Contact Me By Email

Contact Me By Email

Wednesday, April 24, 2024

Former Boeing Manager Says Workers Mishandled Parts to Meet Deadlines - The New York Times

Former Boeing Manager Says Workers Mishandled Parts to Meet Deadlines

"Merle Meyers, who left Boeing last year after a 30-year career, said he was speaking publicly about his experience because he loved the company “fiercely.”

Merle Meyers sits at a table with two framed documents in front of him.
Merle Meyers, who worked at Boeing for nearly 30 years, said the company’s culture had changed over the years to emphasize speed over quality.Grant Hindsley for The New York Times

By Niraj Chokshi

Niraj Chokshi, who covers the aviation industry, reported from Everett, Wash.

Two framed documents from a long career at Boeing hang side by side in Merle Meyers’s home: A certificate from 2022 that thanks him for three decades of service. And a letter he received months later reprimanding him for his performance.

The documents reflect his conflicting emotions about the company. Mr. Meyers, who worked as a Boeing quality manager until last year, holds deep affection for the aircraft manufacturer, where both he and his mother worked. But he is also saddened and frustrated by what he described as a yearslong shift by Boeing executives to emphasize speed over quality.

“I love the company,” said Mr. Meyers, 65, who is publicly sharing his concerns for the first time, supported by hundreds of pages of emails and other documents. For years, he said, quality was the top priority, but that changed over time: “Now, it’s schedule that takes the lead.”

Boeing is revered by many aviation professionals as a lasting symbol of ingenuity and an engineering and manufacturing powerhouse. It is so important to the U.S. economy that presidents have effectively served as salesmen for its planes abroad. The company is a dominant force in Washington State and a top employer in the Seattle area, where it was founded and produces the 737 and other planes.

A job at Boeing is often a source of pride, and many employees have intergenerational ties to the company. In addition to his mother, Mr. Meyers said, his wife’s father and grandfather also worked there.

But that shared pride has been badly bruised in recent years. The company’s reputation was tarnished by a pair of fatal crashes of the 737 Max 8 in 2018 and 2019 and an episode when a panel blew out of a 737 Max 9 plane on Jan. 5. That flight reignited intense scrutiny from regulators, airlines and the public.

Last month, Boeing’s chief executive, Dave Calhoun, said he would step down at the end of the year, and its chairman left his position immediately. The company said it had since taken steps to improve quality, including increasing inspections, adding training and pausing production so managers can hear directly from workers.

“We are using this period, as difficult as it is, to deliberately slow the system, stabilize the supply chain, fortify our factory operations and position Boeing to deliver with the predictability and quality our customers demand for the long term,” Mr. Calhoun said in a letter to employees on Wednesday.

While aviation remains exceedingly safe — far fewer people die on planes than in cars, trucks or buses — the Jan. 5 flight highlighted quality concerns raised by Mr. Meyers and other current and former employees. Many who have spoken out say they have done so out of respect for Boeing employees and their work, and a desire to push the company to restore its reputation.

“The Boeing Company has done everything for me, and I will never be able to do enough for them,” said Mr. Meyers, a Christian chaplain who said his decision to speak out was informed partly by his faith. “We love the company fiercely. That’s why you fight for it.”

His career at Boeing, which included some long gaps, started in 1979 with a job making overhead storage bins. Starting in the mid-1990s, he oversaw quality at suppliers that made seats, galleys and other components in Texas, England and France. Mr. Meyers said he had been laid off twice, in the early 1990s and the early 2000s. He returned a few years later and spent the second half of his career in quality oversight in Everett, Wash., where Boeing makes several models of planes.

Mr. Meyers, who wears a ring on his right hand commemorating his 30 years at Boeing, said he had begun to notice slipping in the company’s high standards after its 1997 merger with McDonnell Douglas. He said Boeing’s engineering-first mentality had slowly given way to a stronger focus on profits after executives from McDonnell Douglas assumed top jobs at Boeing.

The ring Mr. Meyers wears to commemorate his 30 years at Boeing.Grant Hindsley for The New York Times

Mr. Meyers said he was particularly troubled that workers at Boeing’s Everett factory felt such pressure to keep production moving that they would find unauthorized ways to get the parts they needed. That included taking parts assigned to other planes, taking newly delivered components before they could be inspected or logged, or trying to recover parts that had been scrapped. To Mr. Meyers, managers did little to dissuade or punish workers from such shortcuts.

“What gets rewarded gets repeated,” he said. “People get promoted by hustling parts.”

