Tag Archive: Kübler-Ross Model


… Public universities have limited legal authority to unilaterally declare their campuses sanctuaries in defiance of federal law. Further, it is not clear how such defiance might affect receipt of federal funding (e.g., Pell, GEAR-UP, and Perkins), or what the repercussions might be for state funding.” – Central Washington University President James Gaudino

Four words: “defiance of federal law,” jump out at the author of Almost DailyBrett.gaudinomatthis

President James L. Guadino (left) with former Marine General, incoming Secretary of Defense and former CWU grad James N. Mattis.

These words and others in CWU President Gaudino’s well-written December 1 letter on “University Campus Sanctuary Status” pose a series of questions for both the adherents and the opponents of having Central Washington University (CWU) march down the same “sanctuary” path taken by public universities in California, Oregon and elsewhere.

Some of the questions which immediately come to mind are whether sanctuary university supporters still have not come to terms with the simple fact that Donald Trump is the president-elect of the United States.

Employing the Dr. Elizabeth Kübler-Ross model of the Five Stages of Grief and Loss, many have reached acceptance mode. Some are still bargaining (e.g., asking this week for the Electoral College to invalidate Trump’s election). Some are angry (e.g., protesting on inaugural day) and some are still in the first stage, denial (e.g., campus sanctuaries).

Does anyone believe for a nanosecond that Trump is not serious about immigration reform including building a wall and safeguarding our borders? It would be surprising, if President Barack Obama’s 2012 executive order on Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is not rescinded by Trump in the first days, if not the first hours of his administration.

If that is indeed the case, and there is no reason to think it is not, then why would Central Washington and other universities “unilaterally declare” their campuses to be sanctuaries in direct “defiance of federal law”?

University of California students yell at chancellor Nicholas Dirks protesting proposed tuition hikes before a regents meeting, Thursday, Nov. 17, 2016, in San Francisco, Calif. (Karl Mondon/Bay Area News Group)

University of California students yell at chancellor Nicholas Dirks protesting proposed tuition hikes before a regents meeting, Thursday, Nov. 17, 2016, in San Francisco, Calif. (Karl Mondon/Bay Area News Group)

And what are the repercussions of deliberately violating federal law? President Gaudino mentions the possible loss of federal funding for student Pell grants, GEAR-UP and Perkins subventions, not to mention impact on state funds to the university. How many hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, is the university risking, if CWU’s opts to become a “sanctuary” university?

How many students will be financially impacted by the loss of this funding? How will this negative reaction for deliberately defying the law — when it is not necessary — impact these students? Will they have to drop out of school? Have we even asked the question? Do we know? Do we care?

How will a campus sanctuary declaration impact the ability of CWU’s Advancement team in raising funds from alumni and friends? Should we consider that some existing and potential donors, if not a majority, would roll their eyes and close their check books if the university takes this action?

One of the reasons for sanctuary universities cited by proponents addresses protecting undocumented students, even though a litany of campus safeguards is already listed by President Gaudino in his letter.kate-steinle

Let’s take a second and ask another question: Has anyone on these campuses heard of the late Kate Steinle of your author’s former home town of Pleasanton, California? Her family is presently suing the “Sanctuary” City/County of San Francisco for defying federal immigration law, resulting in the violent death of their daughter.

If a CWU student is hurt, raped or murdered as a result of direct defiance of federal law by a sanctuary university, what is that university’s civil and/or criminal liability?

All this discussion should bring us back to the main point of contention: The systematic defiance of federal law. Almost DailyBrett does not equate sanctuary universities with the civil disobedience of the Civil Rights Era. Instead it’s a deliberate effort to flaunt existing law, which augers a predictable question:

What’s next when it comes to laws that fall out of favor with the sanctuary crowd? If we can pick and choose which laws to follow, and which to defy, how long will it take for society to collapse?

Do we really want to know?

http://psychcentral.com/lib/the-5-stages-of-loss-and-grief/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/higher-education-is-awash-with-hysteria-that-might-have-helped-elect-trump/2016/11/18/a589b14e-ace6-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html?utm_term=.fac990b5941f

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/05/504467169/university-of-california-pledges-to-fight-trump-on-immigration-policy

http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2016/11/university_of_oregon_psu_stand.html

http://registerguard.com/rg/news/local/34999544-75/university-of-oregon-vows-to-provide-sanctuary-to-its-legal-limit.html.csp

http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/12/02/kate-steinle-lawsuit-federal-judge-probes-stolen-blm-gun-in-familys-suit-against-government/

There has been ample criticism about the mere existence of “Fair and Balanced” Fox News since Rupert Murdoch debuted the new network in 1996.

