Thursday, November 19, 2009

The SOCCCD’s “prayer practice” in the courts

"Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you—Jesus Christ and the American Soldier. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom."
—From a video played during
the Chancellor's Fall Opening Session

Today, a complaint concerning our district was filed with the United States District Court, Central District of California.

The defendants include the seven members of the South Orange County Community College District board of trustees, including board president Don Wagner. Also included are Chancellor Raghu Mathur and Saddleback College President Tod Burnett.

The plaintiffs include professors Karla Westphal, Allanah Rosenberg, Margot Lovett, Claire Cesareo-Silva, and Roy Bauer.

A formal announcement of the complaint will be made in the morning.

Papers will be served on defendants tomorrow.

The complaint reads in part:

For years, … college students, faculty, and staff, as well as scholarship donors, community members, and others have publicly objected to the District’s prayer practice, requesting that a moment of silence or some other, less divisive practice be adopted instead. But rather than respecting the beliefs of its faculty and students, the trustees, the chancellor, and Saddleback College’s president have responded by expanding the prayer practice, by making the prayers ever more religious and divisive, and by publicly attacking members of minority faiths and nonbelievers for not sharing the District’s preferred faith. Plaintiffs therefore have no choice but to seek provisional relief and a permanent injunction to stop the prayer.

More information about the complaint will become available tomorrow.

To read the just-released press release from Americans United for Separation of Church and State, click here.

See also A troubling sentiment.

Anonymous said...
It's about time!
7:24 AM, November 20, 2009

Anonymous said...
Great. go get 'em. I can't believe they think we should stay in the room when they play church like that.
7:54 AM, November 20, 2009

Anonymous said...
Well, I'm gald you all are doing this but it will certainly give Don W. a boost as he runs for higher office. Now he can martyr himself.
8:02 AM, November 20, 2009

Anonymous said...
Excellent--yes; go get 'em. The arrogance and disrespect (for persons and for the constitution) manifested in this long-standing practice are breath-taking.
8:17 AM, November 20, 2009

Anonymous said...
I hope you all prevail. I can't stand how they shove this stuff down our throats.
8:45 AM, November 20, 2009

Anonymous said...
Amen!
11:46 AM, November 20, 2009

Anonymous said...
The "Americans United" press release can be found here.
12:30 PM, November 20, 2009

Bohrstein said...
Yes to separation of Church and State!
3:05 PM, November 20, 2009

Amir said...
As a former student of Saddleback, I am honored to have professors that once taught me take this case to court. It is appalling that one religion stands out above all others in these ceremonies. An institute of higher education should never place one religion above another. Allowing such an act undermines the school's diversity and is unconstitutional.
4:48 PM, November 20, 2009

Other comments in the sidebar at right =>

No plotting or scheming behind anyone’s back, we’re assured

Some points of information and clarification re the curriculum chair resignation:

A CURIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT. On Monday, IVC faculty received an email "announcement" from the President of the IVC Academic Senate that stated: “The responsibilities of IVC Curriculum Committee Chair have passed from [KS] to [JT] effective immediately.” That statement was followed by an expression of gratitude for K’s years of dedicated service.

The announcement took many of us by surprise and seemed to many of us in need of explanation and elaboration, but we soon learned that the cabinet had agreed not to discuss the matter with anyone. As far as I know, they have kept that agreement.

Today, during a meeting of the IVC Academic Senate Representative Council (i.e., the “senators”), the Senate President announced and then explained the situation, informing Senators that new and dire curriculum review deadlines had arisen, raising the long-standing curriculum “bottleneck” problem to a genuine crisis.

That was followed by a discussion in which I (Roy Bauer) participated.

1. Laboring under the impression that J was replacing K, I made the point that, according to the Senate bylaws, a vacancy of the office of Chair of Curriculum is to filled by the Rep Council, not the cabinet.

This is true. But, I was told, in this case, there was no vacancy to fill, since, prior to the resignation, the Curriculum committee was “co-chaired” by J and K. Hence, all that has occurred is the continued chairing of J.

That J was a “co-chair” before the resignation appears to be beyond dispute. I do feel, however, that Monday’s announcement invited confusion when it described “responsibilities of…Curriculum…Chair” passing “from [KS] to [JT].” I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that such language can be understood as saying that JT is replacing KS as chair.

