Thursday, May 3, 2007

The verdict is in


WHATEVER ELSE may be true of Aracely Mora's case against Raghu Mathur, to the trial observer, there can be little doubt that something was very wrong with (1) the Poindexter hire and (2) protections from harassment for women at IVC and the SOCCCD. Without doubt, Poindexter was a disastrous incompetent, a point that is not disputed by the district. Nor is it disputed, apparently, that a simple phone call to Poindexter's previous employer would have made plain the man's incompetence and instability.

With regard to the protection of women, the district appears to be adopting the position that Poindexter was a poor manager, but not a harasser of women. But unless the witnesses at this trial are remarkably accomplished and organized liars, it is quite plain that female employees of the college were subjected to Poindexter's menacing behavior and the college did nothing to protect them. The jury did not judge that these women were protected from a menacing employee. Rather, it rejected the specific claim that Mathur failed to respond to a hostile work environment (for these women). (See Opening statements.)

Please note that the trial's verdict in no way challenges the fact that Poindexter was a disastrous and foolish hire (thank you, Raghu) or that there were people--women, in fact--who were allowed by the college/district to be terrorized by an employee. Remember: it wasn't until that employee got into a physical altercation that the institution pulled him out of the workplace, despite many months of complaints about his menacing behavior. (The judge decided that Cely's attorney may not refer to the altercation.)

FOR THOSE OF US who have been observing the Mathur trial, it will come as no surprise that Cely lost her case today. It comes as no surprise because, during the course of the trial, we were increasingly aware and concerned that most of the jury of eight gave every indication of being a group of immature young people. One juror was always visibly bored and seemed to be sleeping much of the time. A young man (who works for a game show) seemed often to be snickering and joking to the delight of his new female friends on this jury.

My heart sank each time I looked at these people.

But enough about the jury. My advice: watch Mathur. See what he does now.


  1. Funny, you never mentioned any of this before. Face it, Ahab, you're just not honest with us. Pretending you knew this would be the outcome all along? Pathetic. We can't trust you anymore, Ahab. There's no other way to look at it.

  2. Nice spin there, Chunky.

  3. I'm not honest with you? On what do you base this inference? That I hoped Cely would win? That I regret that she lost?

    Dear 10:00. Go away.

  4. On what do I base the inference? You're kidding, right? Even you can't be that thick and delusional. I base the inference on days and days of reporting on the trial that never once clued us in that there was trouble in Mora's case. You never once mentioned your perception that the jury was immature. You somehow failed to note in this blog that the jury was skeptical of Mora and of all that fine testimony you reported on.

    Chunk -- actually I really do like the "Ahab" suggestion -- I base the inference on the fact that you're pretending this was all no big deal and everyone who watched the trial knew what was going to happen. It just is pathetic, Chunk. Admit defeat, give it up, go get a job at Rancho with Mora or 100 miles down the road, or anywhere else and leave decent, honest people alone. You're poison on your campus.

  5. Disappointing but not surprising. These cases are long shots.

    I want to know how the board feels about what came out.

    but i'll probably be disappointed there too.

  6. Sorry, ya'll, you are incorrect. Mathur is the worst kind of narcisistic, vendetta-holding, terrorizing person. People have indeed been terrorized by Poindexter, Gensler, Ward and others - the SOCCCD should count its lucky charms that many more lawsuits have not been filed against them due to Mathur's dictatorial authoritarian management style enacted and enforced in a big part through his disasterous hires.

    My feelings? Watch out a whole new round of Board complicent, selected negligence, 'looking the other way', round of retribution that will be coming our way.

    To the Faculty and Staff of the SOCCCD - duck - the rampage of retribution is about to begin!

    Papa Joe would be proud.

  7. disappointed yes - surprised, no.

    thanks to Chunk and Carol and the others who do what few try to do - stand up for what's right. It's never wrong to do that.

    How Raghu and Glen and the rest can walk among the rest of us is beyond me.

    There is no excsue for what they have done and continue to do.

  8. Justice is a constant struggle.

    thanks for being there, Chunk!

