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.

A prayer for Claire

Claire Davis is 17 years old. She is a student at Arapahoe High School in Centennial, Colorado. Karl Pierson is 18 years old. According to the National Rifle Association, Karl had the right to purchase a shotgun quickly and easily. He exercised that right. Then, while carrying his new shotgun through his school yesterday, he shot Claire in the head and at close range.

I have long decried the number of guns in America and the alarming ease with which we are adding more. Firearms have transformed our country into a constant battlefield. On this the one year anniversary of the carnage in Newtown, Connecticut, let us again ask why. Why does the most powerful country on earth seem so powerless in the face of this scourge?

Claire Davis is in critical condition tonight, suffering from severe head trauma from her gunshot wound. Please add her to your thoughts and prayers. Let us all pray that our leaders have the courage to take action to finally end this madness.

Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson holds a picture of Claire Davis, the 17-year-old student who was shot on Friday. (Ed Andrieski / Associated Press / December 14, 2013)

Do we really need more guns?

Yesterday, it was a Naval facility, Last week it was a school. Tomorrow it might be a doctor's office. Last year it was a District Attorney's home. Today it was a TSA counter at LAX. Gun violence is raging in America. 

Add more guns, we are told by the NRA. 

As a former student of the US Constitution, I ask this question: at what point do we say, enough is enough? At what point do we realize that each additional gun circulating in society makes us exponentially more unsafe? At what point do we place the Second Amendment alongside the others, not above them? I weep for our country because we have become a literal battleground. Human beings will be born as they are and societies will continue to develop them as they do. When you add the number of guns we have in America to a mix which includes the naturally occurring rate of mental illness, you get a really toxic brew. More legally available guns is not the answer. It has proven itself not to be. Just as we cannot gauge and prevent the mentally infirm from acquiring weapons, we cannot entrust our future to a militarized life where you must live with your guns drawn at all times. 

America, it is time for a change.

A Call for a More Perfect Political Union

Today's Senate passing of a bill to end the fiscal impasse delivers a stinging defeat for hard liners in Congress. While the opportunity to come together and work as a proper legislative body was lost long ago, I continue to fear that the idiocy of the far right will continue in to the next budget discussion only months away.  How members of a legislative body can be elected and serve with such destructive political philosophies continues to bewilder me. Creation of consensus from wide ranging viewpoints, not the perpetuation of poles, is the true sign of leadership. I call upon my friends from all political leanings to pledge to form a new political class which does just that. I suspect that history will not judge kindly this epoch and the errant cowboys who held our Federal government hostage for two weeks; let history also note that this low point served as a foundation for a better and more sound political union. For now, I am thankful that this ugly episode has passed. God bless America and guide her to that more stable place. 

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. 

Democratic National Convention - First Night Recap

I spent part of my evening watching the DNC's convention being held in Charlotte. The speech of the evening belonged to Governor Deval Patrick, from my home state of Massachusetts, who gave the audience the gem that Mitt Romney, as governor, was "more interested in having the job than doing the job."

I thought Governor Martin O'Malley, who was Mayor of Baltimore when I was a law clerk at the Federal Court there, was good, on point, and got his message across that America should move "forward, not back," a message that was reinforced by convention goers wielding placards.

The keynote was delivered by San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, who was the first Latino keynote speaker at a Democratic National Convention and was introduced to the convention by his twin brother who is running for US Congress.  His performance, with a touching tribute to his immigrant grandmother and mother wasn't as strong as I had expected. While his focus on investments in education as a necessary condition for future economic growth in America is on point, he didn't have the depth to really move the convention. That said, he was better than many of the speakers at least week's RNC convention in terms of audience response.

The last big speech of the evening belonged to First Lady Michelle Obama, who spoke passionately about the President and her role as a mother and First Lady. I thought she humanized both the President and the basis of his decision making, suggesting that his was a personal cause not a political one. Her tribute to her father and her emphasis on her roll as "mother in chief" as she called it, was moving.

