Search This Blog

Monday, October 17, 2022

Security hacker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A security hacker is someone who explores methods for breaching defenses and exploiting weaknesses in a computer system or network. Hackers may be motivated by a multitude of reasons, such as profit, protest, information gathering, challenge, recreation, or evaluation of a system weaknesses to assist in formulating defenses against potential hackers. The subculture that has evolved around hackers is often referred to as the "computer underground".

Longstanding controversy surrounds the meaning of the term "hacker." In this controversy, computer programmers reclaim the term hacker, arguing that it refers simply to someone with an advanced understanding of computers and computer networks and that cracker is the more appropriate term for those who break into computers, whether computer criminals (black hats) or computer security experts (white hats). A 2014 article noted that "the black-hat meaning still prevails among the general public".

History

Birth of subculture and entering mainstream: 1960's-1980's

The subculture around such hackers is termed network hacker subculture, hacker scene, or computer underground. It initially developed in the context of phreaking during the 1960s and the microcomputer BBS scene of the 1980s. It is implicated with 2600: The Hacker Quarterly and the alt.2600 newsgroup.

In 1980, an article in the August issue of Psychology Today (with commentary by Philip Zimbardo) used the term "hacker" in its title: "The Hacker Papers." It was an excerpt from a Stanford Bulletin Board discussion on the addictive nature of computer use. In the 1982 film Tron, Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) describes his intentions to break into ENCOM's computer system, saying "I've been doing a little hacking here." CLU is the software he uses for this. By 1983, hacking in the sense of breaking computer security had already been in use as computer jargon, but there was no public awareness about such activities. However, the release of the film WarGames that year, featuring a computer intrusion into NORAD, raised the public belief that computer security hackers (especially teenagers) could be a threat to national security. This concern became real when, in the same year, a gang of teenage hackers in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, known as The 414s, broke into computer systems throughout the United States and Canada, including those of Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and Security Pacific Bank. The case quickly grew media attention, and 17-year-old Neal Patrick emerged as the spokesman for the gang, including a cover story in Newsweek entitled "Beware: Hackers at play", with Patrick's photograph on the cover. The Newsweek article appears to be the first use of the word hacker by the mainstream media in the pejorative sense.

Pressured by media coverage, congressman Dan Glickman called for an investigation and began work on new laws against computer hacking. Neal Patrick testified before the U.S. House of Representatives on September 26, 1983, about the dangers of computer hacking, and six bills concerning computer crime were introduced in the House that year. As a result of these laws against computer criminality, white hat, grey hat and black hat hackers try to distinguish themselves from each other, depending on the legality of their activities. These moral conflicts are expressed in The Mentor's "The Hacker Manifesto", published 1986 in Phrack.

Use of the term hacker meaning computer criminal was also advanced by the title "Stalking the Wily Hacker", an article by Clifford Stoll in the May 1988 issue of the Communications of the ACM. Later that year, the release by Robert Tappan Morris, Jr. of the so-called Morris worm provoked the popular media to spread this usage. The popularity of Stoll's book The Cuckoo's Egg, published one year later, further entrenched the term in the public's consciousness.

Classifications

In computer security, a hacker is someone who focuses on security mechanisms of computer and network systems. Hackers can include someone who endeavors to strengthen security mechanisms by exploring their weaknesses and also those who seek to access secure, unauthorized information despite security measures. Nevertheless, parts of the subculture see their aim in correcting security problems and use the word in a positive sense. White hat is the name given to ethical computer hackers, who utilize hacking in a helpful way. White hats are becoming a necessary part of the information security field. They operate under a code, which acknowledges that breaking into other people's computers is bad, but that discovering and exploiting security mechanisms and breaking into computers is still an interesting activity that can be done ethically and legally. Accordingly, the term bears strong connotations that are favorable or pejorative, depending on the context.

Subgroups of the computer underground with different attitudes and motives use different terms to demarcate themselves from each other. These classifications are also used to exclude specific groups with whom they do not agree.

Cracker

Eric S. Raymond, author of The New Hacker's Dictionary, advocates that members of the computer underground should be called crackers. Yet, those people see themselves as hackers and even try to include the views of Raymond in what they see as a wider hacker culture, a view that Raymond has harshly rejected. Instead of a hacker/cracker dichotomy, they emphasize a spectrum of different categories, such as white hat, grey hat, black hat and script kiddie. In contrast to Raymond, they usually reserve the term cracker for more malicious activity.

According to Ralph D. Clifford, a cracker or cracking is to "gain unauthorized access to a computer in order to commit another crime such as destroying information contained in that system." These subgroups may also be defined by the legal status of their activities.

White hat

A white hat hacker breaks security for non-malicious reasons, either to test their own security system, perform penetration tests or vulnerability assessments for a client, or while working for a security company which makes security software. The term is generally synonymous with ethical hacker, and the EC-Council, among others, have developed certifications, courseware, classes, and online training covering the diverse arena of ethical hacking.

Black hat

A black hat hacker is a hacker who "violates computer security for little reason beyond maliciousness or for personal gain" (Moore, 2005). The term was coined by Richard Stallman, to contrast the maliciousness of a criminal hacker versus the spirit of playfulness and exploration in hacker culture, or the ethos of the white hat hacker who performs hacking duties to identify places to repair or as a means of legitimate employment. Black hat hackers form the stereotypical, illegal hacking groups often portrayed in popular culture, and are "the epitome of all that the public fears in a computer criminal".

Grey hat

A grey hat hacker lies between a black hat and a white hat hacker. A grey hat hacker may surf the Internet and hack into a computer system for the sole purpose of notifying the administrator that their system has a security defect, for example. They may then offer to correct the defect for a fee. Grey hat hackers sometimes find the defect of a system and publish the facts to the world instead of a group of people. Even though grey hat hackers may not necessarily perform hacking for their personal gain, unauthorized access to a system can be considered illegal and unethical.

