In fact, T had written a piece for a local paper that was critical of IVC President Mathur. Do you suppose that was the real reason for T’s termination?
Earlier, a full-time teaching job opened at Saddleback College. Tonkovich was, according to the faculty contract, entitled to an interview, owing to his long-time service at IVC. Nevertheless, he was not invited for an interview, despite repeated efforts reminding HR that he was thus entitled.
No matter, someone was hired, and T was left to confront a district that was determined to do whatever was necessary, including violating the contract, to keep him from being hired full-time. The error was acknowledged by the district, which, nevertheless, did nothing to correct the situation.
This story—and the fate of another part-timer who dared to speak the truth—is told in the following Dissent excerpts from 8 or 9 years ago.
From a piece entitled, “Takin’ Out the Trailer Trash,” by “Chunk Wheeler and Sherlock,” Dissent 49, 5/15/00
A part-timer pays the price for “extramural utterances”
You’ll recall that, a few weeks ago, the full-time faculty of the School of Humanities and Languages walked out on a school meeting when it became clear that Acting Dean Howard G[ensler] intended to prohibit discussion of an apparent change in adjunct hiring policies, among other forbidden topics.
The real issue, of course, was academic freedom—specifically, the right of an adjunct instructor to criticize the college president in a local newspaper, as he had done in December.
Well, a few days after that meeting, I emailed the Acting Dean, requesting that he agendize the policy change, among other topics, for the next meeting, which was scheduled for May 2, a Tuesday. He never got back to me. On the day of the meeting, however, I sought him out to ask about the agenda, and he seemed agreeable to any topic.
At the meeting, Howard showed up with two retired UCI geezers in tow. One geezer called himself Myron; the other called himself Frank. We all regarded the two, wondering what they were doing there.
Myron introduced himself, saying, I think, that, as an instructor, he had been active in the American Association of University Professors (the AAUP); Frank, sporting a John Deere cap, sat at the other end of the room, and he had little to say. Apparently, Howard had asked the two to attend the meeting, and their task, it seemed, was to “monitor” it. (Afterwards, Frank explained that Howard had been his attorney in a dispute with UCI administration.)
I began the discussion by identifying our long-standing “seniority” assignments policy for adjunct faculty. I asked Howard if it was his position that he could change the policy unilaterally.
Others chimed in to confirm my understanding of the policy’s pedigree. The Acting Dean seemed to profess ignorance of, and indifference to, the policy’s long history in the School. “That’s not my policy,” he said, adding that, yes, he can indeed make a unilateral change.
What, then, was our new policy? We sought an explanation of the bases upon which, in general, the Acting Dean might now act to fire an adjunct. Howard’s answer was disappointing; he said that the continued employment of adjuncts was a matter of his “discretion,” and that he planned to use a “broad standard” in making these decisions.
Faculty pressed Howard for details of the “broad standard.” He responded by offering three “examples”: (1) teaching performance, (2) “attire,” and (3) whether the instructor has violated the academic rights of another instructor.
“Attire?” asked Jim. “Yes, attire,” replied Howard. We all stared in disbelief.
Howard’s “examples” were curious, for, as a matter of fact, the adjunct instructor whose treatment at Howard’s hands occasioned this discussion—Professor T[onkovich]—had at one point written a letter to the editor of the school paper and its (temporary) faculty advisor, offering unremarkable criticisms regarding a student editorial and the paper’s news coverage, which seemed often to miss the campus’s political struggles. Some full-timers had expressed similar sentiments in similar communications. Apparently, the faculty advisor took offense to these criticisms and notified the dean.
Further, I have been told that, during a meeting with department chairs, Howard referred to “attire” while discussing his reasons for not rehiring Professor T as a writing instructor. In fact, Professor T’s attire is pleasant and unremarkable, which has inspired the suspicion that Howard is confusing the presentable Professor T with the pierced and bestudded Mr. S, a member of the Student Liberties Club, which T helps advise, though not concerning fashion. Further, nothing about Professor T’s recent letters constitutes a violation of anyone’s rights. T offered only criticism, and he did so most decorously. He gets to do that.
Anyway, we all listened to Howard’s “examples” in polite silence. If Myron and Frank expected a food fight, it did not materialize.
Faculty explained to Howard that the “seniority” adjunct assignment policy—which presupposes that “senior” faculty have received positive teaching evaluations—has worked well for the School for over twenty years. The policy emphasizes teaching performance, not attire, not politics. By what logic, we asked, could something like “attire” be placed alongside the question of actual teaching performance?
Howard’s answers to our many questions were at times evasive. At other times, he betrayed a failure to comprehend our queries, thereby causing waves of quizzical expressions across the room.
