Newsletter N°42                                                                                           8 December 2009

Institut d’Administration des Entreprises
Pierre Mendes France University, Master in International Management Program

The Organizational Structure of a French Research Center Directed by an American Professor at Stendhal University-Grenoble 3 :
The Strange Closure Case of CEIMSA

by
Nannan YING

 
An Analysis of the Closure
of
Center for the Advanced Study of American Institutions and Social Movements CEIMSA
at
The University of Grenoble 3
in
June 2004

A Report of the Internship between June 15 & August 15, 2009

Acknowledgement of assistance and Statement of endorsement

I would like to thank Mr. Francis FEELEY for providing the performance data used in this study, and Mr. Nnajiofor Peterson for his useful suggestions on the manuscript.

Executive Summary

I was authorized by Professor Francis FEELEY, the former Grenoble director* at the Center for the Advanced Study of American Institutions and Social Movements –(a.k.a. CEIMSA), to do a research on the closure case of this research center at Stendhal University. This is an interesting and complicated case, related to managerial behavior and organizational structure of a French academic organization directed by an American scholar living and working in France. As a third-country cross-bencher, I can see through culture differences between the two countries and find out whether the research center has positive or negative influence on the university and the students, the objective of the sudden, uninformed action taken by the university administrators. Through this research I learned a lot about  practical managerial skills and about the importance of social acculturation, and what's more important, about  courage in the quest for truth.

By means of seeking historical data, interviewing the main players, and referring to the knowledge that I learned from classes at Pierre Mendes France University, in the International Management Program, I found that it was not only the progressive scholars who lost out from the closure of this research center, but also students, colleagues, the university in general, because this center had something important to contribute to  ongoing discussions and the academic search for truth. Serious scholars and university administrators of all political persuasions should understand and respect this intellectual activity, and, if they truly believe in the sanctity of academic freedom, they do what they can to permit this exchange between progressive scholars and the rest of the academy to take place. I have concluded from this study of the history of CEIMSA at Grenoble that Stendhal University is a place where such a commitment existed. In fact, Stendhal University may have been in the forefront in the entire western academy in promoting top quality exchanges between progressive scholars and other members of the community in the field of American Studies. But the sudden closing of this research center made Stendhal University and Grenoble students the great losers in the end.

__________
* Professor FEELEY now serves as Director of the research Internet site, CEIMSA-IN-EXILE, at The University of California-San Diego.

After a deep research of the case I would like to recommend that there should be no room for any form of censorship in a modern university, and I would request that the Tribunal Administratif investigate the irregular and unprofessional procedures by which these administrative decisions were implemented at Stendhal University. Furthermore, I would propose that CEIMSA be awarded the necessary financial support to continue its activities, its growth, and its important pedagogical and scientific functions at Stendhal University.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgement and Endorsement..…………….…………………............................…..….…..........1
Executive Summary.……………………………………...........................…………..…........................2
PART 1 Introduction.……………………………………........................………………....................4
1.1 Backgrounds…...……….…………………………..........................………………………………5
1.2 The objective of the study..………….……………………............................………………………7
PART 2 Main Body……...……………………………………............................……………………8
2.1 A brief history of the crisis at CEIMSA..………….……………….............................………………8
2.2 The project manager - A sad story of Francis Feeley...………..............................…………………13
2.3 The students' point of view………….……………...…………............................…………………15
2.4 The other side………….……………….…………...……..........................………………………18
2.5 A SWOT summary of CEIMSA …………………………...........................………………………19
PART 3 Conclusions and Recommendations…..……………........................………………………21
3.1 Conclusions..…………….……………….………………………...........................………………21
3.2 Recommendations.………….…………………………………............................…………………23
PART 4 Reference Materials..………….…………………………............................…………………24

