Monday, October 18, 1999

THE MATHUR DEPOSITION: INTERVIEW WITH A PARANOID or: “Evidence Shmevidence”

[From 'Vine 18 10/18/99]

On September 28, 1999, President Raghu P. Mathur was deposed in regard to Professor Roy Bauer’s lawsuit against Chancellor Cedric Sampson, who, in December of 1998, citing six elements from Bauer’s newsletters, accused the instructor of violating district discrimination and workplace violence policies and ordered him to undergo anger-management counseling. Four months later, in a preliminary injunction, Judge Nora Manella of Federal Court, describing the counseling order as “Orwellian,” found that the six elements “constitute protected free speech” and enjoined the Chancellor from ordering counseling “of any sort” for Bauer. The case could still go to trial, unless the new judge grants a motion for summary judgment, which could occur in the very near future.

The deposition, which is a matter of public record, appears in abridged form below. I believe that I have included all of the interesting parts. I believe that the deposition gains in interest as it goes along. You may wish to skip the first few pages. Raghu’s account of alleged threats against him is particularly interesting.

During the deposition, Bauer was represented by Carol Sobel, a well-known Santa Monica attorney specializing in, among other things, First Amendment cases. Mathur, who is implicated in Sampson’s action against Bauer, was represented by David Larsen of Ruttan and Tucker.

* * * * *
CONTENTS:

1. It begins
2. Renew my subscription to this offensive newsletter
3. Shoe fittage
4. The testimony was MAIM
5. Mathurian logic
6. He meant to do harm to my body
7. “Objective independent” thinking
8. Enemies list: a love story
9. The literary insights of the Three Stooges
10. The curious case of professor R
11. Evidence, please
12. Properly dealing with student complaints
13. The “whore” rumor
14. Mathur’s secret files
15. Raghu’s ever-changing “threats” story
16. Again with the non sequiturs
17. The “case” against Bob Deegan
18. The “case” against Kate Clark
19. Pam’s “hostility”
20. It’s racist if I say it is
21. The mysterious “altered” voice
22. Alleged anti-Asian email
23. My life is in danger
24. “Evidence,” Raghu style
25. Mathur’s inexplicable failure to document the alleged “threats”
26. Seven out of a thousands
27. Mathur violates the contract again
28. Tempers flare; Carol kicks butt

1. It begins:

MS. SOBEL: From time to time during the deposition, I may ask you a question to which you do not have an exact answer. I’m entitled to your best recollection and your best estimate…I’m sure that your counsel will interject objections when he perceives the question to be ambiguous or vague. Of course, I never ask such questions, but he perceives them that way sometimes….

2. Renew my subscription to this offensive newsletter:

Q Now, you are familiar with a publication entitled ‘Vine [or] Dissent?

A Yes, I am.

Q Is it your understanding that [it] is published by Roy Bauer?

A Yes.

Q Do you read that publication on a regular basis?

A I read it occasionally. More recently, I don’t always get a copy of it. But for a long time in the beginning I used to get a copy of it, and whenever I got a copy of it [I would read it].

Q When did you stop getting a copy of it?

A A few months ago, but still, sporadically, I would get a copy from time to time.

Q How would you get the copies from time to time?

A [Bauer] would drop [a copy] off with my secretary.

Q Did you ever inform anyone that you did not want to receive copies of the publication?

A I didn’t particularly care to receive it.

Q That wasn’t the question. Did you ever inform anyone that you didn’t want to receive copies?

A I may have mentioned it to my secretary, but I don’t recall….

Q When [your secretary] provided you with subsequent copies of the publication—after you may have told her you didn’t want to receive it—did you ever reject the publications when she offered them?

A No, I didn’t….

3. Shoe fittage:

[Editor’s note: Among the six elements cited by the Chancellor as evidence of Bauer’s threatening nature was the following, an (arguably) droll observation in a generally humor-filled story about a trustees debate that appeared in the Nov. 2, 1998, Dissent:

Padberg…wrote…of the need to bridge the “gap” between the warring sides in the district. Evidently, she believes that the sides can come together and be pals again—perhaps by means of a carefully planned Halloween party. I don’t think so. I, for one, have etched the name of Sherry “Realpolitik” Miller-White and others of her ilk on my permanent shit list, a two-ton slate of polished granite which I hope someday to drop on Raghu Mathur’s head.

—Naturally, Judge Manella rejected the Chancellor’s notion that the “granite” remark was a credible “threat.” Clearly, it was an instance of humorous hyperbole; it was no kind of threat.

Another among the “Sampson Six” was a remark by Red Emma, who has consistently described herself as a part-timer. In “Emma’s Modest Proposal,” she draws parallels between Mathur’s tactics and the repressive tactics against academics in Milosevic’s Yugoslavia. (Please note that this appeared in November of 1998.) At one point, Red writes:

Let’s see: Government interference in administration. Heavy-handed control of hiring policies. Unannounced meetings. Laws passed absent public input. Attacks on activist Philosophers. Personal vendettas against disloyal faculty. Messing with curriculum. Violating the Brown Act. I certainly hope Raghu and Glenn are getting this down.

Finally, in the spirit of international cooperation, we at Dissent announce the founding of the Milosevic-Mathur Academic Integrity Matrix. (I couldn’t think of a more annoying business ed sounding type word than “matrix”; besides, it permits a satisfying acronym: MAIM.)


—Among the literate, it will be clear that the implication of Red’s acronym is that Mathur is violent and ruthless. We shall now see what the acronym might suggest among the illiterate:]

Q Back to the dropping [of] the two-ton slab of granite on your head. Now tell me what the next “hostile threat” was that you recall.

A Again, I don’t remember them in sequence, but I recall his using an acronym, MAIM,…in context with my name.

Q Do you recall what the acronym stood for?

MR. LARSEN: Objection; vague and ambiguous.

THE WITNESS: I don’t remember the exact description of it.

MS. SOBEL: Did you read it in the publication?

A Yes, I did.

Q Do you recall if it stood for the “Milosevic-Mathur Academic Integrity Matrix”?

A I believe that sounds familiar.

Q What was your understanding when you read that? What was it about that that you thought conveyed a threat of violence to your person?

A I did feel threatened by usage of that kind of acronym associated to my name. That was my first reaction, and secondly, that I did not deserve to be compared to Milosevic.

Q What did you understand the comparison to Milosevic to mean for you? How did you perceive it?

A It was so distasteful [that] I didn’t even want to go there.

Q What did you perceive about it to be distasteful?

A As I indicated, I just found it so distasteful [that] I just didn’t even want to think any further.

Q Why did you find it distasteful?

A Considering how [Milosevic] has been portrayed and reported in the news. I’m basically a positive person. I just didn’t even want to entertain anything further along those lines, because I knew that the shoe didn’t fit.

Q You knew what?

A Because I felt that the shoe didn’t fit.

Q The shoe did not fit?

A That’s right.

4. The testimony was MAIM:

Q Can you identify for me what the threat of violence was to your person in linking you to the name of “Milosevic”?

MR. LARSEN: Well, I think that misstates the testimony. The testimony was MAIM.

MS. SOBEL: I understand that, David. I understand what he has said. I’m reading his declaration here, and I’m trying to understand where the threat of violence is.

MR. LARSEN: Well, it doesn’t say anything about Milosevic in the declaration.

MS. SOBEL: I understand that. I’m allowed to go beyond his conclusory statements here. That’s what the purpose of the deposition is.

MR. LARSEN: I think your question assumed facts not in evidence.

