next »

[11113567]

The scandals in the US may be resolved happily, but a happy end for AIU is not in sight.

I would be curious if anyone knew whether Gregory Clark is still with the AIU or not. I notice that his Japan Times columns no longer list his employment with AIU. I wonder whether they have found him no longer useful, or he is too ashamed of his association with them to admit to it publicly, or whether he actually got the guts to hand in his resignation.

Best wishes to all those sorry souls who still suffer under the Japanese Ministry of Education!

[concernedinakita]

In looking back at Gregory Clark's Japan Times' articles, it appears that he dropped his association with Akita International University from his byline beginning in January 2007.

Unfortunately he's still at AIU as a "part time vice president " (translate: rarely on campus) with a "part time salary" (translate: higher than most full time faculty)--reported to be in the 10,000,000 yen range. If he was smart he would disassociate himself with AIU not only in his byline but for real.

[cavalier]

Justice for All

After avoiding participating in this forum for nearly a year, I have reached the conclusion that I should, at least, attempt to communicate some thoughts and feelings to the former AIU faculty members who are engaging in this process. I have known, and been friends with, some of you for more than twenty years. Although my views about what happened during the AIU years differ sharply from yours, and this was certainly no secret, I wrote letters of recommendation for any of you who asked, and felt glad if my efforts have led to finding employment elsewhere. As one of you has announced on this post, all or most of you, whom I think are contributing to this blog on AIU have landed solid positions, and based on what you have written here, have found jobs that you yourself believe to be superior to the ones you lost. I am not sure my efforts contributed to this, but at any rate, I am happy for those who have secured gainful employment. This isn’t to say you haven’t suffered from the AIU experience, but you seem to be in a better place judging from your own comments. In the meantime, we who remain are here in the same place, trying to develop AIU to the best of our ability and do what we can to educate our, and your former, students.

I believe I was placed in a unique position in all this simply because of my long history of professional association with some of you, having been twice elected chairperson of the department in which you were working at MSUA, the institution that preceded AIU and now occupies the same campus cite. I also served as head of the English department in Malaysia with several of you, including at least one who is writing on this forum.  When the conflicts alluded to on this forum started, I did my best to: 1) maintain my friendship with you and my other former colleagues from MSUA, 2) tried my best to serve the institution of AIU in the best way I knew how, both because it was the right thing to do for students and colleagues and because AIU was paying my salary, and 3) I tried my best to treat with respect and cordiality everyone in my department, including the EAP director, and the other faculty members in the department and at AIU.

At the same time, the beginning days of the Program were difficult, and this process took time. I have never been in a work situation where there were not problems, and where I never had problems with my employer or other superiors, and I am quite sure, vice-versa. That’s life. If you will recall, the early years at MSUA were as difficult as these, at least for me, when I found myself unexpectedly in the midst of administrative work once again after leaving it, I thought, for less polemical pastures.  One thing is sure, at AIU, I knew I wasn’t in-charge. The top-down system of AIU’s management was crystal clear to me long before I signed a contract. There was never the slightest indication to me that faculty governance would dominate institutional decision-making. I for one never had the slightest illusion that my initial three-year contract was guaranteed renewal or was based solely on the performance evaluations. I was informed of this in writing, and heard it repeated at virtually every Faculty Forum twice a year. My viewpoint was simply this: as long as I accepted a contract and a paycheck every month, I was obligated to work under the conditions set forth in the contract and beyond that, for the good of the institution, which includes, of course, working for students. If at some point I found those conditions intolerable or unethical, or my success unattainable, I should have and would have resigned. I believe I communicated as much to my colleagues, including all of you who have since left the institution. I never was asked to do anything unethical and I never heard anyone else asked to do so. Although we clearly disagreed on what was the best approach to working at AIU, as far as I know, we continued a respectful relationship. I regretted then that you did not agree with my assessment of things, because I felt that it would end up badly, but I tried to maintain our friendship on other grounds, including 12 to 20 years of personal association and collegiality. As I said, in some cases, I knew your families, and have known your children since they were born, so everything was not about the job and our differing perspectives. No doubt all sides believed they were working for the good of the students, if not precisely, the institution. I believe that in these blogs AIU as an institution, and the manner of your severance from it, are treated as if they are largely independent from this institution’s raison d’etre: serving students. But, whatever its faults, any educational institution is not separate from the students and to harm the whole is to harm the parts.

