Created by REBEL GIRL!
Saturday, December 23, 2000
Monday, November 27, 2000
‘Twas the Thursday After Election… (Dissent 56 - Nov 27, 2000)
Dissent 56
November 27, 2000
‘Twas the
Thursday After Election…
by
Chunk Wheeler [Roy Bauer]
But I had forseen
suckage. I had known, or at least believed, since July—the month of the Dark
Side’s Frogue/Fuentes switcheroo—that the November trustees election would stink
on ice. Steve Frogue’s trustee candidacy was by far the best thing we of the
Rebel Alliance had goin’ for us, and we knew it. Pre-July, the standard joke
was that John “Bailiff Boy” Williams was goin’ nowhere fast, what with Stevie
the Nut firmly strapped to one hip and Dotty the Barbarian—whom the OC Weekly,
in a rare moment of understatement, recently called “despicable”—firmly
strapped to the other. We’d laugh.
And then, suddenly, Our Steve was
gone, and a Cadillac-flak who spends his time “talkin’ Ronnie” with Republican
money was sittin’ in the Froguester’s chair—and sportin’ that all-important
incumbent’s advantage besides.
The new reality was mighty grim.
First of all, “downballot” races—trustee, judge, and dogcatcher contests—draw
little public interest and, thus, get little media attention, leaving the
voting public clueless, unless vigorous (and expensive) efforts to clue them in
are made.
“But,” you ask, “what about all the ‘negative’ news coverage of recent
years?” Well, even assuming that they read the papers, voters generally retain
no clear picture of tedious sagas of buffoonery—or of anything else. Hell, some
of our advisors even suggested that a particular trustee’s notoriety—e.g.,
Frogue’s—could gradually turn into positive
name recognition, so benighted are voters.
Dude, it’s true, an’ I’m dyin’.
To top it off, clueless voters generally pop chads for incumbents, when
they get that far down the ballot, and they often don’t.
The Frogue/Fuentes switcheroo wasn’t
the only one we had to contend with. In July, Dot Fortune announced her
decision to retire, which encouraged two candidates to run for her seat. (I’m
told that she helped recruit one of these guys, but I’m not sure that’s true.)
But then, at the very last minute, she filed for candidacy. Wow! Suddenly,
“Despicable” Dot was sittin’ pretty, goin’ into the election armed now with the
incumbent’s advantage plus a split in
the non-incumbent vote! (In the end, however, she managed to wrack up more
votes than her two opponents combined, so the shell game was unnecessary.)
It all makes you wanna just give up on this trustee election
thing—and on democracy in general.
On the other hand, on the 7th, incumbent Dave Lang, the bean-counting leader
of the “Clean Slate” (or the “Tabula rasa,”
as I liked to call them), garnered by far the most votes among SOCCCD trustee
candidates, both in absolute numbers and in percentages (65.1%). It appears
that the Langster’s reputation as a Board Buffoonery Contra plus our various efforts to sell him to voters yielded about
12 or 13 thousand votes (9 or 10 percent of the total).
Maybe with a bit more effort, Bob Loeffler, Fuentes’ “Clean” opponent,
would have won, too, for the Bobster garnered 93,00 votes—more, by far, than
any other non-incumbent among the trustee candidates, and only 16,000 fewer
than Dot.
—I’m dreamin’.
Dirty:
As usual, the Dark Side fought
dirty: clean Slate campaign signs were daily stolen or vandalized; that old
“same-sex” hooey was mailed out anonymously to selective neighborhoods;
libelous unsigned fliers were strewn about both campuses; a “newsletter,”
filled with misinformation and inept personal attacks—a pathetic homage to Dissent, I guess (Dissent’s personal attacks are ept)—was sent to local reporters,
who immediately deep-sixed it. It, too, was anonymous.
Do you detect a pattern here? Cowardice, dear reader, is the hallmark
of Dark Sidery.
There was nothing that could be done about the dirty tricks. On the
other hand, we knew that these plebeian shenanigans wouldn’t significantly
affect the election outcome.
Natch, Williams and Fortune ran
around South County, claiming credit for the district’s fiscal health, a
situation that, in truth, is entirely attributable to an unexpected property
tax windfall, which in turn must be credited to a decision—to switch the
district’s funding model—made by the state,
not the goddam board.