MS. SOBEL: You can answer the question…. (“Can you identify for me what the threat of violence was to your person in linking you to the name of ‘Milosevic’?”)

A I feel comfortable in sticking with the statement that I felt threatened by the usage of the term MAIM. And to me [“MAIM”] meant that he meant to do physical harm to me.

Q Did you think, too, that he meant to do physical harm to Milosevic?

A I don’t know but I will say this, that—

MR. LARSEN: Well, if you have answered the question—

A I have answered the question….

5. Mathurian logic:

Q How do you know that Professor Bauer wrote that?

A Because that publication routinely came out from him.

Q Do you know whether he wrote everything in it?

A By and large, I thought he did.

Q What did you base that on?

A That he has claimed that he is the published of that newsletter.

Q Do you think that the publisher of a newsletter writes everything in the newsletter?

MR. LARSEN: Objection; vague and ambiguous. Calls for speculation.

A I believe he wrote it.

Q Why do you believe he wrote it?

A I think I already answered the question. Because he has been writing and publishing these two publications: Dissent and ‘Vine.

Q Other than the fact that he publishes and writes in Dissent and ‘Vine, do you have any independent basis for concluding that Professor Bauer is the author of the article [that included] the acronym MAIM to which you take exception?

A To the best of my knowledge, he is the writer of that particular section in the newsletter.

Q The question was: do you have any independent basis for reaching that conclusion?

MR. LARSEN: Objection; vague and ambiguous.

A It’s difficult for me to answer that question.

Q No, it’s not difficult. Did anybody tell you that he wrote it?

A There was no reason for me to believe that he didn’t [write it].

Q Did you see him write it?

A No. I don’t see when he writes those newsletters.

Q Did you ask him if he wrote it?

A I didn’t think it was necessary—

MR. LARSEN: The question is, did you ask him?

THE WITNESS: No, I did not ask him.

Q Did you review Professor Bauer’s declarations submitted by the Court in this case? [In his declaration, Bauer makes clear that he is not Red Emma and that he did not author the “MAIM” piece.]

A I may have, sometime.

6. He meant to do harm to my body:

[In the Nov. 9, 1998, Dissent, Bauer offered this whimsical remark about a certain theatrical Saddleback personage and some of his friends:

Still, we can hope. Who knows? Perhaps someday Mr. P, overcome by one of his bilious thoughts, might lose control of his fancy Beemer, jump a curb, and ram the damn thing up Frogue’s a**. Williams, Fortune, Lorch, Mathur, and their sleazy union allies will then attend their hero’s funeral, where, mysteriously, they will be dispatched by a lurid gas emanating from the Great Man’s gaping mouth. After the vapors clear, peace will break out throughout the district….

Unsurprisingly, Judge Manella could find no credible threat in such musings.]

Q Tell me what the next “threat of violence” to your person is that you can recall by Professor Bauer.

A I read in the publication some reference to his dispatching me by lurid gas…[H]e meant to do harm to my body….There were additional references to violence in his publications. He has talked about downsizers with a picture which has been published on a couple of occasions now, and there have been cartoons where either someone is killing with someone else or someone is holding a gun. [?] There have been multiple references to violence and particularly associated with my name that has caused me great concern about my own safety as well as the safety of others.

Q Can you identify for me what in the downsizers “cartoon”…was associated with your name?

A I didn’t say that my name was associated with the downsizer.

Q Which ones…

A But my name was associated with dropping two tons of granite on my head. My name was associated with MAIM. My name was associated with dispatching me by lurid gas….

7. “Objective independent” thinking:

[The Nov. 16, 1998, Dissent included an article describing Mathur’s infamous faculty “enemies list,” which, as we shall see, he offered to president Dan Larios upon his arrival at IVC several years ago. It was accompanied by a ludicrously (i.e., humorously) lurid graphic—“Tales of the Backdoor Gooster!”—the implication of which was that Mathur is a ruthless thug. Somehow, Mathur sees it as a threat against him!]

A …then I see the cartoons in terms of someone being bloodied by a hatchet. It gives me the appropriate description; also someone holding a gun. These references…have led me to believe in a very objective independent thinking of my own that he meant to do physical harm to me.

Q How is it that you reached the conclusion that your thinking is objective?

A Well, I’m trying to be reasonable. I’m trying to look at all the descriptions and depictions and what my friends—I know when they looked at those descriptions, what they told me as well.

Q Who are the friends who said something to you, after they looked at those depictions?

A Professor Glenn Roquemore, Professor Sherry Miller-White from Saddleback College, Professor Ken Woodward, and others. Those are the names I recall at this time.

Q So you would categorize Roquemore, Sherry Miller-White, and Ken Woodward as friends of yours?

A Yes….

Q The graphic you are referring to with reference to the hatchet: is that the “Back Door Gooster” image?… [Yes.] It’s the side bar to an article, if you recall, about you handing a previous president a list of faculty members who needed to have a hatchet job done on them; is that correct?…. Who was the president before you?

A Dr. Dan Larios.

Q Did Dr. Dan Larios ask you to provide him with a list of faculty members you felt he needed to pay special attention to?

A That was done for advice to the chancellor at the time.

Q You are saying that the chancellor at the time prepared the list, not you?

A He had asked me to prepare a list for him. And he advised me to share that list with Dr. Larios.

Q Whose names were on the list?

A I don’t remember.

8. Enemies lists: a love story

Q Do you recall that Professor Bauer had written an article about this list [—i.e., the list] that you shared with Dan Larios?

A The fact [of] the matter is, [Bauer] didn’t have the whole story.

Q That’s not the question, Mr. Mathur. The question is, do you recall that he wrote an article about you sharing this list with Dan Larios?

A I don’t recall seeing that story.

Q You testified a few moments ago that you read Professor Bauer’s declaration in this case, I believe?

A I said I may have read it some time ago.

Q Do you recall him setting forth in his declaration that the illustration of you chopping off somebody’s head was accompanied by the article, an article about you preparing a list of faculty members Dan Larios should be advised of?…

MR. LARSEN: She is asking you what you recall from reading the declaration.

A What do I recall from reading the declaration? I don’t recall anything along those lines from reading the declaration.

9. The literary insights of the Three Stooges:

Q Who were the employees who told you…that Professor Bauer is now, quote, “Going off the deep end,” unquote, and is becoming more and more unstable?

A I would say Dr. Roquemore, Helen Locke, Laura U’ren, and others. Those are the names.

Q Who else?

A Those are the names I remember so far. But there were others.

Q In what context did others tell you this?

A That, as they were reading his publications, they were feeling more and more that he was going off the deep end based on what they saw and what they read in the publications.

Q And you can’t remember anybody beside Glenn Roquemore, Helen Locke, and Laura U’ren who told you this?

A I remember Sherry Miller-White, Ken Woodward, Ray Chandos, and those are the names I recall now.

Q Would you characterize Ray Chandos as a friend?

A Yes.

Q What about Helen Locke and Laura U’Ren?

A Yeah. They are friends. I’ve known them a long time.

Q Anybody you wouldn’t call a friend who told you this?

A Yes.

Q Who?

A I don’t have the names right now…There have been others that I would feel uncomfortable in releasing their names because they are concerned about their own safety.

Q Well, I don’t think you have a choice. If you make a declaration and you say there are people [who say Bauer is going off the “deep end,” etc.], Professor Bauer is allowed to know who this is. So who is it that told you this?

A Well, I have to think about it.

