FROGUE'S "SCHOLAR" HINTS AT VIOLENCE

From Dissent 4, 3/27/98

[Michael Collins Piper was among the quartet of cranks that Frogue invited to his ill-fated “Warren Commission” forum. Piper is the reporter for “Spotlight,” which is the chief publication of Willis Carto’s anti-Semitic “Liberty Lobby.” (See ARCHIVES: January and June of 1998.) [Piper's ultimate fate?: HERE]

When Piper was denied his day in the sun—Frogue bowed to public pressure and cancelled the forum—he was angry and tried various ploys to get back into the limelight. He sent me a letter to provoke me in some way; in it, he repeatedly called me a “motherfucker,” and so, since Frogue was unapologetic about his forum idea, I decided to read the letter to the board (January ’98). Apparently, that really caught Piper by surprise. That’s amazing to me, but there it is.

Here, Piper seems to suggest that I am now in physical danger, owing to his uncontrollable friends. Whatever.

I informed the district, but they didn't seem to care.

Mathur was granted a security stipend because of the "threats" he claimed to receive from a "core group." Oddly, despite referring to about a dozen "threats," he never provided a shred of evidence of the existence of any of them. You'd think a guy would keep threatening letters and emails. Doncha think?]

Letter from Frogue's pal (and invitee) MC Piper

Originally entitled:

PIPER AGAIN

By Big Bill

Frogue

As you know, recently, I received an unscholarly letter from Mr. Michael Collins Piper. I’ve just learned that Trustee Marcia Milchiker received an e-mail message from Mr. Piper several months ago. It begins: “Dear Marcia: I was shocked to see your picture and read your resume and find that you appear to be a sensible, decent person. Contrast that with the shrieking, hysterical manner in which you approached my intended speaking engagement in California.”

He goes on to call Milchiker “crazed” and a “hypocrite” and someone “in the same category as the Nazi stormtroopers.”

More recently—March 23—Piper sent a letter to the Acting Chancellor. This time, it was signed. In the 6-page letter, Piper asserts that he has received some “interesting” information about me. (He fails to say what it is.) He claims that he wrote me to “advise” me that he had this information, and that he wouldn’t use it, although I should remember that “people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”

In fact, I received no such letter. If I had, I would have distributed it far and wide.

More recently, he says, he wrote me another letter to “give me the jitters.” He described it as a “sharply-worded letter including that most infamous of nouns” [namely, “motherfucker”]. It is, of course, the letter that I reprinted in the last issue of Dissent.

Upon a brief discussion of the “infamous noun” (including a quotation by Ashley Montegu), Mr. Piper says:

Which brings me to another point: yes, indeed, my Black Nationalist friends are very disturbed at Roy Bauer and they have been monitoring his activities...And it was one of my Black Nationalist friends, by the way, who selected that choice “term of endearment” for Roy Bauer.

(I would add that I have no control over any Black Nationalists in California any more than...the ADL has any control over the violent Jewish Defense League leader, Irv Rubin who is going to have a forum in the South Orange County Community College District in the very near future.)

Not that I think that the highly descriptive term I aimed at Roy Bauer is applicable to Roy Bauer by any means.

But it has much more impact than calling Bauer the schmuck and the nebbish and the momzer that he is.

Piper then becomes defensive:

...my use of that “foul” term in a PRIVATE LETTER TO ROY BAUER has nothing to do with what I wrote in my book....So essentially, Roy Bauer is one big shvantz who’s trying to distract your attention by focusing your eyes on some ugly words and trying to keep you from looking at a serious and scholarly work...that presents a point of view that he and his ADL handlers don’t want to hear. Don’t let Bauer make monkeys out of you.

Later, the hapless Mr. Piper adds:

What’s more, all sorts of scatological filth also pours out of the mouths of such Vegas favorites as Buddy Hackett, Jerry Lewis and Jackie Mason (who once negotiated to play another major ADL contributor, mob thug Meyer Lansky, in a film of Lansky’s life.) So Roy Bauer better catch up with the times.

His letter ends thus:

Inasmuch as this affair has become a subject of public controversy, I believe it is the right and duty and responsibility of the SOCCD [sic] board of trustees to allow me to come to a forum on its campus to discuss my book and to debate my critics. I’ll even pay my own way. And I won‘t use the kind of language that I use in personal letters (not for public consumption) sent to Roy Bauer.

I look forward to your invitation.
Constructively,
MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER

UNION MEETING: A SOLEMN OATH OF HALF-ASSERY

BIG BILL [Roy Bauer] REPORTS

Dissent 4 – March 27, 1998

On the 23rd, I drove down to Saddleback College for the union meeting. Having had arrived quite early, I briefly visited Bob “Antichrist” Cosgrove, who was sacrificing a student or something deep in the bowels of BGS. He and I exchanged a secret handshake known only to ES’s [Eagle Scouts] (we’re devil-worshippers, you know), and then I headed for the library to wait for the meeting to begin.

I settled into a station of one of those goofy library cubicle thingamabobs, grading papers. From my lonely thingamabob, I could see the door of the union meeting room, which is important since, sometimes, Sherry [Miller-White] waits until the last minute to leave a note on the door saying “meeting canceled. Fuck you.”

Naturally, the meeting’s start time—3:00—came and went, and no one appeared—but that meant nothing. Soon, Sherry walked by and said “Hello, Roy,” unchirpily, but then she left again. Other union Brothers and Sisters appeared, and we all walked into the room. Evidently, we were waiting to be let into the room next door since someone else had signed out the room we now occupied. I mention this detail only because, in the world of Sherry and the Rep Council, life is just one such episode after another, as though they have all sworn a solemn oath of half-assery.