In my view, we will never be able to
topple undesirable incumbents until we change the curious manner in which
trustees are elected. As things now stand, a trustee for a particular area is
elected, not by voters of that area, but, absurdly, by voters of the entire South Orange County district, the
vast majority of whom have, or retain, no clear notion of the district’s actual
predicament, and no clear notion of those responsible for it, despite the
numerous, largely-accurate news stories.
“So educate them!” you say. Well, sending voters just one mailer, in hopes of alerting them of
some sliver of the worrisome truth, costs
about $40,000! Incumbents, on the other hand, can manage to approve and mail out
expensive district propaganda at taxpayers’ expense.
Scandalously, that’s just what they did, despite the vocal objections
of Lang and Marcia Milchiker. Admittedly, the district’s $50K mailer—carefully
timed for the election—was so badly written that it couldn’t have been much of
a factor.
Press:
Post-election media coverage has
been the usual mixed bag of entelechy and error. The Register’s “morning after”
article concerning the trustees’ race placed our board “at the center of
disputes the past few years that have led to the departure of key
administrators and a host of lawsuits.” Exactly. On the other hand, the article
failed to challenge Fortune and Williams’ mendacious boast, which it reported,
that “the improved financial stability of the district” is “proof that [Fortune
and Williams’] policies have been successful.” Again, the boast is a lie; in
truth, the Board Majority’s ill-conceived policies have driven productivity
into the ground and slowed growth to almost nothin’. (Check the district’s
online “almanac.” It’s all there.)
The Reg also reported that these two “downplayed the unhappiness of
faculty” caused by “a few disgruntled
members.” That claim too was left unchallenged, despite the recent overwhelming
votes of no confidence in El Ced [Cedric Sampson] and Mr. Goo [Raghu Mathur] at IVC (94% and 90%,
respectively).
The Times “morning after” article
was a bit better:
Inflammatory and anonymous fliers were circulated during the campaign
saying that the so-called Clean [Slate] candidates supported domestic-partner
benefits and a gay-and-lesbian-studies program. [But] Board President Nancy M.
Padberg, part of the board majority, said those subjects were not an issue in
the campaign. One flier even made the untrue claim that one of the challengers
had been endorsed by…an obscure group that endorses pedophilia….
The
California Teachers Assn. is investigating whether money raised under the old
union leadership to support political candidates was mismanaged. Most of the
former union presidents who controlled the fund have refused to cooperate, and
the CTA may take the issue to court….
Even
before the election, the district was synonymous with controversy.
The…accrediting agency said the district was “wracked by malfunction” and
placed it on warning status. It finally accredited Irvine Valley and Saddleback
in February.
Much
of the controversy centered on Trustee Steven J. Frogue, who was accused of
being an anti-Semite. He resigned in June, and the board appointed Fuentes to
replace him….
Most
recently, more than 90% of the Irvine Valley faculty voted no confidence in
President Raghu P. Mathur and Sampson.
Bright:
 |
| McLendon |
EA, based in Tustin, emerged in late 1994 with a plan for politically
crippling teachers unions—the Religious Right’s Great Satan of education—and
packing school boards with EA members. According to Jerry Sloan of the
Institute for First Amendment Studies, Alliance members oppose multiculturalism
and condom distribution in schools and “want to see evolution and creationism
taught side by side.” (You’ll recall that one of Padberg’s new diversions—the
media “watchdog” group Accuracy in Media—sells anti-evolution bumper stickers.) The organization’s leader, Frank
Ury, authored 1998’s failed Proposition 226, a measure designed to “radically
reduce unions’ political muscle” (George Will, Times, 2/8/98).
EA has had some success in Orange County. According to the OC Weekly
(10/27/00), its members dominate the Orange County Board of Education, a body
that recently “canned a daycare program that served nearly a thousand
low-income families,” though it continued to fund “an $82,320 beaver exhibit.”
Over a dozen EA-supported candidates—including Wendy Leece of Newport-Mesa, who
has proposed plastering the Ten Commandments on classroom walls—have been
elected to OC school boards.
