Plagiarist Reeve loses City Council "invocation" debate: "we're not a church"

Reeve first attracted attention last summer when he urged the
City Council to allow citizens to carry guns at city parks

     Plagiarist, Islamophobe, and wild-eyed right-winger Derek Reeve is in the news again:

Council: Don't Invoke Deity Names (San Juan Capistrano Patch)
     From now on, the prayers that kick off San Juan Capistrano City Council meetings will come from council members only and be nonsectarian.

     Prayers said before City Council meetings will now be rotated just among council members and must remain nonsectarian, the council decided Tuesday in a 4-1 vote, with Councilman Derek Reeve opposed..
     “I’m a Christian. I believe in Jesus Christ,” said Councilman John Taylor. “I don’t have a problem with someone saying his name. But other people might.”
     Reeve raised the issue on what should and shouldn't be said during an invocation after a guest he brought in to pray at the December meeting was criticized by other council members for mentioning the “Son.”
     Typically, council members take turns giving the invocation. But Reeve said he wanted to give his turn to various members of the community of differing faiths, as a way to reach out after the council found itself caught up in recent controversies involving religion.

     Mr. Reeve, who, despite his rich history as a plagiarist, is also an adjunct instructor at Saddleback College, caused the larger of these controversies when he joked, during a City Council meeting, that he had named one of his dogs “Muhammad.”

Kramer: "We're not a church...."

     Reeve said he instructed resident Gary Stache, a leader in the Vineyard Community Church in Laguna Niguel, not to say the name Jesus or proselytize. But when Stache ended the prayer in the “name of the Son,” Councilman Sam Allevato became upset, leading to this week’s discussion.
     Reeve prefers the idea of rotating people of different faiths to do the invocations, he said.
     “All religions should be encouraged. They all have one thing in common, and that is faith, the faith that tomorrow will be a better day,” he said.

     Reeve is, of course, ignoring atheists and agnostics, of which there are many in SJC.

     “I’ve been on a lot of boards. I go to a lot of meetings,” said Allevato. “It’s always kept nondenominational, and that’s what I’m comfortable with.”
     He added that mentioning a deity could make some feel “disenfranchised.”
     Resident Steve Behmerwohld urged the council to do away with invocation altogether.
     “I think you do a good job. I don’t think you need divine intervention,” he said.
     The council did vote to keep the prayers, but they must not call upon the name of any specific deity.
     “We’re not a church here,” [Mayor Larry] Kramer said. “We’re a public institution. We should act like one.”

See also New gun law shoots down San Juan tradition (OC Reg)

"Conservative" City Councilman Reeve's latest sideshow (including new specious carnival barkery)

     A friend sent me the agenda for the January 3 San Juan Capistrano City Council meeting. They drew my attention to item I.5:

     This, of course, is Councilman Derek Reeve’s item. (Reeve is also an adjunct Poli Sci professor at Saddleback College, despite its recently having been established that he is a bold and busy plagiarist. Overwhelming evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, Reeve denies that he plagiarized. The episode seems to have led to his sudden mid-semester exit from Concordia University, where he had taught courses for several semesters.)
     As has been reported here and elsewhere, Reeve recently announced his intention to initiate a City Council practice: having guests of various faiths (instead of Councilmembers) perform the invocation at the start of Council meetings.
     Here’s how Reeve explains the “situation” regarding this new practice:

     Note that Reeve's citing of Rubin v. City of Lancaster fails to respond to his colleague's objection (as Reeve reports it): that the "son of our Lord" invocation was "inappropriate." (His point, I assume, was not that the invocation was illegal or unconstitutional, but that it was inappropriate, given the presence of non-Christians and non-theists among the SJC citizenry.)
     Note also that Reeve likely mischaracterizes his colleague's objection when he implies that the issue is the appropriateness "of merely mentioning a deity (Jesus, Allah, etc. [sic]*) during an invocation...." Presumably, his colleague questions the appropriateness of invoking, not merely mentioning, a specific deity, namely, the Christian deity.
     Finally (and I offer this with more tentativeness), in his second paragraph, Reeve assumes that it is possible to invoke "the son of our Lord" (i.e., the Christian God) without "proselytizing." That this is a safe assumption is not clear to me. (Is the guest speaker's invocation, under these circumstances, of specifically the Christian God ipso facto an attempt to convert the non-Christian members of the community to Christianity?)
     Below is the central section of the Laguna Niguel document:

     Naturally, that the Laguna Niguel City Council acted recently to modify their invocation guidelines as they (evidently) did is not an argument for the SJC City Council to do likewise. 

     The question remains: is it appropriate to permit invocations at SJC City Council meetings that invoke the "Son of our Lord"—i.e., that assume narrowly Christian religiousness? 

     Presumably, Reeve will respond by directing us to his intention of inviting non-Christian theists also to perform the (an) invocation.

     I'm guessing that Reeve's colleague supposes that it would be more appropriate to have each of these guest speakers refer generally to "god"—i.e., to have them avoid invocation to their specific deities. That practice is very common, reflecting, I suppose the judgment (right or wrong) that it is possible to join with those of other faiths in an invocation to "god."

     What Reeve seems to have in mind does seem to be a series of non-communal (i.e., sectarian) "community" invocations. It is not clear to me what such a practice could mean to a community.

     Perhaps Reeve wishes to celebrate "difference" in the SJC community.

*Surely this crew deserves "et alii," not "et cetera."

Gauchos, ¿Qué tal?

• Derek Reeve, SJC Councilman in News All Year for Knuckleheadedness and Plagiarism, Scoffs at Integrity of His Middle Eastern Students (OC Weekly; Navel Gazing)

"Amazingly, he remains on the faculty at Saddleback College in Mission Viejo…."

