 |
| The Media Resource Center (not today) |
I had a doctor’s appointment in Irvine this morning, and so, on my way home, I dropped in on the Media Resource Center at IVC. Its big metal front door was locked, but a side door was open. I walked in and checked it out.
I’d never been in the MRC before, though I have often walked past it, noting the desk in front, staffed by some friendly person.
This morning, I finally went inside. It is a large space divided by a transparent wall. On one side—furthest from the PAC—is the usual banks of computers on desks. I counted about 50 computers. As I said, no one was there, so the equipment was not in use. In fact, I do believe the lights were switched off.
On the other side of the wall—the portion closest to the PAC—is a kind of lounge area with tables and chairs. Now, the semester is only about a week away, and so I was surprised to find the MRC apparently unchanged from its state as of last semester. Evidently, the CAFÉ (i.e., the "Center for the Advancement of Faculty Excellence") will be in this space. But it appears that nothing has been done yet to remodel the space. Someone told me that all of the computers are all still hooked up. Another person told me that the computers have not been in use during the summer and there is no plan to use them, at least in this space, in the fall. So why are these computers still here? (Certainly, faculty would have no use for them — except as equipment for adjuncts.)
I did run into non-faculty personnel who seemed angry. They obviously took the view that “faculty” had decided to take the MRC space from the students. They viewed this alleged act as selfish. Aren’t we supposed to be serving the students?
But there was another angle: how come
faculty get a center but classified do not? Who do these people think they are?
I explained to some of these people the facts as I knew them. I am on the Academic (i.e., the faculty) Senate, I said. I explained that the Senate Prez hatched the idea of a faculty center (now called CAFÉ) perhaps at the end of 2010. During the spring, she pursued the idea on the senate floor and got approval to pursue it in about February.
I explained that, at that point, locating the center in the MRC had not been mentioned. I explained that, as far as the senators were concerned, we were pursuing a center that would be inexpensive and for which “space” would be “found.” It would be for all faculty (not just full-time).
In fact, I explained, we (senators) were not told about locating the CAFÉ in the MRC until
May of last Spring. And when we were told that the center would be located there, most of us (I believe) imagined that, whatever had been in the MRC space would be placed somewhere else; or there were reasons for no longer using the space as it had been used. At no point did we imagine that we were displacing student lab or study space.
Now, based on the conversations I had this morning, it seemed to me that many classified employees are under the impression that, from the start, “faculty” had decided to create a center and to make room for it by kicking students out of the Media Resource Center. That, of course, is not how this senator viewed the situation. Not at all.
I noted that there is an amazing lack of communication at this college. How can it be that, only now, I, qua senator and faculty member, am disabusing a classified employee of the misapprehension that faculty decided, from the start, to take away a computer center from students to put up a faculty center? How can it be that only now I am realizing that, from their perspective, classified were drawing what might have seemed to be a natural conclusion; that faculty were acting selfishly, throwing their weight around at others’ expense.
I explained that, as far as I knew, speaking as a member of faculty and the senate, none of my colleagues would knowingly take a computer or study center from students. If that has happened, it certainly was not our intent. Further, I explained that, as far as I knew, the action taken regarding the MRC (which I learned about perhaps a month ago) was tied to some fubar caused by the discovery that, essentially, some computer courses at IVC had been engaging in a kind of fraud, claiming to hold lab courses when in fact they were doing no such thing.
Good grief.
More later.
2:35. I'm back. I see that two comments have been left:
Anonymous said...
Wow bvt, thanks for taking the time to walk through what will soon be, the former MRC. You mean to say you've never been in there before? The facility has been there since the BSTIC was completed, now going on 3 years. I thought you knew every inch of IVC, guess not. So now you can see with your own eyes, that beautiful space that was taken away from the students. I sure wish you'd taken the tour before you voted last spring. In its final stage of completion IVC did press releases boasting how new, wonderful and high-tech the MRC was going to be, and how it was all for the benefit of our students. That centerpiece of the BSTIC (the MRC) was what set us apart from surrounding Colleges, and greatly contributed to our competative edge in winning students back to IVC. Now, with just the stroke of a pen it's all gone...
Nothing worse than being given something and then having it taken away...
—1:55 PM, August 12, 2011
Anonymous said...
If that ain't painful enough, faculty will be celebrating on top of MRC's grave site come 8/16! YAY!
—2:17 PM, August 12, 2011
I wrote a response to 1:55's comment, which I may as well provide here:
1:55, you seem to continue to labor under the misapprehension that (faculty) senators voted to take over the MRC, kicking students out of it. Again,
absolutely not. The idea of a faculty center was first mentioned in January. At some point in February, I believe, senators were asked whether the senate (i.e, the faculty senate) should pursue a center. The idea was that, if we were to pursue this (supposedly low-cost) facility, administration would try to find space for it. No mention was made of the MRC. (Thus, my taking a tour would have changed absolutely nothing.)
Regarding the press release: I have learned to be somewhat cynical about such things, I'm afraid. The claims and hoopla attending the opening of new centers and buildings--I take them with a grain of salt. (Besides, I think it's fair to say that "humanists" at best quietly tolerate facilities and programs dedicated to business at colleges and universities. We tend to view them as not really part of higher education or learning. --You know, like PE. The point is that I have never really paid much attention to BSTIC or its contents.)
Do try to get this through your head. No mention was made of the MRC [to senators] until the
May senate meeting (months after the vote to pursue the faculty center)
, and the announcement did not obviously have the import that facilities were being taken away from students. As you know, buildings and rooms are commonly "repurposed" at IVC. (Consider B300.)
Here are the questions that I have at this point.
① First, why exactly is MRC being closed down?
② Is there a causal relationship between pursuit of the faculty center and the closing down of the MRC? (I think I know the answer to that question: NO. The MRC was closed down for reasons independent of the need to provide space for the new faculty center: CAFÉ)
③ Did something happen recently—re some of IVC's computer courses—that led to changes (i.e., a reduction) in the need for computer facilities? —I only have rumors and murmurings to help answer this last question. Something about an audit that revealed significant improprieties having to do, I think, with computer labs and instructor loads.
I'm told that this audit or report is a "public document." Does anyone have it?
I guess I do have one further question: ④ Why does the flier (see
earlier post) about the opening of the CAFÉ invite only
full-time faculty? Surely that is a mistake.
• Ken Woodward: check out Ken's efforts to defend Steve Frogue and our utterly rotten little union on the radio (KPFK) back in 1998: Ken Woodward defends Frogue and our corrupt union (transcripts).
