April 29, 2011

By Maura Kelly

Recently, one of my closest friends – let’s call him Franz – left a frustrating job. After five months with the company, his nerves were shot. His boss – the kind of monomaniacal entrepreneur who favours frenetic midnight phone calls to discuss matters of minor importance – had hired him for a management job, but Franz was consistently undercut by the head honcho’s dictatorial machinations. He was having trouble keeping his cool but I repeated advice a friend had given to me once, long ago: finding a job is always easier when you have a job. Franz griped that he was working such long hours he wouldn’t have the time or energy to look for a new position until he quit – and eventually, fed up beyond the point of patience, he gave a month’s notice.

A new study out of UCLA has found that, unfortunately, sticking it out would have been wise: When making hiring decisions, prospective employers discriminate against the unemployed, even when they are essentially identical to employed applicants – and even when they’ve been out of work for only a few days. The UCLA researchers analysed three different studies in which participants were asked to rate jobseekers according to their resumes: half the participants were told an applicant was still employed, while the other half was told he or she had been unemployed for a few days. George Ho, lead researcher, told ABCNews.com:

“We were surprised to find that, all things being equal, unemployed applicants were viewed as less competent, warm and hirable than employed individuals. We were also surprised to see how little the terms of departure mattered. Job candidates who said they voluntarily left a position faced the same stigma as job candidates who said they had been laid off or terminated.”

Does this mean we should start talking about affirmative action programmes for the unemployed? Not necessarily, but it does mean that employers should be aware of their propensity to make biased judgments – which could have serious consequences for the people they so easily dismiss. Prolonged joblessness is a vicious cycle, leading to increased melancholy and loss of confidence, which make it tougher to find work; and, of course, the longer one is unemployed, the less appealing one looks to people making hiring decisions. There are also real physical repercussions to unemployment: a wide-ranging McGill University study, for example, found that unemployment increased the risk of premature death by 63%. (It had nothing to do with no longer being able to afford adequate healthcare.)

You could argue – and I’m sure many employers do – that someone who’s been unemployed for a long time has lost job skills that might be necessary, or hasn’t, say, become proficient using newly-developed computer programs that are popular in the industry. But why assume the worst? Someone who’s been unemployed for a while is likely to be very grateful for his or her new gig; to work harder than a peer who might be coming straight from another job; and even to accept a lower starting salary. It’s also possible he or she has used the unpaid time to acquire new skills. In other words, there are plenty of reasons that an unemployed job applicant might actually be a better hire than an employed equivalent.

There are also things that the unemployed can do to make themselves more appealing: namely, get involved in a meaningful activity that willteach you new things, and feature it prominently on your cv. When I asked Ho, via email, if he thought that was good advice, he agreed with me.

“I would recommend that the unemployed fill the gaps on their resumes with activities such as volunteering, part-time or contract work, school, entrepreneurship, and so on because our research shows that even the most minimal gap (one month or less) can lead to devaluation. If a gap exists, and there is no activity to fill in the gap, our research findings suggest that providing a reason indicating the cause of unemployment was in no way attributable to them (eg, employer went out of business) would alleviate unemployment stigma.”

Or, I suppose, you could do what Franz did.

Before he quit, he’d been steadily employed since graduating from college – and except for the most recent case, he’d always found a subsequent job before leaving the previous one. During the first few days of unemployment, he applied for three gigs. An outfit he was very interested in working for put him through a series of tests and interviews over the course of five weeks, including a day-long meeting with some of his potential co-workers. When the desirable company said, “No thanks”, he was crushed; he’d put all of his eggs in that basket. Then leads that had seemed plentiful during his first few days of unemployment dried up.

So, he teamed up with a few friends, and went into business for himself.

Posted on www.guardian.co.uk

April 3, 2011

By Maria Slade

New Zealand is being left behind among Western nations in addressing the lack of women on boards.

We are now one of the few developed countries not taking affirmative action to boost the number of female directors.

A new report by former British Cabinet minister Lord Davies recommends the UK’s top 100 companies set a target of a minimum 25 per cent female representation on their boards by 2015.

It says chairmen of FTSE 350 companies should set out the percentage of women directors they aim to have in 2013 and 2015, and chief executives should review the number of women they want on their executive committees in the same period.

Listed companies should then report annually on the proportion of women directors, executives and employees in their organisations.

Women currently make up only 12.5 per cent of the members of boards of FTSE 100 companies in the UK, up from 9.4 per cent in 2004. The improvement is too slow, the Davies report says.

“At the current rate of change it will take over 70 years to achieve gender-balanced boardrooms in the UK.”

The UK move is similar to Australia’s “report or explain” model. The ASX now requires its members to disclose how many women board directors and senior managers they have, and to provide progress reports on gender objectives.

