BY CASSANDRA J. CARLSON

Cal Poly President Warren Baker emailed the student body, Wednesday, claiming he in no way violated academic freedom and stressed that he had no knowledge of a talk given by food author Michael Pollan switching to a forum setting. For transparency, Baker’s full e-mail is found in this blog post with Baker’s inaccuracies cited:

To the Cal Poly Community:

I am writing to respond to questions I have received from a number of students, faculty and staff regarding Berkeley journalism professor Michael Pollan’s participation in a panel discussion on sustainable agriculture, held in connection with a major fundraising effort for Cal Poly’s Sustainable Agriculture Resource Consortium (SARC).

Let me apologize in advance for such a lengthy note, but I do want you to have as full a picture of all that transpired.

The questions have centered on how the panel format was developed. Unfortunately, a group of people anonymously printed a false program accusing me of censorship. The facts are quite different. I did not in any way suggest that Mr. Pollan should be limited in his remarks or that he appear only on a panel.

The people Baker refers to are an organized group of students, faculty, alumni and community members who passed out 1,000 programs to audience members who were entering the PAC in a YES-MEN style of activism. The cover of the program looks legitimate, but inside the the group points out the violations of academic freedom according to academic resolutions made last fall. Part of the Academic Senate Resolution AS-693-09, signed by Baker on July, 22, 2009 noted on line 36:

WHEREAS, In recent years, there have been attempts to quell discussion of contentious issues
under the guise of a need for a “balanced” approach to controversial issues…(line 36-37)

This is significant in Baker’s dismissal of his censorship of Pollan. But let’s get back to the rest of the letter where Baker states that he in no way changed the format of the Pollan talk:

Mr. Pollan was graciously received on campus, as we would do for any guest. I personally sat with him at the fundraising dinner, and I hosted him and other guests for lunch following the Harmon Hall panel. We enjoyed a wide-ranging conversation on both occasions. At no time did he express to me that he felt pressured or censored by anyone.

The formats for the fundraising dinner and the event in Harmon Hall were determined through ongoing consultation between the event organizers and Mr. Pollan’s agent. Before we heard from any alumni and donors expressing concern about Mr. Pollan’s appearance, the organizers had considered having a panel of experts at some point following his talk on Oct. 15. Not a bad idea.

It’s true that a donor wrote and threatened to withhold his contribution. Other alumni and supporters also wrote and suggested that we provide opportunities for additional points of view to be presented on the day of Mr. Pollan’s talk. Also not a bad idea.

Because of my travel schedule, I was unaware until the morning of Mr. Pollan’s appearance in Harmon Hall that he would not be lecturing. I had understood that he would deliver a lecture and that a panel discussion would follow.

It is hard to believe that Baker had nothing to do with the format change. Moreover, Baker sat with Pollan the night prior to the forum and had no idea Pollan would be involved in the format? The big issue here is accountability and responsibility. Baker had the contact with Harris Ranch and is one of the biggest fundraisers for the university. This was a vital issue to the university of losing funding and prized alumni. Academic freedom did not take precedence in this case.

Then there is Baker’s statements on Pollan’s decision to speak on the panel:

As it happened, when organizers discussed with Mr. Pollan’s agent the idea of a panel discussion following his lecture, Mr. Pollan chose to be part of the panel discussion rather than give a separate talk. Let me be explicit about this: Neither I nor anyone at Cal Poly exerted pressure on him to abandon his invited talk for a panel format.

Anyone who heard Mr. Pollan speak at either the fundraising dinner or heard him in Harmon Hall could not reasonably suggest he was censored.

Baker: Pollan did have a problem with Cal Poly’s handling of the event. Before the panel discussion began, Pollan stated his opinion on the change of format, “I would be remissed if i didn’t address the circumstances of this event.” Pollan emphasizes the risky behavior on the behalf of the university and academic freedom, here’s the proof (00:35):

Baker still seems confused on Pollan’s stance toward the universities actions as well as what his signature means on the recently signed resolution for academic freedom.

As I wrote recently in The San Luis Obispo Tribune, alumni – or for that matter any special interest groups including donors – do not dictate classroom content nor do they dictate who will come to this campus and who won’t.

