<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; Philip Christofanelli</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/author/philip-christofanelli/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 07:56:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>‘Introduction to Labor Studies’ – My First-Hand Account</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/philip-christofanelli/%e2%80%98introduction-to-labor-studies%e2%80%99-%e2%80%93-my-first-hand-account/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=%25e2%2580%2598introduction-to-labor-studies%25e2%2580%2599-%25e2%2580%2593-my-first-hand-account</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/philip-christofanelli/%e2%80%98introduction-to-labor-studies%e2%80%99-%e2%80%93-my-first-hand-account/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 May 2011 04:41:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philip Christofanelli]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=93509</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Professors not only indoctrinate their students, but teach them to break the law. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/aaaaa1984-movie-big-brother1.gif"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-93520" title="aaaaa1984-movie-big-brother[1]" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/aaaaa1984-movie-big-brother1.gif" alt="" width="375" height="278" /></a></p>
<p><strong>Reprinted from <a href="http://biggovernment.com">biggovernment.com</a>.</strong></p>
<p>My name is Philip Christofanelli. I was a student in the University of  Missouri’s “Introduction to Labor Studies” course.  The class was taught  simultaneously by Professor Don Giljum of University of Missouri-Saint  Louis (UMSL) and Professor Judy Ancel of University of Missouri-Kansas  City (UMKC) through the use of a live video feed that linked the two  classrooms. The class met every other Saturday for seven hours,  including breaks. All of the classes were recorded and put on the class  website.</p>
<p>Since that time, an organization known as  Insurgent Visuals has released videos of the class, which have gained  considerable media attention.  To be clear, I am not Insurgent Visuals,  nor am I associated with them.  I did not edit any videos or put them  online. I did, however, download the original videos off of the class  website and give them out in their entirety to a number of my friends in  order to obtain other opinions on the propriety of what occurred in the  class, and of the steps I should take moving forward.</p>
<p>In this post, I will try to describe, with careful attention to  context and accuracy, what occurred in these public classrooms over the  course of the semester.  I believe that any reasonable person who takes  the time to read this post in full will come to the same conclusion that  I did: Professors Giljum and Ancel used a public university class to  promote their own radical political opinions and organizations, and to  train students and union members in negotiating tactics that are  apparently illegal, and profoundly unethical.  Their behavior was highly  unprofessional and inappropriate, and the University of Missouri should  simply admit that fact and take steps to ensure that classes are not  taught in that way ever again.</p>
<p>I am in fact a Washington University student.  I needed three more  credits for my degree, and I chose to pick them up at UMSL.  When I saw  “Introduction to Labor Studies” in the course catalog, I expected a  fairly straightforward class about unions, their internal structure, and  their relationship to management.  I signed up because I have always  been fascinated by unions, and nothing similar was ever offered at Wash  U.</p>
<p>After the first day of class, I realized I had gotten myself into  something entirely different than what I had expected.  It seemed almost  as though I had signed up for some informal Labor Club whose goal was  to share complaints about the American political system in a casual  manner.  In my opinion, the atmosphere was not one of a credit-worthy  course at an established public university.</p>
<p>The time had passed, however, for me to find a new class, so I  decided I would suffer through it. I reasoned that even if I was not  going to learn much from the class, I would at least be able to learn  from the textbook, and perhaps obtain some sort of worthwhile knowledge  in return for my investment.</p>
<p>The textbook turned out to be anything but an unbiased source. The book was called <em>Why Unions Matter </em>by Michael Yates, editor of the socialist magazine, <a rel="external" href="http://monthlyreview.org/"><em>Monthly Review</em></a><em>.</em> I thought that surely a textbook book had to be published by some sort  of university press or notable textbook publisher before being made the  sole text of the class.  Instead, I discovered that the book was  published by the <em>Monthly Review Press, </em>the publishing arm of the author’s own socialist magazine!  The magazine <a rel="external" href="http://monthlyreview.org/about">describes itself</a> as follows:</p>
<blockquote><p>From the first <em>Monthly Review</em> spoke for  socialism and against U.S. imperialism, and is still doing so today…. In  the subsequent global upsurge against capitalism, imperialism and the  commodification of life (in shorthand “1968”) <em>Monthly Review</em> played a global role. A generation of activists received no small part  of their education as subscribers to the magazine and readers of Monthly  Review Press books. In the intervening years of counter-revolution, <em>Monthly Review</em> has kept a steady viewpoint. That point of view is the heartfelt  attempt to frame the issues of the day with one set of interests  foremost in mind: those of the great majority of humankind, the  propertyless.</p></blockquote>
