Talk:Judith Rodin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||||||
 |
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group. | ||||||
|
|||||||
 To-do list for Judith Rodin: |
edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|
|
|
Contents |
[edit] General Thoughts
Judith Rodin was hired by the Penn trustees to bring financial discipline to the university. She had built a reputation as a pretty hard-nosed administrator as Provost at Yale. When she came to Penn, she began doing many things that had not been done before - outsourcing building maintenance to Trammell Crow, for instance. Some worked out well, some didn't. The hospital returned to fiscal solvency. The Trammell Crow deal ended shortly. Many of her actions were controversial. But, it is important to understand that the contoversy was not incidental to her time at Penn - she was brought in to shake things up and, for better or worse, she did that. So - for those that are concerned about mentioning these controversies as violating neutrality, please consider that they were a very big factor of her time at Penn and, rightly or wrongly, they are a large part of her record there - as the volumes of material written about these issues attests.
- seems reasonable. Just make sure all references are cited and described as facts when they are facts, and opinions (sourced) when they are opinions.
From the beginning of Rodin's time on campus there was controversy. The edits to this page in the past couple of months have steadily whittled down mention of these issues. These were neither minor stories nor merely coincidental to her time at Penn; they were not done by the "adminstration;" they were done by Rodin's administration. The antisweatshop takeover of Rodin's office and ensuing hunger strike, which has been deleted from this page, generated multiple national news stories. Rodin was key decision maker on this issue. The outsourcing to Trammel Crowe was done by her Executive Vice President John Fry. Rodin brougt in Fry to do this job. He had no previous academic administrative experience; he just had an MBA and Rodin's support. Fry also coordinated the laying off of the faculty club workers and the termination of the long standing agreement between the union representing the workers at the faculty club and the university. This is commonly referred to as "union busting," because it in effect busts the union. The union, HERE 274, subsequently did not have a presence on campus and was effectively busted. The grad employee union campaign: Rodin built a reputation as a hardliner on this issue during her days at Yale. While Provost at Yale, she threatened to fire any striking TA's. This page did not previously cover much of her controversial actions while at Yale, but they should be included given that people (or in fact one person) keep cutting down mention controversy at Penn during her time because they are supposedly unrelated to Rodin's views and directives. On the actual grad union campaign at Penn, Rodin was the point person on opposing the union exceeding all of the other administrators with the possible exception of Peter Conn. She was quoted in national news articles opposing the union and she called the shots of this issue from opposition, to the actions that led to unfair labor actions being levied, to the appeal, and to the ultimate collusion with the Bush administration to get the anti-union result that she had wanted from her days at Yale.
This is a joke even mentioning Rodin and George Bush in the same sentence, have you even read anything about her other than your own pov union related comments. More importantly, it is really not appropriate to go around calling people hard nosed and things like that; not to mention you are just rambling things off that are only one relatively minor view. (Bricks2183 10:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC))
It is bizarre to compare the accountability of a democratically elected leader, like LBJ, to the accountability of a university president. Penn is a non-profit corporation; the President's office has direct control over all university employees and they answer directly to the President. What was done in the issues mentioned above was done with the blessing, if not coordination, of Judith Rodin and they are part of her biography. She is far more responsible for the actions that the administration took during these controversies than for the revitalization of West Philadelphia - something that tens of thousands of others had control over and helped make happen - which the beginning of this Wikipedia article sees fit to mention.
Other bio pages like the one on Larry Summers (former president of Harvard) and John Sexton (current president of NYU) have given more coverage to their controversial actions while president of their univeristies.
This page keeps getting whittled down to make Rodin a much less controversial figure with a much less interesting biography and it seems not to help to point out the rationale for mention these things. Perhaps the people deleting these things were't around during these years and don't know what they are talking about; perhaps they are advancing their POV. Probably the only thing to do is to begin citing more and more her controversial actions, like the ones at Yale, to demonstrate that this is who, in fact, she is and that it is not a "POV" to mention what actually happened. If anything is advancing a hard POV, it is the minimization and deletion of these references.
- Thanks for the perspective. The fact is that the union controversy was only one part of Rodin's legacy at Penn. Perhaps it was the hallmark of her persona for people on the short end of some of the debacles, but unfortunately that doesn't mean it's a major focus of her life or career, at Penn or otherwise. It seems clear that it's worthy of being mentioned, as it currently is. But even in the DP article assessing her time at Penn[1] it only occupied one paragraph out of a somewhat lengthy discussion. It would be fine to address other things mentioned in that article, positive or negative. No one is trying to compare Rodin to LBJ, that was just rhetorical, like saying if you have an article about Bill Clinton and spent half of it talking about Monica Lewinsky, that would not be an appropriate biographical sketch of someone who spent 8 years in an office and had a personal & professional career before and after holding that office. It's important to mention, but it should be in perspective, and can be elaborated in a separate article on a particular event (e.g., on Monica Lewinsky). It sucks that some people apparently got a raw deal from some of the actions taken by the Penn administration while Rodin was president, and it's undeniable that she would have been directly involved in many of those actions. But even the DP (who would have a very good perspective) comes out saying that overall, she was a positive impact on the university despite various missteps. An article that goes on at length about those negative marks is probably satisfying to people who will always hold a grudge, but does not contribute to the overall accuracy of an article that is intended to be "encyclopedic." Wikipedia articles are not forums for people to just post their thoughts about the topic (though that's more acceptable here in the discussion section). They also aren't supposed to be places for critical analysis unless it's reflecting a certain scholar's view, or published opinions, etc. Anyway, as written, it seems fair & accurate, though there is definitely room for more to be written on topics other than the problem with unions at Penn.
