El Toro 1951

Two boys receiving medals, El Toro Marine Base, El Toro, CA, 1951

I found this photo at the USC digital library site. It is a part of the “Los Angeles Examiner Negatives Collection, 1950-1961,” and it is entitled, “Medals given boys at El Toro Marine base, 1951.”

There's no further information.

Obviously, the ceremony concerns war deaths: the little boys are receiving medals in honor of their fathers’ sacrifices—no doubt in Korea.

I noticed some names barely legibly written on the photo (backwards). One of them: Mary Nell Scott (and Bobby Scott). I did some quick looking and found that one Californian named Scott died in Korea at that time:

“Corporal [Gerald L.] Scott [of San Francisco] was a member of the 8th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division [Army]. He was Killed in Action while fighting the enemy in South Korea on March 12, 1951.” [Born in 1931] (Korean War Project)

Another name: Molly Rohwer.

One Californian named Rohwer died in Korea at the time:

“Corporal [Gaylen Floyd] Rohwer [born: June 11, 1924; from Venice, CA] was a member of Company F, 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division. He was Killed in Action [in Seoul] while fighting the enemy in Korea on September 24, 1950.” (Korean War Project)

Also handwritten on the photo: "General William Wallace"* and the number "9186." Don't know anything about either.

A date is written on the photo: "6-11(?)-51." No doubt it is the date of this occasion.

That was Rohwer's birthday. He would have been 27.

*I can find no General (of that era) with this name.

Don Wagner celebrates his own money-grubbin’ self

About an hour ago, over at the always-mediocre OC Red County blog (AD 70 Watch: Wagner Leads The Field In Fundraising), Allan Bartlett notes a new press release from the Wagner campaign:

Wagner Leads Republican Field in Fundraising

Conservative leader posts top number of all candidates

Irvine, California – Don Wagner, founder of the Orange County chapter of the Federalist Society and president of the South Orange County Community College Board of Trustees, has announced his fundraising totals for his campaign to succeed Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, who is running for the U.S. Senate against liberal Barbara Boxer.

Wagner bested all other candidates in the race with $145,700 raised to date and $109,300 in the bank.

“I am running for the State Assembly because we need a conservative voice to succeed Chuck DeVore and a proven leader on budgetary issues,” said Wagner. “I will have the resources necessary to communicate our message of fiscal discipline and traditional values and I will work hard as a candidate and as a member of the Assembly. I will not be going to Sacramento to make friends or add a title to my resume, I am going to make change.” [?]

Don Wagner and his wife, Megan, and their three children live in Irvine. He is a graduate of UCLA and the University of California, Hastings College of Law. Don has been elected to three consecutive terms on the Board of Trustees of the South Orange County Community College District, and currently serves as the Board's president.

Bartlett then (mediocrely) opines:

These are decent numbers for Don, but I still can't believe any GOP candidates haven't "shock and awed" the field with better numbers. This is the 70th AD, one of the most Republican/richest ADs in CA. This race is still wide open. I see the three way field so far as pretty evenly balanced. Jerry [Amante] started out strong, but has fizzled out of late. Don has the most grassroots activists ready to help him, along with leading in the money chase, and Steven Choi has arguably the best name ID in the district.

I have a strong vested interest in this campaign because it is where I live. I want the strongest possible conservative/limited gov/reformer to get the GOP nomination. I'm pretty sure I've made up my mind who I am going to support. I will make a big announcement here at Red County before the local CRA endorsing convention on Feb 20th.

Gosh, we're on tenterhooks, almost.

It's semi-official: 77% of Republicans are flat stupid

Just in case you missed it: not long ago, the Daily Kos revealed the results of a poll of self-identified Republicans. As the blog explains:

The Daily Kos Republican Poll was conducted by Research 2000 from January 20 through January 31, 2010. A total of 2003 self identified Republicans were interviewed nationally by telephone. Those interviewed were selected by the random variation of the last four digits of telephone numbers, nationally.

