Anti-Semitism at meetings

L.A. TIMES, METRO, B1, 2/13/98: 

College District Won’t Allow Offensive Views at Meetings 

Education: New measures, including more security, come after anti-Semitic comments. 

By LORENZA MUNOZ TIMES STAFF WRITER 

MISSION VIEJO -- Under criticism from Jewish organizations, the South Orange County Community College District is taking steps to curb offensive and derogatory remarks by speakers at public meetings. 

Last week, the Anti-Defamation League and other groups asked the district’s board of trustees to control its meetings, which recently have been marked by angry disputes and vitriolic comments about Jews and the Holocaust. 

“Some people have said some hurtful things, and it’s gotten kind of ugly,” said board President John S. Williams. “If people are going to start making comments like ‘The Holocaust didn’t occur,’ I’m going to stop them. I’m certainly not trying to restrict free speech, but certainly people have to understand that there is decorum.” 

The district is increasing uniformed and plain-clothes security at trustee meetings and adopting a zero-tolerance policy on threats of physical confrontation. In addition, trustees will not allow “vitriolic, racial or ethnic remarks, slurs or insulting, demeaning or foul language.” 

The measures were drafted by college administrators and campus security and were reviewed by Williams. 

At one meeting, a speaker said that the Holocaust, in which 6 million Jews died, was “nothing but 6 million lies.” Another speaker rose to say, “It’s become a racket. Everywhere you go, every time you pick up the paper, turn on the radio, the TV, here’s some Jew screaming about this and that and everything else.” 

Joyce Greenspan, regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, said she applauds the trustees’ effort but does not believe the measures go far enough. 

“There needs to be an ability for people to express their opinions, [and] it needs to be safe and done in a respectful way,” Greenspan said. “But it’s a Band-Aid approach [rather than] really looking at what the problem on that board really is.” 

The problem, Greenspan said, is controversial Trustee Stephen J. Frogue. Frogue is the target of a recall effort, partly because he advocated a seminar featuring a speaker who argued that Israel played a role in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Another intended speaker questioned the historical accuracy of the Holocaust. 

Plans for the seminar to take place on campus were dropped after the district received hundreds of phone calls in protest. 

District officials say they have heard reports that some students are not willing to come to trustee meetings for fear there may be violence. Williams and acting Chancellor Kathleen O’Connell Hodge said they want to assure the public that the meetings are safe. 

“We will have officers in attendance at the meetings,” Hodge said. “We will be aware of public safety.”

THE DISTRICT ATTEMPTS TO SPIN THE “ANTI-SEMITISM AT SOCCCD BOARD MEETINGS” STORY 

by Chunk Wheeler 

The ‘Vine: 2/27/98 

According to a district press release, Trustee and current board president John Williams has written Joyce Greenspan of the ADL saying that he’s been “concerned and troubled about the contentious remarks that have occurred during public comments at previous meetings and, particularly, the January 20th meeting.” 

Williams’ “concern,” of course, arose at some point after January 20, for, in fact, during the public remarks portion of the January board meeting, he did nothing as a series of Frogueophiles offered foolish and bigoted views. (Read the transcripts.) Even when the last speaker--a raving Holocaust-denying anti-Semite--nearly got into a fight with a frustrated Jewish student, Williams did virtually nothing. (Listen to the tape.) Nor was this the first time that a board president sat silently in the face of bigoted remarks. Frogue himself set that standard during the summer and fall. Are you surprised? 

The new “public remarks” policy: it’s called “censorship” 

Williams has responded to the many complaints about his handling of bigoted and provocative remarks by adopting a policy of censorship. According to the new policy, “Speakers making public comments...will not be allowed to use vitriolic, racial or ethnic remarks, slurs or insulting, demeaning, or foul language.” I guess this means, among other things, that no one will be allowed to insult bigots by calling them “bigots.” Thank you, Mr. Williams. 

In the past, Williams has expressed his fidelity to the value of free speech. (For instance, he did so at a “forum” in early July--just days before he sacked the IVC chairs for exposing the board majority to harsh and unworshipful criticism.) And it seems that he views the new public remarks policy as compatible with that value, for he told the Times reporter, “I’m certainly not trying to restrict free speech....” 

