Saturday, February 27, 2016


Dean at University of Texas Resigns in Part Over Handgun Law (NYT)
     A highly regarded dean at the flagship campus of the University of Texas announced this week that he was leaving the school in part because of his concerns over a new state law allowing people to carry concealed firearms in classrooms and other buildings on public college campuses....

Thursday, February 25, 2016

As pleased as punch: Understanding the Budget


     I don’t know how anyone could learn about the way our colleges are funded and how their budget decisions are made without thinking such words as “byzantine” and “ridiculous.” That, at any rate, is how I have long reacted to accounts of the process that I have been provided at my own college, IVC.
     Somehow, I doubt that such words were present in the minds of my polite colleagues who attended today’s chirpy presentation by the district’s Debra Fitzsimmons and various budgeteers. It was called “Understanding the Budget,” and it involved about fifty colorful slides and maybe five speakers with varying capacities to enlighten the benighted. The disquisition was all very friendly and nice. There was loads of good will in the room. Smiles all around. Hugs even.
     Me, I kept thinking about the convoluted processes and all the committees and their dubious serpentine inputery. I kept thinking about the inch-thick handouts packet I was given—with all the crazy graphics and charts.
     “WTF,” I thought.
     Who knows. Maybe others share my confusitude and dismay. Unfortunately, I couldn’t stick around for the Q & A. Dunno.
     Well, whatever. It was good to see friends and colleagues I rarely see.
     The Chancellor just emailed us to provide a link to some incarnation of the presentation. Here it is:
Link
     If you like charts and graphs and various iterations of flow charts, you’ll climax. Good for you.
     Me, I’m thinking: surely, this is no way to run a college. And there's nothing present to prevent things from just getting worse and worse. Everyone seems just as pleased as punch about the whole thing.

Monday, February 22, 2016

The February board meeting: Board Prez Jemal sports a WTF look - $36 million stadium? Really?


Run, hide, fight, say "cheese"
     6:24 - OK, here we are for the February meeting of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees. I don't expect this meeting to be special or interesting, but we'll see. [Below: discussion of possible Saddleback stadium—and ever-expanding price tag!—is interesting.]
     The trustees are running loose in the building, with some of them wandering the aisles. They seem pretty chipper. Spunky even. (Wright is absent, and that heightens the spunk factor.)
     Tonight's discussion item is:

4.1 - Saddleback College and Irvine Valley College: Board Report Active Shooter Preparations and Training 
     Representatives from Saddleback College and Irvine Valley College will do a presentation and/or be available to answer questions regarding active shooter preparations and training at both colleges.

     Exaggerated fears plus guys with guns. This could get silly.

6:30 - The meeting begins! The Clerk (Lang) reads out actions taken in closed session (the meeting that started at 5:00): one report. 6-0 vote (Wright absent) leave without pay to part-time classified employee at SC.

     Rise for invocation, says Board Prez Jemal. Next: Pledge of A.
     Two requests for public comments:

     Doug Barr: 25th Anniversary of the college ("the college"? He means Saddleback, natch). Sign/poster outside. Blah, blah, blah. Many original faculty/administrators - "they're slipping away from us." We have an obligation to capture history "while it's still among us." Please join in this effort. We've got lots of work to do still.
     Pete Espinoza: brief statement. June 1977, I was hired as classified employee, then did EOPS program. Later assigned as assistant to Chancellor, then counselor. He takes pride in his career at the college. Announces his campaign bid for area 3 trustee. [That's the Jay seat. I do believe that Barbara Jay pledged not to run for office at the next election.]

BOARD REPORTS:

     Prendergast: Went to Pathways conference. Then went to "Accounting" pathways. Yadda yadda yadda. President's cup game (basketball, I guess). Attended Mimi Walters event on safety(?). Thanks for outpouring of concern since last meeting. (Daughter turns out to be OK: a "weird panicky thing" is all.)
     Barbara Jay: Sacramento conference, learned a lot. Attended IVC board of governors meeting.
     Timothy Jemal: Attended South OC coalition economic forecast, etc. (Dean Tony Tang.) Well attended. Surpassed last year's presentation. Appeared on Laguna Woods channel 6. Different moderator. "It's a different kind of place now." (I think he was alluding to weirdness there.) Business council dinner.
     Dave Lang: also attended the big basketball game. Served on the audit committee: met with financial folks of the district, audit team. Went over plan for the year, issues. Foundations and their directors. Good meeting. Good plan for the current year. Kudos to these people who do such a great job.
     Marcia Milchiker: Attended Jack Schwarzbaugh's funeral; original administrator. There'll be a "history of Saddleback" project, and I'll donate to it. "I think the only college close to being as good as Saddleback College is IVC." (Ahem.) Attended SC science lecture series, which involved a chemist from UCI. She yammered about fluorescing ladybugs. Economic forecast luncheon.  Motown event, great music. We danced for an hour. (We all imagined this.)
     Terri Whitt: a great event: effective trustee workshop, a "growing experience" for me. Astonished at what trustees need to know. The only negative: couldn't be here for Jack's funeral. Economic report was "outrageously good." (Holds up flier.) "I am a Motown girl," she announces. Loved that event, "wonderful." The people in the audience really rocked (she said).
     Student trustee Lemar Momand: attended show put on by dance department. Teach-in on Islam, very interesting. Attended IVC meeting.
     Chancellor's report (Gary Poertner): Tim Jemal mentioned that we're getting a report tonight on "active shooter" situations. Police officers will explain preparations. One caution: this discussion is, of course, highly sensitive, so won't go into some details (that could be helpful to a potential shooter). March 22nd meeting, professional development, etc. Looking forward to it.
     IVC President Glenn Roquemore: we'll be discussing our construction projects. Trustees, you get "snapshots," but nothing "really big on the buildings themselves." First, the Liberal Arts Bld. Has been called "the Glacier," "Iceberg," or "Pin Cushion." (Laughter.) The plastic has finally been removed. Looks brand new! Hope to be moved in in the Fall. Also: restrooms for athletes. Finalizing drawings of yet another building. Need a new parking lot. ATEP building: looking at a November groundbreaking. (Yeah, sure.)
      Saddleback College President Tod Burnett: Science Building, opening October(?) 29th. Technology and Applied Science Bld. Blah blah blah. Athletic field, etc. Will pick contractor by summer. Gateway Bldg. Renovation of Math/Science. ATEP. These projects will transform Saddleback College. Trying to get them done by 50th Anniversary, in 2018.
     Student government kids, et al:..... Blah blah blah. Blah.

Board requests for reports? None.