That J had already been serving as co-chair was further obscured for me by the circumstance that, in my memory, only K reported during Senate meetings for the Curriculum Committee. Contrary to the impression this left with me, the Curriculum Committee has for some time been "co-chaired."

(It is perhaps worth mentioning, however, that J’s status as Chair has changed in one sense, for, evidently, significant changes will occur for her in reassigned time/compensation, suggesting an increased workload. Also: the Senate cabinet might want to correct the IVC Academic Senate website, which clearly identifies only K as the Chair of Courses.)

2. Proceeding with the understanding that some of the cabinet had decided to ask for K’s resignation in discussions that did not include K, I objected, arguing that, since K was a member of the cabinet, she should have been included in those discussions. In my mind, I was making a plea for transparency and I was rejecting processes that involve some committee members secretly plotting/arranging actions against another member.

Unless I misunderstood, the Senate President (and other members of cabinet?) assured me today that such was not the case.

Questions to ponder (for those chained in a cave, staring at shadows)

What is likely to occur next month at the Board’s yearly organizational meeting (Dec. 7)? Who will emerge as President of the Board?

Trustee Wagner, the current Board President, seems to be doing well in his pursuit of office as a California Assemblyman. If he can reasonably expect to succeed in that race, will leadership of our Board continue to be attractive to him? (The election for his Board seat is but a year away.)

Trustee Williams’ difficulties as OC Public Guardian/Administrator will perhaps continue to occupy his attention. What does that suggest, if anything? (He won’t be up for reelection until 2012.)

Gosh, Oracle of Delphi, what will the future bring?

COMMENTS:

Anonymous said...
Santa. The future will bring Santa and lots of presents for good little boys and girls.
9:30 AM, November 19, 2009

Anonymous said...
and lumps of coal for the rest!
9:40 AM, November 19, 2009

Anonymous said...
er, are there fabulous prizes if I guess right?
9:45 AM, November 19, 2009

Anonymous said...
Marcia?
11:30 AM, November 19, 2009

Anonymous said...
It will bring Fuentes. Emperor Fuentes and his fiddle.
11:34 AM, November 19, 2009

Anonymous said...
Mathur will get a very large and shiny lump of coal.
11:57 AM, November 19, 2009

Anonymous said...
Fuentes, I'm afraid -and one of the Ackermans to take Don's place.
8:58 PM, November 19, 2009

"accessible, affordable, high-quality and accountable"

from the SF Chronicle: "Higher education master plan getting ignored" by Nanette Asimov:
California's Master Plan for Higher Education - which set academics ablaze with the promise of a nearly free college education for all who qualified - is limping toward the half-century mark largely ignored by lawmakers who don't even pretend they can live up to its expensive commitment.

That's the finding of a report released Thursday by the state's Office of the Legislative Analyst. It says today's reality of soaring student fees, volatile college budgets and enrollment caps are so far removed from the guiding Master Plan, that something must be done to bring them in line...

...California's budget crisis has led to cuts of more than $500 million from CSU since last year, more than $800 million from UC, and more than $700 million from community colleges.

The new report doesn't fault state lawmakers for the out-of-control economy, but says lawmakers have failed to set policies to guide colleges and universities through turbulent times, as the Master Plan calls for.

With no new policy on how much students should pay for their education, "fee levels have been unpredictable and volatile, with little alignment to the cost of instruction or to students' ability to pay," the report says.

Not only are lawmakers unaware of what it costs to educate students, they lack a policy for funding enrollment growth, the report says. The result is hit-or-miss decision making...

The California Master Plan for Higher Education

In 1959, state lawmakers asked the UC regents and state Board of Education for a plan that would develop, expand and integrate the curriculum and standards of California's colleges and universities for years to come. The plan approved in 1960 called for periodic increases in fees for noninstructional services, such as activities and athletics. Faculty salaries would be paid by the state.

Most of the Master Plan principles are not codified in state law. Here are two of its key provisions:

Eligibility targets: The top 12.5 percent of graduating public high school students are eligible for UC. The top 33.3 percent are eligible for CSU. Everyone 18 or older who can "benefit from instruction" is eligible to attend a community college.

Other goals: Higher education should remain accessible, affordable, high-quality and accountable.
To read the rest, click here.

(Photo and fee chart from the Los Angeles Times.)

Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"

  This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...