Friday, March 01, 2024

How Far Inland Can A Tsunami Travel On The East Coast USA? By Ken J.

Source: https://modernsurvivalblog.com/natural-disaster/how-far-inland-would-a-300-foot-tsunami-go-on-the-east-coast/

10/17/2021

How Far Inland Will a 300 Foot Tsunami Go on the East Coast

How far inland can a tsunami travel? That’s a question you may be wondering, especially if you live near the coast. Read through all the caveats that I discuss below, before checking out the maps. There’s not one answer. Rather, there are lots of “it depends”.

EAST COAST TERRAIN ELEVATION MAPS SHOWN BELOW

Awhile ago I wrote an article titled “300 Foot Tsunami And East Coast Destruction” (linked below) regarding the possibility of ‘La Palma’ or ‘El Hierro’ of the Canary Islands partially collapsing into the Eastern Atlantic following a major volcanic eruption there.

This event would likely lead to a mega tsunami that travels across the Atlantic and devastates the East Coast of the United States.

Opinions vary regarding the height of the tsunami and range from 60 feet, to 300 feet, and even higher than that as it rolls up the shoreline of the East Coast of the United States and elsewhere.

Canary Islands – La Palma – Cumbre Vieja Mega-Tsunami?

UPDATE: I first published this article during 2013. Eight years later, 2021, a swarm of earthquakes are rattling the Canary Islands – sparking fears of a volcanic eruption. I recalled posting the following East Coast Terrain Elevation Maps with intent of providing some context for a “what if” scenario of a mega-tsunami. Like a tsunami initiated from a major submarine landslide at the Canary Islands, for example.

There have been fears an eruption could cause a mega-tsunami. Steven Ward first explained this theory in research from the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, University of California, Santa Cruz, California, two decades ago.

image via ZeroHedge via StanDeyo

USA: Waves 130-160 ft high, traveling up to 12 miles inland

image source: Cumbre Vieja Volcano — Potential collapse and tsunami at La Palma, Canary Islands, Steven N. Ward.
(height in meters)

Evolution of the La Palma landslide tsunami from 2 minutes (upper left) to 9 hours (lower right).

Red and blue contours cover elevated and depressed regions of the ocean respectively and the yellow dots and numbers sample the wave height, positive or negative, in meters. Note the strong influence of dispersion in spreading out an original impulse into a long series of waves of decreasing wavelength. See also that the peak amplitudes generally do not coincide with the first wave.

Even after crossing the Atlantic, a lateral collapse of Cumbre Vieja volcano could impose a great sequence of waves of 10-25 meters height on the shores of the Americas. (research by Steven N. Ward).

(Cumbre Vieja is a volcanic ridge on the volcanic ocean island of La Palma in the Canary Islands.)

Okay, back to the original post. I must have had too much time on my hands back then… plotting several east coast elevation maps:

How Far Inland Can A Tsunami Go?

“IF” a 300 foot tsunami reached the East Coast, how far inland would it go?

Logically one might reason that the tsunami will travel inland until the elevation of the land is higher than the tsunami. While that sounds logical, there are variables…

Actually, the distance a tsunami will travel inland has more to do with the energy remaining as it hits the shore.

A tsunami will speed across the ocean at hundreds of miles an hour but at a relatively small height (because the ocean is DEEP).

It’s speed decreases as it approaches the shoreline (because the ground beneath it is getting shallower) but it’s energy begins to transfer to its monstrous HEIGHT.

When the speed of the wave approaches zero, the wave breaks, much of its energy is released, and it will not go too much further. A tsunami that reaches a height of 300 feet when it rears up at the shore (or any height), will lose energy as it travels inland.

It’s all about energy. Frequency (depending on the source of the tsunami) and Amplitude (shape of ocean floor, shoreline and up-slope factors).

It is conceivable that a given tsunami may rear up quickly (and very high) once it reaches the shore (depending on the shape of the ocean floor leading to the shore), and then ‘break’ and lose much of it’s energy in a relatively short distance. While another tsunami may be more compressed (in frequency) and be thrust forward very quickly while traveling a long distance inland (remember Japan?).

There are scientifically sound reasons for concern that at some point in time a mega tsunami could engulf the entire East Coast with a wave approximating 300 feet in height and sweep everything and everybody inland. The consequences of such an event are nearly unimaginable.

Tsunami Maps (East Coast Terrain)

Out of curiosity and an interest in maps, I have custom built the following elevation maps based on high resolution data from USGS digital elevation maps of the United States, particularly the East Coast. I have modeled several layers of elevation of the East Coast to illustrate various height scenarios of tsunami versus geography as it travels inland.

Having said that, there are many variables and factors affecting how far a tsunami would travel inland. So if you live 20 miles inland along the Florida coast (for example) at an elevation of 50 feet doesn’t necessarily mean that a 300 foot tsunami (at the shore) will have enough remaining energy to travel all the way to your location.

There are some instances whereby such a tsunami would probably only travel several miles inland while there are other scenarios where it may roar up a river way or bay and devastate far inland.

Regardless of the factors, I felt that you may be curious to see following elevation graphics that I layered together which increment 75 feet all the way to 300 feet in height along the U.S. East Coast. I would guesstimate that if you live within 20 miles of the coast, you may be vulnerable to a Canary Island ‘event’. However this is simply my own estimation.

Which American Cities Might Be Devastated by an East Coast Mega-Tsunami?

Several observations regarding a 300 foot tsunami would be the probable devastation of the following major East Coast cities… Even a 75 foot tsunami !

CITY, (Current elevation above sea level, feet)

Portland, ME (~ 50′)
Boston, MA (~ 30′)
New Haven, CT (~ 50′)
Bridgeport, CT (~ 40′)
New York City, NY (~ 20′)
Jersey City, NJ (~ 30′)
Newark, NJ (~ 50′)
Atlantic City, NJ (~ 10′)
Wilmington, DE (~ 80′)
Philadelphia, PA (~ 40′)
Virginia Beach, VA (~ 10′)
Wilmington, NC (~ 20′)
Myrtle Beach, SC (~ 20′)
Charleston, SC (~ 10′)
Savannah, GA (~ 10′)
Daytona Beach, FL (less than 10′)
West Palm Beach, FL (less than 10′)
Fort Lauderdale, FL (less than 10′)
Miami, FL (less than 10′)

There are countless cities and towns in between these coastal cities. The Eastern Seaboard of the United States includes some of the largest metropolitan areas in the country. Over one third of the country (more than 100 million people) live along the East Coast. Evacuation would be virtually impossible for most (except for the astute who act quickly) due to only hours notice, probable doubt, and the subsequent immediate gridlock that would follow.

GET AUTOMATICALLY NOTIFIED IF A TSUNAMI IS COMING

NOAA ALERT RADIO
(view on amzn)

ELEVATION MAPS

THE MAPS BELOW SIMPLY SHOW ELEVATION.

NOT the expected distance a 300 foot tsunami (or any height) would actually travel. With that said, the maps simply provide visualization and reference in this regard.

NOTE: An evacuation plan should include:
Road Atlas Map For Each State

300 Foot Tsunami Northeast Coast United States Map

Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York Coastal Elevation Map

300 Foot Tsunami Chesapeake Bay and North Carolina Coast Map

Chesapeake Bay & North Carolina Coastal Elevation Map

300 Foot Tsunami North and South Carolina Coast Map

North and South Carolina Coastal Elevation Map

300 Foot Tsunami Georgia Coast Map

Georgia Coastal Elevation Map

300 Foot Tsunami Florida Coast Map

Florida Coastal Elevation Map

Florida with its very low elevation would have particular problems with a tsunami moving in many miles inland!

Thursday, February 08, 2024

Levin: The Democrat Party's fetish for the 14th Amendment is a vile attack on our elections directed at one man: Donald Trump

James Devaney/GC Images/Getty Images


Source: https://www.theblaze.com/columns/opinion/levin-the-democrat-partys-fetish-for-the-14th-amendment-is-a-vile-attack-on-our-elections-directed-at-one-man-donald-trump

SEPTEMBER 05, 2023

The modern Democrat Party has an unhealthy fetish for the 14th Amendment, one of the three post-Civil War constitutional amendments. Democrats are constantly and relentlessly trying to rewrite it to accommodate their political ends.