ACTIVE SHOOTER:

The discussion item (see 4.1 above). (Requested by Whitt)

     Cops, et al., come up to podium. Carol H introduces two chiefs. Big build-up. She was really selling these guys.
     Chief Patrick Higa: Active shooter or "mass casuality" event is most dangerous. We're here to explain how we've prepared for that. "Infrastructure": best to neutralize the threat. Officers are well-equipped. (Yeah, they've got that tank.) Trained dispatcher. Shows slide of officer with gun, approaching suspect, tuned in to dispatcher.   (Pretty silly. People gobble this up.) Ability to lock down campus doors remotely. "Prevention": "at risk" training. Crisis intervention Team. "Advocate" online reporting. "Silent witness" reporting link. [This is a classic cop presentation: buzzes through factoids, indifferent to audience understanding. Lots of technical terms, the merest of buzzwords, jargon, annoying acronyms. Precious little light cast on what they're actually doing or are capable of.] Blah blah blah. On-going training and materials. We've been training with the Sheriff's Department. Safety videos, including "distress indicators," etc. Available to all employees. Folders--yes, folders--are available. Community emergency response team -- blah blah blah. Cops will seek input from governance groups.
      He shows one of the videos on "active shooter." (See above.) Shows what to do: "run, hide, fight." "Remember that." Take cover behind a tree. If you're hiding behind a car, stand behind the engine. Formulate a plan of escape. Close and lock any doors between you and shooter. Turn off lights. Phone the magic number: be prepared to give 5 pieces of info. Make sure your phone is silent, boy, or you could be in for it. "Only attack a shooter as a last resort." --End.
     Any questions? (Will wait until after Chief Glen's presentation.)
     Chief Will Glen (IVC): much more informal, human presentation:
     No way to prevent active shooter situation, but we can prepare. We work with Irvine Police and Sheriff's Department. E.g., we've had active shooter movement training. Also trained in hostage situation (with Tustin Police Department.) Have practiced door breeching with our training partners. (Boom!) We make plans, that's a big part of preparation. And active shooter protocols, instructing students, et al., what to do. Also, behavioral intervention. How to recognize indications that a person is a potential threat of some kind. Describes Flex Week event that went very well. We're developing advanced plans. Training videos available, including disturbed students video, "run, hide or fight" videos, etc. Mentions other kinds of training: a page is available with many items, resources. Student health center is developing a "triage" capability. LIE: Locate, isolate, and eliminate threats. Resources for post traumatic stress being developed. We've had six presenations related to run, hide, fight. Broad training provided to staff and students. Projects under way: blue towers on campus, stationed at various spots, flashes blue, making it easier for cops to find distressed individual. Almost ready to kick-off. Integrated security camera and door system. Dispatchers receive a call, look at camera where the problem is. Partnering with Saddleback on this. Also emergency manual door locks - a plate that attaches to the door (very simple). Anyone can use and operate. (See room A123 at IVC)
     Questions?
     Prendergast: likes Saddleback's video for "run, hide, fight." (I thought it was mighty hokey. See above.)  Questions re prep for students. How do we get the word out to students? Glen: great participation by students at our events. Higa: we rely on ads, fliers. (This sounds underwhelming.) We try to direct students to our website. Our plan is to reach out to governance groups. Prendergast: likes homeland security videos re run, hide, fight. "Very well done."  (Really?) Marcia: appreciates events, has attended some of them. One question: who are our dispatchers? Trained police officers? Higa: we make a point of hiring prepared/trained dispatchers, though they are not police officers. Marcia: I've received text messages during emergencies! Glen: we use Blackboard (Blackboard Connect), and another system for messages. Also, we send voice messages to the room. Marcia: found both websites, easy to find. Found videos, but couldn't find them for IVC. Glen: see column on left hand side. You'll see it there. Okey-dokey, says Marcia. Second location: Inside IVC (part of the college webpage). A couple of videos: employee training. Whitt: I'll meet with both of you privately. Jemal: thanks for excellent presentation. You're doing an outstanding job, and you're "pretty good presenters." (Is he trying to be funny? I laughed.)

Consent calendar: 5.6, 5.4 pulled.

Mass approval, unanimous.

Carol H
5.4. Saddelback College cafeteria operation services agreement. Carol comes up to explain details, blah blah blah. Moved, approved.

5.6. Travel abroad, Southeastern Brazil. Several comments.
     Whitt: just wanted to ask about safety re Student Travel, Brazil. Blah blah blah. Second trip, not the first one. Burnett: professors have gone here before. Re the virus: southeastern portion is not locus of outbreaks. Trip not until June. Large portion will have immunity by then. Lots of control measures by the governments. Blah blah blah. Students have insurance, etc. Marcia chimes in with concerns for pregnant women re virus. Item moved. Vote: unanimous except for Whitt's abstention.

General Action items:

6.1 - Marian Bergeson Award - no nominations
6.2 - Board of Governors Classified employee of the year award.  - unanimous approval


THE SADDLEBACK STADIUM WOULD COST HOW MUCH?


Brandye D
6.3 - 2018-2019 five-year construction plan.
     Fitz: blah blah blah. Brandye D'Lena (Fac/Plng/Purch/Mat Mgmt) comes up. Blah blah blah. Roquemore chimes in. Goes through list of projects. Changes, switching, etc. Brandye's all smiles as per usual. Her smiles usually prevail.
     Prendergast: any investigation about pool being available? Brandye: Needs to be part of planning processes. The process will be underway. Right now, says Brandye, no pool on the list. Needs to be put there. "Just sayin', it's a lot cheaper than a stadium," says Prendergast (laughter). (Prendergast has always been a pool booster.) Lang: trying to understand distinction between repair/renovation in terms of following spirit of Basic Aid (namely, one-time projects only; no ongoing expenses? Or maybe he is referring to dollar amounts). Brandye goes into distinction between district and college projects. Blah blah blah. Whitt: these projects will be going on simultaneously. Five of these will be going on at Saddleback, including parking(?). I think she was asking if there would be practical conflicts with that. Brandye: we've thought about all that. We're on top of it, man. Vacant lots will become parking lots, etc. Brandye gets cute about how she can't reveal what some of the contractors are saying they can do for us, blah blah blah. Marcia: asks about one of the projects; that project is a ways off still, says B. "It's just a renovation, right?" Yep. Putting in a new foundation. Have to jackhammer the slab out. (Wow.)
     Jemal: athletic stadium costs. They've doubled since last year. Brandye: last year, when we came to you with requests. It was $18 million for stadium. That concerned original design by consultant. Those numbers were used last year. We moved forward, met with "criteria architect."  Ideas were taken to faculty, staff. Has doubled to a $36 million project. So what we do? Process we use: if over budget, we go to college and give options. She explains how other resources became available (I had a coughing fit amidst Brandye's explanation, so I dunno). Jemal expresses consternation with this change in cost. Brandye discusses realities of working with these figures, plans, contractors, etc. Jemal: please don't come to us with "back of envelope" figures again, you dig? Everybody is in agreement. about that, I guess. Pendergast: $36 million just for stadium itself? Or field, etc. also? Brandye: Don't have exact answer. She rifles through files. The $36 million is indeed specific to the stadium.  Big money, man.
     Item is moved. Unanimously approved. We're approving priorities, not costs, at this point, reminds Jemal, who is peeved. Prendergast: when this first emerged, big push from foundation. It helps to have a vision to fundraise. Brandye passes question off to Burnett. Burnett says the foundation doesn't nearly have the money to cover this extra cost. Blah blah blah. They vote: unanimous
6.4 - ... Motion to approve. Unanimous.


JEMALIAN CONSTERNATION; RATE INCREASES


Jemal: WTF?
6.5  - Cordoba Corp. (ADA transition plan) - Jemal has concerns about consulting amount ... Fitz: blah blah blah. Brandye is again asked to explain. Roquemore interrupts: both colleges very cognizant of ADA compliance. Jemal: this plan should have been in place a long time ago. No one can argue with that. Disappointed to see this on the agenda. Brandye: will address dollar value. We originally approved $400K. Legal advised us about best approach. Got new proposals. All within range we see here, which is much higher. It is a costly service. OK, says Jemal, who's pissed. They vote: unanimous.
6.6 - plan for STRS PERS rate increase. Fitzsimmons: a little bit complicated....Rate increases dramatic to reduce liability.... Blah blah blah. Lang: I've studied this item. I agree with idea of addressing this issue, this liability, now. Will this need to be recognized as a liability? (An accounting question.) Audit person steps up: our share of 30 year liability. This exact liability won't show up on our books. Lang: my concern about rec: the mechanism to fund it (basic aid); also, the time period. Lang: looks like it has to come out of basic aid (no alternative). Only question: what time period? All at once? Spread out? I suppose I'm OK with district's recommendation, over three years, says Lang. Not willing to accept recommendation as its made now. Separate trust fund for this. Fitz: team conferred about this. We're hesitant about... (I couldn't follow this.) Lang remembers OC bankruptcy. Influences him now, what with the new county civic center project they've undertaken (he doesn't like it, it seems). Pendergast: in agreement with trustee Lang. Talks about history that brought us here (rate had been reduced to become more manageable; created this bubble). Marcia: perhaps table this? Fitz: the cycle is starting, time's a wastin'. Jemal: are you willing to amend item (in accordance with our desires)? Motion to amend (in way favorable to Lang's worries, whatever they are). This will have big impact on other projects. Lang: I support funding this over shorter time. Yes, will impact other basic aid projects. but will be huge help to both colleges to fund it in this sped-up manner. Alternative: worse hit. Fitz: we did confer with college presidents about this (defending original rec). Marcia agrees to adjustment amendment. They vote: unanimous (as amended).
     Whew.

Lang: reluctant
WHAT ABOUT OVERSIGHT?

6.7 - Board Policy revision, accept for review and study -- Lang: BPs 2100 and 3200 -- delegating additional authority to execute contacts before board approval. I understand arguments, says Lang. But reluctant to cede board oversight ... need a good discussion before it comes back to board for acceptance. Jemal agrees. Jemal didn't find compelling argument for delegating.... Agree with Lang that this needs to be thought out carefully. Jemal asks Fitz to explain delegation and approval.... Blah blah blah. Discusses issues in favor of "delegation," etc. (I don't really understand this.) Jemal: suppose there's contact approved by Chancellor; then it isn't approved by board. What happens then? Poertner: ratification is necessary, since approval can only be done by BOT. Theoretically, this can go very badly. "A real mess." Jemal remains unpersuaded. Prendergast: do we need a motion? Yes. A motion is made. Poertner: Originally, everything had to go to board, no matter how small the amount. An awful situation, didn't really work. The policy was made to keep the organization going, waiting for approval. (So Chancellor and crew were allowed to go forward with contracts within a certain dollar amount. Still, they required board approval after the fact.) The fiscal team has found that more and more contracts are large, etc. Someone (Lang? Jemal? --No, Prendergast) expresses faith in Chancellor and team to make these decisions, take these actions, as per revised policy (which increases dollar amount of item). Pendergast compares this to guest speaker situation: BOT approves a month after speaker has spoken and been paid. (Jemal isn't so sure.) Lang: some folks are gaming the system right now. "In some respects I'm offended by that." So don't really like this. What about our oversight? So they vote: no. A word has been changed. Now they vote: unanimous (except one no vote: Milchiker). Motion carries.
6.8 - Academic personnel items. Unanimous.
6.9 - Classified personnel items. Unanimous.
WTF? Precisely
6.10 - Probationary faculty, first year. Bugay: 97 faculty. Pretty ponderous project. 18 coming for first contract. ETc. 6.11 -- second year. 6.12 - recommended for tenure.  (3rd year is item 7.1 - two year contract; no recommendation for contract, already in middle of contract.) Unanimous vote.
6.11 - 2nd year probationary contact (two year contract). Unanimous.
6.12 - 4th year probationary. "Except for one of them." In the case of one is exception: Mike Engels. Applied to become interim dean. Thus cannot complete year as faculty member. Therefore, by law, will only be at 50%, etc. He's good. Michael knows about this, it's OK. He's removed from the list. Marcia mentions that someone on one list is also on resignation list. Bugay looks greatly bemused, perhaps consternated. He's told to explain. Bugay: if he's resigned, it would take precedence. So no problem.  Unanimous.

Reports:
      They extend meeting time (anticipating Kathy Schmeidler's longwindedness, says Jemal). Unanimous.

7.1 - Third year probationary....
7.2 - College speakers....
7.3 - basic aid report. Fitz: 14 projects closed out....
7.4 - monthly financial status ....
7.5, 7.6....

Reports from governance groups:
     Blah, blah, blah...
     I'm outa here.

P.S.: Jemal looks like he's gonna be a great Board President.

Harmony for a Monday evening

An obscure band does an obscure Dave Davies song from the Kinks' Lola album (1970). Nice.
I was a huge Kinks fan. Saw 'em at UCI and at Long Beach Auditorium c. 1975.

All the things I own I will share with you
If I feel tomorrow like I feel today
We'll take what we want and give the rest away
Strangers on this road we are on
We are not two we are one

Not so fast! Rethinking fall opening

Today's report  — up again USC reverses robust fall reopening plans, asks students to stay home for online classes LA Times  ...

Invited to IVC—this time a notorious admitted HOMOPHOBE

—Conservative radio host, Michael Reagan


Here at IVC, natch, we have an Accounting Department. It happens to support something called the Guaranteed Accounting Program: GAP4+1.

According to the department website,

This unique pathway program — a partnership between Irvine Valley College (IVC) and Cal State Fullerton (CSUF) — will enable you to graduate with a bachelor’s degree in four years and a master’s degree with one more additional year (thus GAP4+1).

Among the Master's degrees available through the program, we're told, are "Accountancy and Finance; Taxation; or Accountancy."


We're also told that "The number of students accepted into this program in any one year is limited so be sure to apply early."


Great. The early bird gets the worm.


Evidently, the good people of the GAP4+1 program have recently seen fit to invite someone to speak at Irvine Valley College (in late April): Michael Reagan.




The Republican Party of OC just loves IVC (from their website)

That's right. They've invited Reagan family embarrassment Michael, a man of, let's face it, little or no distinction.


He was expelled from his High School and he washed-out of college. Eventually, he went into clothing sales.


In those early years, he made some curious friends:

In 1965, the FBI warned Ronald Reagan that in the course of an organized crime investigation it had discovered his son Michael was associating with the son of crime boss Joseph Bonanno, which would have become a campaign issue had it been publicly known. Reagan thanked the FBI and said he would phone his son to discreetly discontinue the association. (From Wikipedia's Michael Reagan.)

[“F.B.I. agents in Phoenix made an unexpected discovery: According to records, ‘the son of Ronald Reagan was associating with the son of Joe Bonnano [sic].’ That is, Michael Reagan, the adopted son of Reagan and Ms. Wyman, was consorting with Bonanno’s son, Joseph Jr. The teenagers had bonded over their shared love of fast cars and acting tough.” ... "Joseph Jr. was not involved in organized crime, but he was spending time at his father’s home... [I]n October 1964, he had been arrested in connection with the beating of a Scottsdale, Ariz., coffee shop manager. ... Following routine procedure, F.B.I. agents in Phoenix asked agents in Los Angeles to interview Ronald Reagan for any information he might have gleaned from his son. The investigation, after all, was a top priority. But Hoover blocked them from questioning Reagan, thus sparing him potentially unfavorable publicity. Declaring it 'unlikely that Ronald Reagan would have any information of significance,' Hoover instead ordered agents to warn him about his son’s worrisome friendship." - New York Times]

Later, there were legal problems:

In 1981 Reagan was accused, but later cleared of felony violations of California securities laws in court documents. The Los Angeles County District Attorney alleged that Reagan had baited investors into unlawful stock arrangements, and selling stocks despite the fact that he was not legally permitted to do so. The D.A.'s office investigated allegations that Reagan improperly spent money invested by others in a company, Agricultural Energy Resources, he operated out of his house in a venture to develop the potential of gasohol, a combination of alcohol and gasoline. Investigators said they were also checking whether he had spent up to $17,500 of investors' money for his living expenses. The district attorney's office cleared Reagan of both charges later that year. [“The investigators said they became interested in Michael Reagan after being informed that he had steered customers to Mr. Carey {Richard Francis Carey, who "was selling worthless stock,"} had accepted a $4,000 check from one investor, and that, in at least one meeting of potential investors, his relationship to Ronald Reagan had apparently been exploited as a promotional tool for the stock.” - New York Times]
On September 20, 2012, Reagan and two associates were sued by Elias Chavando, a fellow partner, for allegedly withholding Chavando's interest in an e-mail business built around the Reagan.com domain name. In 2015, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury found Reagan liable for conversion and breach of fiduciary duty. Reagan and his business partners were ordered to pay $662,500 in damages.
(From Wikipedia's Michael Reagan.)

Michael tended to smash things (cars, etc.) in his youth. Well into his 40s, he tells us, he was full of "rage" (owing, he explains, to having been molested) and he treated his family badly.


Then, natch, he found the Lord.


Plus, owing to his relationship to his pop, President Ronald Reagan, Michael grabbed the brass ring and became a talk-show host on one or two right-wing radio networks. Blah, blah, blah, he said.


In his latter-day career as mediocre right-wing bloviater and Pious Christian, Michael Reagan has said some unfortunate things:

In April 2013, in a syndicated column, Reagan accused American churches of not fighting hard enough to block same-sex marriage. He wrote that, in regards to arguments supporting gay marriage, similar arguments could be used to support polygamy, bestiality, and murder.

. . . In June 2008, conspiracy theorist Mark Dice launched a campaign urging people to send letters and DVDs to troops stationed in Iraq which support the theory that the September 11 attacks were an "inside job". "Operation Inform the Soldiers", as Dice has called it, prompted Reagan to comment that Dice should be executed for treason. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a liberal/progressive media criticism organization, asked Radio America at the time to explain whether it permits "its hosts to call for murder on the air".

. . . He spoke out in support of profiling in October 2014. In a piece called Profile or Die, he wrote that it would be left to citizens to defend themselves if there were an attack against them by terrorists such as the Islamic State. (Wikipedia)

Golly. It's pretty clear that Michael Reagan is just another "former total fuck-up, now reborn and pious."


Intellectually, he's a low-rent Limbaugh, and that's pretty low.


I mean, when he gets here, just what is he gonna say? That liberals are evil? That his dad was a saint? That freedom and democracy are good? That you oughta put your life in the hands of the Lord? That you don't need to go to college? That homosexuality is a sin?


Only in Bizarro World would Michael Reagan be judged a good speaker to invite to a college.


* * *

Meanwhile, IVC's Guaranteed Accounting Program folks have only wonderful things to say about the fellow:


Michael Reagan

The eldest son of former President Ronald Reagan and one of the most dynamic and sought-after public speakers, Michael Reagan’s commitments to public service and the conservative vision his father championed are second to none, making him the natural heir to the Reagan conservative legacy. Michael serves as chairman and president of the Reagan Legacy Foundation, which seeks to advance the causes President Reagan held dear and to memorialize the accomplishments of his presidency. Michael’s career includes hosting a national conservative radio talk show syndicated by Premiere Radio Networks, championing his father’s values and principles in the public policy forum, commentating and appearing on the Today Show, Good Morning America, Good Day LA, CNN, and Fox News, and contributing to Newsmax Television. Also an accomplished author, Michael has many successful books including On the Outside Looking In, Twice Adopted, and his latest book, Lessons My Father Taught Me.

Well, sure. But he's also the worst kind of insubstantial, opportunistic "celebrity." And he's not an intellectual; he's a propagandist. He's a minor player in our sad era of noisy and loutish conservative anti-intellectualism and demagoguery.


—And he's a homophobe, among other things. Or so he says.


WAY TO GO, GLENN


IVC Prez Roquemore shares Reagan's enthusiasm for the Pussy-grabber-in-chief.

Recent columns by Michael Reagan


ALL IS FAIR IN THE WAR ON TRUMP (Cagle.com) - by Michael Reagan, December 13, 2018

…Hillary continues to skate free, unbothered by the FBI or any federal agency for the dirty things she and the Obama administration’s injustice department did during the 2016 election to try to defeat Donald Trump.

But not General Flynn.

His life was ruined by the FBI bosses who set out to nail him – and did….

TRUMP VS THE CRAZIES (Cagle.com) - by Michael Reagan, January 11, 2019

…Some of the country’s most desperate liberals in the media actually argued that the president’s televised pitch to the country for congressional funding for a stronger border fence should not be carried live by the networks.

Why? Because they said the president lies too much and they wanted to be able to fact-check his speech beforehand….

TRUMP SAYS ‘ADIOS’ TO BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP (Cagle.com) - by Michael Reagan, November 1, 2018

…Ending birthright citizenship, better known as dropping the anchor baby, is the most significant illegal immigration reform the President Trump has announced. With a single executive order, he unplugs a beacon that attracts scammers from the world over. He also attacks a visible manifestation of the “foreigners first” mindset that has infected the State Department, and the rest of the federal bureaucracy, since the 1960s….

THE PARTY OF EVIL (Cagle.com) - by Michael Reagan, October 11, 2018

…Now, thanks to the Democrats’ ugly smear campaign against Judge Kavanaugh, Republican senators like Susan Collins and Trump spokeswoman Sarah Sanders need security guards 24/7.

It’s not the new Supreme Court Justice who’s evil.

It’s the Democrat Party and the nasty “progressives” who’ve taken it over and are willing to say or do anything or destroy anyone to bring down President Trump.

Maybe this is not something new. Maybe the Democrats have always been this evil….

About Michael Reagan:


A separate peace* (LA Times, August 31, 2004) – by Anne-Marie O'Connor

For years, Michael Reagan, the older son of Ronald Reagan, felt unloved and unwanted. His parents divorced when he was 3. Two years later he was packed off to a boarding school where, he says, he was so lonely he cried himself to sleep. Sexually abused at age 7, he felt shame and self-loathing, compounded by Bible passages that convinced him he would never go to heaven.

He grew up so angry he smashed a childhood bicycle and later took a sledgehammer to his new car. Well into his 40s, his "rage came to a full boil," and he often yelled at his wife and young son.

Then, he says, he found salvation through the love of his family and his "adoption" by God. He embraced conservative values and became a syndicated talk-radio host who today tells listeners: "I am homophobic."….

Roquemore and U of Phoenix

From Clueless IVC Prez Glenn Roquemore smiles as he makes nice with the enemy DtB, 8-26-14

Vice President, Western Region, Workforce Solutions/University of Phoenix, Chuck Parker, President, Irvine Valley College, Dr. Glenn R. Roquemore

Members of the Irvine Valley College community just received this gushing email from the President:

Irvine Valley College Signs Memorandum of Understanding with University of Phoenix

Irvine – Irvine Valley College (IVC) administration, faculty and staff held a formal signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the University of Phoenix, Inc. (University) on Wednesday, August 20, 2014.

Irvine Valley College President Glenn Roquemore said, “This partnership will expand the many transfer opportunities available to the IVC students and staff. One of the major benefits of the MOU is the tuition discount."

Irvine Valley College students transferring to University of Phoenix into an undergraduate baccalaureate degree program … will be considered as having satisfied the general education requirements for the breadth of the liberal arts degree program….

IVC students get 10% off Phoenix tuition, which is way pricey.

Evidently, President Roquemore is not aware that entities such as the U of Phoenix exist to make huge profits by taking advantage of students who typically receive federally insured loans, putting them in serious debt. Those students, upon graduating, typically fail to find the work they were expecting and often default on their loans, forcing the taxpayer to pay. (It's a massive bubble that, one day, will pop.)

You’re fine with all that, are you Glenn? You're a Republican, aren't you? Yeah. I see you smiling with those vets you claim to love!

Alas, the "predatory for-profits" problem is especially egregious in the case of Vets, who pay their way via the new GI Bill:


GI Bill funds failing for-profit California colleges

(Desert Sun)

The ever-clueless Glenn R

Over the last five years, more than $600 million in college assistance for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans has been spent on California schools so substandard that they have failed to qualify for state financial aid.

As a result, the GI Bill — designed to help veterans live the American dream — is supporting for-profit companies that spend lavishly on marketing but can leave veterans with worthless degrees and few job prospects, The Center for Investigative Reporting found.

. . .

Financial records analyzed by CIR show that California is the national epicenter of this problem, with nearly 2 out of every 3 GI Bill dollars going to for-profit colleges.

The University of Phoenix in San Diego outdistances its peers. Since 2009, the campus has received $95 million in GI Bill funds. That's more than any brick-and-mortar campus in America, more than the entire 10-campus University of California system and all UC extension programs combined.

. . .

The school's large share of GI Bill funding reflects more than just the number of veterans enrolling. The programs are expensive. An associate degree costs $395 a credit, for instance — nearly 10 times the cost at a public community college.

The University of Phoenix won't say how many of its veterans graduate or find jobs, but the overall graduation rate at its San Diego campus is less than 15 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Education, and more than a quarter of students default on their loans within three years of leaving school.

Those figures fall short of the minimum standards set by the California Student Aid Commission, which dispenses state financial aid. The commission considers either a graduation rate lower than 30 percent or a loan default rate of more than 15.5 percent clear indicators of a substandard education.

No such restrictions govern GI Bill funds. And nearly 300 California schools that received GI Bill money either were barred from receiving state financial aid at least once in the past four years or operated without accreditation, CIR has found.

. . .

Of the $1.5 billion in GI Bill funds spent on tuition and fees in California since 2009, CIR found that more than 40 percent — $638 million —went to schools that have failed the state financial aid standard at least once in the past four years.

Four of those schools were University of Phoenix campuses, which together took in $225 million….

An Enemy In Common? The Case Against For-Profit Colleges

(Cognoscenti [NPR Boston])

… As Americans, we should all be concerned that veterans are being taken advantage of by unscrupulous profiteers. As taxpayers, we should be aware that we are paying for this disservice. Approximately 85-95 percent of the for-profits’ revenue comes from taxpayer-supported benefits….

For-Profit College Investigation--Is the New GI Bill Working?: Questionable For-Profit Colleges Increasingly Dominate the Program

([Senator] Harkin newsletter)


…Senator Harkin's HELP Committee investigation found:

. . .

  • Most for-profit colleges charge much higher tuition than comparable programs at community colleges and flagship State public universities. The investigation found Associate degree and certificate programs averaged four times the cost of degree programs at comparable community colleges. Bachelor's degree programs averaged 20 percent more than the cost of analogous programs at flagship public universities despite the credits being largely non-transferrable.
  • Because 96 percent of students starting a for-profit college take federal student loans to attend a for-profit college (compared to 13 percent at community colleges), nearly all students who leave have student loan debt, even when they don't have a degree or diploma or increased earning power.
  • Students who attended a for-profit college accounted for 47 percent of all Federal student loan defaults in 2008 and 2009. More than 1 in 5 students enrolling in a for-profit college-22 percent-default within 3 years of entering repayment on their student loans....

Hey-Diddly-Ho, Neighbor!

Oldie but Goodie [2012]: See Senator Harkin’s For-Profit College Investigation: U of Phoenix

Glenn Roquemore, the Pacifica Institute & women's "primordial nature"

Glenn Roquemore, the Pacifica Institute & women's "primordial nature" May 21, 2013

Delivering factoids for

Turkish anti-feminists

Here’s a curious factoid. I came across the following press release, evidently dating back to April of 2008. It was posted by the “Pacifica Institute,” which has a dozen or so offices, including one in Orange County (Irvine):


Glenn R. Roquemore-Irvine Valley College President Speaks at PI - Orange County

Today Pacifica Institute hosted Irvine Valley College President Glenn Roquemore. Before this luncheon forum in Irvine , New Zealand Consul General Rob Taylor and Irvine Mayor Beth Krom were the keynote speakers. Consul General Rob Taylor spoke about Welcoming Diversity as a Path to Peace and Mayor Beth Krom’s topic was How to Create a Balanced Community. Dr Glenn Roquemore’s topic is the Role of Community Colleges in Higher Education.

Dr. Glenn Roquemore is President of Irvine Valley College….

Dr Roquemore gave very important statistics of the Community Colleges in California….

You’ll recall that, in the past, we’ve kidded Roquemore over his tendency to approach speaking always as an occasion to dispense the merest of statistics as though they were astonishing jewels. "Two percent of our students," he'll say, "sport a vestigial tail." Huh?

What’s the matter with ‘im? Dunno.

But just who are these “Pacifica Institute” people?

According to PI’s website,

Pacifica Institute was established in 2003 as a non-profit organization by a group of Turkish-Americans. Pacifica Institute designs and executes projects covering social welfare, education, poverty, and conflict resolution issues in collaboration with scholars, activists, artists, politicians, and religious leaders-communities….

. . .

The Institute seeks to …[engage] in a variety of civic activities and [seeks to invite] others to generate and share insights, thereby removing barriers to confidence-building and trust….

Gosh, it sounds as though that illiterate pseudo-educator, Raghu Mathur, may have had a hand in writing this stuff.

Elsewhere, PI presents “Frequently Asked Questions about Pacifica Institute and Fethullah Gülen.”

One naturally assumes, then, that Mr. Fethullah Gülen and his ideas are important to PI. Sure enough, in the Q&A, Gülen and his movement are central:

Fethullah Gülen

Q: How is the Pacifica Institute involved with the Gülen movement?

A: Some of the founders and donors of Pacifica Institute are participants of the so-called Gülen, or Hizmet movement. Pacifica Institute was inspired by the movement’s philosophy and goals….

. . .

The Gülen/Hizmet movement is a values-driven social movement and following a philosophy that advances interfaith dialog, education and community service as tools to build a better and more harmonious society. The movement was inspired by the philosophy and teachings of Fethullah Gülen, a Turkish scholar, author and advocate….

. . .

Q: Who is Fethullah Gülen?

A: Fethullah Gülen is a Turkish scholar, preacher, thinker, author, opinion leader, education activist, and peace advocate who is considered by many to be one of the world’s most influential religious thinkers. He is regarded as the initiator and inspirer of the worldwide civil society movement, the Gülen Movement, which is committed to education, dialogue, peace, social justice, and social harmony….

Well, I’ve done a little looking, and this Gülen fella is mighty controversial, in some circles at least.

I skimmed a couple of sites, which suggested that Gulen is, among other things, a conservative and a vocal opponent of feminism (although I ask that readers judge for themselves based on his writings--and the writings of his mouthpieces).

So I went to the Fethullah Gülen website. There, I searched the term “feminism” and that brought me to a page with links to various relevant essays, evidently by Mr. Gülen, including The Gülen Movement: Gender and Practice.

I clicked on that. That essay includes this passage:

Although he promotes equality between the sexes, Fethullah Gülen's views on gender can indeed be described as complementary. He sees women and men as having equal value but inheriting different roles and characteristics due to physical and psychological differences. He classifies men as "physically stronger and apt to bear hardship" and women as "more compassionate, more delicate, more self sacrificing" (Gülen 2006: 1). Although he does state that women can be involved in any field of work he idealizes the mother as the pure educator (Gülen 2006: 2) implicitly implying that the man should be the family provider. This may open up for critique on behalf of Western feminists or scholars of religion and gender. According to this relatively new academic discipline[,] gender is a social construction. Human beings are born with different sexes, but social roles and expectations of fulfillment of these are constructed and emphasized by the norms that prevail in society.

Another link takes one to an essay entitled Women Confined and Mistreated. Here are some excerpts:

As a reaction to all the injustice done to women … a movement to claim women's rights emerged, particularly in the West. Even though this movement is considered an awakening of women, it occurred as a reaction and was doomed to imbalance like all other reactionary movements and ended up in extremism. Although the starting point was to defend women, in time it deviated from the original aim to the degree of being full of hatred towards men and to feeling a grudge against them. The movement named feminism, which was born from the idea of protecting women and providing them with rights equal to those of men, has only left behind longing, sorrow, and wreckage as a movement of discontentment….

. . .

According to Islam, women's role in this world is not only restricted to doing the housework and raising children. In fact, as long as it does not conflict with her primordial nature or with observing religious requirements, she is responsible for carrying out the duties that befall her in every area of society and making up for shortcomings where men fall short in social life. However, this reality was ignored in time, even among Muslims; rough understandings and crude thinking upset this system based on women and men's mutual assistance. After this upset, both family life and the social order were also upset. Different peoples' perception of their own historical heritage as a part of Islam, their seeing and reflecting their folklore and traditions as essentials of religion, and making judgments pertaining to this issue at certain periods all resulted in the usurpation of women's rights; they were pushed into a more restricted area day by day, and in some places they were totally isolated from life without consideration of where this issue leads. However, the source of mistaken thoughts and deviations in this matter is not Islam whatsoever. The mistakes belong to those who misinterpret and misapply the religion. Such mistakes in practice must definitely be corrected.

On the other hand, while correcting these mistakes, approaching the issue from a feminist standpoint will upset the balance again and an opposite extremism will replace the former. For instance, just as it is very ugly to see women as merely child-bearing objects and is insolence towards them, it is equally unbecoming and unnatural to build a society where women are unable to bear and bring up the children they wish for, or for a woman to feel a need to rebel against marrying and to avoid bearing children in order to show that she is not a machine. As a woman is not a dirty dish, her place at home is not confined to the kitchen with the dirty dishes. However, a woman who claims to have no household responsibilities and thereby turns her home to a quarters for eating and sleeping is far from being a good mother, a good teacher, and a good spiritual guide to her children.

Besides all this, it is another form of oppression to make women work under difficult conditions, such as mining and road-building. It contradicts human nature to push women into heavy tasks like agricultural manual labor, or military field operations, and other harsh pursuits, just for the sake of proving their equality with men; it is nothing but cruel torture. It shows ignorance of women's qualities and conflicts with their primordial nature. Therefore, just as an understanding which imprisons women at home and takes them completely away from social life is absolutely incorrect according to Islam, likewise, depriving women of financial support, preventing them from bearing and raising children in security, and forcing women into the labor force to do uncongenial work is also oppressive. A woman, like a man, can have a certain job as far as her (and his) physiology and psychology are taken into consideration; but both women and men should know that a good life consists of sharing and division of labor. Each should assist the other by doing tasks in compliance with their nature.

