Tuesday, November 10, 1998

ANTI-CHRISTIAN DISCRIMINATION? by Chunk Wheeler


     [Believe it or not, this article was cited by Chancellor Sampson in his attempt (at the urging of Raghu P. Mathur) to discipline me for allegedly violating the district’s anti-discrimination policy in some issues of Dissent/Vine. In particular, it was cited as evidence of my discriminating against CHRISTIANS. 
     [How so? By criticizing Mathur's praise of events associated with his faculty supporters and failure to praise events of Mathurian critics, I was thus understood as saying something negative about Gary Rybold, a person who seems to view himself as representing Christianity. 
     [You be the judge concerning this “discrimination” charge.] 

[From Dissent 11, 11/10/98] 
[Originally entitled:] DISTRICT EMAIL FROLICS 
by Chunk Wheeler 

     District email messages can be fun. 
     For instance, on the 9th, Dean Kenneth “Just let me teach!” Woodward sent out an email soliciting recommendations for the temporary Lariat advisory position for the spring. “Please pass the word around,” wrote Woodward, “that the position is open.” (Recently, Woodward predicted that the Lariat would be a fine paper again. I guess he knew then that Walker was about to retire.) 
     According to the message, Union Boy has been asked by President Bullock to “convene a committee to make a recommendation.” 
     Why are they going to all this trouble just to hire a temporary replacement? You’ll recall that the last Lariat advisor, the fine Kathleen Dorantes, was fired—not by her dean, but by the president—without warning or explanation. No “search committee” was involved in replacing her either. Lee “Lawsuit” Walker just bullied himself into the position. (That, of course, was the reason Dorantes, despite her quality and popularity, was dismissed.) The Lariat has since become a kiddie paper, one that emphasizes puff pieces, seldom covers real news, and often looks as though it were assembled by five-year-olds. As you know, students have blamed the situation on the remarkable Lee “Scratch” Walker. 
     Anyway, upon receiving the solicitation, I immediately emailed Ken the following message:

     KEN: Here’s a suggestion: how about Kathleen Dorantes? I seem to recall that she did a great job. 

     It turns out that others had the same idea and sent the same suggestion to the Kenster. No doubt Union Boy will take these suggestions very seriously. Hell, maybe, in the end, Dorantes will get back the permanent position, too. 

 * * * * * 

     Raghu “the Beav” Mathur is often at his most Mathurian in email messages. Take, for instance, this message we all received (at IVC) when we returned from the weekend [the 9th]:

TO: All Faculty, Staff and Administrators 
     I would like to share with you my pleasure and enthusiasm over two great events that I witnessed last Friday. 
     First, there was a great debate between the SOCCCD Forensics Team and the Chinese Forensics Team about the equality of the sexes in the Student Services Building at IVC. [Gee, I had no idea there was a problem with sexual equality over in SSB.] Kudos to Professors Gary Rybold (IVC) and Larry Radden (SC) for organizing this wonderful educational and international experience for our students, staff and the community members. The event was well attended. This event was co-sponsored by ASIVC and the IVC Chinese Cultural Association. Our sincere appreciation goes to the sponsors. 
     Second, my family and I thoroughly enjoyed the musical play, Fiorello, last Friday. It was a fantastic and most enjoyable production. No doubt the actors, actresses, musicians and support staff displayed their talents and professionalism of the highest order. Our kudos go to Professors Ron Ellison and Suzie DuVal, and Chief Technician, Jim Rynning. Go see the play if you get a chance. It runs through December 6, 1998. 
     [Here’s the best part:] 
     These are evidently two great examples of educators who truly care about the students, the college, and the profession. I know there are others in the college who are like them. It is indeed these and such educators who deserve our affection, support, respect and gratitude for jobs well done!    
     CONGRATLATIONS.  
 Raghu P. Mathur 
 President, Irvine Valley College 

     Undoubtedly, the educators Mathur praises in his email deserve commendation. But those who know the Goo know that the last paragraph of his message is intended as a comment. It is saying that there exist educators at IVC who don’t “deserve our affection, support, and gratitude” and don’t “care about the students, the college, and the profession.” 
     Do you doubt this? Just consider the facts: first, the two faculty mentioned prominently in Goo’s message—Rybold and Ellison—are “loyal” Mathurian cronies. 
     Second, oddly, faculty who have helped to bring about other successful and noteworthy events in recent days are not mentioned, not praised. Naturally, in every case, these faculty have been critical of the union-backed Goo. 
     For instance, former school chair (of Fine Arts) Steve Rochford, music instructor, recently put on a concert, a great success. He was not mentioned in Goo’s email. And, despite, radically reduced support, Lisa Alvarez recently published a fine edition of the Ear, the community journal sponsored by the fiercely independent School of Humanities and Languages. 
     She was not mentioned. 
     Alvarez and other Mathurian critics were involved in two MECHA-related events: a fine “Day of the Dead” celebration and a Hurricane Mitch relief drive, which was spearheaded by two MECHA students. (See Irvine World News.) These faculty were not mentioned. 
     Not long ago, two Mathurian “unfriendlies,” including Jan Horn of the Recall, were promoting a high-profile “cancer walk.” Naturally, Mathur refused to allow them to advertise for the event on campus or to make use of college email. 
     As I understand it, the students responsible for the hurricane drive, too, found the Gooster uncooperative when they sought his help in advertising. 
     It doesn’t get any uglier than that. —CW
   
     [Rybold was once called out for having his student debate teams engage in Christian prayer prior to debates.]