Elite hacker

A social status among hackers, elite is used to describe the most skilled. Newly discovered exploits circulate among these hackers. Elite groups such as Masters of Deception conferred a kind of credibility on their members.

Script kiddie

A script kiddie (also known as a skid or skiddie) is an unskilled hacker who breaks into computer systems by using automated tools written by others (usually by other black hat hackers), hence the term script (i.e. a computer script that automates the hacking) kiddie (i.e. kid, child an individual lacking knowledge and experience, immature), usually with little understanding of the underlying concept.

Neophyte

A neophyte ("newbie", or "noob") is someone who is new to hacking or phreaking and has almost no knowledge or experience of the workings of technology and hacking.

Blue hat

A blue hat hacker is someone outside computer security consulting firms who is used to bug-test a system prior to its launch, looking for exploits so they can be closed. Microsoft also uses the term BlueHat to represent a series of security briefing events.

Hacktivist

A hacktivist is a hacker who utilizes technology to publicize a social, ideological, religious or political message.

Hacktivism can be divided into two main groups:

Nation state

Intelligence agencies and cyberwarfare operatives of nation states.

Organized criminal gangs

Groups of hackers that carry out organized criminal activities for profit. Modern-day computer hackers have been compared to the privateers of by-gone days. These criminals hold computer systems hostage, demanding large payments from victims to restore access to their own computer systems and data. Furthermore, recent ransomware attacks on industries, including energy, food, and transportation, have been blamed on criminal organizations based in or near a state actor – possibly with the country’s knowledge and approval. Cyber theft and ransomware attacks are now the fastest-growing crimes in the United States. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies facilitate the extortion of huge ransoms from large companies, hospitals and city governments with little or no chance of being caught.

Attacks

Hackers can usually be sorted into two types of attacks: mass attacks and targeted attacks. They are sorted into the groups in terms of how they choose their victims and how they act on the attacks.

A typical approach in an attack on Internet-connected system is:

  1. Network enumeration: Discovering information about the intended target.
  2. Vulnerability analysis: Identifying potential ways of attack.
  3. Exploitation: Attempting to compromise the system by employing the vulnerabilities found through the vulnerability analysis.

In order to do so, there are several recurring tools of the trade and techniques used by computer criminals and security experts.

Security exploits

A security exploit is a prepared application that takes advantage of a known weakness. Common examples of security exploits are SQL injection, cross-site scripting and cross-site request forgery which abuse security holes that may result from substandard programming practice. Other exploits would be able to be used through File Transfer Protocol (FTP), Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), PHP, SSH, Telnet and some Web pages. These are very common in Web site and Web domain hacking.

Techniques

Vulnerability scanner
A vulnerability scanner is a tool used to quickly check computers on a network for known weaknesses. Hackers also commonly use port scanners. These check to see which ports on a specified computer are "open" or available to access the computer, and sometimes will detect what program or service is listening on that port, and its version number. (Firewalls defend computers from intruders by limiting access to ports and machines, but they can still be circumvented.)
Finding vulnerabilities
Hackers may also attempt to find vulnerabilities manually. A common approach is to search for possible vulnerabilities in the code of the computer system then test them, sometimes reverse engineering the software if the code is not provided. Experienced hackers can easily find patterns in code to find common vulnerabilities.
Brute-force attack
Password guessing. Brute-force attacks are used to quickly check all short password variations. For longer passwords, other methods such as the dictionary attack are used, because of the amount of time a brute-force search takes.
Password cracking
Password cracking is the process of recovering passwords from data that has been stored in or transmitted by a computer system. Common approaches include repeatedly trying guesses for the password, trying the most common passwords by hand, and repeatedly trying passwords from a "dictionary," or a text file with many passwords.
Packet analyzer
A packet analyzer ("packet sniffer") is an application that captures data packets, which can be used to capture passwords and other data in transit over the network.
Spoofing attack (phishing)
A spoofing attack involves one program, system or website that successfully masquerades as another by falsifying data and is thereby treated as a trusted system by a user or another program – usually to fool programs, systems or users into revealing confidential information, such as user names and passwords.
Rootkit
A rootkit is a program that uses low-level, hard-to-detect methods to subvert control of an operating system from its legitimate operators. Rootkits usually obscure their installation and attempt to prevent their removal through a subversion of standard system security. They may include replacements for system binaries, making it virtually impossible for them to be detected by checking process tables.
Social engineering
In the second stage of the targeting process, hackers often use social engineering tactics to get enough information to access the network. They may contact the system administrator and pose as a user who cannot get access to his or her system. This technique is portrayed in the 1995 film Hackers, when protagonist Dade "Zero Cool" Murphy calls a somewhat clueless employee in charge of security at a television network. Posing as an accountant working for the same company, Dade tricks the employee into giving him the phone number of a modem so he can gain access to the company's computer system.
Hackers who use this technique must be familiar with their target's security practices in order to trick the system administrator into giving them information. In some cases, a help-desk employee with limited security experience will answer the phone and be relatively easy to trick. Another approach is for the hacker to pose as an angry supervisor, and when his/her authority is questioned, threaten to fire the help-desk worker. Social engineering is very effective, because users are the most vulnerable part of an organization. No security devices or programs can keep an organization safe if an employee reveals a password to an unauthorized person.
Social engineering can be broken down into four sub-groups:
  • Intimidation As in the "angry supervisor" technique above, the hacker convinces the person who answers the phone that their job is in danger unless they help them. At this point, many people accept that the hacker is a supervisor and give them the information they seek.
  • Helpfulness The opposite of intimidation, helpfulness exploits many people's natural instinct to help others solve problems. Rather than acting angry, the hacker acts distressed and concerned. The help desk is the most vulnerable to this type of social engineering, as (a.) its general purpose is to help people; and (b.) it usually has the authority to change or reset passwords, which is exactly what the hacker wants.
  • Name-dropping The hacker uses names of authorized users to convince the person who answers the phone that the hacker is a legitimate user him or herself. Some of these names, such as those of webpage owners or company officers, can easily be obtained online. Hackers have also been known to obtain names by examining discarded documents ("dumpster diving").
  • Technical Using technology is also a way to get information. A hacker can send a fax or email to a legitimate user, seeking a response that contains vital information. The hacker may claim that he or she is involved in law enforcement and needs certain data for an investigation, or for record-keeping purposes.
Trojan horses
A Trojan horse is a program that seems to be doing one thing but is actually doing another. It can be used to set up a back door in a computer system, enabling the intruder to gain access later. (The name refers to the horse from the Trojan War, with the conceptually similar function of deceiving defenders into bringing an intruder into a protected area.)
Computer virus
A virus is a self-replicating program that spreads by inserting copies of itself into other executable code or documents. By doing this, it behaves similarly to a biological virus, which spreads by inserting itself into living cells. While some viruses are harmless or mere hoaxes, most are considered malicious.
Computer worm
Like a virus, a worm is also a self-replicating program. It differs from a virus in that (a.) it propagates through computer networks without user intervention; and (b.) does not need to attach itself to an existing program. Nonetheless, many people use the terms "virus" and "worm" interchangeably to describe any self-propagating program.
Keystroke logging
A keylogger is a tool designed to record ("log") every keystroke on an affected machine for later retrieval, usually to allow the user of this tool to gain access to confidential information typed on the affected machine. Some keyloggers use virus-, trojan-, and rootkit-like methods to conceal themselves. However, some of them are used for legitimate purposes, even to enhance computer security. For example, a business may maintain a keylogger on a computer used at a point of sale to detect evidence of employee fraud.
Attack patterns
Attack patterns are defined as series of repeatable steps that can be applied to simulate an attack against the security of a system. They can be used for testing purposes or locating potential vulnerabilities. They also provide, either physically or in reference, a common solution pattern for preventing a given attack.