Since the changes started being implemented last year, women have made up 27 per cent of all new Australian board appointments. This compares with just 5 per cent in 2009.

On this side of the Tasman the NZX has refused to take a similar path, even though just 9.3 per cent of directors of the top 100 companies are women.

Other countries have taken various actions. Norway, Iceland and Spain have quotas of 40 per cent female representation on boards, and France has proposed a similar quota.

“When I was first involved in this issue about 10 years ago it was Australia looking across here with envy at the positions women were achieving in politics and business, and now it’s kind of reversed,” Philippa Reed, chief executive of the Equal Employment Opportunities Trust, says.

The EEO Trust runs a number of programmes to develop top female talent, including a corporate mentoring system and a series of governance seminars in conjunction with the Auckland Chamber of Commerce. But these kinds of initiatives are where the effort ends, Reed says.

“There doesn’t seem to be as much of an appetite for some of the harder measures in New Zealand as there does in Australia at the moment.”

The issue is one of good business practice, not equality, she says.

The Davies report says women account for about six out of every 10 university graduates in Europe and the US.

“The failure of any business or economy to maximise the talents of all its people will result in below-par performance.”

Homogeneity on boards produces “group-think”, whereas women bring different perspectives, it says.

They tend to prepare more conscientiously for meetings, and ask the awkward questions.

A study by a UK asset management firm showed FTSE-listed companies with at least 20 per cent female board representation had significantly higher operational and share-price performance.

A Leeds University Business School study found having at least one female director on the board cut a company’s chances of going bust by 20 per cent.

Board director Janine Smith runs EEO Trust/Chamber of Commerce seminars which cover material such as governance versus management, board and legal structures and effective practice.

It’s often more about building women’s confidence, she says. “An observation by some people would say women like to feel confident before they put themselves forward for a position, so they can tick nine out of 10 boxes.”

Lawyer Mai Chen chairs the Global Women organisation of female Kiwi business leaders.

She says she’s heartened by the Australian moves.

“I’m a public lawyer and I’m interested in mechanisms that work.”

However, getting women to the point where they can be considered for directorships is key. “Women are not able to amass the sort of CV that gets them into board positions because there is a male view of who would be appropriate to take those roles.”

She says a woman CEO recently told her about a chairman who spoke plainly on the issue of hiring women.

“He said, ‘when we get a young male candidate coming to the board table we say to ourselves that man’s just like me when I was younger, we should give him a break’.

“‘But when a woman comes to the table we say, ‘what’s not in her CV?’ Because there’s not that identification.”

Grabbing every chance to climb ladder of success

Vanessa Oakley, director of group regulation, competition and litigation at Telecom, is one of 16 executives going through the inaugural year-long Women in Leadership programme being run by the Global Women organisation.

She says the intensity and structure of regular workshops, audio conferences and teleclasses cement her learning.

“It’s not something that you go to a course and say, ‘that was interesting’ and then put it on the shelf and file it away.”

She is considering aiming for a board position and says gaining confidence is a factor for her. And with a busy life she has to make an effort to prioritise networking. “Those 5.30pm drinks sometimes are not ideal. [But] it is really valuable to be a connected leader in an organisation.”

Oakley believes she has been given opportunities over the course of her career. “I don’t feel I’ve been held back at all, but I’m willing to take every opportunity that’s in front of me to keep going forward.”

Posted on www.nzherald.co.nz

March 13, 2011

By Bruce Macfarlane

During the current turbulence in the Middle East, a storm of public criticism engulfed the London School of Economics after it was found to have accepted a £1.5 million (US$2.4 million) pledge from a charity run by a son of Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. LSE Director Howard Davies accepted responsibility and resigned.

Cambridge University’s Deputy Vice-chancellor also came in for criticism for being part of a delegation to the Middle East that included representatives of British arms manufacturers. Other universities in France and the United States have been found to have trained Libyan diplomats.

But the LSE affair is only the latest in a long line of ethical controversies that have affected universities. Back in 2000, in what some saw as the ultimate irony in university corporate sponsorship, Nottingham University accepted £3.8 million from British American Tobacco to establish an International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility.

Part of the conundrum for universities lies in the following question: are they public or private sector organisations? According to Oxford University’s David Watson the answer to this question is ‘both’.

Many universities are state funded, but are expected to increasingly pay their own way in an age when spending on the public sector is shrinking and the higher education market has gone global. This means that universities are now required to be more ‘business facing’ and look to ways to generate and diversify their income.

The inevitable consequence of this is that universities will occasionally find themselves under fire for who they are doing business with, like any other organisation.

