https://www.opindia.com/2016/03/academics-protest-over-proposal-to-consider-that-india-didnt-exist-at-all-before-1947/
Open Letter by Vamsee Juluru in Huffpost in 2016
>The decision of the IQC has been in full public view for several days now, and the links were provided on my petition too: India is indeed being “erased,” in several key places in the curriculum, all the way from “ancient South Asia” (with Hinduism now being called “Ancient Indian religion”) to the age of “Islamic civilization” (the new phrase to replace the earlier phrase “India and the Muslim world”). (See the complete list of changes, with Indus Valley edits marked distinctly, here).
>The IQC’s CHSSP committee had already accepted most of their suggestions in March, and but for the strong protest from the community and from other scholars on our petition, might not have even reconsidered them in its meeting on March 24. The issue is not yet settled, since the CDE has to make the final decision in May.
Meanwhile, it would help perhaps if all who care about truth and integrity in journalism (and in education) considered the following facts that the LA Times did not see fit to acknowledge, even in the form of a letter from me and several other scholars:
>-The South Asia Faculty group submitted two letters to the IQC, in November 2015 and again in February 2016 arguing for several changes in the curriculum. Their stated position, spelled out on the top of page 12 in their November letter, was that “most references to India before 1947 should be changed to South Asia.” They also asked for references to “Hinduism” to be changed to “religion of ancient India.”
->A committee appointed by the Instructional Quality Commission announced in early March that it had accepted a remarkable 62 of the 76 edits suggested by the South Asia Faculty group (compared to virtually none of the changes suggested by several scholars and Hindu community groups).
>-Thirty-six of these edits had to do with simply eliminating the words “India” or “Hinduism” from the curriculum. Were these simply harmless recommendations about the Indus Valley lying in Pakistan today and “South Asia” being more appropriate as the LA Times made it out to be? No. Several edits change the meaning of the lines severely and support the South Asia Studies scholars’ view that there essentially was no “India” before 1947
>- For example, edit 2749 by the South Asia Faculty changed the line “After 1000, Turks from Centra
... keep reading on reddit ➡This versei s often presented as a miracle though I would like to now what is academic's take on this and whether it could have been possible for the historical person of Muhammed to have been aware of the mummification of egyptians on their pharaohs and many important figures?
SIGNED BY:
- Viet Thanh Nguyen, University of Southern California
- Judith Butler, Professor Emer., UC Berkeley
- Gyan Pandey, Emory University
- Joan W. Scott, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey
- David L. Eng, University of Pennsylvania
- Cornel West, Union Theological Seminary
- Thomas Blom Hansen, Stanford University
- Sheldon Pollock, Columbia University
- Jasbir K. Puar, Rutgers University
- Arjun Appadurai, New York University
- Aamir Mufti, UCLA
- Romila Thapar, JNU
- Veena Das, Johns Hopkins University
- Wendy Doniger, University of Chicago, Emerita
- Akeel Bilgrami, Columbia University
- Prabhat Patnaik, Emeritus Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru university, New Delhi
- Utsa Patnaik, Professor Emerita, JNU, New Delhi
- T M Krishna, Independent Musician and Author
- María Josefina Saldaña-Portillo, New York University
- Kalpana Kannabiran, Independent Researcher
- Martha C. Nussbaum, University of Chicago
- Fred Moten, New York University
- Francesca Orsini, Professor Emerita, SOAS, University of London
- Alpa Shah, London School of Economics
- Himani Bannerji, York University
- Dev Benegal, Film Director
- Kiran Desai, Author
- Lynn Festa, Rutgers University
- Sherene Seikaly, UCSB
- Ebony Coletu, Pennsylvania State University
- David Kazanjian, University of Pennsylvania
- Partha Chatterjee, Columbia University
- Hiren Gohain, Independent
- James C. Scott, Yale University
- Jacqueline Rose, Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities
- Andrew Sartori, NYU
- Kama Maclean, University of Heidelberg
- Arundhati Roy, Writer
- Ann Laura Stoler, The New School for Social Research
- Jonathan Parry, London School of Economics
- Sudipta Kaviraj, Columbia University
- Rohit Chopra, Santa Clara University
- Uma Chakravarti, (retired) Miranda House Delhi, University
- Mukul Kesavan, Jamia Millia Islamia
- Christopher Nagle, Western Michigan University
- Deepa Kumar, Rutgers University
- Poulomi Saha, University of California, Berkeley
- Sanjay Nath, Widener University
- Pradip Kumar Datta, Independent Academic
- Tapati Guha-Thakurta, (retired) Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta
- Ananya Chakravarti, Georgetown University
- Sibaji Bandypadhyay, Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta (CSSSC)
- Ian Woolford, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia
- Nandini Sundar, University of Delhi
- Janaki Nair, (retired) Centre for Historica
Ministerul Educației a pierdut azi, pe mâna dublului academician Sorin Cîmpeanu, procesul pe care Codruț Olaru, procuror CSM și general de armată ajuns de la tablagiu la general în 3 ani și 9 luni, l-a deschis pentru a bloca verdictul de „plagiat grosier” primit de la CNATDCU.
Cum a fost pierdut acest proces pe mâna dublului academician Sorin Cîmpeanu? Simplu.