PART 1
 
Introduction

I happened to meet Professor Francis FEELEY in Spring 2008, when he mentioned  to me the turbulent history of the research center he had created and developed at Stendhal University in 2000. As a student of management, this attracted my interest because it is a very unique case involving the closing of an American-managed joint venture that was formally created by the public service sector of  l'enseignement supérieur français par les instances compétentes at Stendhal University in Grenoble, France, this event necessarily relates to culture differences, organizational behavior, negotiation techniques, and administrative management. For these reasons, I wanted to make it the topic of my internship for the International Management Program at Pierre Mendes France University where I am enrolled as a graduate student.
The research center known as CEIMSA lasted at Stendhal University from September 2000 to July 2004. Since September 2004, its web site has continued to operate at The University of California. I have found the articles posted on the CEIMSA website to supply students from both France and aboard with analytical and helpful information guiding their studies in several disciplines associated with American Studies, such as sociology, history, anthropology, social psychology, etc...  In addition, I found that many professors were impressed with the scope of material and the long list of world renowned intellectual leaders including Edward Herman (U. of Pennsylvania), Howard Zinn (Boston University), Bertell Ollman (NYU), Susan George (Paris), Douglas Dowd (Johns Hopkins University), Noam Chomsky (MIT) and many others. . . .
In June 2004, the managerial administrators at Stendhal University suddenly decided to terminate Professor FEELEY’s research center without any public democratic discussion prior to this act; nor were there any reasonable explanations forthcoming to justify the decision being taken in this abrupt manner. The effect this closure had on the research of students and on all others who were using the facilities of the centre, especially its Internet website, was drastic. The professor and his students had to stop their research activities and some had to reregister at other French universities in order to continue their research in American civilization.
During the next part I will explain the detailed process of the whole case and explore the story behind the action as well as the real reason why the university made such a rush decision. Then I will give my own recommendation on this special case.

1.1 Backgrounds

The Center for the Advanced Study of American Institutions and Social Movements (Centre des études des institutions et des mouvements sociaux américaines, a.k.a. CEIMSA) was organized by Francis FEELEY, after authorization by the empowered authorities at Stendhal University of  in September 2000. The declared purpose of this Research Center at that time was to inspire new scholarship on subjects pertaining to the impact of American corporations on the contemporary world.

By gathering information, soliciting commentary, and generating new analyses of the influence American social movements and institutions are having on communities around the world, advanced students of American Studies at the University of Grenoble can have the opportunity to exchange their views with scholars working on similar subjects at universities elsewhere in France and in the United States.

What is interesting to me is that by 2002 this research center had focused on American-dominated Transnational Corporations (TNCs). More specifically, four aspects of the activities associated with American TNCs:
(1) Their political economies (including production; distribution and consumption, as well as questions of government subsidies; financial investments; taxes, and profits);
(2) Their environmental and social impacts on communities where they are located;
(3) The aesthetics and ideologies promoted by various American TNCs in America and abroad (including but not restricted to the study of public relations, internal communications, and media coverage);
(4) Social movements linked to TNCs, with special attention given to U.S. labor movement activities, the expression of ethnic group interests, and national, state, and local election campaigns.

These English-speaking institutions were studied by Grenoble students, with the assistance of scholars in the United States and at French universities, including eleven faculty members then associated with the University of Grenoble (namely, Francis FEELEY, Andrée Shepherd, Robert Griffiths, Mathieu O'Neil, Mohamed Benrabah, Elisabeth Chamorand, Christian Leblond, Susan Berthier, Emilie Corvisy, Alain Pessin and Hadj Saadi).

Francis FEELEY, an American Professor who has more than 30 years of teaching experience both in France and America, is my supervisor during this internship. He was the architect of CEIMSA beginning in 2000, and today is the director of 12 Ph.D. theses at The University of Paris in Nanterre. In June 2004, the new Stendhal University President, M. Patrick Chezaud decided to close Professor FEELEY’s research center, at least in Grenoble. The research center was forced to relocate its Internet site at The University of California and at the time Professor FEELEY’s 8 Ph.D. students were forced to enroll elsewhere, first at Chambéry, then at Nanterre, rather than remain at the University of Grenoble 3. This is the closure case of a French research center directed by an American professor working  in France.

1.2 The objective of the study

My job in this special internship is to study and analyze the historical data collected by the former CEIMSA colleagues and students, and conduct interviews with the main players in this case in order to obtain a fare and objective view of the situation, and then try to discover the true causes and effects of the closure.
Also, it would be very interesting to discover more about the managerial relationships at Stendhal University, and try to understand the reasons for the silence in the Administrative Council concerning this event and to find answers to the following specific questions:
 
1. Did the center provide a positive or a negative influence on the university?
2. What motivated this academic censorship?
3. What was the institutional objective in removing this research center?

