Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Guest Blog: Problems with Recently Suggested Higher Education “Reforms” at Texas A&M

Problems with Recently Suggested Higher Education “Reforms” at Texas A&M
By John Edens, Ph.D.

Regarding the “7 Solutions” for higher education reform proposed by Jeff Sandefer through the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), there are two main issues of concern in terms of their effect on TAMU. The first issue is the process by which TPPF has tried to implement these poorly thought out "solutions" at our university. The impression a lot of faculty have is that a regressive ideological organization has been trying to take control of the direction of higher education in Texas, particularly at TAMU and UT-Austin, and force their particular political agenda on the students, faculty and administration. As has been documented in various emails that have been released to the public by the news media, some of the people involved in these discussions have remarkable disdain for the professors who work in higher education and they also seem to have had enormous involvement in important decisions (e.g., faculty reward programs, the chancellor's "retirement")—despite holding no elected offices and not apparently having any particular expertise in how one should run a major Tier One research university.

Among those who do have experience with higher education, one of the major TPPF players, Rick O'Donnell, has been widely discredited by the San Antonio Express News for producing one of their reports lambasting the importance of most research and scholarship that goes on in universities. Apparently so full of errors, TPPF pulled it off of their website. Although these people claim they are interested in "transparency" in higher education, there is very little that has gone on in recent months that appears to be transparent to those of us down here in the trenches. Hopefully the new state legislative oversight committee chaired by Representative Branch and Senator Zaffirini will shed further light on exactly how much undue influence these people have been having, or at least have been attempting to have, at Texas A&M and elsewhere.

The second issue of concern is the content of the supposed "solutions" themselves. First, they're almost completely untested and have been essentially rejected by other systems, such as the University of Houston, which hired an outside agency that found the solutions to be seriously lacking. Although on their face these solutions might seem quite reasonable, close inspection reveals a lot of problems. First, several of them are solutions to problems that don't actually exist, at least not here at TAMU and I gather at a lot of other schools. For example, they argue that teaching should be evaluated before anyone is granted tenure. Having been through the tenure process myself and having served on the tenure committee in my department here, I can assure people that we definitely place a lot of weight on the quality of a faculty member's teaching accomplishments when judging whether to recommend them for tenure.

Another one of their suggestions is that we should reward great teaching. We already do. Faculty raises are impacted by the quality of our teaching, among other things. Also, our Association of Former Students gives out rigorously vetted teaching awards each year, using a very thorough evaluation system. TPPF and the Sandefers apparently want to simply give bonuses to people who get high marks on simplistic student evaluation forms, which can easily be manipulated, placing more emphasis on being popular rather than being a good educator. Even the student organization involved in the oversight of these awards is rebelling at this point, refusing to use the term "teaching excellence" in the title.

Other recommendations of the TPPF and the Sandefers border on the bizarre, such as pursuing alternative university accreditation systems, denying any state tax dollars from being spent on academic research, and putting universities under sunset review by the state legislature. Thankfully, these ideas seem to have found little traction among the state legislature, as best I can determine.

But I think the most misguided suggestion by the TPPF is the idea that budgets for "teaching" and "research" should be separated. Although they argue for this in the name of "transparency," if you read their literature it seems to me to simply be a means of trying to kill scholarship--particularly in the humanities and social sciences--that lies at the heart of what major universities should be pursuing. This was the main thrust of the O’Donnell piece for TPPF that they had to pull off-line due to all the inaccuracies. By creating this false dichotomy between teaching and research, TPPF has made it clear that they would like to see "unfunded research" discontinued in universities because they argue that most of it has no value (and note that they are the arbiters of what has value and what doesn't—not the people who actually work in those fields).

To me this mentality is incredibly short-sighted, because it assumes that an immediate dollar value can be applied to knowledge generation, as well as assumes that knowledge is stagnant and simply needs to be "delivered" to students as "consumers." If people don't think academic scholarship is important, they should pick up an introductory textbook in any discipline from the 1950s or 1960s and compare it to a current edition. Almost none of those advances would have occurred without research and scholarship that goes on at major universities, much of it very basic (i.e., having no immediate practical or commercial use) and much of it not externally funded. There are lots of projects that university researchers conduct that would not be “profitable” to private companies. For example, research on improving how our criminal justice system works has huge benefits for our society, yet it’s unlikely one could find external support for such initiatives in the private sector.

Private sector funding for research also raises the specter of conflicts of interest, such as when big pharmaceutical companies pay for experimental drug trials. Do we really expect those results to be completely objective and independent? Having academic researchers who aren’t beholden to special interests (and who are protected from retribution by being tenured) is one of our best defenses against biased results and corporate greed.

A second very important point, argued more eloquently than I could by the presidents of TAMU and UT-Austin, is that research and teaching in these universities go hand-in-hand. Doing good research in a lab or in the field teaches students numerous important skills that they'll never pick up in some on-line class or in a room full of 300 other students. That’s why the faculty teaching seats/salary analyses such as the recent report by Richard Vedder for TPPF are so misguided. It implies that a faculty member’s value can be boiled down to the number of “seats in a classroom” they cover any given semester. Aside from the obvious fact that different types of classes require vastly different amounts of time and effort to teach (a fact not addressed in Vedder's analyses), a lot of the education that a student receives at TAMU goes on outside the classroom. And according to the National Science Foundation, researchers in academia already work about 50 hour weeks, and put in more time than researchers in other settings. Some of the statements made by Vedder about faculty just needing to "work harder" are just patently offensive and ignorant and suggest a real lack of understanding of what occurs at a major Tier One research university such as A&M (and UT).

The impact of all of this in my mind is that in the long-term these "solutions," particularly those designed to kill unfunded academic research, will discourage the best and the brightest from wanting to come to A&M—both students and educators. Faculty want to come here not only to pass on existing knowledge but also because they want to involve students in the advancement of knowledge as well. That’s what a major research university should be doing and, if it isn’t, you’ll eventually see its reputation bottom-out and its best faculty head elsewhere. At a time when our state government has clearly said that we need more (not fewer) Tier 1 research universities in Texas to remain competitive with other states that have many more than us, the ideas of TPPF are taking us in the wrong direction. We shouldn't let them try to turn Texas A&M University into the Wal-Mart of higher education.

Biographical Data:
John Edens, Ph.D., is a licensed psychologist and professor in the Department of Psychology at Texas A&M University. He teaches both undergraduate and graduate courses in Forensic Psychology. His primary areas of research interest are (a) the interface between the mental health and legal systems and (b) psychopathic personality disorder (psychopathy). Prior to coming to A&M, he held faculty positions at Southern Methodist University and Sam Houston State University. He received his Ph.D. from Texas A&M in 1996. The opinions expressed in this statement are solely those of Dr. Edens and do not reflect any official positions of Texas A&M in general or the Department of Psychology in particular.

