The "civility" initiative: just saying "no" to wider participation?

Part 3 of a series

     Since Friday (i.e., here and here), I’ve posted a series of pieces on IVC’s “[in]civility initiative,” which, as we’ve seen, given what emerged during the December workshop, should probably be called the “bully [bullies?] at IVC” initiative—combined with “[lack of] transparency” and “poor communication” initiatives.
     Last week, IVC Vice President of Instruction, Craig Justice, distributed a “report” concerning this initiative composed by facilitator John Spevak (of consulting firm College Brain Trust). He says he wants us all (faculty and other members of the IVC community, I suppose) to read it.

     The REPORT comprises

• An account of the genesis and planning of the workshop re “Civility” held in mid-December
• Attachment 1: Responses to Questions Posed during the Irvine Valley College Workshop on Civility and Mutual Respect
• Attachment 2: Informal Evaluation of December 16 Workshop (from unsigned index cards completed by participants at workshop’s end)
• Attachment 3: Spevak’s initial draft of a possible IVC statement on civility and mutual respect
• Attachment 4: Spevak’s draft of possible items which could be included within an IVC action plan on civility

     Thus far, my posts have concerned the first three elements (up through attachment 2).
     Attachment 3 is, again, Spevak’s initial draft of a possible IVC statement on civility and mutual respect.

BUT WAIT!

     That Spevak composed this “statement” suggests that Roquemore and Co. do not plan to throw a wider net over the IVC community to acquire input—about the episodes of incivility (and poor communication, etc.) that, evidently, inspired this initiative (with the help of the Accreds).
     Yesterday, I noted that, among the suggestions for improving the “workshop” provided by participants was participation of others (students, more faculty, et al.) in the initiative. That is, at least some participants suggested that the process should seek greater representation of the IVC community and its groups.
     I guess Glenn is just saying “no” to that suggestion.

     Here’s attachment 3:

     This is a concise statement drafted by workshop facilitator John Spevak, which incorporates those ideas and suggestions which the participants in the December 16, 2011 IVC Workshop on Civility and Mutual Respect seemed to consider most significant. This draft can be considered a first step in Irvine Valley College’s possible development of a statement on civility and mutual respect.

Irvine Valley College: Statement on Civility and Mutual Respect

     Irvine Valley College supports a culture which encourages and sustains civility and mutual respect. Within its commitment to excellence and academic freedom, the college values the dignity of each person, frequent and accurate communication, transparent decision making, and the importance of treating all members of the college community with honesty and respect. In its ongoing pursuit of knowledge and truth, the college aspires to sustain an environment that honors empathy, interdependence, professionalism, constructive discourse, and trust balanced with accountability.
     IVC expects all members of the college community to treat others as they wish to be treated, to help others succeed, to take responsibility for their own actions, and to fulfill the duties of their jobs. All members of the college community are also expected to seek the truth, check the facts, correct false assumptions, and prevent the spread of false rumors. They are also expected to value their own worth as persons and to confront incivility, whether directed at themselves or others, with respectful but firm assertiveness.
     IVC considers it unacceptable for members of the college community to intimidate, threaten, coerce, or bully others or to engage in retaliation or retribution. It also considers as unacceptable slander and intentional distortions of the truth, whether oral or written. While attacking ideas is encouraged, attacking people—either in person or electronically—is unacceptable. The college also recognizes that failing to fulfill one’s professional responsibilities often contributes to an uncivil environment.
     When encountering incivility, members of the IVC community are encouraged to confront it respectfully but directly and to intervene appropriately in situations where others are inflicted with uncivil behavior. Supervisors should call attention to uncivil behaviors of persons they supervise, and when necessary, note such behaviors within with the processes of evaluation or progressive discipline.
     IVC is committed to sustaining a culture of civility and mutual respect by expressing its commitment to civility in a variety of college publications, including employee handbooks; by communicating the importance of civility in orientations to new employees; by sponsoring projects and activities that bring people together in a spirit of hospitality, service, appreciation, and camaraderie; by identifying root causes of incivility; and by using informal processes of mediation designed to resolve interpersonal conflicts before they become significant. [END]

     Let’s turn to the last element of the report: attachment 4.
     Not only are Roquemore and Co. moving ahead with IVC’s “statement” regarding civility, they’re moving ahead with an “action plan.