Thousands of people work at the Everett building, which is generally regarded as the world’s largest by volume, and Mr. Meyers acknowledges that his observations were limited to a portion of the work carried out there. But the pressures he described are similar to those identified by other current and former employees.

In one investigation from 2015, Mr. Meyers found that workers had used an unauthorized form to recover scrapped parts, such as landing-gear axles, at least 23 times over 15 years, according to email correspondence. Components are usually scrapped because they are substandard or defective, but workers in several cases said the parts had been removed mistakenly, an explanation that Mr. Meyers said was hard to believe. The movement of parts is generally highly documented and regulated to ensure quality and safety.

“Parts don’t just end up in scrap,” he said. His findings ultimately helped to end the practice, according to the documents provided by Mr. Meyers.

In 2021, his team identified multiple instances in which employees removed parts from receiving areas before those components could be inspected, according to the documents. In one case, an employee took parts and disposed of the associated paperwork and shipping crates. In another instance, Mr. Meyers shared with corporate investigators an annotated email chain showing that several 787 bulkheads had been removed from a receiving area without the knowledge of quality inspectors.

In a statement, the company said it took such violations seriously.

“Boeing’s quality team plays an important role in identifying issues, improving processes and strengthening compliance in our factories,” the company said. “To ensure the safety, quality and conformance of our products, we investigate all allegations of improper behavior, such as unauthorized movement of parts or mishandling of documents. We then work diligently to address them and make improvements.”

Mr. Meyers said that he would notify corporate investigators of such incidents when he believed that the practices he uncovered were widespread and that the company should do more to stop them.

But emails he shared with The New York Times also show that his efforts to get the attention of those investigators often ended in frustration. In some cases, the investigators said they could not substantiate his findings. Mr. Meyers frequently pushed back, succeeding in some cases in prompting additional action, he said.

By early last year, Mr. Meyers had received that written reprimand, which said he was responsible for creating “defective work product, service or output” but didn’t provide any details about what he had done wrong. He felt both that his concerns were not being taken seriously and that if he stayed at Boeing he might eventually be pushed out. He was offered a financial incentive to quit, so he took it.

It was not the departure he had expected or planned for.

Mr. Meyers was a teenager when his mother, Darlene Meyers, joined Boeing in the early 1970s. Her two-decade career there, in which she rose from a clerk to a high-profile role as a designated representative of the Federal Aviation Administration, had helped to lift the two of them out of poverty, he said.

His own Boeing career helped to provide a comfortable life for his family and a good education for his daughter and son, both of whom are in their late 30s and have families of their own.

Since leaving, he has focused more on work that he and his wife, Cindy, who is also a chaplain, have done for some time, helping survivors of trauma or people dealing with grief.

“I didn’t want to go back into aerospace,” he said. “I’ve had enough scars.”

Do you work with Boeing?

We want to hear from people who have experience working at or with Boeing to better understand what we should be covering. We may use your contact information to follow up with you. We will not publish any part of your submission without your permission. If you have information that you want to share with The New York Times using tools that can help protect your anonymity, visit: https://www.nytimes.com/tips."

Former Boeing Manager Says Workers Mishandled Parts to Meet Deadlines - The New York Times

Opinion | Biden’s Deep Miscalculation on Israel and Gaza - The New York Times

Biden’s Deep Miscalculation on Israel and Gaza

Nicholas Kristof asks: Where has our moral president gone?

Below is a lightly edited transcript of this episode. To listen to this episode, click the play button below.

Biden’s Deep Miscalculation on Israel and Gaza

Nicholas Kristof asks: Where has our moral president gone?

Sarah Wildman: Hello, I’m Sarah Wildman, staff writer and politics editor for New York Times Opinion. Today I’m in conversation with columnist Nicholas Kristof on Biden’s role in the war in Gaza. Nick has been writing about the conflict since Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7. Most recently, he wrote a major column on what he sees as Biden’s complicity in the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Essentially, Nick makes the case that the Israel-Hamas war is now Biden’s war. This conflict, he writes, will be a significant part of Biden’s legacy.

Nick, thank you so much for joining me today. I know it’s a little early on your side of the country.

Nicholas Kristof: Oh, my pleasure.

Sarah: Nick, how do you think Biden wanted to position himself during this administration?

Nick: He’s a veteran on foreign affairs. He cares deeply about foreign affairs. He’s got a great foreign policy team, and well, they bungled Afghanistan at the outset. But then I think they did a very impressive job rallying Europe around Ukraine.

And I think that he thought that Ukraine was going to be his war — that was going to be his chance to stand up for international norms. And I’m afraid that the war he will be remembered for may not be so much Ukraine as the Gaza war.

