The Néw Jersey Charter School Association filed an ethics complaint against Rutgers professor Julia Sass Rubin, because she identified herself as a Rutgers professor when speaking and writing critically about charter schools. She and doctoral student Mark Weber published a research paper about the demographics and test scores of charters. She has been an active member of Save Our Schools Néw Jersey. The charter association claims that she should not acknowledge her professional identity when writing or speaking. This would be laughable were it not an effort to intimidate her.
Here are the remedies the NJCSA seeks from the NJ State Ethics Commission:
“• In the event of any further installments of her study with Mr. Weber, or any future Rutgers work product concerning issues of education policy, that she be ordered to include appropriate disclaimers upon its release, and secure review and approval of the appropriate Rutgers officials prior to releasing same publicly;
• When making public appearances, Dr. Rubin be ordered to not use her Rutgers title in any capacity, and if her title is raised that she clearly state that her positions are hers alone and not those of Rutgers or any of its academic units;
• Direction to either adhere to Rutgers policies regarding outside activities or withdraw from her involvement in outside organizations including SOSNJ.”
Just for the record, I usually identify myself as a Research Professor of Education at Néw York University when I write opinion pieces, blog, give testimony before legislative bodies, or lecture in public. No one has ever said it was unethical to do so.
Here is Peter Greene on the subject.
He writes:
“NJCSA has tried to attack Rubin professionally by bringing ethics charges against her. Her alleged unethical behavior is, as near as I can tell:
1) Saying things that the NJCSA doesn’t like
2) Telling people what her job is when she speaks.
“The complaint seriously seeks the remedy of having Rubin stop identifying herself as a Rutgers professor when she says these things that make the NJ Charter operators look like lying liars who lie.”
Greene adds:
“I can understand their confusion to a point. It is, of course, standard operating procedure in the reformster world to NOT identify who you actually work for, get money from, or otherwise are affiliated with. It’s SOP to put out a slick “report” without actually explaining why anyone should believe you know what you’re talking about, but Rubin and Weber go ahead and list their actual credentials. Apparently NJCSA’s argument is that it’s unethical to let people know why your work is credible.”
Professor Rubin posted the following on her Facebook page:
“The NJ Charter School Association filed an ethics complaint against me on Monday with the NJ State Ethics Commission, claiming that I was violating Rutgers policies on lobbying by identifying myself as a Rutgers Professor when I wrote editorials or spoke in public meetings and articulated a position consistent with that of Save Our Schools NJ.
“Their complaint is not only completely devoid of substance, it also demonstrated very unethical behavior by the NJ Charter School Association as the complaint distorts the Rutgers Lobbying and Advocacy Policy, including actually editing parts of that policy to change its meaning and omitting the list of communications that are expressly not considered lobbying. Of course, every example of my writing or testimony that they categorized as “lobbying” [editorials, speaking at public events, etc.,] was actually on the list of communications that do not constitute lobbying.
“Aside from demonstrating the NJ Charter School Association’s stunning lack of morality, this also is a chilling attack on personal and academic freedoms. If Professors of Public Policy are not allowed to testify or write editorials that displease well-funded constituents, we are truly in trouble as a country.”
Here is Marie Corfield’s hilarious commentary. She includes an excerpt from Bob Braun’s Facebook comments, where he reveals how few educators are on the board of NJCSA.
Star Ledger coverage: http://www.nj.com/education/2015/01/charter_schools_association_files_ethics_complaint_against_rutgers_professor_sosnj_founder.html#comments
Phili Inquirer coverage: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/new_jersey/287983381.html.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
In Canada we call that a ‘slap suit’ meant to kntimidate and silence by someone with deep pockets against someone who does not.
Wont work. Draws even more attention to the research, academic freedom, free speech in general.
Dumb as a bag of rocks.
So the self-proclaimed “education reform” establishment is against the most basic kind of transparency? Literally?
😳
Sad to say, I am not surprised in the slightest.
If I were to have poked fun at some leading figure or group of the self-styled “education reform” movement and asserted (in the interest of parody and caricature) that she/he/they had done just what the NJCSA had done, the pro-charter/pro-privatization folks that visit this blog would have been up in arms. I would have been accused of the infamous “ad hominem attacks” and crossing the line and engaging in behavior unbecoming a responsible participant in the ed debates.