Sherry

By 3:10, amazingly, a dozen or so people had gathered in the new room and the meeting was under way. (As usual, Sherry did not bother to determine whether a quorum had been reached.) She immediately distributed handouts; among them were minutes—yes, minutes!—of the last meeting, which were notable for such sentences as, “A motion by Bob Kopfstein and seconded by Sharon Macmillan, passed anonymously.” Yes, anonymously.

Sherry announced that we would begin with a “closed session,” which meant, of course, that non-Rep Council riffraff were obliged to leave the room. (Isn’t democracy wonderful?) Sherry turned to me and said, “I promise, Roy, just 15 minutes; I promise!” I left without comment, and so did Ronnie Lebauer. We walked to my lonely thingamabob.

Absurdly, from there we could hear everything that was said at the meeting, for the door had been left wide open, though it was rudely banged shut after a few minutes. Then we watched Walt D., another non-Rep Council union Sibling, walk up to the door, open it, and enter. Oddly, he did not exit, so Ronnie marched in and asked what gives, and, soon, they both walked out, which was good, since I was beginning to think that the Council just didn’t like people with “bauer” in their surnames.

Kopfstein

The three of us talked. The agreeable Walt explained to Ronnie and me that the union is like an amateur crew on a ship, and the ship has grown larger and the seas have grown rougher, etc. I said, sure, but why won’t this crew listen when someone finds a manual explaining how to run a goddam ship? Walt removed his glasses and appeared to stare [into the distance].

Twenty-two (not fifteen) minutes after our exile, the door was reopened and we took our seats once again. The council—or maybe just Ken Woodward—seemed to be ridiculing those who had expressed distrust of the union leadership with regard to the contract ratification election. “There’s no satisfying them!” said someone. “Whadya gonna do with people like that?” said another.

But the meeting soon moved forward. Sherry revealed, I think, that the “6 month” rule in the bylaws (according to which those who are FA members for less than 6 months are not allowed to vote) is illegal. She remarked that the current bylaws contain internal contradictions.

Later, Sherry gave a fuller account of the need to revise the bylaws. There were two problems, she said: first, the election procedures were insufficiently detailed, and so the revised bylaws will provide details taken from CTA “boilerplate.” Second, “proportional voting” (according to which part-timers are only partial voters) needs to be changed or abandoned. Sherry, of course, has championed proportional voting in the past (e.g., at one of the recent Q&As).

We next looked over [Mike] Runyan’s “Board Policy 4000.5” (concerning discrimination and harassment). Somehow, I was not given a copy. Sherry said that, “basically, it says the Board has to obey the law.”

Next, we heard a bylaws update. As you know, at the last meeting, the Rep Council decided that only the Council would be allowed to vote concerning the ratification of the revised bylaws—in direct contradiction of the current bylaws which state that bylaws are to be changed by a 2/3 vote of the membership. Sherry finally acknowledged this, whereupon others exhibited a Carsonian “I did not know that” expression.

Unfortunately, Mr. Kopfstein suggested using a “refusal” ballot vote, a curious practice according to which members who do not vote are regarded as having voted in the affirmative. (See BELOW.) I indicated that, probably, the refusal ballot scheme is illegal. The Rep Council, however, was undeterred; the draft of the revised bylaws, they said, would be sent to CTA in Burlingame (from the 16th to the 24th), and those people would catch illegalities, if any, when reviewing it.

One might assume that, as a preliminary to the bylaws ratification election, members would be permitted an opportunity to examine the current bylaws plus the proposed changes. Sherry made no such assumption. She explained that the bylaws are 16 pages long and that it wouldn’t do to duplicate all of that material for everyone. Hence, she advocated distributing only those parts of the bylaws that are being amended. I suggested that we could not have an adequate ratification election on the amended bylaws unless the voting membership were provided a copy of the current bylaws plus the proposed changes. I explained, further, that it is not difficult to scan and reformat the bylaws in a more convenient form such that fewer pages are necessary. This had not occurred to Sherry, an apparent Luddite. In the end, I believe, the Council decided to provide to the membership the full text of the current bylaws plus the changes.

As usual, Sherry spoke about the bylaws revision process—the identifying of internal contradictions, the correcting of typographical and grammatical errors, the inclusion of CTA boilerplate—as though it were a massive scholarly project. Evidently, she has even hired a typist for the project.

—Am I missing something? The revision process—at least as she describes it—should take no more than a weekend, typing included. What’s the big deal? Also: why haven’t members been solicited for input concerning revision of the bylaws? And what is the relationship between these revisions and the recommendations of the CTA “leadership team” that visited last year? Is the FA being forced to make these changes by the CTA? Inquiring minds want to know.

Eventually, we discussed Propositions 226 and 227. 226, you will recall, proposes allowing union members to redirect the portion of their dues that is spent on politics. Critics view it as an assault on unionism or at least on unions’ ability to collect money from members. The CTA, of course, opposes the measure, as do most members of the Rep Council, evidently.

Though I had said absolutely nothing about the matter during the meeting, the ever-boorish Mr. Woodward suddenly looked over in my direction and slyly remarked, “As we all know, Roy supports 226!” Among this group, Ken’s remark seemed to be the equivalent of saying, “As we all know, Roy favors puppy killings.”

In response, I pointed out that I had in fact never endorsed this initiative. Mr. Woodward then referred to the appearance of George Will’s pro-226 piece in the ‘Vine. I explained that I sometimes include pieces in the ‘Vine that do not represent my own view. (Indeed, in that very issue of the ‘Vine [2/13/97], I also reprinted, without commentary, a letter by Acting Chancellor [Kathie] Hodge which suggested that the district’s problems have been exaggerated.) This point, however, went nowhere with Mr. Woodward.