The Seven Breakthrough Solutions for Higher Education Explained

Local News: Texas A&M Students Stay Busy During Summer

Students Embrace Summer
Aggies tackle class, internships and globe trotting
By Connie Thompson

From the Texas A&M University Battalion

With the conclusion of spring semester finals and graduation, it's finally summertime in Aggieland. While some Aggies are swapping out their Nike shorts for business suits, others plan to embrace the tan lines their flip-flops will leave after a long day at the pool. The summer months are an exciting time for students, though they choose to spend their time in different ways.

For some Aggies, the summer is an opportunity to build-up the work experience section of their résumés. Katria Kendall, a senior history major, is spending the next two months in Washington, D.C., interning for the Republican National Committee.

"It's definitely a cool time to be interning with the RNC since the Republican candidates for the presidency are just beginning to announce their intentions to run," Kendall said.

She said that she would not know her responsibilities as an intern until she arrives Sunday but thinks she will be working fundraising events or constituent services. Other intern responsibilities include attending speaker presentations, luncheons, and other events with the RNC.

"I'm really excited to return to Washington, D.C., for a second summer since I interned on Capitol Hill last summer," Kendall said.

Her summer won't be all work and no play.

"I'm looking forward to seeing the Smithsonian and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum again," Kendall said. "I'm also looking forward to seeing some of the things I missed last summer, like the Jefferson Memorial and Arlington Cemetery. Also, I'm excited about being in Washington, D.C., for the Fourth of July again."

During the summer months, some students choose to study or work abroad to gain an educational experience in a different cultural environment. Kristine Martin, a senior university studies major, is traveling to Ukraine to spend time with family and to learn what its like to live in a different country.

"While I am there, besides getting to see my sister, brother-in-law and niece, I hope to experience the different culture of the Ukraine, the different arts, clothing, music, people, foods," she said. "I love music and arts so being able to have hands on experience of it in a different country is an amazing opportunity."

While Martin will spend the majority of her time in the Ukraine, she said she hopes to travel to the Czech Republic for a few days to study and witness her heritage and culture.

Martin also plans to document her foreign excursions through photography.

"I also hope to take some beautiful photographs of the buildings, people, foods and environment," she said. "I am huge on photography and being able to photograph a place in a different country will give me more experience. I am incredibly excited to go."
Aside from the internships and traveling abroad, Aggies are using their summer to take classes. While some students choose to take summer classes in their respective hometowns, Annamarie Cowart, a junior biological and agricultural engineering major, plans to take her courses in College Station.

"I want to be able to focus on school and still have to chance to hang out with my college friends," she said. "I wouldn't get to do that if I spent the summer taking classes at home."

Cowart said going to summer school gives her the chance to accumulate more hours so she can take fewer courses during the school year. She said having fewer hours to worry about in the fall and spring semesters takes away a significant amount of stress.

"Aside from summer school, I really just want to hang out by the pool, relax and enjoy the weather," she said. "This will definitely be a summer to remember."

Published on Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Monday, May 30, 2011

Texas Progressive Alliance Roundup - May 30, 2011


No matter what the Lege chooses to do, the Texas Progressive Alliance is ready for summer as it brings you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff suggests that maybe a Rick Perry Presidential campaign might not be such a bad thing after all.

The demise of the 'sanctuary cities' bill in the closing days of the Texas Legislature's 82nd session represents a "strategic victory" for Rick Perry, according to Mark Jones at Rice University's James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs also notes, in other news, that a Blue Angels-like formation of flying pigs is circling the state capital.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme wants to know why Bill Gates is helping republicans destroy our public education system. Could it be all of that potential revenue from computerized curricula?

Left of College Station, Teddy asks the question who is the Texas Public Policy Foundation? Then he takes a look at the power, influence, and money at work on the Board of Directors on the TPPF, and the man behind the so-called "breakthrough solutions," Jeff Sandefer.

McBlogger takes a look at the compromises Speaker Straus had to make to the Teabaggers and their allies, compromises that will more than likely return Texas to recession.

Neil at Texas Liberal noted that Democratic Houston Mayor Annise Parker has proposed a city budget that is balanaced on the backs of city workers and on citizens of Houston who are most in need of city services.

WCNews at Eye On Williamson has an update on What's been happening in Williamson County.

Local News: Board of Regents Meeting Adds to Controversy at Texas A&M

Regent's Gaffe Fuels Distrust Among A&M Faculty
By Vimal Patel

From the Bryan-College Station Eagle

What does Texas A&M board member Phil Adams have in common with the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Vice President Joe Biden and former President Ronald Reagan? They all learned the hard way to be careful around microphones.

Adams, vice chair of the Board of Regents, didn't express his desire to slice off a part of President Barack Obama's anatomy, call an Obama policy a "big [expletive] deal," or joke about bombing the Russians. But to some, Adams' gaffe caught on tape Thursday during a regents meeting in College Station revealed an us-vs.-them board mentality toward faculty.

However, it also signaled a willingness to end -- or at least refine -- the controversial and unpopular awards program formerly known as SLATE, or Student Led Awards for Teaching Excellence, which gives teachers cash based on anonymous student evaluations in an attempt to incentivize and reward better teaching.

An associate professor had finished a 10-minute address to regents criticizing a series of ideas from the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank, and asking the board to distance itself from the group. One of the ideas was the cash-for-evaluations program.

A crowd of some 100 faculty members was giving the faculty member a prolonged standing ovation when Adams leaned toward Board Chairman Richard Box and spoke as the mic picked up his words.

"We will throw that out," said Adams, of the awards program, in a video that circulated around the Aggie community Friday. "But we don't want them to think they did it."

Jaime Grunlan, the associate mechanical engineering professor who received the applause, said of Adams' remark, "It hurts -- it tells me he has no respect for me." But he also was optimistic, saying, "I hope this attention doesn't ruin the chance of having them throw it out."

Adams, a Bryan businessman, has been a board member of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which advocates for limited government, since 1989. He also is a major contributor to Gov. Rick Perry, a foundation supporter.

Adams said he respects Grunlan and A&M faculty and regrets the remark.

All he meant, he said, was that he didn't want people to think he supports ending the program simply to cave to demands, but instead for the right reasons: a dismal participation rate and lack of effectiveness.

"My opposition to SLATE, or whatever it's called, was not the result of a 10-minute lecture to us," Adams said. "I've been opposed to it for several months."

Adams said he's a believer in the value of student evaluations for an awards program, but any such effort should be simpler than the 16 questions now posed to students. He said he's in favor of developing a new program with input from students and faculty.

"I believe evaluations need to be as forthright, focused, simple and user-friendly as humanly possible," he said.

In the video, Box is seen as slightly nodding in response to Adams' remark.

"That basically was an indication from me that I heard what he was saying," Box said. "That's all. Nothing more. Don't read anything more into it than that."