The margin for error, according to standards customarily used by statisticians, is no more than plus or minus 2% percentage points. This means that there is a 95 percent probability that the "true" figure would fall within that range if the entire self identified Republican population were sampled. The margin for error is higher for any demographic subgroup, such as for gender or region.

Here’s one striking result (one of the 25 questions):

QUESTION: Should public school students be taught that the book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world?

.............YES...... NO..... NOT SURE
All ...........77 .....15 .........8
Men .........79 .....14......... 7
Women..... 75 .....16.........9
White .......79 .....13......... 8
Other/... ...58 .....31......... 11
18-29 .......74 .....19......... 7
30-44 .......75 .....17......... 8
45-59 .......78 .....15......... 7
60+..........78 .....13......... 9
NE............70 .....23..........7
South........82 ......9.......... 9
MW ..........77 .....14......... 9
West........ 72 .....21......... 7
Def ..........78 .....14......... 8
Vote ........77 .....15......... 8
Not L .......76 .....18......... 6
Def Not.... 75..... 19......... 6
Not Sur ....75 .....19......... 6

So: 77% (give or take 2%) of Republicans think public school students should be taught, well, Creationism.

Wow.

Genesis: “And the LORD smelled a sweet savor”

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
. . .
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.
. . .
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
. . .
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
. . .
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet [sic?] for him.
. . .
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof. And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
. . .
And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth
. . .
Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, there went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
. . .
And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.
. . .
And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the LORD smelled a sweet savor….

From Genesis, The Holy Bible: King James Version

Other results of the poll (of self-described Republicans):

• 58% either thought Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. or aren’t sure.
• 57% either think Obama “wants the terrorists to win” or aren’t sure.
• 76% either think ACORN “stole the 2008 election” or aren’t sure.
• 86% either think Sarah Palin is “more qualified to be President than Barack Obama” or aren’t sure.
• 64% either think Barack Obama “hates White people” or aren’t sure.
• 42% either think their “state should secede from the U.S.” or aren’t sure.

Comments:

Anonymous‬ said...
It's stupid to believe in the Bible?
9:34 PM, February 06, 2010

‪Anonymous‬ said...
It's stupid to imagine that the Bible - oh, well, nevermind.
10:04 PM

Anonymous‬ said...
Not to pick nits, but, exactly what does the book of Genesis explain, if not how God created the world? That's not to say it correctly explains, or scientifically explains, just that it explains. So, if there is to be any teaching of the Bible in school (say in a literature class, a comparative religion class, whatever), I think the majority of the 2,003 self-identifed Republicans are clearly right to say school kid should be taught that this is what the book of Genesis says. They should also be taught that War and Peace explains Napoleon's Russian adventure. Again, maybe not correctly, but that is what the book does. 

For a self proclaimed logician, Roy, your conclusion from the question polled, that Republicans believe "Creationism" should be taught, just doesn't follow. Focus. And lighten up.
10:49 PM

B. von Traven said...
10:49, Well, yes, it is possible that some of the self-described Republicans read the question as you suggest. 
You seem to ignore the manifest ambiguity of “explains” in the question, for surely the question can also be read as asking whether students should be taught that the Bible correctly explains how God created the world. I suspect that that is how it was read by most participants.

 After all, according to the poll,

 58% either thought Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. or aren’t sure. [!!!!]
 57% either think Obama “wants the terrorists to win” or aren’t sure. [!!!!]
 76% either think ACORN “stole the 2008 election” or aren’t sure. [!!!!]
 86% either think Sarah Palin is “more qualified to be President than Barack Obama” or aren’t sure. [!!!!]
 64% either think Barack Obama “hates White people” or aren’t sure. [!!!!]
 42% either think their “state should secede from the U.S.” or aren’t sure. [!!!!]

 Again, I say: stupid people.