Tools and Procedures

A thorough examination of hacker tools and procedures may be found in Cengage Learning's E|CSA certification workbook.

Notable intruders and criminal hackers

Notable security hackers

Customs

The computer underground has produced its own specialized slang, such as 1337speak. Writing software and performing other activities to support these views is referred to as hacktivism. Some consider illegal cracking ethically justified for these goals; a common form is website defacement. The computer underground is frequently compared to the Wild West. It is common for hackers to use aliases to conceal their identities.

Hacker groups and conventions

The computer underground is supported by regular real-world gatherings called hacker conventions or "hacker cons". These events include SummerCon (Summer), DEF CON, HoHoCon (Christmas), ShmooCon (February), BlackHat, Chaos Communication Congress, AthCon, Hacker Halted, and HOPE. Local Hackfest groups organize and compete to develop their skills to send a team to a prominent convention to compete in group pentesting, exploit and forensics on a larger scale. Hacker groups became popular in the early 1980s, providing access to hacking information and resources and a place to learn from other members. Computer bulletin board systems (BBSs), such as the Utopias, provided platforms for information-sharing via dial-up modem. Hackers could also gain credibility by being affiliated with elite groups.

Consequences for malicious hacking

India

Section Offence Punishment
65 Tampering with computer source documents – Intentional concealment, destruction or alteration of source code when the computer source code is required to be kept or maintained by law for the time being in force Imprisonment up to three years, or/and with fine up to 20000 rupees
66 Hacking Imprisonment up to three years, or/and with fine up to 50000 rupees

Netherlands

Maximum imprisonment is one year or a fine of the fourth category.

United States

18 U.S.C. § 1030, more commonly known as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, prohibits unauthorized access or damage of "protected computers". "Protected computers" are defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2) as:

  • A computer exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government.
  • A computer which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States;

The maximum imprisonment or fine for violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act depends on the severity of the violation and the offender's history of violations under the Act.

The FBI has demonstrated its ability to recover ransoms paid in cryptocurrency by victims of cybertheft.

Hacking and the media

Hacker magazines

The most notable hacker-oriented print publications are Phrack, Hakin9 and 2600: The Hacker Quarterly. While the information contained in hacker magazines and ezines was often outdated by the time they were published, they enhanced their contributors' reputations by documenting their successes.

Hackers in fiction

Hackers often show an interest in fictional cyberpunk and cyberculture literature and movies. The adoption of fictional pseudonyms, symbols, values and metaphors from these works is very common.

Books

Films

Non-fiction books

Academic tenure in North America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_tenure_in_North_America

Academic tenure in the United States and Canada is a contractual right that grants a teacher or professor a permanent position of employment at an academic institution such as a university or school. Tenure is intended to protect teachers from dismissal without just cause, and to allow development of thoughts or ideas considered unpopular or controversial among the community. In North America, tenure is granted only to educators whose work is considered to be exceptionally productive and beneficial in their careers.

Academic tenure became a standard for education institutions in North America with the introduction of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP)'s 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. In this statement, the AAUP provides a definition of academic tenure: "a means to certain ends, specifically: (1) freedom of teaching and research and of extramural activities, and (2) a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability."

Academic tenure (colleges and universities)

Under the tenure systems adopted by many universities and colleges in the United States and Canada, some faculty positions have tenure and some do not. Typical systems (such as the widely adopted "1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure" of the American Association of University Professors) allow only a limited period to establish a record of published research, ability to attract grant funding, academic visibility, teaching excellence, and administrative or community service. They limit the number of years that any employee can remain employed as a non-tenured instructor or professor, compelling the institution to grant tenure to or terminate an individual, with significant advance notice, at the end of a specified time period. Some institutions require promotion to Associate Professor as a condition of tenure. An institution may also offer other academic positions that are not time-limited, with titles such as lecturer, adjunct professor, or research professor, but these positions do not carry the possibility of tenure and are said to be not "tenure track".

