Talk:Cooper Union financial crisis and tuition protests

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Use of the word Crisis[edit]

I think "deficit" would be more accurate. "Crisis" implies that there is an irreversible action that has taken place or that people entered this situation not aware of the financial crunch. There is a preponderance of evidence (ie his behavior and actions) to suggest that Jamshed Bharucha was aware of the financial situation before assuming office. There is also certainty that many current and recent trustees have been aware of the financial situation since they began their terms.

In essence this would mean a crisis of leadership through a financial deficit Ferociouslettuce (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BMK has agreed up until very recently that the article, before User:jm3 made edits that "bmk" wants hidden, that the 3 paragraphs of current admin and a former trustee provide enough balance so I've deleted the section below. User:Beyond My Ken feels that the Attorney General's settlement of the lawsuit should not be included except (as described by url "diverseeducation" where "notnicemusic" has better coverage). Obviously I disagree. Welcoming opinions from Tapered, OR drohowa &Eflatmajor7th as well as other users is of course welcome. Is the deficit still a crisis? Acting President Bill Mea's POV should be added as well as Acting Provost Richard Stock and the newly promoted Chris Chamberlain. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the Attorney General Himself describes it as a "crisis" (link via Fusion (TV channel)), we should leave it as "crisis" 208.54.37.156 (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC) (Sockpuppet block evasion. BMK (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

Despite my intense dislike of most tags, I have place a "POV" tag on the article, because it does not present the totality of the issue. The point of view of the Cooper Union administration is hardly presented at all. I am also about to move the article to a move neutral title "Cooper Union financial crisis and tuition protests." Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of this article is the timeline, which has information on the financial crisis and surrounding protest. Can you explain why you think it doesn't come from both sides? The way I see it, the article presents administrative actions followed by protests/responses. There are lots of precedents for this type of article that I looked to when writing it. See: Protests against SOPA and PIPA, 2011 Northern Ireland riots lots of other examples of articles about protests, sit-ins, riots. OR drohowa (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not necessarily run on precedent. A group of editors for one given article may agree on things which are entirely different than what a group of editors for a different article agree on, but both articles could be within WP policy. As a first step, I would say that all of the citation needed tags should be filled in soon with citations or amended to be uncontroversial, otherwise they will be deleted. Also in general, citations should be secondary sources whenever possible. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 06:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you found any of the facts, and/or events in the article to be misreported or unsupported by the citations? I concur with your edits to change the tone of the article. What I notice most though, is that since you posted the POV notice and removed the advocacy language from certain sections of the article, neither you nor anyone else has added any statements by or new facts about the administration. The key to the article is the NYTimes piece. If the administration of CU hasn't addressed those assertions or made any statements about what they're doing to restore the original vision of the Cooper family, the the POV notice should come down pronto. You and others can still monitor the article and weed out advocacy language. Tapered (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, please state for the record what part of the current article is POV. If you can't, please take down the notice.Tapered (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could start by replacing all the "citation needed" tags with actual sources, as was suggested earlier. If the statements cannot be supported by actual sources, then they should be tempered or deleted.
  • The second paragraph of the lede starts with "It has been reported that" ... this is basically akin to saying "some people think..." I would suggest either cleaning up the language and claims to only state documented facts, or just move all that stuff somewhere else in the article. Nothing speculative should be contained in the lede; remember this is an encyclopedia, and for subject matter like this recentism is always an issue.
  • This is not so much an issue about POV, but the quality of the article needs to be generally improved for legitimacy. I'm talking about simple things: The verb tenses of each timeline entry should clearly be the same. If you're telling the story in the present tense, make all the entries in the present tense. If past tense, then make them past tense. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 07:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a pass through the article, which seems now to at least present the facts of what occurred in a fairly NPOV way, although the views of the CU administration are still somewhat under-reported. I've removed the neutrality tag from the article, but have no objection if another editor disagrees with my assessment and want to restore it. BMK (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When User:Ferociouslettuce added quotes from Epstein, Lincer and Harmon, there was no longer an argument to be made that this was slanted because it primarily describes the point of view of protesters. The tags for not neutral should be added, however, because trustee since 1975 and chairman/"chairman emeritus" since 1995 Robert Bernhard's name is not mentioned once in this article. Without mentioning Robert Bernhard, this article is incomplete. 208.54.37.156 (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It should be mentioned that NYS AG's office Legal Requirement for the FEC (free education committee) to "present progress reports detailing its activities and interim recommendations on January 15, 2016" (consent decree VII.A.2 ) 2607:FB90:240B:6248:AEA1:877A:A4F4:6D61 (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The $50M bridge loan that was taken out for shortterm + $18M+/yr net income increase from Tishman Speyer in 2018 should be mentioned as it provides some validity to protesters who say that tuition is not financially necessary. 2607:FB90:240B:6248:AEA1:877A:A4F4:6D61 (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Richard Lincer & Robert Bernhard are required to vacate their positions before the end of the year (per Consent Decree IV.A.1) 2607:FB90:240B:6248:AEA1:877A:A4F4:6D61 (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should we be citing a Wikipedia diff as a reference that Cooper Union edited their own Wikipedia article?[edit]