A început cu o scurgere de informații din Ministerul Educației către Codruț Olaru imediat după ce comisia de lucru a CNATDCU a constatat „plagiat grosier” în teza de doctorat a lui Olaru și a propus retragerea titlului de doctor.
Olaru a dat imediat în judecată Ministerul Educației și CNATDCU și a cerut suspendarea înregistrării sesizării de plagiat și suspendarea procedurii de analiză a tezei, care era deja încheiată, ultimul pas fiind emiterea formală a deciziei.
Între timp, decizia comisiei de lucru a ajuns în plenul Consiliului General al CNATDCU. Ce a făcut secretariatul tehnic al CNATDCU, asigurat de Ministerul Educației condus de dublului academician Sorin Cîmpeanu? A încercat să blocheze o decizia Consiliul General al CNATDCU, care totuși a adoptat decizia de plagiat.
Această decizie trebuia validată de Direcția Juridică a Ministerului Educației condus de dublului academician Sorin Cîmpeanu, care tergiversat 35 de zile emiterea acestui aviz. Ce s-a întâmplat în tot acest timp? Olaru a încercat să obțină în instanță suspendarea analizării tezei lui și verdictul final al CNATDCU.
Între timp, Direcția Juridică a Ministerului Educației condus de, poate ați uitat, dublul academician Sorin Cîmpeanu a emis aviz negativ pe verdictul de plagiat pronunțat de CNATDCU, motivând pe 12 pagini că decizia CNATDCU a fost nelegală, fapt nemaiîntâlnit în istoria instituției.
În aceeași zi în care Direcția Juridică dădea aviz negativ, Codruț Olaru deschidea un nou proces în instanță în care cerea din nou suspendarea înregistrării sesizării și suspendarea procedurii de analiză a tezei. Acest dosar de la Curtea de Apel București a ajuns la judecătorul Vasile Bîcu, din gașca Liei Savonea, colegă de CSM a lui Olaru, care are și el teza de doctorat plagiată, ca și conul Olaru. Ce coincidență!
Acest dosar s-a derulat în două etape. În prima etapă, Ministerul Educației condus de dublului academician Sorin Cîmpeanu a fost reprezentat în instanță de un consilier juridic care a apărat cauza CNATDCU spunând că „lasă decizia l
... keep reading on reddit ➡chelsea wolfe? soft moon? emma ruth rundle?
Hello r/askacademia, I am graduated from an International Relations bachelor degree. I actually graduated with 3,6 GPA and was thinking about being an academician in the field but while I searched for master degree opportunities, I realized I am not passionate enough in the field to become an academician. In high school, I actually dreamt about studying literature (english literature and/or comparative literature) but I thought I would be jobless and I had no vision to predict that I would become an academician since I didn't know I can make good grades in college. Now I am 24 and thinking about going for an second degree. I will try to apply to masters for comparative literature but I don't know if I will be admitted. But if I will start to college again, I know I will be successful since I am deeply passionate about literature. And now at least I have my more 'job-secured' diploma in IR if things don't go well.
So, what do you think? Do you think this is an reasonable thought to start college again at 25 (after 1 year preperation for national entrance exam)?
https://www.opindia.com/2016/03/academics-protest-over-proposal-to-consider-that-india-didnt-exist-at-all-before-1947/
Open Letter by Vamsee Juluru in Huffpost
>The decision of the IQC has been in full public view for several days now, and the links were provided on my petition too: India is indeed being “erased,” in several key places in the curriculum, all the way from “ancient South Asia” (with Hinduism now being called “Ancient Indian religion”) to the age of “Islamic civilization” (the new phrase to replace the earlier phrase “India and the Muslim world”). (See the complete list of changes, with Indus Valley edits marked distinctly, here).
>The IQC’s CHSSP committee had already accepted most of their suggestions in March, and but for the strong protest from the community and from other scholars on our petition, might not have even reconsidered them in its meeting on March 24. The issue is not yet settled, since the CDE has to make the final decision in May.
Meanwhile, it would help perhaps if all who care about truth and integrity in journalism (and in education) considered the following facts that the LA Times did not see fit to acknowledge, even in the form of a letter from me and several other scholars:
>-The South Asia Faculty group submitted two letters to the IQC, in November 2015 and again in February 2016 arguing for several changes in the curriculum. Their stated position, spelled out on the top of page 12 in their November letter, was that “most references to India before 1947 should be changed to South Asia.” They also asked for references to “Hinduism” to be changed to “religion of ancient India.”
->A committee appointed by the Instructional Quality Commission announced in early March that it had accepted a remarkable 62 of the 76 edits suggested by the South Asia Faculty group (compared to virtually none of the changes suggested by several scholars and Hindu community groups).
>-Thirty-six of these edits had to do with simply eliminating the words “India” or “Hinduism” from the curriculum. Were these simply harmless recommendations about the Indus Valley lying in Pakistan today and “South Asia” being more appropriate as the LA Times made it out to be? No. Several edits change the meaning of the lines severely and support the South Asia Studies scholars’ view that there essentially was no “India” before 1947
>- For example, edit 2749 by the South Asia Faculty changed the line “After 1000, Turks from Central Asia,
... keep reading on reddit ➡