• SJC’s Reeve Displays More Bad Judgment (The Liberal OC)

"Reeve is a lawyer by profession and is a part-time instructor at Saddleback Community College in Mission Viejo, which kept him on after Concordia let him go. So if you are a student in one of “Professor” Reeve’s classes at Saddleback, and you are of Middle Eastern ethnicity, please print this blog post out and bring it to the attention of college administrators; especially if you get a lousy grade."

• Capistrano Councilman Reeve at it Again: Questions Integrity of 'Middle Eastern' Students (Capistrano Insider/Dispatch)

"An attorney and college teacher, Reeve, who portrays himself as an arch-conservative, lost his job teaching political science at Concordia University after those revelations. Saddleback College kept him on board, however...."

Derek Reeve's take on "middle eastern students"

     As you know, we've been keeping track of plagiarist, Islamophobe—and Saddleback College Poli Sci instructor—Derek Reeve. Reeve is a noisy right-wing member of the San Juan Capistrano City Council (and a doctoral student at Claremont Grad School). We first noticed the fellow when, as a City Councilman, he proposed changing a city ordinance to allow residents to carry guns in city parks.
     That seemed loony. Irresponsible.
     A few months later, he drew more attention when he boasted, during a City Council meeting, that he had named one of his dogs "Muhammad" (Muslims often regard dogs as "unclean").
     He's a lout. He refused to apologize, insisting that the naming was some sort of teaching opportunity with his children (and, I suppose, his dogs) and not an attempt to ridicule Muslims. That sounded mighty implausible.

This image appears on Reeve's
"Patriots of Troy" Facebook page
& blog

     The next chapter was a real stunner. Soon, it came to light that he had plagiarized much of the content of several political posts for the San Juan Capistrano Patch. In response to the predictable outrage—some of it coming from us—he noisily protested that, though he did publish others' works as his own, it did not count as plagiarism, since it occurred on a blog (the SJC Patch is a kind of city/neighborhood news blog). Yeah, sure.
     Clearly, Reeve is the kind of politician who doesn't mind offering explanations that no intelligent person would accept. Such politicians are called "liars." Reeve's kind of liar is shameless, it seems.
     Because we are academics, we jumped all over the distressing circumstance that Reeve, a college instructor—both at Saddleback and at Concordia University in Irvine—repeatedly plagiarized and then defended his actions as appropriate. How could such a person instill intellectual honesty in his students? How could he enforce the prohibition against plagiarism? Unsurprisingly, Concordia U seemed to let Reeve go over the plagiarism incident. Scandalously, Saddleback College seems happy to continue to employ Reeve as a Poli Sci instructor. (See Spring schedule of classes. I see that he's scheduled to teach two courses, starting January)
     Maybe that will change. Here's something Reeve recently posted on one of his Facebook pages:

I've blackened out the names and blurred out the faces

     Gosh, I wonder if he has an explanation for this latest outrage? If so, I'll bet it'll be a doozy.

UPDATE: The Capistrano Insider (Capistrano Dispatch) has the story: Capistrano Councilman Reeve at it Again: Questions Integrity of 'Middle Eastern' Students

Councilman Reeve wants to repair the city's reputation!

     According to yesterday’s OC Register, the odious Derek Reeve has at long last poked his head above the horizon: Councilman with dog Muhammad urges religious inclusion (OC Register).
     According to the Reg,

...[Reeve,] who was scolded by some of his colleagues after making remarks … about naming his dog Muhammad ... is trying to repair the city's image with a new tradition in which he plans to select different members of the community to periodically lead invocations at council meetings.

     Repair the city’s image? Way to take responsibility, Derek. It's not you; it's the city!
     What an a**hole.

In a statement, Councilman Derek Reeve said, "San Juan received an unfortunate reputation the last few months as being unfriendly to religion. This, of course, is a false reputation…."

     Right, now he’s decided to alienate SJC atheists and agnostics. Evidently, to Reeve, they’re not even worth mentioning.
     What an a**hole.
     It appears that Reeve plans to do this “selecting” of invokers by himself:

…Reeve plans to select a different local resident to lead an invocation before every fifth council meeting. He says it will promote public participation in "all segments of our community, including religions."

     The Reg notes that it wasn’t just Reeve’s “dog Muhammad” remark that ruffled feathers re religion in recent months: “the city was involved in a controversy over a San Juan Capistrano couple who were fined by the city for hosting large Bible studies in their home.”
     That latter controversy is now resolved.
     Reeve's gambit is transparent: he is bundling these two unrelated controversies—one in which he ridiculed Muslims, another in which the city clumsily fined people for hosting large neighborhood meetings (that the meetings were religious was not the issue)—in order to obscure the obnoxiousness of his action.

This accompanied the Register article. Did I mention that Reeve is an a**hole?

     What an a**hole.
     So, has Reeve run this rotating invocation idea past other Council members?
     Apparently not:

"There is no rule prohibiting this, and I hope the others will follow my lead," Reeve said when asked whether he had discussed his idea with the other council members.

     One more time: WAA.
     Meanwhile, as far as I know, Reeve, who was let go a month or two ago by Concordia University—evidently owing to his serial plagiarism (or his refusal to acknowledge the impropriety of his plagiarism)—still teaches for Saddleback College and is scheduled to teach there again in the spring.

P.S.: before I hear from the Incorrigible One, I want to briefly explain my use of the term “asshole.” According to the OED, an “asshole” is “someone or something foolish or contemptible.” Quite so. Do I believe that DR is foolish or contemptible? I do. (He's both.) Is it necessarily unfair or illogical to take such a view of a person? Obviously not, for some people, obviously, are foolish or contemptible or both.
     I do believe that it is important that one have (and give) reasons for taking such a view of a person. That’s what I do in this post. I note that DR lumps together his own recent action (of ridiculing Muslims) with the city’s clumsy (and far less disturbing) act of fining neighborhood religious meetings—something, I suggest, he does plainly in order to obscure the contemptible nature of his own action. That DR engages in such cowardly and self-serving sophistry (I suggest) entitles one to conclude that he is contemptible, i.e., an “asshole.” Thus, in this instance, though I apply a "name" to DR, I nevertheless rise above “mere” name-calling. (See also In defense of name-calling.)

Derek Reeve qua Saddleback College instructor

     Earlier today, a DtB reader suggested that I consider Saddleback College Poli Sci instructor Derek Reeve’s conduct—namely, his plagiarism—in relation to the Saddleback College Student Handbook.
     OK. The relevant section of the college student handbook states that

Students may be disciplined for one or more of the following causes related to college activity or attendance: [A through R. Item P is] …Academic dishonesty....

     This is followed by points a, b, and c, which explain "academic dishonesty." Point b defines the form of academic dishonesty known as “plagiarism”:

     Obviously, based on the evidence—including admissions by Reeve—that has appeared in the press in recent months, Reeve plagiarized: on a community newsletter/blog, he engaged in political discourse or argument, repeatedly wielding ideas (or formulations of ideas) not his own but as though they were his own.
     But Reeve is not a student at Saddleback College and the Student Handbook is a handbook for Saddleback students. Of course, I do not deny that the Handbook's code for students implies a standard regarding honesty that applies to others beyond students, including instructors. Perhaps this is what the reader had in mind. But, as we'll see, we need not rely on "implied" standards to see the problem with Reeve's conduct.
     Further, even if Reeve were a Saddleback College student, his plagiarism would not have been a disciplinable offense, since the Handbook's code refers only to student behavior "related to college activity or attendance." The college is unwilling to enforce its honesty code upon students in their lives beyond the college. This raises an interesting question: is there a reason that a college would be so willing in the case of other persons—e.g., professors?
     Reeve is, of course, a student at Claremont Graduate School, or so says his Saddleback profile. Previously (see On Derek Reeve's failure to be honest, Sept. 27), I unearthed the honesty code for CGS, and I suggested that he violated the spirit, if not the letter, of that standard.

* * *

     There is a code explicitly relevant to Reeve’s conduct re honesty/dishonesty insofar as he is a Saddleback College instructor; it is the college's Faculty Code of Ethics and Professionalism. In the aforementioned post, I wrote the following:

     ...As it turns out, a dozen years ago, Saddleback College faculty adopted a “Faculty Code of Ethics and Professional Standards.” It quotes a familiar American Association of University Professors statement:

"Professors, guided by a deep conviction of the worth and dignity of the advancement of knowledge, recognize the special responsibilities placed upon them. Their primary responsibility to their subject is to seek and to state the truth as they see it. To this end professors devote their energies to developing and improving their scholarly competence. They accept the obligation to exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending, and transmitting knowledge. They practice intellectual honesty…." (AAUP Statement, 1990) [My emphasis.]

The Saddleback “code” goes on to require that

Faculty exhibit intellectual honesty and integrity in all scholarly endeavors.

     …Qua scholar and qua college faculty, Reeve is expected to be honest, and, obviously, one aspect of honesty is not passing off other’s writings and ideas as one’s own—even in less-than-scholarly settings. Jenna Chandler’s recent piece in the SJC Patch makes very clear that Mr. Reeve does exactly that—he passed off others’ ideas and writings as his own—and he has done so repeatedly. [End of quotation.]

     Observe that the prohibition against plagiarism, understood as a professional standard, does not restrict its scope to what one writes or says at one's college or even in academic settings. College professors are supposed to approach authorship honestly period, for they are to seek "the truth," employing competent methods. One who offers others' ideas as his own, even on a blog, is no seeker of truth. He is an enemy of that fine endeavor. 
     Further, academia is all about communities—such as communities of experts/scholars. The effort of some community of experts/scholars (re subject X) to arrive at understanding (re X) and to effectively communicate that understanding to the public is damaged when one of its members engages in discourse about X dishonestly, even in somewhat non-academic settings. That Mr. Reeve publicly argued his political theses fraudulently—i.e., with plagiarized elements—undermined the larger enterprise of the community of political scientists and of scholars. Thus, a college, among other entities, has a good reason to concern itself with the honesty/dishonesty of its "experts," even when the dishonesty occurs outside the strict bounds of the Academy. 
     Especially given Reeve's unambiguous denial that he plagiarized—despite his plainly having done so—I concluded (in Sept.) that he "cannot be trusted to argue honestly; he certainly cannot be trusted to instill academic honesty in his students."

     In any case, it seems clear that Reeve violated the above code—Saddleback College's faculty code of professional ethics.

* * *

     So what is the college doing about that? What is the Academic Senate doing?

     Nothing, it appears.
     Sometimes, one's doing nothing amounts to one's plainly doing something—such as exhibiting one's actual values, despite official verbiage implying very different values.

     Again, SC's inaction contrasts with the action of Concordia U to (evidently) fire Reeve based on his failures of honesty. (See More clarity on Reeve and Concordia.)

