The “civility statement" suggested, among other things, that supervisors’ employee evaluations should include mention of employees’ civility—or lack thereof.
So we turned on the alarm bells.
Well, pretty soon, there was quite a ruckus, which culminated in an interesting Academic Senate meeting in which faculty were assured that the Civility Enforcement Express had been shut down. Worry not!
Then, not long after, came a tone-deaf email from President Roquemore that declared that
On Friday, March 23, 2012, from 12:30 to 5 p.m. …, the second meeting of the IVC Working Group on Civility and Mutual Respect will be held. This meeting is an open forum….
. . .
The facilitators will review the prioritized comments and suggestions made on December 16 … and use them as a starting point for crafting recommendations to the District's Board Policy and Administrative Regulations Committee. We will also create an action plan with specific steps to develop a culture of mutual respect and civility within the IVC community….
Nothing in the email hinted at the absurd and regrettable excesses of the aforementioned Spevak report or the senate meeting in which administrators did some serious backpedaling.
Pretty freakin’ clueless, if you ask me.
* * *
 |
| At the civility ball |
So, last night, someone twisted my arm plenty hard to get me to show up to what Rebel Girl has dubbed the “Civility Ball”—i.e., today’s much ballyhooed “second meeting” of the Civility work group. So, after class this morning, I got some work done in my office and then, just before 1:00, sashayed over to BSTIC for this shindig.
Here’s my report. I’ll try to be civil:
About 25 people showed up, including some managers and administrators, some faculty, two (very nice) students, and some classified. Spevak was there, coming across like a cross between Werner Erhard and, um, a harried Kindergarten teacher. (Spevak: “Roy, what R-word have you chosen for yourself?" A: “redneck.”)
Things settled into a fun and informal (if a bit touchy-feely) atmosphere pretty quickly. Spevak asked if, before we proceeded, anyone had any concerns or questions, and I said something like: we have various values, and values can come into conflict. Civility is one value, but so is being allowed to express one’s opinions, etc., without fear of retaliation. I worry (I said) about pursuing a “civility” policy without at the same time doing something to ensure that other values are not undermined. (In the course of our conversation, Spevak expressed regret about the unfortunate "evaluation" element in his draft.)
There was considerable discussion after that. Some suggested that we should be pursuing a policy that ensures that everyone can speak their mind without fear of retribution. Some noted that, given the fear of retaliation (that some report), pursuing this kind of policy won't help. Some (including me) worried that we cannot control what is done with our recommendations once they are sent forward.
I reminded John Spevak where he was: a college in which, in the past, faculty had their tenure threatened owing to who they associated with; or were disciplined on the basis of trumped up charges of “discrimination” or “workplace violence.” I mentioned that, 9 years ago, our VPI issued a directive according to which faculty were forbidden to discuss the Iraq War in the classroom. After the matter had settled down a bit, at a senate meeting, faculty asked the VPI, Dennis White, where the matter stood (with respect to the directive). His answer: don’t ask for clarification; you might not like what you get.
I reminded John Spevak where he was: a college in which, in the past, faculty had their tenure threatened owing to who they associated with; or were disciplined on the basis of trumped up charges of “discrimination” or “workplace violence.” I mentioned that, 9 years ago, our VPI issued a directive according to which faculty were forbidden to discuss the Iraq War in the classroom. After the matter had settled down a bit, at a senate meeting, faculty asked the VPI, Dennis White, where the matter stood (with respect to the directive). His answer: don’t ask for clarification; you might not like what you get.
That directive, I said, has never been rescinded.
Glenn responded by suggesting that VPI White was “fired” because of that action, among others. (White issued his directive in April of 2003; he was fired in September of 2006.) He also suggested that, with our current Chancellor and board, we have a window of opportunity to deal with relatively reasonable people. (That's true, I think.)
But others noted that, though at present we have a decent Chancellor and board, that might not remain true. We need to worry about what will be done with these policies when less trustworthy people assume these roles.
But others noted that, though at present we have a decent Chancellor and board, that might not remain true. We need to worry about what will be done with these policies when less trustworthy people assume these roles.
The discussion was quite good, something Spevak kept insisting on even as he moved us right along to the next step in producing recommendations toward creating a district policy on civility. Off we went.
Everyone was tasked with writing five suggestions for five “civility” issues (on 3x5 cards). Then five groups were formed, each with a group leader. Each group got one of the issues and then synthesized the card suggestions. This business went on for a while. There were two rounds of it, yielding lists written on large sheets of paper, speckled with red, green, and yellow "dots," indicating participants' favorite points.
The upshot: everyone seemed to work well and happily on these tasks. Many points were made, including the need to reject any approach to civility that enforced alleged “civil” behavior with sanctions; the importance of creating more community and providing forums for discussion of “difficult” issues; vigilant protection of free speech; an increase in administrative “transparency” and regular, honest communication with the campus community; the institution of an “ombudsman” to deal with civility issues as they arise; clear recognition that enforcement of civility rules would be a form of incivility; and so on.
