A new era of trust? Tensions at Irvine Valley College

Is senate leadership getting the "cart before the horse"?
Is the "new era of trust" an era of paternalism?

[See correction in body below.] It goes without saying, I hope, that long-time Academic Senate President Wendy Gabriella is the most important faculty leader in Irvine Valley College’s thirty-year history, or at least during the last dozen or so years.

Dissent readers will know why I say this. Her leadership (and lawyering) in the lengthy "faculty hiring policy" controversy alone puts her in the pantheon. It was a stunning victory of faculty over arrogant autocrats.

But her days as a faculty leader seem to be coming to a close.

The nature of the faculty’s role in college governance, too, seems to be changing. Not necessarily for the better.

CRAIG’S ASSISTANT

Wendy recently resigned the office she’s held for many years and has taken on, instead, a curious role as Vice President of Instruction Craig Justice’s assistant. Her official title is "Instructional Coordinator of Academic Programs" (attached to the Office of Instruction). It's no secret that Craig has long been overburdened with a stunning array of duties and has sought to lighten his load. DtB has always supported him in this regard.

Wendy's new role comes only months after Craig’s failed effort to create a new administrative position—to relieve the aforementioned burden—that, reportedly, Wendy sought to fill. The proposal was rejected by the board owing to its cost and, I think, "appearances" during this time of economic downturn.

Evidently, Wendy’s "coordinator" role has not changed the status quo at IVC, namely, that Wendy and Craig pretty much run the college (while frontman Glenn Roquemore performs the usual Presidential tasks).

The VPI/Senate-Prez leadership partnership has existed for several years now, and it has been an important despair-combating Positive in the shadow of the great, dismal Negative that is the Mathur/Trustees Axis.

THE ALLIANCE

Yes, this Alliance has been seen by many as a good thing, shared-governance-wise. It slowly grew after the arrival (January 2003) of a certain endearingly deluded dandy and dunderhead who served as Vice President of Instruction. Dennis White was a pleasant, well-meaning doofus (he was the administrator who forbade faculty talking about the Iraq war in class) with an ego inversely proportioned to his stature. But, in his odd way, he was a people person who sought to do good.

Eventually (9/06), thanks to Chancellor Raghu Mathur, Dennis was handed his walking papers (and a fabulous retirement). No doubt, Dennis’ successful working relationship with faculty leader Wendy had something to do with that. Mathur hates shared governance. And he hates Wendy.

After a year-long interim, Craig Justice was hired as Dennis’ replacement (June 2007). Craig is no Dennis White. He’s smart, and he knows how to get things done. At first, he seemed not only smart and knowledgeable but collegial and genuinely cooperative; he wasted no time cozying up to the Senate, or at least to its leadership. He showed up to most senate meetings and fostered a sense of openness though, to me, he always seemed to keep his cards close to his vest. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

Unlike Dennis, Craig is no people person. He's not the sort to reveal himself. At public events, he's always pleasant and friendly, but, in other settings, he sometimes plays hard ball, simply wielding his power. Over the last two years, many have come to view him thus: he gets what he wants (generally good things) because he plays a long chess game. And the chess pieces—maybe even his so-called partners—are not necessarily fully clued in to his goals or strategies.

Like I said, he’s no Dennis White.

But even before Craig’s arrival, some were uncomfortable with the cozy VPI-Senate Prez partnership, which blurred the lines between faculty and administration. Administration’s interests and faculty interests, some argued, do not entirely overlap, and administrators are management; they are a sort who will play faculty, if they can, to get what they think the college needs.

Even Wendy, for all her smarts and ferocity, can be played, some worried.

Many faculty view Wendy’s new role as quasi-administrative. In any case, it seems to be transitional between her old faculty leadership role and some future administrative role that she plainly covets (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Thus, to many faculty, team Justice-Gabriella no longer clearly represents faculty/administrative cooperation. Further, it seems to represent a new paternalism in which decisions are made or engineered by long-suffering parents who have grown tired of consulting their rowdy and inattentive wards.

Hey, I sympathize. Still....

THE “EARLY COLLEGE” PROGRAM:

Meanwhile, IVC’s Academic Senate meets as always, and, as always, Craig and Wendy are present, participating in discussion, or at least answering questions.

On the 24th of September (ten days ago), new Senate Prez Lisa Davis Allen held her first meeting. It proved to be a difficult one, owing to one issue.

IVC’s “Early College” (EC) program was hatched during the Dennis White years, at a time when the college was desperate to increase enrollments. Essentially, the idea was to hold college courses at local High Schools for specially-chosen students who seek college credits (about 45 are chosen per year at a given High School).

Naturally, when administration first came to faculty about the program, the obvious issues were raised:  are these kids mature enough? will standards be lowered? who will be in charge?—but these were perhaps pursued less vigorously than they otherwise might owing to our enrollments crisis. It did seem to some senators that administration was going to push this thing through whether faculty liked it or not. But, at the time, we had bigger fish to fry.

