TONIGHT, I attended the August (but not august) meeting of the SOCCCD board of trustees.Some faculty came to object to that seriously in-your-face Christian message stuck at the end of the Chancellor’s silly patriotic video for his Opening Session (nearly two weeks ago).
Jesus Christ, we were informed, died for our souls.
Some faculty said that that nakedly Christian message failed to respect the diversity of the community. (This was a highlight, not a lowlight.)
A few minutes later, Chancellor Raghu P. Mathur made a “brief statement.” “It was,” he said, “a diverse chancellor … who was not offended.”
Huh?
I think he was referring to Opening Session guest speaker Michael Drake, Chancellor of UC Irvine. Raghu was saying, I suppose, that Drake did not tell him (Raghu) that he was offended by anything.
Oh.
Fuentes gangster Chriss Street, our county's beclouded Treasurer and Tax Collector, showed up to speak. He had nothing new to say. He gave me a handout.
As you know, in my preview of the board meeting, I noted the odd distribution of “basic aid” bucks among the colleges, according to the Chancellor’s “basic aid priority list.” According to the Chancellor's reckoning, ATEP should get $5 million, Saddleback College should get $8 million, and IVC should get—$650,000.
Evidently, board President Don Wagner had a similar reaction. He found the list to be “wildly unbalanced.”
Essentially, the board decided to put off approval of the list to the next meeting.
Tom Fuentes carped, as usual, about the “high cost” of the study abroad trips, including a trip to Spain. One of ‘em cost $7K, and another cost $6K, I think.
We can send kids to learn Spanish “in our own hemisphere,” he said, harrumphing.
At some point, Fuentes suggested ominously that the college presidents had better come up with some snappy stuff to commemorate 9-11. The sides of his mouth drooped southward hideously, as he leered about the room.
Later, Tom grandly requested a report on the salaries of OC college professors, including a comparison with professor pay in our district. Again, his mouth became hideous. Luckily, there were no children in the room.
Mathur started nodding: “Yes, yes, we’ll have that for you in a month or two.” Heads nodded all around.
Toward the very end of the meeting, a certain faculty leader, apparently referring to this blog, condemned its writing as “inaccurate” and “inflammatory.”
She bemoaned the fact that the “First Amendment protects” such scribblers. “But it does,” she said.
More nodding from the seven elders.
She used to call me, making similar claims. I always assured her that I sought to avoid errors, that I am always glad to correct them. I have done so in the past.
I would ask her, “exactly what is it that we got wrong?”
To date, she has not answered that question.
I am baffled.
Some, it seems, do not see the value of our little publication. They find it neither funny nor enlightening, an ugly thing, unredeemed by any virtue.
What must they think of you, dear reader?
The faculty leader also went out of her way to remark on the three faculty who spoke about the "Jesus Christ" video. These speakers, she said, do not speak for the faculty. Only the academic senate, she said (and, I suppose, the union), speaks for faculty.
As I recall, the three speakers did not claim to speak for all faculty.
On the other hand, not so very long ago, our academic senates passed resolutions to the effect that trustees should cease these public prayers. (See Faculty, students want to ban prayer at college events. See also graphic below.)
Those resolutions expressed essentially the same perspective expressed by these three speakers.
Again, I am baffled.
62 comments:
Roy, DISSENT IS YOUR blog, your work, your sense of how IVC, SC, and the District work, along with a new commodity in town--ATEP.
You are ethical, usually accurate, and, often, down right funny. Your writing is in the tradition of Ben Franklin. Like Franklin in his day and way, Roy is alert to slippery shifts some managers, some Board members, some faculty make, and the frequently silly, pointless remarks our pathetic chancellor blurts out, along with his usual "what's in it for me?" philosophy. Roy points out gaffs, lies, abuses, and stupidities in DISSENT. He's one reason we voted out the "OLD GUARD" some years ago.
And why might Franklin have done this in his writing early on and Roy do this now? To alert others about small and large injustices and to write to make a change, a difference--in Roy's case by making our colleges and this district a better place.
So, Roy, keep up the good work. Use your intellectual radar to detect crap and expose it, to spot quality and recognize it, and to have a jolly good time doing it.
Right on! Right on!