In fact, I’m not sure what to make of 226. I remain undecided concerning it.

Unfortunately, Mr. DeAguero chose this moment to challenge me concerning 226. He looked at me and said something to this effect: “Are you prepared to go on record endorsing [opposing?] 226?” Now, I must confess that I was irked by this question. Others in the room, evidently, are permitted to hold their views privately. I, on the other hand, am expected to reveal on demand to the Rep Council how I plan to vote in future elections.

I explained to Walt that, in fact, I wasn’t sure whether or not I favored 226. He said, “Well, you have a right not to answer my question.” I said, “I am answering your question; I haven’t decided on 226.” There is, of course, a difference between saying that one won’t state one’s decision and saying that one has not made a decision.

No doubt, at some future date, Mr. Woodward will don his “bratty school-girl” persona again and declare, “As you know, Roy refuses to tell us what he thinks of 226!”

At some point, a discussion of the much-anticipated April election ensued. Evidently, Mr. Kopfstein will design the ballots, which (I believe) will be “centralized”—that is, one ballot will be distributed that will include every item to be voted upon. (Does that mean that, say, a member of division X may vote on the Rep election for division Y? I certainly hope not.) The double-envelope system will be used for this election.

We are now in the NOMINATIONS period, which, I believe, will extend through the 21st of April. (I’m not sure about this date, so please verify.) I believe that the actual election is set for the period from the 24th until the 30th of April.

A discussion ensued about who may be nominated. Any active dues-paying member may be nominated to be a Division Rep, we were told. In the case of union officers, however, only members of the Rep Council may be nominees—or so declared Mr. Kopfstein, the union’s “bylaws specialist.”

Not so. Someone referred to the bylaws, which state the following:

A. Regular Elections
1. ...Any person(s) running for executive office must have been a representative or an active member in Union activities for a minimum of four years.

“Oh.”

Anyone can make a nomination, apparently, and there is no form to fill out. Those who wish to nominate someone for office or who wish to nominate themselves should send word to Mr. Kopfstein, who indicated that he is “probably” the one to whom nominations should be sent.

I asked if the membership could be provided with a list of those who are currently in the Rep Council. I was told simply to consult any union newsletter. “Is that information accurate?” I asked. “Yes,” said Sherry.

"CIVILITY" & RAGHU'S TOUCHY-FEELY SIDE

From Dissent 4, 3/27/98 

originally entitled: 

“NAVIGATING THE WINDS OF CHANGE” by Chunk Wheeler 

Recently, Irvine Valley College’s lamentable president, Raghu P. Mathur, took time out from his lies and illegalities to distribute an idiotic document entitled, “Civility: Where Has it Gone? How Can We Get it Back?” Evidently, it was written or assembled by two instructors—one from Saddleback, the other from LA Southwest College—who shall remain nameless. 

The document includes a section entitled, “40 Ways to Appreciate Yourself & Others.” Here, we find such remarkable advice as the following: 

• Buy a special gift for yourself to reward your efforts. 
• Keep the positive cards, notes and letters you receive. 
• Keep track of your achievements in a “win” journal. 
• Give yourself one compliment per day. 
• Have a “Brag Buddy” to share successes with. 
• Say to yourself at least ten times per day, “I love myself” or “I like myself.” 
• Make a photo copy of the palm of your hand and give yourself a “pat on the back.” 
• Laugh a lot with others; don’t join in the whining. 
• Have an appreciation party. 
• Have an appreciation break at work. 
• Verbally appreciate at least five people daily. 

In yet another section of the “Civility” document, we find the following inspirational “work,” by one Dempsey Byrd: 

ANYWAY—Dempsey Byrd 

     "People are unreasonable, illogical and self-centered. Love them ANYWAY. If you do good, people will accuse you of selflsh ulterior motives. Do good ANYWAY. …

     Honesty and frankness make you vulnerable. be frank and honest ANYWAY. People favor underdogs but only follow top dogs. Fight for some underdogs ANYWAY. What you spend years building may be destroyed overnight. Build ANYWAY. ….. 

     Give the world the best you have and you'll get kicked in the teeth. Give the world the best you've got ANYWAY." 

—Naturally, one of our contributors has a response to this nonsense: 

Against Civility: Where did it come from? How can we resist it? by M. Bakunin 

[I suspect that this was the one and only Red Emma]

From Dissent 4, 3/27/98(?)

     The presumed demise of civility, much lamented by elites, managers and toady college presidents, represents an expression by the disenfranchised of the fundamental project of freedom: resistance. It's instructive that the silly (and reactionary) platitudes offered in "Attitude" from "Navigating the Winds of Change" -- “Handouts Assembled by Saddleback College, Student Development Office" are credited to an ”Unknown” author. 

     This seems right. “Unknown" is either a stooge or the nom de plume of management, of authority. He deserves his anonymity. He has earned it. 

     It's further instructive to see Fullerton college's president, subject to a very uncivil no-confidence vote, echo President Raghu Mathur in her recent LA TIMES interview, calling for same. 

     Civility is a petit bourgeois behavior, a conceit used by Imperial Britain, Imperial France and Imperial Margarine. 

     But it's "not nice to fool" the powerful and civility is as quickly abandoned by them as it is demanded. When somebody tells the truth, for instance. It's like professionalism. This is a concept valuable to somebody, but who finally? Let them take your power away. Let them give $60,000 to their puppet slate. Let them exploit a process you've respected and tried hard to work with. Let them invite Nazis to your college district. Then, embrace your hard-fought political rights, set up a table, alert the community, write letters to the newspaper and, voila, you are behaving, of course, unprofessionally. You are uncivil.

