The origins of our college district, Part 8c: twisty, unpredictable, curious and dubious, Part C [end]

 

     IN THIS POST: with the March 8, 1977, election, charter trustee Pat Backus, who supported the grumbling Tustinites, suffers a major upset; he's OUT and newbies Watts, McKnight, and Price are IN. What emerges is a "new board majority" of Brandt-Taylor-McKnight-Price, two of whom were backed by the faculty union, which seeks to be the sole legal rep of faculty on contract issues, which are going badly.
     Amazingly, this crew immediately REOPENS the supposedly settled subject of site selection for the district's second campus. Tustinites have a cow. The board minority seethes. WTFs all around.
     But the Irvine Co. won't sell the Jeffrey property unless it is first "condemned," thereby relieving the company (and the district) of a big tax payout. Does the new board majority have the five votes necessary for the condemnation move? Seemingly not. (Uh-oh.) 
     Meanwhile, trustee Greinke thinks Child Care Centers are immoral and, over in Irvine, lots of residents are pulling a NIMBY, college-wise, and some begin to suspect dastardly Irvine Co. "tricks." Former trustee Bartholomew weighs in on the crazy site selection issue, bellowing that he expects the district soon to rename itself the "Irvine Company Community College District."

     In May, the Irvine Co. decides to allow Saddleback to purchase the Jeffrey property without condemnation procedures, and so the sale goes forward, ending the matter once and for all. Upshot: the Board Majority has bulldozed the minority and Tustinites are now permanently pissed people. 
     With that, the negotiations logjam concerning the faculty contract is suddenly cleared and faculty get a nice raise and impressive benefits. Greinke calls the contract "excessive." The conservatives seethe.
     What does it all mean? —RB

The origins of our college district, Part 8b: twisty, unpredictable, curious and dubious, Part B

Frank Greinke

     IN THIS POST: back in September, 1976, the Saddleback board chose the Irvine Co.'s Myford-Bryan site, on Tustin's border, for the district's 2nd campus.
     Now, in January, the Irvine Co. does a sudden and mysterious SWITCHEROO: "Why doncha build the new campus over here on Jeffrey and Irvine Center Drive, smack dab in the middle of Irvine, instead?" They're obviously desperate to retain the Myford site (for reasons unexpressed and obfuscated); they sweeten the Jeffrey deal bigtime. PLUS, they start a hard sell, warning about the stink of manure and the lack of roads over at the Myford bean fields.
     Trustee Marshall of Laguna Hills dies after a long illness. The board is down to five members!
     The Tustin News naturally turns up the heat against the Irvine Co. Meanwhile, the Tustin City Council acts like agents of developers (namely, um, the Irvine Co.), not citizens. To trustee Berry, the Irvine Co.'s switcheroo is mighty hinky. Bloviating trustee Frank Greinke openly accuses the Irvine Co. of boondogglin'. Tempers flare and Greinke calls Bartholomew(?) a "Judas," to which trustee Norrisa Brandt strongly objects, whereupon Greinke tells her to just "shut up."
     Brandt notes that "We have Irvine Co. in a bind," and urges the board to take the boffo deal they're offering for Jeffrey. Meanwhile, the March election is drawing near, and Saddleback faculty are backing candidates who prefer the Irvine/Jeffrey site, while Tustinites keep carpin' about the board's alleged "promise" to put a college in the Tustin area (e.g., @ Myford). Trustee Brandt urges the board to wait on the site selection till after the election, when the board will have seven members again. 
     Superintendent Lombardi just wants to flip a goddam coin and move on. Tustinites keep up their infernal yammerin' for the Myford site. Greinke thunders indecorously about "hogwash" and "suede shoes." Citizen Ursula Kennedy challenges the Tustin City Council to come clean about these weird land shenanigans with the Irvine Co., but, natch, to no avail. Finally, less than a week before the election, and despite the board's abject skeleton-crew-itude,  Greinke, Backus, and Berry (a majority of the five) vote in favor of the Myford site, and Tustin celebrates.

