Last week's board meeting: sandwiches described and machinations exposed

WELL, it’s been another busy day, and tomorrow promises to be an even busier one.

In the morning, I’m off again to downtown LA, to the U.S. Courthouse, across the street from the old Los Angeles City Hall Building, to attend Week Two (well, day 4) of the Mathur “discrimination” trial. I’ll be taking the train, cuz tomorrow is also the day of the Really Big Immigration March, which, naturally, happens right there, more or less, near Olvera Street. Luckily, Rebel Girl is up to speed on train travel, and so I’m feeling like a man with a plan. And an adventure.


At Irvine Valley College, there’s been lots of intense buzzage about this trial—the Trial of the Century!—which, is, among other things, an occasion for public revelation of innumerable Corrupt Mathur Stories. I’ve gotta say, just sitting there, listening to the witnesses, it pisses me off anew that (most of) our Board of Trustees have steadfastly refused to believe these old Corruption Stories. Meanwhile, they’ve allowed a once-great community college district to sink into mediocrity and ridiculousness.

These trials are like battles, and attorneys are like generals, constantly switching tactics on the fly and moving pieces in and out of danger, and so, even though I've communicated with Field Marshal Sobel, I can’t be sure what’s on tap for tomorrow, aside from the completion of Cely Mora’s testimony. I’m hoping that Mathur will be up after Cely, but, in truth, any of the defense witnesses should be loads of fun, cuz they’ve either gotta lie or tell the truth, and, either way, well, they can’t miss, funulosity-wise.

BELATED B.O.T. REPORT:

I never got around to reporting on last week’s regular board meeting (on the 23rd), aside from a few points. So I’ll try to do some catch-up here.

FACULTY COMMENTS:

As I reported last week, faculty offered remarks to the board during “public comments.” Academic Senate Presidents Cosgrove and Gabriella spoke, as did Lewis L of the Faculty Association (union), who noted that the district’s faculty contract proposal is “provocative and contentious.” The last negotiations, noted Lewis, dragged out for three years. Lewis asked the trustees to consider whether this unfortunate proposal will “promote collegiality.”

Will S noted that the proposed contract mandates faculty attendance of the chancellor’s and Presidents’ opening sessions. That, he said, smacks of “micromanagement.” “Let’s get beyond this,” he said.

Jeanne E found the proposal to be “insulting.”

Susan F noted the importance of the “reassigned time” issue. She explained that the list of faculty tasks has greatly expanded in recent years, and so faculty chairs are doing more work than ever.

Kurt M described faculty dedication and noted that much faculty work is uncompensated.

Kathie S suggested, grandly, that “we are our faculty and our curriculum.” She bemoaned the lack of respect for faculty—by persons unidentified.

The prayer issue was mentioned again. It’s not going away, that’s for sure.

Tom W acknowledged that he used to worry about the quality of the Chancellor’s opening session, but “then came Elvis.”

TRUSTEE REPORTS:

During trustee reports, Trustee Don Wagner suggested that some of the concerns about contract negotiations that were being expressed that night were “premature.” It wasn’t clear—not to me at least—whether he really wanted to reassure us. Maybe so.

Williams alluded to yet another Florida conference that he had attended. Mathur went with him.

Mathur asserted that faculty need not get alarmed about the contract negotiations. “It takes two to make it happen,” he said, tautologically, though he didn’t detect his remark's vacuity, nor does he know what the word “tautology” means. Nor "vacuity."

Once again, the insufferable fellow said that he looks forward to speedy negotiations.

THE CURRICULUM PRESENTATION:

Item 6.2 was “Curriculum Development and Process, and Planned Enhancements.” Mathur explained that, for the March board meeting, the senate presidents had offered brief reports about the curriculum process during “public comments,” but these, he said, were “inadequate.”

In fact, Mathur was hopping mad about those reports. In the week or so after the March board meeting, he made it known to the VCs and Senate Presidents that the trustees had been horribly insulted and offended by those reports, and so he was determined to make faculty go back and give “real” reports—you know, with PowerPoint, etc.

The senate presidents, however, could not figure out what the fellow wanted from them. Meanwhile, Mathur kept turning up the heat: Report! Report! Report! This ultimately led to IVC Senate President Wendy G taking the uncharacteristic step of calling up board president Lang to apologize for insulting the board and asking the fellow just what in hell the trustees wanted curriculumwise. Lang said he didn’t know what she was talking about. He wasn’t insulted and he was not aware that anyone else was insulted.

So it looks like Wendy accidentally stepped on one of Mathur’s ugly machinations and broke it in two.

At one point during the meeting, Mathur cited Wendy’s phone call as an example of how faculty cause the board to micromanage (it’s faculty’s fault, doncha see?). He was doing some serious finger-pointing and blaming. You know, like he always does.

But Mathur’s ugly little gambit backfired on ‘im, publicly. During the meeting, Wendy and Dave had a brief exchange in which Dave made it clear that she really ought to call more often! Yup. Turns out Wendy and Dave never talk, and so he was glad to hear from her. Plus, she called only to apologize and to get clear about this presentation, right Dave? Yup. And when Wendy tried to apologize, Dave said, Huh?—right, Dave? Yup.

That stuff about the trustees being horribly insulted by those brief faculty presentations? Mathur made it up from whole cloth.

Well, last Monday, Saddleback and IVC’s main “curriculum” persons gave their curriculum presentations, and they were good.

Howard Adams explained how faculty “grind out the sausage.” Wagner kept asking, “How do you know they’re doing a good job?” Lang asked, “what about SLOs?” In general, the trustees’ questions revealed profound cluelessness—about the process, about the work involved, and especially about academics.

Kathie S’s presentation was also good. Wagner pronounced the presentations “excellent”—and this is a guy who isn’t impressed by much. Still, he said that he expected more of a “here’s what’s new” presentation. Kathie tried to explain why new programs and courses aren’t really what you can expect from an established institution. Such institutions are up to speed.

Well, here’s the thing. The board seemed to respond well to what they were learning. They seemed to be surprised and impressed. That's GREAT. But, geez, HOW CLUELESS CAN YOU GET?

MISCELLANY:

Next up was information about security services. Some people from Honeywell came up to explain their gizmos. In the middle of all that, Wagner returned from a brief absence and commented, wryly, that it was sounding like “an ad for Honeywell.” Then he said something snippy about Florida, I think, but I didn’t catch it. Dang! Something interesting was going on—something about Williams’ junkets, I think—but I didn’t have a clue what it was! Anybody know?

4.7 There was lots of peevish discussion about the bookstore contract (going to Follett) and how, in Wagner’s words, the bookstores have been “ripping off students.” An administrator came up to explain about how it’s the publishers’ fault, but Wagner wasn’t having any of it.


4.10 There was some discussion about the recommendation to change the Food Services vendor at IVC. Somehow, that discussion went south fast. At one point, somebody had to explain about how this new vendor was gonna make these pita sandwiches, and, just before he got to the ingredients, somebody cut him off. Too much info!

5.1 The board approved the “Exclusive Right to Negotiate Agreement…with Camelot Entertainment.” It was unanimous, and there was no discussion. Can somebody explain what this means?

