Talk:San Francisco State University

The University's Sources Confirm A Paid Investigation
Skew-T argued that the sources I cited did not indicate that SFSU paid for the investigation into the Akom controversy. However, page 5 of the investigative report reads:

"The Hon. Willie L. Brown is the former Mayor of San Francisco and Speaker of the California Assembly. Louise H. Renne is the former City Attorney of San Francisco. The investigators assigned to the task were Nikki Hall, an attorney with the law firm of Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP and George M. Cothran, a licensed private investigator employed by the same law firm. Ms. Hall and Mr. Cothran reported to Ms. Renne and Mr. Brown throughout their investigation."

The administration "commissioned" an investigation by two private citizens and a private law firm that does not work for free. Lets use some logical deduction here:

1) Private law firms do not work for free.

2) Work was done on behalf of the SFSU administration.

3) The work of this private firm is cited in the report as the material basis of this investigation.

What more evidence is needed to confirm that the SFSU administration paid for the investigation? It may Now that I have exposed this quote on the talk page of this article, I would not be surprised if that paragraph suddenly goes "missing" from the official PDF file on the University's web site.

R33tr33t 13:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Private law firms don't do work for free? Have you heard of "pro bono?" As for Willie Brown, he is not only a private citizen, he is an alumnus, so it would not surprise me if he were to offer his services for free to his alma matter. And Louise Renne seems to be involved in many volunteer community activities. While it is certainly plausible that the investigation was paid for by the university, I just haven't seen evidence of it.


 * You mention that it is immaterial whether it was paid for on the university's behalf... but then why does it matter that it was paid for at all? It seems like there is a specific POV by insisting on the importance of these assumptions. If it was paid for on the university's behalf, which following your burger analogy you seem to admit could be possible, then it would not be true that the university itself paid for it, and the text should go back to "the university commissioned" the report.


 * As for the racial mention, I'm still unsure why the fact that Willie Brown is black is stated. Are you implying that because of it he cannot be objective? Or that it is a PR move by the university to hire someone of the same race as Akom? Perhaps this is important, but I'm missing why. Also, you said "Brown's blackness is as material as Akom's," but then again, the article doesn't actually say Akom is black. --skew-t 21:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've left the assertions in place, adding a verification tag to the 'paid' clause. I'm also concerned about the sentence reading that president's statements "[downplay] the compensated nature of the work," which seems to indicate that there is a need to mention that fact and that it was intentionally omitted. --skew-t 23:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your observations are true Skew-t. I have tried to re-word the paragraph about the investigation so that it does not overstate any facts. All parties involved may in fact have done pro-bono work. The fact is that whether any parties did pro-bono work is unknown. From a neutral point of view, the "unknown" compensation status of the services is material to the university's claims that the commission was independent. The section now states that the compensation status of the work is not known and not publicly asserted. R33tr33t 15:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I also removed any statements about Willie Brown's race. I still affirm that it is material that he is an alumnus who carries the "social capital" of bieng a popular advocate of diversity. R33tr33t 15:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Censoring University History
SFSU is a very peculiar place with a very violent and corrupt history that embarrasses the administration, which habitually covers up embarrassing issues. It does appear that the university is reverting this page to an NPOV version reflecting an official propaganda line.

The previous version attempted to color the 2002 pogrom as a "he said/she said" dispute between "pro-Israel" demonstrators and "pro-Palestinians". It wasn't -- it was an attack against a peace demonstration by the Hillel Jewish student group by the Palestinian students association. The Jews were held captive against a building wall. There is no question of who did what, and that the campus police did not interfere. The events were widely covered in the national press, and the university was forced to apologize.

The 60's corruption scandals are well documented and available to anyone with access to microfilm of the San Francisco Chronicle, or other contemporary newspapers, especially during Feb. 69, when the associated students was shut down by the state attorney general (NOT Ronald Reagan.

The university persists in referring to the 60's violence as a "student strike" -- but no strike vote was ever held and a 90 percent majority of the students were opposed. I suggest anyone who disputes this to go to the university library and read contemporary issues of the Daily Gater and the Phoenix (published by the Journalism department during semesters when corrupt student leaders controled the Gater and censored coverage).

I urge university spokesmen and extremist professors to stop reverting this page into propaganda. Scott Adler 20:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break. "Pogrom (from Russian: погром; from "громить" IPA: [grʌˈmitʲ]- to wreak havoc, to demolish violently) is a form of riot, a massive violent attack on a particular group; ethnic, religious or other, primarily characterized by destruction of their environment (homes, businesses, religious centers). Usually pogroms are accompanied with physical violence against the targeted people and even murders, in some cases to the degree of massacre."

Yes, there was a near-riot, but to call it a pogrom demeans the people who died in them. The account of the incident that appears here comes from news reports published in a major San Francisco newspaper. Ckessler 00:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it was a riot, and an anti-Jewish riot is called a pogrom. And which "major San Francisco newspaper" are you referring to? And if that's your entire beef, why do you revert everything. I you have proof from a non-ideological that it was all a bunch of mutual shouting, thatno one was pushed against a wall, quote it and change that portion. If you have any evidence that there was no corruption at SFSC during the riots, prove it. Bit if you revert every change again, I will be forced to report you as a vandal.


