You might want to use the "jump to" button to jump to the following "highlights."
"Public comments"
Three faculty object to Chancellor Mathur's "Christ saved our souls" video, starting at 00:07:30. (The academic senates have previously passed resolutions against the trustee practice of religious prayer at district and college functions.)
"Written reports"
The Academic Senate Presidents speak, starting at 02:05:15. (One senate president seems to undercut the earlier faculty comments re prayer and expresses regret that the First Amendment protects this blog and its authors.)
See also Tracy Daly's Board meeting highlights.
77 comments:
Saddleback prez said finally about 5 times.
Why did Glenn invite Sheriff Hutchens to IVC?
The ugliest bit is where she says she is sorry that the First Amendment protects the likes of us. Not a classy moment. I wonder if her friend Carol Sobel the ACLU lawyer has seen this. So sad.
No. the ugliest part is when she reminds the BOT (as if they didn't know) that individual faculty don't speak for the faculty as a whole.
Duh.
This at a meeting when several faculty spoke and read latters from others about the prayer issue.
What is she really saying here?
Roy,
You got pitched under the bus.
Apparently six years of Senate collusion with Glenn and a hit parade of Vice Presidents trumps honest reporting of scandal and a hundred ruined careers. Speaking of careers, apparently, someone wants a new one. What a two-faced disappointment.
11:03, Sarah Hutchins has attended college functions before--perhaps it was at last year's 9-11 ceremony that we saw her last. So this is not an instance of anyone going against Fuentes and his (anti-Hutchins) crowd--perhaps that is what you are suggesting; rather, it is continuation of a relationship formed before that animosity developed.
The person invited to these functions before Hutchins was, of course, Hutchins' predecessor, the criminal and pal-of-Fuehntes, Mike Corona.
Wowie.
The Academic Senate President--well, ex-President--says, in public, at a damn COLLEGE, that while individual faculty members are free to speak as individuals, their opinions do not represent the views of the entire faculty, but the Academic Senate President's statements are the voice of the entire faculty; however, her personal opinion (while speaking as the Academic Senate President) is that the First Amendment should not apply to this blog.
Seig heil!
--100 miles down the road (where I used to think WE were Loonie Tunes)
Indeed, 100 miles. How chilling that an ex-Senate President at an academic institution would bemoan the 1st amendment, in any setting. MOST unsettling, and frightening, and plain wrong.
I know that most faculty at my own school would welcome and absolutely love a blog like Roy's--only we are too preoccupied or lazy to do one.
--MAH (60 miles UP the road)
The now ex-Academic Senate president is undeniably RIGHT in her comments. First, individual faculty members do not speak for the faculty; only the senates and the union do that within their respective spheres. Second, she complained about inaccuracies and inflammatory writings by Chunkie on this blog and, speaking for herself ("my personal opinion," she said), regretted that the First Amendment protects such lies. (Just why should the First Amendment protect the Chunkster's lies? No one ever answers that as they rally around his counterproductive, dysfunctional blatherings and ignore the fact that he's just plain wrong a lot.)
Way to go Wendy. Get a grip the rest of you Chunkidolators.
Since the IVC ex-Senate president has made the 1st amendment pitch, why would she criticize 3 Saddleback College faculty for whom she DOES not speak? In this case the former IVC Senate president is UNDENIABLY WRONG.
Sounds like an administrator to me.
She wasn't criticizing the individual faculty members. She never mentioned them specifically and only said that they don't speak for the faculty. What's UNDENIABLY WRONG about that? Again, get a grip. Wendy's right. They just don't speak for the faculty.
Wendy never said they shouldn't speak personally or that the First Amendment shouldn't protect them. She was very careful -- remember, she's a smart lawyer who has done great work for faculty -- and made clear she was expressing her personal opinion as to the First Amendment and its protection of Chunk's falsehoods.
She should speak during "Public Comment" if it's personal. She was speaking during "the IVC's Senate President's report".
If she's all that smart of a lawyer, she should have a much better understanding of the First Amendment, the history behind it, and its application in that it protects the speaker from governmental forms of punishment.
If she hasn't read it recently (or at all) I recommend "1984."
As usual, critics of Bauer and this blog refer to "lies," but they do not name any of these so-called lies.
In my experience, Bauer's reports are always accurate, if colorful.
Wendy has made her contempt for the anti-prayer people clear on several occasions. It is as plain as day that she was referring to the only faculty who had spoken that night--each of whom objects to this "Jesus Christ" stuff.
They don't speak for faculty, she says. But the senates, who do speak for faculty, are on record agreeing with these faculty in objecting to this sort of thing.
I've never encountered a lawyer or indeed anyone who studies the law who would not be appalled by the notion that it is "too bad" that someone has free speech rights.
Dissent is critical of people in power in this district. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. If it weren't for Dissent, most of us wouldn't have a clue what goes on at the board and elsewhere.