Alumni and other supporters of all means do help shape the university in many ways, some visible, and some invisible. The obvious ways can be seen in the many campus facilities bearing the names of some of our most ardent alumni and friends. We’re also fortunate that we have many alumni who have quietly, behind the scenes, helped Cal Poly secure federal and state grants and corporate contracts for research and other projects, not to forget the many alumni and friends of the university who advise us on curriculum, hire our graduates, mentor our students and generally support Cal Poly students and faculty.

Several donors have indicated that they might not honor their contribution pledges as a result of Mr. Pollan’s visit. I hope they will reconsider. The students – the future leaders of California’s agriculture industries – need their support. However, as I said to one donor, it’s his prerogative to contribute as he sees fit, and while an unfilled pledge may slow us down, Cal Poly will forge ahead nonetheless.

At the same time, I would hope all of our alumni and friends understand that it is Cal Poly’s mission to educate, and that means exposing our students to controversial points of view so that they can weigh their own views and reach their own decisions. That is the essence of academic freedom, a core value I’ve dedicated my professional life to defending and upholding.

I know some may disagree with the approach taken in this matter, but I want to emphasize how much I value and appreciate the campus community’s strong commitment to the principles of free speech and academic freedom.

Warren J. Baker, President
Cal Poly

Those in opposition in “the approach was taken in this matter” are also befuddled with how a university president has no knowledge of what arrangements or rearrangements there are in controversial speakers on campus. With as much contact he had with Harris Ranch and furious alumni, he should be in the know to what format changes are forced in order to quell intellectual discussion.

On October 27th, 3-5 p.m. in UU 220 (for more information see Dr. Jane Lehr’s comment below) the Cal Poly Academic Senate will meet and discuss one of the agenda items: “Academic Freedom and Michael Pollan.” It is unclear what the actions the senate will take in holding Baker accountable.

Questions about academic freedom should be posed along with a push for campus-wide sustainability. If asked together, Cal Poly and President Baker will have to answer the big question:

In order to provide a “balanced” forum for big industry, did the university knowingly disrupt a sustainability event and therefore challenge a right to academic freedom?

Politics and questions aside, there is something simple Pollan said at the event that should resonate to all captured within the heated topics provoked by this event:

I think this movement should regarded as an opportunity and not a threat.

In taking Pollan’s advice, the university, the sustainability committee and Baker could educate and provide collaboration and innovation for alternative opportunities for sustainable practices while ignoring threats to disrupt academic liberties. Also, not a bad idea.

BY CASSANDRA J. CARLSON

By Lee, Russell. Library of Congress. Creative Commons license, Flickr.

An invitation for food politics writer Michael Pollan, the author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma, to speak at Cal Poly resulted in controversy after Cal Poly President Baker received a letter from Harris Ranch Beef Company Chairman, David E. Wood, demanding that Pollan’s views be challenged in a public setting (“Controversy erupts over Michael Pollan’s Poly lecture,” Oct. 8 New Times). Predictably, the university knuckled to the wishes of beef big industry and Pollan will not be giving his speech solo on Thursday, Oct. 15 as originally scheduled but in a panel.

The campus in the past invited such speakers as porn star Ron Jeremy, and anti-Islam film director Greg Davis, whose solo speech promoted a “nationwide Islamo-fascism Awareness Week.” Pollan is neither a porn star nor a racist fundamentalist. His message is simple: he wants to change the way people consider food. He advocates buying local food, especially organic food. So why does the beef industry have such a big problem with him? He’s convincing people that grass-fed cattle are better than corn-fed cattle and maybe that skipping a juicy burger every day is healthy for our metabolism and for the earth. Though he addresses many issues, ultimately he interconnects food with politics (the Farm Bill, for example), the environment, and general public health.

This scares Pollan’s critics: His writings may cause people to change buying and eating patterns. In September, he faced similar opposition at the University of Wisconsin-Madison by a group of dairy processors who said in a statement: “The University of Wisconsin is a world renowned center for teaching and research in agriculture … however, the choice of this book, the unintended endorsement of Pollan and these views simply cannot go unanswered.”