But all is not well with Education Alliance. According to a recent Register article (“Conservative Group
Backs Only 10 for Board Seats,” 11/6/00), the EA has had trouble finding
candidates and keeping them elected. Several years ago, Fat Cat Howie Ahmanson
gave EA some seriously big money. This year, however, he forked over a paltry
$5,000.
It appears that EA has run outa money and outa steam. Thank God!
Phone:
Once in my office, I found a copy of a report, by Peggy Casey, Exec.
Assistant to the Executive Vice Chancellor (Admin./Business Services), which
lay, unexplained, on my desk. As I recall, this report was instigated many
months ago by those well-known “fiscal conservatives” John Williams and Dot
Fortune, who were concerned about excessive cell phone use in the district. Ms.
Casey’s report focused on cell phone bills for the month of April.
Guess who tops the list? Of the 21 persons issued cell phones at the
two colleges, by far the biggest abuser is—who else?—Raghu P. Mathur. Last April, he wracked up a bill of $75.07. The
second highest bill for that month was Dixie Bullock’s, which was nevertheless
half of Raghu’s. The vast majority of individual cell phone bills were below
$20.00.
Among district personnel, one
bill stood out like a turd in a glass of milk. According to Casey’s report,
Sabrina Ruminer wracked up a cell phone bill of $507.45! That’s about $420 more
than the second highest.
I should mention that five employees reimbursed the district for costs
incurred from “personal use.” But not our Mr. Goo.
Ray:
The potential problem here concerns,
not the votes of (no) confidence, which were conducted very professionally and
appropriately, but the senate’s having decided whether to conduct these referenda via a secret ballot. (The decision to use secret balloting, of course,
reflected widespread [and reasonable] fears, among senators, of retaliation by
Raghu and his minions.)
Those familiar with the Brown Act
know that, under such circumstances, the error (if there be an error) can often
be corrected simply through a repeat vote done
openly. Indeed, just prior to Judge Seymour’s January ‘99 decision in my
second successful Brown Act lawsuit against the board, the trustees, over a year after the fact, “cured and
corrected” several of their illegal actions—including the July ’97 Reorg and
the appointment of Mathur as IVC Pres.—retroactively making them valid, despite
their initial illegality. (See OC Register, 1/21/99.)
It was precisely this sort of
after-the-fact “cure and correct” action that the senate was set to discuss and
contemplate at the meeting to be held at 2:00 on this day. Ray, of course,
hoped for something else: an action that would undo the overwhelming votes of
“no confidence” that the Chancellor and the President had recently suffered at
the hands of full-time faculty at IVC.
Ray had written:
The
senate should follow the Brown Act scrupulously, not only to discharge its
duties under the law, but to avoid the appearance of hypocrisy after
criticizing and conducting a vote of no confidence in the chancellor for
alleged violations of the Brown Act.
A cup of Joe in my lap,
coffee-stained fingers trembling, I responded to Ray in an email, noting that
his powerful allies often did not seem to share his enthusiasm for obeying the
law. Indeed, said I, recently, El Ced opined that observing the Brown Act is
“irrelevant.” I closed by writing: “Ray, please help me to understand. Are you
people pro-law or not?”
Those interested in the Brown Act and its
possible applicability to California Community College Academic Senates should
see www.thefirstamendment.org /brown.htm#The
Basics.
Inspired:
“The press…delight in negative
coverage. It’s like, ‘if it doesn’t bleed, it won’t read’….”
—Nancy
Padberg, Oct. 20
After my office hours, I taught my Critical Thinking class, coffee in
hand. Nancy Padberg, an avowed “dittohead” (for those of you in Rio Lindo, CA,
that means she’s a Rush Limbaugh fan), will be delighted to learn that, among
the texts of the course is Logic and Mr.
Limbaugh, by philosopher Ray Perkins, Jr., which employs Rush’s
incomparable writings to illustrate fallacies and sophisms. Rush is terribly
helpful in that way. Hence, in his “Acknow-ledgements,” Professor Perkins
writes, “to Rush Limbaugh, without whom
this book would not have been possible.”
Perkins notes, with droll understatement, that “Much of Rush Limbaugh’s
reasoning is logically incorrect or FALLACIOUS.” One cannot read Perkins’ book
without agreeing with that judgment, unless, of course, one is a blockhead, which
one might very well be.