A few months ago, Joe Biden and his party insisted that Section 4 of the 14th Amendment granted the president power to unilaterally increase the debt ceiling, which would destroy Congress’s sole power under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to tax, spend, and borrow. Of course, Section 4 of the 14th Amendment does no such thing, and there is nothing in the history of the amendment that supports such an interpretation. Here’s the relevant language:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

As I explain in my new book, “The Democrat Party Hates America,” nobody was challenging the validity of the debt. Second, the language is specific to Civil War-related debt. Third, the language says nothing about fundamentally altering the way the federal government raises revenue or pays debt. Fourth, to repeat, the language and legislative history in no way support the proposition that the core power of Congress was replaced or repealed. Fifth, the language does not and was never intended to abolish separation of powers, which is core to our constitutional system. The proponents of this absurdity would have turned Biden into a bigger dictator than he already is. But none of this mattered to the proponents. They seek power at any cost.

If the Democrat Party, their media, and their academicians cannot rewrite the Constitution by interpretation, then they argue for abolishing it altogether and replacing it with a more “relevant” document — that is, a document that ensures their monopoly power and destroys our founding principles. After all, how many times have they told us that the Constitution was written by slaveholders, perpetuates racism and inequity, and is illegitimate?

The same kind of fraudulent approach is now before us with respect to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Here is the text that these constitutional saboteurs, in the name of the Constitution, are desperately and cravenly insisting prevents former President Donald Trump from effectively running for a second presidential term.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

You need not be an aging retired judge, washed-up former law professor, or NeverTrumper academician to notice that the word “president” cannot be found in this text. So, why would the amendment’s drafters, adopters, and ratifiers all exclude the word “president” from the text but include virtually every other form of officeholder, federal and state, elected and appointed, in the text? Did they forget to add the word “president”? Or could the reason possibly be that they did not want to include the word “president” and, therefore, intentionally did not? Of course, there is nothing anywhere that even suggests the drafters, adopters, or ratifiers intended otherwise. It took two NeverTrumper law professors (members of the Federalist Society no less), joining the Democrat Party mob, over 125 pages to try to convince us that by omitting the word “president,” not only did the drafters, adopters, and ratifiers intend to include the president, but the proper interpretation of the amendment and its construction and application make it undeniable and clear.

In fact, so clear are these professors and their ilk that we are supposed to intuit the intention of the drafters, adopters, and ratifiers by, among other things, the words “as an officer of the United States.” Thus, this phrase, we are told, should be read to include the word “president.” Therefore, there was no need to single out by name the most powerful and important governmental official in the entire country. Consequently, the argument goes, of course the president was intended to be included in the amendment by general reference to “officer.” Any why not? After all, the local South Carolina county commissioner was not specifically mentioned either.

This is preposterous. For most people, the absurdity is self-evident. Indeed, if they intended to include the president, you’d think he would not only be mentioned but that he’d be at the top of the list of officials included in the text. In fact, they even mention “elector of President and Vice-President,” but not the president himself.

Moreover, what does the phrase “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against [the United States]” mean? If you are going to bar the leading Republican candidate for the presidency from even appearing on a state ballot, thereby disenfranchising untold numbers of citizens who would like to vote for him, and potentially alter the course and outcome of a presidential election, there should be some definitive way to know what this phrase means and who gets to make that decision. Obviously, as the 14th Amendment is one of the so-called Civil War amendments, we know what was meant when the amendment was ratified — engaging in insurrection or rebellion on behalf of the Confederacy and against the Union, aka the Civil War. It wasn’t very difficult to figure out who did or did not engage in such activities or what was meant by insurrection or rebellion. They didn’t need law professors or members of the Democrat Party — the party of the Confederacy — to tell them. But did the drafters, adopters, and ratifiers intend Section 3 to apply beyond the death of the last Confederate?

Of course, there’s no evidence that it did, other than the wishful meanderings and self-serving declarations of the proponents. Strangely, however, if that was the true intention and purpose, the amendment doesn’t provide any guidance on how these decisions would be presented and resolved in the case of a presidential candidate or president. I say strangely because at the Constitutional Convention, the framers spent a great deal of time debating and working through the way we elect presidents. They came up with the Electoral College system. It didn’t take long until it was evident that even that process needed some adjustment. Hence, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution. If, in 1868, the drafters, adopters, and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment intended it not only to apply to a presidential candidate or president but knew it could upset the presidential election process, why did they say absolutely nothing about it?

For example, how is it determined whether a presidential candidate or president engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the United States when he has not been charged with, let alone convicted of, such offenses? You won’t find the answer in the 14th Amendment. That would seem to be an essential question in need of a definitive answer. Did the men behind Section 3 intend that a presidential candidate be barred from a state ballot based merely on accusations? And accusations from whom? The media? Democrat Party officials, operatives, and litigators? Academicians? NeverTrumpers? In fact, the second impeachment trial against President Trump fell well short of the number of senators needed to convict him for the events of January 6. As a result, he was not barred under Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution from “hold[ing] and enjoy[ing] any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.” If anything, there was a constitutional adjudication in Trump’s favor.

Indeed, on January 4, 48 hours before the so-called January 6 insurrection, President Trump offered to call up 10,000 National Guardsmen to protect the Capitol Building and Congress during the official Electoral College count. The Democrat speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and the D.C. Democrat mayor refused the offer. These facts are intentionally ignored by the Biden regime’s special counsel, as they were by the Democrat Party’s so-called January 6 Committee. And they ignore it because a president clearly is not engaged in an insurrection or rebellion when he offers thousands of armed troops to do precisely the opposite.

Moreover, does any serious scholar believe that the post-Civil War Congress was so committed to preserving federalism that it would have written an amendment giving a single state the power to upend a federal presidential election? Would that Congress have believed when it was drafting and adopting Section 3 that it was granting power to a state official, say, a secretary of state or attorney general, to unilaterally bar a leading presidential candidate from the state’s ballot, thereby possibly affecting the outcome of a national election? Or, for that matter, even a state legislature? No way. Indeed, the post-Civil War Congresses were mostly hostile to states’ rights. Several Southern states remained occupied military territories until they capitulated to the demands of the federal government.

Putting aside all the issues raised previously, one can only imagine the Pandora’s box this would open. It was not opened by the drafters, adopters, and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment. It is being opened by the modern-day saboteurs of the Constitution.

This entire movement is a vile assault on the electoral process directed at a single individual: Donald Trump. There is absolutely no constitutional basis for it. However, if it somehow succeeds, the implications will live far beyond today. We are left not with the rule of law but the rule of men – and in this case, the rule of Democrat Party officials and operatives and their academic allies. The party of the Confederacy once again seeks to nullify the federal Constitution and the nation’s electoral system, disenfranchise tens of millions of voters nationwide, and push the country toward its breaking point, from which we may never recover.

It's worth remembering that the Democrat Party and its surrogates are a power-hungry lot. They are also driving other dangerously illegitimate and self-serving attacks on our voting system.

How many times have we heard from Democrat politicians, academics, media, and activists that the Electoral College should be abolished, that it is a racist system set up by white slaveholders to perpetuate racism, etc.? Of course, this is another anti-American lie. The purpose of the Electoral College is, among others, to ensure that all parts of the country have a say in the election of a president and vice president, not just the most populous areas, and to prevent mob rule by way of unchecked majoritarianism. Thus, the Electoral College is an institutional block on the Democrat Party’s efforts to monopolize our voting system, since the most densely populated areas of the nation are run by Democrats.

The Democrat Party is behind another unconstitutional scheme that seeks to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans, specifically Republican voters – the so-called National Popular Vote movement. It involves an interstate compact in which states agree in advance of actual voting to assign their Electoral College votes to the candidate who nationally receives the largest number of popular votes – even if that candidate loses the popular vote in their own state. The NPV is only triggered once enough states reach the 270 majority under the Electoral College system. So far, the states that have joined the compact hold 196 electoral votes. They’re getting close.

The Democrat Party is also relentlessly attempting to nationalize state voting systems to empower itself and destroy any meaningful opposition from the Republican Party. The Democrat Party dressed up this tyranny as a civil rights effort. It was introduced in the House by Nancy Pelosi as H.R. 1, the first bill to be considered by the new Democrat majority. It would have effectively eliminated state voter ID laws, make it virtually impossible to clean up voter registration lists, instituted online registration throughout the country, virtually eliminated protections against absentee ballot fraud, provided for taxpayer funding for congressional candidates, attacked political speech by individuals and groups, etc. Vladimir Lenin called it “democratic centralization.”

This is the party, and these are the people (with cover from some odd-thinking professors, et al.) who are organizing around a twisted fiction for banning Trump from the ballot and disenfranchising his would-be voters in advance of an election.

