This is a public meeting support  public

paper presentation

    Marc DePree
    University and AACSB Diversity, Case Research
    paper presentation posted June 28, 2010 by Marc DePree, last edited April 6, 2012 
    7169 Views, 9 Comments
    University and AACSB Diversity, Case Research
    author or authors:
    Chauncey M. DePree, Jr., DBA, School of Accountancy, University of Southern Mississippi
    Mary L. Fischer, PhD, University of Texas at Tyler
    Aida Sy, PhD, Manhattan College
    presentation session:
    8.27 Performance Measurement and Evaluation
    August 4, 2010 3:00pm - 4:30pm

    This critical case study structures University’s and AACSB’s diversity standards in the following hypotheses: If the University puts into practice its diversity standard, then its administrators and faculty “cherish the free exchange of ideas, diversity of thought, joint decision making, and individuals’ assumption of responsibility.” If the AACSB puts into practice its diversity standard, then its accredited members “must show that within this (education) context its business programs include diverse viewpoints among participants [and]…[a]ccredited programs must demonstrate commitment and actions in support of diversity in the educational experience.” 

    The antecedents of both hypotheses are demonstrated to be false. Given that the academic institutions fail to support and protect diversity of speech, more centralized and controlling environments are expected to fail to support professionals, including accountants, when they “speak truth to power.” In the current environment, silence should be advised regardless of the calls for ethical behavior.


    Who attended?

    No one RSVP'd to this event



    • Robert E Jensen

      Hi Ali,

      College education in Germany, as in many other European nations, is mostly free. However, many students from the U.S. would be very unhappy if we adopted a similar system to German Universitäten, Technische Hochschulen/Technische Universitäten, Pädagogische Hochschulen. Firstly, getting into public Universitäten is much more competitive than in the United States with a much higher proportion of high school graduates being diverted to (excellent) trade schools. Secondly, the Universitäten pedagogy is comprised of huge student/faculty ratios relative to the United States. Lecture halls are massive and learning is pretty much very competitive with little help from teachers and tutors.

      I've been a long-time advocate of diverting more U.S. students (not just the dummies) into technical (trade) schools modeled after the German system. But in the United States there are many more social and parental pressures to avoid technical schools in favor of universities. An enormous drawback of this is that trade schools often get students will lower intelligence and motivation for studying.

      As a result we have an oversupply of college graduates in the United States and an undersupply of highly skilled workers for both manufacturing and service industries.

      Another situation in Germany and other European countries is that educational opportunities are not equal for immigrants and women relative to white males. In Germany the immigrants are overwhelmingly Turkish. A much lower proportion of  Turks and women graduate from Universitäten. Here are studies of possible interest:

      "Children of Turkish Immigrants in Germany and the Netherlands: The Impact of Differences in Vocational and Academic Tracking Systems" by Maurice Crul and Jens Schneider, Teachers College Record, 2009 --- Click Here

      The findings show that more than group characteristics, systemic and institutional factors can have a decisive role in promoting or hampering the educational and labor market integration of young immigrants and the native-born second generation. The greater openness of the Dutch school system to provide “long routes” and “second chances” shows its effect in significantly higher shares of Turks in higher education. On the other side, the dual system of vocational training in Germany seems to be better suited for labor market integration, especially because apprenticeships are more practice oriented and do count as work experience for later application procedures. The Dutch system also offers better opportunities for girls than does the German system. Yet, the polarization effect between “high achievement” and “failure” of only partial integration success is greater in the Netherlands, whereas the overall advancement is slower, but also less polarizing, in Germany. In this sense, each country could learn something from its neighbor regarding those aspects.