 Also, I think you're a little tone deaf. The post was light-hearted, not heavy. I don't really think these people are "flat stupid." They're just stunningly, appallingly ignorant.

 I.e., "stupid people."
11:22 PM

‪Anonymous‬ said...
Don't you just love it when people say, "Not to pick nits," and then they proceed to--pick nits? 

Yeah, right. These Republicans were thinking, "Well, we don't care if you say Genesis is the truth or not--just that there's this book, Genesis, and it gives this explanation! You know, like Gilgamesh and Br'er Rabbit!"

 Yeah.
11:36 PM

Anonymous‬ said...
Roy, that's probably not how it was read by most participants. You only think so -- or pretend to think so -- because you start from the proposition that Republicans are stupid. Why else would they be Republicans, right?

 Tone deaf you say? The post was light hearted? Goodness. How jolly to be called "flat stupid." I thought "name-calling is not argumentation, unless we're having a really slow day. But if you must call people names, please be clever about it." 

What a clever jokester you are. You called the results "striking." As in jarring, appalling, unsettling, disturbing, somehow revealing a fundamental truth that Republicans are flat stupid and support Creationism. Thanks for the yucks. 

Face it, logic guy, you drew an unwarranted and unfair conclusion and are now seeking cover behind the lame response that you were "just kidding."
11:40 PM

‪Anonymous‬ said...
By the way, Roy, I'm not the one ignoring any ambiguity. I pointed out the ambiguity by explaining the alternative reading. YOU are the one who posted the bad poll with the bad question in it and then drew a conclusion that does not follow because of that ambiguity. YOU ignored it to malign Republicans. But it was all in good fun, huh?
11:49 PM

Anonymous‬ said...
Oh, and not to pick nits, 11:36, but if Roy can use his subtle and lighthearted humor, as he so successfully did here, I can use understatement. Sorry that you missed it. I hope you at least got Roy's clever joke.

 Yeah.
11:55 PM

B. von Traven said...
Uh-oh, the Incorrigible One is back. 
Like a dog with a bone.
12:10 AM, February 07, 2010

Anonymous‬ said...
Good answer, Roy. You tell 'em. Kill 'em with humor.
12:13 AM

Anonymous‬ said...
If this poll is even roughly accurate, it is disturbing. The methodology seems sound. I am amazed. 
64% either think Barack Obama “hates White people” or aren’t sure! A majority thinks that Obama might want the "terrorists to win"?! Where is this crap coming from?
12:17 AM

Anonymous‬ said...
The poll is very disheartening.
8:43 AM

Anonymous‬ said...
Gosh, if they're so sure that Obama was lying about his origins, faith, etc - where was the outcry when he was elected to the Senate?
11:12 AM

Anonymous‬ said...
"Revealing a fundamental truth that Republicans are flat stupid and support Creationism."

Well, this is pretty much correct, isn't it? When there's an attack on [a] dictionary in a school library, or a diatribe against the "homosexual agenda," or a demand that creationism be taught as if it's actually scientific, which party is being represented?
11:51 AM

Anonymous said...
Yuck, 11:40. "Tone-deaf" is putting it mildly. As usual, Roy takes the high road when your venom comes flying, while you unfailingly take the low road. Please get lost. There're plenty of blogs that would never dream of criticizing Republicans.

Do go there, please.
1:57 PM

alannah said...
Dare I hope that this poll somehow had an unsuspected selection bias toward ignorant people and/or fundamentalist Christians and/or conspiracy theory lovers? How was the survey done?
I'm really hoping this is not a true cross-section of Republicans (and before anybody can say anything, no, I do not intend that as a pun).
3:44 PM

Tea Party Girl: "They came into our colleges..."

