Student Input Welcome on D.O.C. Program

Dear Editor,

Your April 30 article, “”Dissenting TAs Ousted from D.O.C. Program,”” on Thurgood Marshall College’s writing program, Dimensions of Culture, left out some important parts of the story. As the provost of Thurgood Marshall College, I welcome student input regarding the curriculum.

Although the content of any course at UCSD, including coursework in the D.O.C. program, is set by the faculty who teach it, last week in a meeting facilitated by the Ombuds Office, I met with representatives of the Lumumba-Zapata Coalition for 90 minutes to hear their concerns regarding the D.O.C. curriculum. I felt that the meeting was a productive first step and I offered to continue to meet with LZC representatives to hear and attempt to address their issues of concern. Unfortunately, the LZC turned down my offer to continue a productive dialogue with them.

The D.O.C. faculty and staff continue to be strongly committed to the program’s founding principles of diversity, justice and imagination. D.O.C. is an accepting, inclusive, nonpartisan course that encourages critical thinking and examines American identity, social justice and our culture’s ongoing history.

Your article seemed to suggest that the program dismissed two teaching assistants because of their criticism of the program. First, no TAs have been “”ousted”” from the D.O.C. program. Two TAs have not had their one-year contracts renewed for the fall but continue to be part of the D.O.C. community. D.O.C. faculty and staff recognize and respect the important role of academic freedom and our need to respect the political and cultural perspectives of all members of our community.

The D.O.C. program selects its TAs based not on their political viewpoints but on their demonstrated ability and willingness to accomplish the instructional goals set by the faculty responsible for the courses.

Your readers and representatives of LZC should know that I continue to be willing to meet with students to listen and work with them to resolve any concerns they might have about the D.O.C. program.

Ultimately, the faculty is in charge of all course content and the faculty has a responsibility to exercise its best judgment about what should or should not be included in a particular course.

Nevertheless, we stand ready to engage students and members of the LZC in constructive dialogue if they want to engage us.

– Allan Havis

Provost, Thurgood

Marshall College

Shragge’s Comments Give an Inaccurate Picture

Dear Editor,

I am writing to clarify three points in the Guardian’s April 30 article “”Dissenting TAs Ousted from D.O.C. Program.”” sAs one of the two teaching assistants wrongfully dismissed from D.O.C., I feel it is important that the UCSD community is aware of the following:

1) In the article, D.O.C. Director Abraham Shragge claims that Benjamin Balthaser and I “”had not been teaching the course as we had asked, according to the syllabus and according to the rules we set down.””

However, during both of our “”interviews”” for TAs wishing to return to the program, Shragge made it absolutely clear that our dismissal had nothing to do with our teaching performance. How do we know this? We asked him repeatedly, and he said “”no”” each time.

One is led to believe that either Shragge lied during our “”interviews,”” or he is lying to the press now. It is possible that he is trying to cover his tracks after realizing that ousting TAs for their critique of the program outside of class is an administrative abuse of power, and a violation of First Amendment free speech rights.

2) Even if one takes Shragge’s assertions seriously, we find his claims unfounded. First of all, during our respective three and four years teaching in the program, we’ve received outstanding student and program evaluations every quarter. Last year, Shragge personally presented me with one of only two teaching awards granted by the program for the year.

On March 14, Shragge sent a letter to the Office of Graduate Studies requesting permission for both Balthaser and I to teach an extra section this quarter, for which we were approved. We don’t understand why Shragge would do such a thing if he felt so strongly that we were not fulfilling our teaching duties. It doesn’t make sense.

Furthermore, Shragge failed to inform either of us that we ran any risk of dismissal. There was no warning given, no process of progressive discipline, no upholding of professional administrative standards whatsoever. Instead, a round of “”interviews”” were held for current D.O.C. TAs. No such “”interviews”” were held in the past, as the contracts of current D.O.C. TAs are renewed based upon our evaluations. Balthaser and I were the only two current TAs who were dismissed during these “”interviews,”” something that makes us suspicious of the sudden change in past rehiring practices.

3) Also in the article, Thurgood Marshall College Provost Allan Havis is credited with offering “”to continue talks with Boehm and Balthaser.”” However, during a meeting with him last week, Havis expressed no concern whatsoever about our dismissal.

He also adamantly refuses to agree to a meeting with all members of the Lumumba-Zapata Coalition. We are alarmed that the provost is not taking our dismissal seriously, and gravely disappointed that he is not willing to meet with the LZC about our concerns, as they reflect the feelings of a wide cross-section of UCSD and Marshall students, teaching assistants and faculty.

– Scott Boehm

Ph.D. student in literature,

Lumumba-Zapata Coalition

Alumni Resources Overlooked in Job Article

Dear Editor,

Regarding Megan Durham’s April 30 column, “”Job Seekers Beware: Scams Target Rookies””:

Though I found Megan’s column informative and topical, a few aspects troubled me.

First, Megan says, “”It doesn’t hurt to keep your Social Security number and date of birth off your resume.”” Megan is drastically understating her point: Jobseekers should under no circumstances include their Social Security number on their resume. To do so is to invite identity theft.

Ditto for date of birth – not only does including one’s date of birth invite age discrimination, but it’s a choice tidbit for a scammer (especially when it’s presented along with a Social Security number).

Secondly, Megan advises, “”… be careful of any job opportunity that requires you to give money; you’re only interested in jobs that give you money, after all.”” I cannot think of any reason why a reputable employer would ask for money. Job seekers should not only “”be careful”” of such an inquiry; they should report the scam.

In addition, I felt Megan neglected to mention the jobseeker’s best friend: UCSD’s own Alumni Association, which gives UCSD students and alumni access to job postings, networking events and other invaluable resources targeted to UCSD students. The leads you will generate through the Alumni Association are much more reputable – and valuable – than the mixed bag of scammers, temp agencies and others you will find on Web sites such as Monster.com.

– Marianne Madden

John Muir College Alumna