     The board thus defies the Irvine Co.—and, maybe, common sense, too.
     But then a new board emerges from the March 8 election. "The new board," says trustee Donna Berry, "is certainly not going to presume to come on and change the site!" 
     Plus the Saddleback faculty are gripin' about pay & bennies. The board is unmoved!
     NOW WHAT? —RB

The origins of our college district, Part 8: the twisty, unpredictable, curious and dubious episodes that led to the choice of the “north campus” site (part A)

 

     IN THIS POST: noting board disquietude, early in 1975, Norrisa Brandt of the Saddleback board of trustees calls for a discussion of the very idea of a community college—and of the longterm goals of the district. 

     Ten months later (January, 1976), new trustee Frank Greinke of Tustin senses board disunity concerning THE BIG ISSUE—namely, the district's second and northern campus. To get things moving, he proposes establishing a citizens advisory committee with two community members chosen by each trustee—a procedure guaranteeing strong representation for the City of Tustin. 

     The bumptuous Mr. Greinke approaches the Tustin City Council, asking them for a resolution “supporting the concept of a Tustin area campus of Saddleback College.” They provide it. Meanwhile, conservative trustee, Bob Bartholomew, carps brutishly about the faculty's proposed campus calendar, claiming that it reflects selfish faculty interests. Here and elsewhere, the board is divided between a conservative faction (Bartholomew, Berry, and perhaps Greinke) and a more progressive faction (Taylor, Brandt, Marshall). 

     In May, conservative trustee Donna Berry, seeking to reduce district costs, leads a successful effort to eliminate the "6 unit rule," a rule allowing Tustinites (and other Saddleback district residents) to transfer to other districts' colleges (e.g., Santa Ana College) without securing permission paperwork. The upshot is fewer transfers, lower "tuition" costs for Saddleback.
     Natch, Tustinite trustees (Greinke, Backus), aware of their constituencies' desire to attend Orange Coast and Santa Ana Colleges, fail to support Berry's cost-cutting move.

     Trustees confront a likely financial shortfall of about $3 million caused by new legislation. They pursue cost-cutting and new revenue more vigorously. They consider charging costs to students who take non-credit craft courses and the like. Discussion of this option brings out philosophical differences between trustees concerning the nature of "college." 

     In mid-May, the Citizens Advisory Committee provides its report concerning pursuit of a second, northern campus. It urges the board to buy land (for a 2nd campus) immediately. It highlights longterm complaints especially among Tustinites about the distance to Saddleback college.

     The college produces a document concerning "priorities," but some trustees carp that it does not sufficiently emphasize vocational and technical (even agricultural) instruction. Trustees feel pressure to increase taxes for maintenance, repair, construction, and (mostly uncompensated) growth while attempting to honor conservative anti-tax desiderata. Meanwhile, Saddleback faculty move to strengthen their union. Sparks fly.
     Philosophical differences again arise when Superintendent Lombardi reveals a document describing the kind of college the district is attempting to create. Lombardi's collegiate assumptions clash with local notions.

Greinke

     Pursuit of a second campus continues. By September (1976), three sites are under discussion: on Myford, east of the Santa Ana Freeway; on Culver, west of the freeway; and on Jeffrey @ the Santa Ana Freeway. The board is very divided, and worries about costs and taxes resurface. Greinke, of Tustin, insists that the Myford site (@ today's Tustin Marketplace) is ideal. Tustinites commence clamoring for the Myford site, feeling entitled to a campus in or near Tustin. On a 5-1 vote, Berry dissenting, the board chooses the Myford site. While Tustin celebrates, trustee Bartholomew carps about the immorality of Day Care Centers.
     In November, Bartholomew resigns and moves to Carpinteria. The board is down to six members.

     In January, the Irvine Co. upsets the applecart by attempting to withdraw its offer of the Myford site, recommending, instead, a new site at Jeffrey and Irvine Center Drive in Irvine. Its motives seem obscure. Meanwhile, the Tustin City Council behaves oddly with regard to the annexation and zoning of a 425 acre parcel owned by the Irvine Co—and including the Myford site.
     With the Irvine Co.'s withdrawal of Myford, SHIT HITS FAN. HORNSWOGGLERY SUSPECTED. —RB

Acting administrators in place

     This morning, the district community received Interim Chancellor Debra Fitzsimons’ latest edition of “Chancellor’s Perspective,” entitled EMBRACING OPPORTUNITY IN A TIME OF CHANGE.
     Here’s an excerpt:

...This summer has been a time of transition for the South Orange County Community College District, but it is also a time of great opportunity. Changes in leadership and a large number of retirements will no doubt bring many changes to our district, but I am confident that thoughtful collaboration will ease the transition and allow us to embrace the opportunities that lie ahead.
     Leadership changes bring us three long-time and highly regarded college administrators who will serve in acting roles in our district. We are fortunate to have these administrators help us through our time of transition and I look forward to introducing them to all employees during professional development week.