From today's Los Angeles Times, as reported by Kathleen Hennessey from Nashville, site of the National Tea Party Convention: 

     Some conference attendees said they were worried about religious freedom and immigration. They said they sensed a withering pride in American ideals and the country's place in the world.
     Often those concerns were tied to the post-1960s culture wars.
     "You took the radicals out of the '60s.  They came into our colleges, they became teachers and they began to teach our children," said Alice Moore, 69, who got her start in political activism fighting against what she deemed inappropriate textbooks in her West Virginia town.
     "The indoctrination of kids for 35 years or longer, this is what led us to the election of this president.  It is why we're here," Moore said.

"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be very careful about what we pretend to be."

COMMENTS:

Anonymous said...
Wow - a wee bit scary. Look at that logic.
(Where's the quote from?)
3:02 PM, February 06, 2010

Anonymous said...
ah, teachers again - root of all evil.
3:40 PM, February 06, 2010

Anonymous said...
So is that the only way they can explain the election of a black president?
9:10 AM, February 07, 2010

Anonymous‬ said...
Looks like Tancredo has come out as a racist. Or perhaps he's unaware that he is repeating the notorious arguments of historical racists? He can't be that ignorant. 
But it's OK to come out as a racist with this crowd. Listen to 'em!
12:32 PM

B. v Traven's addition: Tancredo welcomes the Tea Partiers:

Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh, who eschews tea, entertains his flock with the word "retard," which he finds to be apt and, I guess, way underused:

Wagner’s campaign: recent contributions

I perused records on Contributions Received by Don Wagner’s Assembly campaign—referred to this morning by Rebel Girl. (See also here.) Here are some “highlights.”

Evidently, DON WAGNER loaned himself $100,000.

The COMMITTEE TO ELECT TOM FUENTES contributed $3,900.00. Presumably, this is money left over from Fuentes’ recent reelection campaign.

The FAMILY ACTION PAC—a local right-wing group—made contributions amounting to $3,000.

Some familiar OC right-wing regulars have contributed to Wagner’s campaign, including JIM RIGHEIMER, JAMES LACY, HUGH HEWITT, LEE LOWREY, SHAWN BLACK, HOWARD KLEIN, and JOHN EASTMAN.

I noticed that one MICHAEL CORFIELD contributed. He’s an attorney for the Young Men's Christian Association Of Orange County. I seem to recall that he was Raghu Mathur’s hapless attorney when Mathur sued me for reporting his violations of a students privacy rights.

Other familiar names among contributors:

GLEN ROQUEMORE, $1,000.00
WILLIAM HEWITT, $1,000.00
JOHN WILLIAMS, $500.00
RAGHU MATHUR, $500.00
JOHN WILLIAMS, $300.00
MARCIA MILCHIKER, $300.00
TOD BURNETT, $250.00
WILLIAM JAY, $250.00
ROBERT COSGROVE, $250.00
RONALD ELLISON, $100.00

Don Wagner's Dough plus Don under Attack by "Atheist Professors"

As we all know, trustee and board president Don Wagner is running in the Republican primary for the state assembly for the seat vacated by Chuck DeVore.

Two days ago in his blog Total Buzz, OC Register reporter Martin Wisckol reported that the "money is flowing in the race for the 70th Assembly."

excerpt:

"A lot of dough is being laid on the table by the three Republicans vying for the Assembly seat being vacated by Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine. And most of it is from the candidates (sic) own pockets. Bottom line? It looks like it’s anybody’s race at this point, and a lot of campaign money could be spent before it’s over.

Irvine attorney Don Wagner, who sits on the South Orange County Community College Board, raised the most through the end of 2009, according to campaign finance reports due Monday. He raised $142,000 - including $100,000 he loaned his campaign - and had $113,000 remaining in his account."

The other two candidates, Steven Choi and Jerry Amante, raised $105,000 and $115,000, respectively.

In the comments section, Wisckol directs his readers to the links for the campaign disclosure statements for each candidate.