Box in recent days also has expressed a willingness to "revisit" the awards program.

SLATE was unrolled in the A&M System in fall 2008, first at the College Station campus and two others and then to all 11 system universities. To the ire of faculty, it was likened to "customer satisfaction" by A&M System Chancellor Mike McKinney, and gave faculty members awards of between $2,500 and $10,000 based on 16-question surveys.

The program, which has given out $2.7 million so far, now offers a flat $2,500 award. Only around 3 percent of more than 2,800 faculty members at Texas A&M University participated in the voluntary program last fall.

Published on Sunday, May 29, 2011

Sunday, May 29, 2011

Structural Shortfall: Texas Legislature Passes Budget That Hurts Working Texans

This week both the Texas House of Representatives and the State Senate approved the 2012-13 biannual budget, which implements draconian cuts to education and health care and does nothing to prevent the same situation two years from now. The $172 billion budget spends $15 billion, or 8%, less in state and federal money than the current budget. Texas Republicans have claimed the 2010 election results, during which Republicans gained a super majority in the House behind conservative candidates, as a mandate to make sweeping cuts to the Texas already lean budget.

This claimed mandate included a campaign promise not to raise taxes, and to only balance the budget with deep cuts. The legislature did not use the $9 billion so-called Rainy Day Fund, which begs the question that if a $27 billion shortfall isn’t rain then what, is? The legislature also used accounting tricks such as deferrals of current obligations totaling $7.1 billion that will need to be backfilled in the next budget cycle. There is also the assumption that billions will be made up in cost-savings from Medicaid and other health-care waivers that Texas has requested from the Obama Administration. Lawmakers balanced the budget with deep cuts to public education and health care, and instead of using a balanced approach and shared sacrifice the people who are paying for this budget crisis are the people who can least afford to pay for it.

These budget cuts are going to have significant effects on the people of Texas. The Legislative Budget Board released a study that found that the state could lose 231,000 jobs in 2012 and 335,000 jobs in 2013 if current funding levels were not maintained. A report by the Justice Center, a research affiliate of the Council of State Governments, found that in two years Texas could be short 12,000 prison beds. Here in Bryan and College Station these budget cuts are going to have a real impact on public education. Bryan Independent School District will be receiving $5.8 million less in state funding, and College Station Independent School District will be facing $4.4 million less.

What wasn’t address and completely ignored was that fact that his same type of budget crisis will happen again in two years. Republican lawmakers failed to tackle the state’s long-term fiscal problems during this legislative session and they simply papered over them. Texas has a structural deficit of at least $5 billion a year, which means in the next legislative session lawmakers will be facing at least another $10 billion shortfall. This is because of a plan in 2006 to swap a property-tax reduction for a business tax that does not generate the revenue it was promised. Once again we find that tax cuts do not generate revenue, no matter how much those at the Texas Public Policy Foundation would like to think they do.

There is a solution. According to a report by United for a Fair Economy, at the core of the budget crises facing Texas is a regressive state tax structure that is unfair, unsound, and unsustainable by design. However, by simply inverting the state’s current tax structure Texas can raise significant revenue and this results in a tax structure that achieves the three major goals of fiscal policy: economic soundness, equity, and revenue adequacy. In stead of only receiving $86 billion in revenue in 2008, the state could have received $158 billion. However, it is unlikely that Texas lawmakers could take such a bold step in ensuring the future of all Texans.

Saturday, May 28, 2011

Guest Blogger: Texas A&M Administration Silent as Anti-GLBT Rhetoric Flies



We ask that the administration address the recent series of events surrounding the Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgender (GLBT) community on campus. We, as faculty, condemn the recent TAMU Student Senate Bill 63-106 (Sexual Education Equality in Funding Bill). By suggesting that students seeking guidance from the GLBT Resource Center are not represented by the terms 'family,' 'tradition,' or 'values,' this bill blatantly goes against Texas A&M's commitment to a diverse, unified campus that incorporates multiple perspectives as part of Aggie tradition and values. Other recent events--such as the secret recording and then broadcasting of GLBT meetings on YouTube--ostracize GLBT students form the safe space that the TAMU campus should be for all students. Such events, and TAMU administration's silence in the wake of these events, reflect the institutional forces that limit the representation of and support for historically marginalized and disempowered groups in our university. We acknowledge that these current events have incited a sense of fear and mistrust among the GLBT community. We reach out with empathy to all those affected and remain committed to addressing injustice as members of the campus community and as anthropologists. Further, we hold the administration accountable for addressing this issue in a timely manner.



-Statement unanimously approved by the faculty of the Department of Anthropology in May, from a memo to the upper administration at Texas A&M University, May 10 (emphasis added)





A&M students holding a sign reading "We are all part of the Aggie family" at the "Hands Across Aggieland" Unity March on April 15. (From the Texas A&M GLBT Resource Center Facebook page)


Following the groundswell of support from faculty, staff, and students in the Department of English, and with the advice and support of the department's directors and diversity committee, I am writing to endorse the statement of the Anthropology faculty in the memo addressed to you on May 10 concerning support for the Texas A&M Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgender Resource Center in particular and more generally the GLBT community on our campus and the call for a positive response from the upper administration that affirms a re-commitment to diversity inclusive of sexuality and gender differences. The GLBT community, as a growing part of the Aggie family, deserves the support of our higher administrators, as well as our support at the departmental level. [...] Many members of the English department have expressed a desire to sign a petition in support of this position as well, but in the interest of acting quickly, I have decided not to collect those signatures at this time. Please note that many others do not feel that they can safely sign their names to such a petition. Let us hope for a future when the feelings of vulnerability that these silent ones experience will be dispelled by a campus community known for its civility, tolerance, and respect.



-Memo from the head of the Department of English, Dr. Killingsworth, to the upper administration at Texas A&M University, May 12 (emphasis added)





An A&M student at the GLBT Resource Center's "gay? fine by me." t-shirt giveaway on the National Day of Silence, April 20. (From the Texas A&M GLBT Resource Center's Facebook page)


You may think of me as a faggot, a queer, a poof, a fairy, or a dirty homo. You may think that I will certainly die of AIDS…some of you may even think that I should die because of it. I know people on this campus and in this community who think that I deserve the death penalty for being gay. That is the reality of being gay on this campus, Senators. Even if a GLBT man or woman never once experiences outright discrimination, the knowledge that if it weren’t for Texas politeness they almost certainly would stays with them. It is fear, a constant awareness that we have to have when we’re on a date or walking across campus, an undercurrent of uncertainty about how people will react to us holding hands, wearing a GLBTAggies t-shirt, or standing in front of an Aggie Allies table by the Academic Building.





That is why the GLBT Resource Center is essential. It was part of what kept me alive a year ago, having a community where I knew I could find support, be able to talk to people who knew what I was going through and had the funding and resources to help get me (and every other person who visits the center, gay or straight) the information and support that they need to make it through a day, a week, a year, a lifetime.