     Denise Whittaker joined us as acting president of Saddleback College on July 1st. Denise has an impressive background as a college administrator, having served as president, vice president, dean, faculty, and counselor at colleges across the state and country, and has held leadership roles at Palo Verde, Southwestern, Orange Coast, San Bernardino Valley, El Camino, Oxnard, and Citrus Colleges. Denise’s experience is already proving to be invaluable and she has impressed us with her extensive knowledge and thoughtful approach to leading the college during this time of change.
     Recruitment for the new permanent president is underway and we invite all employees to attend the President Candidate Public Forums to be held during professional development week on Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday from 1:30-3:00 pm in MSE 313. The forums will offer opportunities to hear from each of the finalists on their background and experience, educational philosophy, and vision for Saddleback College. Attendees will have an opportunity to submit questions for the candidates and provide feedback on them.

     The recruitment for the vice chancellor of human resources is also underway and we are happy to welcome Diane Clerou as our acting vice chancellor beginning July 25th. Diane served as vice chancellor of human resources at State Center Community College District and has vast experience in business and industrial management and labor and employee relations. We also welcome Jim Buysse who will be acting vice chancellor of business services beginning August 1st. Jim served as interim chancellor and vice chancellor of administration and finance at Riverside Community College District, and was previously the chief administrative officer at De Anza College.

     Additionally, we are in the recruitment process for the executive director of public/private partnerships, a new position that will focus on establishing long-lasting partnerships for the ATEP site, which will help with program development so that courses are aligned with workforce needs. The site is “shovel ready” after the recent groundbreaking of ATEP’s first permanent building which will house numerous career technical education programs for Irvine Valley College.…

The origins of our college district, Part 7: the Tustin-ness of the district's early years

     IN THIS POST: Just who were the people behind that slate of GOP candidates each of whom was elected to the founding SOCCCD board in 1967? They were the "Citizens Committee for Competent Trustees," a group of mostly Tustin Republicans, many of whom became members of the first "citizens advisory committees" that organized the original Saddleback College. 
     The creation of our district, it seems, was a Tustin thing. —RB

6B: more on Saddleback's "bookie trustee"

     IN THIS POST: the second half of my report on the curious Mr. Alyn Brannon, founding SOCCCD trustee—and BOOKIE. 
     This part follows the story after his surrender for jail in 1974. —RB

The origins of our college district, Part 6: It's true. One of our founding trustees was both a Republican and a bookie

     IN THIS POST: the curious case of Alyn M. Brannon, "young Republican" and founding trustee of what became the South Orange County Community College District. Unfortunately, it turns out that, as he presided over the Saddleback Board of Trustees, he was making his living as a BOOKIE.
     This presents the basic facts up to about 1974, when Brannon resigned from the board. —RB

The origins of our college district, Part 5: Tustinites revolt!

 

IN THIS POST: I explain the details of the (ultimately failed) effort, among grumbling Tustinites in 1973-4, to remove Tustin from the Saddleback Community College District. —RB

The origins of our college district, Part 4: Tustin buffoonery? Hubris? Hayseedery?

 

Bill Moses, Tustin News

     IN THIS POST: the so-called Allen-Briscoe "report" referred to unfortunate proclivities among elements of OC government that led to fragmentation, and it is easy to see such tendencies among the cities and school districts in OC in the early 60s. By 1961, Tustin seemed to be shopping around for the best deal between that offered by the Santa Ana Junior College District and the possible deal offered by the Orange Coast Junior College District, despite Allen and Briscoe's key recommendation that things proceed according to a coordinated general plan. In a typical editorial, the Tustin News insisted that Tustin was under no obligation to follow the guidelines created by "out of town education experts." Rather, Tustin should sit tight until the most advantageous course of action for the city becomes clear. Evidently, the proposal according to which Tustin schools would coordinate with the schools of Orange and Santa Ana seemed to lead to a plan to construct a college in north Tustin, and so that merger was indeed attractive. On the other hand, Orange Coast officials seemed to embrace a “pay as you go” construction policy, and this appealed to Tustin's fiscal conservativsm.