Now Rebel Girl is a curious gal, so she clicked over and ran through the names of the people who are bankrolling Wagner's bid for office. She wanted to see who had ponied up, who supported Wagner's ultra-right platform and was willing to put money down to see it promoted in Sacramento.

Needless to say, she recognized quite a few donors. Some were the usual suspects and others were surprises. Wagner scores some bucks from his fellow trustees, from the two college presidents and even Raghu. (College presidents write bigger checks than chancellors.) Lots of lawyers. And a few college professors. It all adds up. Ka-ching.

Emilee Tello, by the way, (yes, that Tello) is identified as "treasurer" on page 4. You might remember her last stint as a campaign treasurer for disgraced congressional candidate Tan Nguyen, he of the infamous "emigrado" letter and the unforgettable song sensation, Stand by Our Tan. The case against Nguyen (he faces obstruction of justice charges) is still moving through the courts. Good times.

To see the list of contributors for yourself, click here.

You'll need to scroll down to page four.

To remind yourself what Wagner stands for, just visit his campaign website by clicking here.


You'll find a link to Don's "issues" - the typical dirty laundry list: jobs (he's for them), crime (he's against it), taxes (no, no, no), families ("the bedrock of our civilization," "defend marriage"), etc. No surprises.

BUT check out the issue front and center on his home page: "We need more faith in public places," declares Don. Readers are encouraged to: "Help defend Don from the attacks."

Who is attacking Don?

"Atheist college professors" and "anonymous students."

excerpt:

"Don Wagner is no stranger to the fight for religious freedom – but today, Don is the target of the misguided efforts of the left-wing Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and needs your help.

Westphal v. Wagner, filed in 2009 by Americans United on behalf of a group of atheist college professors and anonymous students, targets Wagner, as president of the South Orange County Community College Board of Trustees, for opening district commencement ceremonies, awards ceremonies, and other events with invocations. These well-educated adult plaintiffs argue that they are “offended” and “uncomfortable” listening to a simple invocation before a college ceremony.

It has long been the aim of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State to drive any mention of God from public life, failing to recognize that the U.S. Constitution does not require open hostility to religion. Americans United suffered a major setback to its efforts when Wagner filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that it was legally untenable and should be thrown out in its entirety – and the atheists’ attorneys actually agreed! But then, unwilling to accept the reality of the law, nor the role that God plays in American society, Americans United has rewritten the complaint and filed it again."

Now, Rebel Girl has read parts of the lawsuit. It's worth noting that not all the plaintiffs identify as atheists.

Professor Karla Westpahl declares herself an atheist but Professor Allanah Rosenberg identifies herself a a "devout Jew." Professor Margot Lovett testifies that she "was raised Jewish." Professors Claire Cesareo-Silva and Roy Bauer identify as agnostic. By Rebel Girl's reckoning, that's one atheist, two Jews and two agnostics - plus a self-identified "deist" student. But who's counting? Not Don. (Read the lawsuit here.)

Of course, for candidate Don Wagner's purposes, the "college professors" are all "atheist," - perhaps because their gods, their beliefs are not his...and his? Well, his are the only ones that count.

Or maybe he just wants the money, you know, the bucks he'll get to hold himself up as the defender of the one true faith.

For the rest of Wisckol's post, click here.
*

Watch the skies!* (And warn Arnold!)

A friend turned me on to the fact that the state’s Secretary of Education, Glen Thomas, is resigning:

Education Secretary Glen Thomas resigning to care of mother (The Sacramento Bee, Feb. 3)

News broke yesterday that state Education Secretary Glen Thomas is stepping down from the post to care for his ailing mother.

"My 96-year-old mother is not well. Twenty-four years ago I cared for my father and I told my mother that when the time came I would do the same for her. It's been the highest honor to serve in the administration but family is always first priority," the 63-year-old longtime educator told California's Capitol's Greg Lucas.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a statement yesterday thanking Thomas, who was appointed to the post last year, for his service….

They’re already looking for Thomas’ replacement.