Academic tenure's original purpose was to guarantee the right to academic freedom: it protects teachers and researchers when they dissent from prevailing opinion, openly disagree with authorities of any sort, or spend time on unfashionable topics. Thus academic tenure is similar to the lifetime tenure that protects some judges from external pressure. Without job security, the scholarly community as a whole may experience pressure to favor noncontroversial lines of academic inquiry. The intent of tenure is to allow original ideas to be more likely to arise, by giving scholars the intellectual autonomy to investigate the problems and solutions as they see fit and to report their honest conclusions. However, it has also become a type of job security for professors.

In North American universities and colleges, the tenure track has long been a defining feature of professorial employment, although it is less than universal. In North American universities, positions that carry tenure, or the opportunity to attain tenure, have grown more slowly than non-tenure-track positions, leading to a large "academic underclass". For example, most US universities currently supplement the work of tenured professors with the services of non-tenured adjunct professors, academics who teach classes for lower wages and fewer employment benefits under relatively short-term contracts. For those that are tenure track, it generally takes about seven years to earn tenure while working as an assistant professor. Tenure is determined by a combination of research, teaching, and service, with each factor weighted according to the values of a particular university, college or department. There is some evidence that professors that share more (e.g. via open access publications, open data, or open source hardware development) gain an advantage in obtaining tenure because they are cited more and can thus develop a higher h-index. This competition for limited resources could lead to ethically questionable behaviour.

History in the United States

19th century

In the 19th century, university professors largely served at the pleasure of the board of trustees of the university. Sometimes, major donors could successfully remove professors or prohibit the hiring of certain individuals; nonetheless, a de facto tenure system existed. Usually professors were only fired for interfering with the religious principles of a college, and most boards were reluctant to discipline professors. The courts rarely intervened in dismissals.

In one debate of the Cornell University Board of Trustees in the 1870s, a businessman trustee argued against the prevailing system of de facto tenure, but lost the argument. Despite the power retained in the board, academic freedom prevailed. Another example is the 1894 case of Richard T. Ely, a University of Wisconsin–Madison professor who advocated labor strikes and labor law reform. Though the Wisconsin legislature and business interests pressed for his dismissal, the board of trustees of the university passed a resolution committing itself to academic freedom, and to retaining him (without tenure):

In all lines of academic investigation it is of the utmost importance that the investigator should be absolutely free to follow the indications of truth wherever they may lead. Whatever may be the limitations which trammel inquiry elsewhere we believe the great state University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found.

The notorious case of the dismissal of G. B. Halsted by the University of Texas in 1903 after nineteen years of service may have accelerated the adoption of the tenure concept.

A later case at Rollins College, widely publicized and investigated by the American Association of University Professors, which censured Rollins, also played a role in establishing the validity of the tenure concept. This case led breakaway professors to found the innovative and influential Black Mountain College.

From 1900 to 1940

In 1900, the presidents of Harvard University, Columbia University, and the University of Chicago each made clear that no donor could any longer dictate faculty decisions; such a donor's contribution would be unwelcome. In 1915, this was followed by the American Association of University Professors' declaration of principles—the traditional justification for academic freedom and tenure.

The AAUP's declaration of principles recommended that:

  • Trustees raise faculty salaries, but not bind their consciences with restrictions.
  • Only committees of other faculty members can judge a member of the faculty. This would also insulate higher administration from external accountability decisions.
  • Faculty appointments be made by other faculty and chairpersons, with three elements:
    1. Clear employment contracts
    2. formal academic tenure, and
    3. clearly stated grounds for dismissal.

While the AAUP pushed reform, tenure battles were a campus non-issue. In 1910, a survey of 22 universities showed that most professors held their positions with "presumptive permanence". At a third of colleges, assistant professor appointments were considered permanent, while at most colleges multi-year appointments were subject to renewal. Only at one university did a governing board ratify a president's decisions on granting tenure.

From 1940 to 1972

In 1940, the AAUP recommended that the academic tenure probationary period be seven years, which is still the current norm. It also suggested that a tenured professor could not be dismissed without adequate cause, except "under extraordinary circumstances, because of financial emergencies." Also, the statement recommended that the professor be given the written reasons for dismissal and an opportunity to be heard in self-defense. Another purpose of the academic tenure probationary period was raising the performance standards of the faculty by pressing new professors to perform to the standard of the school's established faculty.

The most significant adoption of academic tenure occurred after 1945, when the influx of returning GIs returning to school led to quickly expanding universities with severe professorial faculty shortages. These shortages dogged the academy for ten years, and that is when the majority of universities started offering formal tenure as a side benefit. The rate of tenure (percent of tenured university faculty) increased to 52 percent. In fact, the demand for professors was so high in the 1950s that the American Council of Learned Societies held a conference in Cuba noting the too-few doctoral candidates to fill positions in English departments. During the McCarthy era, loyalty oaths were required of many state employees, and neither formal academic tenure nor the Constitutional principles of freedom of speech and association were protection from dismissal. Some professors were dismissed for their political affiliations. During the 1960s, many professors supported the anti-war movement against the Vietnam War, and more than 20 state legislatures passed resolutions calling for specific professorial dismissals and a change to the academic tenure system.

From 1972 to the present

Two landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases changed tenure in 1972: (i) Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 US 564; and (ii) Perry v. Sindermann, 408 US 593. These two cases held that a professor's claim to entitlement must be more than a subjective expectancy of continued employment. Rather, there must be a contractual relationship or a reference in a contract to a specific tenure policy or agreement. Further, the court held that a tenured professor who is discharged from a public college has been deprived of a property interest, and so due process applies, requiring certain procedural safeguards (the right to personally appear in a hearing, the right to examine evidence and respond to accusations, the right to have advisory counsel).

Later cases specified other bases for dismissal: (i) if a professor's conduct were incompatible with his duties (Trotman v. Bd. of Trustees of Lincoln Univ., 635 F.2d 216 (2d Cir.1980)); (ii) if the discharge decision is based on an objective rule (Johnson v. Bd. of Regents of U. Wisc. Sys., 377 F. Supp 277, (W.D. Wisc. 1974)). After these cases were judged, the number of reported cases in the matter of academic tenure increased more than two-fold: from 36 cases filed during the decade 1965–1975, to 81 cases filed during the period 1980–1985.

