Littérature scientifique sur le sujet « American Association of University Professors. Harvard University Chapter »

The author is Professor Emeritus of Planning and of Geography & Regional Development as well as of Public Policy and Administration, University of Arizona and formerly Chair of the Planning Program. Previously, he was professor and chairman in these fields at Harvard University and Rutgers University. He has been Visiting Professor at five Latin American universities, in a faculty career that dates back to 1961. Since 1999 he has spent several months each year conducting research on Basque planning, from a base in Biarritz, France. His editorial experience includes ten years as Book Review Editor of the Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Journal of the American Planning Association and Compiling Editor of Ekistics. He has been active in professional planning practice, both in the United States and internationally and is former national Chairman of the American Institute of Certified Planners. He was elected Fellow of the American Institute of Certified Planners in 2001 and has been a member of the World Society for Ekistics since 1975. Mann is an extensively published scholar in Planning and related fields, including ten monographs, several times that many articles and chapters, and an even greater number of book reviews in the professional literature. He holds a doctorate in Planning (Harvard) and did postgraduate work at London School of Economics & Political Science. He is fluent in French and Spanish.

For political scientists, and particularly scholars and students of Africa, Crawford Young needs litde introduction. However, as he has now achieved an emeritus status at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, it is time to present his intimate understanding of African politics in the last forty years.Born in Philadelphia in November 1931, Young received his B.A, from the University of Michigan in 1953. He studied at the Institute of Historical Research at the University of London from 1955 to 1956 and at die Institut d'Etudes Politiques, University of Paris, from 1956 to 1957. He dien entered graduate school at Harvard University, completing his doctorate degree in political science in 1964. In 1963 Young was offered an assistant professor position by the Department of Political Science at die University of Wisconsin–Madison. He remained tiiere for his entire career, retiring in January 2001. He has held visiting professorships at Makerere University in Kampala, Uganda (1965–66), and at the University of Dakar in Senegal (1987–88). He also served as dean of the Faculty of Social Science at the Université Nationale du Zaire from 1973 to 1975. Among his publications are twelve monographs, over one hundred articles, and chapters in numerous books. Several of Young's works have been translated into different languages.Young's professional career includes extended field research in Congo-Kinshasa, Senegal, and Uganda. He has received many prestigious awards such as the Herskovits Prize (African Studies Association) and the Ralph Bunche Award (American Political Science Association) for The Politics of Cultural Pluralism (Wisconsin, 1976), and the Gregory Luebbert Prize (APSA) for The African Colonial State in Comparative Perspective (Yale, 1994).

The discourse on democratization features prominently in the work of Samuel P. Huntington (1927-2008) entitled ‘The Third Wave’ which was published in 1991. Huntington was one of the most influential political scientists and previously held the position of university professor at the prestigious Harvard Kennedy School in the US. He authored many academic books on comparative politics and was the founder of the Foreign Policy Journal as well as the former president of the American Political Science Association (IPSA). Written in six interesting chapters, Huntington’s Third Wave provides a clear-cut discussion on fundamental questions of when, why and how democratization occurs in different parts of the world. This fascinating book has contributed significantly to the empirical analyses on comparative transition to democracy and autocracy in around thirty global southern states, primarily in Latin America and Asia, and remains relevant for discourses on any future wave of global democratization. Cite as: Syazli Saidin, M. I. (2021). The third wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century. (Book review). Journal of Nusantara Studies, 6(1), 394-400. http://dx.doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol6iss1pp394-400

William Douglas Woody completed his doctoral work at Colorado State University and is now Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Northern Colorado. He teaches and conducts research in the areas of psychology and the law, social psychology, and history and systems of psychology. He is the recipient of regional and national teaching awards. While completing his doctoral work, Doug started collaborating with Edie Greene on projects related to civil jury decision making. Edie Greene earned her BA in psychology from Stanford University, her MA from the University of Colorado–Boulder, and her PhD in psychology and law from the University of Washington. Additionally, she completed a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of Washington from 1983 to 1986, and she served as Fellow in Law and Psychology at Harvard Law School from 1994 to 1995. Edie is currently Professor of Psychology at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs where she conducts research on jury trials, eyewitness memory, and other topics in psychology and law. Her work has been funded by number of federal agencies, and she has earned extensive research recognition including an award from her college for Outstanding Research and Creative Works. Edie is a coauthor of the textbook Psychology and the Legal System (5th ed.), published by Wadsworth (2002), and she coauthored Determining Damages: The Psychology of Jury Awards, published by the American Psychological Association (2002). She has published more than 70 articles and book chapters as well as an annotated bibliography on the adversarial system (Strier & Greene, 1990). In addition to conducting research, she has served as a trial consultant, and she has testified extensively as an expert witness on eyewitness memory and jury decision making. Edie has been active in the American Psychology–Law Society in numerous roles including membership on the executive committee. She serves on the editorial boards of Law and Human Behavior and Psychology, Public Policy and Law.