PART 2 Main Body

2.1 A brief history of the crisis at CEIMSA

2.1.1 The foundation

In September 2000, the new research center, CEIMSA, was organized with a great deal of effort on the part of Professor Francis FEELEY, who was recognized as the new center’s director by Stendhal University’s Conseil d’Administration, following the recommendation of the University’s Conseil Secientifique at that beginning of the academic year 2000-2001. During the next four years Professor FEELEY’s research center was formally associated with the UFR d'Anglais, at Stendhal University.

Below are the name of the original board of directors of the research center:

2.1.2 The achievements of the research center

1. 37 CEIMSA "Newsletters" published between January 2001 and January 2008.
2. More than 30 internet links made available by CEIMSA for students and scholars.
3. More than 400 Bulletins sent regularly to subscribers between June 2001 and
    September 2009.
4. The CEIMSA mailing list is about 1,200 people in Europe, Norht and South America, and Africa, and Asia.

CEIMSA organized its first International Conference, in January 2002. This big project was acknowledged as a great success: the two-day colloquium attracted more than 1200 participants from local, national, and international organizations to discuss the theme of the conference, which was: “The Social Impact of American Transnational Corporations”. More than a dozen scholars from several different countries came to present their research at this Grenoble conference in January 2002, and their papers were subsequently published in the official “Publications des ACTES”.

The following academic year, 2002-2003, CEIMSA continued to organize smaller local conferences (all of which are described on the center’s web site). At the end of this academic year, CEIMSA again organized a large International Conference. It was in May 2003 that Howard Zinn and John Gerassi came from the East Coast of the United States to Grenoble, joining several French specialists in a two-day “Journée d’Etudes” organized around the theme of “L’Autre Côté de l’Amérique”, where discussions of contemporary dissident movements in the US attracted more than 2000 participants over a two-day period.

Again, the following academic year (2003-2004) CEIMSA held a series of small local conferences around such topics as the African American writer, Richard Wright, and the early labor union movement in the US. At the end of this year, CEIMSA organized its Third Annual Conference, attracting again well over 1000 participants to the Stendhal University campus on 21-22 April 2004. This Third Conference, on “The Contemporary State of American Political Culture”, featured the famous American populists, Jim Hightower and Susan DeMarco, from Austin, Texas, and the anti-war paintings of Michigan artist, Joanna Learner, as well as the presentations by established academic scholars from universities in Paris, Lyon, Montpellier, and Chambery. To pay for this conference, CEIMSA received a generous subsidy from the Stendhal University cultural events association, called Tramway nommé culture.

In addition to organizing this large International Conference, CEIMSA took on the project of directing the French translation of Jim Hightower’s best-selling book, “Thieves in High Places.” A team of 15 students worked under the direction of Professor FEELEY for nine months to produce the 460-page translation from American English into French of Mr. Hightower’s book, the French title of which is Ces truands qui nous gounvernent. This book was published shortly before Mr. Hightower’s arrival for the April conference, and it is now on sale in France, Belgium, and in Canada.

In addition to the research center itself, which was very active and in its first four years sponsored three large international conferences, and published two large books on Contemporary American society, the CEIMSA Web Site was an important research tool for the graduate students. It offered students easy access to find and use a significant number of articles selected and/or written by important scholars in the field of American Studies. It was recognized Internationally by competent specialists as being a serious research center, and it gave weight to the research efforts of graduate students at Stendhal University. It also facilitated the research efforts of a large number of other scholars and ordinary citizens in the town of Grenoble, in France, and internationally. Its three large international conferences brought together for the first time important scholars at the Stendhal University campus, and students and scholars from Europe and America came to Grenoble to participate in these conferences. In a word, CEIMSA greatly increased Stendhal University’s notoriety. I do not understand why the University does not take into account the usefulness of this successful research center.

2.1.3 The closure case

Since the inception of CEIMSA, in 2000, a new vice-president took office at the Conseil Scientifique, and after that a a new university president was elected. In June 2004, the Vice-President Michel Lafon (at the Conseil Scientifique) and University President Patrick Chezaud announced the complete “extinction” of CEIMSA, despite its three-year history of out-standing successes. And this closure came to both the professors and the students with an unexpected suddenness, and without any plausible justification or public discussion in advance.