The pious and the poetic

     DEREK REEVE. The recent Derek Reeve controversies (alienating Muslims, plagiarizing) have faded away. But I for one have not forgotten his promises to provide further, presumably vindicating, info regarding his “Patch” plagiarism (absurdly, he denies that it was plagiarism) and his sudden, mid-semester departure from Concordia U in Irvine. (See here and here.)
     Reeve has, I suppose, decided to cut his losses and to let the controversy quietly fade away, promises be damned.
     But how come he’s still teaching at Saddleback College? What’s he going to do if he catches a kid plagiarizing? Send the kid's stuff to the Patch for publication?
     Will he even be able to recognize plagiarism? Apparently not.
     Saddleback College is sending a message: that Concordia U has the expected academic values about honesty—but that Saddleback does not. Wanna take a course from a guy who plagiarizes and then refuses to acknowledge that his theft is improper? Become a Gaucho!
     For what it’s worth, today, Mark Nielsen of the Capistrano Dispatch accused Reeve and/or his Reevettes of demagoguery. More specifically, Nielsen carps (plausibly) about some seriously misleading “election rhetoric intended to pave the way for cohorts of Councilman Derek Reeve to replace incumbents up for re-election next November.”
     What is it with the Pious, anyway? I’ve got a neighbor like Reeve. She’s always got her “Saddleback Church” sign posted on the lawn, and she is pretty flashy about her alleged connections with the Lord.
     Yeah, but recently she and her husband decided to build a house under the oak canopy on their property, near their existing home. (They’re claiming it’s for one of their kids, but it's obviously a spec build.) They tried to get the thing approved without telling the neighbors, contrary to Hoyle. When the requisite meeting with the County finally occurred, the neighbors showed up, hopping mad. County officials then communicated the obvious: that the project didn’t have a prayer in overcoming various serious problems, including threats to the oak canopy and a nearby creek. (These problems predated their purchase of the property.)
     So what did the Pious Ones do? They put the property up for sale. The telephone sales pitch states that the property is ready for construction—a big, fat lie.
     Pious liars.

     DON WAGNER. Speaking of the pious and the deceptive, Assemblyman (70th AD) Don Wagner is back in the “news.” According to the Newport Beach Independent,

     The Newport Harbor High School culinary and management teams were officially honored by the state Assembly on Thursday for winning the nationwide culinary competition in April. ¶ Assemblyman Don Wagner presented the school with an official resolution Thursday morning during a special assembly honoring the NHHS California ProStart student teams. ¶ “It’s really a privilege and a pleasure to be here with you folks today,” Wagner said, “to recognize this superior accomplishment.”
. . .
     The Newport Harbor teams are coached by the Culinary Arts teacher, Janet Dukes, and two local chefs. ¶ Dukes traveled up to Sacramento and went on the floor before the state assembly for the resolution. ¶ “Which, I will tell you frankly… That does not happen often,” the assemblyman said. “It was a real thrill to welcome her to the floor of the assembly and say thank you publicly in that venue.”

     Now, in truth, Don is among those odd Republicans who refuse to regard any tax as anything but an evil. Public education in this state is seriously under threat, and people like Don seem to like it that way.

     Don’s strategy is to sprinkle these goofy resolutions around in a splashy, noisy way—at schools and colleges and whatnot.
     The idea? Maybe the rubes won’t notice what he’s really doing to education.
     Don relies on misdirection. He’s a magician.

     POETRY & MUSIC à la IVC. Today, denizens of Irvine Valley College were alerted to a special event tonight:

Colleagues and Friends,

You are invited to attend the premiere of

The Naked Turtle Dances

Poem by David Bugay

Music by Daniel Luzko

Choreography by Marie de la Palme

     Luzko teaches piano at the college; De La Palme teaches dance. But the poet, Bugay, isn’t among faculty. He’s the district’s Vice Chancellor of Human Resources.
     Bugay’s a nice guy, but, I gather, his poetry just doesn’t fly among faculty who actually teach poetry. (I've heard from some of them.) Their harsh reaction reflects, I think, not so much the quality of Bugay's poem as the circumstance that scholars among us who make it their business to study and understand poetry—or writing, or history, etc.—are once again bypassed, as though they do not exist or do not matter.
     Our community's authorities on poetry—including some damned good poets—would not offer this poem to represent that art. But that’s not a consideration among the benighted “leadership” of Irvine Valley College.*

*I have rewritten these last two paragraphs to clarify my point.

Don Wagner and Derek Reeve: scary especially to students

     For Halloween, The Liberal OC Blog has posted about OC’s Scariest Politicians.
     You will be utterly unsurprised to learn that former SOCCCD trustee Don Wagner and current Saddleback College Poli Sci instructor Derek Reeve made their top ten:

10. Don Wagner — Mr. Wagner, the state assemblyman from AD-70 often goes to a number of functions at Irvine schools which we find hysterical because he does so little to help OC schools in his district get enough money just to make state average. Despite a career in education. Mr. Wagner has fallen into his party’s platform of never ever raising taxes and gripes about teacher’s unions. We didn’t think it was possible for anyone to top Chuck DeVore in a lack of action to help schools, but Wagner has. Just ask IUSD to call on Wagner for help and listen to the screams.

5. Derek Reeve — This conservative council member is all about guns and offending Muslims. But for students at Concordia University, the plagiarism scandal over writing Reeve submitted to Patch.com that was lifted from other authors without attribution means you won’t have to worry about getting a bad grade in poli-sci if you are a moderate or a — gasp — liberal. In fact, if you are one of those and got a bad grade in a Reeve taught class, you have grounds to appeal.