This notion that, you know, since World War II, we have tried to preserve some international norms that have restrained governments, that have tried to promote certain values — we don’t live up to the standards that we proclaim, but they have made some difference. And now, you know, I’m afraid that a lot of the world looks at this and they just laugh at us. They roll their eyes.

Sarah: I want to talk a little bit about Biden’s legacy prior to all of this, when it comes to humanitarian crises. Back in 1986, as a younger senator, he spoke out passionately against apartheid.

[Archival audio of Biden] Our loyalty is not to South Africa. It’s to South Africans. And the South Africans are majority Black, and they are being excoriated. It is not to some stupid puppet government over there. It is not to the Afrikaners’ regime. We have no loyalty to them. We have no loyalty to South Africa. To South Africans.

Sarah: You’ve been covering human rights and conflicts for decades. How have you seen Biden position himself in the past?

Nick: He’s been a good, moral voice on a lot of these issues, including for those in which Muslims were victims.

In Bosnia, he was an important advocate for addressing the genocide there. I worked with him in the Darfuri genocide in the early 2000s. Senator Biden then felt that President Bush wasn’t doing enough. And he was urging me to write, you know, tough columns calling on the White House to not just talk but to actually do more to address the suffering in Darfur.

So I think of the passion and urgency that Biden has used in the past to offer a moral voice, and I wonder, “Where has that Joe Biden gone?”

Sarah: You write that Biden came to Israel with enormous empathy for Israelis, following the horrific attacks of Oct. 7. But you also say that you think the empathy has been unequally applied to the conflict. Can you explain what you mean?

Nick: So I think that there is something of an empathy gap, and when I see President Biden talk about the Israeli suffering after Oct. 7, you can just see how authentic that is. He means it. I mean, he’s, he’s hurting. He feels that suffering. And when he speaks about Gazan suffering, you don’t sense that same deep pain, that same sense of walking in other people’s shoes. And I think that this empathy gap does make it easier to support policies that, you know, he recognizes causes a great deal of suffering, a great deal of individual loss, led more than a thousand kids in Gaza to now be amputees. But it historically has been easier for us to impose costs on people abroad — whether they were Vietnamese or Afghans or Iraqis — when we identify a little bit less with them.

And I wonder if that isn’t the case right here.

Sarah: From a humanitarian standpoint, how would you describe Biden’s approach when it comes to Israel and to Gaza?

Nick: I think President Biden is legitimately deeply distressed by the suffering in Gaza and starvation. And he has regularly called on Israel to dial back the bombing and to allow more aid into Gaza.

I think he recognizes this is not the way he would want to conduct that war, but he imposes no consequences when his guidance is ignored and when the bombings continue and when the starvation continues. And so if you continue to provide the material, if you continue to provide the support, if you continue to provide the diplomatic protection, then it’s a little hard to then complain when 12,000 kids are killed, when kids do starve to death.

President Biden has talked a lot about how Israel should let in more food into Gaza, and he got to the point of organizing airdrops to drop food in. But back in December, he actually had a chance to do something, and the U.N. Security Council was organizing a structure that would provide a U.N. mechanism to inspect food going into Gaza to get around the Israeli system that has been a real block for food getting in. And the White House blocked that effort. They essentially watered it down to nothing. So the Israeli inspections are still the structure that is in place and that still are impeding food getting in.

Sarah: You say you think that there has been a miscalculation on the part of the administration, and Biden particularly, at how this war would play out. How was it miscalculated?

Nick: So I think that the Biden administration didn’t appreciate how harsh Israeli bombings would be. I don’t think they appreciated how much Israel would try to block humanitarian aid into Gaza, and this caused starvation. And I don’t think they appreciated how much their own advice would be ignored regularly.

I think that President Biden had a little more confidence that he would be able to nudge Benjamin Netanyahu in the direction of more restraint, and that did not happen.

Sarah: It’s interesting you say that you think he thought he would be able to nudge him. Can you walk me through the difference between his support for Israel and his support for Netanyahu?

Nick: I mean, Biden, forever, he’s been a very strong supporter of Israel.

I think that’s partly his generation growing up in the shadow of the Holocaust and remembering Israel as a deeply fragile state, surrounded by enemies who periodically tried to destroy it. And many Democrats have been at odds with Netanyahu, who they see as fundamentally working with Republicans to try to undermine President Obama, for example, when Biden was vice president.

And Americans have always found, have always found Netanyahu to be a really difficult person. Knowing all this, somehow Biden seemed to think that he could put his arm around Netanyahu and manage him.

