Showing posts with label 1st Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1st Amendment. Show all posts

Monday, September 12, 2016

The problem at Saddleback College (throwing Margot under the bus)

     It’s been another banner day for the right-wing loutisphere—and, so, too, for the Neville Chamberlain Appreciation Society. (See Saturday's The YAF brouhaha: righties flip out, leaving slime and worse.) Clueless right wing louts have continued to post disturbing denunciations of Saddleback College administration, academia in general, and especially a certain history instructor who was recently videotaped taking down illegally posted 9-11 posters on campus.
     This has continued, not just in the predictable right-wing places—Breitbart.comThe Blaze—but on Saddleback College’s own Facebook page! Evidently, little if anything is done to curate remarks at the latter site, and so it was left to various faculty, at least here at IVC, to contact Jenny M of Public Info and complain.
     Understandably, they don’t like to delete comments (said Jenny) but they have been monitoring the Facebook remarks and deleting those judged problematic. OK?
     Huh? In fact, plenty of hateful and appalling remarks can be found on Saddleback’s page (see below) right now. Some of us have been monitoring the site for days, and there’s no indication of the alleged curation or culling. (Possibly, Jenny needs to upgrade her concept of hateful verbiage to include “bitch” and “cunt.”)

This comment can be found on Saddleback College's Facebook Page (as of 7:00 p.m. today (9/12/16))
     I called the Jennster myself, and she was quite friendly. I asked her about the hateful (and sometimes violent—see above) Facebook comments and the stunning decision, evidently made by college officials, to invite the leader of the student group (Young Americans for Freedom's Audra Leslie) to lead the pledge at today’s Saddleback College 9-11 event!
     How can this be, Neville? Nasty right wing louts working hard to generate fact-challenged blogospheric feeding frenzies and to terrorize policy-upholding faculty? That’s who gets invited to say the pledge at the big 9-11 event?
     It seemed to many of us that, with that, the college had officially thrown Margot under the bus.
     But here’s how Jenny explained the situation to me. "We need to change the subject now," she said. We need to take the focus away from Margot and return it to the 9-11 event. That's why they invited the YAF kid to lead the pledge.

Appearing on Saddleback's Facebook Page: "Audra Leslie of Young Americans for Freedom 
(YAF) lead the Pledge of Allegiance."
     That's nuts. Some of us at least at IVC were hopping mad, and we started strategizing. Among other things, we planned to attend this afternoon’s meeting of the Faculty Association (aka the union), at IVC, to make our displeasure known.
     In the meantime, as per the right wing loutisphere’s playbook, the instructor in question, now thoroughly demonized, has had her personal information promulgated, not just on Breitbart.com, but on the college Facebook page! And so the Big Ugly is on: she’s received the predictable threats and has had to take extreme steps to protect herself. Even her office mate doesn’t feel safe, and no wonder. (Have you read some of these comments? Some of 'em are bad, really bad.)
     Well, at 3:00 today, three of us from IVC’s School of Humanities (plus a Humanities Faculty Rep and Lewis Long) were present to make our case. Lewis successfully motioned to move up the “other items” portion of the agenda. Then, the union prez briefly explained the brouhaha for those still out of the loop. The instructor in question, he said, simply acted in accordance with the existing policy for postings and thus deserved none of the invective she received. Efforts to get the critics to recognize that Margot was simply acting in accordance with district policy (policy, by the way created by a restriction-happy conservative board that sought to muzzle student criticism) went nowhere. The feeding frenzy was on.
     The discussion that followed lasted at least a half hour. Here are my notes:
  • Many faculty in the room were unaware of the situation, but, upon hearing the facts, they seemed to share our concerns.
  • Lewis explained that, as a union, at the least we could and should press the safety issue raised by the situation.
  • Some faculty seemed moved by an impulse to ban and muzzle the YAF kids. I (among others) suggested that such a move is contrary to an embrace of free speech and, beyond that, it would give these louts precisely what they want: something to crow about.
  • I
    From Audra's Twitter page
    noted that lots of right-wing organizations have a curious but effective MO, which was illustrated by an incident occurring at IVC last Spring. A "preacher" and his crew came to campus and, quoting the Bible, proceeded to spew obnoxious remarks: women shouldn’t go to college, Mohammed was a pedophile, etc. Many students were offended and outraged that anyone would be allowed to say such things on the grounds of the college. Some of us—and, to his credit, the President of the college—came to the Bible-toters’ defense, explaining that, though we may hate what they have to say, they have a right to their opinion. (In fact, the “preacher” did receive abuse from some students.) It soon became clear that the preacher's organization tours college campuses, attempting to provoke intolerance of him: taunts, threats, spitting, banishment, etc. The trick is to video the intolerance, edit the footage for maximal cherry-pickular impact, and then release it to the hungry freaks of conservative social media. Boom!
  • Plainly, that’s what these YAF kids (or their flag-pledging leader) are about. They filmed the instructor who, quite correctly, as per the district’s AR8000 (a policy created by a right-wing board that sought to minimize speech that had been critical of them), took down “never forget” posters that had been illegally posted on campus buildings. Voila! The video went viral, “proving” once again that liberals are afoot in academia, oppressing the poor defenseless right-winger who wishes only to love her country.
  • Fear was expressed that, by appeasing this group, we were in fact setting a precedent and inviting these right-wing guerrillas to monitor instructors, taping or filming their remarks, editing them for maximum effect, and then promulgating them on the right-winged crazy-towns of the internet.
  • It was suggested that we call for the application of our free speech policies fairly and even-handedly, whatever a group’s politics.
  • Someone noted that a member of the SC faculty evidently joined the frey, condemning the instructor on their personal Facebook page.
  • Those who run the college Facebook page should be encouraged to do a much better job curating hateful comments.
  • The union Prez should meet with SC Prez Burnett, communicating our concerns.
  • And so on.
More later.
Audra with pal and felon Dinesh D'Souza

