The SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT —
"[The] blog he developed was something that made the district better." - Tim Jemal, SOCCCD BoT President, 7/24/23
Canvas Catches, and Maybe Passes, Blackboard (Inside Higher Ed) Blackboard dominated the U.S. learning management system market for 20 years, but new data show its cloud-based competitor edging past it.
By Lindsay McKenzie
July 10, 2018
Canvas has unseated Blackboard Learn as the leading LMS [Learning Management System] at U.S. colleges and universities, according to new data from MindWires Consulting.
In a blog post on Monday, Michael Feldstein, partner at MindWires Consulting and co-publisher of the e-Literate blog, wrote that Canvas now has 1,218 installations at U.S. institutions, compared with Blackboard’s 1,216. Although the two-figure difference may seem insignificant -- and Blackboard and some of its allies say the data don't accurately reflect the two companies' relative reach -- most analysts agree that Canvas's ascent, largely at Blackboard's expense, is noteworthy.
“This is a stunning development for a company that seemed to have established an unbreakable market dominance a decade ago,” wrote Feldstein.
At its peak in 2006, Blackboard controlled approximately 70 percent of the U.S. and Canadian market, with its nearest competitors “far, far behind,” said Feldstein. But slowly Canvas, and others such as Moodle and D2L’s Brightspace, have closed the gap.
Blackboard and Canvas now each control 28 percent of the U.S. higher ed LMS market, followed by 23 percent for Moodle and 12 percent for Brightspace, according to MindWires Consulting's data partner, LISTedTECH.
The rise of Canvas to near market dominance is one that “nobody would have predicted,” said Feldstein.
The Canvas LMS is offered by Instructure, a company that was established in 2008 -- several years later than Moodle (2002), D2L (1999) and Blackboard (1997).
Yet Canvas’s “cloud-based offering, updated user interface, reputation for outstanding customer service and brash, in-your-face branding” have helped it to surpass these more established systems, said Feldstein…. (continue)
She's waiting for me When I get home from work Oh, but things just ain't the same She turns out the lights And cries in the dark And she won't answer when I call her name
Well it's been building up inside of me
For oh I don't know how long
I don't know why
But I keep thinking
Something's bound to go wrong
But she looks in my eyes
Well it seems that everyone we've known Their love's grown cold, hearts turn to stone One by one they break, it's such a shame And now you say you wanna do the same
And each girl in my little red book Knows you're the one I'm thinking of Won't you please come back [to me]? Without your precious love I can't go on Where can [love] be?
Hey, little girl, you don't have to hide nothin' no more You didn't do nothin' that hadn't been done before
“Should I stay or should I go now?” That question, posed by the eminent political philosophers known as The Clash, is one that confronts any Republican with a glimmer of conscience. You used to belong to a conservative party with a white-nationalist fringe. Now it’s a white-nationalist party with a conservative fringe. If you’re part of that fringe, what should you do?
. . .
[Veteran Republican strategist Steve] Schmidt follows in the illustrious footsteps of Post columnist George F. Will, former senator Gordon Humphrey, former representative (and Post columnist) Joe Scarborough, Reagan and Bush (both) aide Peter Wehner, and other Republicans who have left the party. I’m with them. After a lifetime as a Republican, I re-registered as an independent on the day after Donald Trump’s election.
GOP: "Whatever Trump says."
Explaining my decision, I noted that Trumpkins “want to transform the GOP into a European-style nationalist party that opposes cuts in entitlement programs, believes in deportation of undocumented immigrants, white identity politics, protectionism and isolationism backed by hyper-macho threats to bomb the living daylights out of anyone who messes with us.” I still hoped then that traditional conservatives might eventually prevail but, I wrote, “I can no longer support a party that doesn’t know what it stands for – and that in fact may stand for positions that I find repugnant.”
I am more convinced than ever that I made the right decision. The transformation I feared has taken place. Just look at the reaction to President Trump’s barbarous policy of taking children away from their parents as punishment for the misdemeanor offense of illegally entering the country. While two-thirds of Americans disapproved of this state-sanctioned child abuse, forcing the president to back down, a majority of Republicans approved. If Trump announced he were going to spit-roast immigrant kids and eat them on national TV (apologies to Jonathan Swift), most Republicans probably would approve of that too. The entire Republican platform can now be reduced to three words: Whatever Trump says.