The problem lies in the way that the modern university has to be all things to all people. This is represented in the vacuity of mission statements that proclaim a commitment to a bewildering variety of ‘stakeholders’.

Wider society still expects the university to live up to its old role as a trustworthy bastion of scholarly values yet at the same time it must also be a street-smart entrepreneur alert to every money-making opportunity. The result is that the university is forced to be Janus-faced.

But where does ethical responsibility start and finish? The power of the internet to turn an incident viral is making matters harder to contain. The decision of the French fashion house Christian Dior to sack their chief designer after he was caught on film shouting anti-semitic abuse in a bar is a case in point. Both universities and private companies are being judged in the court of public opinion.

Some universities have developed ethics policies that exclude doing business with or investing in certain types of organisations, such as tobacco companies and arms manufacturers. However, it is arguably trickier to decide which countries are off limits. It is not simply a question of which countries are ‘democratic’ and which are not.

Several Australian and British universities, for example, are heavily involved in higher education in Malaysia. Both Monash and Nottingham University have campuses there.

Malaysia might be a moderate Islamic country with a democratic system of government, but for over 40 years it has had a policy that provides for the preferential treatment of the majority Malay population. This means that nearly all public servants, police and army recruits are Malays who also receive housing discounts, virtually all government contracts and preferential access to universities. This is why for years Malaysian Chinese students have been forced to go abroad to get a university education. Even though ethnic Chinese and Indians have been in Malaysia for centuries they are not treated as indigenous ‘sons of the soil’ or Bumputras.

One way of looking at this policy is that it provides affirmative action to redress historic patterns of inequality. A less charitable interpretation is that it is an open form of racism against Malaysians of Chinese and Indian descent who make up around 38% of the population. Whereas it is possible to find many affirmative action programmes in other countries for minorities, in Malaysia this benefits the majority over the ethnic minorities.

Malaysia, though, is just one of several countries which might be criticised as having a less than desirable policy that presents an ethical question for anyone wishing to do business there.

University ethics policies are often narrowly construed around research ethics and issues affecting employees such as conflicts of interest. They have little to say about bigger issues involving corporate sponsorship, foreign investment and doing business abroad. This includes sponsorship of university research by pharmaceutical companies that can gag academics from publishing results in a timely fashion for the common advancement of science.

The easy option is to hide behind the blanket excuse of cultural relativism and simply hope that nothing embarrassing will occur. But universities ought to ask themselves whether countries with which they plan to engage have practices that conflict with their own values.

Do such practices relate to a country’s relative level of economic development? If the answer is ‘yes’ then the practice is unlikely to be related to ‘culture’. Even if the practice is independent of a country’s level of economic development can the university, in good conscience, do business without entering into this practice themselves? And, is the practice a fundamental breach of human rights anyway? If the answer to either of these questions is ‘yes’, then they ought to think hard before proceeding further.

This is an ethical algorithm developed by Thomas Donaldson, a widely respected writer on the ethics of international business.

Universities could do worse than to use Donaldson’s algorithm before getting involved with countries where they plan to do business. Ultimately, they cannot be all things to all people. Universities have to draw the line in the sand somewhere if they are to continue to be respected and trusted as organisations of special character.

Posted on www.universityworldnews.com

March 9, 2011

Dr Dermot Walsh, former Inspector of Mental Hospitals, examines the background to a medical scandal that has rocked the French regulatory system.

On July 7 2009, the President of the French Republic conferred the Grand Cross of the Legion d’Honneur on Dr Jacques Servier, founder and President of the pharmaceutical firm bearing his name.

In his citation, Nicolas Sarkozy lauded Dr Servier for creating in France an industry of world-class renown. Addressing Servier familiarly by his Christian name, he declared that everyone should know that he was a “grand Francais whom I am decorating in the name of the French Republic”.

The same Jacques Servier, now aged 88, together with four of his executives, was cited to appear on February 11 before a Magistrate’s court in Nanterre, near Paris, to face condemnation of the Group Servier for tromperie (deceit, fraud).

How can a figure of the French establishment have fallen from grace in such a short time? The answer lies in the word ‘Mediator’. In 1969, Servier was working on the production of Mediator, their name for benfluorex, which the firm knew to be an anorexogene, or appetite suppressant. However, the drug was marketed from 1976 by Servier as an adjuvant drug for diabetes, a condition for which it had no proven efficacy.

Lack of metabolic study
As early as 1974, disquiet began to surface because of the lack of a comprehensive metabolic study by Servier, deemed imperative because of Mediator’s chemical relationship to fenfluramine, a derivative of amphetamine. These assessments did not take place and the drug began to be vigorously marketed.