Of course, this begs the question: what is best, not then, but NOW, for the good of the students? Your formal grievance is being arbitrated, as we speak, in a formal process where both sides have presented their evidence to an impartial board. If these issues are brought to civil court, they too, can be decided where both sides meet on a level playing field and where statements can only be made by people whose names are known, and therefore, must be SUBSTANTIATED by evidence. Furthermore, the statements made must all be RELEVANT to the quest for justice, not merely for you but justice for all. If your case is persuasive on that basis, you will receive the justice you demand in the venue established for that determination. But this forum is a place where ANY FORM of statement can be made, where anyone making statements does not have to acknowledge true identity, and where NOTHING anyone says, therefore, has to be substantiated or relevant. I am talking here about the process itself that we have come to regard as necessary for a determination of justice in an educated and civilized society. It holds for those who may be guilty as well as for those who may be innocent. This is the very cornerstone of due process under modern democracies, and it was practiced as long ago as the famous trial of Socrates for alleged subversion in the 5th century BC in Athens.

My statement here is about those whom we should all agree are innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever to you or to the institution, the students themselves. With this in mind, I appeal to those who are attempting to destroy an institution in the making, and in a few cases, have implied this on the blogs quite plainly. I ask you merely to consider whom you are actually hurting the most. Certainly not the administration, which consists of people with sufficient work experience and life achievements to move on to other jobs. More seriously damaged would be the faculty, though most of us would undoubtedly find other work eventually, though with great inconvenience. Probably even higher in degree of damage would be the staff members, many of whom remain your friends. Those most seriously damaged by all this, are, by far, our students, many of whom are also your former students. I believe you cared about them and surely still care about. I have been accused of being naïve, and that you wouldn’t be doing this if you really cared about what happens to our students. Maybe this is true but it is hard to believe that you would have this view of any group of young people striving for an education. This especially since you are about to embark on a new adventure with new students at other institutions. In recent weeks students are really feeling the pain of the comments you are making on the blogs. They have come to my office to ask things like:”Why would Mr. X try to hurt us? We loved his classes and thought he cared about what happened to us after he left. We want to be proud of AIU. What about my job opportunities if this continues?” What am I to say to such questions? “Don’t worry, these attacks on your school and its faculty can’t hurt you.” The students, as you know, are bright young people. They recognize a lie when they hear one.

Anyone with minimal knowledge about Japanese education understands the importance of an institution’s name-value for its graduates. This, as much as anything, influences the employment opportunities of graduates, and it is especially important for a young institution. It is possible and over time, it is likely, that these unrestrained attacks can damage the future of these students who have done you no harm. Indeed, some of them believed in you, fought for you in the best way they could, and trusted you. And you, when you were here, worked for them, and taught them in the best way you knew how.
At the same time, other teachers, including the EAP director, worked for his students, who hold him in high regard, and not because he took them to karaoke, any more than YOUR students held you in high regard because you invited them en masse to your house for parties. Anyone who has seen him teach knows that he is as fine a teacher as any instructor at AIU, and call it what you will, I can say that without reservation, having team taught with him for a whole term. I have said similar things about the teaching of some of you.

As so many of you have stated, your quest for reckoning is now in the hands of the arbitration board, where you have been free to present your case in accordance with the principles established by law and precedent. Many of the things written in these blogs would not be permitted in a court of law. Under the law and under common, universal standards of decency and respect for basic human rights, anonymous innuendoes and unsubstantiated and/or irrelevant claims about ANYONE'S personal life should not be communicated in this blog or any other public forum while hiding under the cloak of secrecy. NO ONE is invulnerable when ANYTHING can be alleged about them, printed on a public forum with their names and addresses, or sent to their places of employment. I am happy that nothing like this has been done to you yet because it would be wrong.

However, my mission here is simply to ask you to think sincerely about the future of all the students at AIU, whether you taught them or not. I am asking you to think about all the people at AIU who were not, and are not, in positions of power or authority. Do you suppose that the time and effort, and emotional stress that some of us expended on your behalf might be reciprocated by your at least by refraining from continuing trying to damage us, along with those you feel actually did you harm? More pointedly, would you not take into consideration the effects these actions might have on the students you once did your best to educate and encourage? I think you would agree that an important obligation of a teacher, in addition to imparting knowledge, is to give hope, and to inspire confidence and optimism,.

I have been saddened that you would write some of the things I have read here, because it reflects the profound sense of loss, bitterness, and emotional disturbance you must be feeling. But I still cannot believe that what is reflected here on these pages is the real you, and nothing but the real you. I continue to wish the best for you and your future, and that of your families, but remind you that there are people here, who helped you rather than harmed you, who also have families, and whom you may still consider friends.  Could you really be totally indifferent to the collateral damage of this form of warfare, whose smart bombs, like those used in Iraq, are not really so smart?  In your personal justice paradigm, do a thousand wrongs really make a right and do any means justify the ends?

I hope I am not naïve to think you do care about innocent victims of these actions. I worked with you all those years and never saw this as even a possibility, I am sad to say, until now. Is it really just naïve of me to think so?