Because guess what Senators? Somehow, most of us still love Texas A&M. Despite everything, we still bleed maroon. That’s why we are still here, why we haven’t just up and left, packed our bags, and hit the road for California or New York. The people who work at the GLBT resource center could have just given up years ago; it would have been easier. GLBT Aggies and their allies are still bettering this campus through our involvement in the student body. But we will continue to fight to be recognized fully as Aggies, despite the Student Senate’s clear position that we are not.



-from an open letter to the Texas A&M Student Senate, signed "An Aggie No More" (emphasis added)








A&M student holding a sign reading "Hate is not an Aggie value" at the "Hands Across Aggieland" Unity March on April 15. (From Dallas Voice)



You may have heard of of the Texas House of Representatives passing a bill, introduced by Wayne Christian, that would require any public school with a GLBT student center—or any center "for students focused on gay, lesbian, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, transsexual, transgender, gender questioning, or other gender identity issues"—to have an equally funded center on "traditional values." While the supporters claim that they are only requiring equal time and funding for all sexualities, critics argue that the goal of this bill is to shut down university funding of GLBT centers altogether. Universities, after all, are all facing hard financial cuts, and the bill effectively forces them to choose between shutting down GLBT student centers or increasing expenses by funding two centers. And according to Inside Higher Ed, "the Young Conservatives of Texas, a group that worked with Christian on the legislation, did so with the hope that public colleges would respond to a law, if the bill passes, by ending support for existing centers." Supporters claim that GLBT centers preach the values of homosexuality, and make it difficult for students with "traditional values" to feel accepted on campuses.





The preposterous nature of the implicit claim of this bill—that is, that straight students with "traditional values" are unrepresented and marginalized, just as much as GLBTQI students—is captured by a column at the Texas Observer that begins

Imagine the plight of the heterosexual student stepping on to a college campus for the first time. How will he fit in? Should he tell his new roommate about his alternative hetero lifestyle? Will he be bullied, just like he was in high school, where he was mercilessly teased for being a sexual deviant? Where does a straight person turn?



This is not a reality for straight students. Heteronormativity is everywhere on college campuses, which is precisely why GLBT student centers exist. They are there to support GLBTQI students who face harassment and ostracization, precisely because homophobia is tacitly accepted by fellow students, faculty, coaches, and administration at most universities. There is a culture on campus that believes homosexuality is wrong, immoral, deviant, and chosen, and that culture is mainstream. It is sometimes clever and sneaky, to avoid accusations of outright bigotry, but it does not have to hide. It rears its head in the classroom, in the campus bookstore, in the local bars and restaurants, in the university policies and administrative action and inaction. Homophobia is institutional and societal, which is why GLBT student centers are vital to combating it.





What this bill intends is to cut off one more avenue for gay students who are depressed and/or harassed, to make it just that much harder to find justice when they are discriminated against, by their peers, their professors, or their school. These students don't have that much institutional power, and this bill is attempting to take away the small bit they do have, so that the mainstream university culture, of homophobia and heteronormativity, is unchallenged and unchanged.





This is all particularly true at Texas A&M, where outright homophobia, racism, and misogyny, are so common as to be unremarkable, and where "tradition" is a buzzword used to keep marginalized groups in their place. The Princeton Review ranked Texas A&M the 17th most LGBT-unfriendly university in the country.** In 2008, the Department of Student Life Studies did a study on the campus climate (which refers to the general attitudes toward diversity) at A&M and found that 70% of gay or bisexual students (as opposed to 2% of straight students) have felt uncomfortable at Texas A&M because of someone's reaction to their sexual orientation. The comments from straight students, however, are the most telling:




Having grown up with mostly women and being a male, I have picked up a few effeminate mannerisms which prompts some males to depict me as "gay" or "fruity", which is not the case. (Senior Hispanic male)




If I were gay I would not feel safe unless I hid that fact on campus. (Senior White female)


A&M is not a safe place to be gay, lesbian, bi, trans, or queer. These students recognize the culture of heteronormativity that exists at A&M, and the dangers of counteracting it, whether through your behavior (acting "fruity"), your sexual choices, or your identity.

It is clear that A&M is not in need of a "traditional values" center, and that its straight students do not face institutional and widespread oppression that needs to be countered with a center that would "encourage chastity or marriage between male and female students."* Seriously. If you were to sit in on one of my classes this last year, you'd have heard students call a woman a "prostitute" for wearing pink high heels, suggest that "men always want sex, and women never do," claim that it's "a compliment" for a woman to be catcalled by a stranger, argue that abortion should be illegal because women should "face the consequences" of sex, and that it is okay for men to browbeat women to make them shut up. And when that crap comes up in the classroom, I'm usually the only one to counter it. Which means either a) all of my students believe that heteronormative rapey nonsense or b) they are too scared to speak up. I know that a) is definitely not true, and I also know that I do everything I can to make sure that b) isn't true either. But I can only do so much in a classroom when those students know that an entire university tradition and history and tacit administration approval leave them vulnerable if they step outside of heteronormative value systems. Encouragement from a teacher can't overcome teasing, harassment, and ostracization from fellow students, and many of my Corps students have actually told me that they don't feel they can say things in class because it could get them harassed by their fellow members or in trouble with their section leaders.

"Normal" at A&M is being politically conservative, and being a "real Aggie" means supporting heteronormative conservative politics and values. "Traditional values center" could describe almost every building on campus, including the student health center.




Bumper stickers on a Texas A&M student's car, reading "Keep College Station Normal" and "Real Aggies Choose Life."



In late April, the Texas A&M Student Senate passed SB 63-106, the so-called "Sexual Education Equality in Funding Bill."*** This bill formerly supported Wayne Christian's amendment in the state budget, and proposed that the funding for the A&M GLBT Resource Center be halved, and allocated to fund a center on "traditional sexual education." Further, the bill claimed to speak on behalf of A&M students. It's weird, because the Student Senate bill seems to argue that the problem here is not one of political agendas, in which a dichotomy between "traditional values" and "not hating on the gays" is the main concern (like the Christian amendment), but focuses instead on "sex education." As if the main function of the GLBT Resource Center is provide sex education for queer people, and this needs to be "countered" by offering sex education for "traditional values" people. (Nevermind the whole lotta people on campus who are neither of those things.)





This misconception may be because of the smear campaign the Texas Aggie Conservatives (yes, those Texas Aggie Conservatives) have launched against the GLBT Resource Center since Wayne Christian's amendment became a thing. TAC is all for this Student Senate bill, and to prove it, they secretly taped an event on "butt play" in March, hosted and funded by the GLBT Resource Center, put it on the internet (heavily edited, of course) and proceeded to call it "pornographic" and thus inappropriate for a student group. (And, of course, since we are adults, there is absolutely nothing in the school's rules about pornography and funded student organizations. So go to hell, TAC.) From the TAC blog:


Is this really an appropriate use of university funds, mandatory student fees, taxpayer dollars, facilities, and donor contributions to Texas A&M University? Do A&M donors have any idea how their money is being spent?