Yikes.

I’m in no position to judge this “take” on feminism relative to the various Muslim communities (e.g., in Turkey) and the possibility of discourse within them. But it’s pretty plain that Gülen’s philosophy, as expressed here, is antithetical to some of the core tenets of Western feminism, broadly understood. It seems clear that Gülen is not likely to gain many adherents or followers among contemporary Westerners, with their commitment to the ideal of equality, as they understand it at least, between the sexes.

The Wikipedia article on Gülen is alarming—if, that is, it can be trusted. It asserts that

...Gülen's views are vulnerable to the charge of misogyny. As noted by Berna Turam, Gülen has argued:

"the man is used to more demanding jobs . . . but a woman must be excluded during certain days during the month. After giving birth, she sometimes cannot be active for two months. She cannot take part in different segments of the society all the time. She cannot travel without her husband, father, or brother . . . the superiority of men compared to women cannot be denied." [35]

Berna Turam, Northeastern

Wikipedia is quoting Berna Turam, a serious academic at Northeastern U. She herself seems to cite a work from 1996 entitled Fethullah Gulen Hocaefendi ile ufuk turu (Aktuel kitaplar dizisi). It is written in Turkish.

One should be careful to note that the superiority that Gülen is discussing is physical, not moral, or at least that's how I read it. Even so, his remarks are mighty offensive, at least to these Western ears.


Gosh Glenn, you really oughta be more careful who you hang out with. Philosophically, these Gülenites are a problem, at least relative to most of our community on these shores.

I'll see if I can shed more light on the Pacifica Institute and what it means for the likes of Glenn Roquemore and Beth Krom (a Democrat) to be hanging out with 'em.

Votes of "no confidence" - 1999

from the Dissenter's Dictionary, Dec. 3, 1999


MATHUR, RAGHU P.



In April of 1997, in an action later judged a violation of the Open Meetings law, the Board Majority appointed chemistry teacher and campus joke Raghu P. Mathur as Interim President of Irvine Valley College. At the time, Mathur had no experience as a full-time administrator. Five months later, through a process that violated board policy, and amid strong faculty opposition, the BM appointed Mathur permanent president. That action, too, was later voided owing to violations of the Brown Act. Two years later, despite his miserable record, which included a vote of no confidence and the palpable contempt of nearly all IVC faculty and staff, the board majority renewed Mathur's contract, giving him a raise and a $200 a month "security stipend."

Mathur was hired as an instructor in 1979, and he quickly established a reputation as a schemer and liar who would stoop to anything in order to secure an administrative position. Owing to his manifest unsavoriness, however, that ambition was consistently thwarted both inside and outside the district.

His intrigues soon gained him the hatred of Ed Hart, IVC's first president. In 1986, Hart retired, and the college adopted a "faculty chair" model, partly for fiscal reasons. Soon, Mathur "ruled" the tiny school of Physical Sciences as its chair. During the "chair" era, he was, without doubt, the chief abuser of that office, engaging in endless machinations while arranging a lucrative schedule that netted him a salary far in excess of the college president's ($124,000 in 1996-7).

During this period, Mathur continued to seek administrative positions. When he was passed over, he played the race card, charging everyone in sight with "discrimination," apparently on the sole grounds that he had not been selected.

Mathur's habit, as chair, of circumventing the governance process eventually yielded an official censure of him by IVC's "Instructional Council' in April of 1994. Earlier, the IC membership had all agreed not to go outside the process--particularly with regard to the selection of the IVC presidential search committee chair. During an IC meeting in March (of 94), Mathur was asked whether, despite the agreement, he had presented a petition, urging the selection of a particular faculty member, to the chancellor. He answered that he had "not forwarded" a petition to the chancellor or anyone. In fact, he had and, apparently on that basis, the chancellor did appoint the faculty member as (co)chair.

When this came to light in April, Mathur was censured. According to the minutes of the April 5 meeting, "Instructional Council had agreed that no one will work outside of the IVC governance structure and agreed-upon processes. They felt that Raghu had lied to the Council...[One member] made a motion to censur Raghu Mathur for lying to the Instructional Council regarding the petition and the presidential search process and for misrepresenting not only Instructional Council, but also the faculty...Raghu Mathur stated that he did not lie to the Instructional Council. He said that he was asked if he had forwarded the petition to the Chancellor and he said he had not. He did admit, however, that he had shown the petition to Chancellor Lombardi...Raghu felt that the members of Instructional Council were making too big of a deal out of the situation...The question was called and the motion passed with 8 ayes, 3 noes, and 4 abstentions."

Classified employees, too, have at times found it necessary to complain about of Mathur's conduct. For instance, in August of 1995, IVC administration received a letter from Leann Cribb, Executive Secretary (and formerly secretary for the School of Physical Sciences), in which she wrote: "Mr. Mathur routinely revises facts and manufactures innuendo to suit his objectives." During the January '98 Board meeting, classified employee Julie Ben-Yeoshua explained that Mathur was the reason she was seeking employment elsewhere: "Since you first appointed Raghu Mathur as the interim president, the atmosphere at IVC has changed drastically; morale is in the gutter...[Mathur's] inability to tell the truth is so natural that I have come to gauge everything he says and writes by believing the complete opposite...."

By the mid-90s, Mathur had come to regard Terry Burgess, then-VP of Instruction, as his nemesis, and, in 1996, he tried to discredit Burgess with the board. In the spring of '96, a student sought to enroll in a chemistry course without enrolling in the concurrent lab, and the matter came before the chair--Mathur. Though the student provided documentation proving that she had done the equivalent work at UCI, Mathur denied the request, whereupon the student asked for a review of the decision by the Office of Instruction. Mathur agreed to go along with the Office's decision.

Later, however, he accused Burgess of signing the student's admittance card despite non-approval by the instructor. Mathur convinced his school to send a resolution of complaint to the board (and also to the senate and the union), appending the student's transcripts, without her permission, an action that violated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and district policies. When then-IVC president Dan Larios learned of this, he requested an opinion from the district's attorneys regarding the legality of Mathur's action. The opinion, dated March 18, 1996, indicates that Mathur acted improperly, violating FERPA and board policy 5619. Larios was fed up.

Realizing that Larios now planned to deny approval of him as chair of his school, Mathur, as per usual, scrambled to lobby board members for support. On March 29, Larios met with Mathur; he explained that he had lost confidence in Mathur and that Mathur had better "change." In the end, Larios wrote a memo (May 14) expressing his serious reservations about Mathur's leadership, owing to his repeated circumventing of established processes and his violations of board policy, and placed him on probation. If there were any further violations of process, wrote Larios, Mathur would be removed as chair.

