posted online by Hamel.

 “The very first sentence states [the school] will be a top priority of U of T,” said Hamel. “Who decided that?”

 The $35 million donation — the largest in U of T history — was announced in April and comes from The Peter and Melanie Munk Charitable Foundation. The remaining $25 million comes from the Ontario government. The charity also hired Ensight Canada, a lobbying firm, to advocate federal funding for the school. 

Peter Munk is the Chairman of Barrick Gold, a multinational mining corporation. The school aims to become internationally renowned by housing programs involving global politics and a potential journalism program.

 Hamel and Valleau’s main criticism is that the school was never determined as a priority at the Academic Board of Governing Council.

 U of T Provost Cheryl Misak explained that through academic planning, faculties identify priorities and then seek donors who can meet their goals.

 “Departments will put through their academic plans that they have an idea and we find ways of doing it. An academic priority is identified on the ground,” said Misak. “The idea that donors are driving academic priorities is crazy, just crazy.”

 Misak said that, although not explicitly stated in meeting minutes, global affairs have organically become a top priority of the Faculty of Arts and Science. 

“Every university wants to study things global, it’s a really serious priority of every university,” she said. “We already had a Munk Centre. The faculty wanted to enhance its offerings for student programs [so] we asked him for more. We’re really lucky Munk stepped up to the plate. Peter Munk has allowed U of T to be a world leader in the region of global affairs.”

But Hamel feels the donation was arranged to deal with limited resources.

 “[The donation] was pursued by administration sort of like a business deal,” said Hamel, explaining how priorities require resources and noting that the deal comes in the midst of the faculty’s almost $60 million budget shortfall [PDF].

 Of the charity’s $35 million donation, $15 million is set to be donated in annual increments until 2017. A university liaison must report to the charity each year. Hamel says over the course of the donations, school directors will be conscious that “hanging in balance is $15 million” opening potential for “influencing the academic mission of the university.”

 Misak says that reporting to the charity is a matter of accountability, not agenda-setting.

 “When people give, they give for a purpose. They want to know the money was actually used for that purpose,” said Misak.

 “You just want to have a check to make sure the money given to where it’s intended. Occasionally, when someone gives a lot of money […] they want the school to be really great, not just sort-of-great. So it’s [the initial] $10 million donation and then we review that it’s on the track to greatness.”

 “We need to revisit the structure of governance at the University of Toronto,” said Hamel, adding that he and Valleau are now examining other donor agreements and have started presenting to other faculty members.

 They also take issue with the agreement’s space usage of the school, located in the Heritage Mansion at Bloor Street West and Devonshire Place.

The donor agreement states that the Canadian International Council, a corporate think tank including Peter Munk and Munk School director Janice Stein, gets up to 25 per cent of the building.

“We’re having a space problem at this university,” said Hamel. He admitted that CIC will pay rent for its space, but noted it will share areas like meeting and dining rooms.

“There’s not enough space for classrooms, study space, but they get space,” he said.

 Of the agreement’s requirements, Hamel finds the front door policy the most bizarre.

 The agreement states that “the main entrance of the Heritage Mansion will be a formal entrance reserved only for senior staff and visitors to the School and the CIC.” Others must enter at secondary entrances. 

“It’s so pernicious,” said Valleau. “It seems so out-of-touch with the social mores of the university [and] doesn’t seem to be an important contribution to scholarly life.”

“I can even walk into Simcoe Hall in the front door, like anyone else,” said Hamel. “The point of this university is not to make it hierarchical and exclusive in certain domains, the point of the place is to make it open to everybody. And here explicitly written in the agreement, and agreed to by the university, is precisely the opposite.”

 He also noted the agreement’s emphasis on branding. For all eight years of the donation, the foundation will contribute $250,000 annually to branding. The university will hire a media-tracking service to examine the school’s media coverage.

 “To agree in advance to [the branding campaign] seems like an extraordinary thing to do as it appears to limit university authority,” said Valleau.

 “[This] runs completely counter to the essence of what an academic place is supposed to be, because branding and marketing are really often antithetical to academic work,” said Hamel, asking if academic work unfavourable to Munk’s corporate involvement would be publicized.

 “It’s amazing how much emphasis is put on branding in the document.”

 Misak says the university community has achieved much because of its benefactors. 

“We don’t get enough funding from government and tuition to make these investments. I get a little exercised over this,” said Misak. “What we’ve been able to do over the past decade because of our benefactors: public health, nursing, global affairs, social work; these are all our biggest gifts from the past decade. We need to celebrate our donors.”