And instead, looking back, it seems pretty clear that it was Netanyahu who managed Biden.

Sarah: What has Biden’s strategy been with Netanyahu, in particular?

Nick: Biden recognizes what a mess he’s gotten himself into in both geopolitical terms and in humanitarian terms. His strategy has been a kind of Hail Mary pass that would involve a three-way deal with Saudi Arabia, with Israel and the U.S., in which Saudi Arabia would normalize relations with Israel, which is something Israel would very much like. The U.S. would provide benefits to Saudi Arabia, and then Israel would agree to a two-state solution. And then there would be some kind of a cease-fire in which this would all be hammered out. And then the war wouldn’t actually resume, and then there would be work on getting some kind of Palestinian state created and end the fighting and have some kind of an international effort to rebuild Gaza.

It sounds great. It would be an incredible achievement if you were to pull it off. It seems not terribly likely to me right now, and there isn’t really a Plan B.

Sarah: One of the things you noted about the miscalculation in the piece is that you say they miscalculated the impact of Oct. 7 on Israeli society. And one thing we haven’t mentioned is that there are still hostages being held, and that has been, obviously, a driving force for much of Israeli society. How does that play into Biden’s understanding of the moment and his concern?

Nick: So that has been a real constraint, I think. And look, Israeli society was just shattered by Oct. 7, deeply, deeply traumatized. That moved Israeli public opinion and made people very suspicious that a Palestinian state would ever be feasible.

It led to a strong desire to try to completely eradicate Hamas and accept civilian losses if that was part of that path.

Sarah: So where do we go from here? Does the administration have diplomatic room to maneuver?

Nick: I think that right now Biden is on a cul-de-sac. I don’t think that the path he’s on right now is going to take him to a better place. And in fact, there are a lot of risks that things could get worse. We could have a wider war involving Iran, involving Hezbollah. We could also have famine break out in Gaza. And it’s also just hard to see how this ends, because even if Israel dials back the bombing, then what authority is there going to be in Gaza that can actually provide health care, can distribute food, can establish order?

So I’m afraid we’re not on a very good path, and I think that the answer has to be to try to create consequences when Israel doesn’t listen to Biden, and the obvious consequence is to withhold offensive arms.

I think that would get the attention of the Israel Defense Forces very quickly. It was notable that when Biden finally raised the possibility of using his leverage and had a tough conversation with Netanyahu and warned about those consequences, then almost immediately Israel did allow more aid in, and I just wish that he had had that conversation months and months earlier.

Sarah: Do you think it’s politically practical for him domestically to condition aid? Where would that position him on the domestic front, given the election?

Nick: I mean, it’s difficult for Biden because the Democratic Party has many people who are outraged by what Israel is doing in Gaza, but it also has many people who were deep, strong supporters of Israel and would be appalled by a suspension of offensive arms.

But public opinion has moved very quickly, and at this point, a majority — not just the Democrats — but a majority of Americans, as a whole, disapprove of Israeli actions in Gaza. And so I think that would be the smarter move.

Sarah: What do you think Biden must do right now, most urgently?

Nick: So I think he needs to suspend the transfer of offensive arms to Israel, pending food actually being delivered to Gaza to end this starvation, and some indication of dialing back the more reckless side of the bombing in Gaza and then push immediately for some kind of a cease-fire and hostage release and, likewise, then try to use that for some kind of an arrangement for a Palestinian state.

Sarah: Before I let you go, we’ve talked about possible practical political moves the administration might make, but really your piece is about morality and legacy. And I wonder if you can bring us back to that for a moment. What is the takeaway you have about this moment for Biden now on that issue?

Nick: I think of the compassion that Joe Biden has shown at various points for people who are suffering around the world and his sense of moral obligation to address that suffering. And then I try to juxtapose that with what is happening in Israel and Gaza, and I admire the compassion that he showed for victims of Oct. 7 and the moral clarity he showed after Oct. 7, when it was necessary to call this out as barbaric and intolerable. But if you only care about human rights for one side in a conflict, then you don’t actually care about human rights. And if you regard the deaths of children on one side of a conflict as a tragedy, as unacceptable, but deaths of children on the other side of the conflict as regrettable, then there is something profoundly wrong not just with your geopolitics but with your moral compass.

And I fear that is the direction we have strayed in, at the end of the day. We forget there’s the basic principle that all lives have equal value, and that has to be our sense of where we go forward, and it’s very hard to integrate that principle in military conflict and geopolitics, but we can do a lot better at integrating it than we have done.