Obituary - Donovan

R. Michael Donovan


Source: https://sites.rowan.edu/obituaries/2023/07-jul/michael_donovan.html

Mike retired from Rowan in 2018 after 46 years of service. Among his valued contributions, he created the RTF program and was instrumental in establishing the Charles & Lucille King Family Foundation in 2002. The $1 million gift established an endowed chair with Mike as its first recipient. Mike also served for many years as the advisor for Rowan Radio 89.7 WGLS-FM and was instrumental in its strong reputation and recognition as an award-winning college radio station. 

A celebration of life will be held at a later date.


View The Obituary

In loving memory of
Robert Michael Donovan

November 05, 1947 - July 06, 2023

AKA – Shecky

Mount Dora,Florida

Born in Jersey City, Mike attended Jersey City State College (BA) and New York University (MA). He began his career at Glassboro State College which became Rowan University, and retired after 45 years in 2018 as Professor of the History and Business of Television.

During his tenure, he established the Radio/TV/Film program, assisted in growing the WGLS radio station to an award winning college station, and served as Director of Marketing for the National Association of Television Programming Executives.

Mike was appointed the Educational Director of The Charles and Lucille King Family Foundation, and went on to serve as The Endowed Chair of the King Foundation at Rowan.

He is survived by his loving wife Ann (Shoemaker) Donovan , sister Barbara (Donovan)Rose (Staten Island, NY), brother Patrick and sister-in-law Maureen (Ryan) Donovan (Jim Thorpe Pa.)and loving nieces ,nephews and step children.

In lieu of flowers, he requested donations be made to the ASPCA or North Shore Animal League.

A Celebration of Life will be announced in the future.


Source: https://baldwincremation.com/obituaries/robert-michael-donovan/


Foundation endows Rowan University chair for $1 million

Source: https://today.rowan.edu/news/2002/09/foundation-endows-rowan-university-chair-1-million.html

September 19, 2002

Rowan University President Dr. Donald Farish announced today that the University had received a $1 million pledge from the Charles & Lucille King Family Foundation to endow a professorial chair in Rowan’s Radio/TV/Film Department. Michael Donovan, a professor of the Radio/TV/Film Department, has been named by the University to serve as the founding chair.

The Rowan University Foundation will manage the endowment as part of its investment portfolio. Under its current spending policy, the Foundation will allocate five percent of the fund value each year back to the department. Professor Donovan will oversee the distribution of funds, using them for research activities, equipment and resources needed for students to excel in what Donovan describes as a “constantly changing industry.”

“Endowing a chair is one of the most effective ways a donor can impact the overall quality of a specific program,” said Farish. “The gift will enable Professor Donovan and his successors to implement initiatives usually offered only in the nation’s top communication programs. Our students are going to benefit greatly from this donation and what Mr. Donovan will be able to do with it.”

Donovan has earned a national reputation for his work in Radio/TV/Film education. In addition to teaching for more than 30 years at Rowan, for the past 20 years Donovan has been a marketing consultant and education coordinator for the National Association of Television Program Executives, the largest television programming trade association in the world. He also teaches seminars on the American commercial broadcast industry to media professionals from developing nations for the United States Telecommunications Training Institute in Washington, D.C.

“We became familiar with Rowan University through Professor Donovan’s initiatives outside of Rowan,” said Eugene Kokot, trustee and secretary of the King Family Foundation. “We believe that the College of Communication has an excellent understanding of the broadcast industry’s needs and will use the money in the students’ best interest.”

“The Foundation is delighted that Rowan has selected Professor Donovan as the first to hold the endowed chair,” Kokot added.

The King Family Foundation’s pledge came after nearly a year of talks with Rowan University Foundation’s Executive Director Dr. Philip Tumminia. “The Foundation has a long history of supporting students studying television and film production at some of the most prestigious universities in the country,” Tumminia said. “We had hoped that if the trustees learned about the transformation taking place here at Rowan and the progress being made in the College of Communication, they would agree that we were a good investment. We are honored that the trustees would hold our communication program in such high regard as to make such a generous gift.”

The Charles & Lucille King Family Foundation, a New Jersey-based non-profit organization, was established in 1989 by Diana King in honor of her parents whose early efforts in film and television program distribution led to the creation of King World Productions, Inc. Chief among the Foundation’s educational pursuits is its undergraduate scholarship program that provides scholarships to outstanding students pursuing degrees in television and film production.


Rowan's Donovan to be honoredby Broadcast Education Association

Source: https://today.rowan.edu/news/2006/03/rowans-donovan-be-honored-broadcast-education-association.html

March 29, 2006

Rowan University faculty member Mike Donovan of Glassboro will be honored for his outstanding contributions to electronic media education when he receives the 2006 Distinguished Education Service Award from the Washington, D.C.-based Broadcast Education Association (BEA).

Donovan, a professor in the Radio/Television/Film (RTF) Department in the College of Communication at Rowan, will receive the award April 27 during the BEA's 51st annual convention in Las Vegas.

The BEA, which boasts more than 1,400 members, is the professional association for professors, industry professionals and graduate students interested in teaching and research in electronic media and multimedia enterprises.

The Distinguished Education Service Award is presented to an electronic media educator or industry person "who has made a significant and lasting contribution to the American system of electronic media education" through a singular achievement or continuing service, according to the BEA web site.

A Rowan faculty member since 1972, Donovan was one of the founding members of the University's RTF Department. He teaches courses in the business, regulation, economics and history of the electronic media industry.

In 2002, he was named to the King Chair, an endowed professorial chair at Rowan established through a $1 million gift from the Charles & Lucille King Family Foundation.

Active on numerous committees at Rowan, Donovan served as the advisor to Rowan Radio, WGLS 89.7-FM, for many years and is the co-author of the Student Operations Manual, which has been recognized as a model for student radio stations. He also established the Radio/TV Association, a student organization for media majors.

For two decades, he was a marketing consultant and educational coordinator for the National Association of Television Program Executives (NATPE), the largest television programming professional trade association in the world.

Additionally, he established and supervised a host of educational initiatives through the NATPE Educational Foundation.

# # #

Investiture at Rowan to celebrate endowed RTF chair

Source: https://today.rowan.edu/news/2008/09/investiture-rowan-celebrate-endowed-rtf-chair.html

September 17, 2008

Rowan University will hold its first-ever formal Investiture ceremony to celebrate the University's endowed chair in the College of Communication on Thursday, Sept. 25, at 4 p.m. in the Eynon Ballroom of the Chamberlain Student Center.

The ceremony will formally recognize Michael Donovan as the Charles & Lucille King Family Foundation Chair in Radio/Television/Film (RTF). Diana King, trustee, president and chair of The Charles & Lucille King Family Foundation, will join with the Rowan community to mark the celebration of the chair, which was established through a $1 million endowment in 2002.

All members of the Rowan community--faculty, students and staff--are invited to attend the Investiture ceremony.

"Gifts like the endowed chair from the King Family Foundation help us hire top faculty, support research activities, promote faculty development and, most importantly, provide unique learning opportunities for our students," said Rowan President Donald Farish.

"The Investiture not only celebrates the King family's legacy as pioneers in the television industry. It also gives us the opportunity to recognize the profound impact their gift has had on Rowan students."

King World Productions, founded by Charles King in the 1930s, grew, through the stewardship of the King family, into the world's leading syndicator of first-run television programming. The company's success with programming such as "Wheel of Fortune," "Jeopardy!" and "The Oprah Winfrey Show" catapulted King World to leadership in the industry.

One of six children of Charles and Lucille King, Diana King established the New Jersey-based Charles & Lucille King Family Foundation to support individuals, institutions and organizations committed to educational excellence and professional development.

Donovan, a nationally recognized teacher and scholar who joined Rowan in 1972, was one of the founding members of the RTF department, where he teaches courses in the business, regulation, economics and history of the electronic media industry. For 20 years, Donovan served as a marketing consultant and educational coordinator for the National Association of Television Program Executives, the largest television programming professional trade association in the world.

In 2006, he received the Distinguished Education Service Award from the Broadcast Education Association.

Donovan serves as educational director of the Charles & Lucille King Family Foundation, coordinating and screening applications for the foundation's undergraduate scholarship program.

In addition to supporting research activities, promoting faculty development and providing technologies that have enhanced educational experiences for RTF students, funds from the King Family Foundation Endowed Chair also have gone toward the establishment of a visiting professorship in RTF for David Bianculli, a nationally prominent television critic.

Bianculli, former TV critic for the New York Daily News, is a longtime contributor to National Public Radio's "Fresh Air" program.

Diana King, who received an honorary degree from Rowan in 2002, established The Charles & Lucille King Foundation in 1988.



