few years ago, a certain dean—he has since retreated to the classroom—decided to ensconce the A200 duplicating machine in a tiny room he had constructed at the center of the building. The dean had a reputation for hare-brained ideas—at least one of those ideas led to an embarrassing media frenzy (see The Howard Hilton)—and, at the time, this innovation, albeit small in scope, struck us as among his more absurd.
Since then, however, the odd little duplicating cubicle has somehow become a veritable fun zone, an island of vibrant comic discourse. All sorts of zany political cartoons, articles, and posters now adorn that weird little space.
It’s hard to look at it without smiling!
Among the many postings one finds there are printouts of this very blog, pinned to the wall by persons unknown. (I am content to leave Dissent the Blog in the blogosphere.) Today, I discovered that someone had taken one of the blog postings, ripped it in two, and dropped the pieces into my mailbox. The ripper, whom I will call “Jack,” chose to destroy a late December blog, one that reported efforts by conservatives to stifle the expression of liberal or radical ideas by professors in college and university classrooms. (See Patriotic Correctness.)
Now, some conservatives are in the habit of carping that their views—especially their approval of Mr. Bush’s so-called war on terror—are suppressed on college campuses, but empirical research reveals that, in reality, opponents of Mr. Bush’s war face many more threats to their academic freedom. (See Academic Freedom. Warning: this is a pdf file.) In the December blog, I illustrated the phenomenon with the 2003 “war talk” ban at IVC, which had been inspired by student complaints of faculty criticisms of our invasion in Iraq.
As far as I know, no one has ever tried to prevent any of the various flag-waving, military-honoring patriotic events or ceremonies that have cropped up on our campuses since 9-11. Not "liberal" professors. Not radical students. Not anyone.
As I stared at the torn paper in my mail slot, I wondered if Jack the Ripper understood that, by destroying the posting, he illustrated, in a small way, the very point the December blog was making?
uilding A200 was abuzz today with news that, some time after about 11:00 p.m. on Monday, someone had entered the Humanities Center and stolen a work of art that hung there on the back wall. The multi-media work—a two-dimensional painting that sprouted a three-dimensional cage, housing a distressed homunculus—was created by student Christian Perez, a popular fellow who hails from Peru. I spoke with the Director of the Humanities Center, who is familiar with Perez and his work. She explained that this particular piece, entitled “Golden Cage,” concerned the “plight of the Latino male” in American society, or perhaps in California.
Clearly, the work was political, and it expressed a harsh assessment of our society’s treatment of Latinos.
The Director suggested to me that, probably, the painting was removed by someone whom it had offended, for other motives could be ruled out. More “valuable” things in the center, including computers, a machine filled with cash, and a Jeff Horn painting, were all left untouched by the thief. “Golden Cage” had been screwed firmly to the wall and was thus especially difficult to remove. The violent act of removal actually left chunks of drywall on the counter, and the screw that fixed the painting to the wall was actually broken in half. Clearly, someone was very determined to take, and probably to destroy, this “radical” artifact.
Campus security has been asked to look for the artwork in dumpsters around campus, but, thus far, no sign of the painting has surfaced, and the perpetrator of the theft remains unidentified, aside from the obvious fact that he is an intolerant right-wing butthole.
peaking of intolerant right-wing buttholes, have you followed the story, which broke last week, concerning the conservative group at UCLA—the “Bruin Alumni Association”—that offered as much as $100 to students who provided recordings of instructors who are “abusive, one-sided or off-topic”? (See LA Times, 1/18/06) The group claims to target instructors of all political stripes, but, in reality, each of the faculty identified in its “Dirty 30” group of teachers is a left-winger. (See www.uclaprofs.com.)Andrew Jones, the 24-year-old who heads the group (he is its only official), has steadfastly defended his “exposing UCLA’s Radical Professors” initiative, which apes similar projects around the country. But, since last week, several members of the group’s advisory board have resigned, owing especially to the "payment" innovation, which they have tended to view as “inappropriate” or worse.
Some board members, however, defended Jones’ scheme. According to the Times, one of Trustee Fuentes’ G.O.P. cronies actually loves the idea:
[A]dvisory board member Shawn Steel, a lawyer who was recently chairman of the California Republican Party, called the effort to record professors “a great idea….” (1/19/06)
Why am I not surprised? Mostly, though, the Bruin Alumni Association’s impressive gaggle of conservatives on its board were jumping ship. By Monday of this week, even noisy right-wing talk show host Al Rantel bailed, explaining that Jones “has mishandled the issue horribly…Now what’s happened is that the whole project is discredited…Now it looks like a bunch of crazies who were trying to go after innocent professors…” (Times, 1/24/06)
Unsurprisingly, this week, Jones has withdrawn his offer to pay students for tapes and information, but “he pledged to continue his effort with unpaid volunteers.” (Times, 1/24/06)
In fact, however, even that scheme is against the rules. The Times reports that
[A] UCLA spokesman…said University of California rules bar the distribution of course materials unless permission is granted by the instructor and campus chancellor. As a result…, Jones’ campaign violates UC policy even if no payments are involved.” (Times, 1/24/06)
It’s not just UC. I’ve been told that the community college system, too, forbids unauthorized tapings of lectures or distributions of materials. Evidently, it’s in the Ed Code.
It is rumored that, this semester, stealthy conservative students at IVC (and at Saddleback?) are enrolled in courses of supposedly “radical” instructors for the sole purpose of monitoring their “radical” fulminations and supposed unprofessional blatherings.
If so, I’m sure that the press would love to hear about it.I’ll pay $100 to any student who can help me to identify these dastardly moles. (Just kidding. We’ll leave such machinations to intolerant right-wing buttholes.)
peaking of controversy, did you read yesterday’s Lariat article on Saddleback College instructor Howard Gensler? The article, which is largely favorable, refers to Howard’s “controversial political views that he openly expresses throughout his course.” The article seems to suggest that this aspect of Howard’s teaching is one reason that he is held in high regard by some of his students. “He’s freaking awesome,” said one student.The article notes that “Gensler was once a dean at IVC but after three years decided to draw back from that position and moved into teaching.”
That’s funny; many of us here at IVC were under a very different impression concerning the nature of his sudden exodus from IVC. Whatever.
ll this talk about controversy and administrators reminds me of one IVC administrator in particular. A dean! What a controversial fellow he was! Stories about the zany fellow abound!Here’s one, and it’s true. When a faculty member who was more than seven months pregnant asked this dean to sign a release for her maternity leave, the fellow demanded that she supply a “doctor’s note”!
Said she, “You’re kidding, right?” He wasn’t kidding.
Yeah, then there was the time I went to lunch with the fellow. At one point in the conversation, I complained about then-President Mathur’s habit of lying. I told him that I had trouble understanding how someone could lie so often and so freely.
The dean listened to me and then declared: “They all lie.”
“What’s that?” I asked.
“I worked in [a certain Asian nation], at a university, and I tell you that business people there all lie. They lie all the time!”
I was taken aback. Eventually, I said, “Well, whatever. But what does this supposed fact about people in [a certain Asian nation] have to do with a guy from India?”
“Same thing! They all lie too!”
Oh.