     Civility: polite disregard for workplace politics, polite disregard for Nazis at school board meetings, total lack of historical appreciation of workplace politics, unwillingness to engage others in discussion of politics, fear of prejudicing meetings or classes or students with political discussion. 

     Quiz: What defines civility? Lack of politics. Lack of power. Lack. Uncivil: a vote of no confidence, talking about the president's illegal appointment, pinning down officials on their lies, calling a union undemocratic and homophobic and anti-Semitic and being right.

“How I Joined the Union” —OR “Invisible Ink”

“How I Joined the Union”

—OR

“Invisible Ink”

by Red Emma

Dissent 4 – March 27, 1998

Red

Red Emma teaches writing part-time at Irvine Valley College. His activist politics demand his union membership, but in five years of teaching here, not once has anybody ever invited or encouraged him to join the union or provided him materials regarding representation by his local.

Red Emma wonders why. Red Emma organizes other part time faculty members, many of whom also wonder. (There is collective wondering a-plenty at our bi-weekly organizing meetings.) Red Emma calls the union rep, who does not return phone calls, but later leaves photocopies of the application materials, with the full deduction for dues (full-time $70/month) written in.

But, surely, this amount can't apply to adjunct faculty. Can it?

More phone calls by R.E., no answers from R.C. [Ray Chandos], the union rep. Similar calls to SOCCCD payroll. They suggest talking to Lee Walker, advice so laughable Red Emma wets his pants just thinking about it.

So, finally, the Red One just signs the form and, a few days later, receives a membership card, signed by the rep. In the payroll deduction box, either written in invisible ink, or perhaps not written at all, Emma's monthly payroll deduction. None at all. Zero. Blank. Free!

Red Emma, a dues paying (such as they aren't) SOCCCD-Faculty Association member becomes the following week the single adjunct faculty member to actually vote on the contract. (For the record--"No.") Of over two hundred part-time faculty presumably represented by the F.A. bargaining unit, he's the only one to actually have a direct say on the contract (a wretched thing).

In fact, Red Emma spoke with Debra Landre, CCA President at the recent COFO (Conference of Faculty Organizations) workshop at Long Beach City College (also attended by Richard Lewis of Saddleback, who carries a license to wear those suspenders). President Landre assured Redness that in fact PART-TIME UNION DUES ARE $14.00 monthly. Landre expressed her cautious dismay (some kind of automatic administrative reflex lately) that IVC adjunct faculty have not been solicited for membership and offered demure congratulations on my joining up. I asked her for union promotion materials; i.e. brochures, buttons, condoms or those cute little keyring flashlights. This was, judging from her delighted, if confused response, apparently the only time in the history of the academic universe that anybody's begged to join the proud union.

Stay tuned. Red Emma is eager to report the amount dislodged this coming payday from his huge part-time paycheck by payroll and the local.

Invisible ink, if I remember from my Hardy Boys reading days, is revealed by rubbing charcoal on it or otherwise causing it to come into contact with heat, an element I encourage all part timers to apply to this confused union, which purports to represent us. Do they want us as members or not? Stand by.

–RE

See PART II of this series

Andrew Tonkovich

Against Civility: Where did it come from? How can we resist it? (Red Emma)

Against Civility: Where did it come from? How can we resist it? by M. Bakunin

[I suspect that "Bakunin" was the one and only Red Emma, who hadn't yet settled on his name. -RB]

From Dissent 4, 3/27/98(?)

     The presumed demise of civility [see Civility], much lamented by elites, managers and toady college presidents, represents an expression by the disenfranchised of the fundamental project of freedom: resistance. It's instructive that the silly (and reactionary) platitudes offered in "Attitude" from "Navigating the Winds of Change" -- “Handouts Assembled by Saddleback College, Student Development Office" are credited to an ”Unknown” author. 

     This seems right. “Unknown" is either a stooge or the nom de plume of management, of authority. He deserves his anonymity. He has earned it. 

     It's further instructive to see Fullerton college's president, subject to a very uncivil no-confidence vote, echo President Raghu Mathur in her recent LA TIMES interview, calling for same. 

     Civility is a petit bourgeois behavior, a conceit used by Imperial Britain, Imperial France and Imperial Margarine. 

     But it's "not nice to fool" the powerful and civility is as quickly abandoned by them as it is demanded. When somebody tells the truth, for instance. It's like professionalism. This is a concept valuable to somebody, but who finally? Let them take your power away. Let them give $60,000 to their puppet slate. Let them exploit a process you've respected and tried hard to work with. Let them invite Nazis to your college district. Then, embrace your hard-fought political rights, set up a table, alert the community, write letters to the newspaper and, voila, you are behaving, of course, unprofessionally. You are uncivil.

     Civility: polite disregard for workplace politics, polite disregard for Nazis at school board meetings, total lack of historical appreciation of workplace politics, unwillingness to engage others in discussion of politics, fear of prejudicing meetings or classes or students with political discussion. 

     Quiz: What defines civility? Lack of politics. Lack of power. Lack. Uncivil: a vote of no confidence, talking about the president's illegal appointment, pinning down officials on their lies, calling a union undemocratic and homophobic and anti-Semitic and being right.

REBEL GIRL ON "PROCESS"

From Dissent 3, 3/18/98 

Originally entitled: 

WE’RE WAIST DEEP IN THE BIG MUDDY 

by Rebel Girl 

     The union’s recent appearance at a district press conference to offer our unqualified endorsement of Trustee Steven J. Frogue was surprising. The growing public record about Frogue is disturbing to say the least, and should have made most pause, even those who have previously wholeheartedly endorsed a man who, at least three years ago, thought the Holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review was worthy enough to enter the “debate” about the Holocaust. 

