FUENTES: nobody sets our agenda but us!

t last night's board meeting, the board was scheduled to discuss the Accediting agency's recommendations. As was made clear during the special meeting on the 13th, our two colleges will have to move quickly if they are to produce adequate responses to the agency's demands on time.

Chancellor Mathur seemed to take that advice to heart, and so he was prepared to facilitate the board's discussion of the recommendation last night. So the discussion was agendized:

25. SC/IVC ACCREDITATION TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS
Item for discussion as approved by the board 1/31/06.

But Trustee Tom Fuentes had other ideas. Take a listen.

THE AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION--AND PORNOGRAPHY:


ater in the evening (item 49), the board's recent action of ending our colleges' memberships in the American Library Association was discussed. Padberg and Jay wanted the matter reconsidered. Clearly, they were prepared to vote in support of institutional membership in the ALA.

Here we find Trustee Fuentes arguing that the discussion of reconsideration of this matter should be put off until the next board meeting. (It seemed clear that he and Wagner needed to prepare.) Fuentes frets about the specter of "pornography" in our libraries. Padberg briefly responds.

Last night's board meeting

Dear Gabacho:

Q: So, what happened last night?

A: Well, it was pretty groovy.

Wendy G, on behalf of the IVC Academic Senate, read a resolution to the board, asking the trustees to keep their goddam noses out of college business. She was referring, of course, to the Board's January action of discontinuing the two colleges' memberships in the American Library Association--owing, apparently, to the ALA's "liberal busybody"hood.

The resolution was pretty hard-hitting. I'll provide an audio file soon, I hope.

The board voted to approve the new contract for classified. The latter seemed very happy.

The board got an earful of a report from the usual outside experts about the master plan. These experts said that phase 1--this involves 15 years or so--would cost almost half a billion dollars, and they weren't exaggeratin' neither.

The experts, who, as always, seemed quite competent (how refreshing to be able to say that!), said we can scrape up about $155 million from the usual sources, but then we're $302.6 million short. What to do?

Gotta pursue a bond issue, they said.

Yeah, but them are fightin' words to the fiscally conservative Wagner and Fuentes. No No No No No, they said, and more than once, too. You see, they are the friend of the taxpayer, and the poor taxpayer has paid enough!

In the meantime, everybody else stared blankly into the harsh brute fact that we've gotta get this money from somewhere--if, that is, we wanna accomodate reality, and not just the fascist oldsters who watch the SOCCCD BOT show. You can yammer all you like about bonds, Satan, and taxpayers, but, in the end, you've gotta come up with the scratch.

We need to update our IT, too, said IT maven Alan M. As it turns out, said the rumpled Alan, lots of our IT faces "end of life"--a phrase that seems to refer to the dying years of software that is so old, that the companies that produce it will no longer recognize it, like those Eskimos that send their old people out into the snowstorm.

Fuentes and Wagner went after the SANTANDER, SPAIN trip again. It's too costly; it serves only the elite, etc. People sure do go way out of their way to save face.

Everybody else seemed to say, "hey, the college and student government have scraped up all sorts of money to help out the students who can't afford the trip!" But even that wasn't good enough for the Doublemint Twins, cuz that money's comin' from somewhere, even if it isn't coming from these students, and how come it costs so much? (It's about $5k, and that includes transportation, hotel, etc.)

So Fuentes started singing the praises of a Cypress College trip to Tijuana that costs about $2,000. (It wasn't to Tijuana, but to Guanajuato. I just wanted to say Tijuana. Tijuana, Tijuana, Tijuana.) Dave said that Fuentes wasn't comparing apples to apples, etc., cuz the units earned and the duration weren't the same, etc. (Cypress' Mexico program I've gotta admit: this Guanajuato place looks great. Check out the pic below. I wanna be there.)

In the end, the board approved the Santander trip, I think, with Fuentes and Wagner stinking up the stage with their rank peevitude and their general negatory theatricality.


There were lots of unpleasant and fun comments about the Accrediting recommendations. You know: stop micromanaging; deal with the plague of despair; stop acting like a "banana Republic" (I seem to recall somebody using that phrase a while back).