5.5 Only Bill Jay voted against approving the “district’s initial proposal for negotiations with the…Faculty Association….”

Well, that was about it. —CW

Discrimination trial: OPENING STATEMENTS

.
BUSYNESS PREVENTED ME FROM PROVIDING a full report of the first day of the RAGHU MATHUR discrimination trial, including the important “opening statements.” Belatedly, I provide that report below:

The U.S. Courthouse on Spring Street is beautiful and old, built during the Depression. I always enjoy visiting that fine old building.

Naturally, to enter the building, you need to submit to the usual airport-style security screening. These days, you can usually manage to get past the gate without taking off your belt and shoes!

Judge A. Howard Matz’s courtroom is impressive, about 60’ by 60’, with an audience gallery occupying the back one third or so. (I’d show you a picture, but photography is forbidden.)

Jury selection:

Tuesday’s jury selection process was interesting—it’s always fun guessing which side is gonna nix which potential juror. The jury pool was diverse: various backgrounds, ethnicities, etc. The film/TV industry was well represented, but so was auto repair and studentry. Most prospective jurors seemed reasonable, intelligent.

Eventually, the jury was whittled down to about eight people, and Judge Matz briefly lectured them about their task. The Plaintiff, he said, has the burden of proof, but “proving” her claim in this trial doesn’t mean establishing it “beyond a reasonable doubt.” For this case, he said, the standard is the “preponderance of the evidence.” That is, explained Matz, the claim made against the defendant must be more probably true than not true.”

Opening statements:


FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

Opening statements commenced at about 1:50 on Tuesday. Carol Sobel, Cely Mora’s attorney, explained that Mora was making two claims: (1) that she was discriminated against—in the dean hire of Spring ’01—because she is a Latina; and (2) Mora and others who worked under Dean Poindexter were allowed by Mathur to suffer a hostile work environment.

Sobel explained that Poindexter’s lack of qualifications for the job was clear from the very beginning, a fact understood by most members of the hiring committee (whose role it was to winnow the field of applicants and make recommendations to the college President). While Mora had long been an Athletic Director at the college and had served as acting Dean for a year, Poindexter had no managerial experience at all; he was in fact an athletic trainer.

When Mora didn’t get the job, she returned to the classroom and took steps to leave room for the new dean to establish himself. Meanwhile, Poindexter’s first action was to take Mora’s office, despite its being a small faculty office that was distant from his assistant’s desk.

Very soon, other disturbing incidents began to occur. Poindexter, a large man, would fly into rages and behave in a menacing manner. He did this only with the women. Department chair Ted W went to IVC President Mathur to express concerns on behalf of the women, but Mathur took no action. Meanwhile, the more the women complained about Poindexter’s behavior, the worse his behavior became.

During the Spring of ’02, a particularly disturbing incident occurred; Poindexter screamed at and menaced a secretary—an event Ted W witnessed himself. The women grew increasingly fearful of Poindexter, and, soon, female PE instructors met with Poindexter only when accompanied by a male colleague.

Poindexter targeted the women of his School in other ways, giving them bad schedules and classes, delaying their pay, etc. The men were given what they wanted.

In April of ’02, after numerous informal complaints, six employees filed a formal “harassment” complaint against Poindexter.

Meanwhile, John Lowe, an instructor who had served on the hiring committee, began to do some digging into the new dean’s background. He discovered disturbing facts about Poindexter that were concealed during the dean search. When he brought the information to the attention of administrators, who acknowledged it, nothing was done.

Later, faculty discovered that Mathur had given Poindexter a “to do” list. But none of the tasks on the list concerned the most important issue, the safety issue.

Eventually, an investigation was launched, but it was not completed until a year after problems had been brought to Mathur’s attention. During that whole time, Poindexter was not removed from the workplace.

The investigation report of October, 2002, concluded that Poindexter did not have the skills to be dean, but that fact was already manifest during the search process in the Spring of ’01.

But if Poindexter was incompetent, why was he only incompetent in his dealings with the women? Even the men acknowledged that Poindexter’s behavioral issues only concerned the women.


FOR THE DEFENDANT:

Dennis Walsh presented the statement for the defense. He urged the jury to wait until all of the evidence was presented before they formed a judgment. There are, he said, two separate issues: (1) whether or not Cely Mora was discriminated against because of her race and (2) whether Mathur responded to the existence of a hostile work environment. According to Walsh, if Ms. Mora has a complaint, it is with Poindexter, not with Mathur.

This suit is “something that is personal,” he said.

According to Walsh, Mathur had very little involvement in the process that led to Poindexter’s hire in the Spring of 2001. The hiring committee’s job was to produce at least three qualified candidates for him to interview and choose among.

Walsh emphasized that, in the elaborate hiring process, the three candidates sent up to the President of the College (Mathur) were understood to be qualified and on an “equal footing.”

Mathur interviewed the three candidates, including Mora and Poindexter, and he “looked at the big picture stuff.” That (evidently) is why he favored Poindexter over Mora.

Walsh explained who Mathur is. He came to these shores from India and worked his way up to his current high position as Chancellor of the district.

When Mathur interviewed the three candidates, Mora, though a good candidate, didn’t impress. There was no discriminatory intent here.

Walsh further explained that, before the Board of Trustees voted to give Poindexter the job (based on Mathur’s recommendation), they heard from members of the committee and others who objected to Mathur’s selection. They heard all the arguments. Even so, they voted to give Poindexter the job.

Walsh acknowledged that Dean Poindexter “had some problems.” In part, he experienced problems because of faculty, including some members of the committee, said Walsh.

According to Walsh, Mathur and the district responded appropriately to the complaints about Poindexter, for the district launched an investigation. Mathur had nothing to do with that. The “female investigator” eventually filed a report that found no reason to conclude that Poindexter’s behavior re the complaining women was “based on their gender.”

Walsh noted that some of the people who later complained about Poindexter actually recommended him during the hiring process.

Walsh closed by asserting that, when all the facts are laid out, it will be clear that the focus of the “Poindexter” problem was not Mathur, but Poindexter.

Mathur is being sued because this is “personal,” said Walsh.

NOTES:

1. Why had faculty members of the hiring committee forwarded Poindexter’s name to the President for interview? Walsh failed to mention a motivation that has become clear during subsequent testimony. Faculty members of the hiring committee (there were administrators as well) were aware that, were they to fail to send up three applicants (instead of, say, just Mora), Mathur would “shut down” the process, forcing it to start from scratch. Some members of the committee naively supposed that Mathur would do the “right thing” and hire the plainly most qualified candidate: Mora.

2. About Mathur’s impressive rise to prominence. Walsh failed to mention the corruption, unseemly conduct, and illegality that attended that saga. Mathur's initial rise to administration occurred during a time in which the then-corrupt faculty union was in league with the "Board Majority" to reorganize the entire district and settle scores. See Dissent archives.

3. Why did the Board of Trustees go along with Mathur’s recommendation to hire Poindexter? Walsh failed to mention that the Board of Trustees had already had a long history of defending their man Mathur against faculty objections and charges of unprofessionalism. Indeed, the faculty had voted “no confidence” in Mathur overwhelmingly, but still the board supported Mathur. Eventually, Mathur was selected as Chancellor; a year later, he endured a 94% vote of “no confidence” among faculty. The board responded by giving Mathur a raise. He now makes about $300,000 a year.