      "Second-generation Turkish youth in Europe: Explaining the academic disadvantage in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland," by Steve Song, Economics of Education Review, April 13, 2011 ---

      This investigation examines the role of students’ home and school variables in producing the achievement gap between second-generation Turkish students and their native peers in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. Using the data from PISA 2006, this study supports past findings that both home and school resources affect the educational outcomes of immigrant students in their host society's school system. Specifically, the findings reveal that in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland, second-generation Turkish students had significant disadvantages in terms of allocated resources at home and in school. More often than not, these disadvantages were found to have significantly negative effects in terms of second-generation Turkish students’ test outcomes relative to their native peers. In all three countries, however, the differences between the second-generation Turkish students and their native peers in terms of their family/home resources were found to explain more of the achievement gap than the differences in their schooling resources.

      Diversity remains a huge educational problem in Europe as it is in the United States as well. Finland is ranked as having the best education system in the world, but then again Finland has the least diversity in the world and low immigration rates.

    • Robert E Jensen

      Reflections on the 2012 AAA Annual Meetings: Diversity

      I did not make a recent study of AAA Membership, but the last time I did study the membership the practitioner membership declined dramatically from the 1950s when there were more practitioner members than academic members. The few practitioner members who remain in the AAA are mostly recruiters for large CPA firms and PR personnel.

      My anecdotal experience from the 2012 AAA Annual Meetings suggests that the international membership is continuing to explode.  This is a very good thing suggesting that perhaps we should even have a name change similar to the name change of the AACSB.

      My anecdotal experience in the past few AAA Annual Meetings that I've attended is that the number of Asian-background registrants keeps rising dramatically. This is most certainly a good thing from a globalization and diversity standpoint, but the increased number of Asians relative to blacks and Hispanics seems to be very dramatic and makes me pause to reflect on the 2012 Pathways Report..

      This also begs the question in terms of how many Asian-background registrants were from Asian universities versus how many are now affiliated with North American Universities.

      Here's my quick and dirty non-random sampling this morning from the 2012 "List of Participants"  at the 2012 Annual Meetings:

      16 Registrants named Smith
      10 Registrants named Jones
      37 Registrants named Chen

      Among the 37 registrants named Chen, 18 are affiliated with North American Universities, and most of those universities are R1 research universities. This seems to also be the case for other Asian names such as Chang, Cheng, Chiu, Cho, Choi, Chou, Chua, Chui, Chung, Dong, Dow, etc. in the 2012 List of Participants.

      The increasing proportion of Asians affiliated with North American Universities, in my viewpoint, is largely due to the emphasis of mathematics and statistics in our accountics-science-only accounting doctoral programs in North America. Knowledge of mathematics and statistics is much more of a prerequisite for our doctoral programs than knowledge of accounting, auditing, and tax ---

      I wonder how many African Americans and Hispanics who run the formidable gauntlet to become CPAs are later discouraged by the maximal mathematics focus of accounting doctoral programs and minimal focus on accountancy? This has to be, in my viewpoint, an enormous reason why we do not have a dramatic rise in African Americans and Hispanics to accompany the dramatic rise in Asians in North American accounting education programs.

      This in turn leads me to support  the proposed initiatives in the 2012 Pathways Report.

      The AAA's Pathways Commission Accounting Education Initiatives Make National News
      Accountics Scientists Should Especially Note the First Recommendation

      "Accounting for Innovation," by Elise Young, Inside Higher Ed, July 31, 2012 ---

      Accounting programs should promote curricular flexibility to capture a new generation of students who are more technologically savvy, less patient with traditional teaching methods, and more wary of the career opportunities in accounting, according to a report released today by the Pathways Commission, which studies the future of higher education for accounting.

      In 2008, the U.S. Treasury Department's  Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession recommended that the American Accounting Association and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants form a commission to study the future structure and content of accounting education, and the Pathways Commission was formed to fulfill this recommendation and establish a national higher education strategy for accounting.

      In the report, the commission acknowledges that some sporadic changes have been adopted, but it seeks to put in place a structure for much more regular and ambitious changes.

      The report includes seven recommendations:

      • Integrate accounting research, education and practice for students, practitioners and educators by bringing professionally oriented faculty more fully into education programs.