Write on! Write on!
The blog is an honest effort in a district where they rather not tell us anything.
I've appreciated your dedication through the years.
You've made a difference.
What pisses people off about Dissent is not that it is inaccurate or inflammatory but that it exists at all - and that it tells the truth - truths people would rather not be told - and tells them in a witty, smart way that makes people read more.
And you know people read it - everyone does.
I think the lady protests too much.
Oh those people who bemoan the First Amendment rights of others, boy they're special.
Anyone who doesn't value Dissent should simply compare the chirpy official announcements and updates we get in our email - and Dissent's converage of the same issues and events.
Oh wait - you can't compare them because so few ever even open the official ones!
delete delete delete
Roy, keep up the good work! What would we do without the blog? Thank you for your commitment to expose the truth!
That kind of reaction is a measure of your success.
It also, sadly, measures something else, but I'll let others draw their own conclusions.
Carry on. Your readers will follow.
I think the public disavowal is just part of the deal she made.
what blog??
First Amendment Rights? Inaccurate and Inflammatory writings? The "Faculty Leader" is correct...we can't let this go on!
After getting rid of the Blog they can start burning books!
How extremely creepy that someone says it's "too bad" that the First Amendment protects any example of political speech. Would this person rather that we didn't have that particular, pesky Amendment? That seems to be the implication.
You are a bastion of truth and a gadfly in the best tradition, Roy. And everyone of any perception knows this.
As that other poster said so well: "WRITE ON!"
MAH
Democratic speech generally makes authoritarians uncomfortable - speech is a power, a tool, a weapon if you will - and they wish they could control it, especially when it is aimed at them.
This blog does what needs to be done.
"The sides of his mouth drooped southward hideously, as he leered about the room."
Now, that's some fine writing.
Does the poor aggrieved lady have any comments about the loons who show up at gatherings with assault weapons? Or are they on her side of the political spectrum, and therefore "true patriots"?
Extremely well said, 8:38. Wish I'd said that!
I should have mentioned (and will do so later today) that the aaforementioned "faculty leader" also went out of her way to say that those faculty who had just offered their objections to Mathur's "Jesus Christ" video do not speak for the faculty. Only the academic senate, she said (and, I suppose, the union), speaks for faculty.
In fact, however, our Academic Senates officially joined Westphal and Co. in objecting to the trustees' tradition of public prayer (let alone references to Jesus' saving "our" souls). -R
See Faculty, students want to ban prayer at college events, which reports the action taken by the Saddleback College Academic Senate.
She made a deal to get what she wanted - whether or not she is even conscious of it.
Isn't this the same person who used to do such good work with the ACLU lawyer who defended us?
La vendida!
She is indeed that same person, a fact noted by the horribly "inaccurate" and "inflammatory" Dissent made last Thursday.
The three Saddleback faculty members who spoke to the matter of religious indoctrination at this district are each property owners in this district and as individuals do have the right to speak. Who says they were speaking for the faculty? I detected nothing that suggested they were doing that.
I thought the actions of the Academic Senate represent the will of the faculty (along with those of the union.).
Is Wendy now suggesting - in a public forum befote the Board of Trustees - that the actions of the Academic Senate no longer represent the faculty?
If so, she is going out of her way to undermine all the good work done by herself and others throughout the years. AND setting us up for battle in the future.
Why would she do that?
How can last Thursday's blog post be inflammatory - all you did was re-post what Craig sent out to everyone?
The State Academic Senate endorsed the "Resolution to Ban Religious Invocations at College Events". As did the students, as did IVC's Senate and our Faculty Association. Lots of groups representing "the faculty" and they do speak for us.
Clearly what Wendy is doing is distancing herself from her previous stances and us - and showing the likes of Raghu and Glenn and Craig and the BOT that she can be trusted to do as they wish. And she'll be amply rewarded. Some have been trying to co-opt her for a long time now. Next thing you know she'll be pledging allegiance to the flag.
All,
I happen to be working very closely with Wendy at the moment. What is being reported in this blog does not accurately reflect what is happening at the College or within the District. Roy is completely out of touch. Do not trust what you read in this blog. Nobody who has any accurate information is talking to Roy. He is out of touch and doesn't have a clue.