In class, I covered two chapters—Rush on the Environment, Rush on
Animal Rights—and then turned to another text, Eat, Drink, and Be Merry, by the estimable Dean Edell, M.D., which
seeks specifically to provide scientific information to readers who are daily
bombarded with media hype and pop culture pseudoscience concerning health.
Yes, Nancy, Dr. Dean shares your distrust of the news media—“Trust” it,
he warns, “at your peril.” The media, he argues—sounding very much like the board
president—offers a distorted picture of reality by consistently emphasizing bad
medical news over good medical news, though, unlike the Nance, he is
disinclined to explain the pattern via a vast liberal conspiracy.
Edell, like Nancy, views himself as a champion of truth. Should, asks
Dr. Dean, researchers inform the public
of suppressed “incorrect” truths? —Yes! Correctness be damned!
For instance, research consistently indicates that moderate drinking of
alcohol is actually beneficial, and yet we are made to feel that such facts
must never be acknowledged. Indeed, they must be denied!
Edell believes otherwise:
Dr. Curtis Ellison, Chief of Preventive Medicine and Epidemiology at Boston University, got in a tangle over this at an American Heart Association meeting in 1994. The issue: How much should the public know about the benefits shown in alcohol research? Ellison suggested publicizing findings that five to six drinks a week cuts heart disease risk by 28 percent. That compares with 15 percent by rigorously lowering blood pressure or 23 percent with a low-fat diet. Only quitting smoking can compare…A firestorm ensued…But ethically, is it right to withhold information from people who could benefit because others might be harmed? (194)
Edell eschews political correctness in favor of “scientific
correctness”—i.e., focussing on the findings of science. (You gotta love ‘im.)
Accordingly, a few pages later, having moved to the subject of illegal drugs,
he is compelled to say:
Let’s first admit that some illegal drugs give
pleasure to people who do not, as a result, suffer apparent horrible
consequences from the practice [Gasp!]…There is no evidence that occasional
marijuana use is harmful. [No! No! No!] Most studies, in fact, have found that
marijuana users are better off [Commie!]…. (201)
I’m sure that Nancy and her friends will be pleased to learn that,
owing to her fine example, I have decided to devote my considerable energies to
combating the media and their endless politically correct tomfoolery. I shall
present the unvarnished truth—as it comes to us from science—and I shall not be deterred by the inevitable
disapprobation and nattering nabobery of brainwashed nudniks and mendacious
conspirators. Amen.
Nancy, without your example, my noble enterprise would not have been
possible!
God:
After class, I bought another cup of
Joe and hotfooted it over to the grassy expanse in front of the Student
Services Bld., where Mr. Goo was about to introduce IVC’s first annual
“Veterans Day Observance,” evidently the brain-child of Frank Pangborn and
other veterans at the college. There, amongst a sea of tiny, flapping American
flags (no doubt flapping in violation of BP8000), I ran into a student friend
dressed in his Marine Corps uniform. He looked good, and I said so. He snapped
a salute and I swelled with pride.
The gathered dignitaries seemed to
await the arrival of an audience, but it had not yet materialized, nor would it
do so later, although, eventually, about ten homeless Vets showed, a situation
no doubt attributable to Mr. Goo’s ludicrous efforts to promote the celebration
on local TV.
I snagged a copy of the program,
which featured yet another American flag, upon which was written, “In God We
Trust.” Beneath that: the Pledge of Allegiance, which, of course, featured the
Lord.
Eventually, Nelson C. said a few words in his snazzy sailor suit. He
was followed by Pastor Darrin Stevens of the Voyagers Bible Church, his pet
gerble Samantha perched precariously on his head. The pastor said the usual
things to “Father God” and “Jesus Christ.” God, it seemed, was the real star of
the show, judgin’ by all the mentions He got. Darrin twitched his nose
coquettishly and instantly disappeared: “Poof.”
Then four uniformed dudes, representing each of the military branches,
accompanied by canned martial music, marched the “colors” straight up the
middle of the Big Grassy and planted them, limbs akimbo, boldly in a hole. This
was impressive, despite the audio guy’s unfamiliarity with the concept of
fade-out, which lent an aspect of grade-schoolery to the proceedings. Then,
after the Pledge, Frank Pangborn, formerly a Lieutenant in the U.S. Army,
warbled the Star Spangled Banner and pretty much nailed it.
