AS YOU KNOW, recently, the district settled “Westphal v. Wagner,” the lawsuit that challenged the board's arrogant imposition of prayer at college and district events. According to the settlement, invocations would cease at Chancellor opening sessions and at Scholarship awards ceremonies. Further:
The decision on whether to select a speaker to deliver personal remarks in the form of an invocation, moment of silence, or opening and/or closing message, not to exceed two minutes, at important District and college events [e.g., commencement] shall rest within the sole discretion of the event planners, whether they be students, faculty, administrators, classified employees of the District, or a combination thereof. (From the resolution)
I have made inquiries, and it is clear that, at Irvine Valley College, the terms of the settlement have been followed with regard to the decision whether to have an invocation. The committee (I’m assured) was in no way pressured or instructed to choose an invocation. (They did choose an invocation and a speaker, Mark Whitlock.)
I have it on good authority, however, that matters are quite different at Saddleback College. I’m told that President Tod Burnett views himself as the ultimate decision-maker regarding commencement and that the preference of Saddleback’s commencement planning group (reportedly to go with a “moment of silence” instead of an invocation/prayer) is a mere recommendation that, evidently, he feels he need not follow.
But read the above verbiage. Decide for yourself.
To see the actual Settlement Document and its Resolution, go here.* * *
A few days ago, a Lariat article made a cryptic reference to an alleged “loophole” in the settlement (see The future of invocations at college ceremonies after settlement). The article did not make clear what that loophole is supposed to be.In the very same article, Ayesha Khan, chief attorney for plaintiffs in “Westphal v. Wagner,” denied that there is any “loophole” in the settlement:
"There's nothing ambiguous here about graduation; the Agreement is clear that the decision is no longer up to the Board of Trustees, but will be made by the planning committee at each college."Somebody better tell Tod Burnett.
* * *
The notion of a “loophole” first arose in an April 12 OC Register article:Though a settlement has been reached, [defendants’ attorney, John] Vogt pointed out a potential loophole.See update HERE
Language in the settlement prohibits the colleges from holding invocations at scholarship ceremonies, but it's possible for the tradition to continue if the colleges' foundations – private, nonprofit entities who were not party to the lawsuit – resumed planning the events, Vogt said, since "nothing in the settlement would preclude the foundations." Vogt said the foundations historically planned the ceremonies until 2008.
[Ayesha] Khan disagreed with Vogt's interpretation of the settlement agreement.
"Neither the South Orange County Community College District, nor its colleges ... shall include an invocation on the program at any future scholarship ceremonies," Khan said, reading from the agreement. "I think they'd be skating on really thin legal ice."
7 comments:
What on earth is the matter with Burnett? Maybe he needs to take a reading class.
They want to pay their lawyers more money.
Burnett is a lawsuit waiting to happen for all sorts of reasons - this will just add to it.
I think Don is telling him what to do on this one.
speaking of commencement speakers, I have it on good authority that the University of the Punjab wanted to have Osama bin Laden as this years commencement speaker.....unfortunately he is unavailable
It seems that far beyond seeking what's best for the community and its future, this dispute has become a battle of "powers".
Societies and countries are constantly changing. More slowly, but still over the years they change their ideals, beliefs, traditions, religions, even their people. Preventing the Church from getting involved in the public education of future generations is a must when the future of the country is at the mercy of "Only god knows"
9:39, I don't know why you say this. Whatever the lawsuit was, it has become one side (viz., the defendants) violating their agreement: a compromise that both sides could and did agree to. The agreement entailed, among other things, leaving the decision whether to have an invocation at commencement to the commencement committee. IVC honored the agreement, and the commencement committee opted to have an invocation (you might observe that I have not objected to this; on the contrary). But Saddleback College has not honored the agreement: President Burnett is disregarding the unanimous decision of the commencement committee to opt for a moment of silence this year. Do you expect the plaintiffs, who went to a great deal of trouble to pursue this matter, simply to allow the district to violate its own agreement? I think people should be upset that, once again, this board refuses to live by the law or, in this case, by its own agreement, preferring to pursue alleged "loopholes." I say "alleged," for I believe that the court will uphold our view that no such loophole exists in the agreement.
Post a Comment