[sjsmith]

kirbyre,

I have never worked at AIU or be associated it in any way so I am an independent observer in all this.  In my opinion you are trying to guilt-trip former staff into keeping silent which I think is wrong.  It's like how in the old days they'd tell women not to go to the police about a rape because it would shame her family.

If the charges are true and students are harmed by the damage done to the name of the university then I'm sorry, but the people responsible for harming the students are not the faculty who were victimized but the institution that did the victimizing.  They should lay the blame where the true fault lies.  If the institution hadn't done the things that were claimed then the former faculty wouldn't have the information to leak in the first place would they?  If the former faculty are lying bastards then I hardly think your appeal to their morality to do talk so much would really work anyway.

[cavalier]

It is clear that this writer has missed the whole point of my post. Since it was complicated,this once I will address red herrings this once but not again.

Going to the police over a rape is within everyone's right and that is why I emphasized the issue of due process,which has already in the hands of an arbitration board and may well be addressed as well in other venues in accordance with the law. I specifically contrasted due process with personal anonymous attacks because I have enough respect for the intelligence of my friends to believe that they can see the difference even of others can't. Furthermore, I am saying that since the right to legal recourse can be pursued in any number of venues, and in factthe legal process is still in progress, so my friends have already done the equivalent of "going to the police."

To spell out the problem with your example: if a women were raped, complaining on this board about the alleged rapist would be beside the point, especically if the victim attacked the rapist for things unrelated to the rape, for example, by claiming that the rapist must be guilty because he was a compulsive gambler. Not surpisingly, you use the example "lying bastards," which I didn't use because that would be another of the argumentum ad hominem tactics I am questioning here; it would be an unsupportable, gratuitous insult that would have no bearing on my purpose or validity of argument.

In fact I am not ATTACKING anyone but appealing to reason and basic standards of fairness. Surely anyone in this day and age not blinded by the bigotry understands and agrees that a person's race, nationality, gender or sexual preference has nothing to do with the rightness/wrongness of his or her actions in a labor dispute. If you sincerely want a discussion, defend that tactic.  Surely anyone should understand that it is wrong to quote another person to bolster one's argument,without at least asking his /her opinion and talking to him first. I mention this because this has clearly been done and clearly been refuted by the person whose identity was usurped. Again, defend that tactic in either ethical or logical terms.

This sort of thing, and there are many, are prevalent all over this board. Coming from the other side, it was implied that the nonrenewed contracts were justified because some of the teachers didn't speak fluent Japanese. Irrelevant!

I applaud eveyone's right to a day in court because that is justice and what I am talking about here is not. But expressing your views about the case itself is fully within the legitimate domain of free speech. The question is am posing is: Is it right to hurt innocent people deliberately by this exercis?. Only each of us can decide that for oneself. All I am asking for you to consider justice for all, and not only for yourself.
If you want an honest discussion, explain why it is just for anyone to harm another person who hasn't done that any harm.

Again, these posts are, or may be, harming people who have not participated in any of the allegations leveled against the AIU leadership, namely students-- but also other people who were/are friends, and who have helped them in various ways. This forum, obviously, cannot result in any form of compensation or legal judgment in their favor, and therefore, serves only the purpose of vengeance. It may be that upon reflection, my friends will decide that mere vengeance is not worth damaging others.

But you are right about one thing, which you are implyingy here but have badly mistated. I was not talking about lying but about empathy. If my friends really are so bitter that they have no empathy left for anyone, I must accept defeat and admit that I am as naive as I have been told I was to even try. The damage is beyond repair, not to AIU certainly, but to their own psyches. More pointedly there's this: do I deliberately harm Ms. X, who is my friend and helped me as much as she could, or students A to Z, in order punish Mr. B, whom I fervently believe did me grievious harm?

I still believe there is a chance that my efforts were not wasted but it will require a lot more subtlety of thought and objectivity than the current response demonstrates.

Peace

QED

[allies]

I'd like to start by saying that I dislike all the name calling and unprofessional statements and insinuations that have been recorded here, both by those criticizing AIU and by those defending it. [...]

Kirbyre talked about due process but surely he would acknowledge that justice isn't always that easily gotten. This weekend is a good example. When we took our case to the union, the rep--who understands labor law in Japan far better than any other player here--flatly stated that AIU acted illegally. When the labor board heard it they made clear we had a strong case, and implied AIU acted at least improperly, and sent the case on to "assen," mediation. This weekend we met with the mediators for the third time. The four mediators--a corporation president, a university professor, a labor expert, and a lawyer--made clear that this would be the final hearing, and had already made clear that they would rule in our favor because we were misled by AIU. Unfortunately they were not in a position to judge most of our allegations, but only the most basic, that we were assured at the start, and before the start, that if we worked hard and performed well (and a "C" evaluation was clearly labeled a good performance) then we would be renewed. Some had received promises from Mr. Nakajima himself.

