Vol. 22, No. 2                                                                                            May 10, 2004

BOWEN/LONDON HYPOCRISY ON DIVERSITY

THEY TALK THE TALK - BUT THEY DON'T WALK THE WALK

WHERE IS DIVERSITY IN THE PSC?

Over the years, Professors Barbara Bowen and Steven London, the two top officers at the helm of our Union, have called repeatedly for participation in myriad "diversity" demonstrations in New York and elsewhere, and have expressed their view that diversity is lacking in the university. They have gone even further, placing a MUST demand in the Proposed Demands for Successor Agreement (Item No. 6), calling for "a timeline for achieving faculty/staff diversity comparable to CUNY's student diversity."

The author of the Patriot is a member of a minority group. Ordinarily, we might admire these sentiments. However, we know there is great hypocrisy and dishonesty on the part of the PSC leadership.

We therefore conducted our own research, investigating the extent of diversity in the PSC itself, as compared to CUNY's student diversity (the standard to which management is being held). Of special interest are appointments to committees and selection for paid positions over which Barbara Bowen and Steven London have personal and direct control.

For example, Barbara and Steve personally chose the members of the PSC Executive Committee to run with them on the New Caucus slate. The Bargaining Committee is also hand picked by them. Barbara and Steve also directly appoint people to such positions as: in-house grievance counselors, committee chairs, and PSC staff. All these people get paid from your dues money and/or have reassigned time which is paid by dues money.

Survey results are as follows:

            RACE/ETHNICITY OF CUNY STUDENTS AND MINORITY
                         INVOLVEMENT IN PSC, BY PERCENT

	White	Black	Hispanic	Asian/Pac.	Am.Ind./Nat
CUNY Total (212,711)A	33.4	28.8	23.7	13.9	0.1
PSC.Exec. Comm.(25)B	80	12	8	0.0	0.0
PSC Contract Negotiating Commi. (12) C	93.7	8.3	0.0	0.0	0.0
In-House- Griev. Couns. (15)D	87.5	12.5	0.0	0.0	0.0

The above table clearly shows that:

• Asian Americans are totally ignored
• African Americans and Hispanics have been given token participation in the important activities of the Union.
• Furthermore, an African American on the Executive Committee is also paraded as a member of the Contract Negotiating Team and one of the other two African Americans on the Executive Committee is also displayed as one of the two African American in-house grievance counselors.

Moreover, one of the thirteen Caucasian in-house counselors in the group gets two assignments a week, thus beefing up his compensation, while both African American grievance counselors work only alternate weeks, thus reducing their compensation.

These disparities are shocking in a Union which screams at every opportunity about minority rights and spends our dues money on phony propaganda and marches and demonstrations about the concerns of these groups. Dr. Irwin Polishook, our former PSC President, may not have been involved in loud demonstrations on behalf of the minorities, but his Vice President for many years was an African American, and there were minorities in virtually all important positions. It is disgusting that at Barbara Bowen's Queens College there are so many members of Asian American heritage working, yet in all these years she was not "able" to get one single individual of Asian background for even one of the many positions in the PSC. The Chancellor's negotiating team probably has more diversity than the Union's team. If I were Chancellor, I would tell them to take a hike, get lost and get appropriate diversity in the PSC before opening the discussion on item No. 6: the Union's demands for diversity in hiring. After all, recruitment of faculty is done by the members of faculty and not by the Chancellor, unlike the handpicking done by Barbara Bowen and Steven London.

This leads us to question: What has Barbara done to involve minorities in the Union? Has she arranged special training for them to get involved? Have there been seminars, discussions, or consultants to attract these groups to the Union? We do not think so. Barbara just wants others to do things for minorities, but she wants to spend your dues money to free radicals from prisons.

What should the CUNY minorities do to correct the situation with our Union, which is so long on slogans and short on deeds, so that they too can participate in the Union processes? They should write to Tom Hobart, President of NYSUT, and Sandy Feldman, President of AFT. They should complain to the City and State Human Rights Commissions as well as to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. They should confront the local leadership as well as the PSC leadership when they come to campus. They should contact the Legal Defense Funds of their groups and seek their assistance to force the Union to abide with the principle of equal opportunity. They should file class action suits in the courts. They should force the union "leaders" to disclose the racial make-up of their organization, including the racial composition of their staff according to job category, and to place this information on the Web Site for dues paying members to see.

