UMass Lowell: Age Discrimination is Wrong

I wanted to share with you an important and difficult announcement. My mother, Prof. Mitra Das, started teaching at the University of Massachusetts Lowell in 1972 and became a tenured member of the faculty in 1979. She has nurtured the University's mission to educate its students and promoted its best interests during her more than forty-two years of service. Over the past several weeks, she made the difficult decision to sue the University for age discrimination. I cannot be more proud of her.

I did not initially believe that the institution that mom has spent the bulk of her adult life and professional career -- and a place I used to wander with amazement as a child -- had grown hostile to older faculty. Alas, after observing the legal process, which has included interviews with nearly a dozen faculty members at Lowell and analyzing the huge evidentiary trail, it now appears clear that there is a war being waged against older faculty members by the administration, and particularly by Dean Luis Falcon and Provost Ahmed Abdelal.

At an age when many of her peers have given in to the hostile work environment being created at Lowell and have retired under duress, I am so darn proud that my mother -- my intellectual and spiritual role model, has not. Universities are made stronger when they embrace both the innovation of youth and the wisdom of experience, and I feel more alive today because mom is standing up for those principles. Good luck, mother, on your fight. I know you will prevail, and we will all be better as a society for your efforts. You have always taught me to stand by my core principles. I love you for doing just that.

Prof. Mitra Das at the beginning of her teaching career at Lowell State College
(now the University of Massachusetts Lowell) in 1972

 

 

Prof. Mitra Das in her last few months as Chairperson of the Department of Sociology
at University of Massachusetts Lowell. She has served as Chairperson of the Department
of Sociology over three different periods, the first from 1987 – 1993, the second in 2004,
and most recently from 2011 - 2014, under the leadership of five different deans

The Consul and the Crime

I have refrained from making comments on the matter of Devyani Kohbragade, the Indian diplomat arrested in New York, because it seemed to be a diplomatic fracas of little long term import. On the one hand, you have Preet Bharara, the Indian born American US attorney for New York taking aim at the alleged illegalities of an Indian diplomat stationed within his jurisdiction. On the other, you have two countries awkwardly addressing an issue that should have been dealt with very differently.

I continue to be confused by why partial diplomatic immunity did not trigger a more gentle approach to Ms. Kohbragade and her arrest. At the same time, I am bewildered by both the decision by India's foreign service not to remove Ms. Khobragade from the US upon receiving notification that she was under criminal investigation (in September 2013) and its most recent decision to relocate her to India's UN Mission, also in New York. Ms. Kohbragade is no stranger to controversy, having been involved in the Adarsh Housing Society, a corruption riddled housing development in Mumbai. In this instance, she attempted to do something her limited diplomatic immunity did not allow her to do, namely commit visa fraud and violate US federal labor laws. While another American prosecutor may have been more deferential to Ms. Kohbragade's limited immunity, the rather aggressive Preet Bharara was not.

While US Attorney Bharara's posture smacks of a poor understanding of international relations (or blatant disregard thereof), India's childish removal of security barriers from the US Embassy in Delhi as retaliation does not even remotely befit the august role a country's official position must fill. India and Indians have far more important matters to address than this potential diplomatic misstep. At very least, Ms. Kohbragade's conduct -- and the apparent misguided insistence by the Indian government that she remain in the United States -- should not become the cause célèbre for a large swath of angry Indian citizens. US Secretary of State John Kerry has already expressed "regret" over the incident; India's government should do the same and move on from this silly affair.

My Time with "Hizzoner" - Mayor Edward I. Koch

New York, 1996

It was 1996 and I was a Legal Assistant at the law firm of Robinson, Silverman, Pearce, Aronsohn & Berman in New York.  I already knew that being being paralegal had no glory.  My time at Teitelbaum, Hiller, Rodman, Paden & Hibsher had already disavowed me of that notion.  But I wasn't yet looking for glory. I had graduated from Middlebury two summers ago and was still finding my way in the world. Having worked for my father's company as an executive at an early age, I thought I had a good internal gauge of my own capabilities, but had yet to prove them to many in the outside world. At my dad's company only recently, I had navigated ourselves to a large contract from the United States Navy for advanced strategic computer based linguistic systems at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis. I personally bid for the project, procured and negotiated the contract, and built and delivered the computer hardware -- and all as a teenager.

Far from my life at my father's company, in New York I was a relatively new paralegal just out of college.  With as much innovation and intelligence as I was allowed to exercise, I would produce litigation files, research which polluters had polluted which amounts and when for one of many massive EPA Superfund litigations, or help prepare court filings. The work was unsophisticated, but required diligence and some level of care.  I arrived every morning at 1290 Avenue of the Americas ready to do whatever the lawyers I worked for would tell me.  I grew to dislike my job for many reasons: (a) I worked in New York yet made a salary that made living with any degree of style very challenging, (b) I worked for lawyers who I looked up to (merely because they were lawyers, and heck, what did I know in those days?) but who didn't share the same respect or fascination for me, and (c) I was, in effect, the lowest member of the "legal professional" totem pole; a role I didn't like one bit.