      • Promote accessibility of doctoral education by allowing for flexible content and structure in doctoral programs and developing multiple pathways for degrees. The current path to an accounting Ph.D. includes lengthy, full-time residential programs and research training that is for the most part confined to quantitative rather than qualitative methods. More flexible programs -- that might be part-time, focus on applied research and emphasize training in teaching methods and curriculum development -- would appeal to graduate students with professional experience and candidates with families, according to the report.

      • Increase recognition and support for high-quality teaching and connect faculty review, promotion and tenure processes with teaching quality so that teaching is respected as a critical component in achieving each institution's mission. According to the report, accounting programs must balance recognition for work and accomplishments -- fed by increasing competition among institutions and programs -- along with recognition for teaching excellence.

      • Develop curriculum models, engaging learning resources and mechanisms to easily share them, as well as enhancing faculty development opportunities to sustain a robust curriculum that addresses a new generation of students who are more at home with technology and less patient with traditional teaching methods.

      • Improve the ability to attract high-potential, diverse entrants into the profession.

      • Create mechanisms for collecting, analyzing and disseminating information about the market needs by establishing a national committee on information needs, projecting future supply and demand for accounting professionals and faculty, and enhancing the benefits of a high school accounting educatio

      • Establish an implementation process to address these and future recommendations by creating structures and mechanisms to support a continuous, sustainable change process.


      According to the report, its two sponsoring organizations -- the American Accounting Association and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants -- will support the effort to carry out the report's recommendations, and they are finalizing a strategy for conducting this effort.

      Hsihui Chang, a professor and head of Drexel University’s accounting department, said colleges must prepare students for the accounting field by encouraging three qualities: integrity, analytical skills and a global viewpoint.

      “You need to look at things in a global scope,” he said. “One thing we’re always thinking about is how can we attract students from diverse groups?” Chang said the department’s faculty comprises members from several different countries, and the university also has four student organizations dedicated to accounting -- including one for Asian students and one for Hispanic students.

      He said the university hosts guest speakers and accounting career days to provide information to prospective accounting students about career options: “They find out, ‘Hey, this seems to be quite exciting.’ ”

      Jimmy Ye, a professor and chair of the accounting department at Baruch College of the City University of New York, wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed that his department is already fulfilling some of the report’s recommendations by inviting professionals from accounting firms into classrooms and bringing in research staff from accounting firms to interact with faculty members and Ph.D. students.

      Ye also said the AICPA should collect and analyze supply and demand trends in the accounting profession -- but not just in the short term. “Higher education does not just train students for getting their first jobs,” he wrote. “I would like to see some study on the career tracks of college accounting graduates.”

      Mohamed Hussein, a professor and head of the accounting department at the University of Connecticut, also offered ways for the commission to expand its recommendations. He said the recommendations can’t be fully put into practice with the current structure of accounting education.

      “There are two parts to this: one part is being able to have an innovative curriculum that will include changes in technology, changes in the economics of the firm, including risk, international issues and regulation,” he said. “And the other part is making sure that the students will take advantage of all this innovation.”

      The university offers courses on some of these issues as electives, but it can’t fit all of the information in those courses into the major’s required courses, he said.

      Continued in article

      Jensen Conclusion
      The last thing I want to recommend is slowing down the flow of Asians into the accountics science tracks of our North American accounting doctoral programs. But I do recommend that we stop making accountics science the only track in our doctoral programs. Therefore, I strongly support the Pathways Commission's recommendations to create more diversity in terms of research methods and curricula in our doctoral programs.

      August 11, 2012 reply from Chuck Pier

      HI Bob.

      I didn't get the chance to attend the AAA meeting this year, but what you noticed corresponds to something that I noticed just last week.

      I ordered a new edition of Hasselback's Accounting Faculty Directory. When it came last week I spent the better part of an evening "browsing" through it. (An aside: For those of you old enough and nerdish enough to relate, when the new Hasselback comes out I become somewhat giddy and excited to look through it. Everytime I do it reminds me of how excited I was as a kid when the new telephone books came out. The loss of excitement of the new phone book is another thing the digital age has robbed me of since we rarely get new phone books anymore.)