  9. Too bad - isn't this the first case we lost?

    I am still glad that Cely stuck with it though.

    And the loss doesn't cahnge the behavior that was testified to - nor that fact that Raghu and Glen hired and protected a maniac.

  10. does this mean they'll bring back Poindexter - is that what you jubliant ones want? If so, you can have him!

  11. damn. Too bad.

    Thanks for the coverage Chunk - those who don't like it - well, they can write their own blog. Really. No one makes them read ours.

  12. For all you "go Raghu" people and the Ahab person you all are pathetic. You have the nerve to speak of honesty. You don't have a clue what the word means. Mathur, Glenn and the board knew what was going on in the PE area and they did nothing until one of the people put poindexter on his ass.To all you people that think this was justice I hope your daugters, sisters, mothers experience what the women and people of color faced during Poindexter's tenure.Justice will someday prevail in this life time or the next.

  13. so the chancellor prevails in a case that showed him to be an incompetent, lying weasel.

    there's some victory in the fact he had to reveal to everyone just how he goes about making his big decisions to serve the students.

  14. First loss, right - in this string of cases?

    When is Mathur going to take some resposibility somewhere?

  15. 7:02, you're a joke!

  16. Yes, it's the first major loss.

    The board lost all of the Brown Act cases (and appeals). Mathur's appointment figured prominently in those suits.

    The board lost the students' 1st Amendment suits. (They started when Mathur violated students' rights at IVC.)

    The board lost Bauer's "Dissent" suit. (Mathur was at the heart of that one.) Then they lost their appeal.

    Mathur lost his suit against Bauer (and Burgess).

    The district lost the Academic Senates' suit re the faculty hiring policy. (Mathur was responsible for that policy.)

    No doubt I've left some out.

  17. To insinuate that the reporting was suspect because the reporter had concerns about the jury is disingenous at best. Many a fine case is lost due to the lack of competence and attention paid by jurors. This is why we need a professional jury system int his country.

  18. The reporting is suspect because the reporter failed to mention his concerns about the jury. In fact, the April 28 "report" actually says "Most prospective jurors seemed reasonable, intelligent." Now the "reporter" says he was concerned about the jury all along. He's lying then, or he's lying now, but he's lying to you. He's not a reporter, he not a philosopher, he's a revisionist historian. A dishonest one, at that. How can the kool aid drinkers take anything he says seriously?

    Now what is the board supposed to make out of this stupid lawsuit? The testimony about how bad Mathur is was disbelieved by a unanimous jury who took enough time to go to the bathroom, eat a donut, elect a foreman, and vote resoundingly against Mora. She got slammed, it wasn't even close, when all along we've been reading from our dishonest revisionist blogger that the testimony was appalling and outrageous and Mathur was toast.

    Give up on this doofus, Chunk. Realize he's obsessed in his hatred of administration and that nothing he writes can be trusted. There are good people in administration with whom you can and should work if you're not poisoned by the bile Chunk spreads around the campus.

  19. I failed to mention my concerns about the jury because I did not want to demoralize Cely or her attorney. Did this not occur to you?

    I never suggested that I had doubts about the jury "from the beginning"; rather, I wrote that, in the course of the trial, some of us developed concerns about the jury. This is simply a fact. It is consistent with my observation that, during jury selection, the jurors seemed reasonably intelligent.

    Re Administrators: I have in fact defended administrators on these pages; I have said that we have some fine administrators at IVC and at the district.

    I do wish our critics would read and think more carefully. --CW

  20. First of all I am one of those "immature young people" that you speak of. I was a juror on this case. For those people that don't this guy is talking out of his a$$. He wasn't even there the last day of the trial. So any information he is giving you on it is second hand. In fact he wasn't there every day of the trial. I was I heard all of the evidence, did he? For those of that post that we did not take our time or that we just made a rash judgment, you where not in the jury room with us. We actually had a very long talk about the aspects of the lawsuit. We were not all young. It was a variety of ages and ethnicities. So if you feel like you need to listen and believe this guy cause it helps you sleep at night you go ahead. As for me I know what happened there. If you really cared you would have been also!!!!!