There was only one Letter from Vice-President Odile Lagacherie (du Conseil d'Administration) announcing the closure of the CEIMSA web site on July the 1st. 2004 as follows:

« Conformément à la décision du Conseil Scientifique du 23 mars
2004, concernant le CEIMSA, il ne sera plus possible que le site
 institutionnel héberge votre site, à compter du 1er juillet, conformément
à la décision du Président de l'Université. Je pense que vous avez dû
faire le nécessaire pour qu'il puisse migrer vers un autre support. Pour
cela, vous pouvez prendre contact avec Gérard Wagner du CRAI qui
 est à votre disposition. »

Neither before nor after the closure was there a reasonable explanation for the decision.

The effect of this closure on the research students and on many others who were using the centre facilities regularly --especially its Internet website-- was abrupt and definitive. They lost access to all information on the site. Most of them in the DEA (pre-doctorate) degree program were denied access to one of the most important tools for their research. Thousands of pages of research materials and data on the site were wiped off the university server system and there was no other means immediately available for continuing their research.

More specifically, the first serious consequence of the closing of CEIMSA directly concerns all the students in American civilization. Indeed there is no longer a research center in American civilization at Stendhal University, nor even in the entire city of Grenoble. Professor FEELEY’s graduate students had to go to Chambéry in 2004 in order  to continue their Ph.D. work in American civilization because they were required by the ministry to be affiliated with a research center in the final years of their study, and there was no longer a relevant American Studies center for them in Grenoble.

Another consequence concerns the whole academic community at Stendhal University. If students continue to leave Stendhal University to continue their Ph.D. research in American civilization at other schools, Grenoble could lose a lot of its Ph.D. students. Yet to continue being an accredited university which offers A Ph.D. program Stendhal University must attract a certain number of Ph.D. students each year. The danger today is that a large number of graduate students in American civilization could leave Stendhal University and in so doing effectively weaken its PhD program and perhaps cause it to be cancelled, which would be of no benefit to the university.

2.2 The project director - A sad story of Francis Feeley

Francis FEELEY was my supervisor during this internship. He is also a full professor of American Studies in Stendhal University. He was hired in the year 2000 with some 30 years of teaching experience since 1970. He has international experience in both his professional life and his personal life, and he knows well the French educational system, where he first began teaching in 1972 at the Sorbonne Nouvelle in Paris. He had taught at Grenoble as visiting professor between 1994 and 1997, and in 2000, when the chance came, he turned down the offers at the universities in Strasbourg and Tours, and accepted the challenge from Stendhal University to teach and to create a new research center in Grenoble.

In September 2000, Francis FEELEY arrived in Grenoble with his family, and he  after buying an apartment not far from the University, he began to invest much time at the University, preparing new courses in American civilization, and developing the new research center, CEIMSA, which received formal recognition as a “new center” by the Conseil Scientifique at Stendhal University: For the first two years, he was awarded a small subsidy, in the form of a "BQR," (le Bonus Qualité Recherche) by the University Conseil Scientifique.

After a great deal of effort on his part, and with the help of the Conseil Scientifique (then under the direction of Professor Pierre Morère) and support from Professor Lise Dumasy (who was then serving as President of Stendhal University), the new Research Center organized its first International Conference, in January 2002.

In January 2003, Francis FEELEY's application for formal recognition by the Ministry of Education was rejected, on the grounds that CEIMSA had too few members -1 professor, 3 maîtres de conferences, and 1 doctoral student. (He was the only member of this center who was publishing scientific work on a regular basis.) However, the Ministry, at the same time that it delivered its “avis defavorable” took the initiative to suggest to President Dumasy that CEIMSA appeal this decision offering evidence that a permanent network was being created between CEIMSA and other French universities. Such a network would serve to assure the Ministry that in the future a larger number of research activities would result in a larger number of publications by the American civilization center in Grenoble.

However, the time that he was given to make this appeal was very short, and he was unable to do it before the deadline. As a result, President Dumasy offered him three options:
(a) Dissolve the research center;
(b) Merge with another research center. Mme. Dumasy suggested the equipe directed by Michel Lafon, Institut des Langues et Cultures de l’Europe (l’I.L.C.E.), would be the most appropriate affiliation; or
(c) He might continue as an independent center for two more years (2003-2004 and 2004-2005) and work to develop a permanent network with other French universities in the region.