      As I was browsing, (flipping the pages from the back), page 416 jumped out at me. On that page were the alphabetical listings for "Zhang" among others. What struck me however, was not the name, but the "Rank" column. Almost all of the Zhang's are listed as "Asst" which would indicate younger and newer faculty. Not that this is surprising given the growth of the international, particularly Asian, students in doctoral programs. I looked further and found the same occurrence(a greater preponderance of Asst), sometimes to a greater and sometimes to a lesser extent with the following names:

      Chen (page 245) Huang (page 296) Li (pages 321-322) Liu (page 324) Wang (pages 403-404) Xie and Xi (page 413) Yu (page 415)

      I did not notice the same preponderance of Asst in the following large groups of Asian names: Kim (page 309) Lee (page 319) Lin (page 323) Park (page 352) Wong (page 411)

      This preponderance of Asst was also not noted in the groupings of the more common traditional American surnames: Anderson (page 220) Brown (page 236) Jones (pages 303-304) Smith (pages 382-383) Thomas/Thompson (page 394) Williams (pages 408-409)

      What I notice in the difference between the two Asian groups is that the one where there are more Asst's listed is that the names are more generally Chinese; while the other Asian group has Korean names. I can only surmise this is because there is a more recent influx of Chinese students in recent years.

      There is obviously some kind of paper in this information waiting to be written. If I could only find what it is!

      Chuck Pier, Ph.D.
      Associate Professor
      Department of Accounting, Economics and Finance
      Angelo State University
      ASU Station #10908
      San Angelo, Texas 76909



    • Robert E Jensen

      Note that the PQ and AQ terms have been replaced by four terms by the AACSB, but the same distinctions between tenure-track versus non-tenure track still apply

      Tenure Track Versus Non-Tenure Track Versus ??????

      "A New Faculty Path," by Adrianna Kezar, Susan Albertine and Dan Maxey, Inside Higher Ed, October 2, 2012 ---

      With all the recent discussions about disruptive technologies and ways to increase completion rates, too little attention has been paid to the roles of faculty members in the emerging new academy. What kinds of faculty do we need to ensure the success of today’s "new majority" students who are older, attend multiple institutions, come from families whose members have not attended college, and who have increased need for remediation and attention from faculty ? Who is currently carrying the biggest load in teaching these students, especially at the introductory levels, where far too many students drop out of college? How will faculty roles evolve in this new environment? To answer these questions, we need to take a hard look at the current status of college faculty — including the large percentage of those not tenured nor on the tenure track.

      Today, more than 70 percent of all faculty members responsible for instruction at not-for-profit institutions serve in non-tenure-track (NTT) positions. The numbers are startling, but numbers alone do not capture the essence of this problem. Many of our colleagues among this growing category of non-tenure-track faculty experience poor working conditions and a lack of support. Not only is it difficult for them to provide for themselves and their families, but their working conditions also interfere with their ability to offer the best educational experience for their students.

      Emerging research demonstrates that increases in the numbers of non-tenure-track faculty, particularly part-time faculty, and the lack of support they receive have adverse effects on our most important goals for student learning. For example, studies connect rising contingency to diminished graduation rates, fewer transfers from two- to four-year institutions, and lower grade-point averages. Other studies have found that non-tenure-track faculty make less frequent use of high-impact practices and collaborative, creative teaching techniques that we know are associated with deeper learning. They may not utilize innovative pedagogies for fear of poor student evaluations that might jeopardize their reappointment; they may have been excluded from professional development intended to hone faculty skills; they may be driving long distances to accumulate courses in several institutions. And to be clear, it is non-tenure-track faculty’s working conditions, exclusion from campus life, and lack of support that accounts for these findings. (A summary of all this research may be
      found here.)

      Even after years of urging and mounting calls for change, few institutions have developed policies and practices to support non-tenure-track faculty members or include them more completely in the life of our campuses. They remain "adjunct" to the institution -- something supplemental and perhaps not treated as an essential part of the whole. A growing number of educators agree this situation cannot continue if we are to have any success in improving the quality of student learning -- the core of our mission and the source of our collective future well-being.