Apparently, Williams is among that army of Americans who believe that free speech only applies to remarks that are “true and decent”or that don’t upset anyone. As usual, he just doesn’t get it. 

An alternative policy (that, alas, we’ll never see) 

Is there an alternative policy that avoids censorship? Of course, but it can work only if the board president is not clueless. But let me explain it anyway. 

First, the board should adopt a policy of prohibiting disruptive and dangerously provocative remarks, not because they are racist or “hurtful” or “incorrect,” but because they are threatening or provocative to a degree that the safety of the audience is at risk. (There is, of course, no clear line between dangerously provocative and non-dangerously provocative remarks; but this difficulty is ineliminable.) 

Second, the board should permit any remarks concerning board-related issues, including racist/hurtful/idiotic remarks, that do not threaten to (significantly) disrupt the meeting or inspire violence. (Listen carefully to “Adolf” Kadar’s performance on January 20. Because of his mild conduct, his remarks, though idiotic and highly offensive, failed to inspire any open hostility.) 

Third, at the first opportunity, the board president (and other trustees) should effectively respond to racist/hurtful/idiotic remarks, clearly explaining their failings. For instance, the following comments would go a long way to uphold the values threatened by a Holocaust denier such as 

“Mr. X”: “Mr. X has expressed his view--which is his right--and now I will express mine. As a trustee of this college district, I am obliged to uphold the intellectual values at the heart of higher education--values evidently rejected by Mr. X. And so I must tell you that his view--Holocaust denial-- is condemned by the major professional and academic historical associations in the US, not because it is ‘incorrect,’ but because deniers ignore and reject the intellectual and methodological standards that make reliable historical research possible. Quite simply, the ‘research’ and positions of Holocaust deniers are intellectually incompetent and should be rejected on that basis alone. 

“Further, a close look at those who promote Holocaust denial (Willis Carto, Mark Weber, et al.) reveals that their motives in promoting “research” are distinct from academic historians’ motives, for, more often than not, the former have a lurid history of base bigotry. This suggests that they are after, not the truth, but, rather, a ‘justification’ of a racist agenda that will help them to gain converts among the gullible and unwary....” 

--And so on. 

The problem, of course, is that Mr. Williams and his friends on the board are incapable of offering an effective response to the Holocaust denier. (I say this, in part, because they refuse to be educated. Some of us have tried to get them up to speed--sending them helpful articles, etc.--but to no avail. They don’t listen to the faculty.) 

Thus they must resort to censorship. 

Such are the perils of allowing under-educated and unqualified persons to run a college district. 

IT GETS WORSE 

According to the new procedures, “Public comments on agenda items only will be accepted at the beginning of the board meeting.” They go on to say, “Public comments on non-agenda items only will be accepted during the report and board comments portion of the meeting.” (Who writes this stuff, chimps?) 

The upshot, then, of this little episode is a narrowing of the issues that faculty and others may raise during the only portion of board meetings in which the audience is still around. 

Dorothy Fortune could not attend the 2/11/98 meeting, and so the board majority did not have the votes to do as they pleased. When the time came to vote on the organizational proposal (which, allegedly, is based on the recent organizational analyses), Teddi Lorch expressed profound reservations about voting, for she wanted to know exactly how much these changes would cost. (Funny, she had no such scruples on July 16, when she voted for more radical changes.) Observe that the board’s failure to pass the proposal on the 11th meant that it could not act on the renewal of administrative contracts as planned. Action on that item will have to wait until Tuesday, when, presumably, Fortune can attend and the majority will be intact. 

I suppose you’ve all seen the proposed changes, and so I won’t bother to reproduce that section of the document. The appended section (“The Future”), however, is worth highlighting: 

So we’re returning to (department) chairs. No word yet about reassigned time.

NIGHT OF THE NAZI by Chunk Wheeler [Roy Bauer]

Frogue pal Michael Collins Piper of the anti-Semitic American
Free Press. Piper has cited the "work" of Fields and Kadar

[Piper's ultimate fate: HERE]

[On this night, some pretty unsavory characters descended upon the board in defense of Frogue. Among them:

George Kadar: the founder of “Friends of Steven J. Frogue,” Orange County’s own George Kadar, is an avowed “white separatist”? (San Diego Union Tribune, 8/29/91) --He is also the founder of American Spring, an anti-immigration group that has staged protests at the Mexican border.