     (Just to be sporting, let’s leave out of this my criticism of Frogue’s campaign tactics that attacked gays and lesbians.) 

     Can the union support Steven Frogue? Sure. Why not? In the past it has—to the tune of thousands of campaign dollars. 

     Should they? Sure—if the union wishes. My criticism is with how this endorsement was decided—the process, my union sisters and brothers, the process. 

     According to remarks made by negotiating team member (and vice-chancellor of fiscal services stealth intern—just see who that job goes to—there’s process for you) Ken Woodward during his recent radio appearance on KPFK, the union had not taken a stand on the recall campaign. In fact, Brother Woodward chided fellow Brother Bauer about Bauer’s claim to the contrary: “Well, the faculty union actually itself, as Roy Bauer well knows, has not taken a position on Mr. Frogue....” 

     So the union’s quick action, some four weeks later, to oppose the recall campaign and support Frogue caught some of us by surprise. Had we missed something? A meeting? A phone poll? A flyer? Were we supposed to vote on Frogue as well as our contract? What happened? And when? 

     My concept of a union is pretty basic. A union is just that, a confederation, an alliance. It is made up of people who have some kind of affiliation—In our case, our shared working conditions. A union represents its members, recognizing that, of course, as with any union, there might be disagreements among the membership. 

     Still, it’s the charge of the leadership to seek guidance, permission even, from the members and to operate the union democratically. This charge should not be taken lightly. Who says? The law. (No, no, not those pesky ever-evolving F.A. by-laws—the law. Of the land.) 

     When did our union decide to oppose the recall campaign? When did the union decide to reaffirm our support of Steven Frogue? How was this (potentially embarrassing) decision made? When? Who was consulted? 

     Clearly, the union leadership, which has so often ignored the rank and file in the past, has done so again—and this time cloaked themselves with our “manufactured” consent. At the press conference, Brother Bob Kopfstein (at first reading a statement on behalf of FA president Sherry Miller-White) said that the union opposed the recall on the grounds that it was “disruptive.” Apparently the presence on the college board of a person who sympathizes with the Institute for Historical Review and The Spotlight is not “disruptive.” Apparently the systematic dismantling of shared governance is not “disruptive.” Hmmm.

     Perhaps a better tactic, one that would have honestly addressed and represented the obviously deep divisions within the membership, would have been for the union to have abstained from any action in this case. Or certainly refrained from any public action until they had done what union leadership should do--especially in a situation as volatile as this one--consult its members. 

     As for now, my fellow union sisters and brothers, look at those with whom our leaders have aligned us. And why? For what purpose? To save face? To be loyal? 

     It reminds me of an old song, Waist Deep in the Big Muddy. It goes like this: 

It was back in 1942 

I was part of a good platoon 

We were on maneuvers in Louisiana 

One night by the light of the moon 

The Captain said, told us, to ford a river 

That’s how it all begun 

We were--knee deep in the Big Muddy 

But the big fool kept yelling push on. 

The Sergeant said, “Sir, are you sure 

This is the way back to the base?” 

“Sergeant, I once crossed this river 

Not a mile above this place, 

It’ll be a little soggy but we’ll keep slogging 

We’ll soon be on dry ground.” 

We were--waist deep in the Big Muddy 

With the damn fool yelling push on. 

The Sergeant said, “Sir, with all this equipment 

No man will be able to swim.” 

“Sergeant, don’t be a nervous nellie,” 

The Captain said to him. 

“All we need is a little determination 

Follow me--I’ll lead on.” 

We were--neck deep in the Big Muddy 

And the damned fool kept yelling push on. 

All of a sudden the moon clouded over 

All we heard was a gurgling cry 

And a second later the Captain’s helmet 

Was all that floated by. 

The Sergeant said, “Turn round men 

I’m in charge from now on.” 

And we just made it out of the Big Muddy 

With the Captain dead and gone. 

We stripped and dived and found his body 

Stuck in the quicksand 

I guess he didn’t know that the water was deeper 

Than the place he’d once been... 

...Well, I’m not going to point any moral, 

I’ll leave that to yourself 

Maybe you’re still walking, 

maybe you’re still talking 

Maybe you’ve got your health 

But every time I hear the news 

That old feeling comes back on 

We’re--neck deep in the Big Muddy 

And the damned fool keeps yelling push on 

Knee deep in the Big Muddy 

And the fools keep yelling push on 

Waist deep in the Big Muddy 

And the damn fools keep yelling push on 

Waist deep, neck deep 

We’ll be drowning before too long 

We’re--neck deep in the Big Muddy 

And the damned fools keep yelling push on. 

     Famously, CBS attempted to prevent folk legend Pete Seeger from singing this song on the Smothers Brothers Show because of its obvious parallel to LBJ’s suffocating Southeast Asian war policy.

REBEL GIRL SAYS…READ YOUR OVID!

From Dissent 3, 3/18/98 

The ancient Greeks warned against hubris, the pride that made people believe they could defy the law, defy the gods. Why? This pride, this hubris, leads to arrogant behavior and a tendency to disregard the rights of others. 

Hubris is perhaps the best way to characterize the current jostling for power within the evolving SOCCCD administration and the insolent behavior of the board majority. How else to explain the ascent of Raghu “Narcissus” Mathur, Mike “Ganymede” Runyan, Ken “Midas” Woodward and the other Myrmidons who wait for resignations and the subsequent job announcements? 

