I’m not sure how much we can expect schools to accomplish in the way of instilling values in students when you consider the massive influence of family and peers.  Teachers seem to have a hard enough time teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic to students (again, often because of the massive influence of family and peers).

In it, Nadelstern openly (albeit self-servingly) describes his complicity in Joel Klein’s agenda of “creative destruction”. In particular, he gushes over the elimination of ALL local political accountability in the delivery of education.  He thus champions the obliteration of ANY geographic nexus with schools administration.  Accordingly, he convincingly argues, the elimination of all neighborhood or community connection to school oversight was at the core of Klein’s “reforms”.  Furthermore, he sees that as fundamental to their shared vision going forward.

Klein openly advocated the model being trumpeted by Nadelstern in a book published over five years ago.  He firmly believes that central bureaucracies should get out of the actual learning business altogether and instead, dole out contracts to educational entrepeneurs and calculate the profits (er. I mean “progress”) at the end of the fiscal year.

This is the model that John White wants to establish statewide in Louisiana and that will soon be coming to a location near you (aka Philadelphia).  O what a Brave New World we’re approaching!   Welcome to the new, improved! Bill Gates hobby horse.
 

I’m not sure what to make of somebody who can assert that Bloomberg wants his pregnant employees to get abortions for productivity reasons as an “incidental” point in what should be a straightforward definition of a term.  If you don’t want incidental points to get turned into the entire debate, then don’t make a habit of making outrageous assertions in a casual, throwaway manner, especially when you can’t back them up.  

I’ll address your statements about Preska’s decision as best I can, even though you still don’t appear to have read it.  And I’ll answer them frankly, without any advocacy or spin.  As an initial matter, though, do you understand now that Preska did not “rule that . . . clear instances of discrimination occurred” at Bloomberg LP?  Regardless of whether you have some gut feeling that they may have occurred, and regardless of whether you care if the “incidental” accusations you make are true, do you understand that, as a factual matter, what you wrote was incorrect?  

1.  You write:  ”So, let’s get this straight: the judge refused to accept statistical analysis from the EEOC, relying solely on data and analysis supplied by the company, and then dismissed the lawsuit on the premise that no data had been supplied by the plaintiffs, and that their charges were only anecdotal.”

That’s right.  To introduce scientific expert testimony, the testimony has to pass certain standards of reliability.  It’s Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.  The guiding case is Daubert.  Each side made a Daubert motion to exclude the others’ expert testimony.  The EEOC lost its motion, and Bloomberg LLP won its motion.  I can’t tell you the details, because I haven’t read the decision or the motions.  So I can’t tell whether I think Preska got that decision right or wrong.  I’m not sure if you’re telling me that you think she got it wrong, but if you are, that speaks volumes, given that there’s no question that you haven’t read any of the papers.

2.  You write:  ”And you would have this seen as a total vindication for the company?”

I’m not sure I follow your question.  Do I see the dismissal of the complaint as “total vindication” for Bloomberg LP?  Well, yes, in the obvious sense that any defendant in a civil case is “vindicated” when a complaint against it is dismissed.  Or in the sense that a criminal defendant is “vindicated” when a “not guilty” charge is returned by a jury, or a judge dismisses an indictment before trial.  That’s called winning your case.

Or are you asking whether I view the dismissal of the case as affirmative proof that all the factual allegations against Bloomberg LP were false?  If that’s what you’re asking, the answer is no.  

For sensible reasons, the law places the burden of proof on plaintiffs — or, in criminal cases, the government.  If the plaintiff or the government fails to prove its case, it doesn’t mean the defendant is “innocent.”  There are a lot of plaintiffs that file complaints with true allegations but have their complaints dismissed for various reasons, just as there are criminal defendants who “beat the rap.”  And when the plaintiff/government can’t prove its case (or a judge rules that there are no set of facts that would allow a reasonable jury to find that the plaintiff/government could prove its case), the defendant gets to walk out of the courtroom clear and free.  That doesn’t mean that you have to agree that the jury or the judge got it right.  You’re even free to do what the law would forbid in a court of law — you can put the burden on the defendant to disprove the truth of the allegations against it.  Personally I think it’s a disturbing position to take, and anyone who takes that position has zero credibility with me, especially if they elsewhere decry the erosion of “due process” for teachers accused of misconduct.  But you’re certainly free to go that route if that’s how you like to roll.  

3.  You write:  ”Perhaps what in your mind is a magisterial legal decision is closer in legal and moral credibility to Bush v. Gore, and instead merely demonstrates the company’s success in judge shopping.”

I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to say there.  Defendants don’t shop for judges, but maybe some win the lottery.  Anyway,  if you’re just asking if it’s possible that Preska dismissed the case because she was sympathetic to Bloomberg LP, sure, I suppose it’s possible.  On the other hand, it’s possible she was annoyed by what she saw as a borderline frivolous claim by the EEOC.  Maybe her annoyance made her sympathetic.  I don’t know.  

4.  ”you of course neglected to mention the quotes attributed directly to Bloomberg, which have never been refuted and are in keeping with a plethora of reports about the Mayor’s foul language, temper and arrogance.”

The two quotes you mentioned were ”Kill it!” and “Great, that’s number 16!”  You say they’ve never been “refuted,” and I take you to mean that they’ve never been disproved.  To that I would respond, please see point #2 above.  It’s never been proven that he made those comments.  And do I think on some gut level that Bloomberg is the kind of guy who would say “Kill it!” to a pregnant employee?  Actually, no, I don’t.  There’s a lot of evidence that the Mayor is (shocker) astoundingly arrogant and short-tempered.  MAYBE I could imagine him saying the “that’s number 16!” comment.  But the “Kill it!” comment doesn’t ring true to me.  