The following was recently added to this article:

* '''October:''' The [[Cooper Union]] administration deletes mentions of the full-scholarship or history of free education from the schools website and public sites such as Wikipedia.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cooper_Union&diff=459532640&oldid=459473142 |title=Nov. 7, 2011: Cooper Union: Difference between revisions |publisher=''http://en.wikipedia.org'' |date= |accessdate=2013-11-22}}</ref> There was a brief back and forth as they put it back up when people noticed. The school's motto for over a century, "education ought to be as free as air and water" was dropped completely with no announcement.

Upon investigating it, the IP is indeed registered to Cooper Union, with hostname (Redacted). Though the claim seems to be perfectly truthful in light of this, I nevertheless feel that including it in the article only referenced to a diff is a violation of WP:OR, and if it is a notable concern, a secondary source will eventually confirm it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the sentence as I have re-written it. It no longer says that the changes to Wikipedia were made by CU administration, simply that they were made. I think this is more precise and takes it out of the realm of WP:OR because no conclusion is being made about who was behind that IP - however, I'm also aware that the juxtaposition of the two sentences, one which says that CU admin removed stuff from the school's website, and another that says that someone removed stuff from the Wikipedia article, may be seen as deliberately leading the reader to a certain conclusion. In light of this, I certainly would have no objection if the consensus here was to remove the ref as being potentially misleading. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
there should not be a diff. Beyond My Ken, you have done enough editing of this article. You're saying the Attorney General's Settlement with the Committee to Save Cooper Union is irrelevant. You're deleting everything I write. Please stop. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me? I added the section about the settlement, here -- straightforward, factual, no spin, none of your POV B.S. Just the facts, m'am. BTW, don't threaten me, I'm not a newbie, I'll edit this article when and where I want, and will continue to keep POV editing out of it, no matter who it comes from.
Now, did you answer my question? Are you a member of any of the various protesting organizations? Do you have a conflict of interest in regard to this issue? If so, you have shown yourself to be incapable of editing in a neutral manner, and you should no longer edit the article direct. Of you are a member, or have any other COI -- such as being a student at Cooper Union, or a faculty member involved in the protest -- you should follow the instructions on WP:COI and make suggestions for changes here on the talk page, which other uninvolved editors can implement, or not, if they see them as being neutral, factual and beneficial to the article. BMK (talk) 02:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You were never threatened User:Beyond My Ken. You were, however, warned that disruptive editing and engaging in an edit war against multiple users can lead to you (+ your admin friend(s) if they intervene without informing themselves) getting banned. Deleting the warning from your talk page only makes you look worse. You definitely should stop editing this to slant in favor of Robert Bernhard. 208.54.37.156 (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Neutral point of view[edit]