To some members of the board, that faculty object to a Mathurian decision is ipso facto a reason to support it.

4. Can we trust Human Resources’ investigation of Poindexter? Walsh failed to mention that the head of Human Resources during the time of the Poindexter matter had been a member of the Board of Trustees. Indeed, she had been a member of the notoriously law-breaking board that illegally promoted Mathur to administration (once as interim President of IVC, and a second time, again illegally, as permanent president of IVC) back in 1997. See College board gives former board member district [HR] job. (3/8/01)

See also Former trustee only candidate for district [HR] job (2/22/01):

…Lorch, a former part-time instructor and a former board member, has supporters and detractors from a long-time history with the district.

Her supporters say she was a popular teacher and was a top contender for the personnel position. Her detractors say Lorch, as a trustee, had a hostile relationship with faculty members.

…During her time on the board, Lorch was part of a four-member majority that appointed Irvine Valley College president Raghu Mathur….

MATHUR discrimination trial, day 3: courtroom titters

•
Day 3 (Thursday) of the Raghu Mathur “discrimination” trial went well for the plaintiff, Aracely Mora.

Brief description of the case: Back in 2001, Irvine Valley College President Raghu P. Mathur hired the clearly inexperienced and unimpressive Rodney Poindexter (aka White Guy from Virginia) instead of the experienced and impressive Cely Mora (aka Experienced & Impressive Latina) for the new DEAN position. That looked bad, really bad. From the start, Dean Poindexter exhibited incompetence, emotional instability, and a pattern of harassing and menacing those females over whom he had authority. After a year, he was fired, but only after spectacularly disturbing episodes, including one in which a screaming Poindexter chased and cornered a secretary.

On Days 1 and 2 (Tuesday and Wednesday), we learned of the hiring committee’s horror when, after recommending Mora, Mathur hired the plainly inferior Poindexter. We learned of Poindexter’s shockingly unprofessional behavior, which was permitted to continue despite early and persistent warnings and complaints. We learned about an episode four years earlier in which a committee strongly recommended the hire of someone with stellar qualifications—someone who happened to be a woman of color; Mathur hired a “minimally qualified” white male instead. According to two witnesses who asked Mathur for his reasons, Mathur explained that he chose the white male because he (Mathur) did not want to be accused of “reverse discrimination” (Mathur is Indian and the candidate was Sri Lankan).

Normally, of course, the charge of “reverse discrimination” arises in cases in which a less qualified person of color is favored. In this case, the person of color was plainly more qualified.

DAY THREE:

Day 3 (Thursday) went well for the plaintiff (Mora). John Lowe, a now retired psychology instructor who served on the hiring committee, testified first. He explained that he had brought complaints of a hostile work environment to the relevant administrator (Glenn Roquemore, Mathur’s successor at IVC). Evidently, he had spoken with Mathur about the matter as well.

At one point, Lowe’s memo regarding workplace violence was introduced. The jury sat up. Mathur’s attorney argued that, in “fairness” to Poindexter, administration could not remove him without an investigation. Under redirect, Lowe testified that, in his mind, the issue was not one of fairness. The issue was one of workplace violence.

Next up was Cely, the plaintiff. She was allowed to read from her letter to the board of trustees (of the South Orange County Community College District), which asserted the discrimination allegation and also stated that she was the only administrator of color at the college and when she was not selected as dean, none remained.

According to one courtroom observer, the jury paid close attention to those two facts and also laughed when they saw the scores of the two candidates on the first two rounds. (Both instructors and administrators served on the hiring committee; their scoring differed in interesting ways.)

The trial resumes on Tuesday. Cely will finish her testimony.

Then comes Mathur!

Court report

.

I emailed Carol for an update on the Raghu Mathur/Cely Mora "discrimination" trial, and she sent back this jpeg without comment.

Dunno what it means.

That Carol. She sure can be hard to read. --CW

SEE:
Trial: Day 2
Trial: Day 1

The Mathur discrimination trial: according to witnesses, in 1997, Mathur rejected a candidate because of her ethnicity

•

Day 2 of the Raghu Mathur “discrimination” trial. (See previous post: DAY 1.)

HE SMILED:

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to watch this trial unfold without noticing the trail of disrupted and damaged lives left in the wake of Raghu P. Mathur's pursuit of administrative advancement. You know all the names.

—But, no, you don't know all the names. During lunch today, I spoke with (plaintiff) Cely Mora's attorney, Carol, and with various other friends and colleagues. One colleague had a look of sadness on his face as he described the unhappiness of one of the unsung victims of Mathur's profoundly unfortunate 2001 hiring of Rodney Poindexter as Dean of PE, Health Sciences, and Athletics: a non-academic employee who had simply tried to do her job, a quiet job, she thought. But, then, suddenly, she found herself in something big and ugly and incomprehensible. I listened with horror and surprise.

"She just hasn't been able to get past it," explained the colleague.

As he spoke, I looked up and spotted Mathur at the other end of the cafeteria, next to a vending machine, speaking on the phone. He was only a few feet away from his table. There sat his very expensive lawyers—paid for, naturally, by the district. They're good.

Mathur seemed confident. He smiled.


WHAT'S YOUR NAME?

Proceedings started just after 9:00 a.m. Ted W of PE was on the witness stand. He detailed his experiences as a member of the “dean search” that yielded the hire of Rodney Poindexter as Dean of PE, Health Sciences, and Athletics—thanks to the decision by Mathur (then President of Irvine Valley College) to hire that inexperienced White Guy from Virginia instead of the celebrated and experienced and tried-and-true Latina (Aracely Mora) who is now suing his ass.

Well, when that went south and the school ended up with Dean Poindexter, the faculty made a real effort to work with the guy. (I've been impressed by the manifest magnanimity of some of these witnesses.) But, from Day 1, the new dean was a mega-disaster. Ted related several incidents. He described the infamous episode in which Poindexter ran after and screamed at secretary Suzi F. There were other episodes, all involving women, never men. Poindexter messed with their teaching schedules, adopted menacing postures, routinely became angry at them. He didn’t do that to the men.

Eventually, Judge Matz called for a break. (During the break, Mathur’s lawyer, Dennis W, walked up to me and asked if I minded telling him my name. “Yes, I do mind,” I said. Creep.)

TENNIS SHOES:

Later, we heard about one female instructor’s attempt to secure tennis shoes for her athletes. For that, she had to meet with her dean—Poindexter. That was the standing order: if you want anything, you must meet personally with the dean. But the meeting (according to one witness) yielded another Poindexterian eruption of frustration and anger and bizarre sudden exits. The instructor was reduced to cowering.

Knowing of these incidents, Ted, the chair of his department, complained to administrator Glenn R, who said: give Rod a chance. Plus: you people are exaggerating.

No we’re not, said Ted.

Under cross, Mathur’s lawyer pursued a favored defense motif: Here, again, someone is testifying for Cely—but isn’t he a close personal friend of hers, Hmmm?

J’accuse!