      Seeing so little action toward change, advocates for these faculty members from among the various stakeholder groups, ourselves included, are growing frustrated by what is not being done. However, where many see willful neglect, we see complicated systemic problems and compelling numbers of well-intentioned educators who simply do not know how to address what they know to be a problem. Important efforts by academic unions and disciplinary societies have increased awareness of the problem and offered new professional standards to respond to the inequities in contingent employment. However, no group working alone has been able to make meaningful progress.

      So, we are stuck. It is for this reason that we started the
      Delphi Project on the Changing Faculty and Student Success in partnership with the Association of American Colleges and Universities. We sought to do something that has never been done before, to convene a broad range of key stakeholders interested in the changing faculty and student success to seek a better understanding of these issues in our time and develop strategies to address contingency and a vision for the new faculty together.

      In using a Delphi approach, key stakeholders or experts on an issue are first surveyed on a complex policy issue; these stakeholders are then convened in person to discuss the issue – including their points of consensus and divergence – and to develop thoughtfully conceived solutions. We invited leaders from national associations such as the American Council on Education and the American Association of Community Colleges. Policy groups such as the Education Commission of the States and Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education joined the project. In addition to these groups, we invited the leaders of accreditation agencies, disciplinary societies, academic unions, faculty researchers, and academic leaders such as presidents, representatives of governing boards, deans and provosts. We also included advocacy organizations for NTT faculty, such as New Faculty Majority.

      In May, we came together outside Washington.
      A report from our deliberations is now available on the project website, as are several resources that were prepared for the meeting to frame participants’ understanding of the research that has been conducted on non-tenure track faculty and national trend data about their growth in numbers over 40 years. The end result of the meeting was the formation of two major, parallel strategies for moving forward:

      The first strategy will engage higher education organizations and stakeholders in reconceptualizing the professoriate, including redefined faculty roles (beyond existing tenure or non-tenure-track faculty), rewards, and professional standards. A second strategy will lead to the creation of data and resource tool kits for use by campus stakeholders including faculty task forces, administrators, and governing boards, as well as accrediting agencies. The tool kits will draw upon existing knowledge and data, providing a blueprint for promoting greater awareness of non-tenure-track faculty issues. They will also provide examples of positive practices to support non-tenure-track faculty and show how policy change is possible among different types of institutions.

      Undergirding all of our discussions was a shared acknowledgement that the academy lacks the information, data, shared awareness, and models necessary for supporting non-tenure-track faculty and achieving a vision for the future of the professoriate — even as the pace of change in higher education accelerates. Throughout our efforts, we have been attentive to the vast heterogeneity of non-tenure-track faculty as a group and the idea that the character of higher education institutions is extremely diverse. We have worked from a common understanding that any set of recommendations must be attuned to this heterogeneity and diversity.

      Key insights and ways to begin addressing this problem include:

      1. Collective action: No one group can effectively solve this problem alone. Collective action is needed to address its many complicated parts – the growing expenses of providing a high-quality college education amid declining state support, a lack of good faculty data, the scarcity of campus staffing plans, minimal access to best practices or effective models, the potential overproduction of Ph.D.s, and a tendency for prestige-seeking and mission drift by colleges and universities, to name only a few. The multifaceted and complicated nature of the problem is the reason why it persists and has endured so long. In coming together, we have to understand the priorities that connect us and the serious implications of inaction.

      2. Perspective: Bringing together stakeholders with diverse perspectives helped us to identify all of the aspects of the problem so that they could be addressed in new ways. Perspective-taking is helpful. Coming to see the issue through the point of view of other stakeholders, many participants began to understand the issues differently and to see their role in creating solutions.

      3. Common ground: There are many more common perspectives than would be expected among such a diverse group of stakeholders. Project participants generally agreed that the current three-tiered system (tenure-track, full-time non-tenure-track and part-time non-tenure track) is broken, that student success is being compromised, and that better data systems and greater awareness can promote movement toward better policies and practices to support non-tenure-track faculty.