Hogan, Donovan To Be Inducted Into The WGLS-FM Hall Of Fame

Source: https://rowanradio.wordpress.com/2018/03/06/hogan-donovan-to-be-inducted-into-the-wgls-fm-hall-of-fame/

March 6, 2018

Frank Hogan and Mike Donovan at the WGLS-FM 40th anniversary banquet in October 2004.

Rowan Radio General Manager Emeritus Frank J. Hogan and Rowan University professor Michael Donovan will be inducted into the WGLS-FM Hall of Fame at Rowan Radio’s annual banquet on Thursday, April 12 at Scotland Run Golf Club in Williamstown, New Jersey.

Hogan served as WGLS-FM General Manager from 1991 to 2013. Under his leadership, WGLS-FM reached unprecedented heights on and off-the-air including winning College Radio Station of the Year; and receiving over 200 regional and national awards for excellence in programming.

Along with his work at Rowan Radio, Hogan also lent his time to teaching. He developed and taught the radio component of Rowan University’s Radio, Television & Film program.

A Philadelphia radio veteran in the 70s and 80s as a disc jockey and engineer, Hogan’s ties to Rowan University date back to 1977 when he designed new radio studios for WGLS-FM at then-Glassboro State College. He would go on to help facilitate Rowan Radio’s move into its current home at Bozorth Hall in the mid-90s as well.

Hogan will join his wife Alisa in the WGLS-FM Hall of Fame. She was inducted in 2014 at the station’s 50th anniversary banquet.

Meanwhile, Donovan, who began working at Glassboro State College in 1972, was WGLS-FM’s advisor for 10 years beginning in the early 70s. He played a key role in saving the station’s license in the late 70s and helped bring Hogan to Glassboro State College originally in 1977. Donovan oversaw many technological advancements for the station including power increases and a switch from a mono to stereo signal.

Besides his work with WGLS-FM, Donovan had a significant impact in the classroom. He created the Radio, TV, & Film program within the College of Communication and Creative Arts, which is still a mainstay at Rowan University.

Donovan and Hogan will become the 43rd and 44th members of the WGLS-FM Hall of Fame.

Established in 2005, the WGLS-FM Hall of Fame recognizes Glassboro State/Rowan University alumni and individuals that contributed to the station’s success.

You can register for the WGLS-FM Hall of Fame Banquet here.


Hogan and Donovan to enter WGLS-FM Hall of Fame By Matt Kass

Source: https://www.thewhitonline.com/2018/03/news/hogan-and-donovan-to-enter-wgls-fm-hall-of-fame/

March 9, 2018

Rowan Radio WGLS-FM will soon be adding two new members to the station’s Hall of Fame. General Manager Emeritus Frank J. Hogan and Rowan University professor Michael Donovan will be inducted into the Hall of Fame at Rowan Radio’s annual banquet on Thursday, April 12 at Scotland Run Golf Club in Williamstown, New Jersey.

For Derek Jones, current station director at WGLS-FM, Hogan and Donovan are part of a long legacy of success at the station. In an email response, Jones reiterated just how much the two meant to WGLS-FM.

“One of the biggest challenges of being station manager is following the legacy of excellence Frank [Hogan] and Mike [Donovan] helped establish,” Jones said. “It’s an awesome feeling to walk into the station every day and see the amount of awards and the success we’ve enjoyed over the years. Yet there is a constant challenge to keep that tradition going because you don’t want to let either one of them down. They set the standard and those who work at WGLS-FM have to live up to it.”

Hogan served as WGLS-FM General Manager from 1991 to 2013. Under his leadership, WGLS-FM won College Radio Station of the Year; and received over 200 regional and national awards for excellence in programming. Along with his work at Rowan Radio, Hogan developed and taught the radio component of Rowan University’s Radio, Television & Film program.

Hogan’s ties to Rowan University date back to 1977 when he designed new radio studios for WGLS-FM at then-Glassboro State College. He would go on to help facilitate Rowan Radio’s move into its current home at Bozorth Hall in the mid-90s as well. Hogan will join his wife Alisa in the WGLS-FM Hall of Fame. She was inducted in 2014 at the station’s 50th-anniversary banquet.

Donovan began working at Glassboro State College in 1972 and was WGLS-FM’s advisor for 10 years beginning in the late 1970s. He played a key role in saving the station’s license in the late ’70s and helped bring Hogan to Glassboro State College in 1977. Donovan also oversaw many technological advancements for the station including power increases and a switch from a mono to stereo signal.

Besides his work with WGLS-FM, Donovan had a significant impact in the classroom. He created the radio, television and film program within the College of Communication and Creative Arts, which is still a mainstay at Rowan University.

For Jones, having the opportunity to induct Hogan and Donovan is something that he cherishes.

“Inducting them into the Hall of Fame will be a wonderful experience,” Jones said. “I’ve been able to work at the station and teach at Rowan University because of the wisdom and advice they gave me over the years. That evening will be an opportunity to say thank you for all of their hard work and dedication.”

Donovan and Hogan will become the 43rd and 44th members of the WGLS-FM Hall of Fame. Established in 2005, the WGLS-FM Hall of Fame recognizes Glassboro State/Rowan University alumni and individuals who contributed to the station’s success.


Source: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=933681244597468



2018 Inductees: Frank J. Hogan, Mike Donovan

Frank J. Hogan served as WGLS-FM General Manager from 1991 to 2013. Under his leadership, WGLS-FM reached unprecedented heights on and off-the-air, was named College Radio Station of the Year by the National Association of College Broadcasters, and received more than 200 regional and national awards for excellence in programming. He would go on to help facilitate Rowan Radio’s move into its current home in Bozorth Hall in the mid-1990s. Along with his work at the station, Hogan developed and taught the radio component of Rowan’s Radio, Television & Film (RTF) program.

Mike Donovan began working at GSC in 1972 and was WGLS-FM’s advisor for over 10 years. During the early 1970s, the station's license was nearly surrendered to the FCC due to operational concerns. Donovan interceded to ensure the station stayed on the air. He oversaw many technological advancements for the station, including power increases and a switch from a mono to stereo broadcast signal. In 1977, he helped bring Hogan to GSC. Donovan also has had a significant impact in the classroom and was a founder of the RTF program within the College of Communication & Creative Arts.



Source: https://www.facebook.com/story.php/?id=100057796954057&story_fbid=1927088190644184

May 16, 2018

Retirement lunch for Mike Donovan. 46 years teaching at Rowan and most responsible for starting the RTF Department. So long Mike and enjoy your retirement!



Source: https://www.facebook.com/RowanRadio/posts/pfbid0TV2zd57zBBjoGdsMj1J9AwF2yTShmrUbk8rbjJ6WVjonPsmPdRF9qqK7v95dbum6l

July 6, 2023

Sad news to report from WGLS-FM General Manager Emeritus Frank J Hogan.

Mike Donovan, WGLS-FM station advisor from 1973 to 1988 and long-time Rowan University professor, passed away on Thursday morning.

A 2018 inductee of the WGLS-FM Hall of Fame, Donovan began at then-Glassboro State College in 1972 as a professor. As WGLS-FM struggled to find its footing in early 70s and faced possibly losing its license, Donovan became station advisor in 1973 and helped save the station. He continued in that role until 1988.

Donovan was responsible for numerous technological improvements at WGLS-FM and helped facilitate its move into Savitz Library. Also, he co-authored the WGLS-FM Station Manual, which is still in existence today.

Donovan brought in Philadelphia radio veteran Frank Hogan to Glassboro in the 70s as a consultant to assist with the station’s move to a stereo signal. Hogan would go on to eventually become WGLS-FM General Manager in 1991.

Donovan’s impact greatly exceeded the walls of WGLS-FM. He created the Radio, TV, & Film program within the Ric Edelman College of Communication and Creative Arts, which is still a mainstay at Rowan University.

“Without Mike Donovan, there may not be a WGLS-FM, as we know it. He was an advocate, influential figure, and friend to not only Rowan Radio but to Rowan University as well,” said WGLS-FM Station Manager Derek Jones.

“He impacted the lives of students as a brilliant teacher and as an advisor. Truly, Mike Donovan was a pillar for Rowan University’s Radio/Television/Film program. He will be missed.”



Source: https://www.facebook.com/story.php/?id=100063695106001&story_fbid=845971927535970

January 11, 2024

Jeff Weber along with Jim and Carol Servino made initial donations to establish the R. Michael Donovan Scholarship at Rowan University.

The goal of the R. Michael Donovan Scholarship is to honor and reward a rising senior Radio-TV-Film major for superior achievement while a student at Rowan.