The problem of value priorities in the US universities is actualized in the paper; they traditionally show high ranking positions and make the majority among the best higher education institutions in the international education and research areas. The fundamental institutional values of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, California Institute of Technology, Harvard University and University of Wisconsin-Whitewater are revealed aimed at implementing the best American universities experience for the development of higher education system and its quality in Ukraine. It is proven that American universities function on the basis of their own academic values and have their own culture and philosophy in addition to the established institutional values, such as institutional autonomy, academic freedom and shared governance. Consolidating the mission, vision and priorities of higher education institution development the institutional values reflect the peculiarities of the university’s activities and project the moral ideal of behavior of academic staff, students and graduates, who confirm to stakeholders their competitiveness at the labor market. It is revealed that a key and integral part of professional values in the US universities is academic freedom though which historically and traditionally the defense of democratic values is considered. It is grounded that academic freedom in the American university society is a prerequisite for developing knowledge, conducting research and publishing their results, it also causes the social and institutional responsibility, in particular for compliance with ethical standards of conduct and principles of integrity. It is reveled that the practical realization of the American professor’s right for academic freedom is the right for tenured appointment, which makes it possible to work without the administrative pressure and the risk to be fired because of his unpopular views and statements. It is established that the American Association of University Professors is the founder of the American understanding of academic freedom and the advocate of the universities’ academic staff rights, including their tenure.

In the history of American socialism William English Walling occupies a special place. Born into a wealthy Midwestern family, Walling was educated at the University of Chicago and Harvard, but soon found a calling as a social reform activist when he learned first hand about the conditions of working people as an Illinois factory inspector and a habitué of turn-of-the-century social settlement houses and the Jewish ghetto scene. From that point forward Walling was a major influence wherever he directed his fertile mind and instinct for provoking controversy and precipitating new movements. In 1903, Walling helped found the National Women's Trade Union League and became president of its New York chapter. Six years later he cobbled together a group of anti-racist socialists to found the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People – then invited W.E.B. DuBois to become editor of its journal, The Crisis.