      4. The future professoriate: While we could not come to full agreement about what the nature of the future professoriate should be, we did agree to many common principles. They include the importance of academic freedom, shared governance, a livable wage, and greater job security for non-tenure-track faculty (in the form of multiyear contracts). There was also agreement that teaching and scholarship cannot be fully unbundled, that institutional roles should differ by institutional type, and that above all other goals, student success should be the primary focus of any faculty work. As we continue our work, we will refine these ideas into a workable vision for our future.

      5. Trust: We need to learn to trust each other in order to address this problem. Unfortunately, trust in higher education has worn thin following the decline of shared governance, the rise in unilateral decision-making, and the apparent protectionism of narrow interests among the various stakeholders.

      Continued in article

      Bob Jensen's threads on tenure-track versus non-tenure track faculty ---


    • Robert E Jensen

      List of AACSB Universities With Accounting Accreditation (in addition to business school accreditation) ---

      "AACSB approves revised accounting school accreditation standards," by Chris Baysden, Journal of Accountancy, May 14, 2013 ---
      Thank you Dennis Huber for the heads up.

      Jensen Comment
      Standards for such things as "creative curriculums and new program concepts" are still vague. Most of the programs accredited to date are traditional, and there is not one for-profit accredited university or one program that is all or mainly online. It's still not possible to my knowledge to attain accounting accreditation without first attaining AACSB business school accreditation. This is a major constraint on innovation since business school deans that are the AACSB accreditation gate keepers tend to block non-traditional programs such as for-profit university programs and distance education programs. However, some AACSB accredited universities have limited distance education alternatives for courses and degrees, but these were generally allowed only when the a university previously had such accreditation for its onsite programs.

      Are there any examples of "creative creative curriculum and new program concepts?" worthy of mention in accounting programs having AACSB accounting accreditation. The University of Connecticut has AACSB accounting accreditation and offers an online distance education degree. However, the University of Maryland having AACSB accreditation put its online accounting degree program off to the University College that does not have AACSB accreditation.

      It still seems to me that in North America the AACSB only talks the talk with respect to ""creative curriculums and new program concepts." Only in Europe has there been AACSB walking the walk in its desperate effort to go global. I would even go so far as to conjecture that the AACSB has accredited some programs in Europe that would not make it in North America, including universities with some questionable executive doctoral programs.

    • Chauncey M. DePree, Jr.


      I’ll amplify on a point Bob Jensen just made: “It still seems to me that in North America the AACSB only talks the talk with respect to ""creative curriculums and new program concepts."

      My thesis is that the North America AACSB talks the talk with respect to other, perhaps more important, behaviors, too, like its talk about ethics in its standards. I’ll offer an idea via a recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education:

      The Chronicle of Higher Education recently offered “Corporate Responsibility Should Start in Business School” by Donna Sockell. Ms. Sockell advocates that …

      "[I]n business schools, our job is to prepare leaders to make workplaces vibrant, financially successful, and driven by values. The seemingly endless stream of business scandals is evidence that business schools are falling short."

      Over the decades, how often have we read this article?

      Many times. Nevertheless, I've got a new idea about how to teach ethics.

      Talking and doing are two entirely different propositions, as Bob noted above. And, we, academics, talk and, all to often, do not practice what we teach. Here’s an idea: Do it--practice ethics, then tell us, colleagues, how to practice ethics and teach it. Make sure you have "skin in the game," so you'll clearly understand what your asking students and colleagues to do in their careers. Let me repeat, act ethically, yourself.

      Let me amplify.

      Here's the idea I referred to: Let's take known unethical behavior--in our own neighborhood--and correct it. As a way to learn how to practice ethical behavior at our universities and by extension, elsewhere. If we correct our own unethical conduct, we'll have a much better understanding of what and how to teach ethical behavior. 

      Any one have a suggestion?