BOWEN/LONDON HYPOCRISY ON ENFRANCHISEMENT

THEY TALK THE TALK - BUT THEY DON'T WALK THE WALK

BOWEN/LONDON WANT NON-CITIZENS TO VOTE IN GOVERNMENTAL ELECTIONS

WOULD BOWEN/LONDON ENFRANCHISE NON-MEMBERS TO VOTE IN UNION ELECTIONS?

On October 30, 2003, Barbara Bowen and Steven London supported the approval by the PSC Delegate Assembly of a resolution enfranchising non-citizen residents - enabling non-citizens to vote in local elections. This Delegate Assembly is a gutless body, consisting of delegates who - although fed up with the Bowen/London shenanigans, with their irrelevant and nonsensical concern about everything but bread-and-butter union issues - rubber-stamped this Bowen/London resolution. Bowen's henchmen, whose reassigned time is paid by your dues, used that time to spread propaganda regarding the enfranchisement of non-citizens. (See for example e-mails from Perlstein on 9/22 and 9/24/03; from Peter Hogness on 4/4 and 4/8/04 and from Ron Hayduk on 4/8 and 4/19/04).

Now we have a question: Would Barbara Bowen and Steven London move to do for the PSC, what they advocate for local governments? Would they move to enfranchise non-PSC members, allowing them to vote in PSC elections? This is a call for consistency. Or are "some people more equal than others"?

BILL CRAIN IS PREFERRED OVER SUSAN O'MALLEY IN THE UFS ELECTIONS

The Patriot's discussions with those he talked to about the upcoming UFS Chairperson election clearly indicates that Bill Crain, also known as "the Bleeding Heart for Every Occasion" is preferred over incumbent Susan O'Malley, former editor and contributor to The Radical Teacher, also known as the "Queen of Released Time." Many faculty members at CUNY were surprised that Susan had won in the last Senate election two years ago, but her victory by a mere one or two votes against well-respected opponent Manfred Phillip was at that time attributed to the women's vote. This time, however, it is rumored that Susan cannot count on the women's vote. From Sandy Cooper to recently-elected senators, women are apparently annoyed with Susan's heavy-handed style. There had also been rumors regarding the distribution of Senate released time, and the amount of time Susan spends on the Senate business vis-?-vis her own "scholarly" work and playing the cello.

The most substantial opposition, however, comes from those who strongly believe that there exists a significant body of evidence that Susan's dual roles mean conflict of interest. In her capacity as Chair of the UFS, Susan serves on the CUNY Board of Trustees. However she is also a Professional Staff Congress University-wide Officer, and sits on the PSC Executive Council. As a Board Member, albeit in a nonvoting capacity, Susan O'Malley, a trustee, is privy to confidential discussion of high-level policy, including personnel matters. Evidence exists that, in an attempt to frustrate the Chancellor's efforts, she shared information about planned community college hires with the Executive Director of the PSC. In fact, Trustee O'Malley was blunt, and stated "we need to change this (hiring policy.") Indeed, there is good reason to believe that this is not an isolated incident. The Chancellor and Board members know it too - and this compromises any 'good" influence that a UFS chair might be able to exert in the capacity of Board member. Clearly, Susan is misusing her position on the CUNY Board.

This role conflict of UFS Chair O'Malley is most troubling because one can easily substantiate that the Union and the CUNY administration have differing visions for CUNY. For example, the Union has routinely opposed standardized testing and objective standards for evaluating academic achievements. The Union has opposed all efforts to raise or uphold academic standards or to encourage better students to enter the university through such desirable initiatives as the scholars' program for high achieving high school graduates. The Union is attempting to block New York City Tech's plan to impose minimal testing requirements for its incoming first-year students.

Forthcoming issues of The Patriot may be accessed at the www.patriotreturns.com web site. Archived editions are available at http://www.patriotreturns/archive.htm.