SCORING ISSUES, NAIVETE:

At about noon, Judge A. Howard Matz—a prickly and demanding fellow—sent the jury out to lunch, but he kept the two opposing attorneys back to spank ‘em for a while. The jury is “utterly befuddled,” he declared. You need a chronology! Charts!

After lunch, Mathur’s attorney was all over the fact that Ted had given Poindexter a pretty good score after the first-level interview. Plus Ted had joined with the rest of the committee in a decision to send Poindexter’s name along with Mora’s to the next level—to be interviewed by President Mathur.

If Poindexter was so damned unqualified, why were you people sending up his name?

Ted explained that this particular dean search was the second go-round, and if the committee didn’t send up three names, Mathur would shut the process down, and the whole damn thing would start from scratch again. He really thought that Mathur would hire the candidate who was plainly the most qualified.

“I was naïve,” said Ted.

Mathur's attorney unveiled another motif: you faculty didn't want to start the process over, cuz then you might not get on the committee next time! Isn't that it!

DO THE RIGHT THING:

Next up on the witness stand was Ted’s colleague Martin M, who also served on the Dean hiring committee. He told very similar tales. No, he definitely didn’t want to send Poindexter’s name up to the next level, but he hoped that Mathur would “do the right thing” by choosing the best candidate.

Mathur’s lawyer again pounced all over the “friendship” that existed between Martin and Mora at the time of the dean search. Wasn’t she a close friend of yours? —Sure, said Martin, but everyone in the School is a close personal friend. That just happens when your work together with people.

Martin described Poindexter’s meltdowns. It was pretty gruesome.

I’ve got to say: that Poindexter fella was SERIOUSLY MESSED UP. Worse than I ever knew.


BECAUSE OF HER ETHNICITY:

The next witness, Priscilla R, was the chair of a hiring committee for a biology instructor. This was back in 1997. She explained how the committee had judged that one candidate, Maala A (a female of Sri Lankan ethnicity), was stellar, but the remaining candidates were far less impressive. Once again, they faced the likelihood that Mathur, the spanking-new interim President of IVC, would shut down the whole process—forcing a time-consuming restart—were the committee to send up only one name, Maala’s. And so, especially since previous presidents generally went along with search committees' recommendations, this committee sent up the name of the next best candidate, too—a white male who was judged to be minimally qualified. (All others of those interviewed were judged to be unqualified.)

As per custom, Priscilla, as chair of the committee, informed the second level group (Mathur and two Vice Presidents) that, though the committee was sending forward two names, Maala was the unanimous and clear preference of the committee.

To their horror, the hiring committee soon discovered that Mathur had chosen the “minimally qualified” candidate.

The committee then instructed Priscilla to discuss the matter with Mathur. Mathur met with her and explained why he had not selected Maala. Ready?

He had not selected Maala owing to her ethnicity.

Turns out, he didn’t want to be accused of choosing someone of his own ethnicity (Mathur hails from India, which is a stone’s throw from Sri Lanka).

In Raghu's world, it's always about him.

THE STAFF DIVERSITY OFFICER:

The last witness of the day, history professor Frank M, was the “Staff Diversity” Officer at the time of the controversial biology hire. One of Mathur’s VPs (Bob L) had expressed concerns about the biology hire (to Frank?), and so Frank met with President Mathur. He asked Mathur to explain his choice, his failure to hire Maala.

According to Frank, Mathur then asserted that the white male was a “better fit for the job.”

Further, Mathur didn’t want to be accused of reverse discrimination.

RIPPLE EFFECTS:

As I write this, I think again about the damage that this ruthless man, Raghu Mathur, has done and continues to do. There are so many victims: some big, some small.

The instructor that Mathur hired in 1997, too, is a victim. He heard about a job, and so he applied for it. He interviewed. He got the job. He did nothing wrong. Plus he's a good guy.

But then there's all this.

More tomorrow. (It'll be an abbreviated session in court). --CW


(For background, see Mathur and women.)

The discrimination lawsuit: Mathur's "unauthorized baseball diamond" yarn

•

OK, I just got home, and it’s been a long day, so I can only give a very brief report on the first day of the “Mora v. Mathur” discrimination trial up in the Federal Court Building in LA.

Back in 2001, Aracely Mora, a Latina, was the Director of the Athletics Program at Irvine Valley College and had served for about a year as IVC's interim dean of PE & Athletics. She had received only excellent evaluations and had established a state- and even nationwide reputation in her field.

So she applied for the new Dean job that opened up at Irvine Valley College. In the end, she was among the three finalists sent up by the hiring committee for interview by IVC President, Raghu P. Mathur.

She didn’t get the job. The man who did get the job, a white male from Virginia named Rodney Poindexter (I kid you not), was completely unqualified, and he turned out to be both incompetent and unstable.

What's more, according to Cely’s lawyer, Carol Sobel, he created a hostile work environment for the female faculty and other female workers. The women were given terrible teaching assignments and endured various other problems. Somehow, for the male instructors, these difficulties did not arise.

At one point, Poindexter was observed screaming at a female secretary, pinning her to a wall.

When complaints were lodged about Poindexter's frightening behavior—at first informally, later formally—Mathur did nothing about it. Poindexter continued in his job for about a year.

Even before the hiring process, Cely had been told by friends, including administrators, that she had no chance of being selected as dean. She was, after all, a woman, and Mathur didn’t hire women.

Well, to make a long story short, the jury trial started today. The morning was devoted to selecting a jury. In the afternoon, Cely’s former dean, Greg Bishopp, testified. Tomorrow, members of the 2001 search committee will be called to the stand. The case will continue through Thursday and will resume next Tuesday. It should be over by the middle of next week.

Before the trial is over, we’ll hear some mighty juicy factoids. Even today, things got interesting. Mathur is now claiming that he decided against Cely because she had pursued the construction of a baseball diamond behind his back.

Yeah, but it certainly appears that Mora did no such thing. As Bishopp's testimony today made clear, Mathur was involved in the project from the very beginning.

Well, I’ve gotta go. I’ll report back ASAP.

See also Mathur and women

The turd in the punchbowl

•

TODAY (Monday), there were two board meetings:

BOARD MEETING #1, which went from 3-5 p.m., concerned our colleges' Accreditation issues. The board of trustees and the governance groups were supposed to discuss the matter together, but it didn't really turn out that way.

Trustee Williams spent a good deal of time criticizing (he called it "challenging") the Accreds re their "secrecy." But at least he was pretty pleasant about it. I'll give 'em that.

Then there was Chancellor Mathur. Evidently, he came to the meeting only to wag his finger at faculty. I'm not sure, but I think he was saying that faculty cause the board to micromanage, what with their phone calls and "badgering."

Yes, "badgering." He kept saying that.

He even singled out some faculty leadership for blame. It was pretty unpleasant.

Nobody else did that. I mean, most people only had good things to say about everybody else. Mathur was the proverbial turd in the punchbowl.


Board meeting #2, the regular monthly meeting, started at about 6:45. It attracted a fair number of faculty (see photo below) who were there mostly to encourage the district to be reasonable about the upcoming contract negotiations. The district's initial proposal is inauspicious.

