Dissent 41
January 18, 2000
We are “Happy Teachers”
by Chunk Wheeler [Roy Bauer]
McKinney theater:
 |
| John Williams |
My winter break was a complete bust, what
with my getting a bad case of sciatica and whatnot. Somehow, I went to “staff
development” activities down at Saddleback College expecting to have my spirits
raised. What was I thinking?
Arriving at Saddleback’s McKinney theater
at about 9:05, I grabbed some coffee and headed inside, where I sat pretty much
in the middle. I espied Bob Kopfstein and Ray Chandos way off to my right; they
whispering nastily. Just then, Pam Zanelli walked in, a haystack still on her
head. Williams, Lang, and Milchiker were down toward the front, in the
dignitary zone. Williams, looking staunch, was wedged in his seat like a square
peg in a square hole.
At about 9:10, facing a meager crowd of
about 60, Cedric began to purr through his nose the way he does, pointing out,
unpleasantly, that it wasn’t yet a new millennium, not for another year. Gotta
get beyond Y2K thinking, said he. Off to the right, someone broke wind, and
there was laughter.
Sampson introduced the trustees, starting,
naturally, with Williams. Then he thanked Maureen S for setting up the morning
session, whereupon he explained the need for clarification of “roles and
responsibilities.” Translation: “gotta put those goddam academic senates in
their place.”
The guest speaker—Ray Geigle, Dean of the
School of Arts and Sciences at Cal State Bakersfield—seemed pretty cheerful for
a guy who has to live in Bakersfield. He was a pretty good speaker, too, in
stark contrast to Sampson.
For no apparent reason, Geigle told a
funny story about a philosophy course he took as an undergraduate. In class,
the professor asked Geigle whether he understood the lecture. Geigle said he
did. Said the professor: “Well, good, Geigle; if you understood it, then everyone did.” We all laughed, but it
was a bitter laugh, for we thought: “how come we’re stuck with stiffs like
Cedric while friggin’ Bakersfield gets this
guy?”
Geigle explained that 70% of the labor
force is now in the service industry, and students need to understand that. Up
in Bakersfield, lots of students want to go into agriculture, but that’s no
good, ‘cuz, pretty soon, all of our crops will be grown by one guy on a
computerized tractor, plowin’ computerized dirt.
Said Geigle: used to be that kids could go
into manufacturing and make some good money, buy a house, a car. Now,
manufacturing is pretty damned cheap and efficient, and these manufacturing
jobs have vanished. Gotta have knowledge; that’s the new commodity.
That has enormous implications for us in higher
education, said Geigle. But higher Ed is a huge bureaucracy, and it isn’t
flexible. We’ve gotta learn to compete with the likes of the University of
Phoenix. (!) Organizations like that could, he said, “drive us out of
business.” We can no longer afford to teach courses just because we want to
teach ‘em; gotta tailor courses to what students need right now. If we don’t
provide the courses, someone else will, said Geigle.
He was starting to piss me off.
Geigle talked about the globalization of
the economy, which, he said, is now unstoppable. The world wide web is having
an incredible effect, like nothing that’s come before it. Nobody knows where
this train is going, in part because it has no engineer. We can’t predict how
things will be 3 years from now. So flexibility’s the thing.
Geigle seemed to say that the economy is
becoming increasingly polarized between the unskilled, who are making five
bucks an hour (or who make big bucks administering IVC), and the highly
skilled, who are wealthy bastards with maids and chauffeurs. He also noted
that, pretty soon, we’ll all have molecular computers implanted in our bodies.
We’ve gotta tell our students more about
the “texture of the job” they’re going into, said Geigle. A student might start
out wanting to be, say, a traditional nurse, but he or she will end up shoving
microcomputers up patients’ noses and then spinnin’ ‘em out the door.
Sensing the need to end with something
positive, Geigle was suddenly bullish about California. Our state, he said, has
all of the attributes necessary for global leadership. The largest open markets
are in the Pacific Rim, and California has great ports. Also, we’ve got this
diversity thing nailed. We’re screwing up, though, ‘cuz we’re not teaching languages.
Gotta get on that. Everybody must get multilingual.
Geigle talked about our infrastructure,
which has been badly neglected. Our generation has not done for its children,
said G, what our parents did for theirs. Basically, said Geigle, we’re a bunch
of assholes, and, looking over at Sampson and Williams, it was hard to
disagree.
The Faculty Association Luncheon
At long last, we got our food—there wasn’t
much for vegetarians—and we sat down. I sat with Wendy, and others soon joined
us. Cedric wandered over to greet people, but, though he stood only inches away
from our table, he passed us by. I noticed Tony and Tom and Patrick over at one
table, and Walter and Dale and Laurence at another. Larry and Moe and Curly
were there, too.
Huddling at the table next to the podium
were Pam “Same Sex” Zanelli, John “PE Boy” Williams, Ray “White Wash Willy”
Chandos, Bob “Anger Management” Kopfstein, Sherry “PAC Woman” Miller-White,
Sharon “Tiny Tears” MacMillan, and Cedric “Just Waitin’ for Retirement”
Sampson.
Wow. An Axis meeting, right out in the open like that.
Just before things got started, we heard a
strange sound from nearby. We looked down. It was Lee, who whispered, “I see
you choose your friends carefully.” Then he ran off.
Ray was seated in front of the podium, so,
when things got started, they moved him to a card table against the wall, where
he chewed alone, while the adults continued to conspire at the big table.
Sharon, wearing a brown suit with big gold
buttons, introduced the featured speaker, who, as near as I can tell, was the
caterer. He seemed like a nice fellow, though his address was uninspired.
Later, he popped up to make a pitch for his restaurant.
Next, President-elect Lee Haggerty spoke.