SCIENCE UNDER FIRE: Challenges to Scientific Authority in Modern America by Andrew Jewett. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2020. 356 pages. Hardcover; $41.00. ISBN: 9780674987913. *John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White's role in fueling popular ideas about conflict between the primarily natural sciences and religion has been often studied. It is now well known that their claims were erroneous, prejudice laden (in Draper's case against Roman Catholicism), and part of broader efforts to align science with a liberal and rationalized Christianity. In Science under Fire, Boston College historian Andrew Jewett recounts a similarly important but lesser-known tale: twentieth-century criticism of the primarily human sciences as promoting politically charged, prejudice laden, and secular accounts of human nature. *Jewett is an intellectual historian who focuses on the interplay between the sciences and public life in the United States. Science under Fire follows up on his 2012 Science, Democracy, and the American University, which explored the role of science (or, more precisely, science-inspired thinking associated with the human sciences) as a shaper of American culture from the mid-nineteenth through the mid-twentieth century. As with that previous work, Science under Fire illustrates how science can be practiced as a form of culture building and leveraged for sociopolitical ends. While Science, Democracy, and the American University explored how various ideas about science came to displace the then-dominant Protestant understandings of morality in the late nineteenth century, Science under Fire considers how a variety of critics reacted to the growing influence of those sciences. *Throughout both historical periods, members of the public, politicians, and many social scientists did not view science as offering a neutral or unbiased account of the nature of humans and their behavior. Rather, they practiced, appropriated, and criticized various accounts in order to advance particular visions about how society should be organized. These visions were not primarily driven by scientific data but by philosophical precommitments, including some which led their proponents to deny the validity of the Protestant and humanist values which previously anchored American public life. So, Science under Fire addresses religious and politically conservative apprehension over "amoral" psychology and the teaching of evolution in schools. However, its story is much broader. The secular and religious liberals and conservatives, libertarians and socialists, humanities scholars and social scientists all at times lamented the dehumanizing effects of technology or worried that scientists were unduly influenced by selfish motives. *Science under Fire begins with a twenty-three-page summary of the book's main themes. This is followed by two chapters that explain the cultural developments which fostered apprehension about science's role in society. By the 1920s, some thinkers were calling on Americans to adopt "modern" scientific modes of thought, in part by dismissing religion as a source of objective values (chap. 1). Their efforts were resisted by humanities scholars, Catholics, and liberal Protestants, who focused on lambasting naturalist approaches in psychology (e.g., by Freud and John Watson) as pseudoscientific and offering classical or religious values as a bulwark against the excesses of capitalism and consumerism (chap. 2). *In the 1930s and 40s, these critiques were given new impetus as worries arose over social scientists' role in shaping Roosevelt's New Deal as well as mental associations between amoral science and Japanese and German totalitarianism (chap. 3). Post-World War II fears over science grew to encompass concerns about "amoral" scientists such as B. F. Skinner, Benjamin Spock, and others engaging in "social engineering" by training children to value social conformity at the expense of traditional religious or humanist moral guidance (chap. 4). The increasingly vehement religious opposition to scientists' attempts to address questions of morality was partly driven by opposition to "atheist" communism and featured a broad coalition of Protestant and Catholic critics decrying the effects of "scientism" (chap. 5). *There was also a postwar resurgence in interest in the humanities, as well as efforts by thinkers such as C. P. Snow, to position the social sciences as a humanist bridge between "literary" and "scientific" cultures (chap. 6). In the United States, Snow's call for greater prominence for the sciences was challenged by New Right conservatives, who regarded it as dangerously opening the door for liberal academic social scientists to portray their ideologically charged views as objectively scientific. Their efforts included supporting conservative social scientists' research, intervening in academic politics and research funding, and, somewhat 'justifiably, 'complaining about the persecution of conservative scholars (chap. 7). *Nevertheless, postwar criticism of scientism was couched in flexible enough terms to appeal to politically and theologically diverse thinkers associated with various institutes and literary endeavors (chap. 8), ultimately including