The Sustainable Agriculture Resource Consortium (SARC), which invited Pollan to speak, is controlled by the College of Agriculture and Dean David Wehner. In an e-mail sent to agricultural students following the letter to Baker from Harris Ranch Beef Company—the letter that threatened to withdraw a proposed $500,000 donation for a new campus slaughterhouse if Pollan were to speak unopposed—Wehner wrote that the college does not support Pollan’s views nor does it “…. endorse any speaker’s opinion, rather we provide a marketplace for free expression and opportunities for civil dialogue.” Wehner described the panel format as an opportunity to discuss “sustainability in agriculture and the challenges and issues California agriculture professionals are currently facing in the industry,” but in reality the only reason Pollan’s address was rearranged as a panel discussion is Harris Ranch Beef Company breathed down Cal Poly’s neck. What does this say about the university, which recently won a B+ average for sustainability efforts by the College of Sustainability 2010 report card?

Dependence on such funding as that of Harris Ranch Beef Company deters training in sustainable practices, in favor of teaching antiquated industrial agriculture methods. Animal Science Department professor Rob Rutherford used the word sustainability and Harris Ranch Beef Company called for his firing.

It sets a precedent that to achieve what you want students to be learning and faculty to be thinking and teaching, all you need is a half million dollars to contribute. The hypocrisy of the administration is hard to swallow since the administration received an “A” for their “sustainability efforts” on the same sustainability report card. It’s even harder to accept that they are not advocating for sustainability but are caving to industry demands that oppose sustainable practices.

Moreover, Baker refused to refused to sign the American College & University Presidents’ Climate Commitment plan, even though Cal Poly signed the Talloires Declaration in 2004 that calls for administrators to foster environmental sustainability in higher education. It’s clear the administration does not prioritize sustainability. One of the action items demands university heads to “Use every opportunity to … [continue] publicly addressing the urgent need to move toward an environmentally sustainable future.” President Baker is failing the declaration, undermining sustainability by taking outside money with strings attached. There should be no price tag to quiet the sustainability movement.

Despite the new format, this debate still will provide an opportunity to create a new political climate on campus focused on sustainability issues while challenging a failing administration that resists positive change. This is the time for students, faculty, and the community to raise their voices against genetic modification of organisms (GMO), against RBST hormones, against feeding cows corn, against the fossil fuel industry, and for organic local foods. By supporting sustainability measures and such groups as SARC and the Empower Poly Coalition, Cal Poly can prosper as a more sustainable campus. This is the time to support SARC’s efforts to be the hub of sustainability on campus and rally for its withdrawal from the College of Agriculture, which has revealed its ethical conflicts. ∆

Cassandra J. Carlson is a 2009 Cal Poly journalism alumna and former student editor of the Mustang Daily newspaper. She resides in American Canyon in the Bay Area.

Written by Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and energy and environment subcommittee chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.), restrictions on pollution would enforce more companies to think and invest in renewable energy alternatives. Many claim the bill is based largely on a cap-and-trade scheme.

This legislation was a discussed at California Student Sustainability Coalition’s (CSSC) spring convergence as students from across the state gathered from April 25-28 to talk about sustainability and climate change issues.

Jessy Tolkan, executive director of Energy Action Coalition, spoke about the legislation in which she calls, “The most significant private legislation” and “the most powerful pollution force”.

The 27-year-old and newly crowned 2009 top agent of change by Rolling Stone, spoke at the convergence introduction and sat on a climate and energy panel, Powershift: CA to Copenhagen. Over a 50 students listened to Tolkan as she talked about an energy the youth have provided to politics in the Obama era and stated that the opposition “is counting on us to disengage”.

Tolkan spoke about renewable energy challenges and stressed the need for environmental activism and politics. She called Rep. Edward Markey “the biggest champion” for his work to push a new global warming bill.

“Congress needs to realize that this is not just another issue,” said Tolkan, stressing the importance of the bill.

Right now, legislators are discussing a 648-page draft to figure out plans on the bill while other legislators are wanting to turn to health care discussions before the Congressional Memorial Day break. As Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) pledges to rewrite the draft, President Obama weighs in to push the momentum of the bill.

But whatever gets rewritten, Tolkan said there is one part of the legislation that is crucial and essential.