😒
But if they are going to stretch things beyond all semblance of sanity and decency, I think I am entitled to stretch things a little myself. After all, when some of the greatest “thought leaders” of this most cage busting achievement gap crushing 21st century of innovative disruption in education hoist themselves by a petard of their own making, I can’t help but think of current affairs—
Je Suis Charlie. (those for a “better education for all” call for everyone to speak up and speak out and say their piece)
Je Suis Rheephormista. (those for imposing their choices on others in pursuit of $tudent $ucce$$ by calling for everyone else to shut up and pipe down and follow orders)
“Ridicule dishonors a man more than dishonor does.” [François de la Rochefoucauld]
Imagine what he would have said of self-ridicule from the same camp that parades around bragging about thinking outside the box and critical thinking skills and new paradigms of teaching and learning?
😎
So Professor Rubin is “lobbying” against the NJCS group? I thought lobbyist do things to represent an organization which is seeking a business opportunity (a possibility of financial gain?). I understand private entities use lobbyist to persuade politicians to make certain decisions, BUT HOW is a professor of a state, or private, university becoming a “lobbyist” when all they do is state statistical evidence?
Can one state evidence and facts, which should speak for themselves? Or if they make their own logical and valid inferences and conclusions from those facts they are “reading into it” and then they are “lobbyists” because they put forth “personal opinion” (though soundly deduced based in irrefutable facts).
Just because some entity does not like a professor giving evidence that refutes their claims, the professor is now a “lobbyist” against that entity? Really?
Wow, I guess all day I don’t just teach, but I am also “lobbying” for sound inferences?
The New Jersey Charter School Association is taking quite a leap here. By knowingly altering the school’s guidelines to create the ‘evidence’ of an ethics violation, for the purpose of censuring and intimidating an academic, wades into criminal behavior.
I hope these professors and Rutgers have mindset that pursuing this on a personal legal level with anyone involved is not only appropriate, but needed. Ruin these people the way they would have them ruined.
Amen and Amen!
Good, then we can file the three million ethics complaints against people who have been speaking and writing critically about PUBLIC SCHOOLS in an official capacity.
Shall we file a class action suit against Arne and his band of idiots?
In Texas, the suit would be against Little Ricky Perry and his minions.
Why don’t we get an ethics committ like the Governor’s. Appoint it himself and they don’t look into anything he does.
This sounds very familiar. The House just passed a bill that would change the rules for appointing members of the Science Advisory Board which gives scientific advice to the EPA. Similarly, it is an effort to portray academics as if they have a conflict of interest, as a way to undermine their credibility.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/11/18/3593645/house-epa-science-advisory-board-bill/
“This [bill] effectively turns the idea of conflict of interest on its head, with the bizarre presumption that corporate experts with direct financial interests are not conflicted while academics who work on these issues are, “the group’s director, Andrew A. Rosenberg, said in a letter to Congress. “Of course, a scientist with expertise on topics the Science Advisory Board addresses likely will have done peer-reviewed studies on that topic. That makes the scientist’s evaluation more valuable, not less.”
Julia and JJ are absolute jewels on whose shoulders we all stand–thank you. This ethics lawsuit is shameful, ridiculous, disgraceful effort muzzle critics of the private looting of the public sector. Opposition must be gaining ground, b/c social critics are normally marginalized by the crushing circulation of mainstream media messages and official policies. Julia and JJ, if you need financing help to fight back, let us know, or email me directly and I’ll help solicit funds needs.
Dear Ira,
Thank you for your very sweet message. It is particularly meaningful coming from an academic of your standing!
This “ethics complaint” is part of a broader effort to silence public university faculty. Last month, CUNY Professor Michelle Fine was served with an extensive Freedom of Information request for any emails between her and approximately 20 individuals with whom she communicated as part of her volunteer advocacy activities on behalf of public education in Montclair. I had received an OPRA request shortly before that, asking for my emails.
This attack also is not unique to New Jersey. As Diane reported, Professor Walter Stroup, who teaches at the University of Texas College of Education, was attacked for research that was not favorable to the Pearson Corporation https://dianeravitch.net/2014/09/05/what-happened-to-the-scholar-who-challenged-pearson/
And many of us are familiar with efforts to intimidate and silence public university faculty who are working on other public policy issues, including the 2011 attack on University of Wisconsin Professor William Cronon, as detailed by Professor Cronon http://scholarcitizen.williamcronon.net/2011/03/24/open-records-attack-on-academic-freedom/, by Professor Paul Krugman http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/opinion/28krugman.html?_r=0, and by the New York Times editorial board http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/opinion/28mon3.html
We cannot allow such attacks to go unchallenged. Recent events in France highlight just how high of a price some are paying for freedom of speech and intellectual expression. These are perhaps our country’s most cherished freedoms and worth defending at any cost.
