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.