The mediators decided a very conservative figure, that AIU owed us ten ex-faculty between 1 and 2 million yen per person. They made clear that a court might decide a figure many times higher that in our favor, perhaps one or more *years* salary. Justice kirbyre? In a sense, but there's one catch: AIU refused to pay. I want to emphasize that the point of mediation is entrust the decision to an impartial third party, and the impartial and knowledgeable third party made a decision in our favor and told AIU they should pay us a conservative amount (they said as much). Once again AIU has shown its true colors by refusing to pay. I will note that strictly speaking they are not obligated to pay, but to take the mediation to the final stage and refuse is the height of arrogance and irresponsibility. Several outsiders said, 'This university is truly terrible,' a senior labor board member apologized to us and asked us to not hold this bitter experience against all of Akita, and the labor rep said AIU's refusal to pay was "unimaginable." This is the university you defend.

I'd also like to note a few things for Mr. Clark's harsh assessment of dismissed faculty's language skills. First, you have never heard me speak Japanese. Second, after a speech at the AIU festival, Mr. Nakajima went out of his way to compliment my Japanese and asked me to check a translation for him. Third, your point is ridiculous because there are other individuals who speak little or no Japanese. It should also be noted that, while my Japanese may not be perfect, it was good enough to work with lawyers and mediators (the latter of which repeatedly asked for my presence because of my Japanese ability). Finally, while not all of my colleagues speak Japanese so well, many speak other languages with very high proficiency--isn't that the point? There certainly isn't a need at AIU, a place where many staff don’t/won't even speak Japanese with the foreign language students.

We all want the students to succeed--nf fact, we all probably would like to see all students succeed--and the question is how to do that. Do we remain silent in the face of injustice? I recently watched a video where a young man explained that a car accident helped him rethink his life and walk a different path, one committed to peace. I can't predict whether our action against AIU will help or hurt students. Some fret that our action will shut down AIU, because parents will not want to send their students to a university with so many troubles and uncertainties (I wouldn't want to). What would become of the students then? I for one don't think they're so fragile that they can't turn such a mess into their advantage, like the young man who had the car accident. I also think such a case--if it came to that--would better serve students throughout this country, because university administrations might move away from the dictatorship model, and it might discredit universities that approach administering an institution by archaic samurai codes (Bushido). But I don't know. It doesn't feel good to be mistreated, as we were for three years.


[Post edited for naming names and name-calling. -moderator]

[heiwa]

Brilliantly put, Allies. Your reasoned, factual description of recent & past events is highly professional and convincing.

For Mr. Kola: Apologies. You have every right to be steamed. My including you in this "imbroglio" had one purpose: To blow open the continuing corruption. You have every reason to be angry.
I should have discussed this with you.

For others: If remaining faculty, staff and students want to discuss ideals such as due process, they might start by admitting that those ideals, especially due process, have rarely been part of the AIU picture;by empathizing with the ones who were already irreparably harmed at AIU because no such process has ever been in place; and by discussing how to implement positive change at AIU in the future for the good of everyone, not just for those "on top".

Yes, justice for ALL.

[disappointed]

Since I've been indirectly addressed in this forum (having taught in Malaysia and in Japan with Kirbyre), I'd just like to add a comment or two.

First, I'm not a bigot, but while working at AIU I experienced plenty of bigotry, including what I would call blatant discrimination (and some reverse discrimination). Others at AIU have told me that they felt the same thing. Having a family, being a white married male of American background, having a "lowly" MA, all seemed to be detriments to my AIU career. Being a former MSUA teacher who dared to express an opinion on issues in my profession was my death knell. Like others, I strongly believe that the EAP program director was consciously responsible for much of that stereotyping. It is odd that now he and his supporters cast stones about name calling.

Regarding the fact that I was not rehired: Apparently this came to pass because, as some might judge, I was uninformed of the obvious or unenlightened about "the way of the AIU samurai" (simply not loyal enough to take all the s***?). The recent deliberation on this case by the Akita prefectural labor commission ended with the commission, and the mediation team, stating that AIU was in the wrong in terminating those of us who had been given many indications that our annual evaluation, reflecting very positive contributions to AIU, would impact our renewal. That seems to be pretty strong support for our position.

Finally, on the idea of empathy, I'd like to state that I find it cavalier of people who did no more or less than me in contributing to AIU, but who -- by befriending, or flattering, or closing an eye to the maneuvers of the EAP director and the university president and other power players --- were able to keep their jobs, their homes, their AIU students, and their self respect but now accuse the rest of us of being bad for AIU.

Amazing.

That is all the more ironic when one considers how hard many of us worked for higher education in Akita, even in the years before AIU opened and before those people had arrived in Yuwa.

Still, many of us hope AIU, and especially the students with whom we worked, can prosper; but we have our sincere doubts about the humanity and the competence of the leadership.