Q Well, here is the problem, Mr. Mathur. Rightly or wrongly, I perceive this as you not being willing to reveal facts that you have that underlie statements that you made in your declaration. And I just want you to understand that one of the options open to the plaintiff in this case is to bar you from ever testifying if there is a trial in this case and [you’ll be] excluded as what is called a “discovery penalty” because you can’t come in with information later on, if you sit here today and say you don’t feel comfortable releasing their names. If in fact, at some later point, you feel comfortable releasing their names, we would be entitled to move the court to depose you again and to request that you pay for the deposition because you have the information today and are not willing to reveal it.

A I’m just trying to remember, as I said.

Q What you said is: you wouldn’t feel comfortable revealing their names.

A That, too. But I also said that I can’t recall the names. I mentioned the names that I did recall. Let me think. Let me think.

Q Do you want to take a break for a moment?….

10. The curious case of Professor R:

[The spectacularly paranoid Professor GR seemed to feel that Bauer was part of a plot against him. Inexplicably, he thought that Bauer was attacking him qua Christian. In fact, at least up to the time in question, there had been no references to Christians or Christianity in the newsletters. There were allusions, however, to the conservative political group Christian Coalition, which had had a minor political role in our district; in any case, Bauer had never linked GR to that group. (Could it be that Raghu and his friends equate a criticism of a political group with the word “Christian” in its name with a criticism of Christians? Jesus Christ!)]

A One person is GR…

Q What is it that GR told you about Professor Bauer?

A That he is going off the deep end.

Q When did he tell you that?

A He told me that within the last year.

Q How did he come to tell you that? Where were you at the time?

A In my office….

Q When you had this discussion, where he shared his concerns and made this comment, did you discuss anything else with him at the time?

A No. Not that I recall.

Q Did Professor GR have a complaint against him by some students about his teaching?

MR. LARSEN: I’m going to object on the grounds of relevance. It goes into—

MS. SOBEL: It’s in the record already, David.

MR. LARSEN: I’m not sure whether it is or isn’t, but it still has nothing to do with it, and it would be a personnel matter if it did, so it would be confidential.

MS. SOBEL: No. It’s in the records.

MR. LARSEN: Where is it in the records?

MS. SOBEL: In the motion for summary judgment, you produced a memo that GR sent to Mr. Mathur. There is a response from GR to the dean of his school, who I believe was…Greg Bishopp.

MR. LARSEN: I’m still going to object to it. I haven’t instructed him not to answer.

MS. SOBEL: But they were submitted in the summary judgment motion.

MR. LARSEN: Could you please repeat the question?

MS. SOBEL: I will ask you a new question. When you had this discussion with GR about his concern about Roy Bauer’s publications, did you also discuss with [him] a complaint against him [i.e., about GR] about his teaching?

A I don’t recall….

Q But you were aware that GR had a discussion going on with Greg Bishopp about an investigation of GR’s teaching?

MR. LARSEN: Objection; vague and ambiguous.

A No, I don’t recall.

Q Did you ever become aware that complaints had been made that GR was bringing…religious indoctrination into the classroom?

A No complaint came in any official capacity to my desk that would have warranted any discussion on my part with him. So, along those lines, no discussion occurred.

Q And GR didn’t file a letter advising you of his concerns in this area?

A I believe, yeah, he had written some letter to that effect, but I did not get any complaint. I know he was expressing concerns. Generally, when there are complaints and concerns, they have to go through the college process, through the dean and so forth.

11. Evidence, please:

[Evidently, Professor GR told Mathur that he had been a victim of intimidation in the newsletters. In fact, at the time that he complained to Mathur, GR had not been criticized in the newsletters. It is true that, in the Nov. 16, 1998, issue of Dissent, in an article about Mathur’s tendency to praise only his friends, GR’s name briefly comes up. He is described, in passing, as a “’loyal’ Mathurian crony”—hardly an act of intimidation. (Further, the article goes out of its way to say that the faculty whom Mathur praises “undoubtedly…deserve commendation.”) So, below, when Mathur is challenged to cite the alleged intimidation tactics against GR in the newsletters, he comes up with squat.]

Q What is it in the [newsletters] that GR has told you has targeted him specifically on the basis of his Christian religious beliefs?

A [It] Seems that Professor Bauer may be commenting, is assuming, that there is some connection between GR and [the] religious right. There are some references to that in his newsletter.

Q Well, do you recall reading anything that named GR in connection with the religious right?

A I believe I have seen that.

Q What do you recall seeing?

A What I just mentioned that Professor Bauer was trying to connect or associate Professor R with religious right support in the election of two members of the board of trustees, and personally I didn’t see any connection, and I can understand why Professor R will feel intimidated by this kind of approach.

Q Mr. Mathur, do you recall seeing anything in the newsletter that directly linked GR by name to the religious right in the election of the school board?

A I’m giving you my best recollection. I will have to look at those newsletters to be able to comment accurately on them.

Q But as you sit here today, do you recall having read anything in the newsletters that identified GR by name in connection with the religious right and the election of the trustees?

A Seems to me, yes, that there was, that he is showing connection, that Professor Bauer is trying to portray that connection between R and the religious right.

Q When you say the “religious right,” what are you referring to?

A I don’t know. I’m just saying what I have seen in the newsletter.

Q Well, was it a reference to a family values group, the Christian Coalition? Can you recall anything more specific?

A I don’t….

Q On what basis did you make the statement in your sworn declaration that an individual who has requested anonymity believes he or she is being targeted by Bauer because of his religious beliefs, i.e., Christianity?

A That statement comes from Profesor R telling me about his interpretation, his concerns about the statements that he read in the newsletter. But the point that I was making earlier was based on my own observation.

Q When GR conveyed this to you, did you ask GR what statements in the newspaper caused him to form that conclusion?…

A Just he pointed out the articles. He made reference to the articles in the newsletters.

Q When you read those articles, did you see his name mentioned in those articles along with the religious right?

A I have to look at those particular newsletters….

Q And did you ask Professor Bauer if he was the author of that article [that allegedly connected R with the Christian right]?…

A No, I did not.

Q Do you have independent knowledge that would cause you to form the conclusion that he is the author?

A Yes.

Q What is that?

A It is pretty well known in the college that he is the author….

Q Have you asked him?…

A No….

12. Properly dealing with student complaints:

[Mathur here describes how student complaints should be handled. As we’ll see, these standards somehow were not enforced in Professor Bauer’s case.]

Q So tell me what the process is when you get a complaint.

A Complaint about teaching?

Q Yes.

A …[W]ell, first of all [students] will discuss the concerns with the instructor…in an effort to resolve the matter at that level. If the issue is not resolved, then the student can follow the district’s
procedure—district policy and procedures—in handling the grievance.

…[T]here are two different policies. One is for handling grade grievance; the other is instructional grievance. And then the student could meet with the dean in an effort to seek informal resolution or follow the policy and proceed with the written complaint, and that will be handled by the dean and then it can go to the vice president of instruction….

13. The “whore” rumor:

[Professor Bauer has never been the object of student complaints. Suddenly, in the Spring of ’98, a rumor (allegedly) surfaced that Bauer had told a student, in class, that “you look like a whore.” Naturally, Raghu ran with it. In the end, the matter was dropped, owing to the absence of any student complaint.]

Q Now, you are familiar with the complaint brought against Professor Bauer in the late spring, early summer of ’98, that he had made an inappropriate remark to a student during class?…

A I was not made aware of that in any official manner.

Q What about an unofficial manner? Were you made aware of it?

A I had heard some things to that effect.

Q Who did you hear it from?