Today, Fox is the undisputed cable leader, easily beating Melba toast CNN and left-oriented MSNBC by wide margins according to the A.C. Nielsen ratings for 50-consecutive quarters.

foxblondes

To provide  balance, Almost DailyBrett needs to point out that all cable news networks, similar to the Big Three networks of ABC, NBC and CBS, are being duly impacted by the greater choices of content associated with Web 2.0 or social, mobile and cloud.

Despite the overall decline, Fox remains numero uno and shows no signs of going away. Fox News president Roger Ailes knows a thing or two about supply and demand.

To the vast majority of center-right Americans, the perception rightly or wrongly was U.S. legacy media (e.g., NYT, Wash Post, Big Three Networks) tilts left of center, reflecting an east of the Hudson River mindset. There was a void to be filled, a different network that would indeed play in Peoria … Fox News.

Media Monopoly Broken

There is little doubt that Fox News leans right during its prime-time hours, particularly Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, less so with Greta Van Susteren. During daytime and early evening news hours, Fox will state ex-cathedra that it is fair and balanced.

The reaction during the past 18 years to the loss of total hegemony, when it comes to a particular philosophy setting the agenda, has been varied from feigned indifference, to charges and allegations, to announced boycotts, to playing along because of Fox’s impressive ratings, to attacking the demographics of the audience, and recently to mocking the hair color of Fox News’ female talent.

Employing the Kübler-Ross model for the five stages of grief, one could conclude that those lamenting the loss of media monopoly, have moved from anger, denial, bargaining, depression, but are still short of total acceptance.

In some respects Fox News is the Israel of American cable television. Fox has occupied a geographic position once commanded by the Dan Rathers, Tom Brokaws and Brian Williams’ of the world, and not only does it refuse to budge … the network is getting stronger.

And now the same crowd that celebrates broken glass ceilings and decries a “War on Women” seems to be resorting to chiding nine (or more) very talented women commentators on Fox, who also happen to be attractive and blonde.

Rock Center with Brian Williams

Come to think of it, what color is Chelsea Clinton’s hair? Yes, the question pertains to the very same Chelsea who “reports” for NBC News for 600K annually. No one seems to complain about the hue of her locks, but of course her mother is running …

Blondes, Brunettes and Redheads

What is it with our society that when we are referring to hair color we are only referencing the fairer gender? Do we care that George Clooney is a brunette, Brad Pitt is blonde and “Die Hard” Bruce Willis is follicly challenged?

Seems silly to even ask the question.

Switching gears, hair color is a differentiator when the subject comes to women. And then comes the viral stereotypical photo of nine Fox blonde women with a thinly veiled charge that each of them is one taco short of a combination.

One blogger wrote (not me): “The women on Fox, whether they be anchors or guests, are quite different from the women found on other news channels. They wear a lot more make-up. They are a lot more, shall we say, blonde.

“This holds true as well for their behavior, especially when interacting with men at Fox News. There’s a very strange dynamic at work between the men and women of Fox News. The women laugh, giggle, and say silly things. The male host condescends and says that the women are wrong.”

Women wear “make-up, laugh, giggle and say silly things”?

Almost DailyBrett did NOT write that and NEVER will write sexist commentary.

The critics seem to suggest that Fox is somehow objectifying attractive, bright, competent and blonde women by hiring them and putting them on the air. What happened to the notion of breaking through patriarchy’s glass ceiling?

Or maybe the issue here goes beyond the loss of a media monopoly. Could these women working for a center-right network telegraph something more significant, the potential loss of women as always reliable and dependable voters?  What would happen if the “gender gap” closes and disappears?

Maybe we should be saluting these women for what’s in-between their ears and not commenting on the color of the locks on their respective heads. And let’s drop the sexist commentary. If a woman is good enough to work for Fox, CNN, MSNBC or even the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams let’s salute them and hope they all make as much as Chelsea.

Heck one of them may be president someday, and even she may draw silly charges based upon her make-up and hair color.

http://my.firedoglake.com/inoljt/tag/fox-news/

http://www.foxnews.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/01/q2-cable-news-ratings-msnbc-cnn-fox_n_5548836.html

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/q2-2014-cable-news-ratings-fox-news-hits-50th-straight-quarter-at-1/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ailes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model

 

 

%d bloggers like this: