The Veterans Center fubar, part 4: another side?

     Any intelligent denizen of IVC confronted with two possibilities—that, owing to their usual abysmal incompetence and utter unsuitability for higher education, Glenn Roquemore and Co. have made a total mess of things, or, alternatively, that they have made sound judgments and have thereby produced an essentially sound state of affairs—would, owing to that intelligence, confidently wager that the former is afoot and the latter is a mere possibility. It is with this reasonable and widespread prejudice that we at DtB were confronted, last week, with sometimes angry, sometimes sober, but consistent accounts of the grotesque misbehavior and incompetence of one Mark Minkler, the newly-hired veterans counselor.
     Still, though it is hard to make one’s lips say it, it is indeed possible that the usual suspects are in this instance largely innocent and that Mr. Minkler is not the lout he has been described as being.
     We at DtB are in the habit of reporting stunning fubars and then inviting and permitting alternative perspectives and criticisms of our reportage. And so, when, as usual, we went out of our way to invite perspectives running contrary to the story we were telling (we did that last week*), we naturally supposed that those sharing that perspective would do so. And when they did not (yes, we received the usual unhelpful charges that we were being unfair; but where exactly the unfairness lay was, as usual, unspecified), we naturally, though perhaps erroneously, concluded that there simply are none who share the contrary perspective. And this, of course, can seem to be evidence that, for once, there is a controversy for which there is only one side worth stating, and we have stated it.
     But it is important to remember that Irvine Valley College is an odd place, for it is populated, to an unusual degree, by trembling employees who live in mute silence about all things wrong, ridiculous, and regrettable. This (often) unseemly Irvinean diffidence and abject ridiculosity is usually attributed to fear: of retaliation from superiors (Craig, et al.), of being perceived as “uncooperative” and “uncivil.”
     It is also attributable, I suppose, to sheer unmitigated Republicanism, with which far too many citizens are afflicted in these parts.

* * *

     To my amazement, recently, I have at long last encountered the other voices, though I generally had to go out of my way to find them.
     One source, a reliable person who is admirably tapped into the goings on of this campus, suggested to me that, in their experience, Mr. Minkler has never exhibited the boorish and disturbing behaviors that have recently been attributed to him.
     This report, in itself, does not go far, but my source went further. According to the source, it is indeed true that formal complaints have been made against the new counselor, and at least one of them has been investigated. In the case of the first complaint, however, the investigator found the accusations to be less than credible.
     Again, that, in itself, if true, does not go far. But my source went on to explain that at least some of the complainers seem connected to each other, and that the prime or initial complainer seems to be in a glaring conflict of interest (for reasons I feel uncomfortable sharing). That is, among some of these complainers, one can identify a motive to find (or exaggerate) Minklerean misconduct beyond the existence of actual Minklerean misconduct.
     I have heard other reports, too—of Mr. Minkler’s seeming outstanding reasonableness in at least some settings about subjects about which such reasonableness might be unexpected.
     Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not reversing what we thus far have reported. It seems clear at this point that the development of the Veterans Service Center has proceeded less than optimally. Some administrators appear to have handled a bad situation badly.But it is beginning to appear that, in this case, as in so many others, the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle between two seemingly incompatible accounts coming from two mutually-hostile parties.
     I wonder whether, in this instance, DtB has heard only “one side” of a genuine two-sided controversy.
     Please let us know what you think. And do try to be helpful and not simply to vent or rage or spew.

   *Last week, I wrote: "I have said this many times before and I will say it again: those who wish to provide an opposing view should simply provide it. If an alleged fact is not a fact, they should simply say that and make their case. Further, they can contact me—I make no secret who I am or where I can be found—and I'd be happy to listen to you and even to provide you an opportunity for an written response. I have often done that over the years."

The “Fubar” series:

• The Veterans Center FUBAR, Part 1 — or "Why do the Veterans hate the veterans' counselor?"*
• The Veterans Center FUBAR, part 2: protection!
• The Veterans Center FUBAR, part 3: a room of one’s own
• The Veterans Center fubar, part 4: another side?
• The Veterans Center fubar, part 5: administration's dog and pony show
• The Veterans Center fubar, part 6: the "other side" re Mark Minkler