Former trustee Don Wagner knows about incivility

     Here’s attachment 4:

This is a draft, written by facilitator John Spevak, of possible elements within an IVC Action Plan on Civility and Mutual Respect (collected from ideas generated within the December 16, 2011 IVC Workshop on Civility and Mutual Respect):

• Identify a group of persons representing the IVC community, using as its core the Working Group on Civility, to implement the ideas generated at the December 16 workshop in order to develop and nurture an IVC culture of civility and mutual respect
• Create a civility statement, obtain approvals from key entities (e.g., academic senate, classified senate), and possibly include it in the IVC catalogue
• Send recommendations related to civility and mutual respect to the District for its related new or revised policies and procedures
• Create an informal mediation process
• Schedule informal social and service gatherings and activities throughout the year
• Send a report of the workshop to the accreditation officer for possible inclusion in an accreditation follow-up report
• Create sections in IVC written materials based on the proposed catalog statement, including college orientation documents and handbooks for faculty, classified, and managers
• Gather the action plan group at the end of 2012 to determine whether the culture of civility has indeed been developed and incidents of incivility have decreased

     Item 3 on this list is interesting. It is the suggestion to send “recommendations related to civility and mutual respect to the District for its related new or revised policies and procedures.”
     Just what sort of policy are they talking about? Something that can be wielded against dissenters?

* * *

THREE CONCERNS:

     A brief observation: I can identify three concerns with regard to what I’ve called the “civility initiative”:

• THE ACCREDS’ “COMMUNICATION” ISSUE: Issues about communication, etc., that are being pursued by the ACCJC in the accreditation process. (IVC is expected to make yet another progress report in October.)
• VICTIMS OF BULLYING: Issues about bullying coming from members of the IVC community. [BUT WHY WON'T ANYONE NAME THE BULLY?]
• FREE SPEECH & DISSENT: Issues regarding free speech and dissent—the worry that, as in the past, our college and district might attempt to thwart or silence critics of administration/trustees/leadership by wielding policies and “statements” against them.

     Correct me if I’m wrong. Are these the issues? Have I formulated them correctly? Have I left any out?
     My next post will focus on the last concern: the threat to dissent and free speech.

Incivility or bullying? Name that bully!

Part 2 of a series

     Yesterday, I wrote the first in a series of posts about IVC’s “civility initiative,” an effort by IVC President Glenn Roquemore (?) to address a range of campus issues that, as we saw yesterday, apparently include episodes and situations that are darker than is implied by the word “incivility.”
     Roquemore’s initiative commenced with a December “workshop” comprising about twenty members of the campus community (including four faculty and five classified). According to a subsequent REPORT (see yesterday's post), among the worrisome situations or episodes cited by the participants were

• perceived acts of retaliation or retribution
• conduct inspiring fear
• failures to respect others and to treat them with kindness
• shouting and threats
• bullying
• passive-aggressive behavior

     Yikes. Upon noting the extremity of the items on this list, one might wonder why Roquemore’s intiative isn’t described as a response to “bullying”!
     Another perceived problem noted in the workshop is still further from anything one would be inclined to call “incivility.” A high priority for the group was problems with transparency (i.e., prevailing opacity) in college processes. Somehow, said the group, significant information was not being communicated—presumably by top administration.

     But it is not obvious to me how that phenomenon is linked to “incivility” or bullying. It would be an episode of incivility, I suppose, if one were to ask, say, the VPI what’s going on with ATEP only to be met with stony silence. Is that it?
     It is easier to see how administrative opacity might be linked to failures of respect. Perhaps the (or “a”) problem at the college is that an “insider” group essentially runs the college behind closed doors. Now, at an institution that forever trumpets its alleged “transparency” and “shared governance,” that reality can feel like a slap in the face.
     Maybe the problem is that there are certain persons with authority at IVC who are ruthless or officious or autocratic with those whom they regard as "underlings." Such people are disrespectful and lacking in kindness, right?
     But I wouldn’t call that phenomenon “insufficient transparency,” would you?
     I’m getting to think that the workshop’s participants weren’t quite comfortable enough at the workshop (see below) to be completely forthcoming. If there is unkindness, disrespect, and intimidation, then, necessarily, there are persons who are unkind, disrespectful, and intimidating. Right?
     Just who are they? If the workshop provided a “safe harbor” to speak one's mind, why weren’t these people identified? (And if they were, why don't their names appear in the report?)

ruthless |ˈroōθləs|
adjective
having or showing no pity or compassion for others* 

officious |əˈfi sh əs|
adjective
assertive of authority in an annoyingly domineering way, esp. with regard to petty or trivial matters*

John Spevak/College Brain Trust

     At the end of the workshop, participants filled out cards (unsigned), with feedback. Mr. Spevak, the facilitator from College Brain Trust (a Sacramento consulting firm), reviewed these data, and, in his report, he concludes that participants “appreciated the opportunity, felt the day was productive, and looked forward to further steps in developing a culture of civility.”
     Perhaps so. It is worth noting, however, the indications of non-unanimity that can be found in these data about the grand success of the event, particularly with regard to who was allowed to participate. (The group was of course dominated by administrators/managers. See REPORT.)
     Participants were asked to state what they liked about the workshop. Among the participants, some said they felt comfortable being honest, the facilitator seemed to know what he was doing, etc.
     Here were their suggestions for improvement:

· No suggestions; the program was well organized and planned
· A bit more time spent on case studies
· Time to sketch out an actionable plan to move forward (measurable)
· Expand this training to the campus as a whole: faculty, staff, and students
· I’d like to have seen more people from the campus involved—faculty and students—although the smaller scale did facilitate excellent discussion
· Continue with small groups of meetings like this one; provide a report to the whole college about our retreat; and then allow the president and VPs in a school/department meeting during the semester to collect/listen to information/concerns from the retreat
· Suggest even better student participation; more students
· Use “hearts” instead of dots; more coffee
· More students; more guests from outside college—diversity of experiences and opinions
· Continued workshops, discussions
· Role playing; acting out possible scenarios
· I would add a few more folks into the mix from the college. [My italics & emphases.]

     The “range of participants” issue came up under “other comments” as well:

• [Next time:] Include all participants for entire process rather than having an “in” group and others
• [Next time:] More students would have added to discussion; the one student who we had was excellent—we should have worked harder to ensure their participation

     If I were Roquemore, I’d pay attention to this “range of participants” suggestion. After all, if the product of this civility initiative is perceived as a creature of the “in” group—or otherwise fails in representing groups at IVC—it won’t be worth spit.
     In tomorrow's post, we'll note indications that Roquemore and Co. mean to push this thing through without further messy input from the academic hoi polloi and that they hope to enshrine this stuff in a board policy.
    Yikes.
    And will they thereby try to enforce their notion of "civility"?

*From my Mac's dictionary

autocratic |ˌôtəˈkratik|

adjective -- of or relating to a ruler who has absolute power : the constitutional reforms threatened his autocratic power.• taking no account of other people's wishes or opinions; domineering : an autocratic management style.*

IVC's "civility initiative": what on Earth goes on at this college?!