  21. If 12:41 really was a juror, the adolescent babbling reveals the flagrant problems with juries. Poor grammar, leaps of illogic, and a nasty little attitude. This really makes us all so confident in the jury system.

  22. If 12:41 was a juror, then he/she committed perjury by not revealing his/her obviously preexisting bias to the judge and attorneys during voir dire. The jury pool was tainted, and should be grounds for a new trial.

  23. I am 12:41 juror. I would truly like to know what preexisting biased I had since you seem to know me so well.

  24. The Board also lost (big time!)the Senate's lawsuit about the faculty hiring policy.

  25. 1:10, the very fact that you're on here parroting the perspectives of the other nasty little respondents says much, does it not?

    If you truly were on that jury, then it's wildly inappropriate of you to be hre, insinuating that the blogger is not telling the truth. I would assume, however, that you're just a nasty little provocateur who is making up your jury involvement.

    Your bias shows brightly, regardless.

  26. 1:24 Well I could give you my name and juror number and my participant number, but I'm sure that would not be enough proof that I was in fact on the jury. Let me start by saying no one should talk about my grammar until you can learn to spell. On to the next point. It is true that while a case is in court, the jury has the responsibility to remain hush hush on the facts of the case. This is called your admonition. Once the trial is over you may speak to anyone about any part of the trial. As a juror During the trial you are also not allowed to search out any information on the case or the people involved. You may only take in to account what is said in front of the full court. I have no bias against anyone in this case I don't know them. As for why I am here, I was simply curious about what people were saying about the case. There is nothing wrong with that in my mind. The writer of this blog is clearly the one who is biased. I am sorry if you can not see that, or maybe you just hold the same bias.

  27. What spelling errors have you noticed? I always like being educated by a superior.

    And, while we have the pleasure of your company, perhaps you can address the obvious prevarications of Mr. Mathur, the fact that the best candidate for the job was passed over for a wildly incompetent and unstable fellow, and how the work place hostility was allowed to continue. And you and your peers still blithely ignored all of this.

    Let's see how much you were paying attention.

  28. Was this your post from the other day, mr/ms juror?

    Does it not reek of bias and immaturity?

    So im sitting in the juror's boxs thinking..."who is this strange fat guy writing down every thing?..
    I thought he was Sobel's puppet.
    Now im thinking..."Now THIS is good grounds for a HARASSMENT CASE!!!"
    In the end i enjoyed my time in the box. I got to meet 7 other interresting people, a good judge, and a damn good lawyer(Walsh). As far as the outcome of the case...Well i think it was fair. yhe evidence was all there...or not there in Dr.Mora's case...But at some point you've gotta realize that you can't keep blaming the man for something he had no control over. Sorry Dr.Mora...

  29. 12:41. You might have been there but you weren't paying attention. To think that was not a hostile inviroment is absolutly wrong. I saw it. And to think Mathur didn't know what was happening is ridiculus. He knew exactly what was happening. Did anyone tell you why Poindexter got fired? Well I'll tell you. He went after a very respected faculty member in the PE department. Would not leave his office, blocked his office door so he could not get by him. Mathur and Rouquemore were told time and time again this man was dangerous. Because of people like you Mathur and Rouqemore. Things like work place violence are allowed to happen. Thank for not paying attention to what was being said.

  30. Go ahead with the info, alleged juror, cause I don't believe you at all.

  31. You liberals are afraid of your own shadow. Poindexter was nothing but a fat-headed blow hard, certainly a shitty hire by any standard, but the guy would run into the corner to suck his thumb when confronted by someone with backbone. But all one needs to do is to fart side-ways on campus and the liberal sheep start running scared.

  32. Anonymous 3:17:


    Furry, Anon.?

  33. Mora's going to be furry -ous at Chunk and Sobel when the district goes after her for expenses associated with this stupid case.

  34. You know those furry women - they're really, really furry.

    now those furry jurors, well....

  35. Mighty defensive, aren't you, Chunk? The fact is, these criticisms must sting. Why else would you be spinning yourself silly to defend against them? But pretending that the critics have nothing is pretty weak, even by your standards. Everyone reading this blog knows it. Only the most hard core kool aid drinkers are still with you, old man, fighting the fight that ended ages ago. And just like those old Japanese soldiers in the jungles of Borneo who refused to give up, you lost this war, too.

    Truth be told, Chunkster, all the testimony you point to that shows this and that about Mathur was ignored by the jury; he and the district were "exonerated." That's what juries do. And this jury slammed you and your crowd and your old, worn out claims in all of 45 minutes. That's unheard of in the world of litigation. This wasn't a "notoriously difficult" case; it was no case. The jury tossed Mora out on her ear the first chance it got and then complained about Mora and Sobel wasting the jury's time.

    Now the best you can do to defend yourself is trot out your tired, nearly ten year old, shtick. Pathetic, Chunk, just pathetic. Get a life. The district is moving on without you.

  36. Note: I just deleted my 10:30 post (to which the above person refers) because I have adapted it and made it a new blog post (see Course Fur..., May 5).

    Recently, I deleted some comment posts because, on them, someone had simply copied MY post and reposted it as a comment. I didn't want that kind of useless "comment" to clutter up the comment section.

  37. Hey 6:18. I'm a liberal. Fart at me and I'll kick your ass from one end of the campus to the other.

  38. 11:18. What a patheic joke you are. I wonder what kink of person you are. Dr. Mora was a fine honest person. Who encouraged everyone in PE and Athletics to support Mathur when he didn't deserve it. She encouraged everyone to work with him. The people in PE and Athletics stayed out of the mess that Mathur made at IVC.The district won this case but anyone with an ounce of honesty knows what happened with Poindexter. Why do you think he got fired? Because he went after a faculty member in the PE area. Poindexter was was the type of person who could bring a gun on campus and start blowing people away. Mathur and Rouqemore were both told this. This is what the people in PE and Athletics had to live with everyday. And you tell me that wasn't a hostile inviroment. Come on. Would you want to have to worry about that everyday?

  39. 12:45, you being a liberal brings doubt that you can even find your ass let alone kick some. Fuck you!

  40. Well, there's not much more to say, is there? Raghu's fellas like it a little rough, don't they? Swell guys.

    Chunk, you should know that everyone does read this blog - I walk by offices and there it is on the computer screens - teachers, staff and yes, the admin too.

    The few who come here and blow hard recognize that folks read this thing and that is what gets them. They can't control what people read - and it amkes them mad.

  41. 3:23 is correct.

    Cely encouraged me as well to support, or try to be balanced in my opinion of RM, at a time when I absolutely was unable to do so after I had seen the things, heard things with my own ears, and saw his abusive and baseless accusatory nature myself. I was warned about him my first year at IVC and every warning has come true. Cely tried to keep things in some balance and perspective and what was her reward? How did RM thank her? With a big old knife in her back.

  42. There were about 20 people or so who were in the President's Conference Room at 7:30am on that July 1997 morning when RM pounded his pointed index finger on the table and said, with ire, "Loyalty is encouraged and disloyalty will not be tolerated." This is fact. This says it all. Ja! Ja! Herr Fuehrer!

  43. Is it true that RM once stepped out from behind a lecturn with a towel draped over his arm like a waiter and, (like a cornball 6th grade ignoramous geek), said, "I just want to serve". Can someone confirm this embarrasing incident? Our then college President really did this?

    What an ass. Does he not know what he looks like, sounds like, or what a buffoonish fool he is when he tries to be funny? It ain't in you RM - humor, irony, kindness, warmth, or especially leadership - give it up so the SOCCCD can finally move forward again.

    You sir, (and your hires), are the problem. Make no mistake about it.

  44. Uh, let’s see Chuck, I recall seeing a flyer on the floor of the restroom (under the urinal) that states “IT’S THE TRIAL OF THE CENTURY!” and “So far, the trial has been UTERLY FASCINATING” and “The Goo will hit the fan, guaranteed!”

  45. It WAS fascinating.

  46. Yeah Chuck! Where's your fan-hittage now?


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