If you'd like to join in and help fund the scholarship so it becomes self-sustaining, just click on the following link that will take you right to his scholarship fund.

Feel free to share this link with others who might be interested in contributing.

https://go.rowan.edu/DonovanScholarship

From Jim Servino:

"For those of us who had experiences with Mike Donovan at GSC/Rowan either as a professor or through his involvement with WGLS as our faculty advisor, we came to know him as someone who would talk with anyone and keep you entertained during the conversation. And this was from someone who wasn't much older than we were.

With Mike's passing this year, Jeff Weber and I were reminiscing about how many of us students really value our time at WGLS and how we were able to leverage those experiences in successful careers both in and out of the radio business. We felt one way to thank him and honor his memory is to establish a scholarship in his name to help students financially as they pursue their Bachelor of Arts in Radio, Television & Film degrees."

You can make a one-time or multi-year donation by using the link. Thank you in advance for considering this.

We invite you to join us in making a gift to support the creation of an endowed scholarship in Mike Donovan’s name. In the event that the $25,000 minimum to establish an endowed scholarship is not secured by December 26, 2026, all funds raised will instead be awarded as annual scholarships in Mike Donovan’s name."

Obituary - Karp

Stanley Karp, MD

October 29, 1930

Cinnaminson, NJ - Sept. 11, 2020. Husband of Joan Karp. Mother of Laura (Paul) Bovitz, Andrea (Rob) Varone and David (Marsha Messina) Karp. Grandfather of D.J. Karp, Benjamin Varone, Alyssa Bovitz, Adam Varone and Drew Karp. Brother of the late Rita Ebner. Graveside services will be Sunday, Sept. 13, 2020 beginning 1:00 pm at Crescent Memorial Park (Sec. Temple Sinai), Pennsauken, NJ. In lieu of flowers, contributions may be made to a charity of the donor's choice.

Published by Courier Post from Sep. 11 to Sep. 12, 2020.


Source: https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/courierpostonline/name/stanley-karp-obituary?id=8487610


Letters To The Editor Children Overfed Violence

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160102204901/http://articles.philly.com/1986-10-13/news/26058629_1_television-violence-average-american-child-watches-american-television

Posted: October 13, 1986

As a pediatrician dedicated to the health and safety of children, I am concerned about the increasing amount of violence shown on television. Next to the family, television is one of the major influences in a child's development, and it can serve a very positive, educational role. Unfortunately, television also can serve a negative role, such as exposing children to excessive amounts of violence.

In the past six years, the amount of violence shown on American television has doubled; children are bearing the brunt of this increase. Research shows that children's television programs are six times as violent as adults' shows. During one hour of cartoon-watching, children are exposed to about 20 acts of violence. In the course of a year, the average American child watches approximately 12,000 violent episodes. Dozens of studies have shown that children and adolescents can imitate the violence they see on television.

Sen. Paul Simon (D., Ill.) has introduced legislation that would provide an exemption from the antitrust laws to allow the television networks, independent stations and the cable industry to work together to reduce television violence. The legislation also would order the Federal Communications Commission to conduct a definitive study of television violence. Senate Bills 2322 and 2323, supported by the American Academy of Pediatrics, warrant senators' approval.

Stanley Karp

Cinnaminson, N.J.


A Heads-up Approach To Bike Safety

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20151231224819/http://articles.philly.com/1990-06-27/news/25912382_1_bicycle-helmets-bicycle-safety-bicycle-accidents Posted: June 27, 1990

Debbie Flamini never thought much about bicycle safety until a friend, a pediatric nurse, bought bicycle helmets for her own children.

That's when Flamini bought helmets for her three children: Kristen, 9, Joey, 6, and Ryan, 3.

"If the nurse was concerned enough about the dangers of bicycle accidents to buy helmets for her children, we thought we had better buy them for ours," said Flamini, of Riverside. "Now they wear them all the time and don't think anything of it."

The Flaminis, though, were just about the only children wearing helmets at a bicycle safety day Saturday at Rancocas Hospital in Willingboro.

Too few children wear helmets, said Stanley Karp, a Cinnaminson pediatrician, "and we're seeing the results in emergency rooms at hospitals."

Karp, who is on staff at Rancocas Hospital, estimates that bicycle accidents send more than 400,000 people each year to emergency rooms.

"The majority of those who are injured in bicycle-related accidents are children, and more than one-third of those injuries are head injuries," he added. "We could decrease the number of head injuries dramatically if more children - and adults - wear bicycle helmets."

But getting children to wear helmets and getting parents to realize the importance of buying helmets and make children wear them aren't easy, which is why Karp organized a bicycle safety day.

He estimates that 2 percent of children nationwide wear helmets and said he thought the statistic would remain low until more parents insisted that their children wore helmets.

More than 250 children attended the event, which included entertainment, bicycle inspections by police officers from Willingboro and Burlington Townships, an obstacle course to test riding skills, talks by professional cyclists and discounted sales of bicycle helmets.

"Unfortunately, wearing a helmet isn't cool with youngsters today, so we've got to have children start wearing helmets as soon as they learn to ride a two-wheeler," said Karp, who has seen many bicycle injuries in 27 years of practice in Burlington County.

Like most parents who attended the event with their children, Brenda Gunnell of Willingboro wasn't aware of the danger of brain injury from bicycle accidents, she said.

"You've really got to be careful," Gunnell said as her daughters, Quinta Winter, 10, and Nina Gunnell, 7, waited in line to have their bicycles inspected.

Also in line to have her light-green bicycle inspected was Kelly Webb, 7, of Cherry Hill, who went to the event at the suggestion of her father, Doug Webb, a personnel director at the hospital.

"Kelly doesn't have a helmet," he said, "but we're learning quickly how important it is to have her wear one."


Tuesday, January 09, 2024

High Stakes and a Simple Choice By Bernie Marcus

Source: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/11/09/high_stakes_and_a_simple_choice_150037.html

November 09, 2023

I am 94 years old and like many of you, I am exhausted by politics and saddened by what I see happening to America. I had hoped it was time for me to move to the sidelines and let younger generations continue the fight to preserve America’s founding freedoms and values. But, like so many of us, I realized that I could not let myself walk away; the stakes are just too high.

We cannot let the America we see today be what we leave to our children and grandchildren. Many of our once-great cities have devolved into lawlessness with random violent attacks on innocent people, rampant looting, and large-scale homeless encampments. There are rarely consequences for the wrongdoers because George Soros-elected prosecutors across America refuse to prosecute them.

Moreover, our southern border is unprotected, and millions of people we know nothing about pour into our nation to receive care and benefits that we cannot afford to provide to our struggling military veterans. Worse, many of the border crossers may be gang members who commit violent crimes here. Schoolchildren across America cannot read, write, or do basic math, while our educational leaders tell us that they know better than parents how to raise our children. Working men and women are struggling to provide for their families and must raid their retirement funds just to feed, clothe, and take care of their children. These are just a few of the problems America is facing after three years of bad government policies. They cannot be our legacy.

This should not be a partisan issue. This should be an issue for all Americans – Democrats, Republicans, and Independents – that I hope to reach with this op-ed. You enjoy the freedoms and values on which the nation was founded. Sadly, I see these freedoms and values being eroded today as government gets bigger and weaponized against its political opponents.

I wrote this op-ed because of my love for America, not for any financial gain or advantage. I have been retired for 30 years and spend my time engaged in philanthropic causes, with which I have committed to share 90% of my net worth. I was born here and can give testimony about The American Dream. I lost my job and was broke when I was 48 years old. A dear friend of mine suggested that my misfortune presented a great opportunity to build a small business based upon an idea I had shared with him. Only in America, the land of opportunity, could being without a job and broke be a great opportunity. In 1978, my partners and I built four hardware stores, and this small business grew and is known as The Home Depot. We could only have done this in America because of America’s system of free enterprise and pro-jobs growth government policies. The state of America today, especially record inflation, government over-regulation, and the problems of the last three years, would prevent my partners and I from succeeding as we have.

Part of our legacy must be passing on to future generations of Americans our founding freedoms and values, including The American Dream. We must change the current trajectory of the nation and solve the problems created in the last three years. We must also reject calls from some politicians to replace our free market system with big government socialism. Most of them seem to have never had a job outside of government. All they know is making government bigger and more intrusive in the lives of its citizens.       

I wrote above that I wanted to sit on the sidelines of politics, but the stakes were too high for me just to walk away. The stakes are America’s path forward. Do we want to continue the perilous trajectory we are now on? I do not because it would be disastrous for all Americans except the political elite.