As per usual, but with a more explicitness, Fuentes complained about outside agencies telling the board what to do. He sounded just like the Norman Fell character--the suspicious guy who ran the rooming house in Berkeley--in the Graduate:

Proprietor: Are you a student?
Benjamin: Not exactly.
Proprietor: What's that?
Benjamin: I said 'Not exactly.' No.
Proprietor: What are ya then?
Benjamin: Oh, I'm just sorta travelin' through....
Proprietor: (He stops at one of the landings) You're not one of those agitators?
Benjamin: What?
Proprietor: One of those outside agitators?

The look on Fell's face is priceless. Fuentes had that look.

The board was nicely divided about whether they were ready to start discussing the recommendations, and, in the end, thanks mostly to the Doublemint Twins, it acted to put off this discussion, despite warnings from Wendy and Claire, et al. Fuentes blew hard about how nobody tells the board what to do. After all, they are elected by the "good people."

This foot-draggin' won't look good to those outside agitators--um, I mean, to the Accreds. Wendy warned that we could be headed for "warning" status. Fuentes gave her the stink eye.

Kate Clark got a prize for her years of work with the Academic Senate of Cal (for about five years, including a stint as Prez).

It was a rich moment. There she was getting all this praise--with Raghu Mathur standing immediately behind her. I'm told she refused to shake his hand, but I'm not sure about that.

Years ago, Raghu, then President of IVC--and recent recipient of his first massive vote of "no confidence"--accused Kate, Bob D, and me of sending him "mail threats." He didn't have a shred of evidence: he just said it. That's the Raghu way.

The board responded by giving Mr. Goo a "security allowance."

Years later, when the fellow was deposed in connection with my 1st Amendment suit, it came to light that, despite Mathur's reference to about a dozen mail, email, voicemail, threats, he hadn't kept any of these supposed artifacts. I mean, if you were sent threatening mail, wouldn't you keep it?

It was pretty clear that there was nothing to keep: Raghu had simply made it all up.

There was quite a discussion about the American Library Association. It turns out (said Bill J) that Laura Bush and her stupid husband too (maybe) are members of the ALA. When Bill says "maybe" I think that means "not."

That the INCREDIBLY POPULAR First Lady is a member of ALA didn't deter Mr. Fuentes from going on and on about "pornography." The ALA, he seemed to suggest, wants to show kids pornography, right here in our libraries. Every time he said that word, he seemed to live in it. Everyone was transfixed in horror. It was like listening to Pamela Anderson roll her tongue and lips around the word "breast." --Well, it wasn't that good.

In the end, Wagner and Fuentes managed to put off the ALA discussion until next time. So this issue lives.

As I left, a classified employee noted Fuentes' awful way with S's. It's disgusting, she said.

"Yeah, it's reptilian," I responded.

Later, I felt bad for saying that. What did snakes and gila monsters ever do to me?

Why not me?

RAGHU AT HARVARD:

From the May 15, 2000 Dissent:

A Dunce at Hahhh-vud

A few months ago, Board Majority flack and former union consultant Pam “Same Sex” Zanelli issued a press release that said:

COMMUNITY COLLEGE PRESIDENT SELECTED FOR HARVARD SEMINAR

Irvine Valley College President Raghu P. Mathur has been selected to attend the Institute of [sic] Educational Management (IEM) at Harvard University. The institute provides high-quality professional development experiences to executive level leaders of colleges and universities. More than 700 colleges [sic] and university presidents have participated in a Harvard Institute for Higher Education program.

South Orange County Community College District Trustee Dorothy Fortune and Chancellor Cedric Sampson recommended Mathur to the Harvard IEM admissions committee. In Fortune’s letter to the committee she refers to Mathur’s “daunting challenges” and “remarkable accomplishments” since his appointment as president in 1997. She details his success in fulfilling the Board’s goals “to reduce IVC’s excessive expenditures on administration, cut the huge allocations paid faculty for non-instructional assignments, increase course offerings with the savings, address nepotism in hiring and expand technology offerings.”

“I feel honored and pleased to have been selected to attend this highly prestigious program. I look forward to discussing contemporary challenges of higher education with colleagues from around the country,” said Mathur.