The union angle? The metamorphosis of union leaders to management stooges is troubling--especially considering the single-minded crusade to diminish faculty power shared by these “faculty” leaders and the administrative colleagues they hope to join. The fingerprints of “acting” administrators are all over the proposed administrative hiring policy--the same policy which will cement their own appointments in months to come. 

Unlike the convenient (lecherous Zeus’s sneaky self-changes) or vindictive (the punitive metamorphosis meted out to the presumptuous Arachne) or even compassionate (Daphne’s mutation into a laurel tree) transformations so prevalent in Greek myths, the recent morphing of faculty to management seems steeped in self-interest and nepotism, inspired perhaps by hubris. 

What happened to the Greeks who were too full of hubris? Nemesis, the goddess of retribution, was dispatched from Mount Olympus to deal with the offenders. While “nemesis” has come to mean a vengeful opponent, the Greek origin is closer to “distribute”--or to mete out matters evenly. The goddess Nemesis ensures that hardships offset the ill-got fortune gained by hubris. It’s a kind of justice. 

Rebel Girl recommends that offerings of thigh bones wrapped in fat and libations be presented to Nemesis at the appropriate alters near you.

REBEL GIRL SAYS…READ YOUR OVID!

Dissent 3 March 18, 1998 

REBEL GIRL SAYS…READ YOUR OVID! 

by Rebel Girl 

The ancient Greeks warned against hubris, the pride that made people believe they could defy the law, defy the gods. Why? This pride, this hubris, leads to arrogant behavior and a tendency to disregard the rights of others. 

Hubris is perhaps the best way to characterize the current jostling for power within the evolving SOCCCD administration and the insolent behavior of the board majority. How else to explain the ascent of Raghu “Narcissus” Mathur, Mike “Ganymede” Runyan, Ken “Midas” Woodward and the other Myrmidons who wait for resignations and the subsequent job announcements? 

The union angle? The metamorphosis of union leaders to management stooges is troubling--especially considering the single-minded crusade to diminish faculty power shared by these “faculty” leaders and the administrative colleagues they hope to join. The fingerprints of “acting” administrators are all over the proposed administrative hiring policy--the same policy which will cement their own appointments in months to come. 

Unlike the convenient (lecherous Zeus’s sneaky self-changes) or vindictive (the punitive metamorphosis meted out to the presumptuous Arachne) or even compassionate (Daphne’s mutation into a laurel tree) transformations so prevalent in Greek myths, the recent morphing of faculty to management seems steeped in self-interest and nepotism, inspired perhaps by hubris. What happened to the Greeks who were too full of hubris? Nemesis, the goddess of retribution, was dispatched from Mount Olympus to deal with the offenders. While “nemesis” has come to mean a vengeful opponent, the Greek origin is closer to “distribute”--or to mete out matters evenly. The goddess Nemesis ensures that hardships offset the ill-got fortune gained by hubris. It’s a kind of justice. 

Rebel Girl recommends that offerings of thigh bones wrapped in fat and libations be presented to Nemesis at the appropriate alters near you. 

* * *

From Dissent 1: Big Bill, Julie, and Rebel Girl

THE FEB. 23 UNION MEETING

by Big Bill [Dissent 1, 3/2/98]

     On the 23rd (Monday), at about 3:10 p.m., I checked my office voice-mail, and among my messages was a call from B.B., who had heard, she said, that there would be a union meeting “this afternoon.” As far as I knew, no meeting had been scheduled for the 23rd—meetings, typically, are scheduled on board meeting days—and so this information was a bit surprising—although, in truth, I knew from past experience that union president Sherry Miller-White is quite capable of scheduling meetings without telling the general union membership.
     Union meetings usually start at 3:00, and so I knew that, if I didn’t leave immediately, I would miss most of the meeting. It had already been a frustrating day as regards the union, for Lisa, my increasingly demonstrative office mate, had requested (of Ray Chandos) the minutes of a meeting that she had been unable to attend, and Ray responded with a message that asserted, snippily, that it is the responsibility of division reps to provide such information, and union officers, such as Ray, have better things to do than to duplicate and mail documents, etc. (Something to that effect.)
     Ray’s message was quite odd, for surely he knows that the School of Humanities and Languages at IVC has struggled for a year, without success, to have one of its members recognized as a division representative; surely he knows that, despite my being unanimously elected by the (union) members of the school as our rep, Sherry Miller-White has refused to recognize me as such. She refuses still. Was Ray telling Lisa, then, that she, a member of the union, had no right to information about the union’s actions/decisions? Lisa was peeved, and so was I.
     Ray was already on my excrement list, for I had scheduled an appointment with him for last Friday at 9:00 a.m., but he didn’t show, and so I made the trip to IVC (from Trabuco Canyon) for nothing. (I have since learned that Ray somehow never received my e-mail confirmation of the appointment.) And so, overcoming an attack of consternation, I headed out the door to make my way down to Saddleback College. (I knew that the meeting would be at Saddleback, for, as you know, meetings are never held at IVC.)