During the 1980s there were no notable tenure battles, but three were outstanding in the 1990s. In 1995, the Florida Board of Regents tried to re-evaluate academic tenure, but managed only to institute a weak, post-tenure performance review. Likewise, in 1996 the Arizona Board of Regents attempted to re-evaluate tenure, fearing that few full-time professors actually taught university undergraduate students, mainly because the processes of achieving academic tenure underweighted teaching. However, faculty and administrators defended themselves and the board of trustees dropped its review. Finally, the University of Minnesota Regents tried from 1995 to 1996 to enact 13 proposals, including these policy changes: to allow the regents to cut faculty base- salaries for reasons other than a university financial emergency including poor performance; to fire tenured professors when their programs were eliminated or restructured if the university were unable to retrain or reassign them. In the Minnesota system, 87 percent of university faculty were either tenured or on the tenure track, and the professors vehemently defended themselves. Eventually, the president of the system opposed these changes and weakened a compromise plan by the dean of the law school before it then failed. The board chairman resigned later that year.

The period since 1972 has seen a steady decline in the percentage of college and university teaching positions in the US that are either tenured or tenure-track. United States Department of Education statistics put the combined tenured/tenure-track rate at 56% for 1975, 46.8% for 1989, and 31.9% for 2005. That is to say, by the year 2005, 68.1% of US college teachers were neither tenured nor eligible for tenure; a full 48% of teachers that year were part-time employees.

Racial and gender disparities

During the latter part of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st, it was assumed that as the disproportionately white, male cohort of U.S. tenured faculty members retired, they would be replaced by a more representative cohort. Although diversity in tenured faculty has improved since the 1990s, the current cohort is still not representative: in Fall 2020, 59.4% of tenured faculty in the United States were men and 73.8% were white, while in Fall 1991, 79.5% of tenured faculty were men and 90.4% were white. In Fall 2019, 4.8% of tenured faculty were Black and only 2.3% were Black women.

Revocation

In 1994, a study in The Chronicle of Higher Education found that "about 50 tenured professors [in the US] are dismissed each year for cause." While tenure protects the occupant of an academic position, it does not protect against the elimination of that position. For example, a university that is under financial stress may take the drastic step of eliminating or downsizing some departments, in which case both tenured and untenured faculty are let go.

In 1985, the United States Supreme Court decision Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill determined that a tenured teacher cannot be dismissed without oral or written notice regarding the charges against him or her. Additionally, the Court held that the employer must provide an explanation of the employer's decision, including a discussion of the employer's evidence, and the teacher must be given an opportunity for a fair and meaningful hearing.

Criticisms of tenure for school teachers

In 2012, tenure for school teachers was challenged in a California lawsuit called Vergara v. California. The primary issue in the case was the impact of tenure on student outcomes and on equity in education. On June 10, 2014, the trial judge ruled that California's teacher tenure statute produced disparities that "shock the conscience" and violate the equal protection clause of the California Constitution; his ruling was later overturned on appeal.

Criticisms of tenure for college professors

The American Association of University Professors has handled hundreds of cases where it alleges that tenure candidates were treated unfairly. The AAUP has censured many major and minor universities and colleges for such alleged tenure abuses.

Tenure at many universities depends primarily on research publications and research grants, although the universities' official policies are that tenure depends on research, teaching and service. The demand that a professor show exemplary production in research is intense. Unless a professor's research is in pedagogy (for instance within a School of Education), articles in refereed teaching journals and obtaining teaching grants often do not contribute greatly towards tenure, as the research is not focused on the professor's creating new knowledge in his or her home discipline. Business schools also consider contribution to practice, but this is difficult to implement due to a lack of generally accepted criteria and metrics.

At some universities the department chairperson sends forward the department recommendation on tenure. There have been cases, such as one case at The University of Texas at San Antonio (2008), where the faculty voted unanimously to tenure an individual but the chairperson sent forward a recommendation not to grant tenure despite the faculty support.

Tenure decisions can result in fierce political battles. In one tenure battle at Indiana University, an untenured professor was accused of threatening violence against those who opposed his promotion, his wife briefly went on a hunger strike, and many called for the entire department to be disbanded. In another instance in February 2010, Amy Bishop with the University of Alabama in Huntsville shot and killed colleagues after losing her appeal for tenure.

Since the 1970s philosopher John Searle has called for major changes to tenure systems, calling the practice "without adequate justification." Searle suggests that to reduce publish or perish pressures that can hamper their classroom teaching, capable professors be given tenure much sooner than the standard four-to-six years. However, Searle also argued that tenured professors be reviewed every seven years to help eliminate "incompetent" teachers who can otherwise find refuge in the tenure system.

It has also been suggested that tenure may have the effect of diminishing political and academic freedom among those seeking it – that they must appear to conform to the political or academic views of the field or the institution where they seek tenure. For example, in The Trouble with Physics, the theoretical physicist Lee Smolin says "... it is practically career suicide for young theoretical physicists not to join the field of string theory ...". It is certainly possible to view the tenure track as a long-term demonstration of the candidate's political and academic conformity. Patrick J. Michaels, a controversial part-time climate science research professor at the University of Virginia, wrote: "... tenure has had the exact opposite effect as to its stated goal of diversifying free expression. Instead, it stifles free speech in the formative years of a scientist's academic career, and all but requires a track record in support of paradigms that might have outgrown their usefulness." However, this point of view would tend to argue not against the abolition of the tenure system, but the shortening of the probationary period, since after receiving tenure, professors no longer feel the pressure to conform to their discipline's mainline views.

As more academics publish research in Internet and multimedia formats, organizations such as the American Council of Learned Societies and Modern Language Association have recommended changes to promotion and tenure criteria, and some university departments have made such changes to reflect the increasing importance of networked scholarship.