Frank introduced Mathur, our next chancellor. Mathur, marbles in mouth,
lower lip jutting upward hideously, hair slicked straight across his fat head,
spoke of a place called “Irwine
Valley College.” The audience stared.
Nabobs:
Mr. Goo made a big point of identifying “dignitaries” in the audience,
including Tom Fuentes, who, two days earlier on TV, railed indignantly against
the “liberal media” for jumpin’ the gun on Gore’s “victory” in Florida, but who
offered no similar railage, a few hours later, when the same media jumped the
gun on his pal George Dubya’s presidential “victory.”
The Obsequious One, subtly genuflecting, identified Fuentes, not as a
trustee, but as the “chairman of the Orange County Republican Party,” as though
that were a high government office. How unseemly.
Well, that’s our Mr. Goo. Get used to it, Saddlebackians. He’s headed
your way, I think. Maybe that’ll wake
you up.
Looking desperate, Raghu sought the faces of two further bigwigs:
Irvine City Council members Mike Ward and Dave Christensen, two sleazy,
pro-development Republicans, who had faired poorly in the elections. Not long
ago, these two helped pull the plug on Irvine’s much-ballyhooed “Great Park”
initiative, the latter being a part of Larry Agran’s anti-airport strategy. The
plug-pullage pissed voters off, I guess.
Amazingly, incumbent Ward, a shill for the Irvine Company, received
fewer votes than first-time candidate (and liberal Agranite) Chris Mears,
though Ward did manage to get reelected, albeit now on a liberal council. Incumbent Christensen, who’s facing a serious FPPC
investigation concerning conflicts of interest, lost bigtime, despite his
Irvine Co. connections.
Ward and Christensen’s AWOLery seemed to cause Mr. Goo to regurgitate
more marbles and jut more lip. The audience cringed and cowered. In a futile
effort to compensate, I grinned furiously. Wendy P came by, thus making
possible stereo grinnage. John Williams made an ugly face while Nancy dithered
in her seat.
But Raghu, now sweating copiously, pressed on. Just thinking about
veterans and soldiers an’ all, he yammered, gives a guy “goosebumps.”
Displaying his usual grasp of English usage, Mr. Goo then spoke of our
country’s many “freedom fighters” in uniform. I could take no more. I turned my
back on ‘im.
Some old soldier who had not yet faded away gave a good speech. (I turned
back around for that.) Then a hairy old hippy representing Viet Nam Veterans of
America spoke. I bet he had some health cigarettes on ‘im. But I had to leave
for class, so I don’t know what he said, though he looked good sayin’ it.
Intimidation:
Back in my office at about 2:00, I
found more Chandosian e-spammery. Ray had turned up the heat in his
intimidation program, intimating, portentously, that senators who participate
in Brown Act violations are guilty of a “misdemeanor.”
Translation: “if you don’t pull the plug on the ‘confidence’ votes, you could go to jail!”
The Senate President and Tom P, a lawyer, had independently fired off
indignant responses to “this transparent attempt at intimidation” of senators.
“Way cool,” thought I.
Full of hope, I ran out the door for the
senate meeting.
As I entered B209, the senators were
debating the “cure and correct” issue. Some bemoaned the climate of fear
created by Raghu. Others objected in particular to Chandos’ execrable scare
tactic. Some senators expressed concerns about an open vote, fearing
retaliation, should they fail to vote in a manner pleasing to Mr. Goo.
Meanwhile, VP (and future P) Armando Ruiz, sitting in the back, scoffed and
grunted, intimidatingly.
Undeterred, the senators voted to perform the correction. Then they
repeated the vote (to hold the referenda), this time openly. 19 senators voted for the referenda—the same number as had
voted for them via secret ballot, several weeks earlier. 4 senators voted
against them (weeks earlier, the number was 5).
The recent “no confidence” votes were now legal and valid. Ray’s “Brown
Act” issue had been rendered moot.
The loathsome attempt to prevail through intimidation had failed.