Sarah: Nick, thank you so much. This is a tough conversation, but I really appreciate your time.

Nick: Thank you, Sarah.

A reproduction in blue on a cream background of a photo of the back of Joe Biden’s head.
Illustration by The New York Times; photograph by Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/Getty Images

Thoughts? Email us at theopinions@nytimes.com.

This episode of “The Opinions” was produced by Vishakha Darbha. It was edited by Kaari Pitkin and Annie-Rose Strasser. Engineering by Efim Shapiro, with mixing by Pat McCusker. Original music by Carole Sabouraud. Fact-checking by Mary Marge Locker and Kate Sinclair. Audience strategy by Kristina Samulewski and Shannon Busta."

Opinion | Biden’s Deep Miscalculation on Israel and Gaza - The New York Times

Opinion | Marjorie Taylor Greene Has Reached the Outer Limit of Extremism - The New York Times

The Humbling of Marjorie Taylor Greene

A black-and-white image of Marjorie Taylor Greene smiling slightly with her lips pursed.
Mark Peterson for The New York Times

By Michelle Cottle

"Ms. Cottle writes about national politics for Opinion and is a host of the podcast “Matter of Opinion.”

In our Trump-era politics, there’s always the question of how crazy is too crazy — how disruptive and extreme an elected official can get before becoming so embarrassing that members of her own team feel compelled to abandon her?

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene seems to have reached that outer limit. Again.

It’s not simply that Ms. Greene has taken such a Putin-pleasing approach to Russia’s war in Ukraine (Ukrainian Nazis? Really?) that the term “useful idiot” feels unavoidable. She has, in very little time, undermined the influence of her party’s entire right flank, driving less unhinged Republicans — most notably the House speaker, Mike Johnson — to brush back her and her ilk like the poo-flinging chaos monkeys they are.

Just look at what has come to pass in the House in the past several days: Mr. Johnson, a proud ultraconservative, pushed through a $95 billion foreign aid package, including $60 billion for Ukraine, with more Democratic votes than Republican ones. He is now counting on Democrats to save him from the Greene-led extremists’ plan to defenestrate him and install yet another Republican as speaker. There is much buzz about the emergence of a bipartisan governing coalition in the House, albeit one born of desperation. Squint hard, and Congress almost looks to be functioning as intended, with a majority of members coming together to advance vital legislation. With her special brand of MAGA extremism, Ms. Greene has shifted the House in a bipartisan direction (at least for now) in exactly the way her base loathes.

Can I get two cheers for the art of the possible?!

On a less high-minded note, how delicious was it to see Ms. Greene on the steps of the Capitol on Saturday, raving about Mr. Johnson’s various “betrayals” and proclaiming him “a lame duck,” even as she hemmed and hawed about when she would move to oust him? All in good time, she said, insisting she felt moved to let her colleagues first “go home and hear from their constituents” over this week’s House recess. “I said from the beginning I’m going to be responsible with this,” she said, in what may be her most laughable line in weeks — a high bar for the House member known for her keen insights on Jewish space lasers.

Seriously, how responsible did Ms. Greene look Sunday on Fox News, as she ducked Maria Bartiromo’s questions about her plans for ousting Mr. Johnson? (Short answer: She has no plan.) Ms. Bartiromo noted that Ms. Greene was drawing widespread criticism for “creating drama” and that there was concern she was making Republicans look like a bunch of squabbling incompetents unfit to run a neighborhood book club. (Those may not have been the host’s exact words.) Ms. Greene’s crackerjack defense was to insist, “The people criticizing me are not the American people.” The American people “are outraged, and what they’re saying is they don’t want to vote for Republicans anymore,” she asserted, adding that “the Republican Party in charge right now, it’s no different than the Democrat Party.”

I may be off base here, Marjo, but trashing your colleagues as no better than the other side in a high-stakes election year is not the best way to win them over to your kamikaze mission.

Because here’s the thing: Republicans already subjected themselves to painful mockery last fall by letting their right-wingers take down Speaker Kevin McCarthy without a succession plan in mind. It took them three failed candidates and three inglorious weeks to finally install Mr. Johnson. Precious few members are likely up for a second helping of humiliation this much closer to Election Day.

I mean, not even Donald Trump is throwing in with “Moscow Marjorie,” as she has been dubbed in some cheekier conservative corners. After an invigorating Monday spent in court, the former president reiterated his support and sympathy for Mr. Johnson in a chat with the conservative radio host John Fredericks. “Well, look, we have a majority of one, OK?” Mr. Trump noted. “It’s not like he can go and do whatever he wants to do.”