Right on! France puts us all to shame! Let’s follow their lead.
Je Suis Julia.
😎
🙂
“Charter Accountability”
Possessing credentials
Is ethically lacking
While faking essentials
Is worthy of backing
SomeDAM Poet: would you please, please, please, quit topping yourself?
😲
If you keep knocking ‘em out of the park we’re going to have to build a bigger public park—and I’m afraid with the current climate of fiscal austerity and privatization of every conceivable public good, there’s just not enough money to cover the cost.
So howzabout restraining yourself and going for triples rather than home runs?
¿? Oops! My bad. The “soft bigotry of low expectations.”
😡
Well, I guess there’s only one cure for that—
As one of the leading sluggers on the “better education for all” team keep clearing the bases.
😎
Something about “game-changing” some policies lurking in here?
I’m sorry, but this came immediately to mind
“Arney at the VAM”(an ever so slight revision of Ernest Thayer’s classic “Casey at the bat”
The outlook wasn’t brilliant for Reformville Nine that day;
The score stood four to two, with but one inning more to play,
And then when Coleman died at first, and Chetty did the same,
A sickly silence fell upon the patrons of the game.
A straggling few got up to go in deep despair. The rest
Clung to that hope which springs eternal in the human breast;
They thought, if only Arney could get but a whack, oh man –
They’d put up even money, now, with Arney at the VAM.
But Rhee preceded Arney, as did also Billy Gates,
And the former was a lulu and the latter was a fake
So upon that stricken multitude grim melancholy slammed
For there seemed but little chance of Arney’s getting to the VAM.
But Rhee let drive a single, to the wonderment of all,
And Gates, the much despised, tore the cover off the ball;
And when the dust had lifted, and the men saw what had occurred,
There was Billy safe at second and Rhee a-hugging third.
Then from 5,000 throats and more there rose a lusty yell;
It rumbled through the valley, it rattled in the dell;
It knocked upon the mountain and recoiled upon the land,
For Arney, mighty Arney, was advancing to the VAM.
There was ease in Arney’s manner as he stepped into his place;
There was pride in Arney’s bearing and a smile on Arney’s face.
And when, responding to the cheers, he gestured with his hand,
No stranger in the crowd could doubt ’twas Arney at the VAM.
Ten thousand eyes were on him as he rubbed his hands with dirt;
Five thousand tongues applauded when he wiped them on his shirt.
Then while the writhing pitcher ground the ball into his hip,
Defiance gleamed in Arney’s eye, a sneer curled Arney’s lip.
And now the leather-covered sphere came hurtling through the air,
And Arney stood a-watching it in haughty grandeur there.
Close by the sturdy VAMsman the ball unheeded sped-
“That ain’t my style,” said Arney. “Strike one,” the umpire said.
From the benches, black with people, there went up a muffled roar,
Like the beating of the storm-waves on a stern and distant shore.
“Kill him! Kill the umpire!” shouted someone on the stand;
And it’s likely they’d a-killed him had not Arney raised his hand.
With a smile of Christian charity great Arney’s visage shone;
He stilled the rising tumult; he bade the game go on;
He signaled to the pitcher, and once more the spheroid flew;
But Arney still ignored it, and the umpire said, “Strike two.”
“Fraud!” cried the maddened thousands, and echo answered fraud;
But one scornful look from Arney and the audience was awed.
They saw his face grow stern and cold, they saw his muscles strain,
And they knew that Arney wouldn’t let that ball go by again.
The sneer is gone from Arney’s lip, his teeth are clenched in hate;
He pounds with cruel violence his VAM upon the plate.
And now the pitcher holds the ball, and now he lets it go,
And now the air is shattered by the force of Arney’s blow.
Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright;
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light,
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout;
But there is no joy Reformville — mighty Arney has struck out.
At DAM-
Damn! You are superb! Tip of the Bosox cap!
Here in Boston, home of the Red Sox, who went 86 years without a pennant, this was one of my favorite poems with my ELL’s, a huge number of whom were Dominican kids whose religion was baseball.
Christine,
Mighty Arn.. I mean Casey is one of my favorites too.
Along with pretty much everything by Dr. Seuss.
