Oh the outrage. Remember when the most important thing in education was actually a good education? What exactly is the left afraid of by this nomination?
“It will allow Branstad to rail at the intolerance.” I don’t think the intolerant know who they are. But for those amongst us, walk swiftly past that mirror.

Kettleson,
Seems you aren’t old enough to remember, but it looks like Cramer is Marivin “Bag Man” Pomerantz, Regent Bully in Chief, deja vu all over again. Cramer is a businessman with nothing in particular to recommend him to oversee anything to do with education. He’s simply not qualified.
His views on homosexuality and his role in ousting three Iowa Supreme Court justices are the easiest things to nail him on. But it is often the case that socially conservative successful businessmen, by temperment, values, and experience, are just not in tune with what universities do. And, as noted by Sen. Brad Zaun, R-Urbandale, Cramer seems to have been appointed because he is a wealthy political contributor to oh let me guess. Branstad?
Branstad appointees (who tended to be wealthy political contributors), back in the ’90s, oversaw the process of making Iowa’s public universities too expensive for Iowans to attend as they remade the universities to better fit a business model.
Oh and sold off ISU’s WOI-TV (NBC affiliate) for a fraction of its real value in an under the table deal and in the process destroying the best broadcast journalism program in the country.
Us “lefties” aren’t afraid. We’re disgusted. There’s a difference

What goes around, comes around. So long, Cramer.

Kettleson,
It’s nice to know that you haven’t a clue about the Iowa Board of Regents and that you don’t jump to conclusions.
But since you asked, try a google search “controversy over iowa board of regents.” Two articles of particular interest would be Ames Tribune 3/20/13 “Senators grill another regent nominee” and Ames Tribune 2/6/13 “Harkin calls off gift to ISU”
The Board of Regents created the Harkin Institute. The only connection it had with Senator Harkin was his name. When disagreements surfaced over how his papers were to be used, the Institute’s advisory board recommended that the papers not be donated. Regent President Craig Lang is under fire for handling the matter really badly for the way he’s treated UI President Sally Mason
With regard to Cramer, this from the Tribune:
“Robert Cramer, a construction company executive from Grimes, came under pointed criticism about his past actions as a member of the Johnston School Board and his association with a group that successfully defeated the 2010 retention of three Iowa Supreme Court justices who were part of a landmark court decision that paved the way for same-sex marriages in Iowa. . . . Cramer’s resume is loaded with “lightning-rod politics” that included opposition to a Des Moines human rights ordinance to recognize sexual orientation as a protected class, a controversy over an age-appropriate book at Johnston schools, and his comments critical of a ‘liberal agenda.’”
Cramer is a bigot. Which makes him a poor fit. As far as “diversity goes”, diversity doesn’t require any of us to include bigots in the mix.
As far as wealthy campaign donors go, that was also a problem during Branstad’s previous terms in office, specifically with regard to Marvin Pomerantz. Pomerantz served one term and was rejected for re-nomination as a result of a massive petition drive by Iowans and ISU alumni to get rid of him. You can read the story on line New York Times archives, “Campus Journal; Vote to sell TV station splits Iowans” 7/22/92

Before I continue with this snooze fest and doing some reading, I can clearly understand why you are misrepresenting your information.
The Johnston school board was long ago and Mr Cramer had reviewed complaints from parents that a book available to their children was not age appropriate, he did not ban the book, simply saying it was better suited for college.
He successfully defeated retention of some judges, whether you agree or not he was successful in his efforts. Wasn’t he?
You say he is critical of a “liberal agenda,” (many are) but you offer no specifics to back it up. Just because some don’t agree with your viewpoint does not make them bigots.
In the first paragraph of one article it stated Mr. Lang was a dairy farmer. I’m thinking, how does that qualify him? In the last paragraph it stated he was a Iowa Farm Bureau President, big difference in reporting and placement.
The only credibility you might have in your accusations is “wealthy donor” but I don’t recall any outrage from you/left when I called it to your attention in the past.
Oh ya, Harkins papers. Sounds like a senator and his wife did not like having to answer any questions or have his precious papers scrutinized by professionals. He’s so pompus!