MATHUR CENSURED FOR LYING ('94) by Chunk Wheeler


[From Dissent 11, 11/10/98] 
[Originally entitled:] 

WHAT’S ALL THIS ABOUT RAGHU MATHUR BEING CENSURED FOR LYING? 
by Chunk Wheeler [Roy Bauer]

      It is often said that Irvine Valley College president Raghu Mathur is the “only person ever to have been censured for lying in the history of the college.” 
     That is correct, sir! On April 5, 1994, he was censured for lying to members of IVC’s Instructional Council on March 22, 1994 . 
     At a previous meeting, the membership of the IC had agreed not to go “outside the process” with respect to the choice of chair of the IVC presidential search committee, a choice to be made by Chancellor Lombardi, who, nevertheless, planned to base his choice on the recommendation of faculty. During an IC meeting on March 22, Raghu was asked whether, despite this agreement, he had presented a petition on behalf of a particular faculty member to the Chancellor. In fact, as he later acknowledged, he had. But, on the 22nd, he answered that he had “not forwarded” a petition to Lombardi or anyone. 
     Unfortunately for the Gooster, some members of the IC were familiar with his duplicitous ways and were not satisfied with his answer. After the meeting, they determined that, on the 21st, Raghu had indeed shown Lombardi a petition in support of his crony Craig Grossman. (Perhaps on that basis, Lombardi chose Grossman as one of two co-chairs.) 
     It was clear that Raghu had betrayed and then lied to the membership of the IC. 
     Raghu’s action was brought to light at the Instructional Council meeting of April 5. In his defense, he asserted that, though he did indeed show the petition to the chancellor, he did not “forward” it to him. Hence, he seemed to say, he did not actually lie. In legal circles, this is called making a “distinction without a difference.” Outside legal circles, it is called, “being a lying weasel,” which, of course, is unfair to weasels, who are, by all accounts, extremely direct and up-front in their dealings with others. They’re no hair-splitters. 
     Here are the relevant portions of the minutes for the April 5, 1994, IC meeting: 

INSTRUCTIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES, 
April 5,1994 
Present: Terry Burgess, Shu-Yung Chen, Bob Deegan, Pam Deegan, Ron Ellison, Dave Everett, Larry Kaufman, Kathy Paukstis, Nick Kremer, Wendy Phillips, Sue Long, Chris Riegle, Margie Luesebrink, Bob Urell, Mark McNeil, Leann Cribb [Secretary], Raghu Mathur 

INFORMATION AND REPORTS [Seven items are listed under this heading.] 
OLD BUSINESS 

[The first item concerns the “Marine Base Two Year Plan.”] 
[Second item:] Presidential Search Process: 

      Terry wrote a memo on March 23 to Chancellor Lombardi expressing the views given in Instructional Council at the March 22 meeting. He asked that the Council be given the opportunity to review the job announcement before it went out and recommended that a chair from IVC be appointed to convene the search Committee. 
     The Chancellor has since appointed Craig Grossman and Jerry Rudmann as co-chairs to convene the committee and they are in the process of setting up a meeting with the different governance groups to determine the composition of the committee. 
     Also, Terry passed around a copy of the published job announcement. The position is already being advertised and will close on May 20. 
     Wendy mentioned that she had met with Chancellor Lombardi on March 25 and he indicated to her that he had met with Raghu on Monday, March 21, and was aware of the petition Raghu had been circulating. [My emphasis.] 
     Many chairs expressed anger at hearing this because, at the Instructional Council meeting on Tuesday, March 22 [i.e., one day after Raghu’s meeting with Lombardi], Raghu had been questioned regarding this petition and had said that he had not forwarded [it] to anyone. [My emphasis.] 
     Instructional Council had agreed that no one will work outside of the IVC governance structure and agreed-upon processes. They felt that Raghu had lied to the Council because he had already spoken with the Chancellor [about the petition]. Working outside our process, by anyone, undermines all of the work the Council and the Senate does and makes IVC look bad [said members of the Council]. 
     It was generally felt that the co-chairs being appointed and the announcement going out before review by IVC is directly related to the fact that the administrators at the District think we are in chaos because people keep working outside the process. 
     Margie made a motion to censure Raghu Mathur for lying to the Instructional Council regarding the petition and the presidential search process and for misrepresenting not only Instructional Council, but also the faculty. Wendy Phillips seconded the motion. 
     Raghu stated that he did not lie to the Instructional Council. He said that he was asked if he had forwarded the petition to the Chancellor and he said he had not. He did admit, however, that he had shown the petition to Chancellor Lombardi prior to the last Instructional Council meeting. [My emphasis.] He still has the petition in his possession. 
     Raghu felt that the members of Instructional Council were making too big of a deal out of the situation. He also stated that he never said he was representing Instructional Council or the faculty; he was only representing himself and that he has every right to talk with the Chancellor. 
     Nick said that he was opposed to the motion on the floor because he did not feel this was the appropriate forum to deal with this issue. Ron also stated that he did not [see] the merit in this motion. He felt that Instructional Council was allowing this to pull the unit apart, which is exactly what we have been working against. He said that we needed to pull together and act as a unit. 
     Shu-Yung asked what it meant to censure Raghu. Margie responded by saying that she has been a long-time colleague of Raghu’s and has always treated him with respect, and hopes to continue such a relationship with him. However, this motion states that we are unhappy with his actions and wish to protest his misrepresentation of our faculty. 
     Bob Urell stated that he agreed with Raghu in that Raghu, or anyone else, does have the right to speak with the Chancellor, but that he did not agree with what Raghu had said to the Chancellor or his misrepresentation to the Council at its last meeting. 
     The question was called and the motion passed with 8 ayes, 3 noes, and 4 abstentions. [END OF QUOTATION] [My emphases throughout.] 

