Talk:Chapman University

Removing Old News

R1susc...Your comment is out of line: "These guys dragged the University through the mud, and even slandered a Holocaust-survivor as an anti-Semite"

Your comment relates to former Dean of Students, Joseph Kertes. To state these students slandered Mr. Kertes is outrageous. This was Mr. Kertes' defense when he finally realized that his actions were in violation of the law. Anti-semitism had nothing to do with the issue, but it was a nice distraction. The Sigma Alpha Mu issue was about first amendment rights...period.

Chapman's handling of the Sigma Alpha Mu matter was and is an important issue that needs to be on this site. The University, in all their wisdom violated California Education Code Section 94367 (Leonard Law). This law provides first amendment protection to students at private colleges and the fact that the University ignored such an important law is indeed relevant. This situation is no more a controversy than the civil rights issues that are part of the history of the University of Alabama and other southern institutions. As far as making this a Jewish issue - this was created solely by the University. The students in the fraternity and the national fraternity made it clear that anti-semitism was not an issue. The anti-semitic issue was merely the University's defense. The University knew they were wrong and administrators were reprimanded for their actions. The matter is not over as since this story was reported other students have come forth with similar allegations against the Chapman administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meliton (talk • contribs) 02:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

At this point, the Sigma Alpha Mu "controversy" is old news and, as one of the editors responsible for its initial inclusion and early defense, I think that it's worn out its welcome in this general article about Chapman. It was relevant when it was an ongoing issue. Now that things are resolved, I don't see a place for it here. Imagine if every college page kept accounts of every alleged violation or controversy - it would be unworkable. So, in the absence of any compelling argument to the contrary, I'll remove that section in a short time. BlackberryLaw (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Rlsuusc- I know you've always had a problem with this information being up on the wikipedia page for Chapman University. I'm not sure if you're a university employee, or a member of Greek Life at Chapman. Either way, when a student's rights are violated, it is a big deal. A lot of users think that these men have "an axe to grind" against the university, however, after interviewing them for an article I wrote for the school paper a year back, I've seen that all the members really wanted was an outlet for the same kind of fraternal bond that on campus fraternities can enjoy. I'm not debating whether or not it should stay on wikipedia, but to be-little this argument by calling it a nothing-issue just shows your ignorance and flat out rudeness. I vote for the information to stay. 72.130.39.180 (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Please dump it -- it was never of real significance. It does as much damage to Wikipedia to be highjacked in this way as it does to the reputation of the University to have such a nothing issue given such prominence. --Rlsusc (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the Sigma Alpha Mu "controversy" again - I'm a Chapman alumnus and sick of seeing this every time I go to this page for general information about the university. It is very obviously from someone with an ax to grind, and as Blackberrylaw says, if every university (or corporation, or organization) was open to attack by every group or individual who had a gripe or controversy to air, Wikipedia would be a lot longer than it is, and a lot harder for users to parse through. Every university in the world has a long list of people and groups with gripes against it (some of which appear in newspapers, and thus are "verifiable"). To keep playing this one out here smacks of someone with an agenda. There should be no place for this on a general info page. Helander77 (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Helander77; let's please make this stop. RE the comment on 27 October 2008: I would maintain that it is neither "ignorant" nor "rude" to state the facts. The news reports plainly show these guys went through a fraternity colonization process, lost fair and square, and then wanted to pretend they hadn't lost (or as you more euphemistically put it, they wanted "an outlet for the same kind of fraternal bond that on campus fraternities can enjoy"). A private university has its own First Amendment rights, and has the right to decide which new fraternities they want to charter. These guys dragged the University through the mud, and even slandered a Holocaust-survivor as an anti-Semite, just because they couldn't accept the fact that the University didn't pick the fraternity they wanted to join. And now some of them still would rather defame their own school on Wikipedia rather than let it go. Rlsusc (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Mission Statement

Anyone know what the greek on the shield is so that the real motto can go up instead of the mission statement? Madmaxmarchhare 00:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I really don't think that Chapman's (or any other college's) mission statement belongs in an encyclopedic entry - it seems like advertisement. BlackberryLaw 10:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If the mission statement is what the university uses to operate - it is pertinent. All mission statements may look like advertisements, they are usually corny -- but a school's mission statement is a school's mission statement. Why wouldn't it be pertinent?? Nicholas SL Smith 00:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Eric M. Stinton Center for Dinosaur Research

Someone from a Chapman University IP (192.77.116.15 (talk · contribs)) has added the Eric M. Stinton Center for Dinosaur Research twice to the article. According to the Chapman University Website, the only info on an Eric Stinton is on a member of the crew team [1]. Unless someone can provide a reliable resource on the Dinosaur Research Center, it can only be assumed that the information added is false. Adding false information is considered vandalism, and among other remedies, adding the information into the Chapman University article may result in getting the Chapman University IP blocked from editing, and getting the Chapman University article protected against editing by anonymous IPs. ^BlankVerse 05:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Movie Filming Locations