Kettleson,
I didn’t misrepresent anything. I steered you in the direction of a couple of newspaper articles as a place to start. You said you hadn’t a clue about the Board of Regents and, based on what you’ve posted, I believe you. But I’m not doing your homework for you. You do it yourself.
Oh and by the way, I didn’t say Cramer was “critical of a ‘liberal agenda’” That was a quote taken from the cited article in the Ames Tribune. Your issue is with the Tribune, not me.
Kettleson, I do not write for the Ames Tribune, I did not write those articles. I am not responsible for whatever problems you might have with them
And FYI, there is no such word as “pompus”

Kettleson,
With regard to wealthy campaign donors getting nominated to the Board of Regents, I didn’t bring it up, Senate committee member, Brad Zaun, Republican from Urbandale did (Des Moines Register “Two Regents picks don’t receive Senate committee’s recomendation”. Zaun “cast the lone vote today against moving the three candidates to the full Senate. He called it a symbolic gesture to show his displeasure with the fact that wealthy political contributors typically serve on the Board of Regents, which results in too little accountability to the people of Iowa”
With regard to your comment “Just because some don’t agree with your viewpoint does not make them bigots,” it depends. Bashing gay people and attempting to deprive them of equal protection and equal rights is no longer acceptable. And it’s not a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of law. Cramer has devoted a great deal of time to trying to deprive LGBT people of their rights. He even went so far as to remove three Iowa Supreme justices from the bench because he didn’t like their ruling on marriage equality. Cramer is like those people back in the 50′s who put up billboards saying “Impeach Earl Warren”. Those people were bigots. Cramer is a bigot. He can’t be trusted not to interfere with policies protecting the rights of LGBT students, faculty and staff at the Regents universities that have been in place for twenty years.
And he can’t be trusted because:
1) Cramer stated that “he would oppose any policy that would endorse, encourage, or promote any specific behavior on campus because he does not believe that is an appropriate role for a university to take” (Dorman’s article, see above)
2) Senate committee member Herman Quirmbach (D Ames) said Wednesday “that he still has concerns about Cramer’s commitment to equal opportunity for gay people, given his past opposition” (Des Moines Register)
Statement #1 is code, as we all well know, for the gay agenda which Cramer opposes and statement #2 expresses concern based on Cramer’s track record
Cramer is a bigot. He does not belong on the Board

The Harkin dust up is Harkin running off with his ‘Ball’ because he wasn’t allowed to rig the rules to his benefit.

Harkin wanted to commandeer the the ISU reputation to push whatever propaganda he wanted, without interference from any of the colleges on campus that have extensive knowledge of the topics, Harkins “Institute” wanted publish on.

Harkins plan was to have a think tank with his name on it, govt funding, and autonomy to push his ideas, all under the auspices of ISU.

The hitch came when ISU made it clear that, while they welcomed Harkin and his papers, any new or ongoing research or studies might do would be open to researchers and academics that have expertise in the area of study. This open sharing of research and study was the single reason Harkin ran away.

For instance, if the Harkin Institute wanted to study the negative affects of corporate farming on the rural landscape of Iowa. The college of Agriculture, and the College of Business, and whatever other researchers had expertise in the area, would be excluded from the research. The findings would be released under the name and reputation of ISU, without any influence from the university.

When the University laid down the ground rules that any research done would be an open collaboration, Harkins grand scam imploded.

Take note that no other University has stepped up to be cover for Harkins unsavory proposal.

The “Harkin Institute” was originally brought up by Kettleson and again by Williamson. The column by Dorman in no way touches on the “Harkin Institute”, even remotely Such off-issue comments are simply a transparent attempt to muddy/change the subject. ( Why not bring up the subject of the proposed casino in Cedar Rapids, at least the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission is mentioned? )

As usual, Williamson, you haven’t the faintest idea what you are talking about.
Excerpt Ames Tribune eidtorial: “Harking Institute debacle a black eye for ISU” 2/09/13
“It started out simply enough. Some people with money thought it would be a good idea to establish an institute named for U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin at Iowa State University, Harkin’s alma mater. The institute would sponsor research into four areas close to Harkin’s heart, agriculture, education, international development, and health and human services. It would also become the repository for his papers from his 40-year career as a congressman and senator. . . .
Brand-new ISU president Steven Leath found himself caught between the Board of Regents, and the board of the Harkin Institute. His attempt to find a compromise acceptable to all failed, and last week, following a recommendation of the institute’s board, Harkin decided not to give his papers to ISU. It seems doubtful at this point that the Harkin Institute will survive. As we report in today’s edition, the money promised in support of the institute will follow Harkin’s papers, wherever they end up”.