9:45 ---
All Chunk has done is post Craig's email, add some context (Wendy as champion of faculty rights - noted in newspapers across the land) and then posted a copy of the resolution adopted by the Academic Senate.
He's done what he has always done - posted facts.
Others have chimed in.
As usual - using their the First Amendment rights that Wendy bemoaned last night.
People trust the blog - that's why they read it. A couple hundred each day. They read it because they know better than to trust the incomplete pictures promoted by the district and administration.
You know that.
9:45 is right on. I've attended the college meetings during flex week, and the college is doing better than ever. This blog stinks and does not reflect all the good things that are happening at the college. I think Roy may be in cohoots with Mathur. They both want to live in the past and shoot down the good work that has been done. Hey, Bauer and Mathur, you are quite a team. Talk about strange bedfellows. Faculty and classified colleagues, Roy is NOT helping us. Neither Roy nor Mathur could get elected to County Dog Catcher.
9:45, you are evading the issue.
I attend the board meetings. Do you?
Did the IVC Academic Senate President throw those women who objected to Mathur's "Jesus Christ" video under the bus?
She did. In a couple of days, you can see it yourself on the district video.
Did she say that it is "too bad" that the First Amendment protects Dissent and its authors?
She certainly did. Again, watch the video.
Do the facts matter to you at all? Compare Tracy Daly's coverage of the board meeting with Roy's. Which is more accurate?
Roy's report is dead on.
Interesting rhetorical tactic, 9:55 but you've really misjudged your audience if you think you can convince DISSENT readers that Mathur and Chunk are working toegther in "cohoots" (sic) as you say.
"Cohoots" - owls that cohabitate without benefit of marriage.
Clearly you've a bomb tosser who doesn't read the blog regularly or else you should have your reading comprehension levels tested. It's about much more than our distance ed PHd of a Chancellor. Roy has always posted of the college successes.
Don't get me started on the elected dog catcher reference. The only one running for office seems to be you tonight.
What are you drinking?
hey folks - I've deployed comment moderation in order to effect the blog equivalent of a time out for the evening.
It's too darn hot. Chill out.
Teachers deal with hot issues. What is going on here is not a contest though it is sometimess framed that way.
Is IVC better? well yes because we got through the last Accred report, as did Saddleback. Are we fiscally better? you bet. But what is the level of transparency, research and debate at the colleges regarding "efficiencies", cuts to Student Services, engagement of the entire community--staff, faculty and administrators? How are decisions being made or will be? How much is about thoughtful discussion and exchange and the age old hubris, bullying, and "becausee I said so" views that sometimes run our business?
The level of transparency has never been high in this district but it has become better--because of Roy, Clair, Wendy, Peter, Bob, Al, Lee, Lewis, Terry, Bill, Carmen, Miki, Mark and others.
Let us appreciate what facutly have secured for all of us and let's thank some administrators, classified staff and Board members for their contributions to that openness that we each enjoy in some measure.
And I hope that each of us can get on with the business that we committed ourselves to--making these places hot spots of ideas, approaches to solving problems in and out of classrooms and labs, and treating each other as though we were/are each other's students.
Truly amazing stuff. Did you know, Roy and Lisa censored the comments last night? I posted two comments critical of Roy and the blog. They do not appear. Apparently, if you praise Roy, he allows it to be posted. If you are critical of Roy, he deletes the post. Nice!
Why didn't IVC get more money?
Uh, 6:59...did you bother to read RG's comment above? Get the facts straight before making accusations.
6:59, you obviously don't know the blog well. Roy and Lisa possess intellectual integrity, and it's bizarre that you won't acknowledge that obvious, long-proven truth.
When a comment is censored, it is to maintain civility (not a particular viewpoint), and the deletion is explained--see RG's note above.
You're out of it.
I remember when they had one of those anti- Hilary Clinton ranters - after awhile, well, you know, might as well get their own blog. and those anti-Obama people we were getting for ahwile - shudder, shudder.
Does a newspaper have to publish every letter it receives? or do the editors exercise their judgement?
The facts seem clear that W., who made many thousands of dollars suing the district under the Brown act, is now in a mea culpa stage of her life.