     By April of 1963, however, Tustinites were discussing another “JC district” idea entirely, one even more alien to Allen-Briscoe recommendations, for they were contemplating merging with Laguna Beach and Capistrano high school districts to form a new, fourth JC district.
     Tustinites seemed to believe that, with the formation of a South County JC district, the first college would be built in or near Tustin. In part because California legislators compelled school districts to allign with JC districts by 1967; and in part because of the Irvine Co's decision to permit residential development around UCI, voters of the South County region voted in 1967 to form what soon was called the "Saddleback Junior College District. it overcame a "vigorous campaign" to annex south county districts to already-existing districts. And though existing projections indicated that Irvine, to the north, would experience the most growth, the older communities down south lobbied hard for a southern campus, and when the Mission Viejo Co. offered land at a great price for 199 acres at Avery, the deal was clinched. And thus it was that the first campus of the new district was located just above San Juan Capistrano, twenty miles south of Tustin. Classes opened in the Fall of 1968.

     Owing to the great distance between Tustin/Irvine and Saddleback College, many residents of those towns preferred to go to Santa Ana or Orange Coast colleges. By Fall, 1975, Irvine & Tustin comprised more than 46% of the district's population, but only 28% of Saddleback College's day students. Of the 3000 students declining to attend Saddleback, 60% went to OCC and 30% went to Santa Ana.
     In 1974, Tustin attempted to leave the Saddleback District and join the Santa Ana (Rancho Santiago) district. The matter was to be decided by vote, but when the state insisted that the election be district-wide, defeat was guaranteed, since Tustin's de-annexation would entail a tax increase for non-Tustin South County citizens.
     By 1975, it was clear to Saddleback district officials that they could and should build a northern campus, and, soon, nine sites were selected for consideration. In June 1976, the Trustees narrowed these sites down to three and then finally selected a site on the north/east side of the Santa Ana Freeway on Myford (essentially in Tustin). But then, in January of 1977, the Irvine Co., who owned all acceptable sites, urged the board to abandon the Myford site for a new site at Jeffrey/Irvine Center Drive, which the company was willing to sell at a low price. Nevertheless, the board selected the Myford site in February. After an election in March, the newly configured board overturned the earlier decision and went with the Jeffrey site. (The details of all of this are explained in parts 8A, 8B, and 8C of this series.) —RB

The origins of our college district, Part 3: turns out, we're an unruly county and an unruly part of that unruly county

 

     IN THIS POST: to understand the curious actions and initiatives by school districts in Orange County in the early 60s, one needs to go back to 1959, and the origins of what came to be known as the "Allen-Briscoe report." In that year, the OCCSDO became concerned over the lack of foresight and planning for education in Orange County, and so that agency secured Hollis Allen of Claremont Graduate School and William Briscoe of UCLA to "prepare a master plan for 20 years of development" of junior colleges. Aware that the state, and Orange County in particular, was facing exploding school enrollments, it was clear that the County had better plan ahead, which it had not done, especially in a coordinated fashion. A further problem was the unavailability of junior colleges for half of the population. Historically, political entities tended not to coordinate and cooperate in OC and so there was concern that fragmentation, disorder, and inefficiency would characterize the introduction of new colleges. Hence the need for a "master plan."

     Allen & Briscoe eventually revealed their plan in December of 1960, and it had a great impact. AB sought to determine the likely number of JCs that would have to be built in the coming two decades (10), and roughly where they should be located. AB emphasized the need for "regional coordination." The report recommended "that consolidation or restructuring of district boundaries be seriously considered as a permanent arrangement…." 

     Others have noted  that a "militant localism has divided the county into educational districts that have developed a resolute self-consciousness. Over the years, this fragmentation has hindered county-wide or regional responses to the challenge of growth...." Further, in OC, where endless growth was naively embraced, "no strong intergovernmental organization [exists] through which local governments can consider county-wide issues and arrive at general agreements." "Needless, self-defeating competition [prevails] among local authorities." 

     A&B's recommendation? "Considering all factors," they wrote, "the Study Committee recommends that serious consideration be given to one junior college district for the entire County." (My emphasis.)

