The IVC civility initiative: "Roy Bauer will present his concerns" (What? They're not faculty concerns!?)

Will the IVC Academic Senate defend the policing of "civility"?

5th in a series

     Two weeks ago, an IVC administrator distributed a report that (it said) was based on the results of a December workshop. That workshop—an all-day affair at the IRWD “Duck Club”—was part of a larger effort instigated by Chancellor Poertner, who had asked the college to address some accreditation concerns.
     The latter request led to formation of something called the “IVC Working Group on Civility,” which first met in October.
     In November, a Sacramento consulting firm was hired; they provided a “facilitator” named Spevak. (He was the author of the report.)
     Spevak, the Working Group, and two guests (including to UCI Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky) gathered for the “workshop” in mid-December (some members of the “group” did not participate in the workshop). They were tasked with brainstorming about episodes of “incivility” on campus and what could be done about them.

Will Hays

     As we’ve explained previously, one element of the report was a draft of a “civility statement” that included the following paragraph:

When encountering incivility, members of the IVC community are encouraged to confront it respectfully but directly and to intervene appropriately in situations where others are inflicted with uncivil behavior. Supervisors should call attention to uncivil behaviors of persons they supervise, and when necessary, note such behaviors within with [sic] the processes of evaluation or progressive discipline.

     Let’s call the notion that “supervisors” should note “uncivil behaviors” and include them in the “process of evaluation or progressive discipline”—the “Disciplining Incivility” notion, or DI.
     The report also included a “draft” of “possible elements within an … Action Plan on Civility and Mutual Respect….” That draft presented a list that included the following:

Send recommendations related to civility and mutual respect to the District for its related new or revised policies and procedures.

     Let’s call the action of sending “civility and mutual respect” recommendations to the District for the sake of “revised policies and procedures” the “prospective incivility policy” action, or PIP.
     At this point, I wish to draw attention to some facts:

.
• Given that IVC’s “civility initiative” seemed to be, among other things, an effort to produce or clarify a basis for employee (including faculty) discipline in response to perceived “incivility,” one would have thought that the unions would have been included in the “Working Group,” or at least in the group that met for the workshop in December. But, in fact, they were not invited.
• Evidently, it did not occur to those who participated in the December workshop to demand or ask that the unions be involved, if not immediately then in future. (I say “evidently” because I have heard nothing from any leadership, including faculty leadership—two academic senate officers attended the workshop—about this oversight.)
• Board Policies have been wielded against vocal critics of college and district officials (et al.) previously. In 1998, I was called into the Chancellor’s office and told that a letter would be placed in my personnel file. It stated that, in my newsletters (Dissent and The ‘Vine), I had violated the district’s “workplace violence” and anti-discrimination policies. (I protested, but to no avail.) I was ordered to cease violating those policies in my writings. I took the matter to federal court and prevailed. Judge Manella described the district's actions as “Orwellian.” Judge Feess, who took over the case, stated that the district was stretching policies (one of which he declared unconstitutional in itself) simply in order to silence a “vigorous critic.” He said that my writings were plainly protected by the 1st Amendment. The letter was removed from my file. (See “Make things nicer!” and Roy Bauer’s 1st Amendment Battles or "One Gadfly, One Gadfly Swatter")
• The civility report was initially distributed in a fashion that made it easy for faculty (and perhaps others) to overlook. I cleaned up the messy emailed copy and made the entire report available as a DtB post. I distributed the url to all members of my School. Among them is Lewis Long, the President of the Faculty Association (faculty union).
• Upon reading the report, Lewis immediately wrote IVC administration, objecting to their failure to include union representatives in the Working Group (he called it a “serious omission”) and strongly objecting to the above-mentioned Disciplining Incivility (DI) notion among other elements contained in the “civility statement” of the report. (Lewis also noted the inclusion of reference to “training the recidivists” in the report.)
• I am told that Lewis has now been made a “co-facilitator” of the Working Group.