Um, yes it's appropriate for university-recognized organizations to spend their money however the fuck they want to. That's kind of how it works. For example, if TAC, as a university-recognized organization, wanted to invite an Islamophobic speaker to campus, to talk about how dangerous Islam is, they should be allowed, and the university should allow them to use university facilities to do so. (Unless, of course, the university believed the speaker would be participating in hate speech or endangering the Muslim community on campus.) The point is, TAC doesn't get to arbitrarily decide that A&M won't fund and recognize groups that have seminars/speakers on what they personally find gross, like butt sex. (By the way, the video of the seminar they posted was so fucking tame. It was merely about how to engage in anal play while being safe and not hurting anyone.) I mean, I find TAC to be utterly abhorrent, and really fucking offensive, but that doesn't mean I should demand that A&M pull their recognition or funding. (They claim they get no university funding, which may or may not be true, but as a recognized group they do get privileges like the use of A&M facilities, which has monetary value, comped by student fees.) So when TAC claims with outrage that


Most Texas A&M students do not support the GLBT agenda, yet they are forced to pay for the GLBT activism center through mandatory student fees.


all I have to say is, no shit. I don't support your agenda, TAC, but I still pay for your privileges with my student fees. That's how it fucking works. When the university picks and chooses what organizations get funding based on their political or ideological agendas, that violates their commitment to viewpoint neutrality funding, which you claim to support by supporting the Student Senate bill.







The problem is that idea that politically conservative is "normal" at A&M. This is what allows TAC, the Student Senate, and various other A&M students to believe that their outrage about "alternative" or "deviant" sexual practices are something that the school should pay attention to. They are right, because they are "real Aggies." Because they are what A&M is supposed to be. Because they are normal, and everyone else is not. That's what caused student Bryan Neale to post this on the Texas A&M Student Senate Facebook page on April 24:


The fact of the matter is that A&M has always been known as a conservative university. That makes us different than 99% of colleges in the US. A lot of aggies past and present love that about A&M. The majority of Aggies are conservative, so a resource center for them is a great way to spread awareness on a number of issues. Frankly, the LGBT group is lucky to receive any kind of funding or recognition at all. (emphasis added)


That last bit is important. Students like Neale think that the conservative politics should direct the actions of the university, and if you aren't conservative, you're lucky that the university even listens to your needs. So if you want to counter homophobia, do it on your own time and money, and don't do it on campus. If you want to create a resource center that gives queer students a haven in a university full of discriminatory harassment, fuck you. Because you don't count. You aren't real Aggies. And that, that dichotomy between "real" and legitimate A&M students and those that are different and don't count, is precisely what is wrong with the culture here at A&M. That is what our administration should be discouraging and countering every goddamn day.







A black outline of an A&M Corps member playing a marching drum, surrounded by rays of rainbow colors.





On May 10, the Department of Anthropology sent a memo to the upper administration, criticizing them for their inaction after all this anti-GLBT activity. They condemned the Student Senate bill and stated that the bill and other actions (like TAC's secret taping of the seminar) made the campus an unsafe place for GLBT students. The head of the English department sent a memo seconding the Department of Anthropology's sentiments, and I know that a petition signed by faculty and graduate students is also under way in the English department. The Department of Psychology and the Women's and Gender Studies program faculty and staff have also publicly supported the GLBT community and the Department of Anthropology's memo. The Graduate Student Council (GSC) passed Resolution F2011.11 on May 11:





Whereas: The Texas House of Representatives has passed the Texas Budget bill, HB 1 with Amendment 143, “Funding of Student Centers for Family and Traditional Values” (sponsored by Representative Wayne Christian), that requires Texas public colleges and universities, if they use state funds to support “a gender and sexuality center,” to provide equal funding to support a “family and traditional values center”;





Whereas: The term “family and traditional values” is not defined by HB1 or Amendment 143 and is therefore difficult to promote and/or implement such education beyond services currently provided at Texas A&M University (through, for example, courses, current counseling services, and health care services);"





Whereas: The term “family and traditional values” implies a false dichotomy that suggests “family and traditional values” and the GLBT community are mutually exclusive;





Whereas: The Policy Institute of the Gay and Lesbian Task Force commissioned a Campus Climate Assessment Project which found that, of the respondents: 19% fear for their physical safety on campus, 51% have concealed their sexual identity to avoid intimidation, and 34% have avoided disclosing their orientation or identity to an instructor, supervisor, TA, or administrator due to fears of negative consequences, harassment, or discrimination; and that 36% of GLBT undergraduate students had experienced harassment in the past year;





Whereas: The Princeton Review’s “The 373 Best Colleges: 2011 Edition” found Texas A&M University the 17th most “LGBT-unfriendly” campus in the United States;





Whereas: The GLBT community at Texas A&M University (including students, faculty, staff and administrators) has been a historically marginalized and traditionally underrepresented group that faces distinctive challenges, therefore requiring mandated assistance and education to fulfill the Texas A&M University anti-discrimination policy;





Whereas: Texas A&M University’s Diversity Plan states, “Our commitment to diversity, broadly speaking, encourages respect for individual differences. Respectful treatment of others affirms and encourages individuals to take pride in their identity and results in the inclusion of all in the ‘Aggie Family.’ The Aggie family is diverse. Diversity involves an exploration of individual differences in a safe, positive, welcoming, and nurturing academic environment.”;





And,


Whereas: The Texas A&M University Statement on Harassment and Discrimination prohibits “discrimination, including harassment, on the basis of race, color, national or ethnic origin, religion, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation, or veteran status”.





Therefore,


Let it be


Resolved: That the Graduate Student Council of Texas A&M University, on behalf of the graduate student body, does not support the passing of HB 1 with Amendment 143 and strongly encourages the Texas Legislature to remove the “Funding of Student Centers for Family and Traditional Values” budget amendment;





Let it be


Further


Resolved: That it is the opinion of the Graduate Student Council of Texas A&M University, on behalf of the graduate student body, that if HB 1 is passed by the legislature with Amendment 143, then current Texas Governor Rick Perry should veto the “Funding of Student Centers for Family and Traditional Values” budget amendment;





Let it be


Further


Resolved: That the Graduate Student Council of Texas A&M University, on behalf of the graduate student body, requests that Texas A&M University continue to provide funding and support for the GLBT Resource Center;





Let it be


Further


Resolved: That the Graduate Student Council of Texas A&M University, on behalf of the graduate student body, requests that President R. Bowen Loftin and other university officials continue their support of diversity efforts in accordance with Texas A&M University’s Statement on Harassment and Discrimination and Texas A&M University’s Diversity Plan.