“Asshole”:
As the meeting continued, I walked over to the other end of the room
and sat next to Armando. I said something like: “Armando, did you come to
intimidate senators?” Armando responded by calling me an “asshole.”
Concerns:
Jeez. I don’t think powerful
administrators oughta be callin’ faculty members “assholes.” What’s next?
Floggings? Urine tests?
Sometimes, when I have concerns, I
offer them to the board via a pleasant email. When I got back to my office, I
had concerns. So I wrote the board the following message: [Letter now missing]
Monday, November 6, 2000
It's not about disgruntled faculty
Dissent 55
November 6, 2000
ON THE “GENESIS
OF THE WAR”: It’s not about disgruntled faculty
by Chunk Wheeler [Roy Bauer]
In Nashville, Board President
Padberg explained the existence of discord and dissent in the SOCCCD as a
reaction by some faculty to the 1997 Reorganization: “After an administrative
reorganization…, we experienced a great deal of negative press. This was pretty
much led by disgruntled staff who were suffering from these cuts [in reassigned
time caused by the Reorg].” Sampson there presented the same account: according
to him, the “genesis of the war on the board” was the ’97 reorganization, when
ten IVC school chairs lost their “privileges and free time.”
Nonsense.
As the following entry (from the Dissenter’s
Dictionary) makes utterly clear, there was considerable discord and dissent
in the district long before the Reorg (or the abolition of reassigned time).
In truth, the sources of discord in
this district go deeper than the Reorg issues; the dissention has arisen from
the Board Majority’s indecency, its rejection of such values as “process” and
the rule of law.
DISCORD
AND DISSENT IN THE DISTRICT
S.jpeg)
The era of extreme discord and dissent
started, not in July of ’97, but in December of ’96, the date that marked the
arrival of the Board Majority. From the very beginning, Frogue, Williams,
Fortune, and Lorch, voting as a block, acted upon their inveterate distrust of
shared governance groups, especially faculty, and these groups wasted no time
reacting.
Consider: in January of ’97, both academic
senates issued letters objecting to the board’s decision, in closed session, to
strip senate officers of reassigned time—an apparent violation of the Brown
Act. In February, an editorial in the Saddleback student newspaper, the Lariat, assailed the trustees for their
misguided attacks, led by trustee Fortune, on Study Abroad programs. In the
March 20 issue of the Lariat, Rick Travis, then-Saddleback ASG president, is
quoted as saying, “There is no shared governance at Saddleback,” a reference to
the failure of the board to notify Saddleback and Irvine Valley student
governments of its March 17 meeting. In the same issue, a Lariat editorial
bemoans the board’s “dictatorial tendencies.” In May—two months prior to the
reorganization—the IVC Academic Senate conducted a referendum which yielded a 72.5%
vote of “no confidence” in the board, owing to “repeated actions taken which
indicate its unwillingness to participate in the spirit and intent of shared
governance.” Also in May, a group of faculty and community members presented
the board with a “demand for cure and correct” regarding its violations of the
Brown Act in April. A July 3 Irvine World
News editorial expressed alarm at the situation at Irvine Valley College,
where, it said, “we’re witnessing...an autocracy replacing a democracy.” A
raucous board forum which occurred one week before the reorganization was
dominated by bitter complaints about president Raghu Mathur, who, according to
many speakers, flouted the requirements of shared governance and seemed,
despite his interim status, determined to make “sweeping changes.” Also in
July, the Sorenson Group issued a report in which it asserted that “Each and
every stakeholder group [in the district] has been disempowered.” In an address
given at the regular board meeting of July 14 (two days before the
reorganization), trustee Lang spoke of “dysfunction” and “chaos” in the
district and warned that “Outstanding administrators at the highest levels have
left or are considering leaving or retiring...[M]orale among other employees is
extremely low because they feel their voices are not being heard and that all
vestiges of academic freedom and established processes are gone.”
Surely these facts refute the notion that
dissent and discord within the district can be traced back to the
reorganization of 7/16/97. In reality, owing to the Board Majority and Mathur’s
lawlessness and rejection of shared governance processes, the district was
roiling with discontent in the months preceding the reorganization, and none of
it concerned administrative reorganization.
As of this writing, the discord continues,
fueled by such acts as the chancellor’s announced intention to strip the
Academic Senates of the authority accorded them by mutual agreement.