More clarity on Reeve and Concordia

     This morning, I came across an article in the Concordia University (of Irvine) school newspaper, the Courier, regarding controversial San Juan Capistrano City Councilman and Saddleback College Political Science instructor Derek Reeve's departure from CU. (See Adjunct prof. no longer employed at Concordia; Concordia Courier, Oct. 11; by Stephen Puls, editor-in-chief.)
     As you know, Reeve has been accused of serial plagiarism but has denied the charge, despite overwhelming evidence that he did in fact present work that was written by others as if it were his own.
     Though it is nearly two weeks old, the article provides clarifying details concerning Reeve’s departure from Concordia that have not been reported in the (non-Concordia) press.
     (Note: the subsequent edition [Oct. 25] of the Courier makes no mention of the Reeve affair.)
     The article explains that “Reeve was serving as the instructor for both American Government and Comparative Political Systems [at Concordia] this fall. Doctors Adam Francisco and Daniel van Voorhis, Professors of History, will assume leadership of these classes for the remainder of the semester.”
     It reports (or opines) that “Concordia holds strong to its policy of academic honesty as a means to push students towards independent thinking and resourcefulness. It specifically states that students, as well as faculty, are expected to maintain the highest standards of academic integrity, holding true to commands regarding honesty in Scripture.”
     Further, it quotes a statement released by Dr. Mary Scott, Provost: “The university expects all members of the campus community to follow accepted, legal policies in matters of academic honesty.” The Courier implies that Scott's statement was released re Reeve's departure in particular.
     Assuming the Concordia Courier is reporting accurately, it seems clear that Mr. Reeve’s adventures in plagiarism (or perhaps his refusal to acknowledge that his posting of others' writings as his own [on Patch] constituted plagiarism) are indeed the cause of his departure from Concordia.
     Reporter Stephen Puls also reports that “University policy regarding academic integrity is placed at the beginning of the syllabus for every course.”
     MEANWHILE, the evidence suggests that Saddleback College has taken no action with regard to Reeve's plagiarism, despite Reeve's apparent failure to understand the concept of plagiarism combined with his obligation, as an instructor at Saddleback, to uphold the college's prohibition against student plagiarism in his classes.
     His name continues to appear on the Schedule of Classes for the Spring semester. As far as I know, he continues to teach at Saddleback this (fall) semester.
     As far as I know, there is no truth whatsoever to the rumor that Saddleback College has issued a press release regarding the Reeve affair, declaring that “Saddleback College doesn’t really care if all members of the campus community follow accepted, legal policies in matters of academic honesty.”

It's puzzling

     Two weeks after Concordia U ended its employment of long-time Poli Sci instructor—and (surprise!) serial plagiarist—Derek Reeve, the fellow’s name is still listed as the instructor for two courses in Saddleback College’s Spring 2012 Schedule of Classes (See).
     As far as I know, at Saddleback College, Reeve (who is also a noisy San Juan Capistrano City Councilman and demagogue) has suffered no adverse consequences at all for publishing essays, under his own name, and without proper attribution, that were cut and pasted from other publications (see)—and for publicly defending that practice! (As others have asked, how can an instructor enforce the prohibition against plagiarism in the classroom, if he does not recognize his own plagiarism or regard it as inappropriate?)
     Meanwhile, despite the fact that troubled Saddleback College English Comp instructor, Amy Ahearn, is officially missing and did not show up to teach her Fall 2011 Saddleback College courses (see), she, too, is scheduled to teach in the Spring (see), according to the college's schedule of classes.
     Do they expect her to just show up in January, as though everything were hunky-dory?
     I don't get it. Do you get it?
     No doubt, with regard to these situations, some of you are thinking, "they're taking care of it. They're doing what's appropriate."
     Really? If "they" are doing things, why are those things not reported or announced? What's with the secrecy?
     And if they're doing nothing, just why is that? Shouldn't the college deal with these things?
     Either way, it makes little sense to me.
     —No doubt you'll correct me if I'm mistaken. There's always that option, you know.

* * *

     In Frank Mickadeit’s recent column re the Ahearn case, one reader, evidently employed by a local community college, wrote this:

     If the college knew there was something wrong in 2007, why didn't they step in? Why was she still teaching? If I had been a family member, I would have done my best to have her committed for her own safety.
     …With someone like that, you don't just encourage them to get help...you TAKE them to the help. Words will not do her any good, you have to intervene.

     Well, yeah! Did officials at Saddleback College intervene on Ahearn’s behalf? Did they try hard enough to get help for her? Did they contact her family? Were they unaware of the bizarre and worrisome elements in her teaching, going back years? Are they doing anything right now to find her?
     Hello? Anyone out there?
     Yes, civility is good. But how 'bout some old fashioned humanity?

Plagiarism is just all right with Saddleback? (We illustrate some of Reeve's handiwork.)

Apparently, Saddleback is OK
with Reeve's plagiarism

     The OC Reg catches up with the Reeve story: Councilman with dog Muhammad out as Concordia instructor.
     Nothing new here, except:

Reeve also is a part-time instructor at Saddleback College in Mission Viejo. A representative there said Monday that Reeve is still employed at Saddleback.

     Meanwhile, again, Reeve says he can’t comment about his Concordia departure:

     Reeve said he is unable to discuss whether his departure had anything to do with his recent controversies.
     "Unfortunately, at this time I am not at liberty to comment," he said. "Hopefully that will change in the coming weeks."

Illustrating some of Mr. Reeve's curious handiwork:

I wanted to see for myself what all the fuss is about. I went to one of Reeve's July 2011 postings on the SJC Patch (at left above) and then I Googled some of "his" verbiage there. Right away, I got hits, including the NRA's "Institute for Legislative Action" website. Chunks of Reeve's "writing" (at left) are the same, word for word, as chunks of the "right-to-carry" verbiage on the NRA website (at right). The latter is dated April, 2010.
Click on graphic to enlarge it.