Which means Harkin has about the same connection to the Harkin Institute as Herbert Hoover has to the Hoover Institute. Which is to say, virtually none.

Another excerpt from the same editorial, and this is really interesting:
“Branstad declared last week that ISU should speak with “one voice” when it comes to agriculture research”.

Also from the Tribune:
Ames Tribune, “Harkin Istitute, CARD fight misperceptions on funding” 12/22/12
“Continued disagreements about the institute stem from a memo written by ISU President Steven Leath that requires the Harkin Institute to get permission from CARD (Center for Agricultural and Rural Development) to conduct agriculture-related research. The memo made void a memorandum of understanding penned in 2011, which banned the Harkin Institute from conducting any agriculture research”

Seems the disagreement was over whether scholars and the public would have free access to Harkin’s papers (which is usually the case in university special collections and archives) or would they have to go through CARD. Seems Harkin wasn’t the one who wanted to exclude people. Which you seem, in your own dim way, to understand when you said “The hitch came when ISU made it clear that, while they welcomed Harkin and his papers, any new or ongoing research or studies might do would be OPEN TO RESEARCHERS AND ACADEMICS THAT HAVE EXPERTISE IN THE AREA OF STUDY”

This from the Ames Tribune
“Continued disagreements about the institute stem from a memo written by ISU President Steven Leath that requires the Harkin Institute to get permission from CARD ”

Ms Bell intrepretation
“Seems the disagreement was over whether scholars and the public would have free access to Harkin’s papers”

So my original post is spot on. Harkin wanted to do research under the auspices of ISU, Locking out researchers and academics with knowledge, and experience in their field. (requires the Harkin Institute to get permission from CARD (Center for Agricultural and Rural Development) to conduct agriculture-related research.)

So see? You provided the evidence that supports my original post.
Why would Harkin balk at getting permission from CARD to do research?

“Seems the disagreement was over whether scholars and the public would have free access to Harkin’s papers (which is usually the case in university special collections and archives) or would they have to go through CARD”

No, No, Not even close.
No where is there ever any mention during this Harkin pout, about free access to his papers. The academics dont care about his papers. Harkin never differentiated himself from any other Senator that served this Nation. There is nothing to study. He is still alive. Got Questions? Give him a call at his permanate residence in the Bahamas. He’ll have an aide get back to you with a white paper.

Never to late to get some help with that comprehension thing.

Williamson, again you have absolutely no idea what you are tallking about.
How do you get from objecting to having to get permission from CARD in order to do research to locking out researchers and academics with knowledge and experience in their field. Further, you conveniently overlooked the 2011 memo that blocked the still fledgling Harkin Institute from conducting any research in the field of agriculture. Further, you give no indication that you are aware of ongoing controversies with regard to undue interference from the legislature and agribusiness corporation in the area of agriclutural research and development. Add Branstad and his “speak with one voice” and I don’t blame Harkin for not wanting his name attached to such a farce.
As for Harkin taking his papers and stomping out, those papers belong to him. He can donate them to any university, college, library he wants or he can set them on fire.
And if Harkin really is the nobody you claim he is, what difference does it make. Why should you care.
.

http://www.iowastatedaily.com/news/article_f0ea8712-6ffa-11e2-ae4f-0019bb2963f4.html
“The criticism that my Jan. 2, 2013 guideline for research conducted by the Harkin Institute violates principles of academic freedom is completely unfounded and false. In reality, my directive lifted any and all restrictions originally placed upon the Harkin Institute (which were adopted prior to my arrival at Iowa State), and instead simply requested that the institute function in a cooperative and collaborative manner with existing units on campus. Surprisingly, even that request has been considered unacceptable by certain institute stakeholders. I should also note that the University’s Chief Academic Officer, faculty leadership and even the director of the institute itself, have all voiced their support for my position,”

Everything I have posted previous is from memory

This is the letter Dr Leath released

Varifiying that the reason Harking took his ball and ran, is because he refused to participate in a cooperative and corroborative manner. This supported by everyone concerned, including the Director of the Harkin Institute

Harkin the only Bad Faith Actor