     I must have entered the meeting room in the Saddleback College Library at about 3:40--I was slightly detained in transit by an enormous stinking ark that had somehow settled on top of Best Buy near Oso. As I entered, I immediately sensed an unwelcome atmosphere. Perhaps it was the way that Sherry glared at me; or maybe it was the way Ken Woodward commenced making unflattering references to “Roy Bauer,” as though that fellow were not in the room. I pick up on things like that.
     [Only recently, I learned that, during the part of the meeting I missed, the Representative Council decided that only the Rep Council would be allowed to vote to ratify the recently “revised” bylaws. THAT’S ILLEGAL!]
     Generally, Sherry was holding forth on the contract, which, she insisted, was “great”--a towering achievement, a veritable miracle--despite the assiduous efforts (she said) of “certain people” (she glanced my way) who put the union negotiators in a desperately bad position at a crucial moment by instigating newspaper articles that discussed faculty salaries. These fiends, she said, seek to lower faculty salaries, which, evidently in her estimation, places them several circles below rapists and murderers. (Bob Cosgrove’s name was mentioned.) Sherry then asserted that the efforts of these loathsome insurgents “cost each of us $6,000.” Jeez, that’s almost enough to pay the board’s legal bills for a whole weekend!
     Ken Woodward kept staring at me; his eyes were distorted by the mounting pressures of black bile in his skull. On occasion, he muttered aloud puerile unpleasantries about me to his chum, Mr. Kopfstein; he said, “What do you expect from a dropout!”, “I’ll keep mentioning my Ph.D. in economics--did you know that I have one?--‘cuz that really gets him mad!”, and so on. The scene reminded me of those wonderful close-ups of Mr. and Mrs. Robinsons’ hideously animated mouths, impotently spewing curses at the end of The Graduate. No--it reminds me of the look on the face of a kid, in 1962, who was picked last when we were choosing up sides for a dodge-ball game. Later, that kid popped the ball. Ken’s a ball-popper.
     I confess that, at that moment, I took unhealthy pleasure in observing Ken make a colossal ass of himself. As the people in my family like to say, “Just add water, and he makes his own sauce.”
     Sherry seemed to declare both that the tentative contract is “great” and that it was somehow ruined by the aforementioned insurgents.
     A person from counseling noted that, though the contract secures a 0% raise for faculty in general, it in effect provides a significant raise for a subset of faculty—a subset, interestingly, three members of which were on the negotiating team. “It doesn’t look good,” said the counselor. She also said that, for people in her area of the college, the new restrictions on reassigned time in the contract “are a death blow” (or some such thing). She briefly explained the gory details—details with which the members of the negotiating team seemed utterly unfamiliar.
     In response, Mr. McClendon and Ms. MacMillan argued that the contract must be ratified or not as a whole. If one were to reject it on the basis of a single death blow, then the whole contract would go down the drain and the negotiations would have to begin anew.
     Sherry insisted that, though the contract includes no raise, the union negotiators were able to secure “everything else” that they wanted. In response, Ms. LeBauer noted that the contract does nothing to advance “domestic partner benefits,” a goal that some members of the union have been noisily advocating for some time. I believe that Sherry responded as follows: before the negotiations began, an effort was made to solicit desiderata from the membership; but no one submitted a request for the advancement of domestic partner benefits! (Hey, maybe no one submitted a request for a raise, either!)
     I believe that Walt (last name?) and Mr. McClendon urged the group to get their “ducks in a row” before facing the union membership at the March 2 “contract ratification” meeting. (See the February FA Newsletter.) Undoubtedly, they said, lots of complaints will be expressed, and we’d better begin formulating plausible defenses. I suggested that, insofar as the group seeks to prepare for complaints, they had better know right now that many faculty at IVC are upset about the contract’s assault on reassigned time, among other things.

     Ms. LeBauer, a person evidently in possession of infinite patience, asked why the contract’s section on reassigned time—to which she also objected--was placed at the end and without a heading of the kind given to the other sections of the contract. She also asked why there was no mention of this provision--arguably, the most surprising provision of the tentative contract—in the union’s February Newsletter, which was distributed during the meeting, and which purported to list “Highlights of the Tentative Agreement.”
     Sharon gave an answer that was too feeble for me to recall; the facts to which Ms. LeBauer referred, she said, do not reflect a conspiracy. It seemed to me that, at that point, Sharon was about to burst into tears.
     Someone asked about the origin of the new reassigned time restrictions. “The district insisted on them,” said the negotiators (viz., MacMillan, Kopfstein, Miller-White, and Woodward). Mr. Woodward noted that, in negotiations, one must give something the other side wants in order to get what our side really wants, and the district (the Board Majority?) wanted the restrictions on reassigned time.
     But why, asked someone, did the negotiators assume that protecting reassigned time was not particularly desirable to the union membership? LeBauer and I noted that, given the proposed reassigned time restrictions, instructors who do not wish to do overload can no longer receive support for important activities that only they can do competently. For us, and for many others, maintaining reassigned time is particularly desirable, even necessary.
     At some point, reference was made to an alleged effort now being organized at IVC to try to urge non-ratification of the tentative contract. (Funny, I hadn’t encountered any such effort.) Some people at the meeting were sure about this. Indeed, judging by their body-language and the trajectory of their spit-balls, it seems that they thought that I was directly involved in this conspiracy.
     In the course of the meeting, some members of the negotiating team (viz., Mr. Kopfstein and Ms. Miller-White) took mighty umbrage at the complaints and concerns expressed during the meeting. For his part, Mr. Kopfstein declared that, in view of the ingratitude that he was witnessing, he would never again participate in negotiations. Never. He and Sherry seemed to say: “Hey, we worked hard, very hard, to secure the best possible contract for you. Everything we do is for you. So let’s not have all this carping about the occasional death blow that some members will be dealt! Jeepers!” I believe that, if a ball had been in the room, they would have taken it and left the building.
     To be honest, Mr. Kopfstein was on his best behavior throughout the meeting. Not once did he turn red and curse at someone.
     At some point, the “reorganization” came up. Sherry asserted that the union was opposed to it, that the union had fought it. But, I asked, wasn’t it precisely the union-supported Board Majority who championed the reorganization? And, further, wasn’t it precisely the union-vilified Board Minority that argued against it? At that moment, a string of drool briefly shot down the side of Sherry’s mouth. —Not really, but her answer was about as helpful as that drool would have been.
     Sharon—again, apparently on the verge of tears—expressed concern that, upon ratification by the membership, the tentative contract might then be rejected by the board; after all, board ratification depends on one slimy vote; and it is this vote—Frogue’s—that would be removed by those dastardly insurgents who are in charge of the current recall effort.
     This remark led to a discussion of the merits and demerits of trustee Frogue. Once again, Sherry defended the man. “He’s weird!”, she shouted, but he’s no racist. Evidently, Sherry bases this judgment on the fact that she asked Mr. Frogue whether he is a racist, and he said “No.”
     “But what about the student affidavits?”, I asked. In Sherry’s mind, evidently, it is more likely that a dozen or so students are lying than that Mr. Frogue is lying. That darned Frogue hath charms that soothe the savage unionist. It pisseth me off.
     Eventually, the meeting just petered out. I hung around to ask Sherry one or two questions. She tried to ignore me. I said: “Just one quick question.” “Yes?”, she answered.
     I asked her about the scheduling of the meeting. Why hadn’t anyone at IVC been told about it? She gave a long-winded answer. I said, “Why not just have Ray [Chandos] put a note in our mailboxes?” She had no answer, and she became peevish. So I asked her why she has never, I mean never, answered a single one of my letters and requests in the last year. I said this loudly. She just stared. I left.