People have failed to mention the numerous in-depth reports provided here concerning accreditation, SLOs, individual trustees, the law, and so on.
Long live Dissent!
Maybe Chunk is Jesus, then it might start to make sense.
Roy is setting us all up for a fall. Don't buy it. Roy and Mathur live in a pathological darkness. You go Wendy. Stand up to Roy and Mathur. Wendy stands for the light. Roy stands for darkness.
Whooh, 10:40...who are you? Based on my personal observations, Roy is totally off base on what is happening at the college and in the district. How dare you speak out against such a bully. I'm with you. Roy is in the same camp as Mathur. Whoever you are, there are many of us that would like to see the good things. Too bad that folks read this thing and take it for truth. This blog does not come near capturing what is happening at the College or within the District. Too bad for Roy. Roy is a has been, just as Mathur is. Perhaps, Roy and Raghu can form a "TEAM". It could be "TEAM HAS BEENS". Go Mathur and Bauer.
Vice presidents come and go at SOCCCD. And so do other administrators or would-be ones.
Roy will be staying around. And so will his blog.
If the nay sayers are so keen on the truth, start your own blog. Then maybe, just maybe, the adamant claims made by the gang of two can offer some evidence.
Jeeeezus (whoops).
It doesn't matter whether Roy is truthful or not (and even though I'm 100 miles down the road from you, it's clear to me that he's far more trustworthy that the Goo or your BoT members).
What DOES matter is that Roy has the absolute right to say and write what he wants. Orange County is still part of the United States of America, isn't it?
Wendy can express her personal opinion, too, although it seems just a little odd that she'd use her position as Academic-Senate-President-speaking-for-all-faculty-members to do so.
Wendy's personal opinion--she's "sorry" that the First Amemdment applies to this blog--is what needs to be examined. It's closer to what a Stalinist or a Nazi or a member of the Taliban (take your pick) might express than, say, Thomas Jefferson.
Maybe she missed fourth grade. That's where I learned "I might disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" is one of cornerstones of American democracy.
--100 miles
"Pathological darkness" is an extremely apt expression for the bizarre postings of Roy's attackers here. I don't even use the term "critics" because, as so many have pointed out, never is a shred of evidence presented for "lies" supposedly appearing on this blog.
It's a superb blog, recognized by journalists in Orange County (see the Orange County Weekly) and First Amendment protectors (Jon Wiener, Carol Sobel) who are themselves highly regarded--and rightly so.
There is a disconnect from reality here akin to the GOP-inspired attacks on Obama's supposed (and non-existent) future "death panels."
Yup: I couldn't'a said it better: pathological darkness.
MAH
Martin Luther King: "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupitity."
--100 miles
Contrary to what some commenters have stated, this blog has consistently championed the work of Wendy's "accreditation" committee and has in general been a positive presence in the district, stating the obvious to the oblivious. Why would Wendy condemn it? And why do these "critics" never cite examples of this blog's alleged infamy? How stupid do they think we are?
Pretty stupid if you take this blog for anything but the juvenile rantings of an increasingly fringe figure in the district. It is hard to think of examples of that so-called "positive presence." Even Wendy, who everybody acknowledges is smart, hard working and a genuine force for good in this district, is trying to explain how pernicious an influence is Bauer's "work."
Here's (yet another) example of Bauer's penchant for misleading his readers. He quoted Judge Feess (though mispelled the judge's name) atop this blog recently but forgot to mention that the judge called Bauer's work "juvenile." Seems the judge agreed with the esteemed former A.S. pres that the work is junk, but protected by the First Amendment.
Don't let these narrow-minded posts get you down, Wendy (if you even read this blog). You know Bauer's fast becoming a marginal character among his faculty colleagues. Keep up the good work.
10:29, I do not believe that I misspelled Judge Feess’ name, but if misspelling someone’s name is the best you can do, well I’m sittin’ pretty.
As for Judge Feess’ alleged remark: He never described my writing as “juvenile.” Here is exactly what he said:
He may be making jokes that some people might characterize as adolescent or whatever, but it doesn't seem to me that that's the sort of thing that he ought to be disciplined for, especially in this context.
Further, I have never “misled” readers concerning this remark. Indeed, you can find me quoting it on these pages here and here.
Here are some other things Judge Feess had to say on that occasion:
That publication [Dissent] strikes me as being so plainly protected under the First Amendment that it’s hard for me to understand what the administration was thinking when they decided to make a public fight over this issue.
…
You mean a direction of, you know, "Make things nicer"? "Make this atmosphere more harmonious"? [Mathur and Sampson responded to Dissent by giving me such directives.] Is that the directive that you're talking about? … Maybe [that directive is] a First Amendment violation in and of itself, to tell [that to] a tenured professor of the college. I mean, look, this is a college campus. If people can't speak their minds on college campuses, I don't know where they can speak their minds. It is supposed to be the bastion of free speech and discussion.
