What Are They Doing Now?: A Look at the Kalon Tripa Candidates’ Current Jobs
At the point when an applicant is being considered for a task, the imminent boss ordinarily gives extraordinary load to the up-and-comer’s latest work. This is for the most part evident whether the applicant has had one work or many. In this way, the editors of The Tibetan Political Review have explored the openly accessible data on every one of the three Katri up-and-comers’ present place of employment obligations.
It is our expectation that the citizens will discover this data valuable in assessing what capabilities the applicants are probably going to bring to the most elevated chosen office of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile. We will talk about every competitor underneath.
Tenzin Namgyal Tethong la
Tethong is Chair of the Tibetan Studies Initiative at Stanford University, and Distinguished Scholar at Stanford Medical School’s Center for Compassion and Altruism Research and Education. He has additionally shown at least one courses at Stanford. He additionally fills in as President of the Dalai Lama Foundation, and Chairman and Executive Director of the Committee of 100 for Tibet.
Be that as it may, work titles alone don’t tell a lot. We set off to realize what these positions comprise of, and what these foundations do under Tethong’s administration or with his inclusion:
The Tibetan Studies Initiative, where Tethong fills in as Chairman, gives off an impression of being an interdisciplinary program intended to carry Tibet into the Stanford educational plan. The Initiative has coordinated occasions and talks including His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s visit to Stanford in October 2010, address arrangement by Sogyal Rinpoche and priest/creator Matthieu Riccard, and study-abroad projects in Tibet, India, Bhutan, and Mongolia.
As per the site of Stanford Medical School’s Center for Compassion and Altruism Research and Education, that association’s motivation is to make a “local area of researchers and scientists” considering the transaction of brain science, neuroscience, sympathy, empathy and philanthropy. The Center was established by three Stanford clinical educators, alongside Geshe Thupten Jinpa and Tethong. We couldn’t decide the particular pretended by any person.
As indicated by the Stanford site, Tethong has educated in the History and Continuing Studies divisions. The Stanford course inventory at present records one Continuing Studies course educated by Tethong, named “Tibet and the Dalai Lama: History, Politics, and the Future.” The History Department records no current courses instructed by Tethong.
Dalai Lama Foundation:
The Dalai Lama Foundation (DLF), where Tethong fills in as President, expresses that its main goal is to advance an “ethic of empathy.” It has all the earmarks of being centered principally around training and, explicitly, creating educational programs and materials advancing harmony and morals. For instance it has fostered a “Adolescent Moves” morals program for teenagers, and an investigation direct for His Holiness’ book, Ethics for the New Milennium, in five langauages including Chinese. The DLF isn’t explicitly an award making association, yet it has likewise given financing identified with: Tibetan political detainees and ladies, contemporary Tibetan workmanship, Sera Monastery, morals in Russia, and wave alleviation.
As an enlisted not-revenue driven association, the DLF works under American corporate administration and monetary straightforwardness guidelines. In the 2008 expense year (the most recent year accessible on the site), the establishment unveiled pay of $151,892 and consumptions of $139,010. The DLF site expresses that around 2/3 of its financial plan was spent on projects and 1/3 spent on organization in addition to raising money (this incorporates pay rates – $36,000 for Tethong and $12,000 for the Treasurer – and overhead, in addition to gathering pledges costs).
As per the free appraising site Charity Navigator, 9 out of 10 foundations burn through 35% or less of their spending plan on managerial costs. DLF’s accounts are inside this reach. The sum that DLF spends on organization in addition to gathering pledges is additionally at the specific midpoint (step number five, 30-40% territory) in the classification of local area establishments. As an examination with bigger associations that both have been helped to establish by Tethong, the International Campaign for Tibet (ICT) pays its Executive Chairman $104,789 and spends about 25% of its $4.2 million financial plan on organization and raising money. The Tibet Fund pays its Executive Director $99,238 and burns through 7% of its $5.8 million spending plan on organization and raising money.