He talked about our chapter’s reputation for getting good contracts. Haggerty
seemed to think that he was addressing only Saddleback faculty, a motif that
recurred during most of the presentations. Upon noting, gratuitously, that he
had recently been chosen as Teacher of the Year, Lee said something about the
need for “healing,” though he failed to specify the ailment from which he was
suffering. “Let’s recommit ourselves to students,” he said. It’s our commitment
to “empowerment of students” that made Saddleback
what it is today, he added.
After Maureen made an announcement
concerning the “Great Teacher” seminar at Lake Arrowhead, Sharon introduced
various dignitaries in the audience, including two trustees (Milchiker and
Williams), the Chancellor, and President Bullock. Raghu P. Mathur was nowhere
to be seen. Sharon, apparently about to break into tears, praised Williams for
his support of the contract, especially with regard to the tiff over cost of
living. Thanks to the outcome of the COLA wars, said she, “we’ll be happier
teachers.”
Following Haggerty’s example, Williams
spoke fondly of Saddleback College, which, he said, “changed my life.” He had
intended to be a PE teacher and coach, but then he took some criminal law
courses at the college, and the rest is history. (Yeah. In fact, he sat around
eating doughnuts as a bailiff for 22 years. Naturally, after his doughnut
period, he felt prepared to oversee a college district.)
He said that we’ve recovered from the
bankruptcy and the “future is very bright.” After underscoring his role in the
COLA wars, he said, “I appreciate your support” and “Please email me.”
Bob K got up to praise he and his cronies
for their successes negotiating the contract. Bob explained that good salaries
in the district started with a board member, who used to say, “You can’t pay a
good teacher enough; you can’t fire a bad teacher fast enough.” Everyone
nodded; Lee W winced.
Sharon spoke about faculty evaluations, a
bone of contention. The IVC Academic Senate has pursued a change in the
evaluation procedures (for IVC) to bring them more in line with state
guidelines, which favor inclusion of “peer evaluation.” Naturally, the Old
Guard is against this. Sharon said that our existing “system” is very “liberal.”
Hence, we “shouldn’t change it.” Ray C got up to make similar noises. He seemed
to suggest that our peers can’t be trusted to evaluate us, but deans can. In
fact, however, in December, an administrator at IVC was pressured by King Raghu
to place an utterly undeserved negative remark in a faculty critic’s teaching
evaluation. What about that, Ray?
The joint meeting of the academic senates
An hour or two later, we headed to BGS for
a joint meeting of the academic senates, with Anne Cox and Peter Morrison
presiding. The chancellor, of course, has recently expressed his intention to
urge the modification of the board policy concerning delegation of authority to
the academic senates. This effort by the chancellor (and, no doubt, the Board Majority)
to reduce senate authority turned out to be the sole topic of the meeting.
Lee Walker was there. Amidst much
groaning, he held up a recent Times article which described the “insulting” and
“juvenile” anonymous newsletters that have cropped up at Saddleback College in
response to the Dissent. He then held up a copy of Dissent 40, which, he said,
has an article by “Chuck Wheeler”—implying, of course, that the Dissent, too,
offers anonymous writings. At that point, I announced (politely) that “My name
appears at the end of the article, Lee.” (Evidently, the poor fellow can’t
read.)
Anne introduced some visitors, including
Linda Collins of the State Academic Senate and trustees Nancy Padberg and Don
Wagner. Wagner explained, rather ominously, that he will “report back to the
board” what the senators have to say. He then added, contrary to all reason,
that there is no effort afoot by anyone to change the scope of the exiting
board policy regarding delegation of authority. What’s that boy been smokin’?
Lee asked an incoherent question about the
Brown Act, which produced a quizzical look on Ms. Collins’ face. “I’m not quite
clear what the point is,” said she.
Peter laid out the essential facts
regarding the “delegation of authority” caper. Basically, the board policy that
defines delegation of authority to the senate (giving to the senate authority
in 11 areas) explicitly precludes a unilateral change of the policy by the
board. So, asked Peter, can the board act unilaterally? “Let’s hope that we
don’t get there,” said Peter, for no one wants to pursue this matter in the
courts.
There was some disagreement concerning
whether the change that the chancellor intends to recommend is “substantive.”
After a while, partly owing to remarks by Ms. Collins, who seemed to be pretty
sharp, it became abundantly clear that, contrary to the chancellor’s
defenders—the Old Guard and Wagberg—the proposed change is indeed substantive.
 |
| Wagner |
A defensive and clueless Nancy Padberg
declared that there has been an “ongoing dialogue” for six months about these
proposed changes, a point handily refuted by Anne Cox, who explained that no
one had heard of the chancellor’s proposal until November or December. Anne and
others rejected the notion, expressed by Sampson, that the senate does not
understand its role. The problem is that the board does not accept the senate’s
recommendations, contrary to board policy.
Someone (Anne?) offered the example of the
Community Ed program that was in direct conflict with credit courses. In that
matter, the Senate’s recommendation was simply ignored, and no written
explanation was provided. “Professional leave” was also cited as an example.
Maureen S described how, during her tenure
as senate president, the senate presidents were marginalized. First, they were
moved from the meeting table; then their microphones were removed; and so on.
Mickey M, who had also served as senate president, chimed in to explain that,
when her hand went up at meetings, she was routinely ignored. There was a time,
she said, when the faculty’s voice was valued; no longer. As things now stand,
changes are just “given to us.”
A guy named Martin said we need to be
entrepreneurial. Then Lee said something of about equal perspicacity.
Dale C chose that moment to announce: “I
think the board is doing a great job,” whereupon Lee clapped loudly and alone.
And so it went. —CW
No comments:
Post a Comment