      I've got one. Let's start with the AACSB. And its unethical behavior. The AACSB is an important institution to hundreds of business schools and influences business education. And, I've got lots of details and documentation about a failure of the AACSB to practice its own ethical principles. See, "Ethics, Power, and Academic Corruption, Parts 1 and 2" available at Amazon. (This research is an extended version of my 2010 AAA paper presentation, “University and AACSB Diversity, Case Research.”) Documentation and evidence was obtained through freedom of information requests, court transcripts, depositions, etc. So, we’ve got the evidence if we choose to use it.

      I'll put my own butt on the line, because my behavior will be examined in detail, too, as revealed in "Ethic, Power, and Academic Corruption." And, rightfully so. 

      Hey, AACSB, the challenge is addressed to you, too.

      Let’s improve our understanding by practicing ethics and teaching the AACSB to walk the walk.

      What do you say? Let's start really practicing ethics. And teaching it, too.

      I'm available anytime and anyplace.

      Chauncey M. DePree, Jr., DBA, Professor, School of Accountancy, College of Business, University of Southern Mississippi., 601-297-3404


    • Chauncey M. DePree, Jr.

      Consider the observation in the conclusion of “University and AACSB Diversity, Case Research,” i.e., “Given that the academic institutions fail to support and protect diversity of speech, more centralized and controlling environments are expected to fail to support professionals, including accountants, when they “speak truth to power.” In the current environment, silence should be advised regardless of the calls for ethical behavior.”

      And consider footnote 1, i.e., “In 2002, the Sarbanes-Oxley ("SOX") law was enacted to combat accounting fraud on Wall Street in the aftermath of the Enron, Worldcom and Arthur Anderson scandals. At the time, SOX was the most far reaching expansion of corporate oversight and reform of corporate regulatory law since the depression-era securities laws were passed. The purpose of SOX was to combat corporate fraud and restore public confidence in Wall Street and corporate America. Whistleblower protection provisions were included in SOX and the stated Congressional intent was to broadly construe those provisions in order to carry out the ambitious goal of stamping out corporate fraud. However, in practice, the SOX whistleblower law has become a major disappointment. There are several reasons that the SOX whistleblower provisions did not live up to their expectations and stated congressional intent. First, and foremost, the current administration failed to properly implement and enforce the SOX whistleblower law. Second, corporate defendants were well organized and funded, and with sympathetic Bush administration appointees in the Department of Labor, were able to convince the administration to narrowly construe the SOX whistleblower provisions to exclude most employees who report corporate wrongdoing despite the congressional intent to the contrary.”



      Progress: “Supreme Court Expands Whistleblower Protections”

    • Robert E Jensen

      "Universities With the Most Doctorate Recipients From Minority Groups, by Race and Ethnicity, 5-Year Total for 2008-12," Chronicle of Higher Education, August 18, 2014 ---

    • Robert E Jensen

      "Student Diversity at More Than 4,600 Institutions," Chronicle of Higher Education, September 18, 2016 --- 

      Jensen Comment
      Some things got my attention like the prestigious Ivy League universities that have nearly 50% minority enrollments. “Total minority” is the percentage of all students who are not categorized as white, race unknown, or nonresident
      Keep in mind that some (most?) prestigious universities invite children of families earning less than USA average income ($54,500) to attend free if they meet admission standards. A high proportion of those children are minority, and the admissions bar may be lower for some or all minorities.

    • Marc Depree

      I wondered if Bob Jensen had read the article he's commented on above ("University and AACSB Diversity, Case Research"). So I asked him. He did not reply. Given his previous comments, I've wondered the same but didn't ask. I had some time today to consider Bob's behavior. If you read my article and Bob's comments, you'll agree that he has not read my article. He is working from the title, maybe the abstract, too, without reading the content. It seems silly to make comments that are totally unrelated to the content of the article. Keep in mind, Bob's comments are not critical of my article. They are simply irrelevant. The readers of Bob's comments should, and now have the author's view of the relation of his comments to the article.

      I'd like nevertheless to thank Bob for attempting to keep my article in the public view.