He chose to pursue the third option, and began working to establish such a network. Two American civilization scholars, Professor Larry Portis (from the University of Montpellier) and Jean-Mari Ruiz (MC from Chambery) came to work closely with CEIMSA, both of whom presented papers at the April Conference, and both Professor Portis’s paper on the privileged relationship between Israel and the US, and Professor Ruiz paper on Michael Moore was published by CEIMSA that summer.

Despite the administrative agreement between President Dumasy and Francis FEELEY in 2003, and despite the fact that CEIMSA had been working in good faith to establish a regional network that would be legitimate and could be presented to the Ministry in 2005, and despite the series of significant successes which the unique American Studies Center in Grenoble had enjoyed over the past three years --the new administration at Stendhal University declared its intention to dissolve this center immediately, thereby breaking the promise made by the former President Dumasy that CEIMSA could continue to exist independently, as a local center, until an appeal could be made at the Ministry in 2005, an appeal based on firm evidence that a permanent network had been created and that CEIMSA was at the center of this network.

Not only was the research center, that Francis FEELEY had so strongly committed himself to, shut down; but also he was squeezed out of the concours courses (for Agrégation and C.A.P.E.S. exams) that he had been teaching for many years, and he was used as a warning model among the faculty members so as to further isolate and control him. After many months of sleepless nights and continuous high pressure growing on the body, around December 2004, Francis FEELEY was diagnosed with prostate cancer. He under went an operation in July 2005. He continues to contribute much to the university even under this condition, what he cares about is the quality of his teaching and he wants to be recognized by the community. In fact, Francis FEELEY was not fighting alone, there were hundreds of students and colleagues who stood besides him and fought shoulder to shoulder with him. Next, I will present you with the standpoints of the students.

2.3 The students' point of view

The whole closure was a nightmare to all the students whose study related to CEIMSA, directly and indirectly. Below is one of the open letters written by students mobilized in Grenoble to save the Research Center:

"We are writing to explain to readers the serious problem that graduate students (3ème cycle) in American civilization encounter today at Stendhal University. Hopefully this article will have more impact than the unanswered letters which students wrote in vain to the different administrations at our university. On the 11th of June 2004 Mr. Francis FEELEY- professor of American civilization and director of the Centre d’Etudes des Institutions et des Mouvements Sociaux Americains (CEIMSA) was told of the “extinction” of his research center. This declaration was made by Michel Lafon, the Vice-President of the “Conseil Scientifique” at Stendhal University. A few weeks later, on the 1st of July, the CEIMSA Web site was suppressed from the public server of the University.

Because this decision has serious consequences on the academic work of many students majoring in American civilization many of us decided to mobilize by writing letters to Mr. Patrick Chézaud, the President of Stendhal University. During the last three days before Christmas vacation 2004, some 50 graduate students signed a letter which explained their concerns. We asked Mr. Chézaud, if we could have an appointment with him to discuss the issue. This letter was given on the 9th of January 2005 but has yet received no answer. Today, students in American civilization worry for their future, for the future of the UFR d’anglais, and for the future of Stendhal University."

These students formed an association (les Amis de CEIMSA), organized information and awareness campaigns, sent out emails and collected signatures of support from the academia and all concerned individuals. They organized conferences and colloquia inside the school and in town, went to press interviews at radio stations, but all these efforts were fruitless.

In the months following the closing, a great number of people have written letters to the University President to express their disagreement with his administration’s decision to suppress CEIMSA, but they have received no satisfactory response up to now. All the open letters written by Professors from both France and aboard remain a dead letter. It seems that no one wants to listen to them and they were hitting against the proverbial wall.
What's more, Bertell Ollman, a famous authority on American politics who had given a couple of papers at a CEIMSA conference, considers the decision "a dreadful mistake", and he wrote to the university president and asked him to reconsider the decision.

To go a step further, I had a personal interview with one of the Ph.D students under the supervision of Francis FEELEY, Peterson NNAJIOFOR, who was a top graduate student then and now teaches in Montpellier. Below is an excerpt of this interview:

"I personally had to postpone the defense of my Masters’ Thesis form June to the month of September 2004. We, (post graduates and undergraduates) quickly sought answers and solutions to the problem. We were denied representation at the meetings of the administrative and scientific bodies of the school (Conseil d'Administration and Conseil Scientifique). When we insisted on pleading our case and presenting our grievances before these bodies during a session of their meetings, the then president of the University Prof. P. Chezaud promised to look into the matter and gave us an appointment.

