FIRST AMENDMENT (c. 1999).

FIRST AMENDMENT (c. 1999).
(From The Dissenter’s Dictionary, 1999)

Bauer

     The Board Majority and its toadies--particularly Raghu P. Mathur, Cedric Sampson, and Armando Ruiz--have demonstrated a willingness to crack down on dissent and criticism with indifference to student and faculty rights. For instance, in April of ’98, Mathur sent a memo to faculty instructing them not to “speak in their classes about campus political matters.” At about that time, two mild-mannered IVC students organized a series of protests, which were designed to draw attention to Mathur and the Board Majority's misconduct and the specter of accrediting difficulties. The protests were entirely peaceful and civil; nevertheless, Mathur began to impose arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions on the protesters, and the students responded by taking the matter to federal court. Ultimately, this led to the adoption, in the Spring of 1999, of a "speech and advocacy" policy, evidently based on UCI's, that defined and limited student expression rights on campus.
     In the summer of 1999, Mathur cited the new policy to justify his order (carried out by Ruiz) that faculty permanently remove all signage from their office doors and windows--surfaces that, in many cases, had long been adorned with colorful anti-Mathurisms. OCN coverage of the resulting faculty outrage led the board to in effect rescind the order. In the meantime, students challenged the policy in court. In the Fall, Judge Collins issued a preliminary injunction on behalf of the students, ruling that several of the policy's key provisions were unconstitutional. This did not prevent Mathur and Ruiz from attempting to enforce those provisions. During “Club Day” at IVC, upon being bullied by Armando Ruiz, a student cited the preliminary injunction, whereupon Ruiz barked, "I don't care what the court said!"
     IVC philosophy professor Roy Bauer had been one of the petitioners in the first Brown Act lawsuit (Bauer I) and was the sole petitioner of the second Brown Act lawsuit (Bauer II). Each was successful. Further, since the spring of '97, he had published various newsletters--evolving into The 'Vine and Dissent--that reported on board meetings, reprinted newspaper articles, and offered the opinions of various writers, all critical of the Board/union axis. Attempts by Mathur to harass Bauer failed to discourage Bauer's publication efforts, and so, in December of '98, the Chancellor sent Bauer a letter of reprimand--to be placed immediately in his personel file--alleging that he had authored elements in his published newsletters that violated district policies concerning discrimination and workplace violence. Sampson's interpretations of the newsletter elements took no notice of their satirical nature and were preposterous on their face. (For instance, a graphic metaphorically depicting Mathur's "violence" was interpreted as an expression of intent to do violence to Mathur.) No effort was made to determine whether Bauer was the author of all of the cited elements (he wasn't), and, in violation of the contract and board policy, the letter entered his file without warning and without providing Bauer an opportunity to respond to the charges.

Like the title says

     The Chancellor ordered Bauer to meet with him in December, at which time he asked no questions and simply outlined Bauer's alleged violations and, further, ordered him to seek counseling. At that meeting, Sampson asserted, preposterously, that Bauer's use of the phrase "Mr. Goo" to refer to Raghu P. Mathur was a clear reference to the racial epithet "gook." ("Mathur," said Sampson, "is an Asian." Mathur hails from India.) When asked what had inspired the letter's remark that the newsletters had created a hostile work environment for "Christians," Sampson said he "didn't know."
     Bauer responded with a lawsuit charging infringement of his constitutional rights. Soon, Judge Nora Manella, who, in court, characterised the counseling order as "Orwellian," issued a preliminary injunction on Bauer's behalf. Eventually, the case was taken over by Judge Feess, who, in the Fall of '99, awarded Bauer a summary judgment that reaffirmed Manella's ruling and went on to reject the district's "workplace violence" policy as unconstitutional on its face. (He judged that the "Discrimination" policy, also wielded against Bauer, though not unconstitutional on its face, was used for an "improper purpose," namely, to stifle dissent.) In his tentative ruling (later affirmed), Feess wrote: "The speech in question is core protected speech and there is no applicable First Amendment limitation that would permit the discipline to be imposed on Bauer...No reasonable person could have concluded that the written words of Bauer constituted a serious expression of an intent to harm or assault...Bauer was speaking out on matters [of] public interest, and his speech was a substantial (perhaps the only) motivating factor in the proposed discipline."
     In court, seeking to dissuade Feess from his ruling, the district's lawyer, Dave Larsen, noted that, owing to Bauer's newsletters, some participants are afraid to participate in district discourse because they're afraid they'll be criticized. Feess responded by saying that if people are silent because they fear criticism, then "so be it."
     On a 4-3 vote, the board decided to pursue an appeal. In the end, Sampson's ruthless attempt to silence Bauer could cost the district over $200,000.