At this point, the most enthusiastic base of support for Ms. Greene’s shenanigans may be the Kremlin. More food for thought, congresswoman: When Russian propagandists start praising your politics and beauty, it’s time to rethink your life choices.

Could this show of spine by non-winger Republicans last more than a hot second? Maybe Mr. Johnson is recognizing that his responsibilities as the head of the people’s house go beyond serving his trolliest, most obstructionist members. And maybe, unlike Mr. McCarthy, who never exhibited signs of possessing a moral core, Mr. Johnson is serious about trying to do “the right thing” — by which he does not simply mean whatever Mr. Trump tells him to do.

Of course, if we really want to talk fantasy scenarios, I’d be thrilled if this speaker, having stiff-armed his wingers multiple times and lived to tell about it, feels liberated to keep nudging the House toward greater functionality. I mean, the guy has already blown his shot at being the ultimate MAGA speaker. Why not give being a genuine statesman a chance and do a deal on border security or the cost of prescription drugs?

Not that I’m holding my breath. In these MAGAtastic times, the humbled Ms. Greene could rebound faster than you can say “total presidential immunity.” But for now, her flapping and flailing are satisfying to behold.

Michelle Cottle writes about national politics for Opinion and is a host of the podcast “Matter of Opinion.” She has covered Washington and politics since the Clinton administration. 
@mcottle"

Opinion | Marjorie Taylor Greene Has Reached the Outer Limit of Extremism - The New York Times

Tuesday, April 23, 2024

AMERICAN'S 🇺🇲 UNCUT THOUGHTS ON NAMIBIA 🇳🇦 @WODEMAYA

Columbia’s President, Nemat Shafik, May Face a Censure Resolution - The New York Times

Columbia’s President May Face a Censure Resolution

The university senate is expected to vote as early as Wednesday on a resolution censuring Nemat Shafik, a reaction to her testimony before Congress and the arrests of student protesters.

Nemat Shafik, the president of Columbia, sits at the House committee hearing, with her arms crossed.
Nemat Shafik, the president of Columbia University, during testimony in front of a congressional committee last week.Amanda Andrade-Rhoades for The New York Times

In February, Nemat Shafik, the president of Columbia University, told the school’s senate that she sensed a “low level of trust” in the administration.

There was a feeling, Dr. Shafik said, that “the administration is the enemy,” according to the minutes of her meeting with the senate.

If the campus distrusted Dr. Shafik two months ago, the relationship is now approaching estrangement.

The university senate is expected to vote, possibly as early as Wednesday, on a resolution censuring Dr. Shafik, a reaction to her testimony before Congress and the arrests of more than 100 student protesters.

A draft of the resolution, circulated Monday, accused Dr. Shafik of violating “the fundamental requirements of academic freedom,” ignoring faculty governance and staging an “unprecedented assault on student rights.”

The resolution is expected to be introduced by two members of the 111-seat senate. It specifically states that the resolution is not a call for Dr. Shafik’s resignation, but the resolution also calls for the censure of other university officials, including Claire Shipman and David Greenwald, the chairs of Columbia’s board of trustees.

Asked for a comment on the proposed resolution, a spokesman for Columbia issued a statement: “President Shafik is focused on de-escalating the rancor on Columbia’s campus. She is working across campus with members of the faculty, administration, and board of trustees, and with state, city, and community leaders, and appreciates their support.”

Such a vote, if it passed, would be largely symbolic. The senate, which is made up of faculty, students and administrators, does not have the power to remove a president. And Dr. Shafik, who goes by Minouche, seems to retain the support of the university’s board of trustees. Ms. Shipman and Mr. Greenwald testified with her before Congress, and echoed her conciliatory approach to House Republicans.

But a censure vote, whether it passes or not, reflects the depth of anger among faculty members over the arrests of the student protesters, which faculty members say Dr. Shafik ordered without proper consultation with the university senate’s executive committee.

“I have the sense,” said David E. Pozen, a law professor, “that a very broad swath of the faculty, with very different views on the situation in Gaza and Israel, believes that President Shafik’s recent actions are alarming.”

Professors are also incensed over her testimony before Congress last Wednesday, where they say she capitulated to the demands of conservative Republicans on questions of academic freedom. And they are incredulous that her office disclosed information to Congress about pending internal investigations of faculty members, which are usually confidential.

Not all faculty are on board.

Dr. Andrew R. Marks, the chair of the department of physiology at Columbia’s medical school and a member of the university senate’s executive committee, said that antisemitism on campus, not Dr. Shafik’s leadership, was the problem.