     A&B knew that such advice would be poorly received. And so they suggested a second plan—Plan II—which was to divide OC into three JC districts, namely, a "north OC" district, a "central OC" district, and an oddly-shaped "coast" district that would include the  existing "Orange Coast" district and the rest of OC's coastal areas all the way down to San Clemente.
     OC officials embraced A&B's master plan for the County's approach to JC build-out. But, as we've already seen, the plan to overcome fragmentation just couldn't be implemented by OC's unruly entities. Further fragmentation has essentially prevailed. 
     And the "most flagrant breach" of A&B's guidelines was the attempt by El Toro/Mission Viejo, Laguna Beach, and Capistrano school districts to form a fourth junior college district, the South County district. —RB

The origins of our college district, Part 2: a proliferation of competing plans

 

     IN THIS POST: we're going to backtrack a bit.
     It turns out that the relationship between such cities as Tustin, Orange, and Santa Ana have long been tense and troubled. For instance, in the early 60s, Tustinites spoke of Santa Ana's "eastern territorial conquest," something Tustin wasn't going to put up with.
     But by 1961, the Tustin Union High School board were learning about a proposal according to which Tustin, Orange and Santa Ana high school districts "would form an enlarged Central Orange County Junior College district." In some sense, this proposal responded to a County "survey" (the "Allen-Briscoe report") that had revealed that Orange County would experience explosive growth that would, unless steps were taken, completely overwhelm existing junior college districts.

     Hence the notion of a new, bigger district to replace the existing Santa Ana District and which would include any contiguous school districts not yet affiliated with any junior college district. This new district would eliminate Santa Ana College and instead locate a college "on a spacious site somewhere in the center of the Tustin-Orange-Santa Ana areas." (Tustinians figured that Tustin was the obvious central point.)
     How then did the very different mega-district idea (that we spoke of yesterday) arise?
     And how is it that, by 1963, Tustin was pursuing an entirely different plan—a plan to create a South County junior college district (from South County school districts) that would be distinct from the Santa Ana and Orange Coast junior college districts? 
     All will be made clear. —RB

The origins of our college district, Part 1: Hey, kids! Let's form our own JC district!

 

Larry Taylor

     IN THIS POST: this is the 1st in an 8-part series about the early days of the district.
     As communities grow, schools are built, and, naturally, communities seek to provide "junior" (later, "community") colleges for high school graduates not attending 4-year institutions. Normally, the creation of junior/community colleges is pursued by high school districts.
     Since the end of WW II, Orange County has been one of the growingest places in the country. But, until the 60s, most of the growing occurred in the north half of the county, leaving the entire South County area lightly populated and collegeless.
     By 1960, the largest town in "South County"—if one regards Tustin and Irvine as forming the northern border of that area—was the City of Tustin, with San Clemente, Laguna Beach, Mission Viejo (unincorporated), and San Juan Capistrano trailing behind.

     By the early 60s, Tustinites hoped to overcome the college-less-ness of their own community. In April of 1963, Tustin Union High School board members discussed creating a fourth college district—beyond Orange Coast, Santa Ana, and North OC—to serve Tustin Union, Laguna Beach, and Capistrano high school districts. This early group, at least in Tustin, tended to assume that this South County district's first college would be built in or near Tustin.
     By October of '63, three South County high school districts met and announced a plan to form a fourth junior college district; the group planned to hire a firm to explore feasibility. Participating in the meeting were the Tustin, Capo Union, and Laguna Beach districts. They were also considering the alternatives: joining the already-established Santa Ana or Orange Coast community college districts, just to the north. Larry Taylor of Laguna Beach was the chair of the "inter-district committee."
     A year later, officials of the Orange Coast and Santa Ana districts were considering an incompatible plan: uniting the two into a mega district, which would expand further by taking on all coast and South County high school districts, including Tustin, San Juan Capistrano, and Laguna Beach.
     By March of '65, Tustin, Laguna and Capistrano school districts were discouraging the notion of including them in a mega-college district. They wanted their own district. Meanwhile, the plan to unite the Orange Coast and Santa Ana junior college districts was still on.
     At the time, an agency called the "Orange County Committee on School District Organization" (OCCSDO) existed. That body sought to persuade the South County crowd to join the proposed northern super-district. To that end, OCCSDO invited reps from the southern school districts to its April 1 meeting. The Tustin-Laguna-Capistrano crowd were agreeable, but it was already clear that they wanted to explore setting up their own JC district, and they needed time to speak with the Capo people in particular about that plan.