For Democrats, the choice is simple. If you feel that you are better off now than you were three years ago, you should vote for Joe Biden or whoever is the Democrat candidate. For Republicans, the choice is also simple.  Let’s face it: Donald Trump is going to win the nomination. You should be doing all you can to ensure his winning the general election.

I understand the frustration of some of my Republican friends who do not like or are offended by things Donald Trump does and says. I, too, have been frustrated at times, but we cannot let his brash style be the reason we walk away from his otherwise excellent stewardship of the United States during his first term in office. Now is the time for unity to save The American Dream for future generations. 

For these reasons, I endorse Donald J. Trump as the nominee of the Republican Party and as our next President. I endorse him not only because he has the best chance of winning the general election but because he is the best person to take on and dismantle the administrative state that is strangling America. The new war in the Middle East will present great challenges for the free world for some time, especially in keeping other terrorist groups or nations out of the conflict. This will require a president with the judgment, strength, decisiveness, and courage that Donald Trump displayed in his first term when he ordered the strike that killed the Iranian terrorist Gen. Qasem Soleimani and dissuaded Russia from invading Ukraine. Many, including myself, believe that Hamas would not have unleashed its barbarism and cruelty on Israel if Donald Trump was our president today. The reason is America’s enemies respect and, more importantly, fear Donald Trump’s judgment, strength, decisiveness, and courage. It is critical that America’s next leader have these attributes in the face of Hamas murdering innocent babies, old people, including Holocaust survivors, entire families; burning alive innocent people; raping women and young girls; and other unspeakable acts.

I urge my fellow Democrats, Republicans, and Independents to put their love for America above all else. I urge the Republican National Committee to end the Republican debates that only benefit ad makers and political consultants. They are unproductive and embarrassing.

Bernie Marcus is the co-founder of Job Creators Network, a philanthropist, and the retired co-founder of The Home Depot.

Rush Limbaugh - THE TRUE STORY OF THANKSGIVING



November 22, 2023

Just before his passing, Rush Limbaugh delivers one of the most accurate and compelling accounts of the true Thanksgiving story that you've ever heard... Be grateful.

Did you know they were socialists with a central bank and tons of debt?

“The first winter in the new world was an act of survival that you and I cannot possibly relate to or understand

Of paramount importance to [the Pilgrims] was living freely and worshiping God according to the dictates of their own conscience and their own beliefs. That’s what they were denied the freedom to do in England.

One of the most important legacies of the early settlers is that they experimented with socialism in the 1620’s and it did not work. Private property rights, personal responsibility saved the Plymouth colony from extinction and laid the economic foundation for the free and prosperous nation that we all enjoy today.”


-Rush Limbaugh

Bill Ackman Letters To Harvard University

Source: https://twitter.com/BillAckman/status/1720987581549080965 and PDF

Please see my below letter to the President of Harvard University sent today:

November 4, 2023

Dear President Gay,

I am writing this letter to you regretfully. Never did I think I would have to write a letter to the president of my alma mater about the impact of her actions and inactions on the health and safety of its student body in order to help catalyze necessary change. For the past four weeks since the horrors of October 7th, I have been in dialogue with members of the corporation board, other alumni, as well as students and faculty sharing and comparing our concerns about the growing number of antisemitic incidents on campus, as we wait for you and the University to act. Four weeks after the barbaric terrorist acts of October 7th, I have lost confidence that you and the University will do what is required.

Last Wednesday, I spent seven hours on campus meeting with Jewish, Israeli, and non-Jewish students and faculty at the Law School, at HBS and in a 90-minute town hall in Aldrich 112 with 230 Jewish college students (coincidentally, one for each hostage held by Hamas), research staff, and faculty from the University at large, organized by Harvard Chabad. Over the course of the day, it became clear that the situation at Harvard is dire and getting worse, much worse than I had realized.

Jewish students are being bullied, physically intimidated, spat on, and in several widely-disseminated videos of one such incident, physically assaulted. Student Slack message boards are replete with antisemitic statements, memes, and images. On-campus protesters on the Widener Library steps and elsewhere shout “Intifada! Intifada! Intifada! From the River to the Sea, Palestine Shall Be Free!” as they knowingly call for violent insurrection and use eliminationist language seeking the destruction of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.

When you explained in your October 12th video address that Harvard “embraces a commitment to free expression,” you sent a clear message that the eliminationist and antisemitic statements of the protesters are permissible on campus. Putting aside the legal limitations on free speech that include restrictions on fighting words and true threats, “where speakers direct a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death,” if Harvard indeed had a strong track record of protecting free speech, many would have taken your support for free speech more seriously. Unfortunately, Harvard has not embraced a serious commitment to free speech, particularly so in recent years.

In The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) Annual College Free Speech Rankings, Harvard has consistently finished in the bottom quartile in each of the past four years, with its ranking deteriorating each year. On September 23rd, just two weeks prior to October 7th, FIRE announced that Harvard achieved its lowest free speech ranking ever for the 2023 academic year, ranking last out of 254 universities, with a rating of 0.00, the only university with an “abysmal” speech climate. See: https://thefire.org/news/harvard-gets-worst-score-ever-fires-college-free-speech-rankingsfor the results of the survey where FIRE cites multiple examples of incidents on the Harvard campus where students and faculty were denied their First Amendment rights. Therefore, when you cite Harvard’s “commitment to free expression,” in supporting the protesters, it rings false and hypocritical to the university at large and the Jewish community in particular.

Many Jewish students have also recently become afraid to express their concerns. Many have also felt the need to remove their mezuzahs, yarmulkes, Stars of David, and other overt evidence of their religion and heritage on campus and in Cambridge to avoid being exposed to discrimination, bullying or worse.

I am incredibly saddened to say that Harvard has also become a place where Jewish students are concerned about the threat of physical violence (which likely has a corresponding impact on their mental health) while among other insults, they are forced to sit next to classmates who openly and comfortably post, under their actual names, antisemitic statements and imagery on the student-wide Slack message system with no consequences for their actions.

And it is not just the Jewish students and faculty that are up in arms. While on campus, I heard a constant refrain from non-Jewish members of the Harvard community:

Why are Claudine and the administration doing nothing about this?

Harvard’s Office of Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging

I have heard from many members of the Harvard community that Harvard’s Office of Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging (“OEDIB”) is an important contributing factor to the problem. I was surprised to learn from students and faculty that the OEDIB does not support Jewish, Asian and non-LGBTQIA White students. I had never read the OEDIB DEI statement until today when I wrote this letter. The DEI statement makes clear that Harvard’s conception of diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging does not include Jews (at least those that are not in one of the other welcomed DEI groups). According to Harvard’s DEI statement:

"We actively seek and welcome people of color, women, persons with disabilities, people who identify as LGBTQIA, and those who are at the intersections of these identities, from across the spectrum of disciplines and methods to join us."

In other words, Jews and others who are not on the above list are not welcome to join. When antisemitism is widely prevalent on campus, and the DEI office – which “views diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging as the pathway to achieving inclusive excellence and fostering a campus culture where everyone can thrive” – does not welcome Jewish students, we have a serious problem. It is abundantly clear that the campus culture that is being fostered at Harvard today is not one where everyone is included, feels a sense of belonging, welcomes diversity, or is a place where “everyone can thrive.”

Equity on Campus

The issue of equity, or the lack thereof, was another issue about which I heard constant complaints, i.e., the so-called “double standard.” One member of the faculty rhetorically asked:

"What would Claudine do if 34 Harvard student organizations put out a statement on May 25th, 2020 that ‘George Floyd had it coming,’" noting that you have yet to condemn the student organization letter which holds Israel “solely responsible” for the heinous and barbaric acts of a terrorist organization.

Other faculty, alumni and students asked other rhetorical questions including:

"How would Harvard respond if a trans student attempted to walk by an anti-LGBTQIA demonstration on the HBS campus and was subject to the same abuse that the Jewish HBS student experienced at the Free Palestine demonstration on October 18th?"
"How would you respond to a Harvard white supremacist protest where students shouted 'Tulsa! Tulsa! Tulsa! From the Atlantic to the Pacific, America should be free of Black people.'"
Would Harvard even permit the above demonstrations to take place on campus?

Despite the outburst of antisemitic activities and protests on campus, the first initiative that Harvard took to protect students was the establishment on October 24th of a task force to “support students experiencing doxxing, harassment, and online security issues following backlash against students allegedly affiliated with a statement that held Israel ‘entirely responsible’ for violence in the Israel-Hamas conflict.” The creation of this task force sent a very strong message that the University was not just ignoring the antisemitic incidents and threats to Jewish student safety on campus, but rather it was taking sides in the conflict by only supporting students who held Israel responsible for Hamas’ vile acts.