—Roy B
On Pins and Needles (Red Emma)
From Dissent 55
November 6, 2000
On Pins and
Needles
by Red Emma
Pins
It looks as though, despite our many years
of service, Adjunct Faculty will never be “potential pin recipients.” Tough
luck. Raghu’s semi-precious memo of October 9 concludes “It will be an honor”
for “we” (him, I guess, royally) to present an impressive-seeming list of
faculty their individual amethyst, ruby, blue sapphire, emerald and diamond
baubles.
Heartfelt congratulations to all of you who
received Service Pins. I think this means you’re going steady with Raghu.
Warning: he will break your hearts.
But wait. One pinhead, a Dean and famously
part-time teacher (and part-time thinker) is scheduled to receive a ten-year
brooch, despite the fact that he’s only been full time for 1 1/2 years. Perhaps
it’s the special quality of his service, and not his limited tenure, which
merits receiving this veneration. He’s a gem, that Howard.
Keeping track of the institutional slights
against Adjunct Faculty keeps Red busy enough, but will not get this reporter
pinned soon. The continuing service of adjunct faculty to this college district
actually depends on our being ignored, yet the fairly conscientious
distribution of memos celebrating—via pinnage of others—our second-class status
seems oddly sadistic, even by the standards of our administrators.
So, in a spirit of both reciprocal malice
and solidarity (I love when that happens!), Red encourages those full-time
faculty and staff receiving service pins to embrace one of the following
actions of rebuttal to pinnage:
1) Assemble a small group of colleagues in
your office. Introduce yourself in the Royal Third Person. Mumble a few words
about vision, and then award your pin to a deserving Adjunct Faculty member.
There are over 200 of us. And, yes, we will know just where to stick it.
2) Super Glue your Service Pin to a shiny
“Shared Governance” button and let the courts hash out if you’re violating BP
8000. Of course, one might argue that wearing—even accepting—service pins from
Raghu Mathur promotes a political campaign, namely, of co-optation, duplicity
and poor taste in furniture. One might argue that if one were, well, me.
3) Mail your pins to Trustees John Williams
and Dorothy Fortune. Identify yourself as a vendor doing business with the
SOCCCD. Cc a memo to Bob the K. This, of course, might be interpreted as
bribery or intimidation, but only if these pins were worth anything.
Needles
A few thoughts here from your crimson
correspondent on the political economy of fatalism. Consider the perplexing
position of teachers in our district who don’t seem, even at this late date, to
have located their own political interests, even as we approach election day
and the opportunity to challenge years of being shat upon by public education
administrators, whose obsequiousness to the “private sector” is dramatically
betrayed by the fact that they wouldn’t last five minutes in that much revered anti-social quarter.
Just now, thirty per cent of Red’s Fellow
Americans are unable, it seems, to decide which presidential candidate they’ll vote
for. Instead of just ignoring these maroons, the candidates pander to them,
encouraging the kind of alienated Beauty Pageant clucking and cooing that
benefits those people actually running our country: advertisers.
Coincidentally, about 30 per cent of IVC
full-timers failed to vote on the recent IVC Confidence ballot. (This as
part-timers can’t vote at all.) One
notes that only a small minority of these were devoted Mathurites. So what
about the rest of ‘em?
Many faculty and staff—mostly at Saddleback—argue
that they’re too scared to give more than $99 to the reform campaign and too
frightened by the perceived threat of political recrimination by, well, somebody even to walk a precinct, post a
lawn sign, or generally take an active stand against administration and the
odious Board Majority.
“Hypocrisy,” instructed the late poet Allen
Ginsberg, “is the key to self-fulfilling prophecy.”
This fatalistic withdrawal is a strange
equation, illogical and self-serving because it assumes two circumstances which
cannot both be true. It both exaggerates and simultaneously undervalues the
power of organized political action, symbolic or actual. Most importantly, it’s
a position that conveniently allows others to do all the work. Hey, it’s kinda
perfect that way.
Say you are a tenured faculty member working
at a (for the time being) public education institution such as ours. You
cannot, you argue, embrace activism because such action will engender harsh
political recrimination from, presumably, administration, now or in future.