“I want her to succeed,” he said. “I want her to be able to manage all of this and get us out of this mess.”

Dr. Shafik was a nontraditional choice for president. Despite having served as president of the London School of Economics for six years, Dr. Shafik, an economist, spent most of her career with the International Monetary Fund, the Bank of England, and the World Bank. She had few ties to Columbia.

And the mood had already been tense before the hearing. In a letter on April 5, 23 faculty members warned Dr. Shafik that, in agreeing to appear before Congress, she would be walking into a “political theater of a new McCarthyism.”

As they predicted, the hearing did not improve things. Among their complaints was that she did not strongly defend academic freedom, while agreeing that some contested phrases — like “from the river to the sea” — might warrant discipline.

Dr. Shafik had thrown “academic freedom and Columbia University faculty under the bus,” said Irene Mulvey, national president for the American Association of University Professors, a national group that supports academics.

After the student arrests, more than 50 of the 90 full-time faculty in the law school released a letter on Sunday condemning Dr. Shafik for bringing the police to campus, and for suspending more than 100 student protesters.

A number of Columbia affiliates — the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia, the Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute, and the head of the Union Theological Seminary — have also denounced the decision.

There was also consternation over Columbia’s decision to disclose to Congress internal information about professors under investigation, the same type of detail that Harvard has resisted releasing to the committee.

In a private letter on April 16, the day before the hearing, Columbia supplied the House committee with details about eight professors and one teaching assistant who were under investigation for alleged violations of university anti-discrimination regulations.

One of those professors, Dr. Joseph Massad, a professor of Middle Eastern studies, had not been informed of the pending investigation by an outside investigator, according to the letter to the House obtained by The New York Times.

Even so, Dr. Shafik answered specific questions about Dr. Massad during the hearing and an article he wrote in The Electronic Intifada, published the day after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel.

It described how Hamas paragliders overwhelmed the vaunted Israeli defenses, delivering what Dr. Massad, who is of Palestinian descent, described as a “death blow” to confidence in the military. Adjectives used in the piece, including “awesome,” were interpreted as supportive of the invasion.

When Representative Elise Stefanik pressed Dr. Shafik about the university’s response to the article, Dr. Shafik responded, “He was spoken to by his head of department and his dean.”

“And what was he told?” Ms. Stefanik asked.

That that language was unacceptable,” Dr. Shafik responded.

Dr. Massad, who has been a subject of campus controversy before, said he had been the target of death threats since the hearing.

In a statement, Columbia acknowledged that the university “generally does not disclose ongoing investigations, including to protect complainants.”

But, it said, “in this case, Congress’s interest required the university to do so.”

The statement added, “Representative Stefanik’s direct line of questioning on this matter obligated Professor Shafik to provide accurate information regarding the investigation.”

But for many of the professors, the breach of confidentiality amounted to being placed on public trial with no chance to defend themselves.

Katherine Franke, a law professor at Columbia, was also identified as being under investigation, in the letter and during the hearing.

On social media, she demanded an apology from Dr. Shafik for not correcting the record when Ms. Stefanik, a Republican from New York, claimed that she had made an inappropriate comment about Israeli students — a charge that Ms. Franke said Dr. Shafik knew was incorrect.

Albert Bininachvili, an adjunct professor in political science, was also on the list, based on what appears to have been one student’s complaint that he made antisemitic remarks directed at Jewish students.

Dr. Bininachvili, whose name was not mentioned during the hearing, said in an interview that the accusations were “completely unfounded, preposterous, absurd, ridiculous.”

“I’m a devoted Jew and I come from a practicing Jewish family and I have six members of my family who perished in the Holocaust,” Dr. Bininachvili said. “Even today, when we’re talking, several members of my extended family are living in Israel and serving in the I.D.F.”

Dr. Shafik’s handling of student arrests also did not follow rules and procedure, according to the American Association of University Professors.

The group said that Dr. Shafik violated a longstanding statute requiring that the university “consult” with the senate’s executive committee before the police are called to campus.

James Applegate, a professor of astronomy and a member of the committee, said the group was contacted by the university administration last Wednesday afternoon, the day before the police were called in.

After that meeting, the executive committee composed an email, Dr. Applegate said. He described the email from memory: “We call on the administration to engage the protesters in good faith dialogue to bring the protest to a peaceful end with all deliberate speed. We do not approve of police presence on campus at this time.”

The email was sent to the administration about 6 p.m. Wednesday, and Dr. Applegate said he received no further official word until the next day, when he was told that the police had been brought in.