Basically, huge chunks of the university's faculty, staff, and graduate students have gone on record to oppose the Student Senate bill and Wayne Christian's amendment, pledge their support for the Texas A&M GLBT Resource Center, and (this is important) chide (directly and indirectly) the upper administration for their silence and inaction during this whole debacle.





The administration's response was essentially a non-response. You can read the message from General Weber here, but it basically says nothing except, "We support you, but only if the law doesn't tell us not to. Have a good summer!" The "Wait...WHAT???" Blog states it well:


It seems that university administrators are, in fact, not willing to publicly and adequately address the specific instances of anti-GLBT hate that have occurred in the last several weeks. While we appreciate Weber and Parrott taking the time to meet with all of us yesterday, we also wonder if our fears, hopes, and concerns really got through to them. Lip service "public support" is nearly as harmful as institutional silence (which is what we have experienced up to this point).

[...]

And speaking of content, the message from Weber -- as many at the meeting yesterday feared might happen -- glazes over GLBT issues merely as issues of diversity on campus. While GLBT individuals do contribute to the diverse community at Texas A&M, the fact is that some who are vocally anti-GLBT do not see it this way. They see the GLBT "lifestyle" as perverse and in complete contradiction with University core values and missions. Beyond the mention of the acronym GLBT a few times, Weber's message does little to address the real issue: hatred toward GLBT people.

While the statements from various departments, and the GSC resolution, all directly address the issue of homophobia and anti-GLBT rhetoric and behavior, the administration seems unwilling to do so. They don't want to go on record, it seems, supporting GLBT students, nor do they seem to want to do anything to change the hostile, unwelcoming, unsafe environment that A&M is for many GLBT students, faculty, and staff. This is flat-out unacceptable. We clearly have a problem here, and it isn't being addressed. Frankly, I think the administration is being cowardly, and the GLBT population here is going to pay the price for their cowardice. Apparently, the Christian amendment is not in the Senate version of the budget, but even that is true, and the budget does not contain the amendment when it passes, that won't change the fact that TAC and other A&M students have engaged in hateful anti-GLBT rhetoric, and the administration has done nothing about it. It doesn't change the homophobic environment on campus, or make A&M a safer place.






o o o







*Also, WTF. Encourage marriage between male and female students? Is it really appropriate for ANY center at a university to "encourage" marriage at 20 years old? If a "traditional values" center were to do awesome things like give safe sex seminars or seminars on consent geared towards straight kids, that would awesome. (Yes, I know that wouldn't happen.) But apparently all a hetero center can offer is abstinence and "get married as soon as possible." So a hetero center wouldn't even benefit most hetero students, because they aren't virgins or want to get married after they graduate from college. Seriously, fuck that noise.




** You have to create a free account to access that link.

*** The Student Senate site is apparently under construction, so I couldn't find the link and full text of this bill. I will keep an eye on it, though, and link it when it goes back up.

Friday, May 27, 2011

Week in Headlines


Texas News
Texas Ranks 43rd on Spending Per Pupil

Texas Politics
Texas Senate Approves Bills Regulating Payday Lenders

National News
Tax Cheats Among Recipients of Stimulus Money

National Politics
Tax Laws Could Take A Bite Out Of Secret Political Spending

War & Peace
Congressional Vote to End Afghan War Suffers Narrow Defeat

Domestic Policy
States Cutting Unemployment Benefits While Hoping for Federal Help

Economics
The Federal Reserve's Role In The Financial Collapse

Health Care
Vermont Single Payer Health Plan Advances

Education
Trouble Ahead on Student Loan Defaults

Energy
Oil Titans Tangle Over Gas Subsidies

Environment
Extreme Weather's Frequency to Increase

Climate Change
Climate Change May be Linked to Allergies

Human Rights
Widespread Human Rights Crimes in Ivory Coast

Civil Rights
Prison Guards Get Light Sentences For Sex Abuse

Immigrant Rights
Prison Lobbyists Help Spread Anti-Immigrant Laws to US South

Reproductive Rights
Family Planning Programs Face Steep Cuts or Elimination

Women & Gender Issues
Anti-Rape Legal Experts Mobilize for Change in Haiti

GLBT Issues
Texas Transgender Widow's Marriage Will be Voided

Race & Racism
Elite Colleges Ignoring Minority Students

From the Blogs
Texas Liberal:
Ways of Observing Memorial Day

Eye on Williamson:
What’s Been Happening in Williamson County

Grits for Breakfast:
Crime in Texas Down Despite Declining Incarceration

Solutions Man: Who is Jeff Sandefer?

During the Texas A&M University Board of Regents meeting university faculty members expressed their disapproval of the implementation of the so-called “breakthrough solutions” at the university. The reforms have been promoted by the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), a movement conservative free market fundamentalist think tank in Austin. The Board of Directors of the TPPF is made up of political allies and campaign donors of Texas Governor Rick Perry. However, while the TPPF and Perry have received most of the criticism for the substance of the reforms and the manner in which they have tried to implement them, the author of the reforms not received as much attention.

Jeff Sandefer, a self-described Bill Buckley libertarian, studied petroleum engineering and graduate from the University of Texas and the attended Harvard Business School in the 1980’s. The he took a $1 million from an investment firm and subleased from Exxon, Chevron and other major oil companies in the Gulf of Mexico. This was the beginning of Sandefer Capital Partners, an energy investment firm that holds over a billion dollars in assets. However, after making millions in the oil and gas industry, he turned his attention to higher education. He taught entrepreneurship at University of Texas, and was a chair of the university’s academic research committee at Harvard University.

While teaching at the University of Texas Sandefer was highly regarded by his students, but he would have a falling out with the university. It was there that Sandefer developed a curriculum around having professional businessmen with real world experience teach students, and not to use the tradition university teaching model. In 2002 the University of Texas began hiring full-time professors who could earn tenure because of their research, this left Sandefer and his fellow instructors with fewer classes. It was reported that Sandefer blamed the administration for over-valuing research. The Austin American-Statesman reported that he said might contact "his longtime family friend Gov. Rick Perry about his concerns." Sandefer and his collaborators left the university and took their copyrighted curriculum with them.

It was then that Sandefer founded the Acton School of Business, a business school in which courses do not follow a traditional lecture model and are taught not by researchers, but by practicing business people. The curriculum itself is owned and licensed by the Acton Foundation for Entrepreneurial Excellence. Fellowships at the Acton School have been sponsored by friends of the program, ranging from local philanthropists to well-known business leaders, such as T. Boone Pickens and Charles Koch. Sandefer is a former board member and chair of the Acton Institute, which is a part of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation network, which promotes laissez-faire economics and public policy within a Christian framework.