I raised a second issue: was it true that the School’s long-standing practice of basing scheduling on faculty recommendations was now vulnerable to the whims of the Acting Dean? Earlier, Howard had expressed the intention of making decisions based on what he called the “totality of circumstances” test. He repeated this intention. Essentially, the Acting Dean was saying that he would not be pinned down regarding the bases of his decisions.
Naturally, faculty again expressed concern: wasn’t the Acting Dean in effect embracing an arbitrary and whimsical decision-making procedure? Someone asked how, given the vagueness of Howard’s criteria, an instructor who had been fired would ever be in a position to remedy an erroneous judgment?
Even Myron seemed concerned. Normally, he said, the dean’s recommendation is only “one step”; it isn’t the whole process. Also, when a dean makes a decision, he is obliged to give reasons. That’s just part of “adequate consultation” between the dean and the faculty.
Lewis, Kate, Richard, Frank, Marjorie, Rebecca, and others spoke and spoke well. They asked: are you ultimately justifying this policy change on the ground that, legally, you get to do that? Do you really mean to deny that teaching performance is the central and overriding criterion for the hiring and continued employment of adjuncts? Do you really intend to place your own judgment—the judgment of a non-expert (who has never held a full-time teaching position at a college and who has no advanced degrees in the Humanities or Languages)—over the judgment of faculty experts?
The ensuing “dialogue” did nothing to move Howard from his curious stance.
At one point, Dale, an elder statesman among faculty, suggested to Howard that some of his decisions “baffle” faculty. “There’s an element of bafflement among us,” he said. Howard responded by explaining that he works closely with the chairs and that they help him to arrive at decisions. He seemed to suggest that the chairs “own” his decisions, too. But one chair clearly took exception to the suggestion, noting that, in truth, she had explicitly protested the decision not to schedule a history course in the fall that had been recommended by the faculty of the relevant department. Frank raised other concerns regarding this particular decision and the grounds that Howard had given for it.
Someone suggested that the top administrators of the college “don’t have a clue” what they’re doing, resulting in a decline in enrollments, among other things. She suggested that Howard should help turn the tide by supporting and empowering faculty, who have some experience and expertise regarding scheduling and adjunct assignments and all the rest. Howard appeared unreceptive to this suggestion.
A senior instructor raised further concerns about Howard’s new adjuncts “policy.” She asked: if this is how we are going to treat adjuncts, just who is going to work for us? We’re going to get the “dregs,” she added. That’s what we get now, she said, for administrators. The dregs.
We all looked at the Acting Dean. He looked back.
[ENTER ADJUNCT KEN BROWN]
But now, he said, he was “scared to death.” Based on what he had been hearing, it was clear that he and other adjuncts had no protection based on criteria. Clearly, now, there is no “process,” only “whim.” Sadly, it is now a “different school.”
Ken closed by saying that, in his estimation, he was a pretty good instructor, and he wasn’t sure he wanted to continue to teach for IVC, not under these conditions.
Someone added: “Howard, you should know that Ken is our best philosophy instructor, and that includes full-timers.” He was right.
Howard then consulted his watch, said “Thanks,” and left the room. The meeting was over.
* * * * *
As things now stand, Professor T, despite having received excellent evaluations, will not be teaching for us in the Fall. No word yet on whether he has found alternative employment.
Did you hear what happened at Orange Coast College? They just hired a new dean of literature and languages. Michael Mandelkern, most recently the chair of the Humanities Department at the College of New Rochelle (Brooklyn Campus), has 12 years of teaching experience at the college level, and he’s a scholar and writer. He’ll start work on July 1.
Soon, at IVC, we’ll be hiring the permanent Dean of Humanities and Languages. Who do you suppose will be hired?
What follows is from a piece entitled “The Year of Living Stupidly,” Dissent 58, 5/16/01
If it’s Brown, flush it
Tolerance is another word for indifference.
—Somerset Maugham
As you may know, Ken Brown, a long-time IVC philosophy part-timer and bonhomme, has established an enviable reputation as an instructor and colleague of the highest order. As was explained last year during a tense Humanities and Languages School meeting, he is in fact our best philosophy instructor, or so said the sole philosophy full-timer at that memorable gathering. Plus he has made numerous valuable contributions outside the classroom.
Even so, he has now been fired, evidently owing to alleged rudeness or something. He thus joins a growing list of proud firees who…
—Wait a minute. This episode concerns a part-timer. Who cares?
Evidently, not the full-time faculty, who have done virtually nothing about the situation. I guess they shot their wad (an unimpressive little package) a year ago, when the regime went after Andrew T, that noted raconteur, rabble-rouser, and similarly excellent fellow.
Faculty silence speaks volumes. No wonder the Dissent went into hibernation. It shall do so again, tout à l’heure….
What follows is from a piece entiktled “+” by Red Emma. It appeared in Dissent 61 (I think), about February of 2002.
