Who does Tod Burnett think he is? Saddleback Prez imposes prayer at commencement

     (See update HERE)
     AS YOU KNOW, recently, the district settled “Westphal v. Wagner,” the lawsuit that challenged the board's arrogant imposition of prayer at college and district events. According to the settlement, invocations would cease at Chancellor opening sessions and at Scholarship awards ceremonies. Further:

The decision on whether to select a speaker to deliver personal remarks in the form of an invocation, moment of silence, or opening and/or closing message, not to exceed two minutes, at important District and college events [e.g., commencement] shall rest within the sole discretion of the event planners, whether they be students, faculty, administrators, classified employees of the District, or a combination thereof. (From the resolution)

     I have made inquiries, and it is clear that, at Irvine Valley College, the terms of the settlement have been followed with regard to the decision whether to have an invocation. The committee (I’m assured) was in no way pressured or instructed to choose an invocation. (They did choose an invocation and a speaker, Mark Whitlock.)

     I have it on good authority, however, that matters are quite different at Saddleback College. I’m told that President Tod Burnett views himself as the ultimate decision-maker regarding commencement and that the preference of Saddleback’s commencement planning group (reportedly to go with a “moment of silence” instead of an invocation/prayer) is a mere recommendation that, evidently, he feels he need not follow.

     But read the above verbiage. Decide for yourself.

     To see the actual Settlement Document and its Resolution, go here.

* * *

     A few days ago, a Lariat article made a cryptic reference to an alleged “loophole” in the settlement (see The future of invocations at college ceremonies after settlement). The article did not make clear what that loophole is supposed to be.
     In the very same article, Ayesha Khan, chief attorney for plaintiffs in “Westphal v. Wagner,” denied that there is any “loophole” in the settlement:

"There's nothing ambiguous here about graduation; the Agreement is clear that the decision is no longer up to the Board of Trustees, but will be made by the planning committee at each college."

     Somebody better tell Tod Burnett.

* * *

     The notion of a “loophole” first arose in an April 12 OC Register article:

     Though a settlement has been reached, [defendants’ attorney, John] Vogt pointed out a potential loophole.
     Language in the settlement prohibits the colleges from holding invocations at scholarship ceremonies, but it's possible for the tradition to continue if the colleges' foundations – private, nonprofit entities who were not party to the lawsuit – resumed planning the events, Vogt said, since "nothing in the settlement would preclude the foundations." Vogt said the foundations historically planned the ceremonies until 2008.
     [Ayesha] Khan disagreed with Vogt's interpretation of the settlement agreement.
     "Neither the South Orange County Community College District, nor its colleges ... shall include an invocation on the program at any future scholarship ceremonies," Khan said, reading from the agreement. "I think they'd be skating on really thin legal ice."

See update HERE