Saturday, September 10, 2016

The YAF brouhaha: righties flip out, leaving slime and worse

Lovett, addressing the board, 2008
     Perhaps you’ve already heard about the “story” concerning Saddleback College students who sought to start a “Young Americans for Freedom” club on campus and who further sought to arrange a 9-11 commemorative event on campus. Evidently, they never turned in the paperwork to become a club, and thus their event was cancelled. They had placed lurid "Never forget" posters all around campus, many of them not in the designated allowable places, and so, at one point, history professor Margo Lovett took some of the illegal posters down. These YAF kids filmed that, and the footage ended up on various right wing websites—and even on Fox News (See History professor rips down campus 9/11 ‘Never Forget’ posters (VIDEO) and College campus craziness with Hume and O'Reilly (FOX News)).
YAF poster
     I do hope you all remember that the district’s rules concerning free speech zones and postings are a product of successful litigation brought by students in the late 90s and early 2000s in response to SOCCCD’s unlawful and otherwise questionable restrictions of their 1st Amendment rights. (See Student sue district over 1st Amendment.) Attorney Carol Sobel (for the ACLU), Wendy Gabriella, and the students achieved the degree of freedom that students now enjoy—in terms of these rules.
     Saddleback College has issued a statement, shedding needed light on the case (see Saddleback College statement below).
     Predictably, we’ve already heard about ugly and disturbing comments about Margot on the Saddleback College Facebook page and in the right-wing blogosphere. (Sample: "That woman needs to be beaten"; "Kick her face off"; "Shoot that pig in the head.") Bill O’Reilly has already compared the action at Saddleback to actions by the Nazis and the Soviet Union in the 30s.
     He also threw the YAFer kids under the bus: this story is about "stupid college kids," he smirked along with pal Brit Hume. But, he added, college administrators are "even dumber," what with their freedom-hating, PC-enforcing ways, I guess.
     Good grief.
     We’ll keep you posted.



     Saddleback College officials have issued the following statement:
   Saddleback College supports student clubs and their right to organize and exercise their freedom of speech.  At the beginning of each academic year, in order to organize meetings and hold events, student clubs must go through an activation process that includes an orientation, the establishment of a club constitution and by-laws, and the appointment of a faculty adviser.
     Young Americans for Freedom contacted the college’s student development office before fall semester classes began to state their intention to plan an event commemorating 9/11.  The director made clear that the students would have to complete the club activation process before the event could be approved. As of today the students have not completed the requirements to form a club.
     On September 8th, the students posted stickers and flyers on several campus buildings, which is a violation of South Orange County Community College District policy. The students also did this without first seeking approval from college administration. However, flyers that were posted by the students in the designated free speech areas on campus have not been removed by college personnel.
     The director of student life has reached out to the students and invited them to meet and discuss the steps that can be taken to work collaboratively with the college in the future and in accordance with college and district policies and procedures.
     Saddleback College supports and understands the students' desire to commemorate the events of September 11, 2001, but needs to ensure that the college and district policies and procedures are followed. 
SEE ALSO:

THE NATION, October 5, 1998 -  “What do students want?”
     Now the students [students Delilah Snell and Diep Burbridge], represented by the ACLU, are suing [IVC President Raghu] Mathur and the [SOCCCD] board for violating their First Amendment rights. According to the lawsuit, filed this past summer, the demonstrations were relocated from the center of campus to an isolated area where students were told to keep their noise level down. When the limits were questioned, students were told it was not in the “best interest of the college” to hold a longer protest in a more visible part of campus, given the “political climate.” (Author: IVC graduate and Nation intern Sanaz Mozafarian.)
IVC student protests: Delilah Snell at center; Deb Burbridge at right; circa 1998
From the district's Administrative Reg 8000, section V, "posting of material"

Friday, April 29, 2011

Inside "Westphal v. Wagner," Part 1: Judge Gandhi glowers at Nancy Padberg and crew!

Feb. 17: scene of settlement conference
     NOW that “Westphal v. Wagner” is history, I can report the interesting—and sometimes amazing—events that occurred in the course of this case.
     The lawsuit was filed way back in November of 2009. It was settled 17 months later, at the end of March, 2011. For today, I’ll describe a relatively recent episode—starting this January.