At this appointment, he told us that the decision to shut the centre and wipe off its website from the school's internet domain was irreversible and that there was nothing anyone can do to reinstate them in any form whatsoever. He stated that the only thing left for members and students of the center to do was to join his own research center. He warned us that continuing our research with Prof. Feeley as our supervisor will only bode ill for us as we would never get any future career appointment thereafter.

Personally, I had already submitted my application for a place in the university's doctorate program and did not receive any response from the school's registrar which was strange because I had a good result. So, I complained about this to the president, informing him that the employee's at the registrar's office told me that I needed to change my research director in order to be considered. I did not see any reason for changing directors given that I already had one and that there was no other professor more specialized in my area of research in the university. He proposed that I should change my topic of research or meet him privately to find a compromise but insisted that there was no way I was going to continue my research in the school under Prof. Feeley. I never got any reply ‘positive or negative’ from the school on my doctorate application till date.

Most of my classmates that wanted to continue their doctorate studies in Grenoble at the center gave up. I was obliged to apply for doctorate studies in other universities. I moved to other research centers with Prof. Feeley. After discussions with different post graduate schools, we first moved to University of Savoie at Chambéry where I registered as a doctorate student in January 2005. And from there, we moved to the University of Nanterre where I completed my research and defended my thesis on the 4th of June, 2008. When we enquired about the closure, we were told that the centre had failed to convince the authorities that it merited its funding (a sort of 'Bonus Qualité Recherche' - B.Q.R.) by the Ministry of Education through the university."

But evidence showed that the last evaluation by the Ministry actually considered CEIMSA as a promising young research centre and thereby it is believed that the University should rather sustain, encourage and nurture it.

I myself, as a foreign student, quite understand the feeling of these students. A small change in the administrative level of the university may even lead to a butterfly effect on the students’ personal academic life, not to mention a sudden hitch like this.

2.4 The other side

First of all, below is the current administrative structure of Stendhal University:

The former Stendhal University President, Mme. Lise Dumasy(2000-2004), respected the work of CEIMSA and encouraged the Research Center's development before she left office. President Dumasy made a promise that CEIMSA could have two more years to develop a regional network with other American civilization scholars at universities in southern France and ultimately join or form an international network, including scholars at several American universities. Then on 12 June 2004, the new university president, M. Patrick Chezaud (2004-2008) and Vice-President of Research, Michel Lafon, announced the "extinction" of CEIMSA, and on 1 July the CEIMSA web site was removed from the University server. President Chezaud and his "equipe présidential" not only violated former President Dumasy's promise, but they failed to produce a credible justification for their actions: the criteria for deciding to suppress the CEIMSA center prematurely.

Through my research I found out that it is always difficult to dig some inside story from the administrative side, but here are the words of one of the directors of CEMRA, Catherine Delmas addressing Professor FEELEY:

"Should you wish to reintegrate the CEMRA, the CEIMSA-in-exile would have
to vanish, and you could not expect any funding for your personal research projects.  . . . This is called libel, for which you could be sued, and the board of directors of the SAES wrote to you about this. I do not intend to discuss the matter any further."

But this story does not end there : The arbitrary closing of CEIMSA, and the liquidation of the CEIMSA web site, was followed by a massive cover-up. In an ipso facto manner, the Consiel Scietifique administrators fabricated the "compte rendu" of the September 16, 2004 meeting, recounting discussions which never took place, and omitting important statements that had been made. This so-called "compt rendu" represented nothing less than the belated attempt to "justify" the closing of CEIMSA, after the fact.

In one word, all the investigation results lead me to the conclusion that the action against CEIMSA was highly politically motivated.

2.5 A SWOT summary of CEIMSA

2.5.1 Strength

During the past years that CEIMSA existed at Stendhal University, it was highly regarded by the students and specialists whose research work related to the data base that CEIMSA offers. The obvious strength of the research center was the high quality of conferences it held --both local and international-- and also the broad range of research material its web site made accessible to students and scholars. CEIMSA soon got wide recognition in related research fields.