 * My user history contains nothing to support me being a vandal, so please, go right ahead. You seem to have missed WP:NPOV, so go read it again. Stop trying to edit this page to support your own views. And that major SF newspaper was the San Francisco Chronicle, so take a look at WP:Reliable Sources while you're at it. Major press outlets count as reliable sources, some guy who was there does not. Ckessler 19:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Proof of Erekat's attending SFSU as opposed to USF

 * From his biography
 * Educated from age three through twelve at Terra Sancta Roman Catholic School, Jericho. Israeli occupation began when he was twelve; first jailed at thirteen; usual childhood offenses, stone-throwing, cutting wires, fighting with soldiers, PLO graffiti etc. Sent overseas to the U.S. to study at seventeen (family links to San Francisco). Graduated from San Francisco State University BA (1977), MA (1979), both in International Relations. Elected President of the Arab Students Association while at SFSU.
 * From the SFSU magazine page
 * In 1972, Erekat followed an older brother to San Francisco to attend college. After two years at City College of San Francisco, he transferred to San Francisco State, where he supported himself working nights behind the counter at a Palestinian-owned delicatessen.

--fpo 20:42, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Such a proud thing, the author of the Jenin Massacre hoax went to SFSU!Scott Adler 09:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

AntiSemitism
This school has the reputation of harboring more anti Judaism anti Israeli harrassment than any other school in the country. When I have the time this will be added to the article.Incorrect 07:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Note the following: SFSU has the reputation of being militantly pro Palestinian anti Israeli anti Jewish - this should be mentioned. See: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12354 Further indication that USF is a hot bed of anti semitism:http://www.jr.co.il/articles/sf-univ.txt Incorrect 15:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Incorrect 07:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Incorrect, your statement above seems to be original research. It seems that you would need alot more sources and established facts before ANY school is labeled the way you do above. Thanks --Tom 17:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is VERY correct -- as the 2002 pogrom as the Tatiana Meneker affair (a Jewish student who was "suspended" for four years for taking down an illegally posted 8.5x11 inch sign on a glass door), and other scandals can attest.


 * No Jewish or non-leftist student should attend SFSU if there is an alternative. If the university was serious about fighting anti-Semitism, they would stomp on it. They can, they simply won't. Scott Adler 09:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Updating University Logo
Can someone please update the university logo? The seal on the main wiki page is still used for formal occasions, but the standard new logo should also be posted. Akit 07:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hayakawa wasn't "Chancellor" and there was no "Strike"
SI Hayakawa was PRESIDENT of SFSC, not chancellor, as a previous editor thought, and there was no "strike" in 1968 -- if you claim otherwise, please cite the date of the strike vote and the number of students participating.

There wasn't one. There were riots called by a group of extremist organizations with their own set of "non-negotiable demands". And as the principle target of the "strikers" were the students themselves -- beatings, bombs in the dorm, the visual arts building, etc. -- how could the students be striking?

Anyone who was there remembers this, unless you were one of "The Students" (with capital letters) e.g. the ten percent minority who voted for the radical party and supported the radicals' behaviors. They also remember what happened when the illegal funding dried up -- it all ended. Scott Adler 01:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the university's 100 year history online and I do agree that Hayakawa is president and as noted officially by the University. Could it be please noted in the wiki that the events of the student action was from 1968-1969 (it only mentions the late 60s)?

Also, the university recognizes that the events during this period is a "strike." In particular: Hayakawa pulled the cables in front of striking students, and the AFT striked and joined the picket line.

Lastly, it is possible that the wiki can recognize that the strike/student action led to the creation of the School (now College) of Ethnic Studies that started running in the Fall of 1969? Thanks. Akit 07:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, Hayakawa was president; chancellor is the title of the head of the entire CSU. It was indeed a strike however, but a student strike is different than a labor strike. This term is acknowledged by SFSU's own history information, which also states that it ended when student organizations and the administration signed an agreement.


 * I've added the end of the strike to the timeline. The creation of the Ethnic Studies was previously mentioned in the 'Diversity' section, but I've added it to the timeline as well. --skew-t 23:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A student strike is no different "than" a labor strike -- I was a labor strike leader. You poll people, hand out fliers, man picket lines, and work to keep up morale. A riot is when an extemist minority bombs a dorm (Merced Hall), steals elections, and beats up people who don't agree. If someone were to punch someone else in the face and call it a "feather tap" that doesn't mean that the victem wasn't punched in the face. And fankly, it doesn't matter what SFSU calls it -- the administration has been entirely dishonest with its history and doesn't even acknowledge the financial scandals that surrounded the whole mess. The "strike" ended in the third week February, 1969, when the rioters were caught with their pants down and their hands in the till. (Administrators were involved; two presidents, Summerskill and Smith, were fired over their attempts to cover up the scandal). Everything else was aftermath, and if you don't believe me, go back and check the pages of the San Francisco Examiner and the Chronicle. It's all there. Even the national press covered it. Perhaps I'll write a book about it.Scott Adler 23:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please, add the sources that says student strikes must be voted on by a majority of students. The sources I have seen on the events all refer to them as a "student strike"   . The American Heritage Dictionary says a strike is "A temporary stoppage of normal activity undertaken as a protest." No mention of "stoppage, as voted on by the majority." You seem to be describing what a union does, not what just a strike entails.


 * If the extreme riotous events of bombings, beatings and misappropriation of funds occurred as you say, please provide a reliable source to back it up. The burden is on the editor adding the unsourced claims. It's fine if the university's account is inaccurate, but I have not seen these national press reports that say otherwise. --skew-t 00:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Userbox
A userbox has been created for SFSU students and alums amongst the Wikipedian hordes. The userpage code is:  --Dynaflow 12:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CSU.PNG
Image:CSU.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)