The Harvard IEM program, to be presented July 9 to 21, takes advantage of the diverse experiences of participants to create intensive, highly interactive learning environments. IEM’s goals are to introduce useful new perspectives on institutional leadership; challenge routine thinking; help leaders anticipate critical issues; clarify institutional mission and vision; and improve the quality of the higher education enterprise….

It turns out that there’s an “Institute for [not “of”] Educational Management” website, which includes a very informative brochure. The latter explains that IEM’s goals are to

introduce useful new perspectives on institutional leadership; challenge routine thinking; help leaders anticipate critical issues; clarify institutional mission and vision; and improve the quality of the higher education enterprise.

Gosh, that sounds familiar. Do you suppose Pam works for IEM, too?

Just what goes on at this seminar? According to the brochure,

Case study discussions, formal lectures, videos, practitioner interviews, and role plays are all part of the program design…You will be expected to make a full-time commitment to the institute while at Harvard. A typical IEM day begins with breakfast at 7:00 a.m., followed by class sessions and group activities, which end around 4:00 p.m…The daily schedule often does not end until late evening, when participants complete readings, attend optional presentations, or prepare assignments for the following day.

Sounds pretty rigorous, what with assignments and readings and all. Luckily for the Gooster, “there are no writing assignments during the program.” Whew! Now, if only he can keep his trap shut!

Zanelli’s press release leaves the impression that acceptance into the program is highly competitive. Is that true? Well, the IEM brochure does tell us that “Participants are selected on the basis of their scope of responsibility, depth and breadth of experience, and potential for continued leadership. When making selection decisions, the Admissions Committee also considers the overall profile of the class and seeks to maximize learning by assembling as diverse a group as possible.” (Yeah, with Raghu, they’ve got the “liar” and “autocratic lout” categories pretty well covered. Good.)

The brochure goes on to explain that some people who apply are not accepted. Garsh, that does sound awfully competitive.


According to the brochure, “Applicants are expected to participate in IEM with the full endorsement of their institutions.” (In truth, the only “endorsement” of Mr. Goo’s participation that he is liable to get from the IVC community stems from a deep and abiding desire for his absence.) “Ordinarily, such endorsement is reflected in full financial support…The comprehensive program fee of $5,500 covers tuition, room, most meals, and all instructional materials. Payment is due following acceptance into the program.” –OK. So IEM selects only those whose institutions pony up 5 1/2 K. That is selective.

This means, of course, that IVC will be paying Raghu’s way. I sure hope that Mr. Goo’s two-week, $5,500 Ivy League adventure won’t interfere with his ceaseless efforts to address our latest budget crisis, which is occasioning a bailout by Saddleback College. You people paying attention down there?

I’ve been told that Raghu’s teaching a 5-hour chemistry course this summer, too. What do you suppose that’s all about? Maybe he’s incurred some big expenses recently. Could be. [END]


Notes:

1. I'm told that, at weekend retreats, Raghu never misses an opportunity to wear his "Harvard" sweat shirt.

2. The end remark is an allusion to Mathur's then-recent legal troubles. You see, he sued me (and former administrator T. Burgess) for invading his privacy. How so? Dissent had reported that, in a scheme to discredit an administrator, Raghu had violated a federal law by distributing a student's transcripts (that's a violation of FERPA). That, at any rate, was the determination of the district's legal advisors, who produced a legal opinion. That violation occasioned a reprimand from IVC's president.

So Raghu sued us. But that blew up in his face.

Using California's anti-SLAPP statute (i.e., protection against "strategic litigation against public participation"), we counter-sued, and won. Raghu had to pay our legal expenses ($32,000, as I recall). Who knows how much he spent on his own attorneys.

In a possible world

Horowitz's "Academic Bill of Rights"

Yesterday, I mentioned David Horowitz's book The Professors, which is published by Regnery Publishing. Trustee Fuentes sits on the board of directors of Eagle Publishing, which controls Regnery.

Horowitz is most famous, or most infamous, for proposed legislation called the "Academic Bill of Rights" (ABR). It has been introduced in 17 states in recent years.

During the recent board discussion in which Trustee Wagner led the board to end our colleges' memberships in the American Library Association, Wagner mentioned the ALA's opposition to the ABR. I could be mistaken, but Mr. Wagner seemed to imply that he favors the ABR. It's likely that Trustee Fuentes favors it too. (As far as I know, neither man has expressed a position on ABR.)