Dec. 16: Working Group on Civility

     This is the first in a series of posts about what I shall call the “civility initiative,” an effort, no doubt inspired in part by accreditor observations but also by complaints from various groups and individuals among the IVC community, to address “incivility” at the college. (See REPORT.)
     –Or, anyway, something like that.
     Unfortunately, despite our institution’s nature—or partial nature—as a “college,” one cannot count on IVC denizens, especially administrators, to use words precisely or even more or less correctly. Remember the decades in which Building A300 was labeled “Humanites”? We’d point at the letters on that wall. “So, what’s the problem?” administrators would ask.
     My Mac’s dictionary offers this definition of “civility”:

formal politeness and courtesy in behavior or speech

     Gosh, surely our college community isn’t concerned about so superficial a part of life as manners! OK, certain people really could do with a few lessons in when and when not to, um, snort. And, gosh, why can’t certain people (especially in Fine Arts*) learn how to eat and talk in a manner that avoids spewage?
     —Nope, the problem at IVC isn’t a mere lack of manners or courtesy. “Incivility” is code here for a range of phenomena ranging from mere rudeness to, I think, ruthlessness and meanness, which takes us beyond the realm of civility into the zone of moral ugliness--even violence.
     That IVC's "(in)civility" issue is really about a darker range of behaviors than that word implies becomes clear when one reads the recent “report” sent around yesterday by VPI Justice. Justice introduces it thus:

Please share this report from John Spevak regarding Civility. We would like all faculty and staff in your area to have a copy for their review. Please forward it as appropriate. Thank you.

     How very civil! I'll do what I can to share it!
     Here's some background. Evidently (this is in the report), in November, President Roquemore hired a Sacramento consulting firm—“College Brain Trust” (I kid you not)—to help address this so-called civility issue. CBT chose consultant John Spevak, a former administrator at Merced College, as our facilitator. Soon, Spevak and Roquemore consulted with Dennis Gordon (classified), Jeff Kaufmann (faculty), and Keith Shackleford (administration) to plan some sort of workshop or retreat, which occurred on Dec. 16 at the Irvine Ranch Water District Duck Club building.
     Before that date, the 20-or-so participants (including 4 faculty, 5 classified, 6 “managers” [including administrators], two “guests,” et al.) were told to think about these questions:

· What have been some of the issues and challenges at IVC related to civility in the recent past?
· What are the core values related to civility that the IVC community shares?
· What are examples of model behaviors related to these values?
· What are the (minimal) behavioral expectations related to civility as a result of these core values?
· Related to civility, what behaviors are considered unacceptable?
· What are some proactive things IVC can do to foster civility?
· What are some ways to deal with incivility when it occurs on campus?

     The “guests” were Dean Jay Heffron from Soka University and Dean Erwin Chemerinsky of the University of California Irvine School of Law. Impressive.
     On the big day, Spevak broke this mob into several smaller groups: “gender-balanced groups with representatives of faculty, classified staff, and managers.”
     Participants at the Duck Club were told to adopt a "Donald Duck voice"** and then to discuss the above questions. Eventually, they ranked "items" for "significance" with red, green, and yellow dots (somebody urged the use of “hearts” next time; really). This led to a document (attachment 1 of the “report”) that presents issues ranked as “priority 1,” “priority 2,” and “priority 3”—based on participants’ wielding of those silly "significance" dots.

A PROBLEM OF MERE INCIVILITY?

     OK, so here’s the deal. With respect to the question

What are recent issues and challenges related to civility (and mutual respect) at IVC?

the group, according to Spevak’s accounting, identified these three issues/challenges as Priority 1:

1) Insufficient transparency in college processes
2) Fears of retaliation
3) Not moving on from an earlier culture when everyone was united against one person (the chancellor)

     Wow. Correct me if I’m wrong, but two of the three items on this list reflect unhappiness with top administration. It is often said—certainly often by me—that nobody seems to know what’s going on at this college, how decisions are made, etc. They just get made somehow. The recent administrative actions concerning the MRC are perhaps a good example. Suddenly, by August, the MRC was banished from that cool space in BSTIC. And, somehow, it was decided that the faculty CAFÉ would go there instead. But then the space remained empty for an entire semester! How come? Then, at the start of Spring semester, we learned that the CAFÉ (which persisted through the Fall only as an abstraction) would not be in BSTIC; it would instead replace the Learning Center in the library. Meanwhile, something called the “Student Success Center” sprouted in that old MRC space.
     WTF?
     Fear of retaliation? I’ve heard those words often in recent years, and they usually come up in connection with the VPI. (Am I wrong?)
     The “priority 2” list is less interesting: a hodgepodge of concerns, few of which seem connected to “civility.” The first of 9 items is “A need to improve customer service and communication with students.” (“Anonymous commentary through ‘the blog’” appears as #5. Damned trolls!)
     “Transparency” and “communication” come up in each of the three “priorities.” Hmmm.
     With regard to the question,