The recent refusal of AIU to honor the minimal sum suggested by assen as a pay out to us for the wrongdoing makes this doubt even stronger.





 

[cavalier]

Dear Allies, Concerned in Akita, JS, BS—just who are you anyway?
(And I guess, Heiwa and Disappointed, since you have contributed input)

It is gratifying to hear that you do not condone the bigotry you acknowledge being expressed on this forum by your friends and allies.. It is nice to hear that for the first time after months of reading it here week after week. What a pleasant coincidence that this revelation came to you shortly after Dr. Kola’s and my post appeared. You know what they say about great minds running in the same channels. So we agree to disavow bigotry and unprofessional tactics here.

As for the Japanese language issue, reading skills, my friend! I was in total agreement with you on my post and that’s why I used the word “Irrelevant!”  And au contraire, I have heard you speak Japanese and it is certainly far better than mine, but not yet up to Heiwa’s standards. So, indeed as both of us have said, that comment was…irrelevant. So, you see we agree there, too.

As for the matter of your biggest disappointment, which I guess is shared with Disappointed, you again misread me, and I am pleased to put your mind at rest.  I defended the EAP director, specifically, in only one respect, and that was only because it was implied that his students held him in high regard merely because he took them to karaoke, (plus another insinuation that falls into the above cited category of bigotry), and I felt this was wrong. I also feared for my friend, the one who had made this insinuation, that the high regard his students held for him would be similarly dismissed because he had parties for his own students at his house. I was not suggesting that there was anything wrong in this but feared it would be used against him, just as he had used a similar incident against the target of his animosity.  I would hope he would defend me in a similar situation because I have also been known to buy students coffee at Starbucks. Tit for tat, but I doubt it.

The only other defense I made was clearly meant for EVERYONE—not just any particular person either in the administration, or the faculty—and it included you. This was that NO ONE should be subjected to anonymous personal attacks, and which, let’s face it, are kept anonymous because they are slanderous, unethical and against the law. Nowhere do you find any statement in my post that in any way defended the actions of the administration OR attacks your position in the labor dispute, except in so far as yours and others’ comments are ad hominem, slanderous, or misrepresentative of an individual. Those that are not in this category, I have not disputed in anyway. I even criticized a counter example—that of the Japanese language argument, which you misinterpreted. And there was the other tactic I challenged—the unauthorized misuse of Dr. Kola in pursuit of your ends, which the perpetrator had the decency to acknowledge and apologize for. So on this issue, again, we are not really in disagreement, since your response was also based on faulty reading comprehension. Hey it happens.

Now on the matter of what I said about whomever. That’s no secret because what I said to you, I also said to anyone my complaint implicated. I did this many times in the company, at least, of Disappointed, because we had many meetings together with the program director. We all make mistakes, didn’t we? Or were you all exceptions? No, I guess not because just lately we are hearing the very first admissions of possible error, if not in the past, but on this forum.

I made mistakes, certainly, and so did the administration. You know very well that I expressed these differences quite openly and fairly often but I never did this in open emails to everyone in the department (sans the people not in the click). The reason I did not cite them on my post is that they were not relevant to the point I was making there, which was about the things I mentioned above and which for the most part, you have concurred. My objections to the content of the forum were confined to the tactics we have basically agreed were unethical.

Of course, I am aware of the opinion often expressed by Disappointed that anyone who did not agree with the strategies he and you were adopting in the power struggle, not only within EAP, but in other departments, was “flattering,” and in his words “a-kissing.” In other words anyone who did not agree with the strategies of the mainly MSUA (but not exclusively, it should be noted) faculty members not renewed fell into the camp of persona non grata with that particular click. I don’t blame them, but isn’t this another form of authoritarianism? I certainly felt so. You know, the Bush, you’re either for us or against us policy. But he knows, and others know, that not only did I voice disagreement at meetings and other venues with what was going on in EAP, I did the same with everyone. How I differed with him/you was most distinctly in the methods he/you chose to adopt, based on your interpretations of what was the best way to help the university through its early years.
I often said this was a certain road to disaster but you disagreed. I still felt we could be friends but I was to some extent excluded. It didn’t really matter. To offer only one example, I never participated in group email attacks on anyone, but when I disagreed, or was angered by something or some one, I met with him or her privately, not as part of the pack. All this is well known.

Yet as I was doing my very best to help anyone who asked me to find employment (which they did thankfully), some of the same folks at the same time were painting anyone who differed from their approach to working at AIU as an A-Kisser. I ignored it, because I know who I am, and who I am not. And unlike everyone who has been on the attack here, for months and months, I am not hiding my identity. Furthermore, unlike them, I have not named anyone here, and certainly not provided their addresses, or done any of the things that have been done repeatedly  by them to others. I am not talking about the case here, but about the behavior on this forum.