 But Valleau says it’s a question of independence.

 “[U of T] is under pressures and the question is how it’s coping in satisfying these pressures,” said Valleau. It appears there is no governing structure serving the university in a meaningful way.“ 

Hamel said he believes university administration is glad he and Valleau are looking into donor agreements, since universities are about critical thinking. He noted that administration provided the donor agreement quickly upon request and without question.

The Peter and Melanie Munk Charitable Foundation, which shares a phone number with Barrick Gold, did not return an interview request by the time of publication.

You might also like:

Does the Munk School belong to U of T? New book criticizes U of T fundraising In retrospect LinkWithin

Sep 152011
 

http://munkoutofuoft.wordpress.com/2011/01/15/great-minds-for-whose-future/ 

Great Minds for Whose Future? 

Posted on January 15, 2011 by underminingsustainability

Corporatization and Resistance, UC Berkeley to U of T

 WHAT: Anti-Corporatization teach-in

WHEN: Saturday, January 22 · 10:00am – 2:30pm

WHERE: Sidney Smith Hall, University of Toronto

Event Details: Peter Munk is the founder and chairman of the world’s largest gold-mining corporation. Last year the Munk Charitable Foundation donated a large sum to the University of Toronto in order to create the Munk School of Global Affairs. In an era of chronic public underfunding of post-secondary education, universities are becoming increasingly reliant on private donations. This model of funding has changed how universities operate and how post-secondary education is conceptualized. At the University of Toronto, we are becoming increasingly concerned around issues of academic freedom and fairness in academic planning.

 Financial crisis and austerity have ignited a new wave of student protest around the world, from Berkeley to London, Athens to San Juan. Our intention with this event is to empower local critical thinkers and activists to devise our plan in the fight for just education.

 Join us for a panel presentation on corporatization, its effects, and resistance. Speakers include Ali Tonak, an organizer from UC Berkeley active in the campaign against British Petroleum, a speaker from the the Extractive Industries Research Group at York University, Sakura Saunders, editor of protestbarrick, as well as Paul Hamel and John Valleau, two faculty members at UofT who write about issues of corporate influence on the university.

 Stay to organize around these issues. Two groups – one focusing on the de-corporatizing of UofT’s structure, and the other focusing specifically on Barrick Gold and its relationship with the university – will be developing goals, strategies and time-lines for upcoming campaigns.

 Our goal is to launch the “Reclaiming the U of T” campaign on January 22.

Endorsers

UTSU

CUPE 3902

USW 1998

Science for Peace

Protest Barrick

OPIRG-Toronto

GSU social justice committee

Mining Injustice Solidarity Network

 contact: email: anticorprut  AT  gmail.com

Bios:

 Ali Tonak. PhD Student, College of Natural Resources, University of California – Berkeley (Berkeley, CA) – Ali is a student of Igancio Chapela and one of the organizers of the Stop BP-Berkeley Campaign

Sakura Saunders. Editor of ProtestBarrick.net and organizer

Paul Hamel. Director, Health Studies & Professor, University of Toronto

John Valleau. Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at the University of Toronto.

Sep 142011
 

Forms of tuberculosis are spreading at an alarming rate in Europe and will kill thousands unless health authorities halt the pandemic, the World Health Organisation has said.

Eastern Europe has the highest level of infection, while in western Europe, London has the highest TB rate of any capital city.

Launching a new regional plan to find, diagnose and treat cases of the airborne infectious disease more effectively, the WHO’s European director warned on Wednesday that complacency had allowed a resurgence of TB and failure to tackle it now would mean huge human and economic costs in the future.

“TB is an old disease that never went away, and now it is evolving with a vengeance,” Zsuzsanna Jakab, WHO’s regional director for Europe, said.

TB is currently a worldwide pandemic that kills around 1.7 million people a year. The infection is caused by the bacterium Mycobacterium tuberculosis and destroys patients’ lung tissue, causing them to cough up the bacteria, which then spreads through the air and can be inhaled by others.

According to the WHO 15 of the 27 countries with high cases of TB are in the WHO’s European region, which includes 53 countries in Europe and Central Asia.

Cases of multidrug-resistant (MDR-TB) and extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB) – where the infections are resistant to first-line and then second-line antibiotic treatments – are spreading fast, with about 440,000 new patients every year around the world.

Rise of TB

More than 80,000 MDR-TB cases occur in the region each year, almost a fifth of the world’s total.