Some elements of ABR are unobjectionable. But, as the AAUP explains, "other parts of the proposal reach into the classroom to suggest that what you teach, how you teach it, what you assign, and what you hand out, should be overseen by the administration...."

Thus far, to my knowledge, the ABR has made no headway in any state legislature. It generally gets tabled or shot down.

The AAUP warns that, though ABR has not been adopted by any state, "Similar proposals may be offered on your campus by student organizations or even student governments." Therefore, we had better be clear about the ABR's content.

The AAUP has a web site that offers various resources re the ABR (Proposed Government Oversight on Teaching & Learning). The following summary is from a "handout" available on the AAUP web site (Coming to your campus soon).

Summary of the "Academic Bill of Rights" Proposals

"The Academic Bill of Rights ... threatens to impose administrative and legislative oversight on the professional judgment of faculty, to deprive professors of the authority necessary for teaching, and to prohibit academic institutions from making the decisions that are necessary for the advancement of knowledge... The AAUP has consistently held that academic freedom can only be maintained so long as faculty remain autonomous and self-governing." (Most responses in this section are drawn from the AAUP Statement on the Academic Bill of Rights, available on the AAUP web site, above.)

The "Academic Bill of Rights" proposals list the following rights:

A right of "access to a broad range of serious scholarly opinion." This section states that institutions should foster a "plurality of serious scholarly methodologies and perspectives." The problem, according to the AAUP Statement, is that "it invites diversity to be measured by political standards that diverge from the academic criteria of the scholarly profession. Measured in this way, diversity can easily become contradictory to academic ends."

A right to grading based on "reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects they study" and not on their "political or religious beliefs." AAUP's Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students agrees that students should be free of unfair academic evaluation. "Students should be free to take reasoned exception to the data or views offered in any course of study and to reserve judgment about matters of opinion, but they are responsible for learning the content of any course of study for which they are enrolled." Campus grievance processes are generally available to students. These processes usually support fair grading without infringing on the pedagogical judgment of the faculty. The legislative proposals would infringe on faculty rights by encouraging administrative oversight over this pedagogical function.

A right to be free of "instructors who persistently introduce controversial matter into the classroom or coursework that has no relation to the subject of study..." The problem is: Who is to distinguish between proper pedagogy and improper "indoctrination?" According to the legislative proposals, the question would be determined first by student complaint, and then by the administration or the courts. But according to the AAUP statement, this distinction "is to be determined by reference to scholarly and professional standards, as interpreted and applied by the faculty itself."


A right to have faculty in the classroom "make their students aware of serious scholarly viewpoints other than their own" and to have "curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences [that] respect all human knowledge in these areas and provide students with dissenting sources and viewpoints." This provision is the most directly intrusive into the prerogatives of the classroom teacher. Who determines the "range of human knowledge"? Who would enforce this rule? Most likely, the administration, in order to avoid suit.

A right to have hiring, firing, promotion, and tenure decisions for faculty (and inclusion in committees that make such decisions) ... made on the basis of competence and appropriate knowledge in their field of expertise, not on the basis of religious or political beliefs. While the basic principle is sound, the Academic Bill of Rights is an "improper and dangerous method for its implementation," because of its reliance on administrative and legal intervention.

A right to have student fee funds distributed on a "viewpoint-neutral basis," maintaining a "posture of neutrality" with respect to political and religious opinions. The law on this subject is well settled in the 2000 Supreme Court case, Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Scott Southworth, et al. The United Council of University of Wisconsin Students describes the Court's guidance on "viewpoint neutrality:" (Link).

And finally, notices of student and faculty rights should be included in course catalogues, student handbooks, and on the institutional web site. Most campuses have student and faculty handbooks, printed and on their web sites, describing the full range of faculty and student rights. Encourage your students to know and understand their rights and responsibilities.

Chunk visits Saddleback College and swoons

That's right. I finished my Friday morning class and decided, on a whim, to visit an old pal at Saddleback College.

I took my camera.

First thing I came upon was the Fine Arts area. Man, it's beautiful up around there. Then Patrick showed up.

I headed for the Library. Rode up to the 3rd floor. It was as quiet as a tomb. Saw some cadaverous individuals.