And by Robert Frost, who comes in a very close third. (Sorry Robert but nobody beats “The Dr” [my high school English teachers — one of whom knew Frost when she was growing up — would probably have a coronary if they were still around to read that] )
Amazing –
part of the “Shut-up & Sit Down” policies of the NJ Gov.
Covers all of decent expressions of life in NJ & soon the US.
How is this charter association voicing the State of NJ? So far all I see is a charter group claiming [erroneously] that a NJ citizen & member of NJS faculty is ‘illegally’ [not] lobbying.
This is pathetic. Who should deserve ethical scrutiny?
By speaking out, Prof. Julia Sass Rubin performed community service, as it is defined for university faculty. Parents, students and tax payers don’t have paid lobbyists to counter those who have seized government education policy, to enrich themselves. Faculty who cower from their responsibility to their communities or who accept plutocratic funding to skew research results or focus, reflect adversely on their chosen profession.
Thank you Dr. Rubin for being an exemplar of your profession.
Interesting. Look who is talking about ethics.
I have a rinky dink little ed blog http://www.jaxkidsmatter.blogspot.com where I mostly write about things in Florida which means I have covered Charter Schools USA a number of times and because of it they have threatened to sue me twice, I mean full on threatening letters from lawyers and all. The last time they did I wrote this.
http://jaxkidsmatter.blogspot.com/2014/07/charter-schools-usa-threatens-to-sue.html
After being threatened by them a couple more times, I told them okay lets do this and they went away, I believe some charters are Nothing but for profit bullies that people have to stand up to.
Chris Guerrieri: what you describe is how an outfit that thinks and acts like a business (and that puts the bottom line first and foremost), reacts to perceived attacks on their product line.
That’s why I assert that the trendsetters and heavy hitters of the self-styled “education reform” movement are pushing a business plan that masquerades as an education model. In public, especially to their client base/customers aka parents & students, they are “all about the kids,” but when it comes to $tudent $uccess the business plan takes priority and they are in it to win it.
Decency and honor be damned.
Thank you for your comments.
😎
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
Reblogged this on The Academe Blog and commented:
This is one of the more peculiar things I’ve heard of recently:
I know it’s an easy target, but the author’s middle name (Sass) seems inappropriate in this case….Rubin’s work seems very rational and lacks the “sass” that would get those reformers’ knickers in a twist.
So if an expert on a subject disagrees with the charter school movement they are not supposed to let anyone know they are an expert. Real good. Well then let’s just be fair and say that anyone who is not an education professional cannot start or promote charter schools.
twinkie1cat: exactly—what’s sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.
Even steven. No double standards. Level playing field.
Operative phrase: “should be.”
😳
And remembering, always and forever, that charter schools are just like “traditional” public schools—except they’re better and do more with less and are the rising tide that lifts all ungrateful public school boats. Just ask $elf-$acrificing Eva Moskowitz with her swollen advertising budget and her little test-taking machines as she fights City Hall in NYC in order to protect her charter chain from something or other…
One last point: if advocates for “government monopoly schools” and promoters of a “better education for all” and lazy LIFO teachers and their thug unions can go around threatening and trying to shut up those in favor of charters and vouchers and privatization then turn about is fair play…
¿? That hasn’t happened?
Seems like I’ve got to get better sources of information. If you can’t get good intel from Gates Foundation and Broad Foundation mailing lists, then is it possible that the US Dept. of Education isn’t a good source of info either?
I think I need to recover my bearings. Are we on Planet Reality or Bizarro World? Sometimes I just don’t know…
😎
As a recent graduate school alumnus, I’d be interested to know which private funding sources for Rutgers are also affiliated with the NJCSA. These types always take care of their own people. I have no doubts that there are connections.
time to countersue for defamation of character, libel and slander — and win
This attempt to intimidate Rubin is an appalling distortion of Rutgers’ Lobbying and Advocacy Policy, which states, “This policy sets the guidelines and processes for members of the Rutgers community to engage in lobbying activity officially on behalf of Rutgers with government officials under the guidance and authorization of the Rutgers Office of External Affairs….This policy does not limit the personal rights of those in the Rutgers community who wish to contact, or advocate to, government officials about their personal beliefs and interests.” So, lobbying only refers to contact with government officials, not expressing views. And the lobbying policy only refers to lobbying expressly authorized and controlled by the Rutgers administration. And the policy explicitly protects individuals advocating their beliefs.