Wikipedia policy call for all articles to be written in a neutral point of view. I have removed new material which I believe violates this policy, and I call on the editor to explain why they think their edits are neutral. User:Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article was neutral. You, however, have been deleting relevant points such as "Meanwhile, the Committee to Save Cooper Union and the office of the New York Attorney General (OAG) began building a lawsuit against the board of trustees, launching what it called “an exhaustive investigation into the many missteps on the part of the Board of Trustees, as well as Presidents George Campbell and Jamshed Bharucha and others, over the course of the last 10 years.” The OAG stated that its account included “many of the risky schemes, misrepresentations, and poor governance practices that created the current crisis.. In the fall of 2015, the Attorney General's office and the Committee to Save Cooper Union announced that the proposed lawsuit had been settled, and that the OAG would be filing a consent decree signed by the board, along with a cy pres petition with provisions for returning the school to a sustainable, tuition-free policy, increasing board transparency, adding additional student and alumni trustees, independent financial monitoring, and a search committee to identify the next full-term president. While this did not have an immediate effect on tuition policies, the signed decree and petition signaled a de facto victory for the case of the students and faculty who advocated for a continuation of the school’s original tuition-free policy." I have posted an explicit warning to your talkpage User:Beyond My Ken. If you continue deleting relevant points from this article and editing to include tired and untrue narratives, you will be banned. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are a Single Purpose Account (SPA) with a very specific point of view (POV) regarding the Cooper Union matter./ All of your edit shave been to promote this point of vbiew, and this will not be allowed. As long as you continue to post non-neutral biased material, it will be removed from the article. Your warning to me is complete bullshitr, and it has been ignored, as I dno not accept warnmings from POB-pushing SPAs like yourself. BMK (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All the pertinent facts are in the article, they're just not in there with the slant you want to put on them. BMK (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Bernhard's name and William Mea's plan for downsizing (per AG's Office), do not appear in this article. The article is slanted very far in your direction User:Beyond My Ken. User:ianmacm & User:InedibleHulk can either of you add your input? I definitely think the article is not neutral until Robert Bernhard, the trustee who has been in charge for the longest, is mentioned by name 208.54.37.156 (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC) (Block edavding sock)[reply]
Sorry, no. This subject matter is far too alien and boring to me. I could't understand the problem, let alone the nuances of it. So my opinions would be pretty worthless. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why I was mentioned over this. The article is not on my watchlist and I am not familiar with any of the issues involved.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aritlce Protection[edit]

Attn: User:NeilN, I woud appreciate if you could explain here why you protected the page. Thanks, Hexatekin (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hexatekin: An editor noticed an edit war happening here and requested protection at WP:RFPP. I agreed with their assessment and protected the article. --NeilN talk to me 13:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was requested protection for article, one can see there was a slow edit war since 2nd September in addition to aggressive attitude of involved editors.--Demon3015TALK  15:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point by point rebuttal concerning reverted edits[edit]

1. He claims that Cooper Union charged tuition "after being a tuition-free school for most of its history", when in fact "free" was always a critical component of the school and tuition was not the norm until 2014 (and was definitively never once levied before 1902). How is this "tuition free for most of it's history" considering "free as air and water" was Peter Cooper's mantra? Also how is it that the resignation of Bharucha, the man who levied tuition, not be mentioned in the opening?

2. Nancy Bannon, the judge overseeing the CSCU case, signed off on the consent decree. Not mentioning this is an ommission of an important detail, especially with regard to the AG's office not installing a financial monitor until she signed off on this deal.

3. Johnny C. Taylor, Jr. went to the press on January 8. While incorporating his ongoing roll in the crisis is important as he is the driving force behind attempting to jam a new president in a tuition charging regime, where and how he be mentioned (possibly in CU Admin Views as this contains primarily the views of former trustees) is open to interpretation.