---JULIE [JW] 

ON THE PHONE AGAIN (To the tune of “On the Road Again”)

by Julie [Dissent 1, 3/2/98]

     Probably because I was part of establishing the anal voting procedures for [IVC] Academic Senate general faculty elections, I became concerned about the upcoming vote on our contract. As of Friday we had no idea where and how voting is to occur, who monitors the process, who counts the ballots, and what arrangements will be made for us sabbatical types--you get the picture. So...I called our CTA regional liaison, Diane Fernandes-Lisi, to register my concerns. Apparently, she had spoken to union VP Sharon MacMillan and suggested the voting be as secure as possible (yuh think?), but Diane didn’t have any additional details other than the ballots were to be sealed in double envelopes. I also said that it would be sorta nice if some Association folks could see their way to IVC to answer contract questions prior to any vote—similar to the meeting being held at Saddleback. Diane said she would be speaking again to Ms. MacMillan and would pass along my concerns.

     Stay tuned.

     Julie 

REBEL GIRL

I Joined the Faculty Union: A True Story

By Rebel Girl [Dissent 1, 3/2/98]

     I still remember when I first saw it. It was a crisp fall afternoon in 1996, the kind of storm washed day that makes the San Bernardinos seem close enough to touch. Even the clock tower in the A-quad, IVC’s own simultaneous homage to Big Ben and Lincoln Logs, seemed majestic as it pealed a musak version of What the World Needs Now is Love. But all was not well at the little college in the orange groves. “Look,” a colleague said, thrusting a glossy brochure my way. “Have you seen it”?
     In lurid red and black, the flier proclaimed “Stop Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Advocates who want to TAKE CONTROL of your Tax dollars and Your Community Colleges.”
     I looked around. Suddenly the copy I was carrying of James Baldwin’s The Price of the Ticket made me feel, well, conspicuous. I remembered the poster hanging in my office. Featuring the photos of several prominent and yet closeted gays and lesbians, it offered the following observation: PERHAPS HISTORY HAS SET THE RECORD A LITTLE TOO STRAIGHT.
     The flier warned that a political action committee was promoting 4 candidates in the SCCD Board of Trustees election. These 4 candidates, the flier claimed, support health benefits for domestic partners, college classes with “Gay and Lesbian Lifestyles” content as well as “seminars and conferences to educate participants about the Gay and Lesbian Lifestyle.” “Vote to Protect the Integrity of Saddleback Colleges,” the flier urged.
     The flier offered the slate of incumbents Steve Frogue and John Williams as well as Dorothy Fortune and Don Davis as alternatives to those backed by “ultra liberal political groups.” I recognized the Frogue-Fortune-Davis-Williams slate as the one endorsed by the faculty union.
     I wanted to know: Did the faculty union pay for this flier?
     The answer — yes.
     My reaction? I made my first local political contribution in five years of living in Orange County. I donated a small amount of money to the campaigns of David Lang, Lee Rhodes, Suzy Moraes and Dianne Brooks. Why? Well, I support domestic partnership benefits. And my classes often feature books written by gay men or lesbians and/or those with gay and lesbian content; indeed, as a professor of English, I’ve been known to teach the works of James Baldwin, Virginia Woolf, Oscar Wilde, Richard Rodriquez, Walt Whitman, Louise Erdrich, Susan Sontag, Audre Lorde, E. M. Forster, Bernard Cooper and others. Besides, I recognized the true and cruel thrust of the flier—the demonization of gays and lesbians.
     My next reaction? Well, it was a bit delayed due to a leave of absence that Spring. But upon my return, I did, I’d like to think, what James Baldwin would have done. I did what you can do--I contacted Ray Chandos (IVC grievance chair and division rep for the School of Physical Sciences, Engineering and Technologies) and, well, I joined the faculty union. Why? Because of its homophobic campaign tactics as well as its lack of judgment as exemplified in its choice of a consultant who would resort to such tactics and its endorsement of candidates who would condone them. Is there an excuse for such tactics? No.

     Postscript: As a former contract negotiator for classified staff in the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, Rebel Girl also recognized the red herring offered by the flier. What red herring? Well, it’s the union’s responsibility and role to ask for changes in benefits—it’s not up to the district to promote such things. Domestic partnership benefits would reach the negotiating table only if our union leadership put them there.