…
…I understand that a lot of people would like to do business behind closed doors, that they would like to make decisions that they don't have to explain, that they would like to come to conclusions and judgments and issue policy without having anyone present to listen and hear and to understand and therefore to make rational, powerful, criticisms of them. That's just too bad under our system. You cannot avoid that, that consequence. And if people are afraid of going to meetings and speaking up because what's going to happen is that they're going to be the subject of criticism in a publication, that's…just life under the First Amendment, as far as I can see.
…
[The SOCCCD district is] taking a vigorous critic of the administration and the board of trustees and trying to keep them quiet.
I had supporters sitting in the audience that day. One of them, of course, was Wendy. In those days, she did not take the view that Dissent is "junk." She praised it, and she worked hard to defend it. I thank her for that.
You mispelled the judge's name. But obviously that's not the best I can do and not even the focus of the criticism. In your defense, you understandably quote selectively since the judge had harsh words for you. There's no doubt your junk is protected. But Judge Feess criticized it as juvenile. It's amazing that a college professor could put out such purile rantings. The fact that Wendy was in the courtroom defending you is testament to her strength of character and her dedication to free speech. That now, ten years later and you're still trying to open the old wounds while contributing nothing with this blog, she takes you on is further testament to her character. She never said you should be shut down. She did say that people should stop paying attention to your mostly decade old drivel.
11:54--you misspelled "misspelled."
Who brought up the decade-old comments of Judge Feess? That would be YOU, not Roy.
Roy does not quote "selectively." He cited the following:
http://dissenttheblog.blogspot.com/1999/10/bauers-court-victory.html
It is a Dissent post that quotes extensively from Feess' opinion, including the "some might say adolescent" remark. It is not edited out.
This blog does not dwell on the past. Just scroll down. Take a look. Do the facts matter to you people at all?
And, again, one wonders what these "lies" and "inaccuracies" are supposed to be. It's easy to call someone a liar or an incompetent; but one who makes such charges must provide evidence.
And this business about Feess calling Dissent "juvenile" (he clearly didn't do that) won't do. He clearly viewed Bauer as a vigorous critic who steps on the toes of people who behave badly, and in secret, and who resent anyone who draws attention to what they are up to.
Throughout the accreditation process, Bauer did nothing but support the work of Wendy and the Accreditation Focus Group.
This was the consistent pattern. Want me to show you the posts?
As Roy likes to say, "Let's get empirical."
If you had any decency at all, you would cite these lies and inaccuracies and "flames" and his alleged failure to anything positive. (Roy's critics consistently ignore the many "positive" things Roy does routinely. I can make a list if you like.)
And if you had any decency, you wouldn't make unsupported claims and then sign them "ANONYMOUS."
Explain to me why readers of Dissent (whom you call "stupid") should not regard you as the worst kind of coward?
Anon 11:54:
1. Roy is not anonymous. You, on the other hand, enjoy the luxury of taking cheap potshots from the sidelines without identifying yourself. (Full disclosure: I'm Philip Lopez, an English teacher at Southwestern College in Chula Vista, CA, which is located about 100 miles down the road from you. I'm also the union president there.)
2. You wrote, "The fact that Wendy was in the courtroom defending you [actually, she was just sitting in the audience] is testament to her . . . dedication to free speech."
3. At the last BoT meeting, Wendy said, "I'm sorry that the First Amendment protects this [blog], but it does."
That's an example of "dedication to free speech"?
As you've pointed out, "[Wendy]never said [Dissent] should be shut down," but it is clear she's "sorry" it has not been, and she's "sorry" about the inconvenient fact that the First Amendment protects Roy.
Coming from the mouth of a college teacher who's also a lawyer and a former Academic Senate President, regrets about the First Amendment are simply indefensible. Wendy should know better, and so should you.
--100 miles down the road
Mispell is a joke. That's called irony for the irony-challenged among you. Probably too subtle. Sory. (That's also a joke.)
Roy brought up Feess. He had a quote from the judge plastered atop the blog recently.
And unless you read only by Braille, the decade old rehash is scrolled down the entire side of the blog and routinely posted atop the blog. In addition to Feess's comments, just a few days ago there was a Hugh Hewitt quote from 1997. 19 freakin' 97.
Finally, I'm the worst kind of coward for being anonymous? Give me a break. You posted anonymously in the post criticizing me for posting anonymously. (That's also irony, in case you were wondering.) Can you blame any critic of Bauer for posting anonymously when you see what he and his sycophants have done to poor Wendy -- a long time supporter of theirs, one would think -- when she has the guts to criticize them publically?
Hang in there Wendy and the rest of you working for progress in the district. The influence of these marginal folks is obviously declining rapidly. They're increasingly desparate.
Ok, "desparate" was a misspelling. At least I admit my mistakes and don't expect sycophants to jump to my defense.