Our whimsical contract:
Some readers may recall that your faithful Red scribe once objected, loudly, to the deliberate—or just stupid—failure of SOCCCD to honor the contract, which provides that Adjunct Faculty who’ve worked 5 years are entitled to receive an interview if they are silly enough to want an opening full-time teaching gig in the district. Last month, I finally sat down with, yes, a couple of lawyers, some union comrades, a nice arbitrator, and the district’s sole and singular representative: the acting (and bad acting it was) Chancellor, one Dick “The Woodsman” Jones, who, as I said, waxed so cluelessly about my profession. I wonder if Dick asks dentists about the old grind?
Anyway, the arbitration turned into a mediation, which turned nasty when the union had the audacity to suggest a financial award on my behalf. In a few months, I’ll walk into another meeting with lawyers, arbitrator, union comrades, and perhaps the apparent official representative of the district, the Chancellor, when I hope to experience, finally, the happiness, the joy, of meeting, in person, that awful little man.
Which reminds me of Oscar Wilde’s instructive remark on learning that people were cloning cats: “On an occasion of this kind it becomes more than a moral duty to speak one’s mind. It becomes a pleasure.” —RE
From the OC Weekly, October 13, 2000
Cirque du Socccd
Goofiness is back at South Orange County Community College District
by Matt Coker
Their reasons are simple: the union, which spends more in these races than all other sources combined, will use its ample treasury to prop up conservatives in one of the most conservative voting areas in California, the South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD), which encompasses Saddleback and Irvine Valley colleges. In return, said conservatives will protect teacher salaries, already the highest in the state community college system, in the face of the financially strapped district’s looming bankruptcy.
The strategy of this unholy alliance was best illustrated in what became known as the “homophobic hate mailers of ’96.” To ensure the conservatives’ victory, the union paid for campaign mailers that played on the fears of conservative voters. The mailers claimed that the conservative slate would fight to protect voters’ hard-earned tax dollars from being used to fund health benefits for the same-sex partners of district employees.
Same-sex benefits were neither an issue in the race nor on the district bargaining table, but the tactic worked beautifully. Three of the four conservatives—Dorothy Fortune, John Williams and Steven Frogue—breezed to victory; fellow conservative Don Davis lost to incumbent David Lang.
The ’96 election left a bad taste in the mouths of many in the district. Acrimony led to lawsuits, turf wars, recall campaigns, outgoing staff stampedes, closed-door meetings, closed-door-meeting-law violations, threats of lost accreditation and an eventual changing of the guard in the faculty-union leadership.
But now it’s election time again, and gay-baiting has returned to the SOCCCD. Faxes that have been dropping like SCUDs at Irvine Valley College (IVC) the past few weeks riff off the same homophobia used in 1996. Claiming to be newsletters produced by IVC’s “Gay-Lesbian Task Force,” the faxes applaud a reform-minded slate of candidates—incumbent Lang and newcomers Bill Shane, Bob Loeffler and Bill Hochmuth—for supporting same-sex benefits.
Using political reverse psychology—and lots of capital letters—one fax reads: “Please, do not vote for those candidates who would DENY us our domestic-partner same-sex benefits (DON DAVIS, JOHN WILLIAMS, DOROTHY FORTUNE and TOM FUENTES).”
Fuentes, the chairman of the Orange County Republican Party, recently replaced Frogue, who stepped down from the board after a tumultuous reign that included two unsuccessful recall campaigns against him amid allegations that he is racist and anti-Semitic.
As is par for the SOCCCD, the faxes are total bullshit. There is no Gay-Lesbian Task Force. The name of the “registered Democrat” identified as the author of the abovementioned fax is not in the phone book, the district’s employee roster or the county registrar’s list of registered Democrats. The “author” listed on a second fax does exist but denies having created either fax and is offended by being linked to them.
A third fax sent out last week makes the same claims about same-sex benefits but directs all inquiries to IVC’s Gay & Lesbian Student Club—which does exist, although club members deny any involvement in this sordid mess. Fax No. 4 claims that Lang has won the endorsement of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).
Despite their over-the-top quality, the faxes prompted another IVC professor—who also exists—to announce the formation of a conservative faculty group to fight “liberal extremists” who have taken over the union and created a rogue and illegal PAC that has secretly recruited candidates to push for same-sex benefits. That professor confirmed to the Weekly that he authored that fax.
Andrew Tonkovich, a liberal adjunct faculty member at IVC and a constant thorn in the side of conservative trustees and administrators, responded to the fax campaign by putting out a satirical release from the “One True Conservative Faculty Association.” Noting that his organization “put the ‘con’ in ‘conservative,’” Tonkovich announced his group’s endorsement of Fuentes for not one but all four vacant district trustee seats this November. He concludes his delicious lampoon by pointing out that his public “remarks were met by complete indifference.”