4. Not critical, but upon Mark Epstein's departure, his note stressed quite clearly that he was permanently stepping away from Cooper Union when he departed.

5. Absolutely critical, "According to consent decree IV.A.1, Lincer & former chairman Robert Bernhard shall have their terms expire as of December 7, 2016." This could not be stated more plainly in the consent decree. I strongly believe that User:Beyond My Ken has not actually read the consent decree and is therefore not qualified to edit this article.

6. Syntax in CSCU section. Lazy editing to delete the changes to this section.

I have hit undo on the bulk deletions of "Beyond My Ken". This user ought speak here to explain his or her logic as this user has, apparently, been warned numerous times for biased editing on this article, and it is evident that they are not familiar with important provisions of the consent decree. 2607:FB90:5422:272F:711D:6A37:B8E1:6355 (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the deal: go read WP:BRD. Your bold edits have been reverted, and therefore need to be discussed. You do not put them back into the article until there is a consensus among editors to do so. (I have reverted back to the status quo ante.) You do not attack other editors, as you did in the title to this section (which I've changed, since since titles are not allowed). You do not ascribe to other editors opinions which they have not stated, and, finally, you do not edit Wikipedia anywhere at any time if you have been indefinitely blocked or banned from editing, as some editors have been as a result of their disruptive and tendentious editing of this article. BMK (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In point of fact, the vast majority of the edits this editor wishes to put into the article violate WP:NPOV. The only edit whichis justifiable as being unbiased and neutral is the stuff about the consent decree, which I will restore - but the stuff about tems ending can't go into the "Administration Views" section because it has nothing to do with that. BMK (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, BTW, the notion that I am a "SPA" editor is ludicrous. A "Single Purpose Account" edits in order to push a specific point of view on a specific subject. A SPA does not edit for 10 1/2 years and have over 180,000 edits to more than 33,000 pages - unless, of course, you want to define "improving the encyclopedia" as a "single purpose". But that's been par for the course for the editors of this article - anyone who does not agree with their vehement anti-Cooper-Union-administration POV is automatically "biased" and painted as pro-administration. There appears to be no room in their world view for balance and neutrality. BMK (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)'[reply]
quantity of edits doesn't mean shit. Did you read the consent decree currently Legally Binding Chairman Richard Lincer to Vacate his Position? 2607:FB90:2490:CA3C:8F60:FC6E:953F:488D (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you'll understand that I disagree with your opinion, but whether or not quantity of edits means anything or not WP:NPOV is a Wikipedia policy, and no editor, no matter how many edits they have, is allowed to violate it. With the exception of the purely factual information about the consent decree, which I have restored to the article already, the remainder of your edits are all in violation of various Wikipedia policies, including WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Also, in general, as a single purpose editor (SPA), you yourself may well be in violation of our policy on editing with a conflict of interest if you have any personal or professional connection to the various organizations which have been fighting Cooper Union over the tuition issue.
(And, of course, you will now claim that I have a COI, but as I have explained before, and will do again if necessary, my interest in Cooper Union stems entirely from having taken some photographs of their buildings for Commons. I am not employed by, contracted to, or in any way associated with Cooper Union or any person or institution connected with it. Actually ... I did have a classmate from high school who attended CU in the early 1970s and got his college education there, but I haven't seen Artie since I ran into him on a commuter train in 1976 and we worked together for a year or so. Unfortunately for you, that is not a basis for a COI complaint, although you could always float a trial balloon and see which way the wind is blowing.)
So, once again, your opinions, your analyses, and your interpretations (or anyone else's, for that matter) will not be allowed into this article. BMK (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

revert details?[edit]

Dear Beyond My Ken,

Please provide specifics on the revert of Hayesfairmont's edit. The article has been hugely one-sided ever since its creation. There is now a large body of documents available that shed light on the complexity of the matter. Please let's tackle the edits one by one. Readers deserve to have access to sources other than those previously provided.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayesfairmont (talk • contribs) 17:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been balanced since it was created, and only appears "one-sided" to those attempting to push a particular point of view about the CU crisis - which they have repeatedly tried to do. That's not going to happen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to discuss two specific points here, please. First: consider the following sentences up in the first paragraph:

"The possible mismanagement of the school's finances and the subsequent reactions of students, faculty, alumni and organized protest groups attracted widespread media attention. Activist groups staged a series of occupations and protests demanding the resignation of the school president, Jamshed Bharucha, promoting a vote of no confidence in Bharucha‍—‌who resigned in 2015‍"

There is a strong - and false - implication that the financial problems were due to mismanagement by president Bharucha, and that he resigned for that reason. But the poor investments and the new building cited in subsequent sentences occurred BEFORE Bharucha's arrival. He was the one who raised the alarm.

Second: An analysis of published audited financial statements (https://cooper.edu/about/finance-and-administration/financial-statements) shows that the institution was in deep trouble long before 2009. The 2009 investments and the new building amplified an already unsustainable situation, but were not the original causes. The operating deficits in years prior to taking out the building loan were as follows: $8 million in 2008, 10.7 million in 2007, $10.8 million in 2006, $7.9 million in 2005, $8 million in 2004, $11.9 million in 2003, $62,000 in 2002, $11.1 million in 2001, and $5 million in 2000. The accumulated deficits depleted the unrestricted net assets to just $22.6 million in 2002, barely enough to sustain deficits for more than another couple of years before becoming insolvent. The auditory financial statements show how the institution responded to the crisis in 2002. It sold a building that year, and then sold land in 2004. Unrestricted net assets were subsequently replenished by the MetLife loan, which was then drawn down both for the new building as well as to cover continuing deficits. By the time president Bharucha got to Cooper in 2011, only three years of unrestricted net assets remained.

The article as currently written does not contain a rigorous financial analysis based on audited financial statements, and draws inaccurate conclusions.

Thank you. Hayesfairmont (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cooper Union financial crisis and tuition protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article is worthless, in its present state[edit]

After reading the article, I knew less than I had before. There’s nothing wrong with a timeline, as long as it is information-rich, and accompanied by an overview. This article once had an overview, but it was censored by an individual calling himself, <a href=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beyond_My_Ken>User: Beyond My Ken</a>.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cooper_Union_financial_crisis_and_tuition_protests&oldid=806300015(And other diffs, as well.)

The article’s second sentence states, “The possible mismanagement of the school's finances and the subsequent reactions of students, faculty, alumni and organized protest groups attracted widespread media attention.” However, the article provides no evidence supporting what turns out to be a vicious innuendo. The sentence had read,

“This financial dispute and the ensuing reactions of students, faculty, alumni and protest organizations attracted widespread media attention.”

It was <a href=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beyond_My_Ken>User: Beyond My Ken</a>, who replaced the good sentence with the innuendo:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cooper_Union_financial_crisis_and_tuition_protests&diff=prev&oldid=700035998

“The selling off of the institution's assets,” is listed one of the causes of the CU’s financial crisis. This was surely a reversal of cause and effect. The CU administration would have sold off assets, as a short-term fix for fiscal gaps.

That the demands of one group for the continuation of a tuition-free campus, and for the resignation of anyone standing in its way are trumpeted, while little material provides the opposing side, leaves no doubt, as to which side is controlling this article.

And that the controlling group seems simply to have demanded the continuation of free tuition, while apparently making no proposals for raising revenues or limiting costs, tells me, between the lines, what has been going on at CU, and at WP.

However, an encyclopedia article which requires that readers go through old diffs, talk page edit war notes, and read between the lines, is no encyclopedia article at all.

I have no connection to CU. 2604:2000:9046:800:9494:E67:6B84:C095 (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. You're the same editor who tried their best to skew this article to be an anti-CU tract, which I was able to prevent. I will do so again if you try it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cooper_Union_financial_crisis_and_tuition_protests&oldid=1201132578"