In summary, your failure to condemn the barbaric acts of October 7th opened the door for a wave of anti-Israel attacks on campus that have led to a growing number of antisemitic protests and actions. Your subsequent two statements about October 7th to the University attempting to address the failings of your first letter were not taken seriously as many perceived those statements as being driven by pressure from the alumni community rather than reflecting a sincere and authentic understanding of the issues, and real empathy for Israel and the Jewish community.

The failure of your communications to the public and the University coupled with the fact that the first tangible action by the University was to protect those who blamed Israel has created a belief among the Jewish and Israeli community at Harvard that they are not deemed welcome nor worthy of protection by the University.

“Narrow Casting”

Finally, your announcement on Friday October 27th about launching a task force to address antisemitism and your statement that “Antisemitism has no place at Harvard” was welcomed by members of the Jewish community in attendance, but students who participated in my Thursday town hall were either unaware of that announcement or alternatively questioned your commitment to address antisemitism.

At my town hall, it was noted that your antisemitism speech was made only to Jewish students and parents at a Hillel Shabbat dinner, and a transcript of your remarks was only given to and published in the Forward, a niche Jewish publication with a tiny subscriber base. Two members of the Harvard faculty described this as “narrow casting” to an affinity group rather than you making a serious public commitment to address antisemitism. One research fellow stated, and many in the room agreed, that they would only believe that you were committed to stamp out antisemitism at Harvard if you stood up in front of the entire Harvard community and made that commitment, and you then implemented tangible and decisive actions consistent with that commitment.

While the members of the Jewish community I met with at Harvard were happy to hear from an alum who was willing to listen, many students questioned why you have not sat down with students so that you can hear their concerns first-hand.

Antisemitism at Harvard Prior to October 7th

In the transcript of your speech published in the Forward, you said about antisemitism at Harvard: “For years, this university has done too little to confront its continuing presence. No longer.”

Your remarks imply that antisemitism has been a serious issue at Harvard that has gone unaddressed for years. I have been an active alum for 35 years having attended the college and HBS, taught numerous classes on campus each year, have participated in many fireside chats with large student audiences, mentor current students and recent graduates on a regular basis, and have been a member of the Dean’s Advisory Board at the business school for many years. During this period, I have neither experienced nor have I become aware of any antisemitic incidents at Harvard until beginning four weeks ago.

When I asked my daughter today about her experience with antisemitism at Harvard (she graduated in 2020), she described antisemitism when she was at Harvard as “non-existent.” While I am sure it is possible if not likely that there have been some antisemitic incidents at Harvard over the last 35 years, the reality is that Harvard has been an extremely comfortable place to be Jewish and/or Israeli, up until the last four weeks.

In truth, the outburst at antisemitism at Harvard is a recent one and is largely due to your actions and inactions and that of the administration and the University at large in failing to appropriately address blatant antisemitism on campus.

How Can You Solve the Problem?

What I find particularly upsetting about recent events on campus is that the problem is not so difficult to address. I do not believe that antisemitism is widespread among the student body and faculty at Harvard. Rather, I believe that a small minority of students, faculty, and staff are antisemitic and the administration’s inaction in confronting the problem head on have emboldened this antisemitic subset of the community to escalate their antisemitic actions because there have been no consequences for doing so.

Actions speak much louder than words. Members of the Harvard community have heard some words, but experienced no actions of substance to address antisemitism on campus. I would therefore recommend the following steps which I believe will dramatically reduce if not eliminate antisemitic acts at Harvard immediately.

First, the students involved in harassing and allegedly physically assaulting the HBS student on October 18th should be immediately suspended. I understand that the University is waiting for the outcome of a police department review of the situation to take action, but this makes no sense. It is clear from the multiple videos available of the incident that the conduct of the protesters involved does not meet the standards for student conduct outlined in the Harvard College Student Handbook, in particular Harvard’s anti-bullying policies outlined in the Report & Recommendation from the Anti-Bullying Working Group adopted on September 1, 2023. https://communitymisconductpolicies.harvard.edu/reports-and-draft-policies These standards alone are enough to invoke Disciplinary Probation until such time as the police department investigation is completed. Harvard student disciplinary actions should not be outsourced to the police department.

Taking decisive action now will put all Harvard students, faculty and staff on notice that the University takes violations of Harvard’s code of conduct seriously, and will bring great comfort to the Jewish community at Harvard that appropriate actions to reduce threats to their safety are being implemented.

Second, the protesters who have been chanting Intifada and other eliminationist statements should be subject to disciplinary action. There are multiple videos available of the various protests that would enable the University to identify the individuals involved who can then be referred to the Administrative Board where appropriate disciplinary action can be determined and acted upon.

Third, the University should review the student Slack message boards to identify those students who have made antisemitic statements or shared antisemitic imagery. These students should also be referred to the Administration Board for appropriate disciplinary action.

Fourth, the University should publicly reach out to students in an effort to obtain other examples of antisemitic acts that should also be carefully investigated, and for which appropriate disciplinary steps should be taken.

Because Harvard students are notoriously focused on their job and career prospects post-graduation, disciplinary actions by the administration for failure to meet the University’s standards for appropriate conduct that become part of a student’s permanent record should serve as an effective deterrent to overt antisemitic acts on campus. No law firm, corporation or graduate program will hire or admit an antisemitic or racist student. I note that the recent letter to the deans of law schools around the country signed by many of the top law firms in the U.S. has, I am told, already begun to have an effect in reducing antisemitic acts at the Law School.

Fifth, the University should form a task force to review the appropriateness of the activities of the OEDIB and whether its practice of excluding certain minority communities on campus, including Asian and Jewish students, is appropriate, which in fact may be contributing to discrimination against these groups on campus.

Sixth, the results of the antisemitism task force should be made public as promptly as possible so that we can better understand the sources of antisemitism at Harvard. Harvard’s admissions practices should be reassessed to ascertain why the university is admitting racist students, and should consider revisions to the application process to enable the University to better screen the character of candidates for admission.

Seventh, as Harvard president, you should make clear that Harvard supports free speech on campus, but that certain kinds of hate speech as well as fighting words and incitement to violence are not consistent with Harvard’s values or considered appropriate conduct for members of the Harvard community. In connection with your commitment to free speech, Harvard should form a task force to understand the constraints on free speech at Harvard that have led to it ranking last on FIRE’s annual college survey, so the issues that have led to Harvard’s last-place ranking can be addressed.

Violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

On September 28, 2023, the Biden Administration issued a clarifying release stating that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits certain forms of antisemitism, Islamophobia and related discrimination as part of its National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism released in May 2023 https://whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/U.S.-National-Strategy-to-Counter-Antisemitism.pdf Title VI of the Civil Rights Act requires universities to provide all students, including students who are or are perceived to be Jewish, a school environment free from discrimination. The consequences for a university’s failure to meet the requirements of Title VI include the cancellation of federal funding.

Harvard has failed in recent weeks to meet its Title VI obligations which threatens a major source of the University’s funding. When coupled with numerous Jewish and non-Jewish alumni that have publicly and privately shared these same concerns, important sources of Harvard’s revenues are at risk. While the University should not need a financial incentive to eliminate discrimination on campus, Harvard’s recent failure to create a safe and non-discriminatory environment for Jewish students threatens the University’s funding for research, scholarships, and more.

Your Historic Opportunity

You have been president of Harvard, one of the most important institutions in the world, for four months at one of the most challenging times in its history. As Harvard’s leader, your words and actions are followed closely. As a result, the steps you take to address antisemitism at Harvard will be recognized around the world, and can contribute greatly as an example to other institutions seeking to eliminate antisemitism in all of its forms.

History has taught us that when the sparks and initial flames of antisemitism emerge, we must promptly put out the flames before a conflagration begins. It is therefore critically important you act with alacrity in addressing these issues. I encourage you to act boldly and promptly to eliminate this scourge at Harvard.

I also call upon you to complete the commitment you made at inauguration when you stated that “Knowledge is our purpose. We serve that purpose best when we commit to open inquiry and freedom of expression as foundational values of the academic community.” Harvard must create an environment where free speech is encouraged and accepted. At the same time, the Harvard community at large must understand the difference between speech protected by the First Amendment and speech that incites violence or seeks the elimination of any group. Such speech does not advance knowledge nor does it belong on campus regardless of whether or not it is protected by the First Amendment.

Successfully addressing antisemitism at Harvard and creating an environment with true freedom of expression will become a critically important part of your legacy as the Harvard community works together to address these challenges at a difficult time in world history.