In 1999, all anorexogenes were forbidden in France save for Mediator. By now, concerns about its safety were arising when persons on Mediator were noticed to have damaged heart valves. Evidence as to its dangerousness was provided by the independent French revue Prescrire. Ultimately the drug was indicted to the tune of between 500 to 2,000 deaths. Withdrawn in Spain and Italy in 2003, it continued to be marketed in France until withdrawal in November 2009.

How could a drug known to be dangerous continue to be promoted in France? In 1993, following the scandal of contaminated blood products, responsibility for control of health products passed from the Department of Health to an independent agency, the Agence Francaise de Securite Sanitaire des Produits de Santé (AFSSAPS).

This agency failed to take affirmative action against Servier Laboratories, despite its responsibility for ‘pharmacovigiliance’ and mounting evidence of the Mediator side-effects. Eventually, the matter was referred to the Inspectorate General of Social Affairs (IGAS), which set up a tribunal of enquiry.

‘Rolled in flour’
The Inspectorate report, published on January 15, did not mince words. Over 35 years the heath authorities were “rolled in flour” (mislead) by Servier Laboratories, according to witnesses appearing before the Inspectorate. The inquiry found that Servier continued to have the drug commercialised as an anti-diabetic and was widely used, without approval, as an appetite suppressant. When questions arose as to its safety, Servier promised to undertake studies; these studies never eventuated.

By now, Servier knew the benefit/risk balance of the drug was unfavourable. The organisation used all possible means to control pharmaceutical and medical agencies and to ‘anaesthetise’ any resistance to its promotion or to dissemination of its possible dangerous side effects. In addition, its use continued to be reimbursed by the Securite Sociale.
As to  AFSSAPS, the Inspectors found it in a cultural and structural situation of fundamental conflict of interest through its composition of experts with strong connections and interests with the pharmaceutical industry. In addition, its structures were “ponderous, slow and unreactive”.

Cover up and denial
Thus this scandal joins that of the Merck-produced anti-arthritic drug Vioxx, withdrawn in 2004 after cover-up and denial by the firm as to its dangers. And in 2009, Pfizer was fined $2.8 million (€2.09 million) in the US for promoting drugs for conditions for which they were not licensed by the Food and Drug Administration.

All of this resonates with the writer who, in good faith half a century ago, regularly prescribed thalidomide as a hypnotic bec-ause the regulatory authorities vouched for its safety.
M Xavier Bertrand, French Minister for Health,in stating his grave concern in the Servier affair, including the serious conflicts of interest involved, has ordained that in future, no professional participating in industry-sponsored research should serve on any governmental advisory body.

He has promised new regulatory and governance structures involving, among others, patient representatives and other public interest bodies so that there can be no repetition of this affair.

Posted on www.imt.ie

March 9, 2011

By Morris France

In response to complaints, criticism, and grievances discussed at hearings held by Pennsylvania State Human Relations Commission in late September of 2010, the Reading School District’s administrators had an opportunity to dispute or defend the allegations of nepotism, racism, and bigotry.

Nepotism is providing employment to friends or family when they lack the skills or the necessary qualifications for the position they were given.

Racism is a structure, a system of denial. A system that denies certain people their basic human and civil rights because of their race or their ethnicity.

Bigotry is hate, hate that is guided by the notion that one’s ethnicity or race is superior to that of another’s and will dictate how one’s group will behave towards another’s group.

A racist can be defined as an individual who conscientiously denies people their basic human and civil rights because of hatred for a certain race or ethnicity.

When school districts receive monies from the state and federal government, the school districts are required to follow certain guidelines. The guidelines stipulate who the programs are to benefit and where the monies are to be allocated or spent.

On Friday, Feb. 25, the local newspaper published an article titled, “Efforts to employ minorities outlined,” with a subscript, “City school district’s side of hearing issue explained.”

According to David Mekeel’s article, a few of the district’s former and present administrators made statements regarding the district’s efforts to hire minorities, then added security within the district’s buildings and “what could be learned from this and gleaned from the things.”

First, some background to put the district’s reality in perspective.

On Aug. 23, 2010, at the Wyndham Hotel in Reading, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission held a public meeting. Among the items on the agenda was the announcement of investigatory hearings involving the Reading School District (RSD) to be held on Sept. 28, 29, and 30.

Asked why the district is being investigated, in a paraphrase, the chairman replied, “We asked the RSD some questions and they did not answer them to our satisfaction.”

What motivated the commission to ask questions in the first place?

Fast forward to the article of Feb, 25.

Dr. Anthony A. Georeno, the former director of human resources, said Reading has tried to bring in more minority staff but hasn’t found enough qualified candidates.

“The problem has been getting the numbers to come in front of us for the interview process.”