In recent years, low enrollments have ceased to be an issue, but the EC program remains. Doubtless, problems have cropped up, but they haven’t appeared on the senate’s radar.

HIGH SCHOOL: RAMONES, YES—COLLEGE, NO

Last Spring, however, problems with EC came to the attention of Biological Sciences faculty, and so they tried to bring these to the attention of the Academic Senate.

One problem concerned lab time, which somehow was cut down significantly at the high schools without faculty approval.

Also, according to one of the senior bio instructors with whom I recently spoke, a relatively high proportion of students weren’t cutting the mustard in EC bio courses, which were taught by one full-timer. I’m told that that instructor was called in by high school administration and was pressured to make, um, adjustments (provide extra credit, etc.). (Correction: earlier, I implied that IVC administration did this; the instructor informs me that, on the contrary, Craig has always insisted that instructors maintain college standards.)

When the instructor’s colleagues heard about this, they were horrified.

Consequently, last Spring, one of the senior bio faculty spoke with Wendy about bringing these issues before the Academic Senate. That instructor, Chris R, insists that Wendy would not place the matter on the senate agenda. (I should mention that, evidently, efforts and plans have been made to address some of bio’s concerns, and these were listed in a brief handout that was provided during the Sept. 24 senate meeting. These efforts seem not to have involved the bio faculty--at any rate, Chris's paper betrays no awareness of these efforts.)

At some point, Chris wrote a document (Craig calls it a “white paper”) that raises some apparently serious issues about the EC program. It focuses on issues regarding authority and responsibility among faculty and administration.

Recently, Chris sent the document to senate leadership. It asks “that the Early College Program be placed on the Academic Senate agenda as an action item.” Further, it asks that the senate (1) consider the creation of a senate committee to identify and discuss concerns about the EC program and (2) that it survey all EC faculty about the program.

On the 24th of September, Chris attended the IVC Academic Senate meeting (i.e., the meeting of the Rep Council), the first with new President Lisa Davis Allen. He read the agenda and was surprised to find that the only item listed concerning the EC program was Item 9:

Early College Update: Workgroup
Background: VPI Craig Justice has requested faculty volunteers to serve on the Early College Work Group.

The item included no recommended action.

When the time came to discuss item 9, Chris asked why his document had not been distributed and why the agenda item failed to reflect his requests. In the subsequent discussion, members of the cabinet said that they had discussed Chris’s request and believed that item 9 adequately responded to it.

One cabinet member explained that we (at the college) are now in a “new era” of trust between the faculty senate and the administration and that Chris should just allow the workgroup to proceed.

One visiting instructor was concerned that issues “on the ground” were not getting to the Senate and not being heard. She implied that adjunct faculty in the EC program wanted to complain but were understandably fearful.

Another instructor reminded the group that senate meetings are the place for the faculty to bring issues. Chris’s paper, she said, should have been distributed and the problems raised there should have been discussed at this meeting.

Wendy spoke. She explained that the cabinet does not automatically put “everything” on Senate meeting agendas. She referred to the “distrust” that Chris’s remarks seemed to convey. She explained that, in recent years, the senate has been working “collaboratively” with administration, and so we can trust these workshops to do what needs to be done. And if that doesn’t work, we can still do something else.

Chris explained that he did not object to the workgroup per se. However, in his opinion, he said, this matter should start with a faculty discussion. We’re getting “the cart before the horse,” he declared.

Chris and Wendy had a brief round of “he said/she said” concerning a conversation they had last summer. It was unpleasant.

In the end, the senate, constrained by the agenda, sought faculty volunteers for the workgroup. Four or so faculty volunteers were soon identified, including Chris. (Others can still join.)

It remains to be seen whether the elements of this “new era” of collaboration, as conceived by Wendy and the IVC Academic Senate council, are acceptable to faculty at large.

As always, those who wish to offer another perspective or rebuttal should contact me. DtB welcomes the chance to offer a platform for serious and responsible people who view matters differently than we do or who wish to correct errors or misapprehensions.

(Chris’s document is available here.)

Red Emma Reports: UCI Banned Books Read-Out (Red Emma)

If a tree falls on somebody’s head and they don’t hear it,
does it still make a sound?

LAST YEAR AT THIS TIME, Red Emma found himself blogging for Freedom Communications, at no cost to Freedom (thank you), a corporation now approaching bankruptcy. This year a nice reporter for the Freedom’s (sinking) flagship OC Register wrote up my third annual effort to get other civil liberties-loving anteaters to read dirty books in public. Ace photographer Miguel stuck around for nearly the whole 90 minutes, shooting flattering photographs and seeming to dig the event in, of course, a professionally objective journalistic kind of way.

The Read-Out should be huge. It’s a celebration of intellectual freedom and civic literacy and it’s just fun. Of course, I like it because it’s an opportunity to sort of rub our rights in the faces of all the fundies and no-nothings and busybodies and so-called conservatives and fussy parents and ministers who imagine that they are gonna stop people from thinking. But you knew that already, and probably figured out that Red’s modus fuckaroundi generally includes exercising some modest aggression in the direction of authority.