The root of some of these criticisms is that elsewhere in the world, there are very few tenure systems, and no time-limited employment. The system in the rest of the English speaking world, for example, is based on promotion up union-negotiated payscales, usually with automatic advancement towards the top of a grade, with the luckier faculty members being on 'permanent contracts' with no end-date. To go to the next grade (e.g. from associate professor to professor), an application must be submitted, and the criteria are as exacting as in North America. Simon Batterbury argues this system offers less opportunity for sabotage, and more adherence to social justice goals, even though 'permanent' staff members can be fired at any time.

Invisible labor

Invisible labor (aka invisible work) in academia refers to the work carried out by collegiate faculty that largely goes unrecognized in terms of tenure evaluation. Two major examples of invisible labor are student mentoring and university diversity/inclusionary work. Though student mentoring and inclusion are important aspects to student success, these tasks are often undervalued in faculty evaluations when compared to other academic work, such as publishing research and attaining grant money.

This labor is often carried out disproportionately by faculty from marginalized backgrounds. While the majority of professors agree that diversity is very important to education, most of the diversity and inclusionary work is carried out by non-male, non-white, and first-generation faculty. Because of their diverse backgrounds, professors from marginalized backgrounds often experience increased pressure in performing diversity service tasks, while being held to the same standards for promotion. While diversity among students has been increasing, the rate of diversity among professors has progressed at a much slower pace. This disparity places a greater demand on minority professors to mentor students, who often seek out mentors from a similar background. Intersectionality appears to play a role in invisible labor, as professors with multiple marginalized identities experience increased pressure to engage in low-promotability work.

Defenses of tenure for college professors

Defenders of tenure, like Ellen Schrecker and Aeon J. Skoble, generally acknowledge flaws in how tenure approvals are currently run and problems in how tenured professors might use their time, security, and power; however, as Skoble puts it, the "downsides are either not as bad as claimed, or [are] costs outweighed by the benefits"—and he points out that the very debate about tenure in which he is engaging is made possible by the academic freedom which tenure makes possible. "Tenure remains scholars' best defense of free inquiry and heterodoxy," writes Skoble, "especially in these times of heightened polarization and internet outrage. Let us focus on fixing it, not scrapping it."

The job security granted by tenure is necessary to recruit talented individuals into university professorships, because in many fields private industry jobs pay significantly more; as Schrecker puts it, providing professors "the kind of job security that most other workers can only dream of" counterbalances universities' inability to compete with the private sector: "Universities, after all, are not corporations and cannot provide the kinds of financial remuneration that similarly educated individuals in other fields expect.". Furthermore, Schrecker continues, because research positions require extreme specialization, they must consolidate the frequency and intensity of performance evaluations across a given career, and they cannot have the same flexibility or turnover rates as other jobs, making the tenure process a practical necessity: "A mathematician cannot teach a class on medieval Islam, nor can an art historian run an organic chemistry lab. Moreover, there is no way that the employing institution can provide the kind of retraining that would facilitate such a transformation... even the largest and most well-endowed institution lacks the resources to reevaluate and replace its medieval Islamicists and algebraic topologists every year. Tenure thus lets the academic community avoid excessive turnover while still ensuring the quality of the institution's faculty. It is structured around two assessments -- one at hiring, the other some six years later -- that are far more rigorous than those elsewhere in society and give the institution enough confidence in the ability of the successful candidates to retain them on a permanent basis."

According to Skoble, tenure is essential because it protects academic freedom: not only in cases in which a scholar's politics may run counter to those of their department, institution, or funding bodies, but also and most often in cases when a scholar's work innovates in ways that challenge received wisdom in the field. While stating that it has flaws, she asserts that tenure plays a crucial role in preserving academic freedom.

Skoble argues categorically and plainly against critics that say "tenure protects incompetent professors": "My argument is that when this happens, it is a malfunction of the system, not an intrinsic feature of its proper use. The way it is supposed to work is that incompetent professors do not get tenure in the first place. The rebuttal is 'but they do, therefore tenure is a bad idea.' But that is like arguing that because you ran a red light and caused a train wreck, driving is a bad idea."

According to Perry A. Zirkel, a professor specializing in education law, it is incorrect to blame tenure for the difficulty in firing bad teachers; regardless of tenure, firing a teacher has substantial costs and involves an extended process of hearings and documentation.

Counter-jihad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Counter-jihad, also spelled counterjihad and known as the counter-jihad movement, is a self-titled political current loosely consisting of authors, bloggers, think tanks, street movements and campaign organisations all linked by apocalyptic beliefs that view Islam not as a religion but as a worldview that constitutes an existential threat to Western civilization. Consequently, counter-jihadists consider all Muslims as a potential threat, especially when they are already living within Western boundaries. Western Muslims accordingly are portrayed as a "fifth column", collectively seeking to destabilize Western nations' identity and values for the benefit of an international Islamic movement intent on the establishment of a caliphate in Western countries. The counter-jihad movement has been variously described as anti-Islamic, Islamophobic, citing hatred against Muslims, and far-right. Influential figures in the movement include the far-right anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer.

While the roots of the movement go back to the 1980s, it did not gain significant momentum until after the September 11 attacks in 2001 and the 7 July 2005 London bombings. As far back as 2006, online commentators such as Fjordman were identified as playing a key role in forwarding the nascent counter-jihad ideology. The movement received considerable attention following the lone wolf attacks by right-wing extremist Anders Behring Breivik whose manifesto extensively reproduced the writings of prominent counter-jihad bloggers, and following the emergence of prominent street movements such as the English Defence League (EDL). The movement has adherents both in Europe and in North America. The European wing is more focused on the alleged cultural threat to European traditions stemming from immigrant Muslim populations, while the American wing emphasizes an alleged external threat, essentially terrorist in nature.

Several academic accounts have presented conspiracy theories as a key component of the counter-jihad movement. On a day-to-day level, it seeks to generate outrage at perceived Muslim crimes.