If I know Tom Fuentes, the rat in his brain is jogging like a son-of-a-bitch on that little wheel right about now. If he can find a way to get You-Know-Who considered as Thomas’ replacement, he’ll surely do it.

Yeah, but everybody knows that Arnold Schwarzenneger hates Tom Fuentes. Who wouldn't?

BUT WAIT. As you know, the hire of Tod Burnett as President of Saddleback College a couple of years ago was seriously hinky, owing to the fellow’s lack of experience. Ah, but Burnett had connections with Sacramento—and with the Schwarzenneger administration in particular. (Burnett was Arnold's personal secretary or something. Then he was appointed to high office at the State Chancellor's Office.)

At the time he was hired, we speculated that those connections were what made Burnett attractive to at least some trustees (though not to Marcia Milchiker and Bill Jay; see below).

Hmmmmm.

Anybody got Arnold’s phone number? We've gotta warn him!

*Final line of The Thing From Another World (1951)

From Dissent, June 26, 2008:

Clerk Tom Fuentes reads out actions taken during closed session. He reports that Tod Burnett was approved as Saddleback College President on a 5/2 vote, with Bill Jay and Marcia Milchiker voting against. 

Wow. Perhaps J&M were displeased that Mathur disregarded the recommendations of the search committee (he interviewed the committee’s three recommendations and then went back into the pool, pulling out Burnett). Boards typically seek to approve top administrators unanimously. Further, Burnett, though impressive, seems to lack college administrative experience.

Lariat opinery: “We had a political opportunist as a Chancellor for eight years”

LARIAT COVER STORY:

The Bobster dropped by today with a copy of the Lariat, which sported a big cover story about Chancellor Raghu P. Mathur’s “resignation.” It is entitled, “Mathur resigns, will leave after June 30.”

The subtitle is better: “Board pushes chancellor out in 5-2 motion.”

I just read it. According to the article, Saddleback College President Tod A. Burnett “declined to publicly answer questions surrounding Mathur’s resignation, instead issuing a statement online.” The statement is the usual bland “wish ‘em luck” blather.

“Trustees and school officials,” says the article, “were hesitant to comment publicly on the abrupt turn of events.”

Confusing apples and oranges, the article notes that “This motion to remove Mathur…is the latest in a series of attempts,” including the 2004 faculty of vote of “no confidence.”

The Lariat quotes from Tom Fuentes’ statement, which attributes the district’s successes to Mathur and which describes Mathur as “uniquely courageous.”

I’m quoted, though a typo renders much of my comment incomprehensible. They did quite me correctly about hoping for an honest search for a new chancellor.

Board President Don Wagner, who spearheaded the action against Mathur, is quoted as saying,

Dr. Mathur’s resignation … means most immediately that the district will soon start its search for a new chancellor…. Dr. Mathur’s departure will not leave us with a leadership void. I look forward to a thorough and professional search for an outstanding Chancellor.

LARIAT EDITORIAL:

The Lariat editorial concerns Mathur’s “abrupt resigning/firing,” which, it says, has “caused a tussle.”

Evidently, in the mind of the editorial writer, this “tussle” is but one instance of “blatant” “power plays” that have long gone on in “closed meetings of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees.”

It sure sounds like the writer is condemning the recent Mathur-eliminating board action. But maybe not. It goes on to describe the controversy that has “surrounded” Mathur, including the violation of the Brown Act in his appointment in 2002 (they’re confusing that appointment with the two Presidential appointments of 1997).

I guess they don't like Mr. Goo.

The next remark is a bit confused:

The saddest part of this sorry affair [the board action? Mathur’s chancellorship?] is not that we had a political opportunist as a Chancellor for eight years, but that we continue to have a board of trustees whose membership roster has seemingly been in stasis for the past two decades, and whose every action is undertaken with an eye on the political scene.