many in the iconoclastic New Left counterculture of the 1960s and 70s (chap. 9). By that time, movements critical of science included religious opposition to evolution and psychology; neoconservative criticism of the "welfare state"; and feminist, Black, and indigenous critiques of science as a tool for justifying an oppressive status quo (chap. 10). *In the Reaganite era, science was targeted by pluralist, postfoundationalist, poststructuralist, and postmodern thinkers; religious conservative challenges to evolution and "secularism" in science; tighter budgets and a downgrading of blue-sky research; and worries over the implications of artificial intelligence and genetic engineering (chap. 11). After a short evaluative conclusion, sixty-two pages of endnotes help flesh out Jewett's argument. *Science under Fire helps illuminate how science and religion have interacted as culture-shaping forces in American public life. Readers will learn how debates that are prima facie about science and religion are really about values and cultural authority, and will discover the origins of some of the assumptions and strategic moves that shape popular science-faith discourse. They will also be invited to enlarge their repertoire of science-faith thinkers (e.g., John Dewey, Reinhold Niebuhr, B. F. Skinner) and topics (behaviorism, debates over Keynesian economics as a backdrop, and how science's value-free ideal was invented and leveraged). *Nevertheless, readers should be aware that Jewett's near-exclusive focus on sweeping intellectual tendencies and the social sciences (with occasional forays to reflect on genetic technology and the atomic bomb) means that Science under Fire is not an entirely balanced account of science, politics, and religion in America. Some chapters focus on major streams of thought to the point that the story of individual movements, thinkers, and their interactions with one another is lost. Fundamentalist and conservative evangelical reactions to scientism are treated relatively perfunctorily compared to liberal Christian responses (e.g., the Institute for Religion in an Age of Science is mentioned while the American Scientific Affiliation is not). A bias toward sociological explanations occasionally leads to a degree of mischaracterization. For example, Thomas Kuhn is mentioned only in connection with the 1960s counterculture, and the Vietnam-era Strategic Hamlet Program is characterized as an attempt to "make proper citizens out of Vietnamese peasants" rooted in modernization theory (p. 181), without mentioning it as a counterinsurgency strategy inspired by Britain's successful use of "New Villages" in the Malayan emergency. Finally, although most of the book is lucid, it is occasionally meandering, repetitive, and convoluted. This is particularly true for the introduction, which readers might consider skipping on the first read. *These criticisms are not meant to be dismissive. Science under Fire is a unique and uniquely important book. Those who are willing to mine its depths will be rewarded with a treasure trove of insight into the social and political factors that continue to shape conversations about science, technology, and faith in the United States today. *Reviewed by Stephen Contakes, Associate Professor of Chemistry, Westmont College, Santa Barbara, CA 93108.

From 1962 to 1971 the Associação Universitária Interamericana (Inter-American University Association—AUI) conducted a program of internships at Harvard University for Brazilian students. The goal of these internships was for Brazilian students to gain an understanding of the American way of life. The students were mostly recruited among leftists. It was their hearts and minds that the university wanted to win over to the side of the "free world" during the Cold War. These students took advantage of the situation and used the internships for their own purposes. This had implications not only for their personal careers but also for the construction of institutional and political ideas. This process took place within a complex game that involved the interests of the United States and the entrepreneurs who helped finance the AUI. Created during the Kennedy administration, the AUI ended its activities as a result of a conservative offensive launched by the Nixon administration in the United States and the Médici dictatorship in Brazil. Desde 1962 a 1971 a Associação Universitária Interamericana (Interamerican University Association—AUI) promoveu o intercâmbio universitário de estudantes brasileiros selecionados para fazer um estágio em Harvard e conhecer o modo de vida americano. Os universitários eram recrutados em sua maioria entre simpatizantes de ideias de esquerda, cujos corações e mentes se buscava conquistar para o lado do “mundo livre” na Guerra Fria. Eles aproveitaram as circunstâncias conforme suas próprias conveniências, não apenas de carreira pessoal, mas também na construção institucional e política, num jogo de mão dupla com os interesses dos Estados Unidos e dos empresários que, juntos, financiaram a entidade. Criada durante o governo Kennedy, a AUI encerrou as atividades de intercâmbio diante da ofensiva conservadora do governo Nixon nos Estados Unidos e da ditadura no Brasil do presidente Medici.