When I stepped back outside for much-needed air, I walked into a jasmine cloud. I was transported.


What's this about? How'd they get that sign up there so fast?

I know our trustees have a reputation for defiance, but sheesh! Now we'll never get re-accredited.

Came across a cool poster:


...And a peculiar sign.


I think somebody finally got tired of the college displaying a pissed off vaquero and then callin' 'im a "gaucho."

It was such a beautiful day. I checked out the area behind the pool. Nobody goes there, especially me. I was being watched. Beautiful trees, though.



ave you seen David Horowitz's new book? It's called The Professors:


It's published by Regnery Publishing. As you know, trustee Tom Fuentes is a director of Eagle Publishing, which controls Regnery Publishing, Eagle’s book subsidiary. (See http://www.regnery.com/eagle_manage.html)

Regnery’s website describes The Professors this way:

We all know that left-wing radicals from the 1960s have hung around academia and hired people like themselves. But if you thought they were all harmless, antiquated hippies, you’d be wrong. Today’s radical academics aren’t the exception—they’re legion. And far from being harmless, they spew violent anti-Americanism, preach anti-Semitism, and cheer on the killing of American soldiers and civilians—all the while collecting tax dollars and tuition fees to indoctrinate our children. Remember Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor who compared the victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks to Nazis who deserved what they got? You thought he was bad? In this shocking new book, New York Times bestselling author David Horowitz has news for you: American universities are full of radical academics like Ward Churchill—and worse.

Do you suppose that Trustee Fuentes thinks that we're like THAT? Could he be that deluded?

I'm thinking about my office at IVC. Sure, my office mate is some kinda radical, but she never says or does the stuff that Horowitz is yammerin' about. There's a Bush Republican right across the hall. On one side of him, there are two liberal Democrats who leave people Valentines and such. They never spew. On the other side, there's another Republican (I think). She keeps to herself and looks intensely self-interested. Her office mate isn't political; he's neurotic. He spews all right, but only vomit.

I'm no radical; I'm a Communitarian. In Orange County, being a Communitarian is like being a screen door salesman on a submarine. (I remember that from 3rd grade. Swoonage releases childhood memories.) Or worse even.

I do some spewin', but it's the conservative Andy Roony kind. Like, "how come I can't get a lid for my coffee that's got an air-hole pre-poked in it? Goddamit, is it too much to ask for a friggin' pre-poked air-hole!"

I've got to say, you've got a beautiful--and fragrant--campus down there in Mission Viejo. It all made me swoon. You're lucky, you are.

A.L.A. on minors and access

Those interested in the American Library Association policy to which Trustee Wagner referred during the last regular board meeting should go to this link: Free Access to Libraries for Minors

This is the core of it:

Article V of the Library Bill of Rights states, "A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views." The "right to use a library" includes free access to, and unrestricted use of, all the services, materials, and facilities the library has to offer. Every restriction on access to, and use of, library resources, based solely on the chronological age, educational level, literacy skills, or legal emancipation of users violates Article V.

Libraries are charged with the mission of developing resources to meet the diverse information needs and interests of the communities they serve. Services, materials, and facilities that fulfill the needs and interests of library users at different stages in their personal development are a necessary part of library resources. The needs and interests of each library user, and resources appropriate to meet those needs and interests, must be determined on an individual basis. Librarians cannot predict what resources will best fulfill the needs and interests of any individual user based on a single criterion such as chronological age, educational level, literacy skills, or legal emancipation.
.....
The mission, goals, and objectives of libraries cannot authorize librarians or library governing bodies to assume, abrogate, or overrule the rights and responsibilities of parents. As "Libraries: An American Value" states, "We affirm the responsibility and the right of all parents and guardians to guide their own children's use of the library and its resources and services." Librarians and governing bodies should maintain that parents—and only parents—have the right and the responsibility to restrict the access of their children—and only their children—to library resources. Parents who do not want their children to have access to certain library services, materials, or facilities should so advise their children. Librarians and library governing bodies cannot assume the role of parents or the functions of parental authority in the private relationship between parent and child.

Listen to Trustee Wagner's original motion re the ALA:

Please read earlier post re this issue:

Is Wagner fair to librarians?