Part of the problem could be about numbers; however, the main problem is about trying or the lack of trying, To try, is to do nothing.

In the world of social media, people of color know that the RSD will not hire them and believe it would be a waste of time and money to come before RSD for an interview.

Time and money are the real numbers, not human beings.

Circa 1976, the clichés “qualified candidates” and “qualified applicants” became part of the culture’s vernacular in response to affirmative action.

Within the RSD the term “qualified candidates” is only applicable to people of color.

Have you read Rebecca VanderMeulen’s superbly written exposé about the hiring practices within the Reading School District?

In the February article, Georeno, the former human resources director, said Reading has tried.

Is he referring to the city or the district? Perhaps in his analysis it is easier to reference the city.

Dr. Georeno has the credentials and professionals’ letters to either move up or out. Maybe the new director of human resources, Joel T. Brigel, can speak more than one language and has the certification to be a superintendent?

When and where are minority candidates encouraged to apply? “Especially those who speak more than one language.”

Are all candidates seeking employment with the RSD required to speak more than one language, or is that the only reason to hire a minority candidate?

It is puzzling to read that part of David Mekeel’s article where the acting superintendent said he was glad to have a chance to share the district’s views after listening to harsh criticism and accusations in September, much of which he claimed was not completely accurate.

Perhaps some clarification would be in order. The RSD’s administrators, as well as the board members, were not required to attend those public hearings.

They were there to support their attorney’s request for two members of the commission to remove themselves from the hearings because of some perceived political ambitions and fears that a spouse’s affiliation with the RSD would inhibit their objectivity.

The time they spent at the hearings after their lawyer’s request was to satisfy their own curiosity, and the district’s lawyer advised them not to speak before the commission.

That’s contrary to David Mekeel’s article about those September hearings.

Mekeel writes that no one representing the Reading School District spoke before the commission. When in fact a board member did swear in and speak before the commission. Perhaps [school board member] Ms. [Karen] McCree can tell Mekeel on whose behalf she testified. The accuracy of a truth will give credibility to its reality.

Does the district view itself as the victim?

The acting superintendent further states, “My position is that we can learn from this. … We can glean what are the things we need to take a look at.”

The Oxford American dictionary defines glean as v.1. To pick up grain left by harvesters. 2. To gather scraps of information.

It is quite apparent that Vecchio has no idea of the cost associated with the lessons that can be learned “from this.”

The issues confronting the Reading School District are more than the confluence of the picking and gathering of “the things we need to take a look at.”

Mr. Vecchio, your refusal to identify “the things” gives credibility to those harsh criticisms and incriminating accusations that much of which you claim was not completely accurate.

Mendacity and duplicity are the best of friends when political consideration is the prerequisite for upward mobility.

According to Russell DelRosairo, director of security, the number of security cameras in Reading schools has risen from 100 to 700, and the number of security guards has tripled since 2006.

DelRosario should have mentioned the deployment of four Reading police officers to patrol the Castle on the hill and the Citadel down the way, at a cost of $555 a day per officer.

At one point, someone advocated the idea of annexing juvenile court into the high school. Are they administrating a reformatory or a high school? If minority students were only 20 percent of the overall student population, would there be a need for that much security?

The first step to solving problems is to acknowledge that the problems exist.

Institutionalized racism exists through a culture of noncompliance.

The Reading School Board as a whole and the directors in part are responsible for establishing policy and the implementation of policy.

Historically, the Reading School Board made very little effort in enforcing Office of Equal Opportunity guidelines, and as a result, created a climate of indifference towards the hiring of minorities and actualized a culture of noncompliance.

Has there ever been a person of color who had the authority within the Reading School District to say, hire her or hire him for this or that position?

The Reading School District has never hired a person of color for the position of skilled laborer, i.e. electricians, plumbers, carpenters, etc.

Nor has it required any of the contractors who received contracts to perform work within the districts buildings to hire skilled laborers of color.

How many of the skilled laborers that worked on that $84 million Citadel project were people of color?

After so many years of neglecting O E O guidelines, the climate of indifference became the perceived norm, and perception became reality.

The ratio of minority teachers to minority students reflects the reality of noncompliance.

Did the Reading School District ever participate in a collegiate job fair at Morgan State University, Lincoln University, or Howard University?

“The problem has been getting the numbers to come in front of us for the interview process.”

If the administrators travel to the aforementioned universities, there would be different results. How did Albert Einstein define insanity?

Its uncertain as to whether or not, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission will file any formal complaints. One can predict with certainty that recommendations will be rendered and the administrators will travel.