Wagner sought to be reassuring. It's premature, he said, to worry that the negotiations process is already going badly. Well, OK Don.

Kathie and Howard gave a first-rate presentation on the curriculum process. It was plain, I think, that the trustees were very impressed, not only with the presentation, but with the amount of work that goes into curriculum.

It was a great moment.

I'll have lots more detail in a couple of days, but, right now, I've got to get some sleep. Tomorrow, of course, is trial day up in LA. You know, Mathur's getting sued again.

Rebel Girl's Poetry Corner: Do Something

~
It's Monday. Do something, somewhere.

by Dan Gerber:

Doing Nothing

When I passed him near the bus stop
on Union Square while the cops
cuffed his hands behind his back, while he
said, "I didn't do anything,"
I didn't, either,
do anything but look away,
a little afraid they might cuff me
if I paid too much attention,
and walked on still wondering
what he might've done
and still more what I
might've done.

A skosh, a dollop, and a plague!

•

WELL, it’s almost time for another meeting of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees. The show starts tomorrow night, at 6:30, I believe. (All board meetings are performed in the Health Sciences big top—at Saddleback College.)

ACCREDITATION:

The district is still wrestling with some pesky accrediting issues—a skosh of micromanagement, a plague of despair, a dollop of Goo, etc.—and so there’ll be an EXTRA-SPECIAL MEETING to discuss all that at 3:00 p.m. Allegedly, the governance groups will be allowed to participate in this discussion.

There’s a chance that Trustees Fuentes or Wagner will hint at conspiracy theories again, so you don’t want to miss that. Those two are zany, they're daffy!

THE REGULAR MEETING:

If you’d like a copy of the agenda for the regular meeting, just go to the District Website. Voila!

I perused the agenda, and nothing really jumps out at me. It’s always hard to predict what these people are going to do. Agendas don’t tell you much. Sometimes they freak out over flat nothing—like death-defying trips to the beaches of Spain. And sometimes they surprise you and get all magnanimous and sensitive.

They can even be nice.

Item 4.1 is “Approval of Exclusive Rights to Negotiate Agreement (ERNA) with Camelot Entertainment.” Maybe you know what this means. I don’t. Does it mean that the district is zeroing in on the Camelot deal?

Camelot, of course, is the investor group who proposed a super-duper studio complex to take up much of our ATEP acreage in Tustin. Some people worry that we’ll get fleeced by these guys. Could be.

Mathur seems to have taken over the ATEP project. He imagines, I think, that he can envision a success at ATEP so spectacular that his mug will eventually get blasted onto Mount Rushmore.

Item 5.3 is whether to “Approve the Saddleback College study abroad program: Spanish Language Studies in Guanajuato, Mexico in the summer of 2007 and the Educational Tour/Field Study Travel Contractor Agreement with the American Institute for Foreign Study for coordinating all travel agreements.”

Fuentes is the kind of guy who thinks that Mexico and Spain are basically the same place, since the natives speak the same language, more or less. So why not save a few pesos and head for Mexico? Usually, Don Wagner can be expected to warble a similar tune. So expect these guys to be all over this proposal. And why not?

Item 5.4 is an airing of the faculty union’s proposed contract.

Item 5.5 is whether to “Approve the district’s initial proposal for negotiations with the SOCCCD Faculty Association and set a public hearing on the proposal at the regularly scheduled May Board meeting.”

As I’m sure you’re aware, the district has lowballed the faculty bigtime with this proposal. I think the trustees want us to wear knickers and become Republicans. It’s pretty obnoxious. Plus they want us to teach more than two days a week and to swear off striking.

I’ve been teaching five days a week for years, so it’s no biggie to me if they make us show up now and again. I guess others feel differently.

5.7 is a contract with a private dick (Karen T. Meyers, Esq.). What’s that all about?

5.8 lists some Academic Personnel Actions, including a couple of “Additional Compensation”s—so maybe Raghu’s trying to pull another hidden raise scam. Hard to say.

There are two curious “discussion items”:

5.1: “A Board discussion item has been requested on the topics of the Cost of Employee Benefits and Staffing Levels.”

That doesn’t sound good.

5.2: “Faculty from both colleges will present information relative to the curriculum development process and procedures.”

Mathur’s been in a lather about this one for weeks. Don’t know why.

For some reason, he has insisted on introducing the presentation, which will be handled mostly by faculty, since it’s totally their gig. I think Raghu is trying to convince the board that he’s working well with faculty and, in fact, everything’s hunky-dory. Well, when it comes to curriculum development, things are hunky-dory—exactly because Raghu’s not around to mess ‘em up.

My prediction: he’ll stir up a hornets’ nest with this. You watch.

Yeah, but like the Reb says, my predictions aren’t worth spit. I mean, I was the guy who swore that Americans couldn’t possibly be stupid enough to reelect George W. Bush.

Li'l Sarah on the tire swing down by the oaks

5 minutes ago: Sunny Girl spots some deer

•

I took the snaps, though.

The transfer mission: we oughta be committed

•

SLEWAGE:

It's a community college "see me, feel me" extravaganza!

This morning’s New York Times offers a slew of articles (well, 3 of 'em) about community colleges under the title The Two-Year Attraction, where we learn that “Almost half of all college students go to a community college, making the two-year experience as much the norm as not.”

Like it or not, we (at the community colleges) are where it's at, and increasingly so!

WHY, WE'RE POLYPEDAGOGICAL!

In John Merrow’s “Dream Catchers,” we learn that

Community colleges today do far more than offer a ladder to the final years [of college]. They train the people who repair your furnace, install your plumbing, take your pulse. They prepare retiring baby boomers for second or third careers, and provide opportunities for a growing number of college-age students turning away from the high cost and competition at universities. And charged with doing the heavy remedial lifting, community colleges are now as much 10th and 11th grade as 13th and 14th.

Merrow reports that “Two-year colleges receive less than 30 percent of state and local financing for higher education," and yet they enroll “nearly half of all undergraduates.”

CHEAP, TOO!

In “For Achievers, a New Destination,” Beth Frerking explains that

…as four-year universities have become more expensive, good students who want to save money are turning to community colleges to earn their core undergraduate credits. …[A]ccording to a report in October by the College Board, community colleges charge an annual average tuition of $2,272, compared with $5,836 at state universities and $22,218 at private institutions.

Many two-year colleges are now recruiting students who fit the traditional profile of baccalaureate undergraduates: 18- to 24-year-olds who have strong high school records and are moving directly into higher education full time.

…No longer wed primarily to a work force-training mission, these colleges consider it a major, if not predominant, goal to prepare students to transfer to four-year institutions.

WE OUGHTA BE COMMITTED!

Frerking’s next observation might be of particular interest to denizens of the SOCCCD:

…The two-year colleges most committed to funneling students into four-year colleges tend to have some or all of the following: learning communities (in which students attend classes with the same small cohort of classmates), honors programs (noted for curriculum that crosses disciplines, teachers who hold advanced degrees and smaller classes taken with similarly talented peers) and articulation agreements with four-year institutions in the state (typically synchronizing basic courses with a university’s requirements and guaranteeing admittance to transfer students who have kept their grades up).