100 Miles, you're so far off base, you're playing a different game. Wendy objected to Bauer's lies being protected -- and no one has yet answered in this or the dozens of other posts why lies are protected, what's the social value to spreading lies (as opposed to making mistakes)? -- not to the fact that Bauer has First Amendment rights. She knows First Amendment just a bit better than you. Or perhaps you can tell us where you went to law school and what significant First Amendment cases you tried while also teaching English 100 miles down the road.
Ok, "desparate" was a misspelling. At least I admit my mistakes and don't expect sycophants to jump to my defense.
100 Miles, you're so far off base, you're playing a different game. Wendy objected to Bauer's lies being protected -- and no one has yet answered in this or the dozens of other posts why lies are protected, what's the social value to spreading lies (as opposed to making mistakes)? -- not to the fact that Bauer has First Amendment rights. She knows First Amendment just a bit better than you. Or perhaps you can tell us where you went to law school and what significant First Amendment cases you tried while also teaching English 100 miles down the road.
Gee, Mr. or Ms. bad speller, irony-challenged, humorless, ANONYMOUS attacker of this excellent blog and its supporters:
WHO ARE YOU???????
The charge of cowardice is right on-target, unless we hear from you.
It's also too bad that you don't know what satire is, nor do you seem to get the concept of "archives," which the best blogs routinely include (the "old news" that seems so to disturb you).
So: what is your name?
Then: what is your evidence of lies?
Mr/Ms Anonymous:
OK, so Wendy "knows the First Amendment better" than I do. But there's not a whole lot to "know," and you don't have to go to law school to know it.
Roy's speech is protected. Period. Wendy says she's "sorry" that it is. She's "off base," not me.
This comment is not a personal attack on Wendy. By all accounts, she's hard-working, involved, and concerned. But what she SAID--not who she is--is 'way out of the mainstream of American democracy.
Do I need to point out that in this country, people are free to criticize George W. Bush or Barak Obama or, gee whiz, even Ragu Mathur?
Do I need to point out that free speech is not unlimited, and if this blog is full of lies, then Mathur or Wendy or whoever can sue Roy for libel and slander?
As many others have asked, what lies are you referring to? Can you get just a little more specific? An example maybe?
Finally, I've identified myself. Who are you?
--100 miles
Wendy will take on any bully in this District. Roy has been marginalized, he contributes nothing, nada, zip to the ongoing progress of the college, he has now become a bully just like Mathur. Folks relying on this pathological rambling need to find a new source of information. Roy knows nothing. He lurks around in hallways looking for a scrap of information and creates a "story" usually made up from his imagination. New faculty have been told to stay away from Bauer. Former Bauer "friends" are fleeing. He has become the '97 Walking Wounded who won't stop rambling about the bad old days. His right to ramble on may be protected and these postings may be protected but I'm hoping legal beagles are watching this blog for the moment when he steps over the line. I'm also wondering when he crosses the line and ends up in court, this time on the losing end, whether the identity of these anonymous posts can be revealed in court. Now that would be fun and a real eye-opnener. I talked with Wendy before the board meeting about what she was going to say in introducing the new senate pres. Her comments about individual faculty were planned well in advance. She had no way of knowing that other faculty were going to show up and make public comments. Wendy's comment was in no way intended to undercut her faculty colleagues. Notice that Roy failed to talk with Wendy. He simply uses the word "seems". Seems so. So he runs with it and sets off a firestorm. Therefore, you all who rely on this blog are being mislead. But, you may believe whatever you'd like to believe. You may choose to believe the earth is flat. Flat earthers are wonderful. They simply believe despite the evidence to the contrary. Carry on "Bauer Believers". Most importantly, the faculty at IVC shall remain united in ensuring that teaching and student learning are our first priority. Keep up the great work Wendy and congratulations. Where would this college be without you. Where would this college be if Bauer was in charge? Thank goodness cooler heads have prevailed. Too bad Roy, your attempt to discredit Wendy backfired! Her record is stellar.
100 Miles, there's more to the First Amendment than you seem to know. For example, and this was Wendy's point and why you're a know nothing, Roy CAN'T be sued for libel and slander if he lies on the blog. That's the whole point Wendy was making. Hello?! (Roy, you gotta get a smarter class of defenders, dude. And 100 Miles, go to law school like Wendy did and you will learn that slander is oral defamation and doesn't even apply. Really, stick to English instead of going up against Wendy and learned folks on this blog. How about you go explicate a poem or something useful within your English discipline?)
The First Amendment protects criticism. Yep, 100 Miles, we all get that. Roy can criticize even if he's a baseless, counterproductive whiner. But isn't it too bad the First Amendment protects lies, Wendy asks? Answer that, 100 Miles. Stick up for lies. Go ahead.