     A week ago, Reeve explained that he “carelessly submitted previously published material.”
     —That doesn't quite capture it, does it? Here, he evidently cut apart and then reassembled others' writings, submitting the product under his own name. The SJC Patch, of course, has presented other examples.

    See also:

• Derek Reeve, SJC Councilman, Loses Teaching Gig as Newspaper and Website Scrum Over Plagiarism (Matt Coker; Navel Gazing)
• O.C. councilman who named his dog Muhammad loses teaching job (LA Times)
• Jesus is just alright (Doobies)

More sophistry from Derek Reeve

     Today, the Capistrano Insider’s Jonathan Volzke (SJC Councilman Reeve's Response to Plagiarism Allegations....) explains that CI received a “column” by SJC City Councilman and Saddleback College adjunct Derek Reeve. Reeve asked CI to publish it, which they did. (See.)
     The column includes yet another defense against the charge that Reeve repeatedly plagiarized others' writings:

...On balance, I may be partly responsible—along with most of the human race that uses the Internet. In the atmosphere of today’s massive electronic echo chamber, in which we are assaulted with dozens of concepts and ideas each minute, I doubt if any of us have had a totally original idea in the past 50 years. Certainly that is the way it is in the legal profession in which I work. Yes, in formal documentation, one is more precise in adding footnotes to identify the origin of our ideas, which makes it extremely complicated when wading through such writing. However, in normal everyday communication, not to mention blogging, it is impossible for us to precisely identify each antecedent and besides, the atmosphere is much more relaxed and informal (or so I thought). [My emphasis.]

     Just to be clear: based on information presented by the SJC Patch (see), Reeve repeatedly submitted the works of other writers, under his own name, modifying wording slightly. These instances are classic plagiarism. (For a concrete instance, see this.)
     Reeve's guff about "precisely" identifying antecedents is a red herring (or utter nonsense). One is not obliged to identify the "precise" antecedents of one's ideas, whatever that is supposed to mean. One is, however, obliged to identify the sources of writings by others that one quotes or repeats. Reeve repeatedly failed to do so, posing as the actual author. That's dishonest.
     Obviously, that he presented others’ writings as his own on a blog—as opposed to, say, a journal or newspaper—is immaterial to whether he was plagiarizing. That he presented others’ writing as his own means that he was plagiarizing, and plagiarism is a serious sin, especially among writers, journalists, and academics.
     One would naturally suppose that it is a serious sin among Christians, too, but Reeve evidently feels otherwise. He's a special kind of Christian, I guess.
     Oddly, Reeve told the Capistrano Insider that he can’t now comment on whether his employment at Concordia U of Irvine has come to an end. But he implied that he will comment on that matter in future.
     We look forward to it.

Plagiarist Reeve still teaching at Saddleback College

As of a few minutes ago, the above "faculty profile" of Derek Reeve was
 still available at the Saddleback College website.

     Yesterday, we learned that San Juan Capistrano City Councilman and Poli Sci instructor Derek Reeve no longer works for Concordia University in Irvine. ("Derek Reeve is not currently employed by Concordia," said a spokeswoman. She offered nothing further.)
     Judging by data available on Concordia's website, Reeve had been the university's only Poli Sci instructor for recent semesters.
     Some have speculated that (1) Concordia let Reeve go and that (2) they did so because of a recent report that he plagiarized several political articles on the San Juan Capistrano Patch. Neither idea has yet been confirmed.
     Meanwhile, as far as we know, despite his habit of presenting others' works as his own, Reeve continues to be employed as an instructor at Saddleback College. He was observed teaching his two Poli Sci courses there last week. Further, I just looked at Saddleback College's schedule of courses for the Spring of 2012, and, there, I found that Reeve is scheduled to teach two Poli Sci courses:

     In her article for the SJC Patch on Tuesday (Councilman Shrugs Off Plagiarism Charge, But Authors He Copied Fume), reporter Jenna Chandler stated that

     The two colleges where Reeve teaches political science, Concordia University and Saddleback, declined to comment on [Reeve’s apparent plagiarism]. A Saddleback spokeswoman suggested it would be inappropriate for the school to say anything because Reeve produced his blogs outside the academic forum. [My emphasis.]

     Does the latter suggestion imply that Saddleback College is OK with Reeve's repeated plagiarism? I guess so. Wow.
     And where's Saddleback's Academic Senate in all this?

Flight from the Concordia (Derek Reeve canned?)

     JENNA CHANDLER of the San Juan Capistrano Patch reports that Derek Reeve, a controversial SJC City Councilman and part-time Poli Sci instructor, no longer works at Concordia U, a Lutheran college in Irvine:

Councilman Reeve Gone at Concordia

     Amid plagiarism allegations and well into the fall semester, San Juan Capistrano City Councilman Derek Reeve is inexplicably no longer teaching at Concordia University.
     "Derek Reeve is not currently employed by Concordia," a university spokeswoman said Friday, declining to provide an explanation.
     The move comes two weeks after Patch reported that Reeve lifted numerous passages from copyrighted articles in blog essays he wrote for Patch, as well as in two of his City Council staff reports. The authors whose words he copied labeled Reeve's actions plagiarism.
     When the story broke, Reeve was employed part-time by Concordia, a private Christian university in Irvine. According to the school's fall schedule, Reeve was teaching two political science classes this semester: American Government and Comparative Political Systems.
     Attempts to reach Reeve for comment were unsuccessful. But earlier this week, in a guest column published by the Orange County Register, he contended that blogs are informal literature in which attribution is not required.
. . .
     Experts and authors disagreed, saying no matter what the format or venue is, the same rules apply: verbatim copying of another person's work needs to be in quotes, and attributed.
. . .
     Reeve, an attorney, is also a part-time instructor at Saddleback Community College in Mission Viejo. A Saddleback spokeswoman declined to comment for this story. [My emphases.]