A I may have heard from GR himself.

Q We are talking about Professor Bauer [right]?

A I’m sorry. Then I misunderstood. Please repeat the question. I thought we were taking about GR.

Q No. I’m asking now: did you become aware of a complaint against Professor Bauer in the late spring or early summer of ’98, alleging that he had made an inappropriate remark to a student during class?

A Okay. I think the question has shifted.

Q No. That’s the question that was asked. We could have it read back if you like.

MR. LARSEN: He obviously misunderstood.

A Yes. I misunderstood. So I don’t know what I said if I misunderstood the question earlier.

MR. LARSEN: Well, okay. I think the record shows that. But now let’s focus in on the current question.

A Yes. I heard about that complaint.

Q How did you hear about it?

A I heard from a full-time faculty member.

Q Who?

A Professor Craig Grossman.

Q What did Professor Craig Grossman tell you?

A He said that he had heard that Professor Bauer had made an inappropriate comment in the class in front of other students and it was a serious matter.

Q When Craig Grossman told you this, did you document it?

A Well, no, I did not document it, but I discussed the matter with the V.P. of student services, Dr. Pauline Merry, who is responsible for handling such complaints and concerns….

Q Did [Grossman] tell you how he had heard about this alleged statement by Professor Bauer?

A No. I don’t recall that he did. He may have, but I don’t recall.

Q Did he tell you who the student was?

A No.

Q Did you ask him?

A I don’t remember whether I asked or didn’t. I may have asked him, but I don’t remember the whole conversation.

Q Did you tell him to tell the student to discuss the matter with Professor Bauer? [According to district policies, students are to be instructed to attempt to resolve problems of this kind with the instructor first. If that is unsatisfactory, the matter goes to the instructor’s dean.]

A I don’t think that our conversation led to that point that I would have advised him of that….

Q Did [Grossman] tell you how he knew about this incident?

A It seems to me that the way he conveyed this message to me was that as if it was known on campus. That’s the impression I got.

Q What was it about how he conveyed the message to you that caused you to form the impression that it was, quote, “known on campus”?

A Something to the effect that people are talking about this thing, that Bauer has made this kind of comment to a student.

Q Did you ask who was talking about it?

A No, I didn’t.

Q What was the comment Professor Bauer was supposed to have made to the student?

A That “you look like a whore.” This is what he had allegedly said to this student.

Q Did you ascertain from anyone else whether Professor Bauer was heard to have said that? Did you ascertain from anyone else whether they had heard Professor Bauer say that?

A No, didn’t….

Q Did you tell Craig Grossman to talk to Professor Bauer’s dean?

A No. Under the law, as I understood, I felt that once this kind of information comes to my knowledge, that I should ask the V.P., the vice president of student services, to look into the matter.

Q What law are you talking about?

A The law about sexual harassment.

Q What law about sexual harassment? Are you talking about a policy at IVC or the general law of sexual harassment?

A Well, the board policy about sexual harassment in particular….

Q Did you ask Dr. Merry to look into [this rumor]?

A Yes…I met with her specifically for this purpose in my office….

Q What did you say to Dr. Merry?

A I basically said that this matter had come to my attention and that, as the person responsible for handling such matters, she needs to investigate the matter.

Q Did you tell her anything further about what it was that Craig Grossman had conveyed to you?

A No. I basically conveyed what I heard about Professor Bauer’s statement in the classroom and asked her to investigate the matter.

Q What did you convey to her that you had heard?

A What I heard was that Professor Bauer had told a female student in front [of] other students that “you look like a whore”….

Q Had you heard [about the remark] from anyone besides Craig Grossman at this time?

A I don’t think so.

Q When Craig Grossman told you that people were talking about this on campus, did you ask him who was talking about it?

A I didn’t feel—no, I did not.

Q Did Craig Grossman tell you it was a student that he also taught to whom this comment had been made?…

A I don’t remember his saying that.

Q You didn’t ask him any questions about who the student was at the time that he stopped by your office to tell you this information; is that correct?

A I don’t recall. I may have asked him, but obviously there was no name. If I had known the name, I would have passed that along to Dr. Pauline Merry.

Q And you didn’t ask him who else was talking about this on campus?

A No, I did not.

Q Did you ask him how he had learned of it?

A I don’t recall. I may have asked him, but I don’t recall…Once the semester was over and the investigation had not started…I asked her what is the status of the investigation now the semester is over….

Q What did Dr. Merry say?

A She said, “How do I do the investigation?”

Q What did you say when she said that?

A I said, “Well, talk to [Bauer’s] students”….

Q At that point, had you identified through any source the name of the student to whom the statement was allegedly made?

A That is the responsibility of the vice president…If she needed to identify the name of the student, she had the means to be able to do that…

…I wanted a written report of the investigation.

Q Did she provide you with a written report?

A Yes, she did.

[SOBEL to LARSEN] We don’t have that [document] either, Counsel.

14. Mathur’s secret files:

[According to Article IX of the faculty contract, “There shall be only one official personnel file for each faculty member…The faculty member shall have access to his/her file…A copy [of any material placed in a faculty member’s file] shall be given to the faculty member prior to the time of insertion in the personnel file.” The upshot: Mathur is prohibited from keeping a faculty file in his office that is distinct from the personnel file at the district. He does it anyway.]

Q Where is the written report located today?

A At the office of the president.

Q That’s your office?

A Yes.

Q Did you provide Professor Bauer with a copy of that report?

A It is the responsibility of the vice president of student services to handle investigations and dissemination of such reports, so I don’t know whether she did or didn’t.

Q Well, you have the report in a file in your office, correct?

A Yes.

Q And did you ask her if she provided Professor Bauer with a copy of that report? [She hadn’t.]…

A No. I did not ask her.

Q And you understand that, if you maintain documents regarding any personnel, that is part of somebody’s personnel file and that all the regulations that you are responsible for implementing—regarding access to personal records and the right to respond and all that—apply to that, correct?

MR. LARSEN: I’m going to object; that’s argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence, calls for a legal conclusion.

MS. SOBEL: That may be true, and I will allow that that is probably a valid objection. I also want to be really clear that, if this is an independent privacy violation right of my client, that he is going to proceed on it at this point….

Q Did you ever discuss with Professor Bauer the investigation conducted by Dr. Merry?

A No, I did not….

Q If you get a report like this [from the vice president], who do you expect them to give it to?

MR. LARSEN: Objection; vague and ambiguous. You can go ahead and answer.

A I’m trying to think and answer to the best of my knowledge.

Q Well, Dr. Mathur, you have said like three times now, I think, that you would expect the vice president of student services to disseminate [the report]. Who would you expect the vice president of student services to disseminate such a report to?

A I don’t know.

Q Why would you then expect them to disseminate it at all?

A I’m making an assumption that [the] vice president of student services in charge of handling such matter[s] would know the protocol of what to do with the report once the investigation is completed. The vice president had been in that position for some time, and I’m coming in as a new president…

Q You are not coming in as a new president for IVC. You had already been the president for at least a year at the time of this investigation, correct?

A Yes, but this is first—

MR. LARSEN: Just answer the question.

A Yes.

Q You have been a faculty member in this college district for 20 years, correct?

A Correct.

Q And you have held various positions, administrative positions, in the district, correct?…As the president of the college, is there a policy that you are aware of that would indicate to whom the vice president of student services is expected to disseminate the results of an investigation of a complaint of harassment or discrimination?

A The question was such a long one, would you please repeat it? [It is repeated.] I’m not aware.