. . .
A progressive Demo Party?
Personally, I’ve thrown up my hands in despair at the debased state of the GOP. I don’t want to be identified with the party of the child-snatchers….
…The current GOP still has a few resemblances to the party of old — it still cuts taxes and supports conservative judges. But a vote for the GOP in November is also a vote for egregious obstruction of justice, rampant conflicts of interest, the demonization of minorities, the debasement of political discourse, the alienation of America’s allies, the end of free trade and the appeasement of dictators.
That is why I join [George] Will and other principled conservatives, both current and former Republicans, in rooting for a Democratic takeover of both houses in November. Like postwar Germany and Japan, the Republican Party must first be destroyed before it can be rebuilt.
I hand you my ball and chain You just hand me that same old refrain I'm walking on a wire, I'm walking on a wire And I'm falling I wish I could please you tonight But my medicine just won't come right I'm walking on a wire, I'm walking on a wire And I'm falling Too many steps to take Too many spells to break Too many nights awake And no one else This grindstone's wearing me Your claws are tearing me Don't use me endlessly It's too long, too long to myself Where's the justice and where's the sense? When all the pain is on my side of the fence I'm walking on a wire, I'm walking on a wire And I'm falling Too many steps to take Too many spells to break Too many nights awake And no one else This grindstone's wearing me Your claws are tearing me Don't use me endlessly It's too long, it's too long to myself It scares you when you don't know Whichever way the wind might blow I'm walking on a wire, I'm walking on a wire And I'm falling I'm walking on a wire, I'm walking on a wire And I'm falling I'm walking on a wire, I'm walking on a wire And I'm falling
When I was a kid, Feliciano lived up the street. But I never saw him, and I'm sure he never saw me.
Anyone who skims or peruses old Central Montanan newspapers from around the turn of the (19th) century cannot avoid noticing that the denizens of that region were (they still are!) mighty conservative—as in "classical liberal" or "libertarian." True, the conservative and dominant Fergus County Argus had competition, for a time, from the Fergus County Democrat, but these Democrats were not socialists. But, as its turns out, socialism did emerge—and soon fade—in Montana during the first two or three decades of the Twentieth Century, and it turns out that Lewistown, of all places, was the locus of the state's first socialist newspaper!.... READ MORE
The Supreme Court’s decision upholding President Trump’s travel ban on Tuesday came with a number of interesting wrinkles. It contained an implicit rebuke of Trump’s motives in signing the order, even though it let the order stand. And it repudiated Korematsu vs. United States, a discredited 1944 decision that allowed the U.S. to send Japanese-American citizens to internment camps during wartime, even as it upheld a policy with a discriminatory motive on grounds similar to that 70-year-old ruling….
. . .
… Sometimes the Court is willing to deem a government action constitutional by pretending that the government’s underlying purpose was something acceptable, rather than something forbidden. And sometimes the Court decides that even if a governmental action is or might be fully unconstitutional, there's simply nothing to be done about it by the justice system. In other words, the Court sometimes lets unconstitutional behavior stand. If Tuesday’s decision is read closely, it is possible to see both of those limits at work. Indeed, it is reasonable to read the opinions to mean that at least five Justices, not just the dissenting four, believe the President acted unconstitutionally in proclaiming his travel ban. But just because something is unconstitutional doesn’t mean that the Court will strike it down.
Consider first the majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, which found a way to acknowledge the President’s unconstitutional motivations without concluding that the policy itself was unconstitutional. Roberts’s opinion spent no less than a page and a half chronicling some of Trump’s statements, as a candidate and as President, suggesting that the travel ban is motivated by anti-Muslim animus. (The ban, which restricts travel from Iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Venezuela and North Korea, is the third version of an order that originally applied only to a group of Muslim countries.) An anti-Muslim motive would make the ban unconstitutional under the First Amendment, which forbids the government to disfavor particular religions. But that’s not what Roberts ruled. In the end, the Chief Justice decided for the President on the theory that the policy “can reasonably be understood to result from a justification independent of unconstitutional grounds.” This is what constitutional lawyers call the “rational-basis test”: even if the actual reason the ban exists is rooted in an unconstitutional motive like religious bigotry, the Court will let the ban stand if the judges can imagine some legitimate interest that could have motivated the order….