I can't say I know for sure, but I'm skeptical about some of those movies being filmed nearby or at Chapman campus (Apocalypto and Blood Diamond are two obvious examples). Someone might want to look into this or remove these. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.203.66.2 (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

Apocalypto was screened at Chapman before its release. I don't think it was filmed there. -Fadookie ^Talk 03:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct -- neither Apocalypto nor Blood Diamond were filmed at or near Chapman. Apocalypto did screen at Chapman (I was there!) but to my knowledge there's no connection with Blood Diamond. Rowana77 23:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigma Alpha Mu story

It sounds like there very well might be a "story" out there regarding Sigma Alpha Mu, but someone posted a snippet of the story that makes it sound like the Dean of Students forbade a Jewish group from socializing with other groups because they were Jewish. There is no evidence to support this. The cited article indicates that Chapman's policies prohibit unrecognized fraternities and sororities and, since Sigma Alpha Mu have yet to be officially recognized, they can not (as a group) socialize with other groups. The real story is probably the alleged FERPA violation. BlackberryLaw 17:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

For the second time, I have removed the anonymous Sigma Alpha Mu edit from the article. Ordinarily, I would attempt to improve upon an edit like this, but I don't even feel this blurb belongs in the article at all, and certainly not in the "history" section. The quotation has been taken out of context, making it appear that the Dean of Students is shutting down a group because of its Jewish affiliation. Anyone who reads the OC Weekly article will quickly see that such an allegation is, prima facia, ridiculous. As I indicated previously, there is a story worth following here, at least with regard to the alleged FERPA violation. After my own review of Chapman's student conduct code, I can't tell which provisions the Dean thinks apply here... and I think there may be freedom of speech issues at stake, but that would take further review. BlackberryLaw 02:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Very quickly after my last edit, and without any response here on the talk page, a newly-registered user has re-inserted the Sigma Alpha Mu crap, as well as undone several other appropriate edits. The Sigma Alpha Mu information is contained above; this new user also put three "notable alumni" into the list: "Kimbo Slice," "Michael J. Williams," and "Mir Tukhi." However, on the articles for Slice and Williams, there is no evidence (or even assertions) that either are Chapman alumni. Google searches for all three reveal no connection to Chapman University. And as for Mir Tukhi, he is a dead former television station staffer - I see no indication of notability, and notability isn't even asserted. Thus, these edits have been reverted. If you disagree, please participate in the discussion! BlackberryLaw 06:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Blackberrylaw- I changed this around a bit to include more information about FERPA.

Undid change by Rowanna77, reverted to previous FERPA information. Not stating a reason for change looks like vandalism.

People are deleting the "alleged" wording from the bit about the Jewish Fraternity. Due to the fact that the investigation is still underway, alleged should be included in the headline - it has yet to be proven one way or another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.211.148.78 (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The "alleged" wording is being deleted because the student's rights were in fact violated. An investigation by the ACLU yielded those findings, and can be inferred from the letter that was sent from the ACLU of Orange County to President of Chapman, Jim Doti. If the investigation was still underway, there would be no reason to delete the wording. However, if you read the entry, you will see that the investigation into the rights of students being violated CONCLUDED that the rights were in fact violated. Please regrain from changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.211.148.79 (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Editors and vandals alike: first of all, it's all alleged. Chapman denies many of the claims made by fraternity members, and while the ACLU has expressed an opinion, there has been no official finding. Let's stick with alleged for now. Second, we don't need a list of media mentions of the Sigma Alpha Mu story. I know the fraternity members must be very excited that their controversy is getting so much attention, but nobody cares about a list of articles. If somebody wants to look it up, they can use Google News on their own. Third, please don't put up anything that's not cited, and if you do cite something, be sure that your source actually says what you claim it says. Somebody cited an OC Register article for the "fact" that Chapman was seeking to challenge the constitutionality of the Leonard Law. This is patently absurd, for not only did the article NOT support this "fact," but there is no question as to the Leonard Law's constitutionality - it's constitutional, and nobody is suggesting otherwise. Lastly, if you want to make edits to this article, you'll have better staying power if you're a registered user. At this point, I'm suspecting vandalism from all anonymous edits. BlackberryLaw 19:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