That does not mean I was not truly saddened by what happened at AIU and by the hardships that befell some of those who made their own choices, which were often the exact opposite of what I advised. It was sad but what happened was not in my control and beyond my power to alter.  It made life at AIU a living hell for three years. Again, so you GET IT—I am not just talking about non-renewed faculty—everyone contributed, including members of the administration, and including me. As well, SOME  people not renewed were not in EAP, so this cannot possibly the work of a single individual or a single department. That doesn’t speak at all to its rightness or wrongness but it refutes absolutely one common insinuation. Nothing is as simple as the self-righteous want to make it.

Next, as to the issue of hurting others. You’re quite right, Allies and company, it is not clear how students will be hurt. For me it would be enough to know that for sure, they FEEL hurt. But in any case, by implication, you do grant that they MIGHT be hurt. That would be enough for me to avoid hurting the students who trusted me but perhaps not for you. It’s a matter of personal values I guess. As for the faculty, those who have been your loyal friends, helped you get jobs etc., I guess it’s too much to ask you consider their interests in this matter. So I admit defeat. I WAS/AM naive. Mea culpa.

But let’s be honest about this. This forum and what is written on it, is not about justice, and that’s another main point of my original post. It’s about vengeance. Justice, as both Allies, and Disappointed say they are assured, will be forthcoming. In Allies’ words, he is sure the courts will award him/them “many times more” than the amount recommended by the Labor Board, which, by the way, recommended about 20% of what was demanded. But victory lies in the eyes of the beholder. My post made crystal clear that I am all for justice being pursued where it might possibly be found, where allegations are substantiated and all parties must reveal their identities. If you win there, more power to you, and you seem confident you will. Like Disappointed, I agree we need to discuss ideals; this should be done at AIU, and is being done. So far, until a few days ago, ideals were not the focus of this forum, but assaults, anonymous, cowardly and vicious. Yes, you were disappointed, yes, you worked extremely hard for three years, yes, your strategies were ill-advised and you suffered a lot, yes. All that has been granted and you feel the courts will vindicate you and drench you in riches. But as for the methods employed here, I finally had had enough and have had enough.

I will now leave the stage, once and forever, and you, to your devices.

I am sure, you will press on—in the words Alfred Lord Tennyson used for the noble Odysseus: “To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.”

I, however, was born of peasant stock. As my dear old pappy used to say, bouncing me on his knee: ”Sonny boy, never get in a pissin’ match with a skunk. Everyone ends up smellin’ rotten.”

I am heading for a shower, and suggest you do the same. I am happy to recommend a great body soap.

May you go with God.  I hear He is just around the corner.

Peace

Kirby

[concernedinakita]

Today's Akita Sakigake ("Sakigake on the Web") has the latest on AIU's refusal to agree to  the arbitration board's proposal.

http://www.sakigake.jp/p/akita/national.jsp?kc=20070515e

[allies]

Dear Allies, Concerned in Akita, JS, BS—just who are you anyway?

First, I want to make clear that the person who wrote under Allies has never written under any other identity, and made his identity clear to everyone who knows details at AIU (please reread my third post, especially about the flag letter). I too dislike anonymous postings but will note that they may be done for a number of reasons. For example, I wrote the response to all AIU under “Allie Springer,” and did no slandering or name calling. I feel I’ve done likewise here. 

It is gratifying to hear that you do not condone the bigotry you acknowledge being expressed on this forum by your friends and allies.. It is nice to hear that for the first time after months of reading it here week after week. What a pleasant coincidence that this revelation came to you shortly after Dr. Kola’s and my post appeared. You know what they say about great minds running in the same channels. So we agree to disavow bigotry and unprofessional tactics here.

Why the sarcasm? Frankly, it was a coincidence (don't know about "pleasant"). I hadn't read the Chronicle for about two months because preparing to move, taking care of a family, pursuing a labor dispute, then starting a new job with 11 classes a semester is quite time consuming. Perhaps we--you and I at least--can disavow sarcasm on this forum as well as bigotry and unprofessionalism.

As for the Japanese language issue, reading skills, my friend! I was in total agreement with you <snip>

Sorry for not making it clearer but that paragraph--which I tacked on at the end--was meant for Clark. I know we were in agreement there too.