Another strength lies in the international network it created and maintained. The Director, Professor Francis FEELEY, who has had more than 20 years teaching experience in France,  came to Grenoble with a well-established social network both in France and America. The contributions of the other staff members in this research center, made CEIMSA a real international research center with a high level of openness.

2.5.2 Weakness

In February 2003 the Ministry of Education refused to give formal recognition
to CEIMSA because of its small size. CEIMSA had only 4 professors at that time. The size is of limited importance for the activities of the research center but was questioned a lot by the administrators at Stendhal University.

2.5.3 Opportunity

As has already been mentioned, the former university president, Professor Lise Dumasy, held out an encouraging promise towards CEIMSA, it was the subsequent president, Professor Patrick Chezaud, who completely overruled her promise and closed the research center. But since June the 17th, 2008, Lise Dumasy returned to office again, and she is the President of Stendhal University now. If she didn’t change her previous position, there will be a chance for CEIMSA to be back to Stendhal.

2.5.4 Threat
During the acadmeic year 2005-2006 a new policy in the French academic system was announced: it urged that the smaller sized research centers to merge with the larger ones in order to widen the internationalization of the study field. This policy is a big threat to other small-size research centers like CEIMSA. One of the important things in adaptability, given the different culture background, is to obey the local rules. If CEIMSA would not able to enlarge itself, the policy will remain a primary threat to its existence.

PART 3 Conclusions and Recommendations

3.1 Conclusions

To answer the 3 questions raised at the very beginning of this report, firstly, according to the numerous achievements accomplished by this research center, it is obvious that CEIMSA had a positive influence on Stendhal University and its students.

Against academic freedom, how can an action which was accompanied with no explanation --neither in writing nor verbal-- be taken like this? There is a kind of censorship that exists at Stendhal University, a censorship which was highly politically motivated. I understand that by living in a University setting many rules and standards of living can be set. But setting unfair rules means having unfortunate consequences on students’ quality of life. Students develop by agreeing and disagreeing with certain ideas, not just by being presented with ideas that they must agree with. Here is what a Nigerian student said who spent 21 years of his life under various military regimes before coming to France to pursue his studies here, because he wanted to have the intellectual liberty to choose what he studied and to publish his research without dictatorial censorship. When he was admitted at Stendhal University, he felt that he had regained his human rights to freedom of speech and opinion. But, sadly, this turns out to have been a broken dream in the end.

Prohibiting the flow of particular information is wrong and is one of the ways in which Stendhal University is not treating its students fairly. Ultimately, moves like this make the campus a less pleasant, and a less "free" place to live.

I understand the need to take proper control in administrative management. However, blocking access to certain websites and removing a research center are not the only ways to accomplish this task. It’s just an easy way out for Stendhal bureaucrats. It’s easier for Stendhal to block controversial websites and shut down a research center than to hire a lawyer to defend a position: Students have a right to review whatever information is available, and to suppress “inconvenient” information is an assault against public education.

The interchanges between different nationalities, from different cultural backgrounds, expressing different points of view, lead to important social changes and positive developments. In my opinion, the managers of many highly developed organizations and societies assume they are in possession of an experienced and successful system, which they don’t want to see changed; or we might say, they are afraid of seeing it change.

A University must represent on its campus all the elements in the "universe of ideas". Ultimately, it is the students who are losing in a big way when it comes to stopping the "free" flow of information on the campus.

The decision to liquidate CEIMSA (or the attempt to “exterminate” it, as was stated in the letter by Professor Michel Lafon) is "unfair" and "undemocratic". As one of the elected members at  Conseil Scientifique, Francis FEELEY was systematically denied the right to appeal this administrative decision.

From my point of view, the real reasons of shutting down the research center are the following:

The occasional criticisms of U.S.-Israeli relations is one reason for this assault against CEIMSA.

Another reason is the fear that the subject matter is not approached scientifically, and that it endangers the reputation of the University for this reason. Protecting the reputation of the university was the initial justification for liquidating this Center, and until now a conservative discourse has monopolized this debate in Grenoble.

3.2 Recommendations

We know that we all make mistakes and take rash decisions from time to time. But wise is he who made a mistake and comes back on his decision to correct it whereas as a French proverb says: Seul un imbecile ne change pas d’avis.