Overview

Counter-jihad is a radical right-wing movement that operates, according to Toby Archer, via the "sharing of ideas between Europeans and Americans and daily linking between blogs and websites on both sides of the Atlantic", and, according to Rasmus Fleischer, "calls for a counterjihad against the supposed Islamisation of Europe". While the roots of the movement go back to the 1980s, it did not gain significant momentum until after the September 11 attacks in 2001.

The authors of Right-Wing Populism in Europe: Politics and Discourse describe the movement as heavily relying on two key tactics:

The first is arguing that the most radical Muslims – men like Osama bin Laden – are properly interpreting the Quran, while peaceful moderate Muslims either do not understand their own holy book or are strategically faking their moderation. The second key tactic is to relentlessly attack individuals and organizations that purport to represent moderate Islam...painting them as secret operatives in a grand Muslim scheme to destroy the West.

Benjamin Lee describes the "counter-jihad scene" as one where

Europe and the United States are under threat from an aggressive and politicized Islamic world that is attempting to take over Europe through a process of "Islamification" with the eventual aim of imposing Sharia law. In this process, the threat is characterized by the perceived removal of Christian or Jewish symbols, the imposition of Islamic traditions, and the creation of no-go areas for non-Muslims. The construction of mosques in particular is seen as continued reinforcement of the separation of the Muslim population from the wider populous. As strong as the threatening practices of Muslims in descriptions of the counter jihad are images of a powerless Europe in decline and sliding into decadence, unable to resist Islamic takeover. The idea that European culture in particular is in a state of decline, while a spiritually vigorous East represented by Islam is in the ascendancy in civil society, is a common sentiment in some circles.

Two central counter-jihad themes have been identified:

  • the notion that Islam poses a threat to "Western civilisation", with a particular focus on "Muslims living in Europe", that is, within the European Counterjihad Movement (ECJM), "seen predominantly in terms of immigration", particularly Muslim immigration.
  • a lack of trust in regional, political and economic "elites", with a particular focus against the European Union (EU).

Counter-jihad movement

Paul Beliën, member of the board of directors of the International Free Press Society (IFPS) and the editor of Counterjihad blog The Brussels Journal

One of the first organizations of the Counter-jihad movement [CJM], the 910 Group was founded in 2006 and announced on Gates of Vienna, "a principal blog of the CJM since 2004". Its stated purpose was to defend "liberties, human rights, and religious and political freedoms [that] are under assault from extremist groups who believe in Islamist supremacy". By April 2007, the counter-jihad current became visible as a movement operating in northwestern Europe after a "counter-jihad summit", organised by a transatlantic network of anti-Islam bloggers, was held in Copenhagen, Denmark.

In October 2007 a second summit, Counterjihad Brussels 2007, was hosted by the Belgian Flemish-nationalist party Vlaams Belang in the European Parliament building in Brussels, Belgium. This conference has been regarded as a crucial event in the movement's history and featured speakers Bat Ye'or and David Littman followed by "country reports" from delegates Paul Beliën and Filip Dewinter (Vlaams Belang, Belgium), Stefan Herre (PI blog, Germany), Nidra Poller (Pajamas Media blog, France), Gerard Batten (UK Independence Party, UK), Ted Ekeroth (Swedish Democrats, Sweden), Lars Hedegaard (International Free Press Society, Denmark), Jens Tomas Anfindsen (HonestThinking blog, Norway), Kenneth Sikorski (Tundra Tabloids blog, Finland), Johannes Jansen (Holland), Adriana Bolchini Gaigher (Lisistrata blog, Italy), Traian Ungureanu (Romania), Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff (Austria), Matyas Zmo (Czech Republic), with further speeches by Arieh Eldad (Moledet, Israel). Patrick Sookhdeo (Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, Barnabas Fund, UK), Dr Marc Cogen (Professor of International Law, Vesalius College, Belgium), Sam Solomon (Islamic Affairs Consultant, Christian Concern), Robert Spencer (Jihad Watch, David Horowitz Freedom Center), Andrew Bostom, and Laurent Artur du Plessis.

A March 2012 counter-jihad conference in Denmark drew 200–300 supporters from throughout Europe. Ten times the number of left-wing protesters staged a counter-demonstration. The 2012 conference in Denmark was claimed by its organisers, the English Defence League, to mark the starting point of a pan-European movement. There have been no CJM conferences since 2013, pointing to a decline in the movement.

Organisation

Blogs such as Gates of Vienna, Jihad Watch, Atlas Shrugs, Politically Incorrect, The Brussels Journal are central to the transatlantic Counter-jihad movement (TCJM). Notable figures include: the editors of these blogs, respectively Edward 'Ned' May (pseudonym Baron Bodissey), Robert Spencer; Pamela Geller; Stefan Herre; and Paul Beliën. Notable writers in the Counter-jihad movement are Bat Ye'or, David Horowitz and Fjordman.

Think tanks such as the International Free Press Society and the David Horowitz Freedom Center have had an important role in providing funds and establishing international links. In time, a network of formal organisations has been established, with its main centres in Europe and the United States. A transatlantic umbrella organisation SION was established in 2012.

The International Free Press Society lists representatives from many parts of the counter-jihad spectrum on its board of advisors. Eurabia theorist Bat Ye'or is on the board of advisors, while owner of the blog Gates of Vienna, Edward S. May, serves as outreach co-ordinator on its board of directors.

American Counter-jihad movement

Robert Spencer, joint leader of Stop Islamization of America and editor of counter-jihad blog Jihad Watch

The U.S.-based Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) is led by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, as a programme under their American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI). According to the AFDI website, the initiative aims, among other activities, to:

  • Create state organizations that work towards the initiative's aims at a local level
  • Organize grass root small groups at the local level to fight what it labels "specific Islamic supremacist initiatives" in American cities
  • Build strategic alliances with activist groups in Europe and Israel to engage in open and stealthy counter jihad measures
  • Promote candidates who "fight against the march of Islamic supremacists"
  • Host conferences "that educate Americans about Leftist indoctrination and Islam’s quest for domination"

SIOA has been accused by the Anti-Defamation League of

promot[ing] a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda under the guise of fighting radical Islam. The group seeks to rouse public fears by consistently vilifying the Islamic faith and asserting the existence of an Islamic conspiracy to destroy "American" values.