In my earlier post, I presented an explanation of the ALA's opposition to the Childrens' Internet Protection Act (CIPA) offered by the (2000-1) president of ALA, John W. Berry. Berry seems to say that minors' access should be restricted to some library resources, if local communities and libraries decide to do that. Berry's objection was to a "one size fits all" federal solution to the problem of shielding children from objectionable resources.

Prima facie, Berry's explanation doesn't square with the "Minors Access" policy above, which seems a priori to oppose restricting access to (e.g.,) pornographic websites for, say, 10-year-old library patrons, unless the kid's parents squawk. Am I wrong?

Let me know what you think. (Any librarians out there? Lawyers? Anybody?) --CW

Uh-oh, they still don't get it

LAST IN A SERIES


ast week, representatives of the district’s various constituency groups, including six members of the board of trustees, came together at Saddleback College to try to work out a mutually acceptable agenda of response to the Accrediting agency’s recent and worrisome recommendations. Once again, the agency has recommended

• overcoming unclarity concerning the various groups’ “duties and responsibilities,”
• ending the board’s pattern of micromanagement (obviously this is related to the first recommendation), and
• overcoming the climate of “despair.”

Here, I offer a small part of that larger discussion. I hope that you find it interesting and informative.

THE SETTING:

After presentations about district and college "governance" by the pleasant duo of Ian Walton and Dianne Woodruff, participants--maybe twenty people--took turns presenting “suggestions”—these were of varying specificity and quality; some were not suggestions at all—for responding to the accreditation recommendations.

The session yielded about 90 to 100 ideas.

Next, Walton and Woodruff sought to identify common themes from among the suggestions. When someone identified what they felt was a common theme, Woodruff or Walton would write the idea on a large pad of paper--a flip chart.

After themes were identified, Walton and Woodruff refereed as the group sought to define an agenda for action. Obviously, after each group's conception of its "roles and responsibilities" is identified, these conceptions need to be discussed.

But where?

Early on, “Chancellor’s Cabinet” was suggested. That group, which meets weekly, includes many but not all constituency groups. It does not include trustees.

Faculty and classified expressed various strong reservations about that setting:

• not all groups are represented;
• at those meetings, the Chancellor tends to declare his intentions rather than work with others;
• these meetings seem ill-suited to discussing broad philosophical issues; etc.

Eventually, Wendy noted that Chancellor’s Cabinet comprises mostly administrators, who nevertheless remain relatively quiet, perhaps owing to fear. Further, again, board members are not present at Chancellor’s Cabinet, and discussions about addressing the accrediting recommendations clearly need to include the seven trustees.

At Chancellor’s Cabinet, added Wendy, the board is represented by the Chancellor. She seemed to say that board members don’t really know what goes on at these meetings, since they are not present.

Trustee Fuentes took offense at that remark, which he interpreted imaginatively as the assertion of general board obliviousness or ignorance.

PEEVITUDE:

In his remarks, which I have transcribed below, Fuentes reveals just how far he is from recognizing the reality of trustee micromanagement. He reveals, too, a disinclination to embrace the communitarian nature of the night’s meeting—it was, after all, an attempt to have all groups work with other groups to arrive at mutually acceptable ideas and strategies re the accreditation recommendations.

I have provided both transcripts and an audio file.

I should explain that, in the end, the group agreed to adopt Glenn Roquemore’s suggestion: that each of the groups should first work on their own to define their duties and responsibilities. Subsequently, representatives would come together for discussion.

Eventually, Walton and Woodruff would return to referee another meeting, including all constituency groups.

As Wendy reminded the group, much of this work must be completed before summer!


TRUSTEE FUENTES: …We’re talking here about addressing concern that some have expressed about some, quote, “micromanagement.” If that is a valid concern, if there is micromanagement by some members of the board [then?] --the reverse of that, concern about macromanagement by those who’ve not had that responsibility is an equal concern of this board. And I just don’t think that all of that can go unchallenged. We board members have enormous contact with the community, with students, with the people that helped make up this district—not just those on payroll. And to suggest that the board is ill-informed—I take offense at that.