These colleges focus on liberal arts and the sciences, responding to increasing demand for math and science teachers, health professionals and high-tech experts. The best community colleges also have what experts call “a culture of evidence,” meaning they extensively assess students’ academic performance and adjust teaching practices accordingly, says Kay M. McClenney, director of the annual Community College Survey of Student Engagement….

HOW ARE WE DOING?

ASSUMING that Frerking knows what she’s talking about—no doubt some will carp about some of her generalizations re “commitment”—we might consider how the SOCCCD’s colleges do relative to the standards that she mentions.

I’ve offered some observations below, but PLEASE WRITE US to tell us how you think Saddleback College, Irvine Valley College, and ATEP (which will open in the Fall) rate on the Frerking "commitment" meter.

Learning communities: NOPE [None that I’m aware of, unless rabbits count.]

Honors programs: YES & NO [unlike some of the programs that Frerking describes, by law (I believe), IVC’s Honors Program cannot be selective among students. That is, less-than-“talented” students can and do enroll in our Honors courses.]

Articulation agreements: YES

Focussing on liberal arts and the sciences:

Responding to increasing demand for math and science teachers, health professionals and high-tech experts:

Embracing a culture of evidence: [I know that some of my colleagues in English will have something to say about this.]

—CW

See also Tennis in a parking lot

OC: recent gatherings, demonstrations

•

See:

Speaking Out~ Lake Forest
OCC holds convocation ~ Costa Mesa
Students reflect on VA Tech shooting ~ Aliso Viejo
Chapman joins Virginia Tech in mourning ~ Orange

Some Chuckleheaded Hos

•

SHUT UP.

OUSD trustee Steve Rocco is in the news again. At Thursday’s meeting of the school board, trustees adopted a rule restricting what may be placed on the board meeting agenda—an effort to prevent Mr. Rocco from blathering about loony (and maybe sometimes non-loony?) conspiracy theories. According to the Reg,

Some parents say Rocco wastes time at meetings with his meandering speeches about his parents' medical issues and a concept he calls "the partnership," which he describes as a sinister group of politicians, business leaders and education officials who are taking over the county. (See Board muffles Rocco.)

According to today’s Times,

The [adoption of the rule] was prompted by a March meeting at which Rocco attempted to make a speech about what he calls "the partnership," a cabal of powerful individuals he says runs the county and has tried to assassinate him. (See Rocco speech prompts school board change.)

OK, that one’s loony.

YES, BUT WE BLAZED THIS TRAIL YEARS AGO.

"I believe Lee Harvey Oswald worked for the ADL," Frogue said in a half-whisper during a recent interview on the Foothill High campus. Asked to repeat his assertion, Frogue said, "That's right.... I believe the ADL was behind it." —From the LA Times, 11/25/96

Long-time observers of our own district will recall similar efforts, a dozen years ago, to silence then-trustee Steve Frogue, a fellow who unashamedly used his position to speechify about the Anti-Defamation League and its alleged conspiracies.

Frogue’s behavior attracted the attention of local media. The Irvine World News was moved to ask: “What’s your point, Steve?”:

It's unclear what Saddleback Community College board member Steven Frogue is attempting to accomplish.

At recent board meetings, Mr. Frogue has been indulging in repetitious, lengthy, and at times antagonistic monologues about such disparate things as the Anti-defamation League of B'nai B'rith and faculty senate elections at Irvine Valley College.

At its Feb. 27 meeting, Mr. Frogue took up about 45 minutes of the board's time on these matters.

…During board meetings in January and February, Mr. Frogue has made some startling remarks about what the Jewish organization is doing these days. Another board member, Marcia Milchiker, a former ADL leader in Orange County, told Mr. Frogue he is misinformed about the organization. But he persists. And he has continued to harp on the Irvine Valley academic senate's election procedures, even though an attorney for the Saddleback board has said that the board has little or no control over how the senate conducts its business.

Not unexpectedly, the academic senate has asked the board to order Mr. Frogue to stop interfering in its affairs. The ADL has asked for an apology from the board.

What's puzzling about all of this is what these apparently tangential matters have to do with running the Saddleback Community College District? Mr. Frogue has offered only vague generalities in explanation.

...Judicious use of his gavel by board President John Williams would help keep things in focus. (3/2/95)

Unfortunately, Frogue’s pal Williams was none too judicious with that gavel, which he sometimes used to pound on trustee Harriett Walther’s head.

Eventually, Frogue organized a “Warren Commission” seminar, at Saddleback College, inviting four conspiracy nuts, some associated with an anti-Semitic organization that denies the Holocaust. Naturally, Williams' gavel was silent then, too.

The shit really hit the fan that time. Frogue eventually resigned in the summer of 2000.

FROGUE, THEN FUENTES.

“We’ve gotten rid of a crude Neanderthal but replaced him with a slick one,” said Irvine Valley College Professor Roy Bauer, who has successfully sued the district over free-speech issues. —OC Register, 7/13/00

These days, former chair of the OC Republican Party, Tom Fuentes, has taken over where Frogue left off (Fuentes replaced Frogue as Trustee for the Lake Forest area in 2000). Occasionally, he hints at conspiracies afoot in the Accreditation process. (Our colleges have struggled with Accreditation issues, in part because of the persistent “micromanagement” of the trustees.)

At a recent forum, Fuentes implied that the Accreditors get “all their information” from the faculty, a group that Fuentes contemns and despises, and so I asked him to spell out this alleged conspiracy. He declined to do so. (Like Mr. Frogue, Mr. Fuentes just naturally assumes that others are as dishonest and wily and cynical as he is. That’s only true when he’s hanging out with his Republican Mafia friends—or the Orange Diocese.)


FUENTES & THE OLD OUSD BOARD MAJORITY.

Incidentally, years ago, Fuentes, along with some of his “Republican Mafia” pals, orchestrated the election and scandalous/embarrassing reign of a Board Majority on the Orange Unified School District school board. (See Fuentes: some background.) That BM was almost as embarrassing as the SOCCCD BM of 1996-1998, and that’s saying something!

The OUSD BM was eventually ousted in a successful voter recall. Even those loveable rednecks in Orange (I used to live there, so I know) knew enough to get rid of the faculty-hating extremists that Fuentes and his gang supplied.

On the other hand, they did elect Mr. Rocco.

FOND MEMORIES.

Yeah, around 1990, I lived in a wonderful two-story "Victorian" near downtown Orange. It was built in 1903 and it looked it.

One time, as I was watering my lawn, some guy drove by and stopped to talk to me. We talked about the neighborhood.

“Years ago,” he said, “this neighborhood was in bad shape. It was pretty run down. Lots of weirdos, lots of drugs and stuff. Lots of crime.”

“Was that the early 60s?” I asked.

“Yeah, about then. It looks great around here now, but, back then, your house was a whorehouse.”

“A whorehouse?”

“Yeah, a whorehouse.”

In the end

●

RECENTLY, we posted (on our sidebar—at right) a story about a UCLA study that concludes that diets don't work. Well, no. It concludes, not just that they don't work, but that, typically, they cause dieters to gain weight in the end.

Well, not necessarily in the end. You know what I mean.