One user continues to vandalize this article, adding "facts" and citing references that do not support those facts, among other things. Again, if your source doesn't actually support your facts, don't put either the source or the facts in. Secondly, I don't believe that the opinion of the ZOA is important enough to mention here. If it's a question of being sure that the fraternity gets their "spin" in, never fear - the ACLU investigation has been kept, and the ACLU is a far larger and more-noteworthy group than the ZOA. In closing, rather than simply making a bunch of bad edits that have to be changed, why don't you write some input on the discussion page? BlackberryLaw 09:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely hope this doesn't devolve into an edit war, but that's what it looks like. Alumnus85 is just redoing edits without any discussion (and without paying attention to the discussion page, apparently)... BlackberryLaw 17:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I just updated the ACLU section to reflect the fact that their investigation has concluded with an amicable joint agreement between the ACLU and the university, allowing nonrecognized student groups to promote themselves in designated areas on campus as long as they prominently disclaim affliation with the university. I hope I did it correctly. Citation was the L.A. Times, paper of record for Southern Calif., but the news can also be found in expanded form in the Orange County Register: http://www.ocregister.com/news/chapman-campus-fraternity-1941418-members-students. Sekhmet07 (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the mention of the dean's letter to the students, as there is no published source verification listed. Also deleted mention of the dean's "leaving" the university, which someone disingenously posted to make it look like his leaving is connected to the ACLU controversy -- the cited article in the student newspaper made no such claim, so it does not seem cogent. Sekhmet07 (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I undid the recent change by Sekhmet07 to reflect that the letter sent by Dean of Students Joe Kertes does exist. If you read the ACLU's letter to the University it clearly cites the letter sent by Joe Kertes. If this is not enough proof, I can upload the letter as a PDF or word document. 72.130.39.180 (talk) 11:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As several folks have noted, there are several people with an ax to grind about some tempest-in-a-teapot controversies like the Sigma Alpha Mu issue (and I say that as a former officer of the Orange County ACLU), so what should be a page about the most significant general info about a University includes really undue attention to something that is worth no attention at all. If you're 19 and personally involved, it probably seems like everyone should care and should see it as you do, but anyone who has a bit of perspective and experience with universities wouldn't give this much attention at all.--Rlsusc (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

FERPA Section

From a Wikipedia point of view, I must honestly say I'm uncertain as to whether there should even be this "FERPA" section on the page. I would like to get feedback from anyone who is NOT involved with the issue! BlackberryLaw 09:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Attention Rowana77 and other new editors - please don't remove cited portions of articles without any discussion or comment on why you're doing it in the first place. It really isn't helpful. However, if you think there's something wrong with including this particular FERPA information (or FERPA info in general), please join in the discussion about it! BlackberryLaw 20:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, BlackberryLaw --

Sorry, first-time user. I am a member of the Chapman communications department staff, and they've asked me to keep an eye on the page since an anonymous person sent us (via snail mail) a printout of the Chapman page containing the added section about FERPA -- clearly meant as a goad to make us monitor the page. The persons involved with posting this FERPA section are apparently involved with some sort of dispute with the university involving a group that participated in the fraternity approval process but did not make the final cut, and have somehow brought FERPA into the argument -- we think it may be persons involved with that group who are posting the FERPA paragraphs. Not sure of the whole story, but it's long and involved, and the online attacks against the university have been pretty sophomoric, if you ask me. We're not sure if the FERPA paragraphs they are posting are completely accurate, and in any case, they do not really belong on a page that is supposed to be general information about the university. They are obviously being posted by an individual who wants us to waste university time and effort editing the page (we're actually on summer break and kind of enjoying the very low-level excitement this is providing...but I'm kind of low on the totem pole, so it's not like the dean or president is making these edits, guys...they don't even know about it, and I'm just a working person like you). Anyway -- it would be nice not to have to monitor the page for these postings from someone who obviously has an axe to grind against the university. Rowana77 22:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the current FERPA information on Chapman's page is the product of deliberation and collaboration by a number of editors, not one lone student with an axe to grind. As it stands, there is no question that the information in the article is backed up by the cited OC Weekly story. The only question is whether this information is something that belongs on a college's article in the first place. It is not question to be answered solely by a self-admitted "member of the Chapman communications department staff." Wikipedia is not a place for schools (or anyone or anything else) to have articles solely portraying them in a positive light. I feel there is an argument to be made that this FERPA information is valuable to people interested in Chapman University. Additionally, several editors are discussing whether to replace information on one of Chapman's alleged previous FERPA violation from 2002. BlackberryLaw 07:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

BlackBerryLaw, I am a parent and want you and any other contributors to know that this information regarding FERPA absolutely belongs on this page. When you pay $40,000 to send your child to college this is the type of information that is important to post and is what makes Wikipedia such an excellent source for information. Can the actual document related to this violation be located and posted? This would really be beneficial to any readers of this page.

Rowanna, - the FERPA issue appears to be factual. Whether someone has as you write, "an axe to grind" is irrelevant. The facts are the facts and by twisting the facts to state they are attacks is inappropriate. You write that you have been asked to monitor this page, but confirm that the dean and president don't even know about this. Maybe you should consult with them. I am certain the administration would be able to confirm if there was ever a FERPA violation and then your question regarding accuracy would be answered. If you don't want to monitor this page, confirm the facts and if they are indeed correct, then no monitoring is necessary.