Roy is legally entitled to make things up regarding college and district stuff as he usually does and just like the tabloids do. He has fashioned a tabloid like post regarding Wendy's comments. He did not worry about facts. He made them up and set blog readers scurrying around. Folks who know Wendy and bothered to discuss things with her, know her intent, which is perfectly evident from her comments. She is factually correct. Roy isn't. Roy deliberately colored her comments for his own purposes. For those blog readers that actually care about the facts as opposed to Roy Bauer's "musings", you may want to consider finding out what the facts are. Or not. You may choose to simply follow the silly musings of a has been. Your choice. Myself, I'm choosing to attend meetings and find out what is really happening at the college. There are things happening. I understand that the college is in its third year of strategic planning and that things are getting funded. How come this blog hasn't run a single story on strategic planning and how we go about getting funding? Is the process to difficult for Roy to understand? Or does the new process undercut Roy's beliefs? Roy seems to be "out to lunch"...obviously. My bet is on Wendy. In case you haven't heard it before, Wendy, we are so proud of you. You are the absolute best. You have never lost faith in this college and our faculty, despite some extremely bleak moments. You are my shining light. Do NOT let Roy Bauer diminish your amazing talents and accomplishments. Let Roy Bauer rest in peace. Roy, go home and be with your mother and your cats. You have no role in the progress of the college.
Oh oh, sounds like it may be time for Lisa and Roy to shut down the blog again like they did the other night when the Roy criticism got too hot. Apparently, the criteria for blog shut down is when there are more critical comments than positive comments. Roy, you've now exceeded that criteria. Shut it down again. Otherwise, you'll be revealed to be the fool. Blog readers, watch...he'll shut it down and delete our posts.
Hey Roy and Lisa, shut it down again. We don't want to hear the truth. We are "Bauer Believers". We want to live in the "Bauer Compound" and follow him.
You'll need a cat to get in, 4:41. Or maybe you can bring a sister and your mother to live with you. But cats are much better than real people.
Anonymous, whoever you are, God bless you. Bauer's copying and pasting of news articles, and incessant quoting of the wonderful administration has gone on far too long. Seriously, who needs evidence when we already just know what is wrong? I think he should've lost his first amendment case because this kind of retaliation has gone on far too long and its detrimental to the health of the schools, I think, personally, that it is better to sacrifice the rights of one individual (Bauer) than to risk having certain individuals lose power, don't you?
Either way, I am glad there are individuals like you who have the wits to publicly stand up to a heathen like Bauer.
P.S. Haha, his cats are stupid. And seriously, they are going to close the blog down cause of all this totally honest feedback. Just watch. Also, did you know Roy was a vegetarian? I bet he's a lesbian.
BS
Sarcasm does not become you BS. Seriously, you can't do it worth a darn. Even that old English guy 100 miles away from here would be embarrassed by that effort.
I hate to interrupt the flow of remarkable ad hominems, but I am anxious to point out that Roy did not attack and has never attacked Wendy. Some commenters have, but he has not. After her attack on him Monday night, Roy did urge readers to watch the video so that readers could make their own judgment about the nature of Wendy's remarks. There was no attempt at "shading" or slanting.
We're still waiting for examples of "lies," "inaccuracies," and the rest. If you accuse a man of such things, you are obliged to cite specific examples. Only a coward makes such charges without evidence. Only a miserable and desperate coward does so anonymously.
Roy did his typical Roy thing. He disavows facts and runs with his "seems so" implications. He totally chumped what Wendy had to say and is now trying to bury it. Notice how he is trying to post over his ability to report accuratley. Roy cannot post accurately anything regarding recent college or district business because nobody will talk to him. Moreover, Roy exists in the past. For all of you that exist in the past, go for it. You are entitled to keep dreging up the past. We hear you and feel your pain. We, the college, have moved on. Wendy has moved on. The college has moved on. Roy and Lisa have not. Too bad for Roy and Lisa. Congratulations Wendy, you are doing a fabulous job for all of us. Roy and Lisa are walking around without a clue. Hey, Roy and Lisa what is happening with regards to the ants in your classrooms or the absence of tampons in the restrooms. Please keep us all informed as to the ants in your classrooms and the avialibilty of tampons. That seems to be your role. We want to know.
Gosh, this is getting sad. It appears that at least one of Roy's detractors has had one or two beers too many.
I visited Roy recently, and I assure you that (a) he does not live with his mother (in the 20+ years I have known him, he never has), (b) these days he owns no cats (though his sister, who has been staying in the apartment below his place in recent months, does have a fine cat named TigerAnn), and he is indeed a vegetarian (though he is not religious about it).
BS, he is a proud advocate (though not a practioner) of gayness. Roy has long urged fence-sitters to go gay.
One might expect a more sophisticated exchange on a blog that is associated with a college district. Ad hominem attacks about mothers and cats? Who are these people appealing to? Birthers?
And if Roy is such a liar, why has no one cited a single lie?
I agree that there is a bully among us. But it isn't Roy.