Sandefer has claimed that he is “big fan of productive research. Anyone who says I'm 'anti-research' just isn't telling the truth" in an email published by the Texas Tribune. In that email he went on to say that “in these tough economic times, appeals to research cannot be used to hide waste and inefficiency. Nor can we allow insiders to frighten donors and alumni as a way of avoiding tough questions about faculty productivity and costs.” However, during a speech given in 2009 at a conference in Guatemala City, Guatemala, sponsored by the Washington-based Atlas Economic Research Foundation, he had harsh words for research. Sandefer said that “most of the rewards in the profession go to writing narrowly focused academic research articles that few read, the vast majority of which would never, and I want to stress never, be supported by the market.” He went on to say that “the whole corrupt enterprise survives parasitically only by siphoning vast amounts of tuition and cross subsidization unbeknownst to parents, students and taxpayers."

It is during his time running Acton School of Business that he has development his so-called “breakthrough solutions,” which included splitting research and teaching budgets, Require evidence of teaching skill for tenure, and create results-based accrediting alternatives. These solutions have received an overwhelming rejection by the academic community, and they have received criticism from nearly all of the stakeholders (students, faculty, alumni, and community members) from the two universities that he has sought to implement them at. As critics have noted, the idea that drastic reforms are need at Texas A&M to improve the quality of education there is obtuse. Especially when you consider the fact that Texas A&M has been ranked second by the Wall Street Journal as a place for employers to recruit, and ranked by USA Today in the top ten of best values as a college in the country. So, it has lead to speculation that these solutions are motivated by both personal and political agendas.

Sandefer’s interests extend beyond the classroom. In addition to being on the Board of Directors of the TPPF, he is also a director of National Review magazine, and served on the board of the Constitutional Enterprises Corporation. While he may not be outspoken publically about Texas politics, he has quietly donated significant amounts of money to Texas Republicans. According to Texas Ethics Commission records, he has donated $712,739 to Texas Republican campaigns, including donating $407,889 to Perry’s political campaigns. He has donated significantly less to federal candidates, $64,300 to various federal Republican candidates and conservative PAC’s according to Federal Election Commission records. However, this could be due to the fact that the FEC prevents him from writing the $100,000 check to federal candidates that he has written to Texas candidates. In 1993, the Texas Ethics Commission found Sandefer to have violated the Texas Election Code for failing to disclose campaign expenditure in excess of $7000.

Jaime Grunlan at the TAMUS Board of Regents



Statement at the May 26, 2011 meeting of the Texas A&M University System Board of Regents in College Station, TX

Local News: Texas A&M Faculty Express Outrage Over Proposals to Regents

Texas A&M Faculty Express Outrage Over Proposals to Regents
By Mary Lee Grant

From the American Independent

At Thursday’s meeting of the Board of Regents, Texas A&M University faculty members expressed outrage at political interference in the school, saying that it is shameful that one of the state’s flagship universities appears to be being directed by business leaders associated with a conservative think tank favored by Gov. Rick Perry

Jamie Grunlan, an engineering professor who helped author a letter signed by more than 800 faculty members who are upset at the direction of the university, said A&M will be destroyed if it continues to be directed by guidelines set by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a think tank closely allied with Perry. Grunlan said that despite frequent “trashing” of A&M faculty by TPPF, there has been no response from regents.

“The lack of anything is just deafening,” he said.

He asked the regents to publicly defend the university and its faculty, and to move away from being guided by the Seven Breakthrough Solutions, ideas proposed by TPPF fellow and major Perry donor Jeff Sandefer, that include separating research and teaching budgets and giving professors cash bonuses on the basis of student evaluations.

“All evidence suggests we’re a school to be followed, not to be tinkered with,” said Gunlan, pointing out the national ranking A&M has achieved in many fields.

He asked the regents to distance themselves from the “solutions” and from TPPF. Board Chairman Richard Box told Grunlan to read remarks he had made earlier in the session about the “solutions, and then get back to him.

Earlier in the meeting Box had said: “Much has been made of these proposed reforms, perhaps too much. As best I understand, they’re simply suggestions, a potential framework for a conversation.”

After Grunlan’s appointed speaking time ran out, he asked regents to immediately end the program by which professors are rewarded monetarily according to student evaluations, a program that is a part of the TTPF “solutions.” Box cut him off, and Grunlan received a long standing ovation from a crowd of faculty members as he dashed out of the board meeting.

Grunlan’s letter is not the only one regents have received decrying the solutions The Distinguished Professors, an elite group of faculty, and the Council of Principal Investigators, made up of scholars who have received prestigious outside research grants, also have written regents in recent days .

“The seven solutions will ruin A&M” said Nancy Amato, a computer science and engineering professor who is a member of CPI and one of the letter writers. “They want us to be a diploma mill. A university can be killed very quickly.”

Spencer Johnston, a genetics professor in the entomology department, said that the “solutions” are misguided in that they want to make the students into customers. “The students are not our customers, they are our product,” Johnston said. “We have a duty to educate them.”

He said he is concerned that regents are not including faculty members on the search committee for a new chancellor, and that regents are skirting the issue of why Chancellor Mike McKinney suddenly announced his retirement. E-mails indicate that McKinney may have been forced out because he did not push the Seven Breakthrough Solutions strongly enough. Regent Morris Foster, who was board chairman until March, will head a group of four regents who will search for the next chancellor, but no faculty will be included on the search committee.

Susan Bloomfield, a health and kinesiology professor , and an original signatory of one of the faculty letters, said that her base concern is that the regents are using the “seven solutions” as a primary guiding principal.

“Administrators and regents are not providing any public answer to numerous editorials which paint a very simplistic picture of how we value faculty,” Bloomfield said.

Johnston expressed concern that the combination of state budget cuts — which regents announced would mean a loss of 41,000 scholarships for the TAMU, system — combined with political interference in the university, would damage both students and faculty.

“We have an elite body of faculty with externally funded prestigious grants.” he said “They can go anywhere they want to. If this continues, we will lose them.”

He said that regents need to realize that an education is about more than giving students an opportunity to earn higher salaries.

“Each rung of education is like standing on a ladder,” he said. “You see more. It makes your world bigger. It isn’t just that we want students to make more money. We want to make their world richer.

Published on Thursday, May 26, 2011

Thursday, May 26, 2011

23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism Part 4



Ha-Joon Chang: We do not live in a post-industrial age.

Local News: Governor Perry Criticized for Selection of Student Regent

Perry chided for student regent appointment
By Vimal Patel

From the Bryan-College Station Eagle

Gov. Rick Perry violated the intent of the Legislature when he selected a Texas A&M System student regent who applied directly to his office instead of to student government, influential lawmakers from both parties said this week.

"It's just, frankly, another appalling example of arrogance," said state Sen. Judith Zaffirini, a Laredo Democrat and chair of the Senate Committee on Higher Education. "How disappointing for the students who followed the process."