Generally fair enough, but there are specific events that you have deleted, not just minimized. The sweatshop issue (see the ref's below) was put back in; this is entirely different from the unionization issues and generated its own set of national new stories. On the union issues, resistance to unionization does not normally, or legally, involve Unfair labor practices. Moreover, ULP's can occur when there is no union drive at all. In this case, the ULP's were alleged threats against non-union employees. They should be mentioned as a distinct matter from the unionization issue since they were distinct and in many ways much graver. Lastly, this page used to refer to the controversy around the gentrification of University City. All mention of that has been deleted even though there were numerous protests and stories about it. It is absolutely part of Rodin's legacy since she spearheaded the real estate initiatives that led to these actions. This should also be mentioned.
There also used be to links to the organizations (i.e. USAS) that were at the center of these controversies which provided much of the story; these links have also been deleted and would provide much of the relevant history. For example, the grad union page, Graduate Employees Together - University of Pennsylvania, tells much of the story and should be included.
- OK, I think that looks all right. Although I think it needs a reference for the sweatshop sit-in...
[edit] Controversial sentence
"Rodin illegally threatened Penn employees with discipline if they crossed picket lines." needs a reference if it to be included --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] POV
I am no Rodin fan, but I think that this page needs more information on Rodin's academic career before the controversy section is further expanded. I think that the controversy is important and deserves to be a big fat chunk of this page, but I also wonder whether it can be put together in a better way than in a "controversy" section... The problem with this page is always going to be that the things that make Rodin interesting to read about are controversial. It will be a challenge to document it all while remaining neutral. Flying fish 05:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
This page is in serious, serious need of cleaning up. It looks like it was written by a six year-old with a slight grudge against Rodin.
This page needs to reflect the full scope of Rodin's career - union-busting, corporate downsizing, and all.
- I agree with the assessment above, and have been working on cleaning it up. jszack 12:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Someone's puff piece?
Rodin was and is a controversial figure and turning this into a puff piece does no one any good. There's no reason why wiki bio's have to be all sunshine and no reality. This page was discussed and edited for a long time - you can't just come in here and rip out a whole section. If you want to add some balance to what was done, then take the time to go through and balance it just like everybody else. The anti-sweatshop sit-in and the grad union issue were the biggest single national news stories during her time at Penn. That should not be denied or downplayed - if someone wants to source out competing views, fine.
- none of the links in the union section worked, so the section was removed again. WP's policy about bios is pretty clear. If negative stuff is going to be written about people, that's cool, but the tone of the discussion must be 'neutral' and facts must be sourced. You can't just accuse someone of doing "illegal" things because someone thinks they are illegal. You can say "some argued that Rodin's actions were illegal" and then source those opinions. It's not about puffery, it's about neutrality and verifiability. WP is not a platform for people to complain about something they don't like that a politician did unless those sentiments are sourced to a particular group of complainants and portrayed as 'opinion' when it clearly is that.
This was discussed a long time ago on this page - the links to the articles about the threats are here: [1] [2]
Experts said the threats were illegal - that's what the board found and that's why there was the subsequent agreement. This charge isn't made lightly.
- I think it takes a court or agency ruling to determine that someone's activities were truly "illegal" though others are certainly welcome to opine that something is illegal or probably illegal (see point above).
[edit] Someone's Beef?
These two comments and news article links seem to be less about describing Rodin and her tenure at Penn and more about pushing someone's political agenda. Sourced, but section needs to be more balanced if section is to be added.jszack 17:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Penn Labor Dispute
Rodin's tenure at Penn was not without controversy and was centered around two issues: labor and the expansion of the University with its accompanying gentrification and displacement.