You go Wendy. Stand up to Bauer, Alvarez, and Mathur. We are all behind you. Just keep doing the work of the college and ignore Roy Bauer and Lisa Alvarez. Hey there Lisa Alvarez, do you condone what has been posted on this blog? We want to hear from Lisa Alvarez. Are you out there Lisa Alvarez? Perhaps, Lisa will shut the Blog down again when her name appears promiently. Roy Bauer and Lisa Alvarez run this rag. Hey Lisa, dont't you think you ought to shut it down again? You are on the hot seat along with your counterpart Roy Bauer. Hey there Lisa Alvarez? Good god, should the BOT know that Lisa Alverez is the co-editor of this stuff. Hey Lisa, come out? Your kid stuff notwithstanding, you must own your part on this blog, right?
Oh dear. Lisa Alvarez so likes to hide behind Roy Bauer. She will shut this down in a heart beat. Roy and Lisa have no clue whatsoever. Hey, BOT check out Lisa Alvarez. She is so out of the loop it is totally funny. Lisa Alvarez has not a clue. She thinks that she has the only 5 year old kid born on the face of the planet. Ask Lisa about strategic planning or the full-time faculty hiring priority list development process. Lisa and Roy won't have a clue because they can't. It is too complicated for their simple minds. Thank god, we have other folks that can deal with the real business of the college. It is too bad Roy and Lisa Alvarez can't keep up. Too bad.
Lisa has been away in the mountains and hasn't had access to the internet since Friday. I expect her to return tonight. You can see her photograph in the sidebar at right (scroll down a bit).
6:28, I was being sarcastic.
Apparently our guy is too brilliant to be fooled (more sarcasm).
It's evident there is no intelligent conversation to be had with these childish persons, so it'd be best not to bother anymore. Like small children in need of naps, they will wear themselves out.
Someone is now engaging in ugly personal attacks on my partner on this blog. In deleting these comments, I am protecting both Rebel Girl (aka Lisa) and the commenter. I won't protect the latter forever. So wake up boys. Make a phone call.
Wow: didn't think I'd see the level of comment descend to ad hominems about Roy and his family, then Lisa and *her* family.
It was infuriating, until it got downright weird, and now it has actually become pathetic and sad. I suspect alcohol consumption fueling the (increasingly repetitive) anonymous venom here.
I also suspect that it's actually someone else who is living in the past--or responding to it in a most unhealthy way. These posts are just too weird. They have become genuinely pathetic.
Just for the record, Roy's supporters in this discussion include Ph.D.'s and lawyers, English and Philosophy teachers, independent thinkers and discerning readers--as surely the attackers must know. We think for ourselves. We know a good thing when we see (read, analyze, scrutinize) it.
We admire those who speak truth to power, and do so courageously and openly.
So: What was your name, again?
MAH
Living in the past? Gee, how's about taking a quick look at the most recent 3 posts, calmly assembled by Roy as the spittle and venom and ugliness about families and animals flew. Interesting stories about current trends, controversies, and events in higher education.
READ the damned blog, fools!
It's in his posts about the district that Roy can't be trusted and can't let go of the past.
"READ the damned blog, fool[]!"
Guys, I think it's time to call it a day.
Would love to see some posts about Roy's most recent postings--what's going on at UCI, etc.
Goo has to be laughing out loud; faculty versue faculty.
Will one of you people set forth a list of the lies Roy has allegedly written? Can we have at least ONE to get the ball rolling?
I just deleted two comments that refer to a person's personal life and alleged personal failings (not mine or Reb's, BTW). --Roy
Roy's "lies"?
Sure, I can think of some.
He keeps telling everybody that he was "raised by wolves." I've met his parents, and they're delightful, if eccentric. He really exaggerates their eccentricity, though it is clear that he is genuinely tormented by their total disregard of logic and their failure to make any sense. Admirers are attracted to their odd European warmth, not their logic.
He keeps insisting that he's a conservative. Well, there's definitely something to that, but any guy who happily votes for Barach Obama, openly and regularly supports the gay community, passionately loves and defends animals, and loves the Velvet Underground just doesn't make it as a right-winger, no matter how many times he watches the History Channel and discusses the cowling of an FW 190.
He tells a story about his cat Buster (long-gone) opening the door to a bathroom to get to the catbox. He's a good story-teller (but can't tell a joke). I think he is most like the rest of his lupine clan when he tells these yarns about cats. I.e., he makes shit up, though I'm sure the shit is based on reality. But if you think he's bad, you should listen to the rest of the Bauer crew. As Roy likes to say, "words have no meaning for them."
Be we all love 'em.
Let's not forget he's also unfailingly generous, except when it comes to suffering fools gladly.
I think that some who hate this blog are focusing, not on inaccuracies or flame-outs (they seem unable to cite those), but the fact that Roy has so little "intel" concerning the inner workings of the board and administration (either at the college or district level).
That's true, but he's actually happy about that. He keeps telling me that he has contacted a trustee maybe once or twice in the last 12 years (but I think that was about cats or dogs). I've often heard him say that he has no idea what goes on in closed meetings (etc.), but he doesn't want to know. His job, he says, is mostly to look at the same stuff that is available to everyone: board meetings, agendas, spammed emails, presentations, etc.--and to try to describe these artifacts and events and put them into context.