“Power often comes in deceptive packages” (Myers, 2002) Hello Kitty is the ultimate icon of Japanese cuteness. She/it is simply the image of a cat with black eyes, a button nose and no mouth wearing a pink bow on her head. A product without context, Hello Kitty is a blank signifier with the potential to be loaded with codes and meanings as diverse as the ideas of those who consume her/it. Yet Hello Kitty encompasses, and holds contradictory associations with, discourses as diverse as debates over reappropriation of symbols, consumerism and nationalism. As a symbol of cuteness, with her inability to communicate verbally and her pink bow, Hello Kitty has become a player in the wider debate on “girlie” culture and whether symbols traditionally (by feminists) held to play a part in the oppression of women, can now be used as tools of cultural subversion (Greer, 1999). Riot grrrl was a movement which came to prominence in the early 1990s with all-female punk rock bands such as Bikini Kill, L7 and Babes in Toyland, and incorporated gender politics in to rock music, creating a new girl-focused subculture. The scene is still going strong now, although it receives less mainstream media attention (see Live Journal riot_grrls on-line community). It is often associated with the “girlie” look and many current riot grrrls consider themselves third-wave feminists. Girlie culture and riot grrrl are not to be confused with the girl power propagated by pop music, which is seen to be “insipid spice girl shit” (Riot Grrrl London) by riot grrrl feminists. A common mistake of older feminist’s criticisms is to equate mainstream “girl power” with the sub-cultural movement of riot grrrl, incorporating within it girlie feminism (See for examples the chapter on Girl power in Greer, 1999). Girlie Feminism: Separate But Equal Within the riot grrrl movement there has been a reappropriation of girliness as demonstrated by the use of “grrrl” as opposed to “girl”, severing its connotations of weakness and femininity and, thus, transforming its meaning. Hello Kitty and the debate around her/its consumption by riot grrrls can been used to examine the debates, contradictions, criticisms, reappropriations and ironies which are central to third-wave feminisms. One more sympathetic reading of the current “girlie” culture and its use of Hello Kitty as a logo assumes that it is highly ironic and that the girls involved have all the cultural savvy natural to the third-wave generation who have been raised in a pop culture driven world. From this point of view, young women/girls are naturally wielding signifiers like semiotics professors in their everyday lives. For example see the on-line “What fucked version of hello kittie are you?” Quiz (Sarcasticwhore, 2003) which uses Hello Kitty as a blank signifier that can represent many different types of subcultural image (interestingly the username of the creator of this quiz, “sarcasticwhore” is itself reappropriation of the word “whore”). Certainly there are some self-professed third-wave riot grrrls who are aware of the meanings of their actions: like the hello kitty pink fluffy thing - on the one hand if you're 'grown up' it can be a way of going against what's expected of you - to be respectable, orderly, lookin like you stepped out of Gap. on another hand it's a way of 'reclaiming yr femininity' which i am dubious about . . . . i feel that wearing particular things to convey an idea such as in this case reinforces the whole girl = one thing boy = another. But i totally agree, whole - heartedly, that women shouldn't bow down to the way of the man and attempt to be/look like them (i.e. deny their 'femininity' or wear suits and attempt to charge around blowing up the world like george bush) (Sabotage, 2003) My research with the riot grrrl Birmingham collective suggests that many of the girls involved understand the political implications of their behaviour and that their aim is not assimilation in to the “male” identity but a “separate but equal” identity wherein femaleness does not equate to weakness. Riot Grrrl foremother Kathleen Hanna explains that the original philosophy of riot grrrl had the same basic principles as those expressed by Sabotage above: dressing like a little girl . . . was also about being people who are oppositional to the whole American system, and not wanting to look like adults and our parents, who we saw as fucking up the world. And it was also when that Carol Gilligan book came out about how girls lose their self-esteem around twelve or thirteen, so everyone was talking about being nine. Like trying to go back there, and remembering what it was like when