... As for the matter of your biggest disappointment, which I guess is shared with Disappointed, you again misread me, and I am pleased to put your mind at rest.  I defended the EAP director, specifically, in only one respect,since your response was also based on faulty reading comprehension. Hey it happens. <snip>

Again, this sounds like sarcasm. I realized your defense was only in regard to that one respect. It was late, and I was frustrated by AIU's refusal to adhere to the mediators' decision. I don't know whether it was right to include that, but it put an issue on the table--that of the role of the EAP director in this and how we "handled" his managing style. You have implied--or perhaps stated directly--that we are partly responsible for our own demise because we did not recognize the way power would work at AIU--"top down"--and perhaps because we chose to openly disagree with the director rather than remain silent or meet him behind closed doors. If I'm misrepresenting your view it's unintentional. And what was your "strategy?" I don't know how to phrase it. A positive spin would be that you "cooperated" or "engaged" him when you disagreed while a negative spin would be you kissed a__. I watched for three years your approach, not with scorn or admiration, but some surprise. I did choose--in the first year anyway--to state my points/criticism openly, in a group email for example (which I guess you refer to as "group email attacks", because speaking to him one on one has always felt distinctly similar to speaking to a wall. "Yes, yes" he understands but nothing happens. I wasn't alone in that feeling, and that frustration. Now the point here is not whether I was right or wrong to write, for example, that group email, but whether your criticism of it is valid. I guess the main thrust of my writing about that was to make a counter-criticism, that your approach at least appears like opportunism, that you may have engaged him in a way that supported him more than challenged him--even though you seemed to disagree strongly with the way things were run, at least at times.

I even criticized a counter example—that of the Japanese language argument, which you misinterpreted. <snip>

Again, I did not misrepresent. I just didn't make clear enough that that paragraph was not meant as a response to you.

Yet as I was doing my very best to help anyone who asked me to find employment (which they did thankfully),

I feel I could quickly cry, "You're missing the point!" but more importantly I want to express my appreciation to you, not just with your rec. letter but other writing and all your contributions during the first year when our department actually had meetings and discussions. I consistently felt either you were expressing my educational views, or I was learning from your views (and I've told you this personally). It saddens me you were not the director of the EAP program.

That does not mean I was not truly saddened by what happened at AIU and by the hardships that befell some of those who made their own choices, which were often the exact opposite of what I advised.

I'm sorry, but I bristle at suggestions I should have handled things--the corrupted evaluation process, the program problems, the contract breaches--your way, and that your way is best. I think your sentiment here is where some, like myself, feel you are, at least to an extent, blaming the victim.

Nothing is as simple as the self-righteous want to make it.
 

You sound angry, and I don't know if you're aware of how much of your post sounds like sarcasm.

Next, as to the issue of hurting others. You’re quite right, Allies and company, it is not clear how students will be hurt. For me it would be enough to know that for sure, they FEEL hurt. But in any case, by implication, you do grant that they MIGHT be hurt. That would be enough for me to avoid hurting the students who trusted me but perhaps not for you. It’s a matter of personal values I guess.
 

No, not just personal values. Can't some learn from this process? How is stating my truths about the corruptions at AIU hurting them? I don't want them to hurt: I want them to think, listen, speak, and learn. I want to speak skillfully and honestly so learning, not hurt, will occur. It's what I want for myself, and you, and all involved as well. However, if you're referring to character assaults and rudeness, we are in agreement. But that has not been my approach at all.

But let’s be honest about this. This forum and what is written on it, is not about justice,
 

Wouldn't it be naive to claim that this forum is about any one thing? It is, in part, about justice. It's about expressing frustration, trying to right wrongs, the process of healing, and vengeance as well. Why narrowly define it in one way?

Justice, as both Allies, and Disappointed say they are assured, will be forthcoming. In Allies’ words, he is sure the courts will award him/them “many times more” than the amount recommended by the Labor Board, 

You, who have been squawking about misreadings, have grossly misrepresented me. To make it completely clear, I'll cut and paste what I wrote: "The mediators decided a very conservative figure, that AIU owed us ten ex-faculty between 1 and 2 million yen per person for AIU's deception. They made clear that a court might decide a figure many times higher that in our favor, perhaps one or more *years* salary." I made no assurances of anything forthcoming, but was merely reporting what the mediators said.

...which, by the way, recommended about 20% of what was demanded.
 

This is a silly potshot Kirby, especially since you don't understand the process. And you were unfair in your very first post as well. Here is your comment, "I for one never had the slightest illusion that my initial three-year contract was guaranteed renewal or was based solely on the performance evaluations."

Who has ever claimed that renewal was "guaranteed?" You're misrepresenting us to make your view seem more reasonable. Who said renewal was based "solely" on performance evaluations? None of us ten members ever did. AIU has claimed that THERE NEVER WAS ANY CONNECTION BETWEEN EVALUATIONS AND CONTRACT RENEWAL. Surely you can see the absurdity of AIU's claim. That's what we're fighting against. Luckily the union, labor board, and mediators easily sided with us (after all, they could read the contract and numerous other documents, as well as consistent testimony).

If you win there, more power to you, and you seem confident you will.
 

You seem to have misunderstood. We're confident an injustice occurred, that's all.

Yes, you were disappointed, yes, you worked extremely hard for three years, yes, your strategies were ill-advised and you suffered a lot, yes. All that has been granted and you feel the courts will vindicate you and drench you in riches.
 