Openly accessible duty divulgences by the DLF show that the $151,892 pay for 2008 incorporates $111,119 from public commitments, $24,383 from unified missions (for example Joined Way), and $15,510 net addition from speculations and deals. Government tax documents don’t give a space to an establishment to organize singular givers, and we can’t find this data somewhere else. Our survey of different establishments discovered this to be normal. We have found out if Tethong or the DLF Board of Directors (whoever has the position) will approve the ID of any huge DLF contributors.
We were interested about the name of the association, and the job if any played by His Holiness. The DLF site incorporates a letter from His Holiness that shows that His Holiness didn’t assume an immediate part in building up the DLF. Notwithstanding, the letter expresses that His Holiness considers the DLF an “exertion that vows to set in motion a large number of the thoughts for harmony that I support.” For this explanation, His Holiness expressed that he is “glad to embrace and loan my name” to it.
As per the DLF site, other establishing people other than Tethong include: Dr. Howard Cutler (co-creator with His Holiness of The Art of Happiness), Adam Engle (Harvard-prepared legal counselor and originator of the Mind-Life Institute), Richard Gere, Professor Pema Gyalpo (Japan and Mongolia), Lodi Gyari, Professor Janet Gyatso (Harvard), Professor Jeffrey Hopkins (UVA), Geshe Thupten Jinpa, Professor Don Lopez (Michigan), Ngari Rinpoche, and Michael van Walt (Tibetan government legitimate guide).
Committee of 100 for Tibet:
The Committee of 100 for Tibet, where Tethong is Chair and Executive Director, expresses that it asks “the people groups and countries of the world to perceive that Tibet is involved by the People’s Republic of China and request the suspension of practices that deny the Tibetan individuals of their major basic liberties and opportunities, including their entitlement to self-assurance.”
The Committee’s individuals incorporate a few Nobel laureates remembering Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Nobel champs for medication and financial aspects, political pioneers including Vaclav Havel (previous Czech President) and George Fernandes (previous Indian guard serve), the previous U.S. Head legal officer, the Prince of Lichtenstein, the organizer of Patagonia Inc., different educators, and the late widow of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
The Committee’s present exercises give off an impression of being centered around (1) the Tibetan self-assurance drive, (2) the Tibet Documentation Project, and (2) a voyaging show called “The Missing Peace: Artists Consider the Dalai Lama.”
Tashi Wangdi la
Wangdi’s position is a lot easier to survey than that of either Tethong or Sangay. As of not long ago, Wangdi was Representative at the Bureau du Tibet, Brussels (also called the Office of Tibet, Brussels). He surrendered in December 2010 to run for Kalon Tripa. The Brussels Office of Tibet is an especially significant one, given its part in relations with the European Union foundations including the European Parliament (which has consistently been strong of Tibet) and the European Commission.
Under the managerial authority of the Department of Information and International Relations (DIIR), the mission of the Office of Tibet in Brussels is to address His Holiness and the Tibetan Government-in-Exile to the European Union, Western Europe, and North Africa. The Office of Tibet is similar to a government office, making Wangdi’s position likened to that of a minister.
There is minimal public data on Wangdi’s residency in Brussels, however it is feasible to gather that he delighted in the certainty of the Kashag and His Holiness’ Private Office. Wangdi was picked to head the Brussels office not long after it was moved up to “Office of Tibet” status. Beforehand, the Brussels mission was an “EU coordination office” under the purview of the Office of Tibet in Paris. As of April 2008, the Brussels post was made an Office of Tibet, while the Paris post turned into a “branch” of the Brussels office. In January 2009, Wangdi was moved from New York to Brussles to take over at this recently redesigned mission.
In view of the commonplace ambassadorial job, one can presume that Wangdi’s key obligation was that of a representative instead of an arrangement creator. His key undertaking was to create and keep up relations among Dharamsala and the EU. In particular, the Kashag sets European needs, and Wangdi would then be entrusted to campaign the EU for these objectives. Wangdi additionally likely went about as a two-path course of data, educating the EU regarding Dharamsala’s strategies and solicitations, just as advising Dharamsala regarding the EU’s mentalities and positions and making suggestions.
Lobsang Sangay la
As per the Harvard site, Sangay as of now stands firm on the foothold of Research Fellow. An August 2010 letter from a Harvard regulatory staff part – – delivered by the Sangay lobby – – states that Sangay has been a Research Associate since his graduation in 2004. In light of the letter and site posting, apparently Sangay was elevated to Research Fellow at some point in late 2010.