That's an unfair slander on Wendy, 10:38. She was right then, as the courts said. But she's also right now. Roy and this blog live in the past, are counterproductive, and it's too bad he and Rebel Girl and others are so blind as to exercise first amendment rights in such a destructive way. At least Wendy's trying to help this district move forward. Others would do well to join her rather than encourage Roy's juvenile schtick.
By the way, last night proved a good example of the juvenile approach Roy demonstrates. The discussion got too robust and not everyone was playing Roy's game and singing his praises. Instead, he came in for criticism. So what did he and R.G. do? Shut down comments. Took their bat and ball and went home. That's mature.
Roy lets plenty of stuff stay that stings him - and others. But there is a line and I've seen him enforce it, most often to protect others, sometimes at the request of others, just ask around. Someone on the second floor of Student Services could attest to this. Otherwise some nights comments would just disentegrate into gossip about office romances, bad habits and health problems believe me YOU wouldn't want that.
Regarding the hooha about this post - all Roy did was post Craig's email and then provide a context, a very flatttering one.
A few posters have asserted that this post is inflammatory and untrue - but no one has pointed out how it is so.
Everyone knows that Roy uses tone and hyperbole (that is what makes it fun) but he has built a readership on being a straightshooter.
For the record, late last night RG called me and informed me that someone was writing multiple emails, fillibustering and saying the same things over and over while engaging in ad hominem attacks (i.e., asserting alleged facts about me that have no bearing on the accuracy of my remarks). It was getting ugly, said the Reb. (I did not have access to the internet at the time.) She thought that we had better cool things down and "moderate" comments for a while. I agreed to that. By about 1:30 a.m., I was still up, and I was finally able to get on the internet. I immediately turned "moderation" (i.e., pre-reviewing comments) off, which is the status quo that I prefer.
As for Dissent living in the past: if you were to actually read our posts, you would know that nearly all of our posting concerns the present. For instance, I regularly monitor current news articles about higher ed, especially in our area. I regularly report on trends and forseen changes in higher education (e.g., the rise of online instruction; research concerning its efficacy). Further, I make an effort to attend and report on SOCCCD board meetings. (BTW, it was because of Dissent reporting that the world learned of trustee Fuentes' infamous counterarrack on Spain and the Santander "study abroad" trip, to cite but one example. Local reporters have often taken our leads over the years, including during this summer.)
I imagine that few faculty would know that Mathur's basic aid priority list gives IVC only 8% of the money given to its sister college--I noted this two days before the board meeting by revealing the agenda--or that, Monday night, an academic senate president actually threw faculty critics of Mathur's "Jesus Christ" video under the bus, despite our senates' being on record supporting the critics' essential point.
Dissent the Blog has always attempted to inform the district community what is happening (especially at the board level) and to report accurately and fairly, and it will continue to champion such values as openness & process and challenge all forms of dishonesty, cronyism, and corruption. When we can no longer do that, DtB will cease to exist. -Roy
There are a bunch of half truths there so as to make the whole thing dishonest Roy. You shut down multiple postings from multiple sources last night, not just one repeat poster. While it might be technically true that you post a lot of current stuff about the world in general, the fact is undeniable that your posts about the district dwell in all that's gone on in the past decade. For example, why a post on Wendy's new job that talks about how, "recently," she brought suit over faculty hiring, when that suit was years ago and MOST recently she singlehandedly guided us through accreditation? YOU forgot to mention that little fact. Too much good news for you to acknowledge? Just like you have never acknowledged that you were invited to participate on the accreditation team last year with Wendy but declined -- so you could stand outside the process, throwing stones and snide remarks. You are NOT an honest participant in solving the district's problems. You are, just like was said last night before things got too hot for you, in cahoots with Mathur, it seems, to perpetuate trouble. It give you a forum, a reason to exist.
This is just too stupid for words, yet it was posted. So, who's the force behind this writer?
"You are, just like was said last night before things got too hot for you, in cahoots with Mathur, it seems, to perpetuate trouble. It give you a forum, a reason to exist."
11:47, again, I did not prevent people from leaving comments; rather, I turned the "moderation" feature off as soon as I gained access to the internet. If the Reb deleted a series of comments, I have no doubt that she did so for the usual very good reasons, which we've enumerated, and not simply because critics of me or the blog were opining (have you never noticed how often highly critical comments are allowed to appear on DtB? Pay attention).