Recent Deletions of Negative Publicity

Someone has recently removed sections of this article pertaining to negative things happening on campus. I urge this person to realize that Wikipedia is a place for knowledge, not opinions. If there are supporting facts and links to articles which support sections, those sections will remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.211.148.66 (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

More content has been deleted without discussion on this page. Please stop deleting sections without offering a reason why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.206.138 (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we perhaps group the "controversy" stuff under a heading simply called "Controversy" (such as on UC Irvine's page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California%2C_Irvine). Some people are obviously using this page as a battlefield to wage attacks on the university by bringing up arcane controversies of the sort that happen at all schools, large and small -- and then the university hits back with their side -- none of this really seems cogent to people who just want information about California universities. And just looking at this page, it seems to be getting out of hand. Sekhmet07 (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you Sekhmet. UCI is a much bigger school than Chapman, allowing for a "Controversy" section. Chapman's article is less than a quarter of the size of UCI's, to compare the two isn't really logical. As a parent, I'd certainly want to read the information listed in Chapman's article before deciding to send my child there. 72.130.39.180 (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That is neither here nor there. It doesn't matter how big or small a school, company or instition is. There's a way to handle these things on Wikipedia, and since this controversy seems to be slowly taking over a page that should be GENERAL INFORMATION about the university, it seems very out of place to have so many paragraphs detailing each separate tiny controversy. These things seem to be posted by activists interested in embarrassing the institution as much as they can, and Wikipedia should not be used for this sort of battle. If you, as I take it by reading between the lines, are a parent of one of the students involved in this matter, it means you are not a neutral party and really should not be editing this page - UNLESS you can write your edits in such as way as to represent ALL sides fairly. NOTE THAT "neutral point of view" (NPOV) - representing all sides fairly and without bias - is the most fundamental Wikipedia principle, and it seems it's not being followed on this Chapman page. Posting these controversies so high on the page violates the "undue weight" rule of Wikipedia, and one would think that the best way to handle this would be to group them together in a "Controversy" section, as was done on UCI page, much lower on the page. Here's what the "undue weight" article on Wikipedia says, to back this up: "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth doesn't mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority." So -- although there are definitely published sources out there that agree with the Flat Earth viewpoint, an article on Earth would not mention this tiny minority viewpoint. Similarly, an article about Chapman University should focus on the university, its colleges, its facts and figures -- not on what a tiny minority of students or parents consider to be a controversy. Another example -- on the UCI page, there is no mention whatever of their major scandal of the past 10 years, the fertility clinic's egg-misplacing controversy. Yet this dominated news features in OC for almost a year. Could it be that editors did not consider it cogent to a page focused on general information about UCI? What about Harvard -- why is there no "controversy" section there, even when there have been controversies in recent years at the school? And what about Virginia Tech? No mention on VT's main page of the tragic mass murders, though that certainly dominated national and world headlines for a time; the tragedy was bumped to its own page, probably so it wouldn't dominate the university's general-information page. I'm not comparing the Chapman petty controversies to VT -- just saying that controversies posted by an active and non-neutral minority of people should not dominate a general information page. Sekhmet07 (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversy Regarding Tony Garcia

This issue is really a controversy among students but I would like to see the topic discussed with no bias. The way the section is written, in my opinion, sounds biased, but thats why I nominated it for having the wrong POV. I'll let other editors give their opinion here. RickyCourtney (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Chapman Part of Wiki-Christianity

Come on people, are you serious? While most people know that Chapman has heavy undertones of Christianity all throughout campus, the school is non-denominational. Religious courses in a specific religion are not required. Chapman is not part of Wiki-christianity, unless of course you'd like to nominate it for Wiki Judaism and every other religion represented by students on campus. 72.130.39.180

Forrest Gump (and other films)

Ok, I am a Chapman student, AND just watched Forrest Gump to confirm it. Forrest Gump was not filmed at Chapman, at all, as neither were many other movie many people *claim* were filmed here (another common one is Back to the Future). I would just change it, but I am sure someone will change it back very quickly. There are many rumors on campus about what was filmed here and what wasn't. That Thing You Do: check. Accepted: check. Ghost Whisperer: check. Many other things: not true. Just because something was filmed on a park bench does not mean it was filmed at or by Chapman, so if you have "heard" something was filmed at Chapman, check it out for yourself first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.211.148.77 (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So, how long is the stuff about Sigma going to stay up? It is pretty much old news now (and I personally feel that it was never even close to a big deal, although I know members of the frat. would argue). The stuff about Tony Garcia has come and past, time for this to go as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.218.12.75 (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)