All of this took place from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
I think it went as well as could be hoped for. Be looking for emails that include drafts of 5 paragraphs that attempt to communicate the above suggestions.
So far, so good, but remember: eternal vigilance!
So far, so good, but remember: eternal vigilance!
24 comments:
Very boring report. My question is why protect faculty that should be fired? For example, what if you have an instructor that’s a schizophrenic or psychopath?
Or better yet – fire faculty that just simply piss off students so much that they give grief to other faculty.
Maybe fire faculty that convinces other faculty that a person is threat at the expense of making everyone looking very foolish.
Are typos uncivil?
Nice report but I do think resources and energy could be pout to better use. How much are they paying this facilitator person?
ooh! Dwight Yoakim! In his cowboy hat!
Well, if I can manage to get people to waste tax dollars I feel I am at least participating in how my tax dollars are spent.
I've heard the staff union is behind all the incivility.
How could Glen say that White was fired for those remarks? That doesn't make sense.
Roy, thank you for the good report. For those of us who weren't at the civility meeting, it gives us an account of what happened. It looks like, you and the attendees feel good about the meeting. This may be an important step towards healing.
Roy, what we admire about you is your sense of honesty, integrity and justice.
Roy's first step toward the dark side. What does Roy not tell us in his report? We can only wonder.
I think it's GREAT that Roy went to the Civility Ball. It will be interesting to see what documents emerge from it - and to read Roy's commentary on that. I think sometimes when we are not present in meetings like that, bad things happen. So I am glad he and others were there.
I do think the whole endeavor is ridiculous and that resources are better spent in other directions but since the leadership imagines this issue if the most critical - well, let's see what they are up to.
I would like to know just how much money they are spending on the Sacramento consultant though.
5:19, you are a coward and an idiot.
Several of the participants in Friday's workshop read this blog. If I left something important out or distorted something, I'm sure they'll let us know.
When I write reports, I do it out in the open--open to criticism and correction.
Anyone who seeks another account of Friday's session can contact Jeff Kaufmann, Dennis Gordon, Lewis Long, Davit Khachatryan, or Keith Shackleford--these were the "facilitators."
The contact numbers are available at the IVC directory: SEE
I find it very interesting that you are defensive – defending new friends? I was just joking, but it seems I struck a nerve. I am so sorry.
There should be no difficulty determining how much money was spent on Spevak and "College Brain Trust." The expenditure will be (or is) on the agenda for a board meeting. My guess is that it will be on the order of 10K, but we'll see.
I don't think I can remember exactly which faculty attended, though I recall that someone counted five, and that includes Lewis Long, Kathie Schmeidler, Jeff Kaufmann, Priscilla Ross, and me, I think. Possibly, someone from counseling attended. Susan Sweet was there. You might want to talk with one of these folks or anyone else who attended, get their impressions. My guess is that their reports will be positive.
5:19, possibly I misread your tone. If so, sorry.
Not really, i'm trolling you as usual.
I should remind everyone that this "civility initiative" was done essentially at the direction of Chancellor Poertner, though I suppose there's room for craftiness in receiving and executing such orders. If there's hinkiness afoot, it isn't coming from Poertner. I know that Lewis (of the union) is determined to prevent any policies that involve new clubs with which to smack faculty. So let's be positive, assume things are on the up and up, and wait to see these drafts. My guess is that we'll be OK with them. Be we can't really control what is done with these "recommendations" when they go up the chain. I do trust Poertner. I don't believe he'd go along with anything dastardly. He'd have a lot to lose if he let's this thing go south. He's not stupid, nor is he inclined to get all autocratic. Let's be vigilant, but I do think things will likely be OK in the end.
10 K?
I despair.
10k is not much if it makes a difference.
I quickly scanned recent board agendas (including the one for tomorrow’s meeting), and here’s what I found:
I found no items for “College Brain Trust” in the March or February agendas. There’s a $900 item (expenditure) for College Brain Trust in the January agenda. That same item appears (I think as an expected expenditure) in the December agenda. There’s an expenditure of $28,676.23 to “College Brain Trust” in the November agenda. Nothing in October or September agendas.
So we’re looking at about $30K here. Don’t know if that’s all of it.
I am not "in despair" but I can imagine better uses for the $$$ - and yes, predict,as other have, that the Civility Initiative that results from this will echo policies already written but sadly unenforced. No doubt the prose style will be dreary.
Yes, we could have spent the 30+ on developing informative programs to address the crisis dawning for our transfer students or programs that address the campus response (or lack of) to student disruption and related behaviors.
(Glen really claimed that he fired Dennis for his memo about the war? That's just nuts.)
Civil instructors are awesome role models. I bet there wouldn't even be any disruptive students with civil faculty.
PLEASE don't feed the troll.
Post a Comment