Talk:Joel Klein

Criticisms Section Neutrality
While I personally agree with some of the criticisms, it reads very much like a brief from the UFT. It'd be interesting to have Klein's rationale alongside the criticisms, rather than a blanket statement reading something like "Klein instituted this program WHICH IS STUPID AND SERVES NO PURPOSE." Voxish (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

WTF
I cannot believe that the chancellor of eduction in NYC has a wikipedia page that doesn't say where he went to school. I would like to know if he went to the same overpriced, underperforming public schools he makes children suffer through. P.S. i would bet the farm that he went to private schools or elite public schools. Peppermintschnapps (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe he went to NYC public schools. Savidan 17:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As per WP:BLP
That criticisms section ain't coming back UNLESS someone rewords it in a WP:BLP friendly way. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I came here to add one criticism, from a recent Village Voice column. Looking at the history, I see that some of the prior "criticism" section was indeed POV, but some of it was perfectly acceptable.  In fact, the information that Klein's appointment required a waiver of the normal standards isn't even criticism.  The wholesale removal of the section was, in my opinion, an overreaction to its defects.  I won't respond by a wholesale re-insertion, but I'll look over the former text and see what's worth salvaging. JamesMLane t c 18:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Rashid Khalidi/Academic Freedom controversy controversy
My edit to the section heading on the Rashid Khalidi/Academic Freedom controversy was recently reverted with the edit summary "the controversy was not over rashid khalidi, but about putting caps on academic freedom." I readily admit I did not follow the story closely, but it seems to me that to phrase it an "academic freedom controversy" when the only actual issue was the fact that Mr Khalidi was fired is very much a POV statement. He did not overtly try to limit academic freedom, he was accused of it by critics because he fired one person, very likely due to his political beliefs. This absolutely raises questions related to academic freedom, but to say that the "controversy was not over rashid khalidi" seems to me to be false, or at least, totally unsupported by any of the citations. The sources I have found indicate that the controversy was about Mr Khalidi's firing and to title the section "academic freedom controversy" represents the POV of Mr Klein's detractors. A perfectly reasonable argument can be made that Mr Klein thought it inappropriate that someone with admittedly strong and public feelings be instructing teachers on how to teach this subject. That may or may not be the case but Mr. Klein claimed it. If you can produce some sources that indicate that Mr Khalidi was not at the center of the controversy (indeed as far as I can tell he is the only person affected) I would be more than happy to acquiesce. As I said, I did not follow the story closely. But until such sources are produced, to claim that the controversy was not about Khalidi and was purely about academic freedom, I believe represents the POV of Mr. Klein's critics to the detriment of the neutrality of the article. -- InspectorTiger (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Inspector, to refer to the firing as the "Rashid Khalidi controversy" is a POV statement itself. At the time of the event almost all the newspapers I read that day referred to the issue of academic freedom. That sub title is actually backed up by the passage, which quotes Columbia University's president and his reaction to the firing; which was undoubtedly about academic freedom. Furthermore your attempt of explaining the firing by saying that one can argue that Joel Klein felt that a respected scholar should not be teaching kids is POV to the power of infinity. Inspector if you do further research you will find out that Rashid Khalidis' only crime was being Palestinian and pro-Palestinian that's all. Moreover you should know that Khalidi, as the program's director said, did not make political comments during his teaching.George Al-Shami (talk) 02:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm perfectly happy to do more research. It would help if you provided your sources since we are apparently reading different ones.  Speaking of research, you indicate that Khalidi taught kids.  He did not. Ever.  He was instructing teachers.  Secondly, I know that my argument for Klein was POV, specifically Klein's POV.  That's why I didnt put it in the article.  I was showing that there are multiple points of view and the article should not favor one over the other.  I noticed, as you say, that "almost all" articles mentioned academic freedom.  That makes sense.  However, ALL the articles mention Khalidi.  It was Khalidi's firing and no other incident, that was the subject of controversy.  I am not saying that academic freedom concerns should not be mentioned in the section.  I left them in during my rewrite of the article because they are important. But to call the section "academic freedom controversy" is tantamount to saying that Mr. Klein did infringe academic freedom. Maybe he did, maybe not; that is the subject of dispute.  "Khalidi Controversy" is completely neutral.  The controversy was about Khalidi's firing.  No one can dispute that.  You can say it was about MORE than that and that's fine.  But what that "MORE" is is controversial and depends on POV.  Both sides should be represented in the section and the title should not favor one over the other.