WENDY: I didn’t mean [to say]…that you’re ill-informed, just I want us to get to work together on this in the same room, and the board [members] aren’t on the Chancellor’s cabinet…
…..
WALTON: if it goes out to the groups to clarify the roles as you’ve suggested…, and then it comes back –have we reached agreement that in fact it should come back to another facilitated group that looks like this? [–Trustee Fuentes interrupts:]

FUENTES: again you’re coming back to this “what we have agreed to.” It’s not an evening of agreement. It’s an evening of listening. It’s an evening of sharing. So let’s move on from that. That’s what we agreed to on our agenda. We’re gonna hear the input from all these good people—we had the opportunity to hear a hundred marvelous suggestions. The board is not venturing into any kind of decisional agreement this evening…

WALTON: That’s absolutely true. We’re just trying to tell what we should write up here (on the board)—we’re trying to only write up here things that we think everyone has expressed agreement with. That doesn’t lock the board into any action....

AUDIO (CLICK):
Warning: there's some sort of feedback howl in the first half of this audio file, so watch your volume:

THE ACCREDS: YOUR TRUSTEES JUST DON'T GET IT

...[O]ne board member indicated that he had never seen any evidence of micromanagement. It is not clear to what extent this sentiment is shared by other board members but several of them seemed to be sympathetic to this point of view. As a result, it is hard to sort out in such a short meeting if SOCCCD Trustees do not understand what behaviors constitute micromanagement, if they are in denial about their own micromanagement, if some of them rationalize their own micromanagement as being appropriate in certain circumstances, if it is a habit that is difficult to stop, or if some of the trustees fundamentally believe that no outside agency has the right to regulate their behavior. [Bingo.] [I]t is clear that the SOCCCD board has not ceased its involvement in college and district operations.... (From the Accred report for Saddleback College.)

Q: Is Wagner fair to librarians? A: no

Lasik Danbury

You’ll recall that, at the last board meeting, Trustee Wagner led the board in ending the colleges’ memberships in the American Library Association (ALA), the foremost organization of librarians in the U.S.

According to Wagner, the ALA is a bunch of “liberal busybodies.”

Listen to his motion:

Listen to the subsequent discussion: Milchiker, Lang, Wagner, Fuentes:

Wagner emphasized the ALA’s opposition to the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which requires of public libraries that “filters” be installed on (public use) library computers—in order to protect children from internet porn. (I do think Mr. Wagner's remarks imply that he favors CIPA. I could be mistaken.)

Unsurprisingly, the ALA has long been a foe of censorship—we all remember reading about book burnings and lists of condemned books. The ALA has always been on Team Freedom re that battle. And so, with perfect consistency, ALA has from the beginning viewed CIPA as onerous.

I went to the ALA website and could not find the "ALA" remarks that Mr. Wagner quotes. But I did find the following address given by John W. Berry back in 1999. At the time, Berry was ALA’s President-elect.

Here, Berry presents what seems to be the essence of ALA’s position on CIPA and internet filters (if my perusal of the ALA website is any guide).

John W. Berry
President-elect, American Library Association, 2000–2001

On ALA vs. United States

Challenge to the Children’s Internet Protection Act


ood morning. I am John W. Berry, President-elect of the American Library Association and I’ll moderate this morning’s press conference.…

On Christmas day, 1820, a 77-year old Thomas Jefferson wrote these words from Monticello to his friend Thomas Ritchie: “But I am far from presuming to direct the reading of my fellow citizens, who are good enough judges themselves of what is worthy of their reading.”

It is appropriate that we assemble here in Philadelphia, the Founders city, to reaffirm our support for the constitutional rights of all Americans to “be good enough judges themselves of what is worthy of their reading” or of their religious practice, or of their speaking.

This morning, the American Library Association with the Freedom to Read Foundation and nine other plaintiffs, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania challenging the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) signed into law on December 21st of last year.

Former President Clinton, upon signing the funding bill that included CIPA as a “rider,” expressed his disappointment with the legislation: “I believe that local development of an Internet-acceptable use plan is a more effective solution than mandatory filtering for ensuring comprehensive protection while meeting the diverse needs of local schools and libraries.”

Let us be clear about several things:

• This act imposes unprecedented, sweeping Federal speech restrictions on public libraries across the nation.