Posted on www.bctv.org

March 9, 2011

Batman, in his comic book quest for justice, realizes he cannot stand alone in his crusade against global crime. The super-hero’s recent choice of a new partner, Nightrunner, an Algerian Muslim living in Paris, has become a source of torment for many right-wing bloggers. Nightrunner is from a large ethnic group in France making perfect sense in casting him as Batman’s latest partner. The character, Bilal Asselah, suffered greatly during the 2005 French-Muslim protests and was beaten mercilessly by the police. Ironically, it is likely because of an intolerant right that the creators of Batman created Bilal Asselah in the first place — an individual who finds solace in adopting the masked identity of the vigilante Nightrunner.

There are certain parallels between the creation of Superman and Batman with that of Nightrunner. Young Jewish artists and writers sketched both Superman and Batman for the first time in the 1930s as fascism raised its head — heroes, sent to save the world from evil. Their creators drew inspiration, willfully or not, from religious archetypes. Just as the baby Moses was set adrift in a small craft of bulrushes on the Nile, Superman was rocketed to Earth in a capsule moments before his world exploded.

Many years ago Jerry Robinson, the creator of Batman’s arch-villain the Joker, asked me to join the “Cartoonist and Writers Syndicate.” In his sales pitch for the Syndicate, he told me he enjoyed the manner in which I brought opposites together — Bush and bin Laden; India and Pakistan; CNN and Al-Jazeera; the Mullah and Nuclear-power. Jerry mentioned, “At a glance your cartoons tell so much about contemporary world history and the absurdity of it all.” What he meant was there should always be two contrasting views for a meaningful dialogue to take place. Like Batman and Nightrunner; Islam and the Republican-right are pairings that reflect the times we live in.

A display of these pairings has been on display this week. Peter King, a New York Republican, is chairing congressional hearings this week on the threat homegrown Islamist terrorism poses to the United States. Rep. King feels Muslim leaders are not doing enough to prevent future extremist attacks. He says, “There is a real threat to the country from the Muslim community and the only way to get to the bottom of it is to investigate what is happening.” Inflammatory comments are indiscriminate and affect everyone in the broader Muslim community. Muslim groups have been protesting incessantly. However, there is a point to be made: What are mainstream Muslim leaders doing to distance themselves from radical Islam? It is easy to clamor for the First Amendment, and claim an affront to fundamental freedoms. It is easy to protest against the similarities between these congressional hearings and the McCarthyism of the 1950s. But what is really being done? Not a whole lot. Muslim leaders have yet to issue a fatwa against those Islamists who kill Christians; desecrate Synagogues; disfigure women and distort their articles of Faith to justify wonton acts of destruction.

Based on the future actions of Muslim leaders, Nightrunner will become either an Uncle Tom for affirmative action or a true symbol of hope for underprivileged minorities living in poverty. Hope is worth pursuing, for the other option is not too attractive. Rep. King, in his 2004 novel, Vale of Tears, illustrates an anti-Muslim malevolence in which Manhattan is struck again by Muslim extremists only to be saved by a Congressman hero from New York. History has an ugly habit of repeating itself.

Posted on www.huffingtonpost.com

On July 7 2009, the President of the French Republic conferred the Grand Cross of the Legion d’Honneur on Dr Jacques Servier, founder and President of the pharmaceutical firm bearing his name.

In his citation, Nicolas Sarkozy lauded Dr Servier for creating in France an industry of world-class renown. Addressing Servier familiarly by his Christian name, he declared that everyone should know that he was a “grand Francais whom I am decorating in the name of the French Republic”.

The same Jacques Servier, now aged 88, together with four of his executives, was cited to appear on February 11 before a Magistrate’s court in Nanterre, near Paris, to face condemnation of the Group Servier for tromperie (deceit, fraud).

How can a figure of the French establishment have fallen from grace in such a short time? The answer lies in the word ‘Mediator’. In 1969, Servier was working on the production of Mediator, their name for benfluorex, which the firm knew to be an anorexogene, or appetite suppressant. However, the drug was marketed from 1976 by Servier as an adjuvant drug for diabetes, a condition for which it had no proven efficacy.

Lack of metabolic study
As early as 1974, disquiet began to surface because of the lack of a comprehensive metabolic study by Servier, deemed imperative because of Mediator’s chemical relationship to fenfluramine, a derivative of amphetamine. These assessments did not take place and the drug began to be vigorously marketed.

In 1999, all anorexogenes were forbidden in France save for Mediator. By now, concerns about its safety were arising when persons on Mediator were noticed to have damaged heart valves. Evidence as to its dangerousness was provided by the independent French revue Prescrire. Ultimately the drug was indicted to the tune of between 500 to 2,000 deaths. Withdrawn in Spain and Italy in 2003, it continued to be marketed in France until withdrawal in November 2009.