we were friends with each other, and we weren't totally competitive, and we were creating our own weird games and ideas. (Hanna in Hex, 2000) As Hanna pointed out, psychological research which focused on the negative effects of adolescence on girls showed that “the secrets of the female adolescent pertain to the silencing of her own voice, a silencing enforced by the wish not to hurt others but also by the fear that, in speaking, her voice will not be heard” (Gilligan, 1982, 51). This lead to a return to, and positivisation of, girlhood, a “nod to our joyous youth” (Baumgardner & Richards, 2001, 136) and a rejection of hegemonic ways of adult female behaviour. In relation to this psychological context, the mouth-less Hello Kitty takes on even more interesting connotations as a logo for third-wave riot grrrl feminism, as a logo which could also be seen to represent the voicelessness of girls, a logo re-contextualised by parody. Criticisms: Irony and Context Linda Hutcheon, a postmodern / feminist theorist, sees parody and irony as defining features of postmodernism and feminisms in the age of post modernism: It seems to me that . . . women are often in the position of defining themselves AGAINST a dominant culture or discourse. One way to do that, a way with great subversive potential, is to speak the language of the dominant (which allows you to be heard), but then to subvert it through ironic strategies of exaggeration, understatement, or literalization (1998). The main criticism of reappropriating symbols of oppression is the question of who creates the meaning and whether it is redundant if misinterpreted by the majority of people who see it. Moreover does postmodernism in relation to feminism suggest an acceptance of post-feminism or even an acceptance that ideas of girliness are no longer symbols of patriarchal oppression? The wearers may not think so, but the majority of “readers” may be oblivious to the complex connotations of a Hello Kitty t-shirt. Thus, the issue of context creates some problems for the effective use of girliness and, specifically, for Hello Kitty as a subversive tool, “The test of irony is that people get the joke – and if they had enough understanding to ‘get it’ in the first place, then this type of humour wouldn’t need to exist” (Direct Action 23, 2002). In response to criticism that the ironic “girlie” use of Hello Kitty may be misinterpreted, I suggest juxtaposition of signifiers in order to upset hegemonic readings in a similar way to that suggested by Paul Sweetham (1990). That is, it seems more effective to confuse the signified of the reader by taking elements of, for example Hello Kitty with its connotations of girliness, and simultaneously incorporate signs of punk imagery. This serves to create a look which cannot be read as merely girly or as merely punk, which changes the function of both signifiers. Consumerism Another element of the use of Hello Kitty as a logo for third-wave riot grrrl feminists is that Hello Kitty is the ultimate symbol of pure irrational consumerism and commodity fetishism, a “trap of material slavery” (Ko, 2000, 9). The uniqueness of Hello Kitty as a commodity is that the logo is the product; there is no (or at least was not originally) any story or context. This is especially problematic for Hello Kitty as a logo for Riot Grrrl, as this is a culture which sets itself apart from, and as a critique of, mainstream culture. This does not necessarily entail, however, a complete rejection of material culture and could simply mean an alternate or subverted form of it. Conclusion Despite its flaws, Hello Kitty can be seen to effectively, semeiologically speaking, represent a subculture inextricably set within and created from a pop-culture driven society. And while this use of Hello Kitty is entirely reliant on its context, in the context I have suggested it seems to effectively symbolise the ideologies of third-wave riot grrrls. Works Cited Baumgardner, Jennifer and Richards, Amy. Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism and the Future. Farrar Straus & Giroux, 2000. Direct Action. ‘Travelling Backwards? (No, we're just being ironic)’ Direct Action 23, Culturejam. (http://www.directa.force9.co.uk/back%20issues/DA%2023/articl... ...es.htm), 2002. Gilligan, Carol. In a Different Voice. Massachusetts: Harvard, 1982. Greer, Germaine. The Whole Woman. London: Doubleday, 1999. Hex, Celina. Fierce, Funny, Feminists: Gloria Steinem and Kathleen Hanna talk shop, and prove that grrrls – and womyn - rule. (**from the Winter 2000 "Feminist" issue of BUST) cited on http://busygrrrl.homestead.com/files/Bust_Interview.doc, 2002. Hutcheon, Linda in O’Grady, Kathleen. Theorizing Feminism and Postmodernity: A conversation with Linda Hutcheon http://www.cddc.vt.edu/feminism/Hutcheon.html, 1998 Ko, Yu-Fen. Hello Kitty and Identity Politics in Taiwan. Hsih-Shin University, October 2000 http://www.international.ucla.edu/cira/paper/TW_Ko.pdf , Live Journal riot-grrls community http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=riot_grrls Myers, Holly. ‘Hello Kitty finally gets to talk back’. L.A. Times, Fri Oct 25 2002. Riot Grrrl London. Riot Grrrl: a manifesto. www.gurlpages.com/riotgirl.london. 