Stasis? Don’t think so. (Most trustees since 1990 have been Republicans. Is that what he/she means?)

The slam on keeping an eye on politics isn’t bad.

After badly mangling the facts, the editorial lands on its feet, more or less:

Stop with the politics and start making positive strides towards transparency and a district famous not for its political ruthlessness, but for the quality of education.

Good idea.

CAMPUS COMMENT:

This edition’s “campus comment” asks, WHO IS RAGHU MATHUR? You know, it shows pictures of students and their answers to the question.

The student answers?

Get ready.

A rockstar.
The founder of Raghu tomato sauce?
Is it a secret agent?
Is it a German foreign exchange student?
Some foreign person.
Student body president.
Some weird foreign dude.
A political activist.

Good grief.

Annie and my folks just got back from LV. They stopped by the Bagdad Cafe. They're all nuts about that movie. Annie borrowed my camera. Took some good ones.

OC Register: "Shifting Alliances"

On the OC Register's editorial page, this ditty, titled "Shifting Alliances."

It features the Reg's tired and inadvertently hilarious jabs at "union bosses" (Please, Register reporters, come gaze in wonder at our union bosses.)


excerpted highlights:

...Mr. Mathur's removal is particularly odd now because in recent years he had received praise from the majority of the trustees, and he was near the end of his contract. The board's more fiscally conservative majority, Tom Fuentes, David Lang, John Williams, and Mr. Wagner, have been publicly supportive of Mr. Mathur's job as chancellor, while union-backed board members Bill Jay and Marcia Milchiker, as well as Nancy Padberg, have been at odds with him on a variety of issues.

So what changed?

What seems to have been the catalyst for the abrupt move is a shift in political alliances by Mr. Wagner. During the December board meeting, Mr. Wagner voted, against his former allies, to install Ms. Padberg as board vice president and Ms. Milchiker as the board's clerk, removing Mr. Fuentes and Mr. Lang, respectively, from those positions. Ms. Padberg, Mr. Jay, and Ms. Milchiker voted with Mr. Wagner to re-elect him as board president.

Mr. Wagner declined to discuss the reasons for his vote, citing confidentiality related to the Mathur buyout agreement.

Our discussions with several officials revealed that the gossip meter is on high: Is Mr. Mathur's exit in response to an effort to create a new dean position for a faculty member at Irvine Valley College? Will IVC President Glenn Roquemore now have the inside track for the chancellor position? Or is it all just part of the ongoing infighting?

The decision to remove Mr. Mathur now doesn't make much sense. The district will continue to pay his salary of $237,231, plus benefits, for the last year of his contract while at the same time paying a new chancellor. Why not just allow the contract to expire naturally for this longtime employee?

Most disconcerting is the uncharacteristic move by Mr. Wagner, especially now when he is running to replace termed-out Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, who is running for U.S. Senate. Mr. Wagner's newfound alliances may serve him in the upcoming election. Mr. Wagner has been mostly a fiscally prudent, liberty advocate on the South Orange County Community College board and seems to have a powerful grasp of free-market principles – which is why his recent decisions are terribly puzzling.

To read the piece in its entirety and to jump in on the soon-to-be burgeoning comments section, click here.

SOCCCD litigation watch

This morning, we received word that there would be a hearing Monday morning, in Los Angeles.

The judge (Hon. R. Gary Klausner) in the SOCCCD prayer case would be hearing arguments on our motion to allow two students to continue to use pseudonyms (Doe 1 and Doe 2).

Naturally, district lawyers want ‘em to out themselves.

There will be another hearing—this one dealing with the substance of the case—on March 8.

But then, later today, we got word that the judge cancelled the Monday hearing. This means that he will make his decision about anonymity without in-court arguments, i.e., just based on the briefs.

We’ll let you know how it goes.

To see the notorious invocation (near the beginning) and “Jesus” slide show (at the end) of the Fall ’09 Chancellor’s Opening Session, click here.