What are core values related to civility shared by the IVC community?

the “priority 1” list is the following:

1) Communication, including the communication of significant information
2) Mutual respect
3) Transparency
4) A climate of caring and kindness, recognizing that each person has intrinsic worth
5) A commitment to excellence
6) A sense of collective stewardship

—Ah, “transparency” and “communication” again. Isn’t that about administration?

Here are some results for the remaining questions:

QUESTION: As a result of the core values, what are (minimal) behavioral expectations at IVC related to civility and mutual respect?

The “priority 1” list is the following:

1) Treating others as you would like to be treated, with respect
2) Making the effort to be prepared for and engaged in what you agreed to
3) Taking responsibility for one’s own actions
4) Loyalty to the campus community

QUESTION: Related to civility and mutual respect, what are unacceptable behaviors at IVC?

The “priority 1” list is:

1) Yelling, shouting or obnoxious behavior; threats, profane or vulgar language
2) Retaliation or retribution
3) Passive-aggressive behaviors, including failure to respond and delaying tactics
4) Bullying, either in person or from afar

     Yesterday, Rebel Girl and I noted these concerns. We looked at each other.
     “Gosh,” we said, “what on Earth goes on at this college?!”

QUESTION: What are some pro-active things IVC can do to encourage and foster civility?

Priority 1

1) Creating a campus statement of norms and expectations, related to mission and vision, and including it in handbooks, in the college catalog, and within a mentor program
2) Creating for IVC a new era of civility: acknowledging the past, describing who we are now, identifying where we want to go
3) Sponsoring more projects that unite the IVC community (such as Operation Christmas Child); scheduling more informal social “fun” events for the entire campus

QUESTION: What are some ways to deal with incivility when it occurs at IVC?

Priority 1

1) Identifying root causes of incivility
2) Challenging inappropriate behavior; requesting appropriate responses and expectations
3) Creating campus climate mediators, volunteers who facilitate “safe harbor discussions” before issues reach the grievance stage
4) Creating a college mediator or ombudsman

     Let us know what you make of all this.

*Yeah, this is utterly gratuitous. False even.
**OK, I just made that up.

"Ignorant, morally ugly and stupid is no way to go through life, son."

     Periodically, with regard to comments to the blog, we experience a problem something like the one currently afflicting the OC Register: drive-by trollery, choking out and discouraging the participation of reasonable and decent people.
     For instance, having yesterday assessed and rejected Mr. Derek Reeve’s “argument” that he did not plagiarize, I was the recipient (at 11:07 this morning) of this comment:

How about creating a new state agency dedicated to going after plagiarists and punishing them criminally? … Their scope … would include anything written…. Seems to me Bvt & the [Dissent] National Socialists [i.e., Nazis] would support such a proposal.

     Mr. Troll is saying that, since I judge Reeve to have plagiarized, it follows that I seek or desire to employee sanctions to enforce non-plagiarism. He's also saying that my supposed desire to enforce non-plagiarism is tantamount to Nazism.
     Remarkable.
     I have a message for Mr. Troll. To paraphrase Animal House’s Dean Wormer, "ignorant, morally ugly and stupid is no way to go through life, son."
     We garnered several further comments of a roughly similar level of ugliness and stupidity. It's a drag, man.
     Hence, for the time being, I am forced to "moderate" comments. Please continue to comment. But expect some lag time.
     As always, the problem isn't that these trolls disagree with us or take different views; rather, the problem comprises deficiencies: (i) a lack of any understanding of argumentation; (ii) a stunning ignorance of history; (iii) a lack of civility.
     We'll turn off the moderation eventually. As I'm sure you can understand, this will be an ongoing battle.