I agree with CNN analyst and former advisor to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton, David Gergen, that the Democrats showed up ready for prime time and are on track to handily beat the impact of last week's RNC convention if their performances continue at the current pace.  Not hard to agree with Gergen given how bad some of the RNC speeches were, including the bizarre one from Academy Award winner Clint Eastwood.

Stay tuned.

Elizabeth Warren for US Senate

I like Scott Brown.

He seems like a nice guy. But, in this age of national and global turbulence, I believe Massachusetts deserves better than nice.

Economic reform. Healthcare. Abortion. The Supreme Court. Welfare. Our basic liberties.

Nice is good. We deserve the best.

I'm with Elizabeth Warren.

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:

Neither snow nor rain... nor default? The Postal Service faces a new hurdle

As if we haven't received enough bad news from the U.S. over the past few years, the United States Postal Service, in many ways the most approachable and frequent access point for most Americans to their federal government, is in dire condition. As reported by the New York Times  (Postal Service Is Nearing Default as Losses Mount), the USPS is near default. Saddled by a bloated employee base, federally mandated service standards that may not be relevant in today's electronic world, and declining revenues, the USPS appears to be another once proud part of the federal machinery that is simply broken.

It is hard to suggest there are easy answers. For one, postal employees and their unions will need to be flexible if there is to be a credible plan to rescue the USPS. Congress should also look at creative ways to allowing the USPS to enter fields that it has by statute been barred from in the past. That is not to suggest that we should allow the postal service to become a competitor to private businesses in a large sphere of commerce (though, based on their competitiveness vs. FedEx and UPS, other businesses in other fields have little to fear).  Creative ways to cut costs, as proposed, such as co-locating smaller post offices in supermarkets, are important, but won't create a lasting solution. Slightly lower costs with significantly lower revenues still creates a deficit.

Today's trends suggest that fewer and fewer pieces will be mailed every year going into the future. That trajectory seems clear. Clearly, there are times of the year like Christmas when the mail service sees a spike in volume.  Unlike at the Christmas Tree Shops, it isn't Christmas yearlong in the real world. With the electronic age, paper communication is a dying format. The newspaper business in the Americas faces the same decline, as do paperback books (NYT: The Dog-Eared Paperback, Newly Endangered in an E-Book Age).  As the most visible outpost of the federal government, the USPS could fashion itself as a complete portal to government affairs and communications, which it does not do very well today. Yet, even with increased purpose and renewed efficiency (assuming that is possible in such a bloated system), the postal service delivers mail and services to the vast outer reaches of the Union and many of the routes and tasks carried out by the USPS are inherently unprofitable and unlikely to ever be otherwise. 

Providing a federally subsidized mail service to Tin City, Alaska (from where former Alaska Gov. Palin might actually have been able to see Russia - see Slate's article) may simply not be of enough strategic importance to us anymore. At the heart of the matter, therefore, we need to come to a consensus on whether a federal mail service is important in this day; the electronic age -- and competition from private goods carriers -- have cast considerable doubt upon the answer. Unlike the proverbial check, the solution may just not be in the mail.

Debt Ceiling Irresponsibility

The looming crisis over the United States federal debt ceiling, which involves the amount of borrowing the United States government is allowed to undertake under the Public Debt Acts and subsequent legislation, is a crisis being perpetrated by the House of Representatives that has the potential to destabilize the global economy and permanently disfigure the credibility of the United States of America.  The Congress should immediately back away from this standoff by passing a resolution immediately raising the debt ceiling to a number that is reasonable for the next several months of federal operation until a final budget can be negotiated that sets the debt ceiling for the next year ahead.

I take further note of the incredibly irresponsible and un-statesmanlike conduct by House Speaker John A. Boehner, whose refusal to answer President Obama's phone calls yesterday is not only unbelievable but irresponsible given how constitutionally close the Speaker is to the President. It is the duty of every elected federal official to treat the office of the President with respect, regardless of policy disputes that may legitimately remain. Boehner's actions should not be condoned and are reminiscent of the breach in protocol by Rep. Joe Wilson who yelled "you lie" while President Obama was addressing a joint session of Congress in 2009.

NY Times: Debt Ceiling Talks Collapse as Boehner Walks Out, July 22, 2011