     By May, Tustin Union authorized its superintendent to "explore further" the "cost and scope of studies regarding feasibility of the formation of a new junior college district."
     By November, the Tustin school board gave the "Tustin/southern" proposal the green light, and, consequently, establishing the new junior college district "is in the active planning stages."
     The other southern boards—Laguna and Capo—had done likewise. They were on board.
     These school districts prepared for a Nov. 17 meeting of OCCSDO to seek formation of the 4th district. If OCCSDO was agreeable, the proposal would next go to the state. If the state would give its okey-dokey, next would come an election, in September or October of 1966. —RB

Congressman Utt on the "free speech" movement: "fire the professors"

     "Utt the Nut," they called him. Congressman James B. Utt was a classic paranoid cold warrior. (See Saddleback College's "Nutt" Memorial Library.)
     Here, in June of 1965, we find him confronting the "free speech" movement at UC Berkeley and beyond, which objected to our nation's policies in Viet Nam and elsewhere. "The student demonstrations," Utt tells us, "are sponsored and financed by the International Communist Conspiracy.""These bearded beatniks and these fuzzy-wuzzy professors are a threat ... to our external security."
     The "Washington Report" column appeared in the Tustin News. Tustin in those days was more than open to Utt's stark vision of the world.
     (Click on graphic to make it somewhat more readable.)

The curiously conservative City of Tustin

From The Tustin News, June 23, 1977: contest winners

     I’ve been pokin’ around old issues of the Tustin News, where one can get a sense of how conservative that city is and has been (the TN was sold to the OC Register in 1995).
     DtB readers will be aware that Tustin was the home of right-wing Congressman James “Utt the Nut” Utt, who represented his OC district from 1953 until his death in 1970. Saddleback College’s first structure (the notorious "James B. Utt Library") was named after him.
     He was succeeded, of course, by Tustin resident and even more notorious right-winger, John Schmitz, who quit the GOP when it got too “liberal” for him. (He was expelled from the John Birch Society for his extremist rhetoric.)

From The Tustin News, June 23, 1977

     I came across the curious item above from the June 23, 1977, Tustin News. It reports the winners of a "patriotic slogan" contest held by the American Education League.
     Among the winning slogans:

• Free Enterprise ISN'T A free ride
• Our Best Source of Energy: OURSELVES
• Strong Defense: Let's Keep Our Right UP and the Left Out
• America: A Nation of United Immigrants
• Limited Government: Our Guarantee to Unlimited Freedom
• Apathy: Cancer of Democracy
• Limited Defense Means Limited Protection
• Not Just A Nation—A Way of Life: America

     According to the article, Walter Knott (of Knott's Berry Farm) is (was) the VP of the American Education League (AEL); in fact, he was a major funder of that organization. Among the judges of the contest were Virginia Knott, Karl Karcher (of Carl's Junior Restaurants), the Superintendent of the County BoE, and the publisher of the Tustin News.

Knottism, I guess

     But just what is this American Education League?

Lechner (1900-1967)

     Immigrant John Robert Lechner founded the “American Education League” in 1927 as a defender of “Americanism” and a foe of all that, in his mind, was un-American. During the war, he was obsessed with the Japanese population, campaigning for the "permanent exclusion of Japanese Americans from the Pacific Coast." According to Time magazine, during a 1945 speech he said: "We know the Japanese have super-submarines which carry 1,000 men—they're waiting for the return of California Japanese [from the internment camps] to start their invasion. They'll come in through the fog banks, led by 10,000 officers trained in American universities." (For a fuller account of Lechner's activities especially during the war, see the Densho Encyclopedia.)
     Lechner, like his contemporary Jimmy Utt, was the sort of conservative who seemed to find a Commie under every rock, including the rocks of academia (the “Untouchable-intelligentsia”).
     Lechner is long gone, but his “League” still exists. According to the AEL Facebook Page, the organization embraces “American exceptionalism” and “promotes significant and permanent reduction in the size and power of government.” Also, we’re told that

Since its founding in 1927 AEL has dedicated its efforts to informing and educating all citizens, but especially students, about the liberties and responsibilities that are their birthright as Americans. Through the encouragement and annual support of its donors and friends, AEL has distributed educational materials, videos, and cash-award programs to millions of students and thousands of schools at all levels throughout the country.