I met former Mayor Ed Koch, or "hizzoner" as he was affectionately called, while working at Robinson Silverman.  I had joined the firm along with several attorneys from Teitelbaum Hiller, which was collapsing in an old fashioned law firm split dust-up. Except for the fact that I knew Robinson Silverman was larger and had fancier offices, I knew nothing else about the firm.  When I first learned that Ed Koch worked there, I was clearly awestruck. While I had met prominent figures before, I had never had an opportunity to work in the same space as them and had never met them the way I met Mayor Koch.  Koch and I first met in the most unorthodox way: as we were both entering the men's room at our firm. I had gone to the men's room on a thankless errand for myself, to do what people do when they have to use the restroom. Mr. Koch had surely done the same. Yet the interaction that ensued would help alter my remaining time at the firm and ultimately shape my career.

My dissatisfaction with being a Legal Assistant had grown over time, and was now nearing its peak. I was looking to move on but wondered whether leaving the firm so soon after arriving would adversely affect my resume and job prospects.  Arriving at the rest room, however, none of those thoughts were primary. Rather, in addition to the need that had brought me to the restroom, I had a litigation project that Peter Paden, another partner at the firm, had given me, deeply on my mind. I entered the rest room and pulled up to a urinal.  As I approached, I saw that another person, mostly bald with tufts of grey hair, had also approached a urinal nearby. I glanced over, exercising the locational awareness that most humans like having when peeing next to others.  About the same time, my new bathroom companion glanced over at me. I instantly recognized this fellow restroom patron as the former Mayor of New York and quickly returned my gaze to my appointed task. Processing the fact that I was about to pee next to Mr. Koch distracted me from actually doing so, because what followed next was the most awkward 40 seconds of silence of my young career. As both Ed Koch and I stood there attempting to urinate, staring at our respective urinal walls, neither of us actually could. Finally breaking the silence after about forty five seconds, Mayor Koch zipped up, looked over at me, and with a wry smile said, "well, I guess I must have gotten stage fright."

Over the next few months, Mayor Koch made an effort to say hello to me, call me into his office on occasion, and share thoughts on politics, the profession, and on people. He and I shared a culinary love: Peking Duck House in Chinatown, and we referred to that love often. Beyond food, we talked about politics in New York. I recall asking him why he had switched parties to endorse Rudy Guiliani over David Dinkins, who had defeated Mayor Koch only one term prior. After all, Mayor Koch had supported Dinkins in the general election after his defeat in the primaries. Why the switch? Mayor Koch explained that Dinkins bore significant responsibility for the lawlessness of the anti-Semitic riots that raged in Crown Heights and that the riots had convinced him that Dinkins was no longer deserving of his support. The person is more important than the party, he quickly added. Having supported Guiliani in the previous election, Mayor Koch explained to me that he was pulling his support, suggesting that Guiliani's candor and tone bothered him.  The people of New York, Mr. Koch beamed, "deserved better."

When I told him about my dream of being a lawyer despite my disdain for being a paralegal, he spoke candidly about the challenges of the profession but also bullishly about its potential to protect and foster civil rights and aid in the governance of free people. "Bhijit," the Mayor told me in his New York accent, "if being a lawyer is what you want, go get it. Don't worry about your resume, just go do the best you can - nobody will fault you."  Soon after, I followed his advice and left the firm on my own journey to go to law school.

While I didn't keep in touch with Mayor Koch except to thank him after starting law school, his love for his city and the passion with which he lived his life remind me today, as they informed me in 1996, that a life worth living is born of conviction and the courage to pursue it. “How’m I doin?” he famously used to ask his constituents.  You did great, Mayor.

Rest in Peace.

NYT: Law Schools’ Applications Fall as Costs Rise and Jobs Are Cut

Paul Sakuma/Associated Press

This year's law school applicant pool is 30% smaller than last year's and nearly 40% smaller than in 2010, according to an article in today's The New York Times.  While I can understand the elasticity of demand based on macro-economic considerations, I firmly believe that applicants to all graduate programs, including law schools, must separate their beliefs about employment prospects from their  intellectual and professional passions.

My career has seen much evolution since I graduated from law school, but despite the changing focus and job environment, the intellectual process of law school and the training and refinement it provided remain invaluable to me. While I experienced a very comfortable job environment upon graduation, the economy cratered only a few years after, only to rebound and fall several times thereafter. Applicants to law schools must know that the job market may contain volatility, but also, and perhaps more importantly, that there will always be a need and role for qualified, passionate and intelligent lawyers. That is just as true today as it has always been.  A focus on just the availability of a big corporate law firm job after graduation robs the decision of whether to go to law school of much of its other essential considerations.