Q So when you said that you had made an assumption that the vice president of student affairs would know what to do with the investigation, what do you base that assumption on?

A There is an assumption, an assumption.

Q Well, you are a scientist and an educator. Assumptions are usually based on some premise. They are not—are you saying you pulled this out of thin air or—

A Well, I pull it out from the fact that [the] vice president of student services have been in that position for many years and would know, since she was the one who was responsible for conducting such investigations.

Q Did you ever ask her who she had disseminated the report to, if anyone?

A No, I did not.

Q Do you still have a copy of this report in your office today?

A I believe so.

Q What else is located in that file?

A That’s all.

Q Do you maintain any other files concerning Professor Bauer?

A We maintain in the office of the president files on all faculty members, and even before I got into this assignment those files continued to be maintained

Q Do you have more than one file in the office of the president [at IVC] regarding Professor Bauer?

A Well, there is one file for each of the faculty members. Only one file. [Ed.: there is one file for each faculty member at the district offices.]

Q And the report of the investigation conducted by Dr. Merry is in the file with everything else regarding Professor Bauer?

A I don’t know. I will have to check whether that report is in that particular file or a separate file along with some other documents. I will have to check.

Q What would cause you to think it might be in a separate file?

A I don’t know. I don’t know how to answer that question….

Q Now, you said that [the report] might be in a separate file with other documents. What other documents might be in the file that the investigation is in?

MR. LARSEN: Objection; calls for speculation.

A I don’t recall….

[Note: recently, Bauer raised the issue of the report with Sabrina Ruminer, Director of HR, who then called up Mathur. She reports that Mathur denied having a “report” on Bauer in his office. According to Ruminer, Mathur explained that he keeps only “administrators’ notes,” evidently contradicting his own sworn testimony.]

15. Raghu’s ever-changing “threats” story:

[During the May 21, 1998, board meeting, Mathur, stung by a recent 74% faculty vote of no confidence, lashed out at an alleged faculty cabal who were, he said, “at the very core” of the vote against him. In the course of his rantings, three instuctors were named, including Bauer. Remarkably, without offering a shred of evidence, he asserted that “People in this core in the past have sent me mail threats saying, ‘Go back to your country.’ These threats have come from some of these people, I am confident of it. When I went to the Sheriff’s Department and exposed it, all of a sudden those mail threats stopped.” He ended his remarks with a rhetorical flourish, describing how he had arrived on “American shores some 31 years ago with eight dollars in my pocket [and]…a dream.”]

Q Did you ever make any statements to the effect that you had received e-mail you perceived to be threats against you?

A Yes.

Q When did you make those statements?

A I made a statement to that effect at a board meeting….

Q What did you tell the board about the e-mail you received?

A That I have received threats. I don’t recall exactly what I said, but something to the effect that I have received threats from a small group of faculty staff members, and that’s essentially what I said.

Q How many threats did you receive?

A I believe I have received about three or four.

Q Were they all received close in time to each other?

A Over a period of time. I don’t know if I would characterize [it as] close together.

Q Over what period of time were they received?

A About six months or so.

Q Did you print them out?

A Some were already imprinted. I received them in the form of letters, and I remember one was a voice mail.

Q So it is not correct then that you received e-mail threats; is that correct?

A I may have received them, but I don’t recall right now.

Q You don’t recall if you received any e-mail threats?

A I’m thinking. I believe I have received one or two….

Q Now, let’s talk about the first threat you recall receiving. Was that voicemail, letter, or e-mail?

A That was a letter.

Q Do you have that letter today?

A I had turned the letters over to the sheriff’s department….

Q Is there some document you can consult to find out the name of the individual at the OC Sheriff’s Department you consulted with?

A I did try, but I think maybe—yeah. I can try.

Q Well, you said it’s somebody you work[ed] with [at the Sheriff’s Dept.]. In what capacity did you work with the person?

A Whatever his official capacity was. I don’t remember. But I went to file a complaint, reported it to the receptionist. She brought one of the inspectors and I told the story and he wanted copies of those [letters] turned over. And he advised me to talk it up in the college, which I did. And this was after two or three such letters I have received, and in the time being, it stopped. The threats had stopped.

Q Where did you go to report this?

A Laguna Hills Sheriff’s Department….

Q Do you recall when it was that you went to the…Sheriff’s Department?…

A I believe it was sometime in 1990.

Q Did you receive these in 1990?

A Yes.

Q Was there some reason why you waited nine years to raise this with the board?

A It’s because the threats were becoming more violent in nature in terms of references to dropping granite or in terms of attacks on me, on my implications of attacks on my body and so forth. I felt that I had to convey my concerns to the board. [Note: when Mathur made his “threat” charges at the board meeting (May 1998), the “granite,” “MAIM,” and “lurid gas” items—indeed, the entire “Sampson Six”—had not yet appeared.]

Q Between 1990 and the time Professor Bauer started publishing the Dissent and ‘Vine, which I believe was sometime in late ’97, how many letters did you receive conveying threats to you?

A As I indicated, three to four letters I received, and I did report at the time also to the chancellor of the district.

Q I understand that. You indicated, if I understood your prior testimony—and if I’m incorrect, correct me—that you had received three or four letters at the time you went to the OC Sheriff’s Department, which now turns out to be in 1990?

MR. LARSEN: What do you mean “now” turns out to be 1990? Probably always been.

MS. SOBEL: The witness testified that he went to the board a year ago. The e-mail threats have now become several letters and voice mail and perhaps one or two e-mails, and the letters were all in 1990, so I’m just trying to make sure that I have this chronology accurate.

MR. LARSEN: Your questions and tone of voice are argumentative. That’s all. Go ahead.

MS. SOBEL: I appreciate it, but you can imagine my surprise that these [incidents] turned out to be eight years earlier.

Q In between the letter that you received that caused you to go to the…Sheriff’s Department and the time you spoke to the board, how many letters did you receive conveying threats to you?

A All together including e-mail, voice mail, written letters—

Q I’m just asking for the letters right now, Mr. Mathur.

A It was all together about half a dozen.

Q When were the other three or two received by you? Were they after you went to the sheriff’s department?

A Yes.

Q When was that?

A Some were received in the last couple of years.

Q When you say the last couple of years, Mr. Mathur, can you be more specific? We are only talking about two or three letters here, so were they received in 1990 after you went to the sheriff’s department, or were they received in 1995?

A Well, some [were] received in the 1990 time frame. Some have been received in the last—two or three have also been received in the last couple [of] years.

Q Do you have copies of any of the letters? We are now up to about six or seven…..

A I will have to look into my files and find out if I do or don’t.

Q Did you turn over the subsequent letters to the OC Sheriff’s Department as well?

A This time, I didn’t because—

MR. LARSEN: Well, you answered the question.

Q Why didn’t you go back to the OC Sheriff’s Department, if you received more letters?

A Because of my experience from the first time. What they advised me was to talk it up, and that’s what I’ve done, and that’s why I chose to talk about it at the public board meeting.

Q Had you received the letters just prior to the time you spoke at the public board meeting?

A It’s possible. But I can’t give an exact time frame.

Q Were any of the letters signed?

A They were unsigned.

Q What do you recall was the content of the first letter you received?

A “Go back to your country where you came from.”

Q And that was one of the letters in 1990, correct?

A No. This is one of the letters I receive now.

Q Is that the first letter you recall receiving?

A In the recent times, yes.

Q Was the letter handwritten or typed?

A It was typed.

Q Was it typed in just a regular type face or words cut out of a magazine and pasted on paper?