We were muddled about the distinction between Research Associate and Research Fellow, so we looked into these situations in Harvard’s guidelines. We discovered that the thing that matters is one of freedom. A Research Associate behaviors research “coordinated by” a teacher, though a Research Fellow is given a “bit [i.e. little amount] of freedom in directing examination, under the sponsorship of Departments or Centers.” Neither position incorporates instructing obligations.
Given this somewhat specialized distinction, it is completely conceivable to get befuddled. That might be the reason there has been misconstruing with regards to Sangay’s genuine work. For instance the NDPT has incorrectly portrayed Sangay as a “Teacher” on some mission stops in India. Indeed, even Sangay himself has clearly been befuddled: he depicted himself mistakenly as a “Senior Fellow” in a 2009 Phayul article and on his present mission site. Be that as it may, “Senior Fellow” is a higher position, and there is just one recorded at Sangay’s specialization: Guo Luoji.
In the wake of understanding Sangay’s set of working responsibilities, we additionally felt we potentially comprehended the explanation that Sangay distributed just three scholarly articles in the a long time since his graduation (we recently evaluated these articles here). Since Sangay has been “coordinated by” a teacher until as of late, it is conceivable that a portion of Sangay’s time was spent directing exploration for an educator to use in the educator’s own compositions. This end depends on our comprehension of the job of a Research Associate.
Under the course of Professor William Alford and others, Sangay’s work has gone past that of a simple specialist. His most checked achievement at Harvard has been to help coordinate a progression of gatherings on Sino-Tibetan discourse. (Every one of the three of the TPR editors have gone to these meetings). In view of our immediate perception, Professor Alford would give the welcome discourse, and the meeting Chinese scholastics would hurry to have their photo taken with this renowned lawful researcher. Sangay’s probably undertakings included: to orchestrate the offices, distinguish and welcome the speakers, incorporate the speakers’ papers, go about as a nonpartisan host, and guarantee that the gathering moves along as expected.
Length of Position and Nature of Leave:
Sangay expressed on January 8 in Minnesota that Harvard consented to give him a five-year leave (lo nga gongpa) to fill in as Kalon Tripa. He then, at that point expressed that Professor Roberto Unger of Harvard Law School was allowed a five-year leave to fill in as a pastor in the Brazilian government. Sangay likewise spelled Professor Unger’s last name for the crowd.
Later in his answer, Sangay appeared to repudiate himself when he said that he was not really ensured some work when he gets back to Harvard, yet that he can re-go after his job on the grounds that “there will be work to do.” Similarly, the Harvard Crimson paper gave an account of February 16 that Sangay “should leave his situation at the Law School” in the event that he is chosen. We were indistinct how it is feasible to have a leave like that of Professor Unger (a tenured educator), while likewise having to reapply later. To us the present circumstance doesn’t seem like a leave yet rather a full acquiescence. This drove us to investigate the specific idea of Sangay’s position: is it perpetual or impermanent?
As per the Harvard guidelines, a Research Fellow position is a one-year arrangement. The position might be reestablished at Harvard’s circumspection for a “limit of five years.” Therefore, apparently Sangay is working at Harvard on a one-year term. Assuming he was selected Research Fellow in 2010, his position would customarily be yearly sustainable through 2015 as long as Harvard concurred every year. Maybe than having a spot held for him, Sangay’s “lo nga gongpa” evidently implies essentially that he can reapply for a situation at Harvard in five years.
From these realities, it turned out to be evident that Sangay’s illustration of Professor Unger is entirely irrelevant and perhaps accidentally deceptive. Unger holds a lasting tenured residency instead of an impermanent, yearly arrangement. Unger got back to recover his unique instructing position. In addition, Unger returned to some degree reluctantly to Harvard after the college wouldn’t broaden his leave past two years, not following five years as Sangay expressed.
In the event that Sangay wins the Kalon Tripa political race, later on he may must be more cautious with his public assertions. A pioneer on the global stage can’t bear to seem misguided or, surprisingly more terrible, misdirecting. Regardless of whether that is the situation truth be told, appearances are basic in global governmental issues.