• Filters are contrary to the mission of the public library, which is to provide access to the broadest range of information for a community of diverse individuals. Filters block access to critical, constitutionally protected speech related to many subject areas. Filters have been shown to block access to medical information, political information and information related to the arts and literature.

• Librarians care deeply about children. Libraries already have policies and programs to ensure children have an enriching and safe online experience. More than 95 percent of public libraries have Internet-use policies that were created with community input and local control, and they offer classes on how to use the Internet to get good information.

In our libraries, we find kids use the Internet the same way they use other library services. They work on homework assignments, read about sports, music and other interests, and communicate with their friends. The vast majority of children and adults continue to use the library responsibly and appropriately.


The American Library Association believes strongly that the Children’s Internet Protection Act is unconstitutional. The filtering mandate imposed by Congress is unworkable in the context of a public institution because it restricts access to constitutionally protected speech on the users served by libraries. No filtering or blocking technology exists that blocks access only to speech that is obscene, child pornography or harmful to minors. And no filtering technology protects children from all objectionable materials. Many of you will have seen the March issue of Consumer Reports evaluating several filtering software products; the best of the products failed to block one objectionable site in five.

We’re concerned that filters give parents a false sense of security that their children are protected when they are not. Not all problems brought on by transformative technological innovation, like the Internet, have technological solutions, at least in the short term. We believe that education is more effective than filters—kids need to make good decisions about what they read and view, no matter where they are. To be sure, this is a collaborative effort between parents, teachers, librarians and many others.

The Children’s Internet Protection Act is a misnomer. The legislation does not strictly limit access for minors, but for adults and all Internet users in a library.


And finally, the act allows for unblocking specific Web sites if a user can demonstrate a “bona fide research or other lawful purpose”—both of which are left undefined. We do not believe that library staff should be put in the position of deciding what is “legitimate” or “objectionable” on a case-by-case basis.

CIPA is, in short, unworkable and fundamentally misguided.

[Link: Berry's address]


n his remarks about ALA last month, Mr. Wagner implied that the ALA does not care about children’s access to pornography on the internet--that the organization even favors children's access to anything and everything there. Clearly, that is not true. The ALA does view children’s access to porn as a problem, but it rejects CIPA’s means of protecting children as both ineffectual and offensive to a community that values freedom.

As you know, conservatives on our board have long been champions of “local control” re community colleges. When, several years ago, the authors of the Citizens’ Commission on Higher Education cited our district to illustrate how “local control” of California community colleges goes wrong (see note 1 below), the usual suspects on the board squawked the usual Reaganesque squawk about the importance of local oversight. Such squawkage can still be heard at SOCCCD board meetings.

But when it comes to libraries, which are staffed by persons who warm to ALA’s “liberal” take on speech and info (namely, that speech should be free, that censorship is bad), suddenly, our conservative board members are against local control. Suddenly, they want the feds to restrict and to control the locals.

Perhaps they do not support CIPA. Perhaps they are for local control here, too. Mr. Wagner did start his discussion by referring to the liberal or leftist partisanship of the ALA.

Still, one issue here concerns the ALA’s stance regarding CIPA and children. Is it what Mr. Wagner says it is? I can find no evidence to support that view.

I recommend visiting the following site: ALA on CIPA. (Click)

Mr. Wagner seemed also to be offended by the ALA’s (i.e., these “busybodies”’) objections to the Patriot Act. To learn about ALA’s stance on that legislation, go to ALA on Patriot Act.

Notes:

1. THE CITIZENS COMMISSION.

From a December '99 issue of Dissent:

In early April (‘99), the California Citizens Commission on Higher Education issued a report recommending the elimination of locally elected community college boards. According to the Register, "Too often, the commission argues, college boards micromanage their campuses, undermining trained administrators and creating disharmony. Commissioners cited the three years of turmoil at South Orange County Community College District as an example of what could go wrong with locally elected trustees...." (4/6/99)

2. WAGNER V. THE FEDS.

In an article entitled “Defining Control” (Register, 6/16/98), Don Wagner offers his view on “local control” of schools and the dangers of “the federal government…overreaching its powers.”

3. ALA AS ACCREDITING AGENCY.



4. CENSORED BOOKS

Link to interesting site re banning, censoring books:
Bonfire of the Liberties
(click on "censored books")