WHO said precise figures for XDR-TB are not available because most countries lack the facilities to diagnose it, but officially reported cases of XDR-TB increased six-fold between 2008 and 2009.

Treating even normal TB is a long and unpleasant process,with patients needing to take a combination of powerful antibiotics for six months. Many patients fail to correctly complete the course of medicines, a factor which has fueled a rise in drug-resistant forms of the disease.

Experts say around seven per cent of patients with straightforward TB die, and that death rate rises to around 50 per cent of patients with drug-resistant forms. WHO’s action plan for tackling tuberculosis emphasises the need for doctors and patients to be more aware of the disease and its symptoms, to diagnose and treat cases promptly with the right drugs, and follow patients up over many months or years to ensure they take their medications.

The WHO said that if the plan is fully implemented at estimated cost of $5bn, 127,000 people will be successfully treated for drug-resistant TB and 120,000 deaths will be averted by 2015.

Sep 142011
 
John A. Mc Donald Nuclear anything is humanity’s extinction tool.

October 28 at 12:05pm · 
  • Sandra Finley

    I attended the meeting described in the article below  – – there was no “protracted debate”.  Is it advisable that the CCNI report directly to the Board of Governors, bypassing normal reporting lines? WHY is it set up this way? Is it advisable that the Board… of Directors of the CCNI have only 2 representatives of the U – and those two are aligned with the industry? Tax-payers are providing the money. The CCNI does one thing: decide WHO gets the money. There are no requirements that the money be paid out to U of S personnel. The money can be paid out to industry for that matter. There was no meaningful debate. It was a display of lapdogs.
  • October 29 at 10:48am ·
  • Sandra Finley The article is inaccurate. There was no “protracted debate”. The CCNI was pushed through with no questioning of things like the reporting structure, the criteria for funding (the CCNI takes tax-payer money and decides who gets it), the make-up of the Board of Directors, etc.
  • http://news.usask.ca/2011/10/18/council-approves-nuclear-innovation-centre/

    By Colleen MacPherson
    October 18, 2011, 9:02 am

    John Root
    John Root

    After a protracted debate, a motion from the floor and some procedural wrangling, University Council gave its approval Sept. 14 to the establishment of the Canadian Centre for Nuclear Innovation (CCNI) at the U of S.

    Categorized as a type C entity, the centre will operate as a subsidiary of the university and will develop partnerships in nuclear science and technology that support the research and academic mission of the U of S.
    With no mandate to conduct research or training activities directly, the CCNI will serve as a funding agency for academic programming and research and development projects, and will oversee nuclear facilities on campus such as the cyclotron.

    The genesis of the centre was the announcement in March of a $30-million, seven-year investment by the province in nuclear science at the U of S. An additional $17 million was announced for the construction and operation of a cyclotron.

    In introducing the approval motion, Bob Tyler, chair of Council’s planning and priorities committee, explained the CCNI would be “a funding agency rather than an academic centre per se … but the projects it funds have the potential to have an impact on things we do on campus.”

    John Root, the CCNI’s interim director, then gave a short presentation outlining the key activities of the centre – programs, projects and facilities – that would fall within four themes: nuclear engineering and sciences; materials science; health sciences using nuclear methods; and social and environmental sciences associated with nuclear technologies.

    He explained that the centre will issue periodic calls for proposals that will be considered for funding and stressed the need for involvement by U of S faculty as well as by partners. Root also explained the centre’s governance structure, which will be headed by a board of directors made up of two university representatives, two members from the province and four others. Its corporate activities will be reported to the U of S
    Board of Governors and its research and academic activities to Karen Chad, vice-president of research. Chad noted the Canadian Light Source synchrotron is also a type C centre with the same structure.

    The first speaker in support of the approval motion was David Parkinson, vice-dean of humanities and fine arts in the College of Arts and Science, who said he saw in the centre proposal “principled support” for broad inclusion across campus and the opportunity for “real community discussion.”

    Several non-Council members spoke against the motion, with one suggesting that by funding the centre at the U of S, the provincial government is using the university “to circumvent the expressed wishes of the people of Saskatchewan.”

    President Peter MacKinnon responded to that comment by reminding Council that the university has a proud history of success in nuclear science, most notably the development of the Cobalt 60 machine which revolutionized radiation treatment for cancer. He stated adamantly that the university “is not tied to anyone’s agenda,” to which he received a round of applause.