From Concordia U's Fall 2011 "master course schedule." I added the highlighting in red.
It does appear that Reeve had been assigned two courses—the only two Poli Sci
courses offered this semester. (Click on graphic to enlarge.)

     Do any of you Saddlebackians know whether Reeve still teaches at your college? Is he scheduled to teach in the Spring? [UPDATE: a reliable friend of this blog observed that Reeve taught his Saddleback courses last week.]
     Below is an excerpt from Concordia U's Policy on honesty and plagiarism (see), which is addressed to students but which obviously expresses the institution's values. Perhaps it had something to do with Reeve's departure.
     Paragraph 3 of the policy quotes from a handbook: “The basic rules of scholastic honesty still apply in electronic environments.” Yep, it's wrong to present others' work as your own even on a blog.
     Why on Earth would anyone suppose otherwise? If posing as the author of others' writings is wrong in scholastic settings, surely it is wrong in other settings as well. (Cf. cheating.)
     In a guest column for the Capistrano Valley News three days ago, Reeve argued that “Most people recognize that blogging is an informal style of communication, like musings, in which the standards of communication are relaxed.”
     I'm musing right now, I guess.
     We at DtB, however, have argued that, re academia, no such relaxation does or should occur.
     Unsurprisingly, judging by its policies, Concordia U does not relax standards of honesty for blogging.

Hilarious

Of blogs and dogs—and OC IncompeVillainy

Derek

     CREEPS. As you know, unless you're incompetent, incompetence is a major issue of our day, especially if you live in Orange County, though, for us, it ain't just incompetence, but also venality and other forms of severe assholery.
     It's always been that way in the OC (have you been reading Gustavo Arellano's series about OC's rich KKK past?), but, nowadays, it's especially bad, and sometimes it seems like our district (the SOCCCD) is the very hellmouth of OC incompevillainy. —You know: Mathur, Williams, Fuentes, Wagner, et al. And those guys brought their hideous friends: Mike Carona, Chriss Street, and so on. Aincha proud?
     Speaking of incompetence, as you know, recently, we've heard that the two colleges have messed up bigtime and, as a result, summer sessions will likely have to be cancelled (this info seems to be emanating from Faculty Association folks). We're trying to get more information about that. Let us know what you know.
     An hour ago, I turned to the OC Register, only to find more tales of incompetence.
OC Register watchdog, Teri Sforza, reports today that

Two-thirds of Americans said they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in their local governments to handle local problems….

     This curious factoid (based on a new Gallup poll), says Sforza, proves that “Orange County Register readers … are not on the Gallup Poll call list.”
     Guess so. Do any Orange Countians trust government in the OC? If so, who are they and how can their IQs be that low? They can't be Tea Partiers, cuz, though Tea People are plenty stupid, their chief impulse seems to be hostility to government, not confidence in it.

* * *

From OC Reg

     PHIL GREER. You’ll recall that Phil Greer, an ethically-challenged attorney who seems to be the go-to guy for corrupt pols in the OC Fuentesphere, was paid $25,000—by taxpayers!—to assist then-Chancellor Raghu Mathur in negotiating his exit from the SOCCCD—you know, when Don Wagner finally felt that last Mathurian straw land on his back. (I tried to get people pissed off about the $25K, but I got nowhere.)
     Not long after, Greer represented the odious John Williams, onetime SOCCCD trustee, during the county’s efforts to derail that rascal’s Public Administrator/Guardian gravy train. Who knows how much Greer got for that job, which is ongoing, I think.
     As if that weren’t enough, just before all that went down, Greer represented OC Treasurer Chriss Street in his big fraud trial. Greer lost that one bigtime, and Street wisely decided not to run for reelection, which gave trustee Dave Lang his chance to throw away $100k of his own money to run for Treasurer, with Fuentes' apparently worthless help.
     Almost from the start, Street has carped that his attorney, Greer, was a fool, and that's why he lost the case. As it turns out, he's still saying that.
     Today, OC Weekly’s R. Scott Moxley reports that

     Street is blaming his sensational $7 million bankruptcy court loss in 2010 on his own lawyer, Phillip B. Greer, and he's demanding that Greer pay him for alleged lousy, incompetent trial work.
     According to a lawsuit filed this week in Orange County Superior Court, Street believes Greer owes him "in excess of $8,800,000" in damages for professional negligence, fraud and violations of California's business and professional codes.

Moxley reminds us of Street’s misconduct:

     Street hired Greer in 2007 to defend his service [from 1998-2005] as a bankruptcy trustee of a struggling Los Angeles company [namely, Fruehauf Trailer Corp]. While in that job, Street abused his position by using the company's funds to pay himself a $250,000 salary plus $175,000 in bonuses and $477,000 in personal expenses that included a European vacation, cosmetic surgery and gym memberships. A federal judge ruled that Street had breached his duty as trustee.

     Of course, plausible accusations that Street had indeed abused his position as Fruehauf trustee were already in print before Street was elected. But this is Orange County, and that means that most voters are incredibly ignorant and often stupid. Plus they only respond to corruption when people tell 'em to. And so they happily elected the guy (in 2006, a year after Street’s Fruehauf trustee gig came to an end).
     But now

Street claims that Greer didn't know what he was doing in the [Fruehauf trial], botched a session with an expert witness, skipped a critical pre-trial meeting, hid multiple prior ethical problems and signed (without his permission) a stipulation of facts that was "false and misleading." ¶ "Defendant Greer failed to exercise the skill and care of a reasonably careful bankruptcy litigation attorney would have used in similar circumstances," Street wrote in his 11-page, Oct. 3 complaint.