A No. Typed.

Q Was there anything about the letter that was distinctive that suggested to you what the source might have been?

A No. Seemed it was written by someone from within the college.

Q Why did it seem like it was written by someone from within the college?

A Because this is where Bauer was publishing newsletters and creating a hostile work environment.

Q When do you recall receiving this letter?

A Before I made those comments at the public board meeting.

Q But you don’t know when?

A I can’t give you the exact time….

Q Did you look at it to see where it was mailed from?

A Yes.

Q What did it say?

A Santa Ana.

Q And did you keep the envelope?

A I may have. Like I said, I don’t know whether I saved the letters or not, based on my experience with the previous situation.

Q Did you inform anybody at the time you received the letter that you had received it?

A Informed my family.

Q Did you receive the letter at home or at work?

A At home….

Q Who did you show the letter to in your family?

A Showed it to my wife….

Q Now, other than saying “Go back to your country where you came from,” what else did the letter say?

A I don’t recall. That was the statement that stands out in my mind.

Q How long was the letter?

A About half a page.

Q And you don’t recall anything else said in the letter?

A No.

Q Other than the fact that Professor Bauer was publishing his newsletter, do you have any other basis on which you form the conclusion this came from somebody within the Irvine Valley College campus?

A No, I don’t.

16. Again with the non sequiturs:

Q What is the next letter you recall receiving?

A The next letter had some language to the effect against Asians, Asian Americans. Since I come from India, there were references to anti-Asians, and there was usage of some foul language.

Q Can you be more specific?

A It is not my nature to use such foul words; therefore I don’t remember the exact words used in that message.

Q Can you give me an idea of what was said? I’m trying to understand what the context of this letter is. Maybe you can use a euphemism.

A Well, the implication again was, you know, Asians are not welcome. Go back where you came from. That’s how I was connecting the message.

Q How did you draw that inference?

A Based on the first letter that I received saying “go back [to the] country where you came from.”

Q What was it in the second letter that caused you to draw the inference that [that] was the import of the second letter?

A Using the foul language and describing the Asians, that they didn’t belong here.

Q On that basis, did you also form the conclusion that that letter came from within the Irvine Valley College Campus?

A I believe so.

Q Did you ever identify particular members of the Irvine Valley College community that you believed were the source of these letters?….

A I may have made a general reference to some names at that public board meeting.

Q What was the general reference that you may have made?

A I will have to look at a transcript of my comments.

Q What do you recall, as you sit here today?

A That these are some of the people who have been making some anti-Mathur comments, and I wouldn’t be surprised that these letters are maybe coming from one of these individuals.

Q Who are the individuals that you named?

A I don’t recall all of [the] names, but I think I mentioned Roy Bauer.

Q Who else did you mention?

A I don’t remember, and I don’t want to mention some other name.

Q Did you mention Kate Clark?

A I may have mentioned her….

17. The “case” against Bob Deegan:

Q What about Bob Deegan? Did you make the allegation that he could be the source of these communications?

A I may have mentioned his name.

Q Do you know Bob Deegan?

A Yes. He worked at the college….

Q What were the anti-Mathur comments you believe he made that led you to conclude he might be the source of these communications?

A Mr. Deegan has been pretty hostile to me in college meetings.

Q What were the comments that he made that caused you to believe that he was hostile to you in college meetings and [that he] might therefore be the source of these communications?

A Well, on one occasion, in a meeting, he was [asking]…about if I were going to be a candidate for the permanent [president] job. This is when I was acting president. [He asked me] whether I was going to be a candidate for the permanent job. I said, “I don’t know.” I mean this was a college-wide meeting held within two or three weeks of my appointment as acting president. And that if I were offered the position, would I accept it….

Q What is it about that exchange that caused you to form the belief that Bob Deegan might be the source of these communications that you have identified as anti-Asian…?

A It was just the manner in which he was asking the question in an extremely hostile manner.

Q Describe for me what you mean by that. What was it about him that caused you to form the conclusion that he was extremely hostile?

A He was trying to humiliate me.

Q What was it about asking whether you intended to be a candidate for the permanent position that was intended to humiliate you?

A He was trying to create an environment where I would be pressured to say, “No, I would not accept the position. I’m just here for the acting job.”

Q Why was that intended to humiliate you, in your perception?

A Because I’m not aware of any such questions being asked by any—by someone like him or anyone else.

Q And that’s it? That’s the sole basis on which you reach that conclusion?

MR. LARSEN: I think that misstates his testimony.

MS. SOBEL: Do you have any other facts to give?

A No.

18. The “case” against Kate:

Q What is it about anything done or said by Kate Clark that caused you to believe that she might be the source of these communications?

A As soon as I was appointed acting president of the college, within the week, as we were walking outside of my office to the student services building, she said, “We are going to shut down the college.” [Ed.: Clark has always vehemently denied this absurd charge.] [It] meant to me that she was not for my being president of the college. I know she was not happy about my appointment.

Q Is it your contention that anybody who was not happy about your appointment might be the source of these communications?

A No.

Q Is it your contention that anyone who expressed to you the fact that they were not happy about your appointment might be the source of these communications?

A No.

Q Is there anything else that Kate Clark said that caused you to form the belief that she might be the source of these communications that you have identified?

A Would you please repeat the question?

Q …I will ask a different question. Is it your contention that the individuals you have identified—Roy Bauer, Kate Clark, and Bob Deegan—may be the source of the letters you received in 1990 that you took to the sheriff’s department?

A Maybe.

Q And on what do you form the belief that they may be the source of the 1990 letters?

A There has been a group of faculty members who have not been friendly to me, and these individuals have maintained [a] certain distance or hostility toward me.

19. Pam’s “hostility”:

[One should be mindful that Mathur has long viewed himself as a “victim” of “enemies” within the district, a fact nicely illustrated by Mathur’s letter to Chancellor Sneed of October, 1989, which had evidently been provoked by Mathur’s failure, once again, to secure an administrative position. In that letter, he thunders against Clella Wood (who got the job), Terry Burgess, [trustee] Shirly Gallatly, Mas Hayashi, Seth Hochwald, and others, accusing them of various crimes, including racism, laziness, incompetence, and even prevarication! “I am,” he writes in typical illiterate fashion, “the best qualified to do the job 100 times better than Clella Wood or any other dean in this position at IVC on any day of any week, month or year.” –One must also remember that Mathur has a long history of lying and violating process, which eventually occasioned a formal censure by the instructional council on April 5, 1994. Of the 15 people present for the censure vote, only 3 voted “no.”]

Q Did you hold some position within the community college district in 1990 that was other than professor?

A I believe I did. I was serving as chair of the School of Physical Sciences and Technology.

Q You have already testified [that] Roy Bauer didn’t teach in that school, correct?

A No [he did not].

Q Did Kate Clark?

A No.

Q What about Bob Deegan?

A No.

Q Did you have contact with any of [these]…three…in 1990 that would have caused you to form the belief that they were the source of these letters?

A Bob Deegan may have served as chair of the School of Guidance and Counseling about that time…We [Bob Deegan, Pam Deegan, and Raghu] were members of the instructional council.

Q Were you the only three people on the instructional council?

A No. There were others.

Q Was there something about the Deegans that caused you to believe [that] they may be the source of the letters and not the other people on the instructional council?

A Both the Deegans have been pretty hostile to me for a while.

Q What did they say in 1990—around the time these letters arrived—that caused you to form the belief [that] they might have been the source of those letters?

A Just their general hostile demeanor….