How could a drug known to be dangerous continue to be promoted in France? In 1993, following the scandal of contaminated blood products, responsibility for control of health products passed from the Department of Health to an independent agency, the Agence Francaise de Securite Sanitaire des Produits de Santé (AFSSAPS).

This agency failed to take affirmative action against Servier Laboratories, despite its responsibility for ‘pharmacovigiliance’ and mounting evidence of the Mediator side-effects. Eventually, the matter was referred to the Inspectorate General of Social Affairs (IGAS), which set up a tribunal of enquiry.

‘Rolled in flour’
The Inspectorate report, published on January 15, did not mince words. Over 35 years the heath authorities were “rolled in flour” (mislead) by Servier Laboratories, according to witnesses appearing before the Inspectorate. The inquiry found that Servier continued to have the drug commercialised as an anti-diabetic and was widely used, without approval, as an appetite suppressant. When questions arose as to its safety, Servier promised to undertake studies; these studies never eventuated.

By now, Servier knew the benefit/risk balance of the drug was unfavourable. The organisation used all possible means to control pharmaceutical and medical agencies and to ‘anaesthetise’ any resistance to its promotion or to dissemination of its possible dangerous side effects. In addition, its use continued to be reimbursed by the Securite Sociale.
As to  AFSSAPS, the Inspectors found it in a cultural and structural situation of fundamental conflict of interest through its composition of experts with strong connections and interests with the pharmaceutical industry. In addition, its structures were “ponderous, slow and unreactive”.

Cover up and denial
Thus this scandal joins that of the Merck-produced anti-arthritic drug Vioxx, withdrawn in 2004 after cover-up and denial by the firm as to its dangers. And in 2009, Pfizer was fined $2.8 million (€2.09 million) in the US for promoting drugs for conditions for which they were not licensed by the Food and Drug Administration.

All of this resonates with the writer who, in good faith half a century ago, regularly prescribed thalidomide as a hypnotic bec-ause the regulatory authorities vouched for its safety.
M Xavier Bertrand, French Minister for Health, in stating his grave concern in the Servier affair, including the serious conflicts of interest involved, has ordained that in future, no professional participating in industry-sponsored research should serve on any governmental advisory body.

He has promised new regulatory and governance structures involving, among others, patient representatives and other public interest bodies so that there can be no repetition of this affair.

Posted on www.imt.ie

By Michelle Pietersen and Gaye Davis

Proposed changes to employment equity law would not impact on job opportunities for coloured or Indian people, President Jacob Zuma said on Monday.

Zuma, who returned on Saturday from back-to-back visits to France and Mauritania and will attend an African Union Peace and Security Council meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, on Tuesday, met Labour Minister Mildred Oliphant on Monday to discuss the changes to the law, and particularly the concerns of the coloured and Indian communities.

In a statement issued by The Presidency, Zuma moved to quell fears that the amendments would cause job losses, his first direct intervention since he called for restraint while in Paris.

“President Jacob Zuma has assured members of the Indian and coloured communities that government will not enact or implement any legislation that is in conflict with the constitution of the Republic and the non-racial ethos and foundations of South Africa,” the statement said.

“The minister assured the president that the legislation is intended to improve the employment prospects of the designated groups, and not to make it difficult for them to obtain employment or to advance in their careers.”

Changes to the act “that were of concern” relate to a section dealing with the factors to be taken into account in determining whether an employer was compliant with the act.

As it stands, the act provides for the “demographic profile of the national and regional economically active population (EAP)” to be considered.

The amendment refers to the “demographic profile of the economically active population”.

“It is important to note that nowhere in the proposed change is there a proposal to remove ‘regional’ and leave ‘national’.

“In fact, both ‘national’ and ‘regional’ were removed,” the statement said.

Employers had been asking the Department of Labour over the years for clarity on how they should implement both regional and national demographics in their workplaces, which was the reason for the proposed change – to give employers “the flexibility to decide whether to use regional or national demographics, depending on their operations.

Zuma said: “These changes do not in any way affect negatively the employment opportunities for the coloured and/or Indian population.

“In fact, it makes it easier for employers to comply with the law and create more job opportunities for all the designated groups.’’

The government had a duty to work together in both the private and public sectors to ensure that employment equity legislation succeeded in correcting the “wrongs of the past and benefits Africans, coloureds, Indians, women, youth and persons with disability”.

“Members of the public will have an opportunity to make representations to Parliament at the right time.

“Government remains fully committed to the equality clauses in the constitution and that the state will not discriminate against anybody on the basis of colour, race, religion and other aspects of diversity,” Zuma added.

Cosatu on Monday also welcomed Oliphant’s assurance.

