Talk:The Art Institute of California – San Francisco

	California portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This redirect is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Higher education

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles

Visual arts

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

(Untitled section)

this school's institution type (in the box top right) is listed at "private." is there a separate category called "private for-profit"? because that's what EDMC schools are. and they are bought, sold, and profited from in a manner that fundamentally alters the nature of the institution (in good ways and bad ways). all classification and accreditation sources i know of make this distinction (carnegie foundation, WASC, SACS, US department of education, IRS, etc.). Kiphinton (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm going to start editing this when I can, I'll try to update the club information and clean it up some more GearType2 17:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'm going to add current event issues regarding Mute/Off and censorship concerns. AICASFStudent 08:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mute/Off Controversy

Please adhere to wikipedia policies with regard to "current events" and "NPOV". I have edited the Mute/Off contribution into its own section called "Mute/Off Controversy". It's inappropriate to put this at the top of the AICASF wiki page on top of the general school information.

Using the "Current Event" tag for a "local" internal school event/controversy that has not received some sort of news worthy media coverage is a misuse of the tag. Please read the wiki pillars, and rules with regard to these tags. Also I'm going to have to tag this with a "NPOV" violation because the wording for this addition included "weasel langauge" and slanted commentary, both of which are NPOV violations. I will edit this section to adhere to NPOV standards then remove the POV tag.

Also remember that with regards to private e-mail communication between two parties, BOTH must agree to publicize the language and contents of these e-mails if you wish to include their contents on wikipedia.

Please remember, wikipedia is an encylopedia, and not a personal blog, or forum site. We must adhere to style guidelines, and general rules of academia (sources cited, etc). Joseph 19:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW- that is not state law, if that is wikipedia rules, please cite. State law requires that one member of the communication agrees to the publication. -pvtstubbins

You're right, it's not a "state law", but it's part of a federal enacted law that was passed under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act - 2005 Supplement. Under the DMCA there is a provision that protects against misrepresentation of e-mail communications, and copyright, especially those e-mails that include communication with a private entity like AICASF (which is owned by Goldman Sachs). Additionally, all my official contacts with AICASF staff have had the disclaimer (usually as part of the signature) that the contents of the e-mail are NOT to be replicated in "any" form other than the initial communication. Also, what was originally posted seemed to imply that "C. Meghreblian" admitted to purposely censoring the newsletter which is obviously not a stance the administration has taken, this is misrepresentation. From my conversations with James Campbell, and other administration members they all agreed that if they had followed the correct channels for review, they would have let the newsletter be distributed, but they did not, so it was confiscated. Is that legal? Well that's the debate that's to follow in the coming weeks. I'm not agreeing with the administration or vehemently against it, but I do know before I posted VGP Club flyers, I had to get approval for them even when they were obviously not inciting any sensitive issues. But suffice to say, it's not entirely lawful to post the private e-mails of private entities like AICASF. Hope that clarifies why I made the initial edits.Joseph 23:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HAHAHa, pwned, at least most of the content you wrote was there. The students don't need to put out a newsletter anyway, have you seen how most of them write? -pvtstubbins

Umm... why not just take it out? I don't want to alarm anyone, it's not publicised at all. It's a very small group of individuals who are up in arms about this anyways, and until both sides of the story are clear I don't understand why this is even here. GearType2 06:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=education&id=4900486

This just in. But still, it's only one side of the story. Sometime next week, the dean should hold a student conference on the matter. If no new information is streamed in. I'm going to assume this is a non-issue, or an exagerrated one and delete the "controversey". GearType2 18:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that would qualify it for the current event tag, I'll put the tag back. Joseph 12:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and here is something a little more pro than that sad abc coverage.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/04/BAG31NCF5E1.DTL&hw=art+ovetz&sn=001&sc=1000

and as Joseph said, this is not a personal blog, the controversy is a part of the school. Although, we should make sure it's updated with the outcome. If you delete it, I'll add it back. FYI. -pvtstubbins

http://www.metroactive.com/bohemian/02.21.07/art-censorship-0708.html
Newest link I can find about it that is pretty unbiased(or as much as I can find). I really am not sure where to go from here, this isn't really talked about by anyone around here anymore(I attend the school). Most of us are pretty much under the impression that Ovetz contacted as many media outlets as possible to spread "his story", and this article still does nothing except bolster one side of the story. The student conference the dean held was not mentioned by any media outlet, so it's first hand knowledge and can't be placed. And under wiki guidelines, any research I do inside the school will be unaccepted into the article. So I ask, can we at least trim this "controversy" section down a bit. It's pretty ugly right now and reads like it's off the wire. I am suggesting:

In December of 2006 a Robert Ovetz, an instructor of the cultural studies class, had his students hand out copies of a small booklet of articles written by the class. The booklet was titled "Mute/Off" and contained a variety essays about various social and economic issues around industries such as Fashion, and Games. Days later, it came to the attention of Ovetz that many of the copies had been confiscated by the administration.

Gigi Gallinger-Dennis, spokeswoman for the AI, states that the publication was removed because it was never reviewed. A process which all displayed articles must go through at the AI. The booklet was later redistributed in it's entirety.
School President James Campbell had a public forum for current students and faculty, regarding this issue during the first week of the Winter Quarter, 2007.
Ovetz was declined rehiring for the spring quarter. Ovetz believes this to be because of the booklet getting pulled. The dean, and head of the liberal studies department told him it was due to conflicts with other staff. Ovetz taught at AICASF for about three years and received two pay raises and positive faculty performance reviews.
So far, this story has received media coverage in the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, The Chronicle of Higher Education, ABC KGO 7 San Francisco, and many other newspapers, TV News, on-line magazines. California State Senator Leland Yee has denounced the firing of Ovetz and has called for him to be rehired.

Also, I am not an English major, or very good with word, so please excuse any grammatical errors and fix them if you can. If you have suggestions, please comment, and add to the suggested change. I took out the leonard law quote, because I read it, and I'm not a law student or a expert on the law, but as far as I can tell no student was ever punished for this, so it doesn't apply. Since this is a private institution, it does have it's own rights so I still do not see this as a censorship issue. But again, I am not a legal expert. GearType2 22:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content Deleting/Editing in this wiki article...

I have to reiterate what pvtstubbins said. It's not appropriate to delete something from the wiki unless it obviously violates one of the 5 pillars or other rules. If you do think something deems deletion, you must debate it in the talk pages, stating valid reasons why it is a subject for removal. If no solution is found, then an administrator is brought in to solve the impasse. But yes, you can't just go and delete things from the wiki page.

Please, I started this wiki page as a place for people to find information about our wonderful school, not a place to settle personal disputes. Joseph 23:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

School's New Location and majors

The school is moving to a new location, and getting a couple new majors in 2008. If anyone can find any reported information on it, it would be a nice addition. GearType2 22:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Building's site?

What sat on the building's site before? Wasn't it (and the block to the west) the site of the old city hall? --69.106.236.67 (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]