It's hard to know who to root for in Creep v. Creep. May the biggest creep lose.

     REEVE REEMERGES. Today, Tea Partying San Juan Capistrano City Councilman and Saddleback College adjunct instructor Derek Reeve scored a guest column in the Capistrano Valley News: Of blogs and dogs: Councilman's message to San Juan. In the piece, he defends himself against the charge that he plagiarized on several submissions to the SJC Patch:

     Now [Mayor Sam Allevato and Councilman Larry Kramer] are at it again, piling on in the most recent attack stemming from the charge of plagiarism…. I was invited to blog on the Patch and carelessly submitted previously published material [by others!]. This involved one informal published blog that Patch made into three without my consent. This was a blog worthy of Facebook, not a formal article, yet now the editor has the chutzpa to compare this to a student's thesis, which is like comparing apples to gorillas.
     In the legal and education professions in which I work, I take pains to add footnotes to identify the origin of ideas. But in everyday communication, and most especially blogging, the atmosphere is much more relaxed and informal, as was indicated to me when Patch invited me to blog. Most people recognize that blogging is an informal style of communication, like musings, in which the standards of communication are relaxed. Despite this, a false set of assumptions have been erroneously placed upon me in order to make pseudo-accusations of "plagiarism."

     Wow. Reeve offers absolutely nothing to rebut the well-supported assertion that he plagiarized—that he presented others’ writings and ideas as though they were his own.
     Well, he does seem to offer this incompetent "argument": plagiarism is not plagiarism when it occurs in “informal” publications and “relaxed” communications. So if I walk up to Clueless You at a party and gin up my verbiage with sassy one-liners from Community, that's OK. It's theft, but it's only party theft; hence it's not theft. (Tea Partiers: I'm not talking about you. Further, I'm making a moral point, not a legal one.)
     That’s a little like saying burglary isn’t burglary when it occurs in your garage or on your patio. Or cannibalism isn't cannibalism if it's in a rowboat and not at the dinner table. Etc. Is Reeve really that stupid? Perhaps another vice is at work here. Yep.
     Reeve suggests that his blog posts are mere “musings.” To muse is to be absorbed in thought. Now, I muse all the time—I'm a philosopher—but I never “muse” just with other people’s writings, word for word, apostrophe for apostrophe! That ain't musing, man!

muse 
v. mused, mus·ing, mus·es v.intr. To have others' exact thoughts—and even their punctuation—in one’s head. v.intr. To steal others’ ideas during meditation: Om. I invented the word “Om.” Om. n. A state of meditation during the act of theft.

     CHANDLER'S UPDATE. Meanwhile, Jenna Chandler of the SJC Patch today updates us on the Reeve saga: Councilman Shrugs Off Plagiarism Charge, But Authors He Copied Fume. I haven’t read it yet, but Rebel Girl says it ends with mention of little old me!

     Roy Bauer, a philosophy instructor at Irvine Valley College who has taken jabs at Reeve's politics as a city councilman, is now blasting Reeve for the blog posts.
     Bauer's blog, Dissent the Blog ... Life Among Neanderthals, questioned Reeve's integrity and fitness for teaching. If Reeve "repeatedly represents others' writings as his own ... [he] cannot be trusted to argue honestly; he certainly cannot be trusted to instill academic honesty in his students."

Yes. Exactly.

* * *

     I’ve just read Chandler’s Patch piece and it’s excellent. Chandler notes Reeve’s assertion that blog postings are mere “musings,” that, in musings, the usual standards don't apply. But, she reports, “According to those whose words he lifted, Reeve's actions were plagiarism and theft, plain and simple.” (See the article for details.)
     According to Chandler, neither Concordia U nor Saddleback were willing to comment on Reeve's plagiarism, when asked.
     And what about the notion that these institutions shouldn’t care what Reeve does outside the classroom or college? One “Saddleback spokeswoman” evidently takes that incompetent view. (Really? Suppose Reeve continues to publicly put his name to political articles written by others. This would be hunky dory with Saddleback College? Good Lord, I hope not.)
     Says Chandler,

     It's not unprecedented for colleges to discipline instructors for off-campus plagiarism. In 2004, a committee at the University of New Hampshire penalized a professor for "scholarly misconduct" over a column published in Manchester's The Union Leader.
     Gregory F. Scholtz, a director at the American Association of University Professors, said disciplinary decisions are often made by a faculty committee that weighs whether a teacher's work outside the classroom has any bearing on his professional competence.
     Saddleback's code of conduct requires faculty to "exhibit intellectual honesty and integrity in all scholarly endeavors."
     Although Reeve's work on Patch arguably occurred outside that realm, Scholtz said it still raises questions about his intellectual honesty. Scholtz referred to the association's statement on professional ethics, which says professors, "guided by a deep conviction of the worth and dignity of the advancement of knowledge ... practice intellectual honesty. Although the professors may follow subsidiary interests, these interests must never seriously hamper or compromise their freedom of inquiry."

     It looks like Reeve has abandoned all hope of appealing to a wider audience, if he ever had such dreams. He has no excuse, no argument, to defend his intellectual theft, among other sins. Of course, in the case of his "base," a Tea-soaked mob ranging from the stunningly clueless to the loutish, none of this will make any difference. He named his dog "Muhammad." He prays and waves the flag. He yammers endlessly about "liberals." He doesn't bother with logic. He's their kind of guy.

• What Did the Other Four Officers Do in the Thomas Beating? (OC Voice)