2002. Sabotage. RGBham smartgroup. http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/rgbham. 2003. Sarcasticwhore. ‘What fucked version of hello kitty are you?’. Quizilla.com. http://quizilla.com/users/sarcasticwhore/quizzes/what%20fuck... ...ed%20version%20of%20hello%20kittie%20are%20you%3F/ Sweetman, Paul. ‘Marked Bodies, Oppositional Identities? Tatooing, Piercing and the Ambiguity of Resistance’.in Roseneil, S & Seymour, J (eds.) Practising Identities: Power and Resistance. London: Macmillan Press, 1999. Links http://busygrrrl.homestead.com/files/Bust_Interview.doc http://quizilla.com/users/sarcasticwhore/quizzes/what%20fucked%20version%20of%20hello%20kittie%20are%20you%3F/ http://www.cddc.vt.edu/feminism/Hutcheon.html http://www.directa.force9.co.uk/back%20issues/DA%2023/articles.htm http://www.gurlpages.com/riotgirl.london http://www.international.ucla.edu/cira/paper/TW_Ko.pdf http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=riot_grrls http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/rgbham Citation reference for this article Substitute your date of access for Dn Month Year etc... MLA Style Nicholas, Lucy. "“What fucked version of hello kitty are you?” " M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture< http://www.media-culture.org.au/0306/07-hellokitty.php>. APA Style Nicholas, L. (2003, Jun 19). “What fucked version of hello kitty are you?” . M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture, 6,< http://www.media-culture.org.au/0306/07-hellokitty.php>

Abstract This Chapter Presents the Harvard-FBI relation essentially as the FBI saw it —what activities at Harvard most concerned it; what parts of the university most attracted its attention; how it obtained information about the university, and from whom. How the FBI looked at Harvard and what it claimed to see there are important, but they are only part of the story. What was Harvard’s view of the relationship: who acted for Harvard; was the relationship a matter of policy or something into which the university drifted; who even knew about the relationship; was it the result of well-considered views of the kind of organization the FBI was, or was it derived from more general considerations of Cold War politics? The answers to these questions require access to a different set of documents —not in the FBI archives but in the records of the universities, their professors, and the other private organizations, like foundations, that were involved in the relationship with the FBI. .

American universities were unprepared for the explosion of student protests on their campuses in the mid-1960s. Consequently, trustees of many leading universities appointed their industrial relations professors—the National War Labor Board vets and their protégés—as their new presidents, chancellors, and top deans. Clark Kerr botched the job at the University of California at Berkeley, but the Labor Board vets were more successful elsewhere. They not only mediated conflicts on their campuses but designed conflict-resolution systems that remain in place at universities and colleges throughout the nation. Their systems drew on the models they created with unions and management in the 1940s. This chapter explains the development by focusing on Robben Fleming at the University of Michigan, John McConnell at the University of New Hampshire, and John Dunlop at Harvard University.

This chapter provides a historical and epistemological analysis of academic freedom as presented by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and supports its procedural guidelines but criticizes the way in which it associates reliable knowledge almost exclusively with scientifically based knowledge. It describes three types of universities: the closed circle, the marketplace of ideas, and the open circle, defending the last model as the most valuable for Catholic universities to embrace in the twenty-first century. It argues that even though the open circle model is the most difficult to sustain, it points the best way forward, academically and theologically.