Our post on Justice's announcement of Wendy's new position quoted the VPI's letter (without edits) and then provided background that was thoroughly flattering to both the VPI and to Wendy. No one knows better than I do what she has done for the district. True, I neglected to include the latest accred process, but that had nothing to do with some effort to obscure her achievements.
Originally, I was on the IVC accred task force--I volunteered for it and was accepted by the senate--but as those close to the action know, I agreed to "resign" exactly and only because, owing to Wagner's antipathy to me and to my criticism's of him, my presence on the committee would only make things difficult. Ask Wendy. Your description of my actions is entirely erroneous.
If you were to actually read our reportage of the task force's endeavors, you will find that we covered them as much as possible and steadfastly praised their accomplishments. Indeed, I would be surprised if we made even a single criticism of that group and the document they produced. I know for a fact that I heaped great praise on that group here in these pages.
Indeed, when the accrediting report was submitted, it included two videos of the committee meeting with the college community, something (I'm told) much appreciated by the accreditors.
Who filmed and edited these videos?
That would be me.
Again, ask Wendy. Ask Glenn.
You don't know what the hell you're talking about. --Roy
Roy, trying to get through to these people is akin to teaching a pig to sing. It's bound to fail, and you annoy the pig.
Why do we keep referring to Wendy's newly directed work as a "position" when it is faculty reassigned time ... and not a new position? No one gets this upset over other faculty being reassigned to specific tasks of the college. ... it never ceases to amaze me how faculty historically will not hesitate to 'eat their young'.
The chief complaint here (I believe) is that VPI Justice means to get what he wants--in this instance, administrative assistance--by hook or by crook. And transparency and open process seems to be easily sacrificed in that endeavor. When the dean position idea was defeated, this peculiar reassigned time situation was somehow concocted, and it seems to provide Craig with the person who wanted in the first place, only under a different title or description.
That point is more about Craig Justice than about Wendy G. But it is also disturbing to see the Academic Senate President throw faculty under the bus for their advocacy of a position that the senate has explicitely taken. Her attack on the Dissent is also stunning: the only faculty member who rivals Wendy for confronting trustee/administrative misbehavior is Roy (Brown Act lawsuits; nearly losing his job for merely being a "vigorous critic"; outing Frogue's antisemitic unsavoriness; letting the world know of Fuentes' ugly political ploys; outing Mathur and Gensler's mad "hotel" scheme; successfully counter-suing Mathur; etc.). He seems to be continuing in this role: the watchdog, the reminder of the crucial facts. The question is, why has Wendy suddenly become hostile to criticism and critical reportage? Very disturbing.
Yes, that part of Wendy is disturbing. When the video of the BOT meeting (last Monday night) becomes available, consider watching the IVC's Senate president's report. It's at the close of the meeting which ended just before 9:00 P.M.
The difficulty with faculty members assuming administrative functions is that they must inevitably support the administration. This is why the "School Chair" model was so flawed to begin with. One can not be a faculty leader and administrative "faux dean" at the same time. They are antithetical in philosophy and purpose. Real Deans in the District have been severely neutered and have largely given up.This new hybrid model may work to get certain jobs done but it grossly confuses what "shared governance is supposed to be.
We're approaching a record number of comments here - rivaling the big numbers inspired by Rebel Girl's support of same sex marriage two summers ago and Glenn's desire that no one on campus should watch Obama's inaguration. Boy!
But now I find out that Rebel Girl and Roy regularly purge gossip about office romances from the blog. I feel cheated.