 * If you can explain how the controversy was not about Khalidi or that any aspect of it did not have to do with Khalidi, ie other issues of academic freedom at the same time, then you would have a case. But you have not and based on the articles I have found, you won't be able to. -- InspectorTiger (talk) 03:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * When I mentioned "kids" I was referring to some of the 16 year olds who enter Columbia University; because some of the extreme Zionist commentators mentioned that Khalidi should also be fired from Columbia. I don't see how your title is more neutral; for some readers your title would implicitly imply that Khalidi was controversial rather than his firing.George Al-Shami (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * First, Joel Klein had nothing to do with any controversy at Columbia; he didn't even comment on it. So your feelings about extreme zionist commentators are irrelevant to this discussion, though i'm sure some comment can be made on Khalidi's page.  Second, Khalidi is controversial.  that's why he was fired.  A lot of people don't like him, a lot of people do; that's controversy.  But, how would you like "Rashid Khalidi firing controversy"  That removes any possible ambiguity and is incontrovertibly accurate and neutral. -- InspectorTiger (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't say anything about Klein having to do anything with Columbia; I was alluding to the fact that Klein shares the same views as the extremist Zionist commentators and that these views were responsible for Rashidi's firing; thereby making my comment more than relevant to the general topic. Stating that Khalidi "is" controversial is your unresearched POV, try readings his books besides reading what partisan editors wrote on his wikipedia page (admit, that you didn't know anything about khalidi until you stumbled upon this page, and then you try to pass off as an academic, however you base your views on what Zionist editors wrote on his Wikipedia entry and from partisan online news articles). Rashidi was fired because he believes US foreign policy should be more neutral with regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Any academic in America that provides a neutral point of view is quickly harassed by the Zionist lobby and its supporters. PBS recently interviewed Khalidi for a documentary on anti-semitism; if he is truly a controversial figure, then PBS -an American governmental association- would not have made him a part of the documentary. Yes, your alternative is more specific, neutral and unambiguous.George Al-Shami (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Changed. I am not an academic, nor do i try to pass myself off as one. My comments are based on respectable news outlets (also known on wikipedia as "sources"): NYT, NY Sun , Village Voice , Gotham Magazine  etc as well as advocacy groups (NYCLU (PDF), ACJ  etc) (please don't bother explaining why some of the sources are non-neutral, zionist-controlled, right-wing or whatever.  they, as a whole, represent prominent organizations from a broad range of political viewpoints). You are correct, I'm perfectly willing to admit it, I had never heard of Khalidi until i began rewriting this article. However, as my sources show, I did a lot of research on the topic and would have been more than happy to look at any sources you suggested--besides your own opinion--had you provided any. You obviously believe very strongly that Khalidi should not have been fired. I'm actually inclined to agree with you on that, but it's completely irrelevant. The question for WP is not "who was right in the controversy?" it's "what was the controversy about and who were the players." You can only win this kind of argument by providing facts and sources, not by complaining about "partisan news outlets," "extreme zionist views," and media harassment by the Zionist lobby. I'm not trying to change your mind or anyone else's; i'm not even saying I disagree with you. I'm trying to create an article that reflects the non-original research of trustworthy sources about a controversial topic in an NPOV way. -- InspectorTiger (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete Charity Section
This section does not make sense as it stands. The items cited are not charitable work on the part of Klein, but rather interaction he had with charities while doing his job as chancellor (i.e. work not charity). Also, it violates NPOV... In the absence of any section on criticisms, isolated statistics like the graduation rates from the Gates small schools are biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcuringa (talk • contribs) 18:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree. done.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Joel Klein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080215212242/http://schools.nyc.gov:80/Offices/mediarelations/ChancellorsBiography/Chancellors+Bio.htm to http://schools.nyc.gov/Offices/mediarelations/ChancellorsBiography/Chancellors+Bio.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joel Klein. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060101123913/http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/urban/education/features/14869/index.html to http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/urban/education/features/14869/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)