I would be delighted to help in any way that I can to enable you to succeed in this mission and as Harvard’s president. Please let me know what more I can do to help.


Sincerely,

William A. Ackman
A.B. 1988, MBA 1992

cc: The Harvard Corporation Board;
Penny Pritzker, Chairman

Source: https://twitter.com/BillAckman/status/1731532031048245631?s=20

December 3, 2023

Dear President Gay,

Since my letter to you of November 4th to which you did not reply or even acknowledge, I have received substantial feedback and input from senior members of the Harvard faculty about a number of the issues I raised in my letter concerning free speech, antisemitism, and the impact of the Office of Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging (OEDIB) at Harvard. I thought to share this feedback with you now as it may inform your testimony and potential questions you may receive from the Congress on Tuesday.

Free Speech at Harvard

In several of your communications since October 7th, you have emphasized Harvard’s commitment to free speech as the reason why the university has continued to permit eliminationist and threatening language on campus – i.e., calls for Intifada (suicide bombings, knifings, etc. of Israeli civilians) and the elimination of the state of Israel “From the River to the Sea.” You explained your tolerance for these protests on October 13th: “[O]ur university embraces a commitment to free expression. That commitment extends even to views that many of us find objectionable, even outrageous.”

In my letter to you, however, I noted that In The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) Free Speech Rankings, Harvard has consistently finished in the bottom quartile in each of the past four years. I note that Harvard’s ranking has deteriorated each year, receiving its lowest free speech ranking ever for the 2023 academic year, last out of 254 universities with a rating of 0.00, the only university with an “abysmal” speech climate.

After sending my letter, I reached out to the faculty to reconcile your free speech absolutist commitment with Harvard having the lowest free speech ranking of any university. The faculty had a lot to say on this issue, as well as on antisemitism and the OEDIB. Notably, they were willing to share their views so long as I committed to keep their identities confidential. I have quoted their remarks below:

On Free Speech

“Years ago, Harvard stopped being a place where all perspectives were welcome.”

“Harvard is a place where loud, hate-filled protests appear to be encouraged, but where faculty and students can’t share points of view that are inconsistent with the accepted narrative on campus.”

“Harvard became a place where if you toed the party line, there was applause. If you disagree, you are drowned out. The gatekeepers of speech continue to further narrow what they deem acceptable speech.”

“The primary problem with speech at Harvard is that if you say the wrong thing, you will be cancelled, which leads to self-censorship. The result is what you actually think is not what you say.”

“Saying anything that doesn’t highlight the importance of slavery and colonialism as animating forces of history is not acceptable speech. Lived experience and ideology become the dominant forces of conversation. All of the courses follow the same playbook ideology. Ideology poses as coursework.”

On Antisemitism, Support for Hamas, and the Protests Against Israel

When I asked members of the faculty about the causes behind the Israeli/Gaza protests and the tolerance for antisemitism on campus, they explained:

“Whiteness at Harvard is deemed fundamentally oppressive. Indigenous peoples are presented as in need of justice and reparations. Jews are presented as white people. It is therefore ok to hate Israel and Jews as they are deemed to be oppressors.”

I asked: “Why are the protests only about Israel versus other conflicts in the Middle East and around the globe where Palestinians and other civilians were killed?”

“Israel is the rare case where we have a hot conflict between people that are deemed ‘white’ versus people of color.”

The Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging (ODEIB)

“The primary animating force of the ODEIB is racism-colonialism and the denial of indigenous rights. The ODEIB is a home for people who are perceived to have been victimized.”

“The ODEIB was meant to include Asians, but it does not. It is focused on communities that experienced colonialism.”

“Recency matters. India is not included because they got autonomy 70 years ago.”

“The ODEIB is at the service of black students, to a lesser extent brown students, and to a lesser extent LGBTQ students.”

“It’s about whiteness versus people of color.”

“The DEI framework prioritizes people on the oppressed side of the narrative.”

Hiring Practices at Harvard

One topic which emerged when I spoke to the faculty was the issue of hiring at Harvard, an issue about which the faculty clearly has a lot of consternation.

When I asked why Harvard’s faculty has shifted sharply leftward in recent years, they explained:

“Each department decides whom they want, and the university can accept or reject the candidate. Left-leaning faculty appoint other left-wing faculty because they get to decide whom to hire and promote. It’s a bit like the Twitter algorithm which continues to feed you the points of view you want to hear. Eventually, each department reaches the tipping point.”

One senior member of the faculty shared that it is made abundantly clear that they cannot hire new faculty members unless they meet ODEIB requirements. That is, the candidate has to be a woman, person of color, or have LGBTQ+ status. Straight white males are “off the table.” Asians and those of South Asian (i.e., India) heritage are similarly disadvantaged in the process as they are deemed successful, overachieving minorities.

A number of the faculty bemoaned that in many cases they cannot hire the substantially more qualified person if he is a white or Asian straight male as the proposed candidate “has to be a woman or BIPOC person.” I was told that behind closed doors, it is common to hear: “I clearly don’t think this is the strongest candidate, but we can see where the train is headed. I therefore have no choice but to vote for the [lesser-qualified candidate.]”

It is made clear to the faculty that Harvard’s discriminatory approach to hiring should never be acknowledged or written about in an email. One professor said that he has been continually amazed that no one has brought a lawsuit as these practices are clearly illegal.

One faculty member explained that it is not just the administration that has been putting forth these requirements, but that external organizations like The Chronicle of Higher Education (TCHE) do “investigative reporting” where they do racial and gender audits of university departments. TCHE publicly scolds university departments that don’t meet their diversity requirements further reinforcing Harvard’s requirement for ODEIB-preferred candidates.

On all of the above issues, I know you will not rely on my survey of the faculty. I therefore encourage you to commission a highly credible, third-party firm to do an anonymous survey of the Harvard faculty. I am confident it will confirm and reinforce all that I have outlined above.

Discrimination at Harvard Is Not Limited to Antisemitism

The problems at Harvard are clearly not just about Jews and Israel. It is abundantly clear that straight white males are discriminated against in recruitment and advancement at Harvard. That is also apparently true to a somewhat lesser extent for men who are Asians or of Indian origin. The ODEIB is an important culprit in this discrimination on campus as it sees the world in a framework of oppressors and the oppressed, where the oppressor class includes white males, Asians, Jews and other people perceived to be successful and powerful.

While Harvard claims that it is committed to free expression, in practice free expression appears to only happen “behind closed doors” or among faculty and students speaking anonymously.

Conservative voices are squelched and often outright cancelled on campus. Tyler J. VanderWeele and Carole K. Hooven are two recent examples.

In March of this year, Mr. VanderWeele, the John L. Loeb and Frances Lehman Loeb Professor of Epidemiology, a practicing Catholic, was effectively excommunicated from Harvard (saved only by his tenure) when it was discovered he had signed an amicus brief in 2015 which affirmed his view that the definition of marriage was between a man and a woman, and when he surfaced his pro-life views. See: https://sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590113323000226

Earlier this year, Ms. Hooven, an evolutionary biologist was cancelled and eventually forced to resign because she stated that one’s sex was biological and binary on Fox and Friends. See: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-022-02467-5

I am saddened that the Harvard I love has lost its way. I am embarrassed for not having been aware and previously taken the time to investigate these issues until antisemitism exploded on campus. I should have paid more attention as it did not take a forensic analysis to surface and better understand these issues.

Discrimination at Harvard is not just illegal, but it is extremely damaging to our nation’s competitiveness, which is critically important in a world with growing geopolitical conflict and turmoil. Harvard should be an institution for our best and brightest, taught by our best and brightest who are in search of Veritas and excellence. Russia, China, and our other competitor nations are not selecting their scientific and educational leaders using Harvard’s diversity, equity and inclusion metrics.

President Gay, beginning with your testimony to Congress on Tuesday, you can begin to address the antisemitism that has exploded on campus during your presidency, the seeds for which began years before you became President. But as I hope you recognize, the issues at Harvard are much more expansive than antisemitism. Antisemitism is the canary in the coal mine for other discriminatory practices at Harvard.

As President you have both the opportunity and the responsibility for addressing these critically important issues. It won’t be easy for you as I have been told that your recent “pivot on antisemitism” is already making the radical left wing of the faculty highly skeptical of you.

When 34 Harvard student organizations came out in support of Hamas’ barbaric terrorism, it was a wake up call for me. I hope that having to face the Congress on Tuesday will be a wake-up call for you.


Sincerely,

William A. Ackman, A.B. 1988, MBA 1992

Cc: Ms. Penny Pritzker, Chairman,
and The Harvard Corporation Board