“Renewable energy standards are under massive attack and many think they are impossible to get into the bill,” Tolkan said. “That’s complete crap, keeping renewable energy standards in the bill is critical.”

Tolkan emphasized that passing the legislation is key for the United States to have before International Climate Action Day this upcoming October and United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December. The United States may go to the U.N. Climate Talks empty-handed if the energy legislation does not pass the subcommittee.

San Simeon coastline, nominated for oil drilling in California

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the state of California is suing the Bush administration in order to stop their intention of reducing input from federal scientists.

The rule changes would allow for less oversight of new developments being built in close proximity to vital ecosystems and would ignore citing the effects of greenhouse gas emissions to those ecosystems on federal land.

California ranks No. 2, behind Hawaii, for its 310 plant and animal species listed as endangered or threatened species.

With California coasts open for drilling, residents could also see its offshore ecosystems at risk. The 1981 protection of United States coastlines from California to the Pacific Northwest to the Atlantic Coast and the Straits of Florida ended this year when Congress removed the ban.

Mapping the coastline based on in the 70s’ and 80s’ government reports are areas that have high interest of the oil industry. These areas make up a large part of the popular California beaches where tourism is the main source of revenue.

It is up to the President-elect Barack Obama and his administration to allow or disallow both the offshore drilling and changes to the protections of endangered species on federal land.

Obama has already said that he will reverse the possible rule changes made by the Bush Administration but if the blockade that California hopes to set against the changes holds, Obama will have time to look over the changes instead of going through the red tape if it does succeed.

The SF Chronicle ends their article with one insightful tidbit: Since President George W. Bush took office in 2001, 58 species have been added to the endangered species list, compared with 522 during the eight years of President Bill Clinton’s administration.

Phillips violated the Clean Water Act and was convicted in 2002

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has a fugitive list for those who have allegedly committed offenses such as conspiracy, polluting U.S. waters with oil or other hazardous materials and illegal transport of hazardous materials aboard a commercial aircraft.

Most of the named offenders are supposedly living outside the U.S. and people who may know or see the suspects are urged not to apprehend them.

Only two of the suspected fugitives on the list were apprehended in 2008.

Convicted on violations of the Clean Water Act in Montana, David Allen Phillips faces charges in both U.S. District Court of Oregon and Montana.

Last March, Phillips was taken into custody by the Mexican Law Enforcement, U.S. Marshall’s office along with U.S. EPA’s criminal investigations division (CID).

Phillips violations began when his property development was sited for the detrimental impacts to wetland areas known as Fred Burr Creek in Phillipsburg.

America at standstill while awaiting Obama's VP pick.

It’s the night before the official announcement of Obama’s running mate for the November 2008 Presidential race, yet America is still at a standstill when it comes to knowing who Obama has picked.

The presumption was that the campaign would disclose the information mid-week. But, as my anticipation wore as I waited all yesterday and today for the details, I finally found out that tomorrow morning Obama’s follower’s will be sent a text message detailing the hand-picked candidate.

Could there be any more hype surrounding the candidate’s pick? Why wait until Saturday, the slowest news day of the week? It could be that the campaign wants to fuel the fire to Obama’s campaign, therefore keeping everyone on edge as they project the potential candidates. It also creates more media attention for the Senator.

The proclaimed “Veepstakes” is on every prime time the network news channel with the skeptics and pundits talking about the possible candidates while CNN confirms that Sen. Evan Bayh and Gov. of Virginia, Tim Kaine, will not be chosen.

Respected journalists are essentially the new paparazzi of today as they stake out the potential choices outside their homes. The cable news shows look as if they are selling real estate as the homes and whereabouts of the contenders are being streamed 24/7 to viewers.

Sen. Joe Biden is receiving the brunt of the media’s attention and skepticism. Sen. Hillary Clinton has already been ruled out as a top candidate for Obama’s No. 2.

But, there are really no other women who are shining as a potential mate. One would think that Obama’s fresh, uniting perspective balanced out with a female perspective (that could satisfy the hilliary-ites) would set the Democrats apart from the ‘old white guy’.

The test of candidacy and of the idealistic portrayal of ‘change’ will be set on the highest stage this upcoming week as the National Democratic Convention kicks off in Denver.