The August 2010 letter from Harvard contains an inquisitive explanation that brings up an issue about the financing hotspot for Sangay’s situation at Harvard. The letter incorporates a reference to “visiting researchers” which possibly appears to be pertinent if Sangay’s position is viewed as a meeting researcher (potentially notwithstanding the characterization as Research Associate/Fellow). This gives off an impression of being the situation, since Sangay is recorded on the Harvard website page for the Visiting Scholar Program.
The explanation this evident actuality is significant is that, as indicated by the Harvard site, visiting researchers are by and large not paid by Harvard. Maybe, they “are by and large self-subsidized or supported extramurally [from outside of the university].” indeed, the meeting researcher pays Harvard $600 each month ($7,200 each year) as an “regulatory charge.”
Predictable with this data, Harvard’s guidelines express that Research Associates/Fellows are paid “through” (not “by”) Harvard. That implies that an external financing source can give an amount of cash, which courses through Harvard’s finance to finance the meeting researcher (after the college deducts its $7,200 expense). The external cash would cover the researcher’s compensation or payment, yet in addition related costs like the researcher’s movement for true purposes. The college moreover requires the meeting researcher to show outside monetary assets for everyday costs, comprising of in any event $25,000 each year in addition to $6,000 each year for each going with relative.
As indicated by one occupation office, the normal compensation for an exploration partner at Harvard is $53,000 however as low as $28,000. Adding up (I) an unobtrusive 25th percentile compensation of $40,500, (ii) Harvard’s “managerial charge” for a year, (iii) showed monetary assets for a group of three, and (iv) unassuming costs and travel of $15,000, a meeting researcher at Harvard would have to organize at least $93,700 each year in external subsidizing.
We have kept in touch with Sangay to find out if his situation at Harvard is subsidized remotely, and if so whether he will unveil the wellspring of such external financing for as far back as six years. We have not gotten an answer. (Sangay has not recently addressed any of our other messaged questions, so we are constrained not to keep anticipating an answer.) Since Sangay has expressed that “Harvard” pays for a portion of his mission travel, it is especially critical to determine this inquiry for crusade account straightforwardness.
Every one of the three men are working in their own specific manner on the issue of Tibet, which they plainly care about. Whoever wins the political decision, the electors ought to recall that the applicants in any event share this much for all intents and purpose. Be that as it may, they contrast in at any rate two different ways:
1. Initiative: Tethong and Wangdi both fill in as pioneers or directors of their particular associations. In such jobs, they have likely appointed, made and executed spending plans, guaranteed that orders and assignments are clear, managed and assessed execution, dispensed administrative assets, managed clashing characters, and so forth Tethong has the extra job of setting strategy for an association.
Sangay, conversely, has been coordinated by a teacher for a very long time. He doesn’t seem to have had direct initiative or administrative duties, however maybe he did over the span of assisting with getting sorted out Sino-Tibetan gatherings.
2. Viewpoint: Wangdi’s work, similar to his whole profession, has been inside the Tibetan government estranged abroad. Individuals he communicates with frequently are Tibetan government authorities and civil servants, albeit tempered by the way that he likewise connects with European authorities. Of the three up-and-comers, Wangdi’s point of view is accordingly the most “Dharamsala-driven.”
Both Sangay and Tethong, on the other hand, have more worldwide viewpoints. The two of them work at a-list colleges that are junction of inventive scholars and government officials. Furthermore, Tethong has overseen associations under Western administration and straightforwardness rules, while Sangay has been prepared in Western examination strategies. In addition, Sangay’s work with Sino-Tibetan gatherings has allowed him the opportunity to associate with scholastics from China. Tethong’s present work has driven him to communicate with people of different foundations, including political pioneers, Nobel victors, entertainers, sovereignty, money managers, and social equality pioneers.
The above suppositions are those of the TPR article board. We have set out current realities as we have best had the option to decide them, and reached the determinations that we accept are the most sensible. We welcome different viewpoints. We likewise welcome the contender to enhance this data with whatever other realities that we may have missed.