“Complete indifference” is how we’re supposed to regard community college districts. When it comes to government fiefdoms, community college districts rank near the bottom in importance, sandwiched somewhere between vector-control and lighting-assessment districts. Here’s a little secret: community college boards don’t actually do anything. Most money for community colleges comes from the state and is earmarked for specific purposes. Talking about gays and lesbians is just a way to get some voters to pay attention.
The Weekly apologizes for having wasted this much ink to tell you that.
From a piece entitled “The Return of Red Emma (with an appearance by Mrs. Red Emma),” by Red Emma, Dissent 53, 10/9/00
A “Conservative” Occurrence
Responding to a press release sent out by the South Orange County Community College Conservative Faculty Association, a part-time IVC faculty member recently sent his own release. In a shameless effort to mollify one of his favorite contributors, your editor has agreed, despite his best instincts and the high journalistic standards of this publication, to reprint it, below. —R.E.
PRESS RELEASE—TONKOVICH
THE SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Saddleback College
Irvine Valley College
THE ONE, TRUE,
CONSERVATIVE
FACULTY ASSOCIATION
#1
Our mission: “TRUTH”
Our motto: “ONENESS”
Our constituency:
the really, really truly conservative faculty members of the South Orange County
Community College District.
Our enrollment numbers: wouldn’t you like to know?
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
* The One, True, Conservative Faculty Association Challenges SOCCCD Faculty Association
* Membership Announces Endorsement of Tom Fuentes—for ALL FOUR TRUSTEE positions
* Affiliate Faculty Associations endorse Fuentes
Contact: Andrew Tonkovich, Chair, OTCFA (949) xxx-xxxx
Today, Friday September 22, the Chairperson of the SOCCCD-OTCFA denounced the SOCCCD Faculty Association as “a small rogue group of faculty members made up of the majority of faculty in the two-campus district.” Comments attacking the legitimacy of the faculty labor union and its PAC were made by OTCFA Chair Andrew Tonkovich, an Adjunct Faculty member at Irvine Valley College, one of the district’s two colleges.
“Who do they think they are? A union?” sniffed One True Conservative Chair Tonkovich. “Just because they negotiate our contracts and we elect them to office doesn’t mean that they represent us.” He went on to declare, “So what if their membership is at an all-time high. Who cares that the state California Teachers Association (CTA) recognized this remarkable growth with an award? It doesn’t mean that the SOCCCD Faculty Association represents anyone other than the people behind them—the faculty.”
The un-elected, un-appointed, unofficial spokesperson of the One, True Conservative Faculty Association touted the credentials of his own newly-formed organization: “We’re NOT like those other faculty associations you read about in the papers. We’re NOT recognized as a collective bargaining unit by the state. We DON’T collect dues. We DON’T hold meetings. We DON’T negotiate teachers’ contracts.”
“In fact,” offered Tonkovich, “we DON’T have any legal or political standing at all. No, not a lick! Still, we offer the ONE, TRUE CONSERVATIVE VISION: Oneness. Truth.”
Tonkovich added that his organization “put the ‘con’ in “conservative.”
Tonkovich then announced his Faculty Association’s endorsement of Orange County Republican Party Chair Tom Fuentes for not one, but all four district Trustee positions in November. “He’s our candidate. If he’s not on your ballot, just write in his name or ‘GOP guy.’ They’ll know who you mean.”
Fuentes is currently a candidate in only one district, but has raised an unheard of $100,000 to fund his race, more than four times the average amount of other candidates.
Fuentes was recently appointed by the Board of Trustees to replace the retiring Steven Frogue, an alleged Holocaust revisionist, who was the subject of a community recall effort. “We believe Tom Fuentes plans to use this position as a stepping stone toward a Supervisorial run,” said Tonkovich. “That’s fine with true conservatives like us.”
OTCFA’s position follows the SOCCCD-FA’s recent endorsement of four “Clean Slate” candidates for the Board of Trustees’ race. “Their endorsement means diddly squat,” said Tonkovich. “Look, all the Faculty Association did was put together a democratic process allowing all faculty to develop questions about important issues facing the district, interview candidates in an open forum, and then vote their choices. Just because the vote was unanimous doesn’t mean a thing. I mean, this is America, isn’t it?”
Tonkovich cautioned reporters to “Listen to us! Not THEM!”
He also announced the formation of affiliate One, True Conservative groups, each offering individual F.A. endorsements of Trustee Tom Fuentes for all four positions. These affiliate groups include:
The One, True, Conservative Nudist Faculty Association (OTCNFA)
The One, True, Conservative Buddhist Nudist Faculty Association (OTCBNFA)
Friends of the Tom Fuentes Urban Park (FTFUP)
The One, True, Free, Faux Conservative Faculty Association ( 1234CFA)
Tonkovich’s remarks were met by complete indifference. He is, nonetheless, available for comment. (949) xxx-xxxx.
No comments:
Post a Comment