Liberté, Égalité, and Fraternité, as the representation of French spirit, is one of the main reasons that foreign students come to France to study, in pursuit of these.

“Autant la liberté et l'égalité peuvent être perçues comme des droits, autant la fraternité est une obligation de chacun vis-à-vis d'autrui. C'est donc un mot d'ordre moral.”

According to traditional academic freedoms in the French Republic, I do formally request that the Tribunal Administratif investigate the irregular and unprofessional procedures by which these administrative decisions were implemented at Stendhal University --decisions which are so harmful to the integrity of Stendhal University, to traditional academic freedoms, and equally destructive to the education of its students. Based on all the intense activities and great contribution made by the research center, I also request that CEIMSA be awarded the necessary financial support to continue its activities, its growth, and its important pedagogical and scientific functions at Stendhal University.

Another recommendation is for foreigners --including individual students and organizations: that acculturation must be recognized as a complex activity, not only must foreigners obey the explicit local rules, but they also have to take the deep-rooted cultural and ethical factors into consideration. Adaptation to the behavior patterns of the surrounding culture is a long-time process, which requires a lot of effort and energy. One can only expect to approach a total success; and that, only after many experiences of  trial and error, with great risks of misunderstanding and even on occasion persecution.

PART 4 Reference Materials

1. The Quadiennal Theme, 1999-2002: "American Multinational Corporations"
2. Board of directors at CEIMSA:
http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSA-IN-EXILE/direction.html
3. Google "Feeley" and the first entry is "Scandal at Stendhal"
http://www.google.fr/search?q=feeley&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:fr:official&client=firefox-a
4. The long "Dossier" of documentation is available on the CEIMSA site
http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSA-IN-EXILE/newsletter/newsletter-22.html
5. list of CEIMSA conferences (local, regional, and international since 2002)
http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSA-IN-EXILE/colloques.html
6. list of almost 400 Bulletins sent out regularly since 2001
http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSA-IN-EXILE/archives/
7. The number of members of the Board
http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSA-IN-EXILE/direction.html
8. The number of articles in the "19 Workshops" section
http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSA-IN-EXILE/ateliers.html
9. The number of articles in the  "Rumors & Gossip" section
http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSA-IN-EXILE/RumDel/R&Dindex.html
10. The number of Internet links made available by CEIMSA for students and scholars
http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSA-IN-EXILE/liens.html
11. William K. Black, discussing business ethics in U.S. institutions, in this case the American Savings-and-Loan scandal of the 1980s
http://lauraflanders.firedoglake.com/2009/05/09/william-k-black-how-deregulation-happened/
12. Organigramme de l'université Stendhal
http://www.u-grenoble3.fr/1178722096035/0/fiche___document/
13. Le Conseil scientifique (CS) de l'université Stendhal
http://www.u-grenoble3.fr/1175514998365/0/fiche___article/
http://www.raisonsdagir.org/CEIMSA.htm
14. <Il était le bon côté du christianisme> Libération, 23/01/2007

Selon Paul Thibaud, philosophe et ancien directeur de la revue Esprit.

___________
Newsletter n°1
Newsletter n°2
Newsletter n°3
Newsletter n°4
Newsletter n°5
Newsletter n°6
Newsletter n°7
Newsletter n°8
Newsletter n°9
Newsletter n°10
Newsletter n°11
Newsletter n°12
Newsletter n°13
Newsletter n°14
Newsletter n°15
Newsletter n°16
Newsletter n°17
Newsletter n°18
Newsletter n°19
Newsletter n°20
Newsletter n°21
Newsletter n°22
Newsletter n°23
Newsletter n°24
Newsletter n°25
Newsletter n°26
Newsletter n°27
Newsletter n°28
Newsletter n°29
Newsletter n°30
Newsletter n°31
Newsletter n°32
Newsletter n°33
Newsletter n°34
Newsletter n°35
Newsletter n°36
Newsletter n°37
Newsletter n°38
Newsletter n°39
Newsletter n°40
Newsletter n°41
Newsletter n°42
Newsletter n°43
Newsletter n°44
Newsletter n°45
Newsletter n°46
Newsletter n°47
Newsletter n°48
Newsletter n°49
Newsletter n°50
Newsletter n°51
Newsletter n°52
Newsletter n°53
Newsletter n°54
Newsletter n°55
Newsletter n°56