That's all. That's quite a lot.
He's never desired power, so this business about his being "marginalized" or "out of the loop" is missing the point. People who harp on that are people who struggle for power and who assume others do that as well. If you know Roy at all, you know that he has no desire to determine what happens in the college or district.
He is, however, an ethicist, and he is happy to reveal corruption and bad behavior and incompetence when it is manifest. Hence all the references to Williams' trips to Orlando, Mathur's accreditation skullduggery, Fuentes' ugly politicization of the district and its governance, Wayne Ward's mistreatment of employees, etc.
Does he make mistakes? Sure, but not often. And nobody wants to correct his own errors as much as Roy does. He says he loves getting a chance to set the record straight, to admit error. It's a way of creating trust and connections, he says. He loves the idea of "community" (he used to yammer about being a "communitarian") and much of what he has done in the past 12 years is about that: creating or helping build community: a group of people who can trust each other and who operate as much as possible on the basis of consensus. An important part of that is getting district citizens up to speed on what is going on, where we stand, what's coming down the pike, etc.
I had Roy for two classes, started reading his blog, and quickly became an admirer of what he does here. After "watching" him handle these recent "comments", I now admire him as a person. Some of the posters here should be ashamed of the depths to which they have sunk. Stunningly vicious.
ES - not anonymous
1:19 - Right on...as a classified member of IVC I have read the Blog over the years...Roy always brings up things that we are not aware of (because the administration only puts out the BS that they want us to know). The point is that Roy asks questions...those of us who are interested (or really care about what goes on) then have an opportunity to do some research on our own to find out what is happening. Roy isn't always right...but he doen't profess to be.
If you don't believe in the blog, then don't read it, but don't deny Roy (or anyone else) the right to state an opinion, ask questions or make observations.
Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine.
Geez people, I know breaking up IS hard to do but this is ridiculous.
This continued tirade of Wendy's (and it is Wendy for the most part, isn't it?) is a bit embarrassing and disturbing - and only draws attention to it all.
Move on.
We have no way of knowing who is leaving comments. --Unless they identify themselves!
I want to express my sincerest congratulations to Wendy. Keep up the great work that you do for our Colleges. After following the recent turn of events very closely, I can honestly say, I think it’s pretty obvious Roy’s & Lisa’s Dissent the Blog contributes if any, very little or nothing of any tangible value to the harmony, success and progress of our Colleges. I think the wisest thing they can do now is to just throw in the towel and call it a day. That way they could free up their time to take side jobs as freelance columnists for the OC Weekly as an alternative outlet for their perpetual stress and frustration. While I believe watch-dogging is a good thing, taking it to such extremes as the Dissent has done, I believe is unhealthy. After reviewing this 65 item thread, it appears to me that this gang can sure dish it out, but can’t take it when it comes to ad homonym incidents. That’s evident in their “moderation,” or in layman’s terms, DELETING POSTS. The blog, being in business for as long as it has is most notable for its ad homonym, negative parodies and caricatures as well as negative effigies and symbolism. I’m sure it could be entertaining to devout readers of MAD magazine, but for grown-ups it has been quite DUMB. So good riddance DTB. RIP (rest in pieces that is). Let’s all celebrate WENDY! YAY!
For my Social Psychology class, this week's Discussion Board topic is:
"Confirmation Bias, Supporting Your Point of View"
From my professor's Blackboard page:
"Have you ever heard of how people look for evidence in the world that already supports their point of view? In chapter 3, the author discusses this--it's called the "confirmation bias." That is, people will tend to search for information that confirms their original ideas. For example, imagine you have a neighbor who is believed to be "strange." You may look then for instances of strange behavior in your interactions with this person, while ignoring behaviors that are quite normal. Thus, in examining your neighbors behavior, you might hold on to the one instance of strange behavior as confirmation of your belief about this person as "strange.""
"What other examples in your life can you think of? That is, in what other ways have you or someone you know demonstrated a "confirmation bias"?"
Wow, this one is hard. I'm not sure I've ever known of anyone who did anything like that. Hmm...ugh...mandatory Discussion Board...5% of my total grade...I've got to come up with something...what the hell - who even does anything like that? think...think...man I dunno...I'll just have to make sure I get a good grade on the exam to make up for it - I wonder if can do some extra credit or something...
ES - stressin' my grade 'cause I just don't get it -
AND: "ad homonym"?
Now, I'm seriously not a grammarnazi or spellstapo, but has anyone else noticed that the comments box has spell check?!? I'm no angel - my spelling can be less than divine when I'm in a hurry - but what kind of rabid rage does it take to blind you to the RED UNDERLINES?
ES - up too late and sinking to their level. But strangely not sorry. Odd. Must be the champagne...
I should go to bed, but David just got "The Beatles" for Rock Band and won't be sleeping any time soon, so...I guess I'll stay up just a little while longer too...