THE JANUARY RULING

     Late in January, 2011, we received a mixed ruling from Superior Court Judge Gary Klausner, a conservative, seventy-year-old Bush appointee and ex-Marine. (Back in the 90s, he drew attention when he set S&L kingpin John Keating's bail at $5 million. More recently, he has played the heavy in some high profile cases.)
Judge Klausner
     With such a judge, we expected to have trouble, and we were not disappointed.
     On the one hand, Klausner held that Chancellor Raghu Mathur’s notorious “Jesus” slideshow (in 2009) and Don Wagner’s obnoxious scholarship awards ceremony rant (in 2008) were indeed unconstitutional. Heck, the judge even issued an injunction against the district that required that it comply with its policy according to which prayers can’t be hostile and sectarian!
     Team Westphal viewed the latter as quite a bonus.
     On the other hand, Klausner held that the board’s non-sectarian invocations are not offered with a Constitutionally impermissible purpose, effect, or entanglement. —That is, the board's generic prayers are kosher, as it were.
     We didn’t think much of his reasoning to that conclusion.
     Naturally, we could appeal the latter decision. And we knew we had a good chance of prevailing in the 9th Circuit.
Judge Jay Gandhi
     But, in the meantime, the district indicated a willingness to pursue a settlement of the case (a settlement conference had already been in the works), and that process would be handled by Magistrate Judge Jay Gandhi (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California), formerly of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker in Orange County. (The thirty-nine-year-old Gandhi is somewhat special; he's quite young and he’s only the second Indian-American federal judge in the country’s history.)
     And so we prepared for the settlement conference, to occur at Judge Gandhi’s digs, way up in the U.S. District Court Building in downtown LA, right next to the famous LA Courthouse.
     Judge Gandhi chose the date of February 17th at 10:00 a.m., a Thursday. That was pretty inconvenient for most of us. Nevertheless, he made clear that all plaintiffs and defendants would be required to attend, and anyone who failed to attend would be sanctioned by the court!

THE FEB 17 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

John Vogt
     Our attorneys made every effort to get all of us to the session, but one among us, a former Saddleback student, now lived in the Bay Area, and she couldn’t afford the trip. So, on the 17th, six of us—all but one of our number—attended the conference, held in Judge Gandhi’s courtroom. We were accompanied by AUSCS legal director, Ayesha Kahn, and local attorney, Chris Murphy (of Mayer Brown).
     And the defendants? Well, defendants were represented by two attorneys (John Vogt and his partner) with the famously pricey firm Jones Day, which had defended former Sheriff Mike Carona at his corruption trial. (Carona's now in federal prison, natch.)
     But, in Judge Gandhi’s courtroom on the 17th, only ONE of the defendants was present: trustee Nancy Padberg.
     Uh-oh.
     When the judge entered, he saw what there was to see. He looked at Nancy's tiny crew. He glowered. He sat down. He said, “What is it about ‘you are required to attend the hearing’ that is unclear?" (Something like that.)
     He stared silently at Padberg and her two shiny attorneys. He was pissed. Seriously pissed.
     He lectured at us (well, mostly at Padberg and Co.). He threatened sanctions.
     This went on for a while.
Chris Murphy
     In the end, Gandhi decided to go ahead with the “conference,” though it would not include the usual initial session with everyone in the room. Nope. He separated the two sides. He left us—the plaintiffs—in his courtroom. He sent Padberg and Co. to another courtroom down the hall. For the rest of the day—this went on until maybe 7:00 or 8:00 p.m.—Judge Gandhi would spend two hours or so haranguing one side, and then he’d walk down the hall to the other courtroom and harangue the other side. It was a kind of shuttle diplomacy—er, shuttle hectory.
     “Be realistic!” “You must be kidding!” “You’re dreaming!” –Such were the remarks (more or less) that punctuated our time—and no doubt the other side’s time—with Judge Jay Gandhi.
     Gandhi was smart and extremely focused. And he was ruthless. He’d browbeat us. Sometimes, when one among us wouldn’t bend sufficiently to his urgings, he’d seem to be disgusted; he'd head for the door, declaring that his time was being wasted. “I’m calling this whole thing off,” he’d roar.
     That always worked. Somebody would cave, or somebody would promise to make the person who needed to cave cave. And then they’d cave.
     It was amazing.
     At the end of the day, we had a tentative settlement. I was pretty pleased with it, but some of us were not. Their grimness prevailed, at least in my Chrysler as we rolled home for Orange County on that long freeway ride. I don’t think anybody said a single word.

Ayesha Kahn
TROUBLE HERDING CATS

     But "Westphal v. Wagner" wasn’t over yet. Far from it! After all the Sturm und Drang we—i.e., those of us who bothered to show up—endured on the 17th, when the board met eleven days later—at its scheduled February 28 board meeting—guess what happened!
     They failed to ratify the agreement!
     D’oh!
     We were pissed. Judge Gandhi, too. This wouldn't have happened had defendants showed up for the settlement conference like they were supposed to.
     It was back to the drawing board.
     The next month would be yet another wild ride.
     (To be continued….)

Don Wagner's obnoxious Scholarship Award Ceremony comments

Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"

  This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...