That said, we must address the broader issues of the financing and cost of modern American education so that bright students of all economic backgrounds are able to pursue and obtain the highest level and quality of education available anywhere in the world. That availability will define and reinforce America's greatness in the next century. 

Obama's Bad Weed Trip

I have recently taken to the web to decry President Obama and Attorney General Holder for their misguided and overzealous enforcement of federal law in an area where both their political philosophies and latent campaign assurances did not require it. The current stance could very well lead the Roberts court to another restriction on Federal power and has already led many reasonable Californians away from Obama.

See The New York Times article, Cities Balk as Federal Law on Marijuana Is Enforced, for more information on the somewhat arbitrary enforcement of Federal law in California and the disarray it is creating in the reasonable regulation of California's medical marijuana statute.

This November's election, in which voters in several states including Colorado and Washington approved the legalization of marijuana has further heightened the conflict between federal and state laws governing pot use and possession. This interesting Seattle Police Department post entitled Marijwhatnow? A Guide to Legal Marijuana Use In Seattle further demonstrates the dilemma now faced by state officials, including police officers. Kudos to the Seattle Police for their brave position in the face of the currently enunciated federal law. To their further credit, the Seattle Police Department wrote the guide in a lighthearted manner, as noted by NPR in What Are They Smoking In Seattle? Check Out Police Dept.'s Guide To Pot Use, including a link to this Lord of the Rings clip:

What do Ron Paul, Jimmy Carter and Barney Frank have in common? Drugs!

In the days of divided American politics in which we find ourselves living, it is a rare issue that brings politicians on opposite ends of the political spectrum together to co-sponsor legislation. Somewhat surprisingly, federal control over marijuana happens to be just such an issue.

Last week, former President Jimmy Carter wrote a insightful Op-Ed piece in the New York Times urging the administration to call off the American led war on drugs launched under the the Nixon administration and reaffirmed by President Reagan. President Carter made reference to the "courageous and profoundly important recommendations" made by the Global Commission on Drug Policy, which includes as its members former Secretary General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, former US Secretary of State George P. Shultz, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, entrepreneur and Virgin founder Richard Branson, and former Presidents Ernesto Zedillo (Mexico), César Gaviria (Colombia), and Fernando Henrique Cardoso (Brazil). At its core, the Commission concluded that the "global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world." While the finding is harsh, it is indeed hard to conclude otherwise.

The principal recommendation made by the Commission is that governments "end the criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs but who do no harm to others." This is a sensible recommendation that should be adopted. The escalation in rates of incarceration for non violent drug offenders is absurd. When President Carter left office in 1980, about a half million prisoners inhabited American jails. Today, nearly five times as many people are incarcerated and according to President Carter, the number of people incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses has increasing more than twelvefold since he left office.

I recall a conversation I had with my judge, the Hon. Benson Everett Legg, United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, about a few policy issues related to drug sentencing. Judge Legg, who had seen many federal drug cases by the time I clerked with him in 2000 and has undoubtedly seen many more, shared his frustrations regarding the effectiveness of federal drug prosecutions. According to the judge, as soon as federal or state prosecutors cleared one Baltimore street corner of a drug dealer, another would surely pop up nearby. The inner city simply lacked opportunities for the young (and predominantly African American) men who were being convicted of selling drugs to the suburban (and predominantly white) consumers of those drugs. Supply and Demand 101: where there is demand, a supply will be available. These were not the musings of a liberal Democrat but rather a moderate to conservative jurist who had once been prominent in the Maryland Republican party. Judge Legg's views are hardly unique, however. Many federal judges are frustrated with drug policy and sentencing in the United States. (See generally articles in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, the Sentencing Project and salon.com)

Judge Legg's observations about Federal drug prosecutions on the streets of Baltimore back in 2000 are mirrored in the Commission's findings that "apparent victories in eliminating one source or trafficking organization are negated almost instantly by the emergence of other sources and traffickers." The futility of the war on drugs on the streets of the US and the amazing surge in the number of people in U.S. prisons and the phenomenal incarceration costs thereof represent the tip of the drug policy iceberg. As President Carter and the Commission note, a growing number of Latin American countries have witnessed an appalling surge in drug-related violence, corruption and gross violations of human rights as a result of the US led and funded war on drugs.

Against this backdrop, Reps. Barney Frank (D), a Massachusetts liberal, and Ron Paul (R), a Texas libertarian, who are often not on the same page on policy matters, will introduce a bill in the House today that would effectively end most federal control over marijuana by deferring to individual states on such matters and only invoking federal authority in cases involving cross-border or inter-state smuggling. If passed, the bill would allow individuals to grow, use or sell marijuana in states where it is legal. While the bill is not a legalization measure, it represents a solid and wise first step in the rationalization of federal drug policy.

I have long endorsed liberalization of drug policy, especially with regard to cannabis, and I welcome this most recent, even if long-shot attempt to do just that. To sign a petition to your member of Congress urging his or her support for the Frank/Paul legislation, please click here.