There are new indications that "sexual abstinence" programs don't work in the end either, although, in this case, I coulda told you that. I mean, DUH.

From Bob Park’s What’s New, 4/20/07:

SEX EDUCATION: ABSTINENCE MAKES THE HEART GROW FONDER. Students who participated in sexual abstinence programs were just as likely to have sex as those who did not, according to a study ordered by Congress. Nor did they have fewer sex partners, or wait longer to become sexually active.

The report, released late last Friday, comes just after the abrupt resignation of Dr. Eric Keroack, an anti-birth control zealot, appointed by Bush just four months ago to head the Office of Population Affairs of the Department of Health and Human Services. A non-board-certified gynecologist/obstetrician who operates six Christian anti-abortion centers in Massachusetts, Keroack had been notified of a state investigation into his private practice.

A rainy day in the OC.:

"Troubled" Students: Civil Rights and Campus Safety

~
Flags at half-staff at IVC

Rebel Girl notes the invitation that landed moments ago (8:21 AM!) in her virtual mailbox:

President Roquemore would like you to know that today's regularly scheduled bi-monthly Thursday President's Forum will be devoted to a discussion on campus safety. You are invited to join the President and Interim Police Chief Jim Pyle as follows:

Thursday, April 19
1:00 - 2:00 p.m.
Room A126

All are welcome.

She herself will not be able to attend the Forum due to her teaching schedule, but she is glad that folks on campus will be discussing this issue—and she hopes the discussion will continue in a manner that will allow fuller participation.

Indeed, inspired by this week's tragic events in Virginia as well as a series of events this academic year at our own campus, she and a colleague hope to propose a FLEX week session not just devoted to campus safety, but also district policy and civil rights.

Among the questions Rebel Girl would like answered are these:

What exactly should an instructor do when encountering an obviously "troubled" student? (In the past, R.G. has been counseled to show the student in question a copy of the IVC Student Code of Conduct. She must admit that the most troubled students don't seem impressed by this list of behaviors. Of course not, she thinks, they are "troubled" and showing them a list isn't really addressing the problem.)

Is there any way for instructors to be informed of these "troubled" students before they enter our classrooms? (She thinks not but wants to know for sure, nonetheless.)

When, if ever, does protecting the rights of the "troubled" student begin to impact the rights of students, faculty and staff?

—And so many others questions…but it's Thursday and Rebel Girl's plate remains full.

For more, check out these sources:

In Dr. Helen's blog (she is a forensic psychologist), she writes:

What I am amazed by is that in many school shootings, especially in universities, school authorities and others were told that there were problems or in some cases, the eventual killer had already made threats but no one did anything. The schools deny any responsibility at all in most of these cases, although, sometimes, they end up being sued for it. But what is money when people's lives are at stake? It's often the case that when the killer finally lashes out, the people who knew him aren't surprised—they'd been predicting something like this for weeks or months, but no action was taken.

In my opinion, if we have mentally unstable students who have made threats, have behavioral problems, etc. in universities and schools who do not hold themselves or the student accountable for their behavior, there is no other alternative than to extend the civil right to concealed carry to the potential innocent staff and students who may encounter the wrath of such a person. If universities and schools won't take responsibility—and they won't—then someone has to."

—and in today's New York Times, in the essay, "The Killer in the Lecture Hall", Barbara Oakley, professor of engineering at Oakland University, recalls her own run-in with a "troubled" student and the university's reaction, concluding:

"In other words, most of the broad social “lessons” we are being told we must learn from the Virginia Tech shootings have little to do with what allowed the horrors to occur. This is about evil, and about how our universities are able to deal with it as a literary subject but not as a fact of life. Can administrators and deans really continue to leave professors and other college personnel to deal with deeply disturbed students on their own, with only pencils in their defense?"

—and in The Chronicle of Higher Ed, Gary Pavela, an expert on "troubled" students, answers questions, including this one:

Q. In your view of the events in Blacksburg, what else do you see?

A. Looking at everything I’ve read in press accounts so far, this student was a very strange loner who had dark thoughts. So what can you do? You can try and make contact with the student, and I applaud the professor at Virginia Tech who apparently tried to do that. But the bottom line is that I don’t think there is anything close enough to what the federal law would require to have removed the student.

And, of course, let us know what you think, what you have experienced. Have you ever been frightened by a student? Felt threatened? Has a student ever threatened another student? What happened? Posting a comment is easy—and anonymous, if you wish.

Yesterday, in class, Rebel Girl noted that the half-mast flag, usually lowered in honor of dead leaders, was instead lowered in recognition of people just like us.

No red meat

●
ASMANIAN DEVIL STILL AT LARGE. Knowledgeable persons tell me that Chancellor Mathur continues to be on a tear. Evidently, one source of Mathurian consternation involves a presentation, to be given at Monday’s meeting of the board of trustees, of faculty curriculum actions.

Huh?

Nobody I talk to seems able to explain Mathur’s concerns over this. As you know, the curriculum process is a faculty-run activity in which the Chancellor has no role; it occurs via public meetings governed by the Brown Act. Any account of the curriculum process or of recent curriculum actions will be as dry as dust and about as interesting.

No red meat.

Maybe all will become clear at Monday’s meeting of the board of trustees. Hope so.

MATHUR LYING AGAIN. The April Faculty Association (union) newsletter reports on upcoming contract negotiations. According to the newsletter,

During the Faculty Association’s spring Flex luncheon, SOCCCD Chancellor Raghu Mathur stood up during the meeting to state that the District is interested in quickly resolving negotiations over the new faculty contract, and in not repeating extended negotiations necessary to produce the last contract.

Yup, I was there and that’s what he said.

As you know, the chief reason for the “extended” nature of negotiations for the last contract was the involvement of Mathur, who, you’ll recall, had prefaced those negotiations with a similar statement of the district’s intention to foster smooth sailing.

Right. After years of Mathur-created logjammery, VC Gary Poertner replaced Mathur as negotiator. Things then quickly improved.

Chunk's niece & nephew

Guess what? For the new contract, Poertner won’t be negotiating for the district (or he won’t be lead negotiator).

The job has fallen to VC Bob King. You remember: he’s the guy who helped Mathur in his ill-fated raise ruse.

The FA newsletter goes on to say:

On April 19th, when the agenda for the April 23rd meeting of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees meeting is published...the Chancellor’s promise [to promote a quick resolution] will be proved false.

…The District’s initial proposal, to be distributed on Thursday, … certainly contradicts the Chancellor’s hopeful comments from the spring. … The District has chosen to present a provocative sunshine proposal, containing many proposed provisions apparently designed to anger the faculty, and start negotiations on a contentious footing.

The newsletter lists the proposal’s odious provisions. Included among them:

• requiring faculty members to work a set minimum number of days on campus;
• allowing in faculty evaluations the use of information not collected through the evaluation process;
• …proposing the development of a new, “comprehensive ‘No Strike’ provision”


RED MEAT FOR CONSPIRACY FANS? IVC full-time faculty have elected Wendy Gabriella for another term as President of the IVC Academic Senate. She received 71 of 71 votes cast. (About 30 faculty chose not to vote.)

A friend sent me this. Are they trying to tell me something?