Again, I read this as sarcasm, and the criticism of "strategies" a bit arrogant. I try to live my life without "strategies." It just seems contrived to me.

I, however, was born of peasant stock. As my dear old pappy used to say, bouncing me on his knee: ”Sonny boy, never get in a pissin’ match with a skunk. Everyone ends up smellin’ rotten.”
 

Well, my peasant-comrade, my grandfather immigrated a penniless farmer from Italy, so you got nothing on me. He was not shrewd or clever, and after 70 years in America still could not speak the language very well. But his love I'll never forget.

[concernedinakita]

Another website with the article about AIU's refusal to agree to the arbitration board's proposal.

http://university.main.jp/blog5/archives/2007/05/post_78.html

[constantconcern]

Dear aggrieved faculty of AIU whose contracts were not renewed,

I just wanted to write a brief letter of support to all . I have absolutely no connection at all with any party involved and was completely unaware of the situation at AIU until earlier today. I have, however, spent all afternoon and evening reading through all the entries of this list, and almost all of the linked articles in Japanese and English.

It is obvious, especially from reading some of the Japanese descriptions of the structure of the university, that there is absolutely no academic freedom at AIU. I think the blatant injustice with which you have been treated clearly exposes the inherent danger of the so-called "top-down" management style. As an outsider, it is clear that even if AIU were blessed with fair-minded, visionary leaders, its structure, which lacks any mechanisms to ensure fair employment practices, would still invite abuse. The impudent nepotism of the president's behavior in hiring his son is more telling than anything else, especially his brazen silencing of the faculty, which was really an indirect inditement of the entire university system. In effect, the president declared, "This university is corrupt, your postions are insecure, and I am free to act with impunity." Actually, the incident recalls the origin of the word "baka," which comes from a Chinese story of a minister who wanted to test his power. He showed other ministers a picture of a horse, but insisted that they agree with him that it was a picture of a deer. When no one dared speak up, he know he had complete power over them and could act freely to usurp the throne. I wonder if this is the "international" vision embraced by a president who appears to despise China even as he specializes in its study.


The fact that the president would insist that incoming students all read Nitobe Inazo's invented tradition of Bushido without providing any critical context attests to a severe lack of  judgement and international perspective. The text could be useful in a class dealing with state ideology, but one might as well have students watch "Last Samurai" if the objective is to fill their minds with psuedo, discredited history.

For a vice president to write newspaper columns defending racial discrimination on the basis of isolated incidents involvig a given ethnic group is equally inexcusable. It is hard to believe that there are still people who are willing publicly to defend institutional racism. Should all whites be banned from becoming vice presidents of Japanese universities because one has shockingly shirked his duty to act with a modicum of decency? I think in this case that the deficencies of the race have been made evident.

I was truly shocked to read Concerned8's description of faculty as intellectual pygmies. Such a diatribe could have come straight from the mouth of the protagonist of the Confederacy of Dunces. Does the vice president not realize that students are also reading this list? What example is he setting by insulting in sophopmoric slander  faculty previously employed by the university? How utterly ridiculous to defend the termination of English-teaching faculty for failing to meet an after-the-fact standard for Japanese language ability. Such rants seem nothing more than a childish insistence that "I can speak Japanese better than you, so there!" If the entry were indeed written (as seems to be the case) by the vice president, I can honestly say that I have almost never seen a greater capacity for self-aggrandizement. How, one wonders, can one write so glowingly about one's own achievements in the third person without letting even a tiny hint of irony slip in? The New York times recently published an article on  attempts by a few young scholars to try to research and quantify wisdom. One of the constant accompanying attributes they discovered was humility.

It is abundantly clear to any one patient enough to read through all the materials that the contracts of the faculty of AIU were not renewed for reasons that were arbitrary if not malicious, reasons that were not linked in any way to anything that could be described as a fair evaluation process. For any students reading through this listing, I hope that you have devloped the critical abilities and distance from your university and the authorities who run it to see that is a clear example of institutional abuse. At a minimum, all of us have a duty, if nothing else, to make our voices heard in support of those unjustly treated.

All of the administrators involved in the hiring process have disgraced themselves through their wanton abuse of power, or their willingness to be complicit in such injustice. Shame on all of you for the injustices you have perpetrated and the subsequent suffering you have caused.

I am happy to see that many of you who were dismissed have found employment elsewhere. I wish you the best of luck in your case against AIU. I hope that it will lead to changes in AIU so that "international" in its title will cease to be associated with  authoritarianism, as it unfortunately is now.

[concernedinakita]

Does anyone have an update on the AIU situation? Is the union pursuing a lawsuit?

[concernedinakita]

No one has any news on the current situation? Please don't tell me it's over and that Dr. Nakajima has gotten away with this!