Spokesman Patrick Craven said it confirmed the federation’s view that “the swart gevaar scare … had no basis in reality”.

“It was a mischievous and dangerous attempt to whip up fear and anger among the coloured and Indian communities in the run-up to local government elections.”

The amendment bill was drafted when government spokesman Jimmy Manyi was its director-general.

Comments he made about an “over-supply” of coloured people in the Western Cape a year ago were uploaded on YouTube by minority trade union Solidarity, which is bitterly opposed to affirmative action and quotas.

When the furore erupted, it was reported that up to a million coloured people in the Western Cape and 300 000 Indian people in KwaZulu-Natal risked losing their jobs – claims dismissed by Oliphant.

According to data provided by The Presidency:

- The demographic profile of the economically active population in the Western Cape, as published by StatsSA in the Labour Force Survey of September 2009, referring to people aged15 to 64 years old and either employed or seeking work, reflected that coloured citizens – at 14.3 percent – were “grossly under-represented at the top management level”.

- The 10th Commission on Employment Equity Report, released by the Labour Department in July 2010, revealed that transformation in the workplace remained “very slow”

“The report indicated that, 10 years after the introduction of the Employment Equity Act, white men continued to hold 63 percent of all top management positions in the private sector.

African women were at 6 percent and coloured and Indian women were at 1 percent each,” the statement said. – Political Bureau

Posted on www.iol.co.za

The Justice Department just departed from its previous position on The Defense of Marriage Act. Here are some key passages from Attorney General Eric Holder’s statement:

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination…

Consequently, the Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit.

That is a rather bold statement. First the President has decided that “classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny.” Standards of scrutiny are in theory “tests” that the Court uses to evaluate laws that are challenged under the Constitution. Almost every law passes the rational basis test. Almost all laws (except affirmative action) fail if the standard is “strict scrutiny”. Whether there is an intermediate level of “heightened scrutiny” is a bit murky, but in most cases you can win by persuading the Court to adopt the standard of scrutiny that you prefer. Above, the Administration announces its own decision regarding the level of scrutiny appropriate to “classifications based on sexual orientation”.

Second, the Administration announces its decision that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional.

Third, the Administration is taking official action on the basis of its opinions, which is a good deal bolder than trying to persuade a Court to adopt its opinions. The Administration has decided not to defend a duly enacted federal statute in Court because it has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional. Can they do that?

Yes. But…

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court even has the power of judicial review. The power to overturn acts of Congress or of the States if they violate the Constitution is inferred from the nature of courts and constitutions generally, but it is strictly limited to exercises of judicial power in specific cases. The other branches of government must interpret the Constitution for themselves whenever they are exercising their appropriate powers.

What should the President do if he concludes that an act passed by a previous Congress and signed by a previous President is unconstitutional? Since the President is duty-bound to uphold the Constitution, perhaps he is obligated to nullify the law, in effect overturning it as a court might do.

There is a big problem with that. It means that a President might ignore any law he finds inconvenient merely by instructing his ministers to construct an argument against its constitutionality. I am reminded of Kenneth Branagh’s Henry V listening to his scholars as they dutifully whisper that he has a legal right to all of France. Others have been reminded of George II whose scholars secretly whispered that water boarding was okay.

The Administration’s position is not entirely clear, but it seems to be this: the President can instruct his Justice Department not to defend DOMA in court because he has concluded that it is unconstitutional. That creates problems for the judicial process. For a court to render a decision, two parties must approach the bench. If the Justice Department is AWOL, who argues for the federal act? That problem is serious, but I think it can be solved easily enough. The courts will have to recognize some party with standing to argue for the statute.

The Administration has not said that it can refuse to enforce a federal statute that it judges to be unconstitutional. That would be a much bolder proposition and could easily trigger a constitutional crisis. It is not clear, however, why the President could do the one thing and not the other.

I think the Justice Department’s action was constitutionally sound, but I confess that we are making this up as we go along. I think their reasoning on the constitutionality of DOMA is nonsense. DOMA doesn’t make any “classifications based on sexual orientation.” It doesn’t apply differently to homosexuals than to heterosexuals or anyone else. A heterosexual man who marries another man where that is legal has exactly the same rights under DOMA as a homosexual man similarly situated.

I also think that the President is lying. It isn’t that he and his administration just now concluded that DOMA is unconstitutional. The President has long thought that. He has also said, at least since he was running for his office, that he is opposed to same sex marriage. That’s a lie. He isn’t and if he ever was, it was long before he sought federal office. The Administration’s position on DOMA now would be more worthy of respect if he had been more honest from the beginning.

Posted on www.southdakotapolitics.blogs.com

By Kathryn Olivarius