In 2010, a group dubbed "Team B II", patterned after the anti-communist 1970s Team B, published a report titled "Shariah: The Threat to America" which has been cited as influencing the movement's discourse and the public's perception.

With the election of Donald Trump to the United States presidency in 2017, some have claimed that the American wing has achieved some influence in the US administration.

European Counter-Jihad Movement

The umbrella organization, Stop Islamisation of Europe, was founded by Anders Gravers Pedersen, who also sits on the board of the Stop Islamisation of Nations. There are numerous affiliated "Stop the Islamisation of..." and "Defense Leagues" in several European countries, among them Stop Islamisation of Denmark, Stop Islamisation of Norway, and the English Defence League.

Counter-jihad ideology

In the words of Toby Archer, a scholar of political extremism and terrorism,

"Counter-jihad discourse mixes valid concerns about jihad-inspired terrorism with far more complex political issues about immigration to Europe from predominantly Muslim countries. It suggests that there is a threat not just from terrorism carried out by Islamic extremists but from Islam itself. Therefore, by extension, all European Muslims are a threat."

Arun Kundnani, in a report published by the International Centre for Counter-terrorism, writes that the counter-jihad movement has evolved from earlier European far-right movements through a shift from race to values as identity markers: "In moving from neo‐Nazism to counter‐jihadism, the underlying structure of the narrative remains the same." Continuing on this note, he writes that comparing the counter-jihadist worldview to the older, neo-Nazi one, "Muslims have taken the place of blacks and multiculturalists are the new Jews." According to prominent counter-jihadist Edward S. May, writing under the pseudonym Baron Bodissey, the counter-jihadist movement is based on the belief that

"Islam is above all a totalitarian political ideology, sugar-coated with the trappings of a primitive desert religion to help veil its true nature. The publicly stated goal of Islamic theology and political ideology is to impose the rule of Islam over the entire world, and make it part of Dar al-Islam, the 'House of Submission'."

Cas Mudde argues that various conspiracy theories with roots in Bat Ye'or's Eurabia are important to the movement. The main theme of these theories is an allegation that European leaders allow a Muslim dominance of Europe, whether by intention or not, through multicultural policies and lax immigration laws. According to Hope not Hate, counter-jihad discourse has replaced the racist discourse of rightwing, populist and nationalist politics in America and Europe "with the language of cultural and identity wars".

English Defence League rally in Newcastle, UK, 2010

Toby Archer detects a difference between the European and American wings of the movement. The American wing emphasizes an external threat, essentially terrorist in nature. The European wing sees a cultural threat to European traditions stemming from immigrant Muslim populations. While Archer notes that the perceived failure of multi-culturalism is shared across much of the political spectrum, he argues the counter-jihad movement is a particular conservative manifestation of this trend. He acknowledges the movement's conservative defense of human rights and the rule of law but he believes by rejecting progressive policy it rejects much of what Europe is today.

The views of the counter-jihad movement have been criticized as a source of support for the anti-Muslim views of individuals inspired to take violent direct action. Anders Behring Breivik, responsible for the 2011 Norway attacks, published a manifesto explaining his views which drew heavily on the work of counter-jihad bloggers such as Fjordman. Daniel Pipes argues that a "close reading of his manifesto suggests" that Breivik wanted to discredit and undermine the movement's dedication to democratic change to further Breivik's "dreamed-for revolution" as the only alternative. Breivik has later identified himself as a fascist and voiced support for neo-Nazis, stating that he had exploited counter-jihad rhetoric in order to protect "ethno-nationalists", and instead start a media drive against what he deemed "anti-nationalist counterjihad"-supporters.

Executive director of the Institute of Race Relations, Liz Fekete, has argued that although most of the counter-jihad movement "stops short of advocating violence to achieve their goals", the most extreme parts share much of Breivik's discursive frameworks and vocabulary. She counterposits this with more mainstream counter-jihadists, that warn of Islamisation as a result of naïvety or indecisiveness, whom she identifies as a source of legitimacy for the former.

Theologist and philosopher Marius Timmann Mjaaland has described the role given to Christianity in some parts of the counter-jihad movement and has identified some aspects of the movement's ideology that he says links it to fascism-like conspiracy theories:

  1. The establishment of an allegedly continuous and coherent connection between the present-day conflict between the Christian West and Muslims, whereas analyses based on established historical science will dismiss any such claim as unfounded.
  2. A claim that mainstream politicians and media in Western countries have in effect become internal enemies or "traitors", by respectively allowing the creation of multicultural societies and advocating "Marxism" and "political correctness".
  3. This, in turn, has allowed Muslims to settle in Western lands, and thereby allegedly opened them to attack from within.
  4. And, lastly, a Nietzschean, post-Christian worldview where the distinction between good and evil is given little attention, to the point where Christianity's ideal of "loving one's neighbour" is entirely omitted. Christianity is reduced from a system of belief to an identity marker, and a political mythology is built, that draws heavily on the Crusades.

Counter-jihad has sought to portray Western Muslims as a "fifth column", collectively seeking to destabilize Western nations' identity and values for the benefit of an international Islamic movement intent on the establishment of a caliphate in Western countries. Much of the Eurabia literature and Counter Jihad forums describe taqiyya as a manipulative strategy used by moderate Muslims to infiltrate and eventually overthrow society.

Supporters are often pro-Israel.

Comparison with anti-communism

The movement has been compared to the anti-communism of the Cold War. The Southern Poverty Law Center compares both as similar exaggerated threats. "Like the communists that an earlier generation believed to be hiding behind every rock, infiltrated 'Islamist' operatives today are said to be diabolically preparing for a forcible takeover."

Hate speech

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...