[At this point, Raghu repeats a hostile comment about him, allegedly uttered by Pam, that was reported to him by one of his cronies.]

…..
Q…Was there some interaction that you had had with Pam Deegan that stands out in your mind just prior to learning that she had possibly made this “statement” about you?

A Well, we are members of the instructional council, and as chair I work[ed] with the vice president of instruction and the dean of instructional programs [i.e., the position Pam held] on a regular basis.

Q So there was no particular incident that stands out in your mind regarding your interaction with Pam Deegan?

A It’s just that she has been hostile to me.

20. It’s racist if I say it is:

[For a time, Bauer, who has never sent Mathur or anyone else “threatening” messages, referred to the president as “Mr. Goo”—a clear allusion to the bungling cartoon character, Mr. Magoo. When, in December, the Chancellor asserted, idiotically, that the term alluded to “gook,” Bauer immediately ceased using it. On occasion, Bauer, among others, has referred to the entire Board Majority/Union/Mathur axis by using the Star Wars term “the Dark Side.” Mathur views Bauer’s use of the phrase as racist.]

Q Now, are there any statements that Kate Clark has made to you directly that caused you to form the belief that she has made statements that are derogatory about you based on your national origin?

A Not openly to me.

Q What have you learned that she has said to other people that would be derogatory about you on the basis of your national origin?

A I’m not aware of any, except her general hostility towards me….

Q …You have addressed Professor Bauer’s use of the word “[Mr.] Goo” to describe you sometimes. And other than that allegation, can you identify for me what other references by Professor Bauer you view to be racially motivated against you?

A He has also used reference to “Dark Side,” and since my color of my skin is dark, I felt that he was racist in his remarks, his comments.

Q Anything else besides that and the “[Mr.] Goo” statement?

A Well, as mentioned here in the declaration, “Goo” in reference to extension of “goo” to “gook” and “dark side” put together—along with the messages that I received [that] we talked about earlier—seem to indicate that there is a pattern of thinking that leads to racist thinking comments.

Q Do you have any basis for forming the belief that Professor Bauer is the source of the letters you received in 1990?

A I don’t have direct evidence.

Q Do you have indirect evidence?

A It’s mentioned in the declaration [namely, Bauer’s use of the term “Mr. Goo,” etc.].

Q Other than his use of this term [“Mr. Goo”] in 1997, do you have any other “indirect evidence” that Professor Bauer is the source of the letters you received in 1990?

A I don’t know about 1990, but the letters that I received in [the] ‘97/’98 time frame, before I made my comments at the board meeting, coupled with what I mentioned here in the declaration [about “Goo” and “Dark Side”] seem to indicate that there is racist thinking on the part of Bauer.

Q Well, that isn’t the question that I asked. The question was what basis you had for believing he was the source of the letters.

MR. LARSEN: I think that’s the question he answered.

MS. SOBEL: [You’re saying] That you believe he has racist thinking—so, ergo, he is the source of the letters?

MR. LARSEN: No. I think he said more than that, counsel.

MS. SOBEL: Is that the inference I am to draw from this? Is that what you are suggesting?

A What I’m looking at is references in the newsletter, in his publications, and I look at what is mentioned in the letters, and I’m saying it seems to be a connection.

Q Okay. Has anybody told you [that] Professor Bauer wrote those letters?

A No.

Q Have you asked anyone if they knew who wrote the letters?

A I don’t know—no, I have not.

Q The ‘97/’98 letters: did you provide them to the board?

A No, I did not.

21. The mysterious “altered” voice:

Q Now you also testified that you received voice mail. When did you receive voice mail threats?

A That was about three years ago.

Q Was it a male or female who called?

A It was [a] male voice….

Q What did the caller say?

A …basically, the caller said, “Leave. Get out of here.”

Q How long was the message?

A Less than a minute.

Q Did you tape it [to preserve it]?

A No, I did not tape it.

Q Did you play it for anyone else?

A Yes. I played it for my office mate…Walter Floser….

Q Other than “Leave, go,” can you be more specific about what this minute-long message said?

A Basically, the message said, “Leave, or something bad will happen to you.”

Q Well, it doesn’t take long to say that. What else was said, if it took about a minute?

MR. LARSEN: Well, I imagine that’s an estimation.

A An estimation.

Q “Leave, or something bad will happen to you” takes about three seconds. Do you recall anything else that was said in the remaining 57 seconds…?

A That was the essence of the message….

Q Did campus safety ask you to save the message?

A Yes. I did for a while.

Q Did they ask you [to]?

A Yes, they did.

Q Did they ever come and make a tape recording of it?

A I don’t recall that they did.

Q Did they tell you what the point was of saving it if they—

A In case it was repeated again; then there will be record….

Q Did you ask campus safety whether you should tape record it to save it?

A I felt, if I need to tape record it, they would have so advised me at that time.

Q I don’t think that’s the question I asked you, Mr. Mathur…Other than this one message, did you receive any other voice mail messages that you perceive to be a threat?

A No, I did not….

Q Well, let’s go a little further into this, Mr. Mathur. Okay? You said it was a male caller, so it’s not Kate Clark that called; is that correct?

MR. LARSEN: Assumes facts not in evidence.

Q Is Kate Clark a male?

A No.

Q When you heard the message, did you think it was Kate Clark’s voice you were hearing?

A The voice was altered….

Q Can you describe the voice to me? Was it high pitched? Low pitched? Raspy?

A It was medium pitch.

Q Now, when you got this call, given the fact that you had received all these letters, did you consider contacting the sheriff’s department?

A Yes, I considered it.

Q Did you do so?

A I did not do so.

Q Did you discuss it with anyone whether you should contact the sheriff’s department?

A I discussed it with my wife.

Q Did you inform the chief of campus safety that you had received threatening letters prior to this voice mail?

A No, I did not report to the police chief….

22. Alleged anti-Asian e-mail:

Q Now, you also said that you may have received one or two e-mails with threats in them; statements that you perceived as threats. Can you describe for me the first e-mail that you recall receiving that in your view contained a threat against your personal safety?

A I believe when I talk about that anti-Asian comment, that was an e-mail that I received.

Q I’m sorry. I thought it was one of the letters.

A I was referring to an e-mail at the time.

Q When you talk about the anti-Asian comments, are you talking about the one that was too disgusting to repeat here?

A Right.

Q But you said you showed that to your wife, I think?

A No. I told her about it.

Q You told her about it. I see. Did you print out that e-mail when you got it?

A No.

Q Did you look to see who had sent the e-mail?

A It was not indicated….

Q [The e-mail] was anti-Asian and you don’t use that language; is that correct?

A Correct.

Q And you don’t recall what language it is that you don’t use because you don’t use it, so you have wiped it out of your mind?

A That’s correct.

Q Other than that e-mail, have you received any other e-mails that you perceive to be threats.

A I don’t believe so.

Q Just so I understand it: we are down to one e-mail, one voice mail three years ago, and possibly five to seven letters; is that correct?

A Something like that.

Q Do you have any reason to believe that any of those documents, those communications, came from the same person or persons?

A I have no reason to believe that.

Q Other than Glenn Roquemore, is there anyone else you spoke to about the e-mail at or about the time you received it?

A I don’t recall….

23. My life is in danger:

Q How has your private life been disrupted by Professor Bauer’s publications?

A Well, when there are threats to my physical being and when I share this with my family, with my wife and two sons, it’s not a pleasant thought. I’ve discussed with my wife and family that these threats may come to fruition some day, that I may be killed, and that has obviously raised concerns with every member of my family.