Rodin outsourced thousands of jobs and unsuccessfully tried to have Trammell Crow take over building services at the University. Rodin busted the union at the Faculty Club and fought a bitter anti-union campaign at the hospital in 1999-2000. In 2000, Penn Students Against Sweatshops took over Rodin's office after she refused to meet with the group to discuss sweatshop apparel. After two weeks, Rodin agreed to join the Worker Rights Consortium. Rodin consistently opposed efforts by graduate student employees to form a union, [3] and she refused to recognize Graduate Employees Together - University of Pennsylvania (GET-UP/AFT) after they presented a majority card petition.[4] The National Labor Relations Board eventually ruled after lengthy hearings that GET-UP/AFT had a right to a union election.[5] Independent polls showed the union winning the vote. [6]. However, Penn appealed the decision requiring the election, [7] and the NLRB, with a new majority appointed by President George W. Bush, later ruled against graduate employees' right to organize in a decision concerning Brown University.[8] During a two day recognition strike by GET-UP/AFT in February of 2003, Rodin illegally threatened non-grad employees with discipline if they respected picket lines. [9]. After the filing of this unfair labor practice charge against the University, the National Labor Relations Board brokered a settlement in 2004 in which the Penn administration publicly agreed to not break labor laws again. [10].
also (these article links can be added back when there are other news links to present a true "biography" of Dr. Rodin - not merely news items that promote a single political agenda.
also - there were a lot of stories about what Rodin did at Penn that didn't come out too well for her, the Trammel Crowe disaster, her salary topping the charts, the labor law violations, etc. - but these are more than just parts of her record - she was hired to bring economic discipline to the university, she called herself a "CEO" - she served on a number of corporate boards - that is who she was and can't be brushed away as merely "negative."
- i don't see how anything related to her corporate boards didn't turn out well for her? nothing problematic was ever raised in this area other than the traditional conversation had about every public figure and the balance the must strike between specific job and their boards. More importantly, who cares about CEO? you seriously are going to try and question the academic credentials of Rodin? I wish you were at Yale in my day, perhaps a read of her 200 articles and 8 books would help. (Bricks2183 10:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC))
[edit] Faculty Club Union
There is nothing in any of the 3 articles discussing the faculty union that even mentions Rodin. It doesn't seem appropriate to list attribute every single university action to Rodin and discuss it at length on her Wikipedia article, any more than it would make sense to list everything the US Government did over the past 6 years in an article about the current president. There needs to be some direct connection. In any case, I'm going to change that "union busting" language to something that is more correct. Reading the articles, it doesn't appear that the faculty union was "busted." According to the articles, the University argued with the union representing the faculty club members about what the university's role should be in assuring their jobs after the club would be run by DoubleTree. There was no mention of any dispute as to whether the union should be "busted" as there was with the graduate student union.
- OK, I think the section looks much better now. Sticks to the basic facts, no POV express or implied. If anyone wants to to write a separate extended article about a particular union that's fine, but it should be done separately. A biographical article (see Wikipedia's rules on biographies) should be limited to discussions of the individual. It's sufficient to mention that there was a dispute and the general outcome, but a biographical article is not the place to list all of the details. E.g., LBJ's page might mention his role in Vietnam, but his article would not be the place to discuss individual battles, strategic decisions, stories about people in Vietnam, actions by military officials (even if appointed by LBJ), etc.
[edit] Source Material for Controversial Actions
This section can serve as a compilation of source material for controversial actions so that editors can verify that it happened and that Rodin was involved. Some actions are obviously to her credit and don't need to be discussed here.
Sweatshop Clothing Controvery
Background - this was on the page for a long time, but has since been removed for unclear reasons.
Kevin Cullen, "Factories under fire from Big Ten," Journal and Courier (Lafayette, IN) (February 19, 2000): 1A.
"A sit-in staged in the office of the University of Pennsylvania was resolved Tuesday, when President Judith Rodin withdrew Penn from the Fair Labor Association, a group that many student groups say is ineffective."
Nina Willdorf, "Protests Over Sweatshops Spur 2 Universities to Change Policies," The Chronicle of Higher Education (February 25, 2000): A46. "At Penn, President Judith Rodin said she will decide on joining an anti-sweatshop group after a committee she formed -- including three members of Penn's anti-sweatshop group -- presents its recommendations."
The New York Times (from the AP Wire), "Protest by Penn Students," (February 8, 2000): A20. "About a dozen students staged a sit-in today in the office of the president of the University of Pennsylvania, urging that the university join a new group monitoring conditions in factories that make clothing bearing the Penn name and logo. The group, members of Penn Students Against Sweatshops, occupied the reception area of President Judith Rodin's office."
Liza Featherstone, "The New Student Movement," The Nation (May 15, 2000). "At first the administration met the students with barely polite condescension. In one meeting, President Judith Rodin was accompanied by U-Penn professor Larry Gross, an earring-wearing baby boomer well-known on campus for his left-wing views, who urged the protesters to have more faith in the administration and mocked the sit-in strategy, claiming he'd "been there, done that." President Rodin assured them that a task force would review the problem by February 29, and there was no way she could speed up its decision. She admonished them to "respect the process.""
[edit] Unbalanced coverage of her Penn tenure
Rodin really began to reconnect the university to the community - she changed the fortress culture that had prevailed before. New buildings opened out to the community, university money helped contribute to street lighting and other improvements beyond the campus. Much more positive achievement occurred than is covered here.--Parkwells (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