Your modest action of say, walking a precinct or posting a sign or staffing a
table (all Constitutionally protected, friend), will beget horrible
recriminations against you. You personally. Yes, you!
This grandiose and self-serving analysis
leads you to do, of course, nothing at all. So because you are so very, very
potentially powerful—able to provoke great and awful and terrible retribution
from the powers that be—you don’t use that magnificent power at all.
As the Canadian MacKenzie brothers used to
say, “It’s a beauty, eh?”
No, despite some fairly glaring parallels,
SOCCCD is not yet the Soviet Union. (Just now it’s more like Russia, actually.
Think mobsters, and corrupt politicians, and selling off all the public resources.)
If, in fact, taking action is gonna bring
the wrath of the Dark Side on you, then of course you might consider doing it,
just to demonstrate the utterly undemocratic circumstances of our workplace and
thus challenge them.
Of course, you don’t really believe any of
this, do you? Neither does anybody else.
You can’t have it both ways.
Historically, all faculty who’ve been
attacked by administration (including Yours Redly) have won—or likely will
win—their struggles, but only with the solidarity of faculty, staff, and
students.
Red Emma is now climbing down from his
soapbox and turning to his emails from Raghu. Your needling is over.
Finally,
Some Hard Core
Emma loves getting letters, emails and
memos. Keep ‘em coming, I say.
Recently he got an email from the President
himself, in which he learned that Red’s “help is needed to define a set of core
values.” My favorite e-Raghuism was the fellow’s whimsically self-evident
assertion that “colleges are sustained by their...accreditation status.”
(Yikes. Doesn’t anybody proofread his stuff?) Dr. M. thanks me “With Best
Wishes” for my “Time and attention to these values.” I think he means my
attention to his memo but, hey, best wishes to you too, fella.
Here, then, are Red’s responses to Raghu, my
“partner in Irvine Valley College education.”
Dear Partner Raghu:
Howdy. I’m responding to your thoughtful
solicitation of responses to seven “Suggested Statements.”
1. I do support “meaningful” partnership in
college governance. Sadly, partner, adjunct faculty currently lack that, with
only a single elected representative to the Academic Senate and no other method
of interaction with administration. Still, I’ve done my part to promote
partnership by wearing a “Shared Governance” button and, of course, a smile.
2. Red supports “utmost accountability for
providing expert teaching and curriculum ‘products.’” Please don’t get me
started on “products,” pal, but how can IVC pursue accountability with no protocol for evaluating adjunct faculty,
no district protocols for peer evaluation, and no institutional method for
attaining either? Huh, pardner?
3. Raghu, buddy, I’m fairly confident that
part-timers are generally in favor of “dedication to student educational
success and potential.” We also like Mom and apple pie and fine Americans like
Steve Frogue. (Hah! Made ya flinch,
didn’t I?) But, lacking a paid office hour and paid flextime, how can adjunct
faculty fully achieve this goal?
4. Adjunct faculty such as myself are indeed
committed to “diligence in professional growth of faculty and staff.” Again,
paid flextime would be a teeny, tiny baby step in that direction.
5. I just love the idea of “collegial
responsiveness in building teams and partners throughout the campus, District
and State.” Frankly, it thrills me. I swoon at the idea. Hey: how about teaming
up part-time and full-time faculty in offices? How about giving us a bulletin
board or a real office? How about acknowledging that this institution is built
upon the work of adjuncts and not just a nasty plume of toxic Marine waste?
6. No, Raghu, I don’t think you really want
my take on “Personal and institutional integrity.”
7. Funny thing about “meeting diversity
needs”: appointing the same guy as dean of every department confuses people
about your commitment to diversity. Multiple screenings of “The King and I” don’t do it either.
I look forward to our continuing
partnership.
All the best. From your Part-time partner,
--Red Emma
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
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...
-
Professor Olga Perez Stable Cox OCC Trumpsters/GOP A professor called Trump’s election an ‘act of terrorism.’ Then she became the vict... -
The entire “Fuentes/Shooting Star” saga can be found here . For those of you with the patience, I have more background on the “S... -
This is not a drinking fountain. A rarely seen Marcel Duchamp readymade is currently on exhibit at Irvine Valley College. Created a fe...