     Observe that, in order to conclude, regarding this episode, that Raghu lied (among other sins), one need only appeal to his own admissions. They are damning all by themselves. 

 * * * * * 

     Raghu is big on petitions. You’ll recall that it was one of Raghu’s petitions that caused the Gang of Four to appoint him IVC’s interim president in April of ’97—one month after the decision had been made to appoint then-Chancellor Lombardi to the position. Oddly, the signatories of the petition have never been made public. (Raghu’s gang of supporters are unfailingly cowardly.) —CW

"MAIM" (aka EMMA'S MODEST PROPOSAL) by Red Emma

I do believe I used a portion of this graphic to help illustrate. -RB

[From DISSENT 11, 11/10/98]

[Note: this article was cited in Sampson’s letter to Bauer in December of ’98. According to Sampson, this piece—not written by Bauer—illustrated Bauer’s violence and preoccupation with weaponry. Judge for yourself. Ultimately, several federal judges offered their opinion, and those opinions did not agree with Sampson.]

[Originally entitled:]

EMMA’S MODEST PROPOSAL by Red Emma

Sometimes, buried in my mailbox with President Mathur’s clever homages to corporate education, Red Emma discovers the odd Swiftian news report. First, academic updates from the Republic of Yugoslavia. Then, a modest proposal.

This month’s Lingua Franca reports disturbing developments from Serbia, these at the University of Belgrade. Passage of President Milosevic’s “Law on Universities” allows the government to appoint deans directly, along with members of the governing University Council, as well as “all managerial and supervisory boards at Serbian universities.” Deans and rectors, reports Lingua Franca, are now responsible for all future faculty appointments.

Sound familiar? Read on: “The text of the law was not obtained by the Serbian public until two weeks before parliament was to vote on it. Faculty and administrators at the University of Belgrade cried foul: They had been told that a new law was forthcoming but that it would be devised in collaboration with the universities. Their protests did nothing to halt the law’s progression through parliament and into effect. Approximately fifteen hundred students, professors and concerned citizens briefly took to the streets—only to be violently dispersed by police and para-police troops.”

Before I mention the Brown Act, our board’s favorite law, there’s more. Milosevic’s regime has focused its nationalist reforms on, of all places, the Philosophy Department. (I’m not making this up.) Targeted are faculty who express concern over omnicultural Serbian studies, who sign their names in English, not Cyrillic, and who demonstrated against the regime (and the war) in 1996-1997. Finally, reports Lingua Franca, “This fall, the only literature courses offered are on Slavic writers.”

Let’s see: Government interference in administration. Heavy-handed control of hiring policies. Unannounced meetings. Laws passed absent public input. Attacks on activist Philosophers. Personal vendettas against disloyal faculty. Messing with curriculum. Violating the Brown Act.

I certainly hope Raghu and Glenn are getting this down.

Finally, in the spirit of international cooperation, we at Dissent announce the founding of the Milosevic-Mathur Academic Integrity Matrix. (I couldn’t think of a more annoying business ed sounding type word than “matrix”; besides, it permits a satisfying acronym: MAIM.)

Beginning immediately, I’ll accept nominations here for candidates to an academic exchange program between IVC and University of Belgrade (home of the fighting Ethnic Cleansers!). Forward written nominations to Dissent c/o Red Emma. In the Dissent spirit of irony, efficiency and recycling, all nominations should be completed using the back of any of the recent Presidential Solicitation for Input forms. In fifty words or less, please argue why your nominated IVC administrator, trustee, or college president should be sent to Serbia and one of Milosevic’s henchpeople visit our divisive little campus in their place.

Pinochet update: It is, I am sure, no small comfort to the General, still lying flat on his back in custody, that the last lunch he ate as a free man was with Baroness Margaret Thatcher, who, along with Henry Kissinger, now limits her travels abroad. —RE

Andrew Tonkovich

Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"

  This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...