Not long ago, the IVC Senate supported free speech and
successfully fought administrative & district overreach
—even in court! A golden era of senate leadership

     Last Thursday, I emailed the President of the IVC Academic Senate, Lisa Davis Allen (a workshop participant), asking if it would not be wise to agendize the inclusion of DI in the civility statement of the report:

I'm assuming that you are as appalled as I am by that paragraph and especially its direction that supervisors note "uncivil behaviors" "within the process of evaluation or progressive discipline." Might we therefore add an agenda item about this?

     In the five days since I sent that email, I have not heard back from her. But, today, I did receive the agenda for Thursday’s meeting of (the Rep Council of the) Academic Senate. Item 14 is the following:

Statement on Civility and Mutual Respect
H&L Senator Roy Bauer will present his concerns on the Statement of Civility and Mutual Concern [sic].

     My concerns?
     I’m not sure what to make of this. Am I to assume that my “concerns” are not shared by LDA or the senate cabinet? Dunno.
     I’ve apprised Lewis and the members of my School of these developments.
     And now I've apprised you, dear reader.

For previous posts in this series, see top of left sidebar.

What does academe think of speech/civility codes? The AAUP’s statement

On Freedom of Expression and Campus Speech Codes

     The statement that follows was approved by the Association’s Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure in June 1992 and adopted by the Association’s Council in November 1994.

[Excerpts:]

…On a campus that is free and open, no idea can be banned or forbidden. No viewpoint or message may be deemed so hateful or disturbing that it may not be expressed.

…[R]ules that ban or punish speech based upon its content cannot be justified. An institution of higher learning fails to fulfill its mission if it asserts the power to proscribe ideas—and racial or ethnic slurs, sexist epithets, or homophobic insults almost always express ideas, however repugnant. Indeed, by proscribing any ideas, a university sets an example that profoundly disserves its academic mission.

...But freedom of expression requires toleration of “ideas we hate,” as Justice Holmes put it. The underlying principle does not change because the demand is to silence a hateful speaker, or because it comes from within the academy. Free speech is not simply an aspect of the educational enterprise to be weighed against other desirable ends. It is the very precondition of the academic enterprise itself. [END]

2003: VPI White forbade instructors'
discussing the Iraq War in the classroom.
(Some had been criticizing the invasion,
upsetting some students.) The matter
faded without resolution.
Ask Glenn about it!

     Of course, at IVC, as far as I know, nobody is being accused of racist or "hate" speech.
     Bullying seems to occur on our campus. I've made inquiries, and the most persistent claims of bullying seem to center largely on some, um, administrators.
     I'm certain that there are some in our benighted corner of the world who view me (or even my journalistic partner Rebel Girl) as a bully. After all these years of writing about the district and the colleges, I know this: some people at this college are remarkably thin-skinned. Criticize them to any extent, and they go apeshit.
     I recall a colleague who responded to my gentle jibes (really) about xx xxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxx with colossal shriekage and accusations that I was endangering the existence of her program. (—It was something about how a certain trustee might find out that the xxxx of xxxx have some decidedly unconservative ideas! Ridiculous.) I reminded her that we worked at a college—that, in such a place, there can and should be disagreement and debate and dialogue.
     And, yes, there should even be criticism. Imagine!
     That seemed to go nowhere with her. My mild and playful remarks about xxxx were, to her, an assault completely incompatible with civility and, I suppose, civilization. (She's a Republican from xxxxx. Maybe they don't have free speech there. Could be.)
     Over the years, I have occasionally reminded readers that WE INVITE SUBMISSIONS FROM PERSONS WITH OPPOSING VIEWS. We always have done so. We do so now. We've often declared that we seek correction of errors—that we welcome a chance to set the record straight, if we have been in error. We've consistently bent over backwards in this regard. We really try to be fair and honest and to encourage debate (though not with loutish 13-year-olds).
     It is often said, and we at DtB certainly agree, that the best response to speech one hates is "more speech."

Years ago, a certain IVC administrator took this painting down because, he said,
its presence exposed the college to sexual harassment complaints/suits