     Among the “donors and friends,” was well-known right-winger (and John Birch Society booster) Walter Knott of “Knott’s Berry Farm” fame. (He died in 1981.)
     AEL sponsors “essay contests.” According to the site Fastweb,

The American Educational League Essay Contest is open to all undergraduate students in the U.S. Applicants are asked to write a 2,000 word essay on one of the following topics: death penalty vs. life sentence, national defense vs. international defense, bankruptcy vs. government bailouts and same sex marriage vs. heterosexual marriage.

     It was Walter Knott himself who started the AEL "slogans" competition in 1971.
     Naturally, AEL publishes books, e.g., Communism: the ideology fades - the threat remains (1990).
     You get the picture.

I believe that this depicts Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan at an AEL event

     You’ll recall that we’ve occasionally discussed Rousas Rushdoony (Greg Bahnsen and Gary North are also cited as sources) and his “Christian Reconstructionism,” a religious/political movement that advocates theonomy, i.e., a form of government in which society is ruled by divine law. (For an account of Christian Reconstructionism and contemporary politics, see A Nation Under God in the December 2005 edition of Mother Jones.)
     As we’ve reported previously, OC billionaire Howard Ahmanson Jr. has been a major funder of the movement and of Rushdoony's Chalcedon Foundation. Ahmanson, of course, was one of (pray-happy former SOCCCD trustee) Tom Fuentes’ pals. Two former SOCCCD trustees, Don Wagner and Nancy Padberg, were affiliated with Education Alliance, a Tustin-based Christian right organization that has fought teachers unions since the mid-90s. Natch, EA got its seed money from— Howard Ahmanson.
     The Chalcedon Foundation is where Walter Knott, AEL, and Christian Reconstructionism come together.
     Check out this excerpt from Michael J. McVicar’s Christian Reconstruction: R.J. Rushdoony and American Religious Conservatism. It describes Rushdoony’s efforts to establish a new kind of Christian college in America:

RJ Rushdoony (1916-2001)

     ...Rushddoony developed his vision of a Christian college [namely, Chalcedon College] in an era inundated with faith-based schools. Large, well-established liberal-arts institutions such as Wheaton College in Illinois, Calvin College in Michigan, and Gordon College of Massachusetts claimed a uniquely Christian mission. Since the 1930s, these liberal-arts colleges had been supplemented by a growing network of private business and technical colleges built with a Christian mission in mind. ... Heavily subsidized in the postwar era by the GI Bill, these liberal-arts and technical colleges mixed a bland probusiness Christianity with typical evangelical doctrines.... In spite of—or, more precisely, because of—the liberal-arts education and managerial training provided by these institutions’ curricula, they were, in Rushdoony’s eyes, neither aggressively nor self-consciously Christian. Rushdoony believed he could offer something new in the already crowded midcentury Christian educational marketplace: a rigorous brand of Christian education built around biblical law.
     Before he could secure the funding necessary to buy the land and hire a staff for his proposed college, Rushdoony relied on his connections to a network of conservative organizations to insulate his activities from taxation. He was a crafty bootstrapper who combined revenue from a host of sources to finance his project. To pay for his move to Woodland Hills in August 1965, Rushdoony secured $3,600 in combined contributions from businessmen Phil Virtue and Walter Knott of Knott’s Berry Farm fame. As he waited for the IRS decision on tax exemption for Chalcedon, Rushdoony channeled contributions through his congregation at the Westminster Orthodox Pesbyterian Church and through Knott’s Americanism Educational League [sic] (AEL). Formed in 1927, the league was one of the oldest right-wing organizations in California. Knott invested heavily in the AEL in the mid-1960s and used it to fund all manner of organizations, book distribution efforts, and outreach to high school students, undergraduates, and community activists. Although only a tiny component of AEL’s much larger educational project, Chalcedon reflected Knott’s wider commitment to reforming education according to his probusiness, Christian commitments.

Tustin News, April 9, 1970

SEE ALSO

• Stoning gay people to death not immoral? The money man behind the "Protect Marriage Act"
• This crazy web of homophobic wackitude
• The dead and the pious
• The greatest bad for the greatest number

Nisei, (Japanese: “second-born”), second-generation Japanese
 in the United States. (From Encyclopedia Britannica)