I was at the board meeting and talked with Wendy about her comments. Wendy's intent was to give Lisa a clean slate as she assumes the role of senate president. First, some board members confuse the role of the senate with the comments made by individual faculty members. Wendy's comment had nothing whatsoever to do with the comments made by Karla, Claire on behalf of Camenmara, and Roni. In fact, they all happen to be great friends. Her comment was intended to be a general statement regarding the role of the senate and was NOT aimed at any particular faculty member. Second, Wendy's comment about the Blog was made in the same spirit. Board members read this rag and assume that it represents the voice of ALL faculty. It simply doesn't. For Wendy to point this out is a simple fact. I have been at Waters after senate meetings with Wendy and Roy. Wendy has begged Roy to stop. ALL faculty are painted with whatever Roy says in this blog and it is not fair to us. Once again, Roy jumped to an unfair conclusion without verifying any facts, prints what he thinks happened, and you all simply believe it. An earlier post pointed out that Roy is completely out of the loop. He is. He is not involved in anything at the College because nobody can trust him. Besides, did you know that Roy is deaf in one ear and cannot actually hear what is being said. When he can't hear something, he makes it up. I have also heard Wendy warn Roy about verifying his facts before he prints something. And, I've watched Roy laugh in her face. He has now gotten his facts so wrong, it is obvious he can no longer be trusted. Roy Bauer is NOT a credible source of College and District information.
One more fact. The only reason why Roy was asked to resign from accreditation was because he cannot be trusted. He has proven over and over that his only interest is to re-live the past. IVC has moved on. He maintains that he reports current events...ha! He can't report on current events at the College and District because he doesn't know what is happening. All faculty need to stand up and tell the board, the administration, and the public that Roy Bauer does not represent us.
But Roy does represent us. Here and at Saddleback.
Out of the loop? Curious. What loop existed in discussing 15 LHEs for a faculty member to "do" administrative work? Recommended by the Senate? Other consituencies? Clearly a part of IVC's Strat Plan? How has this college "moved on" when recurring behind-the-doors decisions continue to be made?
Sad.
That Roy has published the preceding three comments (curiously alike in their tone and content) is ample evidence that he does not screen comments and delete those that paint him in an unfavorable light — even when the resulting pictures are the obvious result of blatant ad hominem attacks.
A previous post notes that "ALL faculty are painted with whatever Roy says in this blog and it is not fair to us." Just for the record, I am proud to be painted with Roy's brush, and I always have been. He has been nothing short of courageous in pointing out the egregious, amusing, and befuzzling actions of all of us in this wild, wild district. And, of course, when we are the ones with paint on our faces, we don't like it very much. None of us likes our foibles to be exposed.
But the wise among us realize that such exposure is sometimes necessary if change is to occur, and, as a result, we look at ourselves and our positions with fresh eyes. Even those of us who change only because of the expediency of responding to public displeasure resulting from exposure have the sense to know that what Roy writes is honest, well-intentioned, and well-thought-out. He is, after all, a logician, a practicing one.
"Well-thought-out" would not be a term I would apply to the argument that Wendy spoke as she did at the last board meeting in order to leave Lisa "a clean slate." What kind of "clean slate" do we have when a faculty leader undermines the right of all faculty to speak out: at board meetings, in blogs, and anywhere else they choose? What kind of logic is that?
Unfortunately, "ALL faculty are painted with whatever [their faculty leaders] say[ ], and [in the case of comments such as those made by the Academic Sentate President at Irvine Valley College during the last meeting of the Board of Trustees], it is [most certainly] not fair to us."That Roy has published the preceding three comments (curiously alike in their tone and content) is ample evidence that he does not screen comments and delete those that paint him in an unfavorable light — even when the resulting pictures are the obvious result of blatant ad hominem attacks.
A previous post notes that "ALL faculty are painted with whatever Roy says in this blog and it is not fair to us." Just for the record, I am proud to be painted with Roy's brush, and I always have been. He has been nothing short of courageous in pointing out the egregious, amusing, and befuzzling actions of all of us in this wild, wild district. And, of course, when we are the ones with paint on our faces, we don't like it very much. None of us likes our foibles to be exposed.
But the wise among us realize that such exposure is sometimes necessary if change is to occur, and, as a result, we look at ourselves and our positions with fresh eyes. Even those of us who change only because of the expediency of responding to public displeasure resulting from exposure have the sense to know that what Roy writes is honest, well-intentioned, and well-thought-out. He is, after all, a logician, a practicing one.
"Well-thought-out" would not be a term I would apply to the argument that Wendy spoke as she did at the last board meeting in order to leave Lisa "a clean slate." What kind of "clean slate" do we have when a faculty leader undermines the right of all faculty to speak out: at board meetings, in blogs, and anywhere else they choose? What kind of logic is that?