"I'm Jimmy Carl Black and I'm the Indian of the group."
Some of you might remember the issue, several years ago, concerning a tenured IVC Librarian, Carol Wassman, whose conduct became a problem for the college. Ultimately, she was fired. Her firing led to a lawsuit, which Wassman lost in 2016. She appealed. She lost that too. The opinion was filed two weeks ago (it became available for publication on the 21st).
I know about the latter filing because, tonight, I somehow happened upon the recent opinion on a site called “Justia.” Not sure how that happened.
You can find it here:
The South Orange County Community College District (the District) dismissed Carol Wassmann from employment as a tenured librarian at Irvine Valley College (IVC) in April 2011. Several years later, Wassmann obtained a right to sue notice from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) and brought this lawsuit against the District, Karima Feldhus, Robert Brumucci [sic], Glenn Roquemore, Lewis Long, and Katherine Schmeidler. Wassmann, who is African-American, alleged causes of action for racial discrimination, age discrimination, and harassment in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), intentional infliction of emotional distress, and two other causes of action (not relevant here). The trial court granted two motions for summary judgment: one brought by the District Defendants and the other brought by Long and Schmeidler, on the ground the FEHA claims were barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel, or failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action was barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the statute of limitations. Wassmann appealed, but finding no reversible error in the grant of summary judgment, the Court of Appeal affirmed.
I looked over the opinion, filed 6-12-18. Here’s some info based on that reading:
Back in 2010, Wassman’s dean (Feldus) tried to deal with what she judged to be Wassman’s unprofessional conduct. Here’s the beginning of the section of the opinion that discusses that alleged conduct:
(The section describing the struggle to curb W’s [alleged] excesses is long and remarkable. I won’t go through all of that here. See the above link.)
During this period, Wassman, as a member of the Faculty Association (union), was represented by two union officers: L Long and K Schmeidler.
I was a friend of Carol’s, having gotten to know her on the Senate. At some point, I met with her and urged her to accommodate the dean to keep her job. I gently suggested that, if she lost her job and sued, she would not likely prevail. (I felt strongly that she didn't have a leg to stand on. Her conduct, what I knew of it, struck me as very unprofessional.)
She was not disposed to take such advice. "You can't afford to lose this job," I told her. (I knew something about her circumstances.) But she was unmoved.
Ultimately, Wassman was dismissed as a tenured librarian. That was on April 2011.
Wassman filed her lawsuit Dec 2013.
District defendants: [Dean] Feldus, [Vice Chancellor] Bramacci, [IVC President] Roquemore
FA defendants (!): Long and Schmeidler.
Ultimately, Wassman offered six causes of action. (1) age discrimination, (2) racial discrimination—disparate treatment, (3) harassment (hostile environment), (4) wrongful termination, (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (6) unfair business practices.
1, 2, 4, and 6 were applied to district defendants (i.e., Feldus, Bramucci, Roquemore).
3 and 5 were applied to all defendants (i.e., union officers Long and Schmeidler too).
Next: unsurprisingly, district defendants (Feldus, et al.) filed a motion for summary judgment. Long and Schmeidler also filed such a motion. This is a request that the court summarily deal with the case instead of going through all the trouble of a long trial. (I—i.e., my lawyer—made the same move in my 1st Amendment suit against the district in 1998.)
The trial court granted both motions.
That was a victory for defendants, a major loss for Wassman.
With regard to the district defendants: causes 1, 2, 3 were barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and “res judicata,” which, according to my Mac’s dictionary, is “a matter that has been adjudicated by a competent court and may not be pursued further by the same parties.”
Cause 5 failed because it was derivative of the above 3 causes, and because of the statute of limitations.
For L and S:
Cause 3 was barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Cause 5 failed because it was derived from the first three and because of the statute of limitations. Also, for technical reasons (incompetence of filing), Wassman had not actually managed to oppose L and S’s motion.
Wassman appealed.
At the end of the appeals process, the original judgment was affirmed.
Well, again, if you're interested in the details, go here: Justia Opinion
Situations like this cause administrators to adopt a slew of unfortunate CYA behaviors.
Can't really blame 'em, I guess. Litigation is hell. People start saying amazing things at you. It's hard to process that. You kinda get used to it, I guess, but still....