Mr. Pozen, a constitutional law expert, said the action had backfired.

“If calling the cops last Thursday was meant to protect Jewish students, it seems to have had the opposite effect,” he said. “The initial encampment was peaceful while it lasted. The protests that followed its dismantling brought lots of outraged new people to campus and were much more volatile.”

Even Ms. Stefanik, whom Dr. Shafik tried to mollify, has called for her resignation, which would the follow the resignations of the presidents of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania.

Mr. Pozen said he does not think the law faculty wants to oust Dr. Shafik.

“My belief is that most law faculty members want to focus on improving the university’s policies rather than unseating a new president and handing Stefanik another scalp,” he said."

Columbia’s President, Nemat Shafik, May Face a Censure Resolution - The New York Times

Monday, April 22, 2024

Why some people are using glucose monitors, but not for diabetes - The Washington Post

Why people without diabetes use glucose monitors to track their health

A photo illustration of someone using a continuous glucose monitor with a blue blood sugar curve illustrated on top of the photo.
(Washington Post illustration; iStock)

"Why are healthy people who don’t have diabetes using continuous glucose monitors? Should I get one?

Continuous glucose monitoring has become a major health fad among those who don’t have diabetes but want to use the data to inform their lifestyle choices. Everyday factors like diet, exercise and stress affect your blood sugar levels.

The monitors, which are usually worn on the upper arm or stomach, contain a specialized enzyme that reacts with glucose molecules in your body, generating a tiny electric current. Its voltage is proportional to your blood glucose concentration, which the device calculates several times per hour.

People are often fascinated by the results because everyone reacts somewhat differently to eating. In one study that tracked more than 45,000 meals from 800 people, researchers found a high variability in glucose levels even after eating the same foods, such as bread with butter.

I don’t normally recommend continuous glucose monitors to my healthy patients. But I do appreciate that some people — especially those who feel they’ve already tried hard to get a better handle on their blood sugar — will find seeing that data play out in real-time informative and motivational.

If you decide to use a monitor, you may find that eating a high carbohydrate meal like a big bowl of pasta or a sugary drink leads to a rapid surge of insulin and then a low blood sugar level. This can lead to fatigue and brain fog — a “crash.” If you balance your meal with foods containing whole grains and protein (which are slower to digest and therefore result in a more steady release of insulin), you may find your blood glucose levels become more steady. High fiber foods like beans and green vegetables are also helpful — and with them, you feel fuller longer.

Other factors including exercise, stress and sleep also can impact your glucose levels:

  • Exercise: One study found that taking a brisk walk 15 minutes after each meal helped control glucose spikes in diabetes patients better than walking 45 minutes before breakfast. In a study of 153 healthy adults without diabetes, aerobic or resistance exercise resulted in lower blood overnight glucose levels than nights without exercising.
  • Stress: Periods of stress can increase your blood glucose levels in part because hormones like adrenaline and cortisol impact insulin secretion. Techniques to calm the body can help.
  • Illness: Other kinds of stress on our bodies, such as an infection, also modulate our blood glucose. In a small study of people without diabetes wearing continuous glucose monitors, one study noted that those who had covid-19 had higher blood glucose levels than those who did not.
  • Sleep: Several studies have shown that irregular sleep, waking up often at night or insufficient sleep can promote glucose intolerance. People who don’t get enough sleep are about 40 percent more likely to develop diabetes than those who get seven to eight hours of sleep.

How can I get a continuous glucose monitor?

The Food and Drug Administration recently approved a continuous glucose monitor for sale over the counter, and the device is expected to be available for sale this summer.

Until then, people without diabetes will need a physician to prescribe them a monitor in this off-label way and need to pay out-of-pocket. This can reach a few hundred dollars per monthdepending on the monitor and subscription plans to the associated apps. Some companies advertise a “free” virtual medical consultation — this is a requirement for the prescription, not a favor to you.

What I want my patients to know

A short trial of a glucose monitor is low risk – the monitors aren’t inserted directly into your bloodstream, but rather into the subcutaneous tissue beneath our skin. Rarely, people experience discomfort around the site of the patch, often from the adhesive pulling on their body hair.

But if you decide you want to wear one for a longer period, ask yourself if doing so gives you new, actionable information. To me, there are rapidly diminishing returns. Many broad lessons you’ll probably learn from a continuous glucose monitor are ones that you could glean just from studying healthy lifestyle patterns without going down this expensive path."

Why some people are using glucose monitors, but not for diabetes - The Washington Post