<p>You can imagine the kind of knowledge that I gained from such a source, but allow me to remove all doubt with a few quotes:</p>
<ul>
<blockquote>
<li>An entire television network, Fox, spreads pro-business and  anti-labor propaganda twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. (p.  132)</li>
<li>First, the Republican and Democratic parties are most obviously  allied with and subservient to the most powerful employers in the  nation.  The Republicans may seem to be more ruthless in their  willingness to obey the dictates of capital, but the Democrats, in  practice, are no different…[S]ince they are perceived as more liberal  than they are, they are able to get away with more vicious attacks on  workers. (p. 133)</li>
<li>If labor ties its star to the Democratic Party, it is tying itself to its class enemy. (p. 133)</li>
<li>Over the last ten years, especially during the administration of  George W. Bush, our government has been increasingly under the thumb of  corporate interests. (p. 12)</li>
<li>The AFL-CIO actively rejected the Republican Party’s Contract with  America, which threatened vital social services. Its research department  developed good materials that exposed the bogus statistics and analysis  on which it was based. (p. 12)</li>
<li>Large numbers [of Mexican immigrants] have come to the United states  intensifying competition in some labor markets, allowing employers to  divide and conquer their workforces, and giving an excuse for xenophobes  like CNN’s Lou Dobbs to foment anti-immigrant hysteria, which helps to  keep domestic workers from seeing that it is their employers (and the  employers’ allies in government) that are their true enemies. (p. 12)</li>
<li>In general terms, the employer must come to be understood as the  class enemy of the workers, one that can only be defeated if workers  stick together, acting as if an injury to one is an injury to all. (p.  64)</li>
</blockquote>
</ul>
<p>All of these assertions were made without presenting a shred of  evidence or data.  The book made very little effort to hide the fact  that it was a piece of political propaganda, and not an academic text.   Nonetheless, the professors saw no problem with making it the sole text  for the entire class.</p>
<p>The story gets worse.  The assignments for the class were bizarre, to  say the least.  While I was expecting tests and quizzes about facts  such as labor history and law, our entire grade was based on our  completion of opinion papers about very political issues.</p>
<p>Our first assignment was to interview people and then write a letter  to Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, providing answers to  questions such as: “What is it going to take to convince younger, future  workers that belonging to and supporting a union’s organizing effort is  in their best socio-economic interest?” and “What do unions have to do  to strengthen their existing ranks and solidify the current union  members’ support for the labor movement.”</p>
<p>The next assignment concerned the Employee Free Choice Act  (EFCA)–popularly known as “card check.”  After reading in Yates’ book  about EFCA, we were instructed to write a letter to our U.S. senators  and representatives about our position on the bill. Since our only  materials were Yates’s very one-sided account of the legislation, and  the professors’ similarly one-sided account, how could any student be  expected to produce a different position? It is unclear whether or not  our letters were actually sent to Washington, D.C, but given the  determination of the professors, I wouldn’t be surprised if our letters  had been bundled up and were en route right now.</p>
<p>Another assignment was to evaluate unions’ political strategy  “supporting its political friends and defeating its political enemies.”   The syllabus said: “Based upon both its economic support and campaign  support, [labor] has given to primarily Democratic and some Republicans  has Labor benefited legislatively sufficiently to continue this  political approach or should it seek to establish its own political  party as suggested by Yates in <em>Why Unions Matter</em>.” (Try, for a moment, to forgive the professors’ egregious syntax.)</p>
<p>That assignment was due the week following the class in which Prof.  Giljum had discussed at length his membership in the Communist Party.   He said he had joined because, in his words, “the American Communist  Party was essentially the only party political group that was seriously  focusing exclusively on the working class and labor issues and the  rights of workers.” He added that one of the political goals of the  Communist Party was to “recapture that party [i.e. the Democratic Party]  and have it merge with ours.”</p>
<p>Prof. Giljum then introduced Tony Pecinovsky, a local organizer for  the Communist Party, who proceeded to speak to us for two hours about  the beliefs of the Communist Party and the benefits of membership.   That’s right–the Communist Party was allowed two hours of publicly  subsidized class time to recruit. Thank you, Missouri taxpayers!</p>
<p>Mr. Pecinovsky, who <a rel="external" href="http://www.linkedin.com/pub/tony-pecinovsky/7/b76/5a0">has worked in the past</a> for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), informed us about  legislation that is pending in the state legislature.  He said: “Here  in Missouri, the Republicans who control the house and the senate are  trying to push through a number of pieces of legislation that would  really, really devastate Missourians.”  He then informed us that State  Senator Jane Cunningham (R) was “crazy.” Pecinovsky also described the  dues requirements and initiation procedures of the Communist Party, and  gave out his phone number several times, offering to stay as long as  anyone wanted to talk to him about joining.</p>