“[The authoritarian] management style is considered Neanderthal by today's management theory and practice.”

—Howard Eisner

Thank you, National Rifle Association. Thank you, Congressman Gary Miller

.
«Posted for RED EMMA»

GRADE for Congressman Gary G. Miller:

A

—from Project Vote Smart’s Congressional Rating Record on the National Rifle Association/ILA.

.RED IS TOLD by those who divine these techno-details that of those hundreds out there in the ‘sphere who read last week’s provocative and polemical (and satirical) Miller posting (Meeting with Congressman Miller), many maintain addresses in Congressional offices or party headquarters. No doubt some wiseacre will now go tell on Red Emma to his elected rep, blowing any chances at further meetings with Congressman Gasbag. And it’s a darn shame cuz I had my Confederate uniform all spit-polished and my Stars’n’Bars dry-cleaned.

.Of course, delivering more of the goods on Gary G. Miller (not to be confused with George Miller of the 7th district, who earns an F, god bless him, from the weapons industry) isn’t that hard and, as you will note, his connection to events at Virginia Tech yesterday are as easy, and therefore, ignored, as the nifty grade he receives re “gun rights” voting. But I am getting ahead of myself.

.On this bloody second day, Red Emma chooses his words especially carefully toward offering the respect and awe which violence demands, especially violence which chooses its targets so carefully, so deliberately, from a community of young people, children really, at an educational institution on a Monday morning in the United States. This is hard to do perhaps, when you are weeping, shaking, restless, disturbed—as I have been since Monday morning. There is the sound of gunshots in the distance, played over and over on the radio, interviews with a professor barricaded and a student weeping. I feel I know these people. Working at home yesterday, listening to NPR in the background, I waited, all too familiar with the scene, and The Script which accompanied it. Yet in spite of the dark curtain, or because of it, my mind, perhaps panicked or trying for self-defense, looked for meaning, and even more desperately than usual.

.As with past shootings, and the reports of them, I was anticipating The Script, admittedly important and necessary, of shock and horror and disbelief. Anger, by the way, is an important and justified emotion here, as I intimate below. Naturally, it is almost always missing from The Script.

.But we have been here before, so that one loses patience with The Script. The power of intellect offers us some reprieve from the grief and the horror. The effort to obscure, neglect, and ignore the singular and most obvious element of a problem, over and over and over again, through so many years and too many similar episodes, can’t, finally be a mistake or an oversight, can it friends? So, yes, there is the breaking horror, the death toll, the story of the killer. So, yes, the story about cell phones and possible police tardiness. So, yes, the caliber of the weapon and the banal profile of a sociopath and the call for healing and the stories of families and the investigation and, of course, the visit to the clergy and the social workers, the “God understands” pabulum and the President of the Nation offering prayer and sympathy and flags at half-mast and a proclamation—all while actually doing, of course, not a thing.

.And, no. No discussion of what is most obvious. No deviation of The Script, except to warn us not to deviate. On Paul Harvey’s dreadful nationally syndicated show this morning, the embrace of a singular and single adjective to describe the shooter, about whom already much was known: “Asian.” What the fuck was that about?

.On “McIntyre in the Morning,” on KABC, the insistence that the topic was not political or part of a discussion of public policy, that it must be relegated to the “religious and philosophical.” This after two callers suggested, as did many on the commercial media apparently, that more guns, as kind of a Cold War deterrence strategy, were the answer. (Teachers with guns, imagine that!)

.Or that we employ something called a “gun box,” a variety of Old West saloon check-em-at-the-door, cowboy protocol. Perhaps at Irvine Valley College this would involve a sign: Welcome to IVC, Home of the Lasers. Leave Your Weapons with the Guard.

.This is not a public policy question? Look no further than The White House, whose spokesman said so too, advising that now was not the right time to even mention gun control policy.

.An elected official I think, or perhaps a campus administrator at V. Tech, anticipated the likes of Red Emma, advising that this issue, which he identified quite clearly as gun control, would not be allowed to be used as a political “hobby horse,” both a clear threat and a diminution of a genuine health and public safety issue. Let’s stop here to practice a bit of what Noam Chomsky calls “intellectual self-defense.” Substitute, say, "clean water" for "gun control" and then follow McIntyre in the Morning’s advice and relegate water quality to the realm of the “religious and philosophical.” Most sane people would laugh out loud and point fingers and make faces and identify the utterer of this nonsense as behaving like somebody with a psychopathology right out of the DSM IV!

.And let’s consider the following: “Was there a specific prayer or verse that you shared?” a reporter asked the university’s campus cleric on NPR’s “Morning Edition” today. Really. And others asked questions about how the university responded and why the police didn’t shut down the campus, as if a campus police force could be held responsible for managing safety against the years and dollars and legal maneuvers and coercion of, yes, the paid professionals (very highly paid) who facilitated and enabled the killing spree, namely, the lobbying wing of the NRA (see above).

.It doesn’t end. The Script is flexible, irrelevant, nuts. Today KPCC, our local NPR affiliate promised, unbelievably, to examine whether there were better ways to communicate emergency situations. Talk about killing the messenger. A sane reporter might have telephoned the NRA or at least reviewed its murderous work. A reporter might have called an elected official who voted straight As for the gun lobby and posed a few whimsical questions. A reporter might have compared the number of gun deaths in the US to those in Canada or Japan or England.

.It ain’t gonna happen. WE need to do it for them, apparently. (For the record, Red Emma called KPCC and asked.)

.Indeed, all of us might simply pick up the phone and call the NRA’s toll-free number and ask for its Legislative Office and, when the nice, polite killer answers, thank this outfit of death for its tremendous and successful work in guaranteeing yesterday’s atrocity and those in the future. The number is 1-800-672-3888.

.Its site, by the way, offers the following unbelievable statement: “The National Rifle Association joins the entire country in expressing our deepest condolences to the families of Virginia Tech University and everyone else affected by this horrible tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families. We will not have further comment until all the facts are known.” (Red’s emphasis, natch.)

.I wonder what “facts” could possibly influence anybody’s decision not to immediately raise the topic of gun control and the bloody work of the gun lobby in the very first moments of news of a shooting of dozens of people? Perhaps the “fact” that the shooter had made his own gun out of old sardine cans, or that he had arrived from a faraway planet where killing people turned them into gods or that an apple pie which he had been eating was suddenly transformed into a Glock 19?

.A political culture which will not admit the most obvious and clear evidence into a discussion is a deeply psychopathological one. In America, now nutty as a loon, it is verboten to say the phrase “gun lobby” or to mention “National Rifle Association.” It is impolite and wrong to call the NRA and the other paid sponsors of perverse “gun rights” and so-called freedoms, the pimps and bandits who make money selling and selling and selling guns but are almost never (today, so far, on most electronic media) called on to account for the obvious, predictable, even necessary result of their awful labor. And it is rude and inappropriate to call one’s elected representatives and ask them not to score so high on the next report card from homicidal maniacs.

.Which is why we must all do it, immediately. To show ourselves and other that we are not insane, and to honor those murdered by the gun lobby and the NRA. To prove that we respect them, ourselves, and the human spirit, despite it all.

Andrew Tonkovich