Speaking of authority: As usual, no UCI Senate faculty showed, no administrators either. A handful of brave librarians, a few students and a community member (Hi, Felicity—No on Prop 8!) took the stage, just, finally, cuz we could. A good time was had by, well, us anyway. Mitchell Brown, UCI librarian, filmed the deal. It’s pretty boring, unless you go in for this kind of thing, and he’s promised to putting it up on YouTube.

I certainly do go in for this sort of thing. And, once again, it was that variety of unlikely event which offers Red an opportunity to consider the place of civic participation in a place without much, unless you count every kind of church group, fraternity and sorority, goofy political outfit. And who doesn’t jump at that opportunity? As it happens, earlier in the day I pledged a Korean Christian sorority and joined the Ayn Rand club. I’m now “Li’l Sister” to an upperclasswoman named Roark. We’re gonna go to a prayer meeting together I think.


By the way, a nice visiting scholar from Canada (see her photo above, from the Register slide show) told me that she was quite shocked by all the Greeks. “You know,” she said, very Canadianly (they are quite lovely, sincere people, those kanucks) “in Canada they aren’t allowed on our college and university campuses.” I got excited, but then she explained that they in fact had ‘em there, but that the little gangsters just had to live off campus. Oh, Canada!

Looking for Love in Allah Wrong Places

Somewhere on Mitchell’s video there’ll be me quoting from Matthew, that bit about where two or more are gathered, there in the midst am I. J.C. of Bethlehem, Nazareth and Beyond said that. I like him. I have a cool cartoon sticker on my bathroom medicine chest, with him smiling as he passes a safety razor across his foamed–up beard. Instead of the old, familiar “Jesus Saves” it reads “Jesus Shaves.” I swear to his dad I laugh at this nearly every single morning.

So the “Read-Out” was, once again, kinda like that, spiritually or existentially. There were a dozen of us. The university ignored it, only a few people stopped to pay attention, but we had fun.

And then, yes, the Register covered it, turning our modest event into the journalistic hook for a much bigger story, which allowed this writing instructor to use the whole thing in his beginning composition class as an example of a “rhetorical situation,” and talk about appeal to audience, language, politics, the rhetorical triangle. You gotta love irony in this biz that we call Ed.

There was more irony to be observed, plenty more, but I’ll spin just one perfect anecdote to illustrate it. After offering the gratuitous-seeming bit from the New Testament I made a point of mentioning that various goofs had tried to ban, censor or challenge all kinds of books, including, said I, the Bible and the Koran. Which is true.

All right, so I am shameless. I was trying to appeal to the audience, such as it was, mostly eating their lunches at the tables across the way and talking and ignoring the middle-aged people up there reading Orwell and Steinbeck and J.K. Rowling and William Burroughs. (Wow, cool reading list!)

And within minutes, appearing out of nowhere arrives a group of five or six big, handsome Southeast Asian-seeming young men, a couple of them wearing traditional-seeming garb, all eager, it seems, to read. They gather around the library cart full, I mean really full, of novels and nonfiction, poetry and plays, sorting through the stacks and I am thinking, neat-o, suddenly the size of our read-out crew has nearly doubled and I am one happy pedagog and isn’t the collective effort to celebrate our Constitutionally-protected freedoms just the cat’s pajamas?

But things are not as they seem. Just as suddenly as they appeared, they all disappeared, didn’t read out or read in, no, did not read at all. They vanished. It was almost a miracle the way they disappeared like that, and fast. Except that it wasn’t and I am sure, dear Dissent reader, you have figured out, as did I, that they weren’t looking for just any banned book which, in its reading in public by a free citizen might communicate the message of the value of free thought and inquiry and resistance, or illustrate the moral courage required of free people and the strength of the human spirit beyond the often narrow limits of one’s often narrow self-interest.

No, they were looking, it seems, for just one particular book. Hmmm. Not finding that one special text, they lost interest and found disappointment and, it seems, missed what I think it is safe to say is the whole point of our big little event.

Maybe I’m actually kind of relieved that they went away. I had perhaps been too eager to imagine, to dream, to trick myself into that happy liberal political vision where what seemed to me to be a group of religionists might actually hear the trees talking to them in the woods. Typically, those folks are too busy with the work of chopping them down.


Noam Chomsky is smarter than me, and a better person, too. “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise,” Chomsky reminds us, “we don’t believe in it at all.” So it’s a two-way street, right, at least if you bother to read the traffic signs? And, friends, you don’t just show up at a party for freedom to celebrate only your own. That would seem to be the very easiest of all the easy and of course impossibly challenging messages of Banned Books Week. It’s one that maybe Red needs to himself remember when he’s feeling ungenerous and pissy. But I sure hope somebody clues those fellows in too.

(photos by the fab Register photographer Miguel Vasconcellos!)