State Sen. Jeff Wentworth, a San Antonio Republican whose office wrote the student regent statute six years ago, said the governor is on "pretty shaky" ground.

The position is meant to be the student liaison to the Board of Regents. Wentworth, a Class of 1962 Aggie, created it, he said, because he thought ever since he was a student that the board could benefit from the voice of a student.

A Texas Education Code statute explains the selection process: students apply to student government, which forwards five names to the university system's chancellor, who sends two or more names to the governor, who has the final call.

Perry instead appointed Texas A&M University sophomore Fernando Trevino Jr., a tea party activist who applied only to Perry's office. His term is set to begin June 1.

"Every elected official, and especially the highest-level elected official in the state, should always lead by example," Zaffirini said. "In this case, it's a very clear cut, bad example he is giving to students. All of us need to obey the law."

Perry's office denied violating the statute, but three lawyers contacted independently by The Eagle have disagreed, while Zaffirini said Perry "clearly, no doubt about it" violated the Legislature's intent. The statute doesn't have any penalty provision attached to it.

"There's no penalty attached to the law because it's assumed the law would be obeyed," Zaffirini said.

Lucy Nashed, a spokeswoman for Perry, has said the governor has selected other students who applied directly to his office. Out of the 11 student regents selected this year, Nashed said one other student was selected in that way, but she would not say to which board the direct appointment was made or who the appointee was.

On Wednesday, Perry's office stuck to its lonely interpretation of the statute, with Nashed pointing again to a line that states, "The governor is not required to appoint an applicant recommended by the chancellor."

The three lawyers The Eagle spoke with -- David Stasny of Bryan, Gaines West of College Station, and Stephen Dubner, who has a private practice in Lake Dallas -- each said the line was taken out of context and meant the governor didn't have to pick a finalist from the chancellor's list, but had to pick from the pool of applicants.

Wentorth said the statute is a law, but he wasn't planning on doing anything to address the violation.

"My guess is, my suspicion is, my hope is as a result of this public attention, the governor will be more careful about following not only the letter but the spirit of the law in his selection of future regents," he said.

Rep. Fred Brown and state Sen. Steve Ogden, both Bryan Republicans, could not be reached for this story.

Andrew Wheeler went through a seven-month process to be student regent of the A&M System, a path that included an essay, meetings with several campus leaders, and applying to student government.

"The most disappointing thing to me about the selection is that it could devalue the appointment of the student regent," said Wheeler, a senior in the Mays Business School.

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Texas Public Policy Foundation Board of Directors: Power, Influence, Money

This week I shed some light on the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF): who it is, what it does, and how it is funded. The driving force behind the so-called “breakthrough solutions” and a host of other conservative policy initiatives, TPPF exerts enormous influence in Texas politics. This is in part because of the people in power behind the TPPF, as the TPPF Board of Directors is a who’s who of the most powerful, influential, and wealthy people in Texas. When you take a look at who is the on the Board of Directors it is easy to see that TPPF is not just interested in “educating and affecting policymakers and the Texas public policy debate with academically sound research and outreach,” but in imposing a ultra conservative free market fundamentalist ideology.

Connections to Rick Perry

Governor Perry has a long history of rewarding campaign donors with appointments to state committees and boards. The Associated Press report that Perry accepted nearly $5 million in political campaign donations from people he has appointed to state boards and commissions since taking office in 2000. While not all of the over 2,400 people that Perry has appointed have been campaign donors, some of his largest donors have been appointed to such prestigious positions as the Texas A&M University and University of Texas boards of regents. This year Perry appointed three people to the Board of Regents overseeing Texas A&M University, and together they had contributed more than $1 million to Perry’s campaigns. While Perry has not direct authority over the TPPF, the individuals on the Board of Directors mirror the connections of those appointed by Perry to committees and boards.

Nearly all of the TPPF Board of Directors have ties to Texas Governor Rick Perry. Boards members have worked directly for Perry, been appointed to commissions by Perry, support Perry’s political campaigns, and donated significant amounts of money to those campaigns. According to Texas Ethics Commission record, members of the TPPF Board of Directors have donated a total of over $1.3 million to Perry’s campaigns. The President of TPPF, Texas A&M University graduate Brooke Rollins, served as Perry’s Deputy General Counsel, and later as his Policy Director. Dr. James Leininger, Chairman Emeritus, is one of the biggest wallets in Republican politics in Texas, and has donated over $314,000 to Perry’s campaigns. Owner and president of Phil Adams Company, board member Phil Adams donated over $340,000 to Perry’s campaigns. Board member Victor Leal, owner of Leal’s Mexican Restaurant in Amarillo, served as the Governor Perry’s appointee to the Texas Tax Reform Commission, the Texas Economic Development Corporation, and the Texas Facilities Commission. Board member Ernest Angelo, Texas oilman and Republican politician, Chairman of the Texas Public Safety Commission under Governor Rick Perry.

No Stranger to Scandal

The Chairman of the Board of Directors is Dr. Wendy Lee Gramm, the wife of former United States Senator Phil Gramm. Gramm is an economist at George Mason University's Mercatus Center, a conservative free-market fundamentalist think tank, where she focuses on promoting the deregulation of the energy industry. She headed the presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief in the Reagan administration, and then in 1988 was appointed as Chairwoman of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission. It was during her time on the commission that she was instrumental in pushing through a ruling that exempted many energy futures contracts from regulation which specifically benefited Enron. Gramm then promptly resigned from the commission, and five weeks later was appointed to Enron's board of directors.

Gramm’s role in securing exemptions for Enron and appointment to the Board of Directors came with significant financial benefits. According to a report by Public Citizen, ''Enron paid her between $915,000 and $1.85 million in salary, attendance fees, stock options and dividends from 1993 to 2001.'' While on the Board of Directors she served on the Enron's audit committee, which completely failed to monitoring the company's accounting practices. A US Senate report on the Role of the Board of Directors in Enron’s Collapse, found that despite the Enron’s Board of Directors protest that they could not be held accountable for misconduct that was concealed from them, “much that was wrong with Enron was known to the Board, from high risk accounting practices and inappropriate conflict of interest transactions, to extensive undisclosed off the-books activity and excessive executive compensation.”

Vance Miller is the Chairman & CEO of the Henry S. Miller Companies, which in the early 1980’s was doing $2 billion in business and the company became the largest real estate brokerage firm in Texas and the 7th largest in the nation. However, the company overextended itself during the savings and loan crisis, and Miller was sued for $23 million the Federal government for debts incurred during the crisis. Miller did not filed for bankruptcy, but in 1998 his attorney claimed that he had no ability to pay the debt, which then amounted to approximately $26 million. Despite this debt to the tax payer, Miller has been able to contribute $269,094 towards Governor Perry’s political campaigns.