Governance, morale and learning

From this morning’s Inside Higher Ed:

Accreditor Slams Southwestern College

Southwestern College, a community college in California, has been placed on probation by its accreditor, which issued a harshly critical report on the institution. The San Diego Union-Tribune reported that the report said that the accreditor cited serious problems with governance, morale and learning. The college was in the news last year for, among other things, suspending four instructors without pay, following a campus rally criticizing the administration's handling of budget cuts. Faculty leaders said that the accreditor's report backed up the criticisms they and student leaders have been making. College leaders said that they were working to remedy the problems and were confident the college would get off probation.

Southwestern College on probation San Diego Union-Tribune

Among other things, Southwestern was told that its governing board must adhere to its role of setting policy “and not interfere with the authority and responsibility of the superintendent/president,” and that the school foster an environment of “trust and respect for all employees and students that allows the college community to promote administrative stability and work together for the good of the college.”

Andrew MacNeill, vice president of the faculty union, said the commission is saying “what we have been saying for years: That we’re not treated with respect.”

Check out the Action Letter. Among the recommendations:

SOCCCD litigation watch

• Just after 5:00 p.m. today, Irvine Valley College faculty received an “information item” from the President of the Academic Senate:

Senators

:

The Senate has received a “Public Records Act” request from the SOCCC District lawyers, asking the IVC Faculty Senate to provide any and all public documents and/or records reflecting Senate discussion and actions pertaining to IVC Faculty Senate’s support of the Saddleback Faculty Senate’s resolution regarding prayer. 
Based on our legal obligations, the Senate has complied.

• Meanwhile, our pals at Save Our Southwestern College seem to think that things are heating up in their bordertown version of the “life among Neanderthals” saga:

Accreditation News: Town Hall Meeting Tonight

Late yesterday, Superintendent/President Raj K. Chopra issued a memo announcing that the college has received the much-anticipated report from the Accreditation Commission for Community and Junior Colleges.

The college has not yet publicly posted the accreditation report, but a "Town Hall" meeting has been scheduled to discuss the results. The meeting will be held at 5:00 p.m. today on the main campus in Room L238 N&S (across from the library).

In other news, the Governing Board took no action at its recent special meeting to evaluate Chopra. Meanwhile, an online survey (see previous post) has gone out to all faculty.

Stay tuned!

UPDATE:

Looks like the ACCJC spanked 'em good:

Southwestern College on Probation

Check out the Action Letter. Reminds me of some letters our colleges have received.

Pretty serious.

Rebel Girl's Poetry Corner: "Contained in this classroom/ is a microcosm of human existence

Rebel Girl understands that is is a tad bit early in the semester for this poem but dang. They're already going missing. Various ailments. Flat tires. Distant relatives at the airport.

So - the very popular "Did I Miss Anything" by Tom Wayman, from his book, The Astonishing Weight of the Dead. Buck up. Persevere.



Did I Miss Anything

Question frequently asked by
students after missing a class

Nothing. When we realized you weren't here
we sat with our hands folded on our desks
in silence, for the full two hours

Everything. I gave an exam worth
40 per cent of the grade for this term
and assigned some reading due today
on which I'm about to hand out a quiz
worth 50 per cent

Nothing. None of the content of this course
has value or meaning
Take as many days off as you like:
any activities we undertake as a class
I assure you will not matter either to you or me
and are without purpose

Everything. A few minutes after we began last time
a shaft of light descended and an angel
or other heavenly being appeared
and revealed to us what each woman or man must do
to attain divine wisdom in this life and
the hereafter
This is the last time the class will meet
before we disperse to bring this good news to all people
on earth

Nothing. When you are not present
how could something significant occur?

Everything. Contained in this classroom
is a microcosm of human existence
assembled for you to query and examine and ponder
This is not the only place such an opportunity has been
gathered

but it was one place

And you weren't here

*