In the meantime, Mathur asked the senate to censure Burgess. It declined to do so, citing Mathur's misdescription of crucial facts. Larios, troubled by Mathur's misrepresentations, sent out a memo explaining that Burgess had in no sense acted improperly.

In December of '96, the Board Majority era began, and Larios sensed that it was time to move on. Normally, the VP of Instruction—Terry Burgess--would serve as interim president, but the BM blocked his selection, and, in March, Lombardi was chosen as a sort of compromise. But in April, Frogue presented another one of Mathur's petitions--this time, an “anonymous” petition urging Mathur's selection as president. On that basis, Mathur became IVC president.

Mathur's outrages while president are too numerous to recount here. Suffice it to say that in the early months of 1998, the IVC academic senate instituted a Special Inquiry into “abuses of power.” By April, it became necessary to abandon the investigation, owing to the number and the complexity of the charges against Mathur. Said the committee’s chair: “It’s like bailing water out of the Titanic with a tea cup…Every time we put an allegation to bed, another one jumps up” (Voice, 5/7/98). Soon thereafter, Mathur received a 74% vote of no confidence by his faculty.

Mathur has sought to rule through intimidation, punishing his critics in every way available to him. In early November of 1999, the IVC academic senate released the results of a survey of full-time faculty (78% participated). 90% disagreed with the statement, "I can express my opinion about issues at the college without fear of retribution or retaliation." The 90% figure will likely go up soon, for Mathur intends to fire an untenured instructor--a critic--for his involvement in the act of naming the plot of dirt next to the Life Sciences greenhouse. It was named the "Terry Burgess garden."


Huge Vote Against College Chief (LA Times, May 18, 2004 | Jeff Gottlieb)

Faculty in the South Orange County Community College District overwhelmingly voted no confidence Monday in Chancellor Raghu Mathur.
Of the full-time professors at Irvine Valley and Saddleback colleges who cast ballots, 93.5% voted in favor of no confidence, and 6% were against the union-sponsored measure. One person abstained.
Out of 318 faculty eligible, 246 -- 77% -- voted, according to the district faculty association….

Clueless IVC Prez Glenn Roquemore smiles as he makes nice with the enemy - August 26, 2014

Vice President, Western Region, Workforce Solutions/University of Phoenix, Chuck Parker, President, Irvine Valley College, Dr. Glenn R. Roquemore

○ Members of the Irvine Valley College community just received this gushing email from the President:

Irvine Valley College Signs Memorandum of Understanding with University of Phoenix

Irvine – Irvine Valley College (IVC) administration, faculty and staff held a formal signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the University of Phoenix, Inc. (University) on Wednesday, August 20, 2014.
Irvine Valley College President Glenn Roquemore said, “This partnership will expand the many transfer opportunities available to the IVC students and staff. One of the major benefits of the MOU is the tuition discount."
Irvine Valley College students transferring to University of Phoenix into an undergraduate baccalaureate degree program … will be considered as having satisfied the general education requirements for the breadth of the liberal arts degree program….

○ IVC students get 10% off Phoenix tuition, which is way pricey.

○ Evidently, President Roquemore is not aware that entities such as the U of Phoenix exist to make huge profits by taking advantage of students who typically receive federally insured loans, putting them in serious debt. Those students, upon graduating, typically fail to find the work they were expecting and often default on their loans, forcing the taxpayer to pay. (It's a massive bubble that, one day, will pop.)

○ You’re fine with all that, are you Glenn? You're a Republican, aren't you? Yeah. I see you smiling with those vets you claim to love!

○ Alas, the "predatory for-profits" problem is especially egregious in the case of Vets, who pay their way via the new GI Bill:


GI Bill funds failing for-profit California colleges

(Desert Sun)

The ever-clueless Glenn R

Over the last five years, more than $600 million in college assistance for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans has been spent on California schools so substandard that they have failed to qualify for state financial aid.
As a result, the GI Bill — designed to help veterans live the American dream — is supporting for-profit companies that spend lavishly on marketing but can leave veterans with worthless degrees and few job prospects, The Center for Investigative Reporting found.

. . .

Financial records analyzed by CIR show that California is the national epicenter of this problem, with nearly 2 out of every 3 GI Bill dollars going to for-profit colleges.
The University of Phoenix in San Diego outdistances its peers. Since 2009, the campus has received $95 million in GI Bill funds. That's more than any brick-and-mortar campus in America, more than the entire 10-campus University of California system and all UC extension programs combined.

. . .

The school's large share of GI Bill funding reflects more than just the number of veterans enrolling. The programs are expensive. An associate degree costs $395 a credit, for instance — nearly 10 times the cost at a public community college.
The University of Phoenix won't say how many of its veterans graduate or find jobs, but the overall graduation rate at its San Diego campus is less than 15 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Education, and more than a quarter of students default on their loans within three years of leaving school.
Those figures fall short of the minimum standards set by the California Student Aid Commission, which dispenses state financial aid. The commission considers either a graduation rate lower than 30 percent or a loan default rate of more than 15.5 percent clear indicators of a substandard education.
No such restrictions govern GI Bill funds. And nearly 300 California schools that received GI Bill money either were barred from receiving state financial aid at least once in the past four years or operated without accreditation, CIR has found.

. . .

Of the $1.5 billion in GI Bill funds spent on tuition and fees in California since 2009, CIR found that more than 40 percent — $638 million —went to schools that have failed the state financial aid standard at least once in the past four years.
Four of those schools were University of Phoenix campuses, which together took in $225 million….

An Enemy In Common? The Case Against For-Profit Colleges

(Cognoscenti [NPR Boston])

… As Americans, we should all be concerned that veterans are being taken advantage of by unscrupulous profiteers. As taxpayers, we should be aware that we are paying for this disservice. Approximately 85-95 percent of the for-profits’ revenue comes from taxpayer-supported benefits….

For-Profit College Investigation--Is the New GI Bill Working?: Questionable For-Profit Colleges Increasingly Dominate the Program

([Senator] Harkin newsletter)


…Senator Harkin's HELP Committee investigation found:

. . .

  • Most for-profit colleges charge much higher tuition than comparable programs at community colleges and flagship State public universities. The investigation found Associate degree and certificate programs averaged four times the cost of degree programs at comparable community colleges. Bachelor's degree programs averaged 20 percent more than the cost of analogous programs at flagship public universities despite the credits being largely non-transferrable.
  • Because 96 percent of students starting a for-profit college take federal student loans to attend a for-profit college (compared to 13 percent at community colleges), nearly all students who leave have student loan debt, even when they don't have a degree or diploma or increased earning power.
  • Students who attended a for-profit college accounted for 47 percent of all Federal student loan defaults in 2008 and 2009. More than 1 in 5 students enrolling in a for-profit college-22 percent-default within 3 years of entering repayment on their student loans....

Hey-Diddly-Ho, Neighbor!

Oldie but Goodie [2012]: See Senator Harkin’s For-Profit College Investigation: U of Phoenix