But you know what?  Who the heck cares what rings true to me or you?  What are we, the Mentalist?  The point — and it’s mindblowing that this even needs to be said, much less repeated ad nauseam — is that we don’t require defendants to disprove allegations against them in court, and we should apply the same rule out of court especially when it comes to “he said, she said” allegations.  Would you require a teacher to affirmatively prove that he didn’t make an inappropriate sexual remark, or would you require the DOE to prove that he did?  Why would you apply a different rule to Bloomberg?  Just because you dislike him?  Or because you dislike his policies, and so anything that damages his reputation God’s work?  If that’s your position, how can anything you say be taken seriously?

To start, I need to mention that all of this is tangential and distracting – clearly your mission on this site – from the original discussion about what neoliberalism is, and it’s role in so-called education reform. My point about Bloomberg was incidental to that, yet you seek to turn it into the entire debate, as befits a troll. Sorry, but teachers are waking up to what Is happening to them and their students, and see right through your attempts to derail open debate and advocacy.

As for the dismissed suit, “Judge Preska … dismissed the statistical experts that the EEOC had called as witnesses, but accepted the company’s experts.” (NY Times, 8/17/11). In her decision, Judge Preska also approvingly quoted DOE consultant and former GE head Jack Welch on (no one’s right to a) work-life balance, in what amounted to a channeling of neoliberal, employer-friendly orthodoxy.

So, let’s get this straight: the judge refused to accept statistical analysis from the EEOC, relying solely on data and analysis supplied by the company, and then dismissed the lawsuit on the premise that no data had been supplied by the plaintiffs, and that their charges were only anecdotal. And you would have this seen as a total vindication for the company? Perhaps what in your mind is a magisterial legal decision is closer in legal and moral credibility to Bush v. Gore, and instead merely demonstrates the company’s success in judge shopping.

And you of course neglected to mention the quotes attributed directly to Bloomberg, which have never been refuted and are in keeping with a plethora of reports about the Mayor’s foul language, temper and arrogance. Again, I’ll ask GS readers, do those quotes sound out of character for the man, and if not, might they shed some light on his support for legalized abortion, especially when his overall record on privacy and civil liberties is horrendous?

Now, after being foolish enough to deal with you yet again, I need to go take a shower.

I suppose utility is in the eye of the beholder, but in all seriousness, I don’t recall you ever engaging in “useful debate” on this web site.  Nor do I recall you ever posing a genuine question with the goal of learning something you didn’t know, acknowledging that anyone who disagrees with you might have a point, or supporting any of your assertions with evidence.  What you do is make speeches.  You appear to have your fans among the rank-and-file, and you’re certainly entitled to do your thing, but you shouldn’t  pretend you’re interested in actual debate.   

And naturally, you are wrong on the facts, so I’m glad I asked about it.  Read the decision.  The judge did not “rule . . . that clear instances of discrimination occurred,” as you claim.  For other Gotham Schools readers who might care, this is what she ruled:  (1) the EEOC presented “only anecdotal evidence and no statistical or other evidence to  combine with its anecdotal evidence”; (2) “the EEOC’s anecdotal evidence was, on its own, insufficient”; (3) “the EEOC’s evidence of a pervasive bias and negative  stereotypes consists of much inflammatory hearsay combined with  a handful of isolated comments from a few managers over the  course of nearly six years”; and (4) “[n]one of this evidence, even taken  all together, is sufficient to make out a pattern or practice claim.  At most, it shows possible instances of individual  discrimination.”  See Opinion at 48-50.

Translation, if you need one:  The EEOC presented no evidence of a pattern or practice of discrimination.  The only evidence it provided was a series of anecdotes that likely wouldn’t be admissible at trial.  And if you were to accept all of those anecdotes as true for argument’s sake, the most they could show is “possible instances” of discrimination.

But who cares, right?  All we need to do is type “[e]lites like Bloomberg want women to abort their fetuses to make corporations more profitable,” and it’s done.

If only someone would have taught me how to sear my conscience w/an hot iron….I too could have had the world in the palm of my hand. And New York City could have certainly been my personal playground.

Some nerve.

Yes, the EEOC lawsuit against Bloomberg, LLC. – the basis of which referred to actions taken by the company after Bloomberg left the company – was dismissed. The judge ruled that while clear instances of discrimination occurred, they were not proven to have risen to the level of a class injury.

As the Times reported on 4/14/11, “One of the most vivid excerpts (from a trial deposition, MF) involves Matthew Winkler, the longtime editor of Bloomberg News, who helped Mr. Bloomberg with his memoir. Complaining that pregnant employees who went on maternity leave often did not return, he was quoted by one plaintiff as saying, ‘It’s like stealing money from Mike Bloomberg’s wallet. It’s theft. They should be arrested.’ ”

The woman who made the allegation that Bloomberg personally made the, “Kill it!” and “Great, that’s number 16!” (presumably referring to the number of women then on maternity leave) statements settled out of court.

Since the majority of your comments and questions are red herrings intended for misdirection and diversion of useful debate into dead ends – with just enough relevant comments to inoculate you against the charge of being a Troll – I’ll direct my questions to other Gotham Schools readers: does any of this not ring true, and seem contrary to the Mike Bloomberg we’ve all come to know and love, and does it not perhaps partially explain elite support for abortion rights (again, a good and necessary thing) during a time of otherwise rapidly diminishing personal privacy and freedoms?

After all, with just a few exceptions, S&P 500 companies have shown little or no interest in overturning legalized abortion – though, as Thomas Frank has written, they’re perfectly happy to let it be used as a political wedge issue – in contrast to their enthusiasm to offshore jobs, attack what’s left of the labor movement and support if not implement the privatization of the schools.