    Dr. Claire Card, professor of large animal clinical sciences, expressed a number of concerns about the CCNI proposal relating to its governance model, its academic components and what she described as the “overly proscriptive” influence of the provincial government. She made a motion that the proposal be returned to the planning and priorities committee for further work.

    In response, Tyler pointed out the proposal still has to go to the university board for approval, and “the academic discussions of what this centre will do are far from over. We’re creating a funding opportunity; it’s up to us to take advantage of the academic opportunities themselves.” Card’s motion was defeated.

    Further support for the centre came from Dr. William Albritton, dean of medicine, and Dr. Douglas Freeman, dean of the veterinary college, who both pointed to nuclear imaging and medicine as areas of significant opportunity through the CCNI. Sociology Professor Harley Dickinson expressed confidence any shortcomings in the proposal would be addressed, adding that the centre positions the U of S “for a world leadership role. We’d be foolish not to endorse it.”

    Prior to the vote on the motion, Tyler assured Council members they could “have confidence that your discussion today will be in front of the Board of Governors” when it considers the proposal. The board will consider the proposal at its Oct. 14 meeting.

    Sep 072011
     

     

     

     

    = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

    MESSAGE SENT FROM:   http://www.elections.ca/courEL.aspx?lang=e

    Sent: September 3, 2011 9:47 PM

    RE: electronic voting

    Dear Chief Electoral Officer Mayrand,

    1.  Will you please tell me what is the current status of the project to conduct an electronic voting test-run in a byelection by 2013, as reported in 2009?

    I should have told you in 2009 that I am seriously troubled by the project.  I apologize that it has taken me this long to do some digging to see whether my concerns are founded.  You will already have spent a lot of time and money on the electronic voting project and will therefore be heavily “invested” in it.

    Elections Canada asked political candidates’ opinion on e-voting.  I participated in that opinion poll, as much as I hated to (opinion polls are not the best vehicle for a serious matter).  I appreciate that you have sought other input.

    2.   My second request:  in your reply, whatever you do, please do not offer me reassurances.  I have the expectation of informed dialogue.  My repeated experience is that agencies of Government offer reassurances that fly in the face of common sense.    They do not actually deal with the  issues presented.   I am not saying that you fall into this category.  I am just pointing out that I have a particular and warranted sensitivity.

    3.  One of the issues, not the most serious one,  but one that is a deal-breaker nonetheless:  the level of corruption in the government-corporate-university sphere today dictates against “having faith”.  They are not trustworthy (even if the idea of e-voting was sound from a technological point-of-view.)    In the time since I studied business there has been a steady deterioration in ethics and accounting standards that extends into public institutions.   The Wall Street fiasco in 2008 was a high-point, but not the end.  Perhaps you have seen the 2010 documentary film, “Inside Job” narrated by Matt Damon?   If not, you may want to;  it is a great informer.

    Canada is not immune to the machinations of the corporations working with the public sector (government and “influential” people in Universities who are called upon to rationalize on behalf of the money interests.   The public is becoming less and less naive.  There is anger and simultaneous willingness to do more than just bleat about the abandonment of the public interest.)

    I am sorry I am not more tactful in my communications;  I think it is to your benefit that I be frank.

    We have adopted decision-making models in the public sphere that are utilitarian.   You can make a utilitarian argument for the adoption of electronic voting.  It is a highly-flawed basis upon which to make the decision.

    I have collected some material regarding e-voting on my blog.   You will find it in the sub-category “Democracy requirements, deficits, solutions” under “Corporatocracy or democracy?”.  (www.sandrafinley.ca)

    Returning to the motivation for writing to you:  I will appreciate information regarding the current status of the project on the test run for e-voting.

    May you serve the public interest well.

    Many thanks, and best wishes,

    Sandra Finley

     

     

    Sep 042011
     

    This video is of Dr. Boyd Haley, University of Kentucky, (859) 218-6530, chairman of the chemistry department since 1996. 

    http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=249482&site_id=1

    This compelling video demonstrates links between autism and mercury.  This video also shows how the NIH (National Institutes of Health) began to deny money to research the mercury/autism connection immediately after strong evidence for the connection was discovered.

    In this interview Dr. Boyd Haley explains why there is a higher incidence of autism and attention deficit in boys. 

    Another thing he explains is the seeming contradiction:

    –   Non-autistic people have much higher levels of mercury in hair samples than autistic people

    The aluminum factor is discussed.

    (Google “Boyd Haley Interview” if the URL above ceases to work.)