Never been upset while driving and think, "Gosh, everyone is a terrible driver!" then proceed to point out all the flaws you see? Never mind the other 99% of the drivers on the road who are doing a great job.
What about the employer who has you pegged as the tardy-type just because this one week in February you were late, consecutively, three shifts in a row, such that, when you walk in 3 minutes tardy in August he exclaims, "Dude, you're always late!"
Careful not to mix it with the cherry picking fallacy that the twerps around here do. Though, I guess it is just another generalization fallacy.
So uh, is that the Wii Rock Band of the XBox one?
BS out snooping on the neighbors, just in case they get violent during their drug deals - I'm just that kind of angel
Hm, what am I talking about? Confirmation bias isn't actually a logical fallacy. Cherry picking IS the logical fallacy I am thinking of.
Confirmation bias is some psych term. Gosh, I should re-read my posts before I click that big orange button.
Yeah, I kinda mentioned that it was from psych class at the top of the post, silly man.
Fallacies are not the only evil in the world - biases can be right up there too, especially when it comes to perpetuating human misery *and such*...
XBox - 'cause David says it processes it better or something. We also have a Wii, so he's not just saying that, but that's as much as I know. They actually put the sound (recordings) of real audiences that the Beatles played to on the the game.
ES
Cherry picking is probably a logical fallacy committed by someone who has a confirmation bias.
ES - what will you do if they get violent, angel?
See, I have this quiet room in the corner of the house that has an excellent vantage point over the street where I live, and a bunch of trees. I am not spying on my neighbors, they are talking about drugs and abusing each other in the middle of the street. Because it is hot in my room at night, I have the windows open. I just feel I should clarify these things.
They DID get violent. Guy started taking a pipe and a foot to his girl. So I did the only sane thing I could think of - stood up in all my nudity and yelled "Knock that shit off!" and scrambled for the phone. I dialed some Lake Forest, IL police department in my dash for the phone and the girl smugly commented "Uh, this is IL, not CA." Oops. So the guy persisted, and I said something like "I called the cops!" and he responded "Fine, call the cops faggot." Whatever. "I did already," I informed him. He retreated in to his house, and his girlfriend dumbly wiggled down the road. I went out to look for her (Don't worry, I put my clothes on first); arrogantly thinking she could use a nice guy. I could not find her.
Whatever, I think, and return in to my house to alert the family. I make some toast and go back to my computer. Bout 10 minutes later she breaks in to his garage or something and starts screaming (just wailing). He seemed surprised when he opened the door and shouted, "What the fuck are you doing in my house?!"
Then the house went dark and quiet. The cops showed up. Investigated the house, and then left. Nothing happened.
I am confused as to why a girl would take a beating, then break back in to the guys house. And then not only that, she is staying inside there. Use your psychology to explain that to me. Nutty people all over this world, hard not to get all morose.
Peeved at stupid people- BS
It is hard not to get morose - but remember, people were super nutty for ages before you were even around to notice (dark ages, inquisitions, Salem witch trials, TV evangelists from the '80's, etc.), and they will probably continue to be nuts long after you're gone. Even so, they have not managed to completely overrun the earth yet, and they probably never will. Play with the "confirmation bias" thing for a bit - look for every example of reason and logic and good will that you can find (you get the idea) - you'll be surprised. You may not find them in the same places that you find the depressing idiots(but then, why would you expect to?). It works (at least for a while,)...trust me
ES
Very cool of you to bring up the ubiquitous confirmation bias in this particular venue, ES.
Look for it, too, in responses today to Obama's (terrific) speech last night. (Yeah, yeah, I know--can we trust my judgment, given my prior views/biases? Still, I do judge that it was an excellent speech.) Some GOP members called it a "disaster." Um--what planet are you on, and who were you listening to?
Thank you, BS, for being a good samaritan and trying, with that ridiculous couple. Just knowing you did that cheers me for the day. You are a good man to take action.
MAH
I cannot help but add this example of the confirmation bias: the way in which much of the public perceives animal advocates.
Every time a fool at UCLA floods an animal researcher's house or does a similarly stupid thing, people seize upon it as proof that animal defenders are terrorists. But the thousands of instances every day of animal protectors lobbying for legislation, rescuing animals, filming animal abuse for the public to see, writing letters to their Senators, etc. remain completely invisible.
Of course, the mainstream press is partly to blame. What counts as news is usually a violent, destructive, or otherwise offensive act. The other stuff is ongoing--and so boring, invisible, and unnoticed by most.
There: I've had my say. Gotta go to work!
MAH
In truth, if you actually read this blog, you got the clear sense that its authors love their campus.
Gosh, some of the readers of this blog take a few isolated instances of over-the-top satire (which they fail to recognize as satire) and then ignore the dozens of posts that are, oh, under-the-top and highly informative.
Gosh, there should be a name for that kind of behavior.
Post a Comment