Unfortunately, "ALL faculty are painted with whatever [their faculty leaders] say[ ], and [in the case of comments such as those made by the Academic Sentate President at Irvine Valley College during the last meeting of the Board of Trustees], it is [most certainly] not fair to us."
Roy does not represent me.
The board reads this stuff, 1:07? No wonder some of them think so poorly of faculty.
Roy's a practicing logician, 7:02? He better keep practicing because he clearly doesn't have it right yet. His posts about Mathur and the board routinely are not factual but ad hominem. Just read the opening lines of the blog: "OK, we work in a college district (in Orange County, CA) dominated by clueless, anti-intellectual right-wingers and an opportunistic creep from Hell named "Goo" Mathur." Now, I have it on good authority from a logician, a practicing one at that, that "name-calling is not argumentation, unless we're having a real slow day...[and] if you must call people names, please be clever about it.'Asshole' and 'liberal pinhead' are not clever." I guess "clueless, anti-intellectual right wingers" and "opportunistic creedp" are clever. Or else Roy and his ilk are always having a slow day. Then again, maybe it's not the day that's slow.
Roy and his kool-aid drinkers continue to display an amazing lack of self-awareness wrapped around a wholly unjustified and inflated self-regard. Way to go, Wendy, for telling the board the truth about sad little Roy and his dwindling, clueless band of followers.
It is amazing that anyone who reads this blog or has even a passing acquaintance with Roy would say the bizarre and ludicrous and manifestly false things said by 7:32.
But, as an earlier poster (who represents many, many readers of this excellent forum) said, these attacks are the price one pays for unflinching exposure of unpleasant facts.
Interesting that ANONYMOUS posters attack Roy's integrity and accuse him of all sorts of flaws--and that these attacks APPEAR UNCENSORED on this blog. Think about it.
Thanks for serving as a conscience for the District, a gadfly, and a model of integrity, Roy.
You make my point, 7:44. A 'conscience for the District, a gadfly, and a model of integrity"? Not so much. That's more like the "wholly unjustified and inflated self-regard" I wrote about in my 7:32 post.
And about that supposedly "bizarre and ludicrous and manifestly false things" business: Pay closer attention and get some help in logic from a better practitioner than Roy. I just quoted the words of your fearless leader. Surely you cannot deny the ad hominem nature of his routine attacks on the board and chancellor. But then again, maybe you do, which would then just confirm the truth of my comment about you folks and your utter lack of self-awarenes.
If Roy is clueless, then why do you --Wendy? Craig? Ray?--worry so much, write so much, appear quite unsettled by the number of people in and out of this district who read this blog? if the little band of clueless followers is dwindling why do you worry?
And great if board members read this--I hope they do.
We worry because, if board members read this, they will incorrectly view faculty as a bunch of mean spirited uncouth louts. Thanks for painting that picture, Roy.
Well, 7:59, you're more than a little clueless.
What can explain your venom and misunderstanding, I am wondering?
I'm a Philosopher, like Roy, who has studied and practiced the logical evaluation of arguments intensely. I teach the fallacies--ad hominem first among them. And no, I don't think that Philosophers have exclusive rights to logic--but it is part and parcel of what we do every day, in teaching and research.) I have to say that even among professional philosophers, Roy is damned good at it.
The reason that Roy's usage of these names is not an ad hominem is that he has amply explained, documented, and analyzed the dishonest, illegal, unethical, and offensive actions of the parties he is criticizing many times over in this blog. I suggest that you actually go into the archives, where you will find the evidence for what I am saying. When he uses the names for the miscreants of the district, it is in part shorthand for those careful and honest and fearless analyses, which continue to the present day.
So no, I do not "make your point." I dispute it, on the most solid of grounds.
Amazing that you could so misperceive the nature of this blog.
Office romance gossip please!
I think Chunk has struck a nerve, here, don't you think?
And, I must say, he's behaving like a gentleman as the lady doth protest too much.
I find it ever so interesting that Roy puts himself out there, and takes the hits. The character attacking him here does it comfortably, behind his little "anonymous" nametag. So, come out of the shadows, and demonstrate some of the courage Roy does.
Post a Comment