<p>Prof. Ancel acknowledged that joining the Communist Party could cost  students their future security clearances, make them less desirable to  future employers, and potentially put them on federal watch lists.   Still, she and Prof, Giljum invited this organization into class to  recruit.  Call me crazy, but I thought universities and professors were  supposed to help students become more appealing to employers, not hook  them up with questionable organizations that by their own admission  could cost students their future livelihood.</p>
<p>In the same vein, the professors frequently used the class to mock  and cajole Republicans and conservative policies.  In one lecture, Prof.  Ancel put up as part of the class notes a cartoon showing Libyan  dictator Muammar Gaddafi saying, “I don’t believe in collective  bargaining either.”  She went on to compare Wisconsin’s Republican  governor, Scott Walker, to a repressive authoritarian seeking to emulate  dictators and fascists in their “repression of labor.” She then put up  another cartoon called “Republican Workplace Bill of Rights,” which  showed a number of employees gagged, blindfolded, and handcuffed. In  another lecture, she blamed conservatives for what she perceived as  media bias against unions, and stated: “The Republican party has done a  great job of reducing class to a bunch of tastes, and demonizing  liberals because their taste is different from ‘rednecks.’”</p>
<p>Another slide of notes labeled all of the following concepts as  “anti-worker attacks”: elimination of collective bargaining for public  sector workers, restriction of bargaining and political activities of  public sector workers, restriction of what public sector workers can  bargain about, the introduction of merit pay, and the elimination of  tenure.  (Because, you know, when you don’t have tenure, you can  actually be fired for turning classes into political indoctrination  courses).</p>
<p>I have attended many political science classes, taught by some of the  best political scientists in the country, at Washington University.   Labeling complex pieces of legislation as “anti-worker attacks,” and  using political cartoons as lecture notes, is not political science; it  is partisan politics and pure propaganda. Credible political scientists  are supposed to be able to tell the difference; these professors did not  and perhaps could not.</p>
<p>Prof. Ancel presented students with a distorted view of economic  history. In one lecture, for example, she told students: “I would argue  that fascism absolutely means capitalism, that’s part of the definition  [of fascism].” The professors both took a keen interest in the  (ultimately unsuccessful) efforts of public sector unions to block  Walker’s labor reforms. At one point, Prof. Giljum showed students a  live feed of rallies around the state capitol in Madison, WI–and,  ironically, broadcast Andrew Breitbart’s Tea Party speech directly into  the classroom, followed by that of “Joe the Plumber,” whom Ancel mocked.  She described the the protests against Walker’s bill as “a wonderful,  welcome thing to see.”</p>
<p>As if indoctrinating students were not enough, the professors  dedicated considerable class time to activities that can only be  described as training students in tactics to fight the right-to-work  legislation that is currently pending in the Missouri state  legislature.  An entire day,was devoted to organizing students against  right-to-work legislation. Our training included a lecture on tactics  from  Jerry Tucker, who Prof. Giljum introduced as the “point person for  the UAW’s 1978 Anti-Right to Work campaign.” Much like Tony Pecinovsky,  Tucker had nothing of academic value to offer the class. His insights  were meant to help us shape a successful campaign against right-to-work  in Missouri today. He spent several hours discussing political tactics  and strategies, and speculating as to what would be the most appropriate  strategies for labor unions and their allies to deploy.</p>
<p>His speech was followed by a lesson by Prof. Ancel on how  conservatives have “framed” the right-to-work issue, and a class  activity where we were told to “re-frame” right-to-work from the  perspective of the working class. She even provided a slide suggesting  talking points to use in “state battles” against right-to-work in  Missouri and elsewhere. She explicitly told students to describe  right-to-work legislation as “payback for CEOs giving money to  politicians, OK. So the Republicans and their deep-pockets backers are  rewarding the corporations for having put them in office.”</p>
<p>By this point, you should be thoroughly convinced that this public  university class was being used for explicitly political purposes. That  fact alone should be enough to persuade most reasonable people that  something must be done to address how classes are being taught within  the University of Missouri system.  This abuse of power and authority by  Prof. Ancel and Prof. Giljum, however, was not the most outrageous  feature of the class.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/philip-christofanelli/%e2%80%98introduction-to-labor-studies%e2%80%99-%e2%80%93-my-first-hand-account/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>18</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 325/330 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 07:01:14 by W3 Total Cache -->