Q Which threat is it that you think may come to fruition?

A I think the threats taken as a whole about dropping granite, maiming, killing through lurid gas or using gun, using a hatchet—any of those ways or some other ways that I could be killed. All of these references point to the fact that there is a state of mind. Professor Bauer’s concerns indicate that he is unstable and my life is in danger, and I believe that wholeheartedly.

24. “Evidence,” Raghu style:

Q Do you believe that based on anything else?

A To me that’s plenty of evidence, considering what has happened in [the] Columbine High School incident, what has happened in the shooting incident recently in Georgia and in Texas….

Q Other than what you have identified from the publications, is there anything else that you base that conclusion on?

A I’m considering everything along these lines that has been said in these publications, the letters and e-mails that I have received. I’m looking at all direct and indirect evidence. I’m considering what my fellow colleagues have told me within the college, whose names I have given to you who indicated that he is going off the deep end. When I look at the totality of all of this information, I am deeply concerned about the health and safety of my being. I have two small children, 13 and 11 years old. I feel a great sense of obligation to them, while I also feel a great sense of obligation to do the very best I can to provide an environment at Irvine Valley College which is positive, professional, [and] constructive for all faculty, all staff, all students, so that we do the very best we can for the students and the community and the public that we are supposed to serve.

25. Mathur’s inexplicable failure to document the alleged “threats”:

Q Now, Mr. Mathur, when you [spoke] before the board about these threats you had received, did you tell the board you had received five to seven letters, email and voice mail?….

A I was trying to convey a message to the board.

Q That’s not the question I asked you. The question I asked you was, did you tell them you had received five to seven letters, voice mail, and e-mail threats?

A I don’t know. I will have to look at my transcript as to what I said. That will stand for itself as to what I’ve said.

Q Is there some reason why, if you thought these threats were so serious, you didn’t save any of the documentation?

MR. LARSEN: Misstates his testimony,…counsel.

A The fact of the matter is that I turned over, the first time around, the original documents to the sheriff’s department [in 1990]…[The] second time around, when that happens, what do I do? Learn from the first experiences, especially with the sheriff’s department. They advised me, “talk it out, talk it up, make it public.” Which I did. And this time I could make it public in the most comprehensive way at a public board meeting [in 1998]. It wasn’t easy for me to do this. I know that I was increasing the danger to my life even more so because I was going on the attack. I was going to point out that these things have been happening.

Q Okay. Since you talked about it at the public board meeting a year or so ago, how many letters did you get that threatened you?

A I’ve not gotten the letters, but the references to violence in the newsletters—Dissent and ‘Vine—have increased….

Q Did you save copies of the recent letters? You said you received the e-mail and the voice mail.

A No, I did not.

Q If you thought these letters were so serious, is there some reason why you didn’t think you should save copies of this documentation?

A I did save them for a short time.

Q Of the e-mail and the voice mail?

A Yes. I indicated that I saved it for a short time.

Q You didn’t print out the e-mail, did you?

A But I kept it on the e-mail [the computer].

Q But you didn’t print it out?

A No.

Q And you didn’t show it to anyone else?

A I don’t believe so. I may have, but I don’t know.

Q And you don’t recall anything it said other than this general statement?

MR. LARSEN: He has answered that now about four times.

A: Want it one more time?

Q Yes, I do. [To Larsen:] Because I don’t think that your client, your witness’s, answers are as specific as they might be, and I just want to make really sure so that nothing shows up later when this witness testifies about what he perceives to be threats against him that he doesn’t even document.

MR. LARSEN: Argumentative.

MS. SOBEL: That’s right. But I will be. If you are going to interrupt with that kind of an objection, then I think that it’s appropriate to be really clear about what he will or will not legitimately testify to later on when he suddenly remembers who told him everything….

26. Seven out of a thousand:

Q Who are the college employees who indicated to you that they believe Bauer’s publications have created a hostile working environment for them?

A One is GR. [Also:] Glenn Roquemore, Helen Locke, Laura U’ren, Ray Chandos, Sherry Miller-White and Ken Woodward—based on their reading of the newsletters. Those are the names that come to mind now. [Ed.: Locke and U’Ren have not been discussed in the newsletters.]

Q How many employees are there in the South Orange County Community College District to your knowledge?…[W]e are talking about well over a thousand people at the two campuses?

A Easily.

Q Other than the seven names you have identified, [was there] anybody else [among] the over 1,000 people [who told] you that they view Professor Bauer’s publication as creating a hostile environment for them?…

A I’m sure there are others…

Q Are there a lot of others that you believe have expressed this view to you, or a few?…[Y]ou have identified, I think, seven names. Are there more than seven other people that you believe have informed you that they view [the publications] as creating hostility?

A I believe so.

Q And you can’t remember any of them; is that correct?

A Right….

27. Mathur violates the contract again:

[According to the faculty contract, all elements of the evaluation report for an instructor must derive from the evaluation process. Nevertheless, in the Fall of 1998, Mathur began to insert critical remarks in the teaching evaluations of his faculty critics, despite his having no involvement whatsoever in the evaluation process.]

Q When did you talk to Dr. Rivas [formerly, Bauer’s dean] about adding a comment to Professor Bauer’s evaluation?

A After I received Professor Bauer’s evaluation.

Q What was it that caused you to contact Dean Rivas about adding a comment?

A The evaluation was a positive evaluation about [Bauer’s] teaching from the dean. My concern as a college president was that we need Professor Bauer to address any issues, concerns, grievances that we may have through the college’s channels of communication and policies, procedures and that he was becoming a negative and disruptive influence on the operation of the college, and I was concerned about that.

Q Because he criticized you?

A Not at all….

28. Tempers flare; Carol kicks butt:

Q Is Professor Bauer the only professor you perceive to be hostile to you?

A There are a few others.

Q Other than Kate Clark, who else do you perceive to be hostile to you?

MR. LARSEN: What is the relevance, counsel?….

MS. SOBEL: [My inquiries today do] have a lot to do with this proceeding. Your witness’s contention here is that Professor Bauer was angry, and so he went after Mr. Mathur, and certainly Professor Bauer’s contention as we have set it forth in our papers is that he engaged in legitimate speech and was the target of attack by Mr. Mathur, including the announcement that he and Kate Clark and Bob Deegan had sent these e-mails that now turn out to be only one e-mail, a voice mail, and some letters over a period of a decade, none of which Mr. Mathur has copies of.

So I think…turnaround is fair…and you have filed declaration after declaration in this case about the people that you believe are ridiculed by my client and won’t come forward, and Mr. Mathur has testified about this hostile environment. And so I am entitled to know whether it’s my client who is hostile—particularly since the judge has already ruled that it is absurd to suggest that Roy Bauer’s publication is the sole or primary source of hostility on that campus.

MR. LARSEN: Well, I think you overstate the judge’s ruling—just so the record is clear, No. 1. No. 2, I think you are into a lot of areas that are not raised by your pleadings. You know, I recognize…some of the relevance. I see that your client—obviously, you have evidenced a certain level of hostility toward this witness in both the tone of your voice and the comments.

MS. SOBEL: Less than you evidenced to my client—whose deposition you videotaped....

But can I say one thing? We are almost at 1:30. We have both now postured. Maybe this would be a good time to break until the next date for this witness’s deposition.

MR. LARSEN: It would be a good time to break, but my posturing certainly got cut off.

MS. SOBEL: Posture, David.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Trolls and flamers will be cursed by our team of black magicians