Joe Fields: a white separatist and Holocaust “revisionist,” who has said that Jews deserve “everything they get, even extermination”? (See Michael Novick’s White Lies, White Power)

James Scott: What he's quoted as saying below says it all: "there never was a holocaust."]

* * * *

FROM THE VINE: 1/20/98

Originally entitled:

BOARD MEETING, 1/20/98: WILD NIGHT

by Chunk Wheeler

Tuesday’s Board meeting will be remembered.

Public comments:

BUCK COE:

Buck Coe, chairman of the Committee to Recall Steven J. Frogue, read what appeared to be an affidavit by former Frogue student Emily E. Hoffman. According to Hoffman, Frogue taught that the Holocaust did not occur.

Ms. Hoffman also alleged that Mr. Frogue routinely told racially insensitive jokes. One joke, she said, asked why there are “red dots” on the the foreheads of Indian women. The answer had something to do with pointing at such spots and saying how “ugly” the women are.

As Mr. Coe read Ms. Hoffman’s words, Frogue affected bemusement and shook his head.

JOE FIELDS:

A man named Joe Fields spoke next. He seemed to praise what he took to be the board’s willingness to return to “Western civilization and Christianity.” He complained about the influence and “shrill...voice” of “Political Zionism,” and he reminded us that, just a few minutes earlier, we had all pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States, not “the flag of Israel.” In his mind, our Board should be praised for its stand against “ADL-sponsored garbage.” He concluded his remarks by exclaiming that certain people should “Go back to Israel!”

Fields’ remarks were poorly received by most in the audience, though he was applauded by the small group of like-minded individuals who had come, evidently, to defend Mr. Frogue. Most of this group had spoken in defense of Frogue during two earlier Board meetings (in the summer and fall). Among faculty who have witnessed the performances of these odd Frogueophiles, they are known--perhaps in jest--as “the Nazis.”

Oddly, neither Mr. Frogue nor his supporters among the Trustees commented on Fields’ remarks. One might think that they would anxiously distance themselves from people like Fields. Not so.

[What FIELDS actually said:

I have here before me something that appeared in your local paper, college paper. This is your example of free speech. All you politically correct people who want to attack Mr. Frogue here. It's a gentleman urinating into a urinal on top of the newspaper. Examples of things like this all over our society today. Anything that attacks western civilization or Christianity is OK--that is to be tolerated. However, the same people who tolerate that -- and I might add, it’s the shrill, shrieking voice of political Zionism -- is here tonight to attack Mr. Frogue and to push their agenda. It's a narrow agenda, an un-American agenda. We just said the pledge of allegience to the flag of the United States, not to the flag of lsrael. [I’m speaking to] Anyone here who's going to push this ADL sponsored garbage. And the ADL, I might add, is an illegally unregistered agent for the State of Israel. If you're here to push this nonsense and keep attacking this man because of your narrow agenda I might suggest you get off your butts and go back to Israel where you belong.]

PHIL TRYON:

Next, an elderly fellow named “Phil Trion” (?) spoke. He was angry, and he asked whether Frogue’s opponents on the Board had ever actually read Michael Collins “Pepper’s” Final Judgment. The Board responded with silence. (I would imagine they haven’t read Mein Kampf either. Does that mean they are not entitled to condemn the ideas of Adolf Hitler?)

You will recall that Michael Collins Piper--a reporter for Liberty Lobby’s notorious anti-Semitic newspaper, the Spotlight--was among the conspiratistas invited by Frogue to speak at his doomed JFK weekend Forum. In Final Judgment, Piper argues that Israel was directly involved in the assassination of JFK--a view uniformly ridiculed by respected scholars and historians. During the Board Meeting in which the Board Majority (including Frogue) voted to support the request for “JFK Forum” speaker funds, Frogue acknowledged that he had met with Piper during a trip to Washington, D.C. Frogue and Piper appear to be friends.

Mr. Trion(?) likened the Board (or the Board Minority) to Pavlovian dogs who salivate upon hearing the ADL’s ringing bell; these muts are, he added, “brainwashed pimps for the anti-American ADL.” “Who in hell,” asked Trion, “appointed the ADL as the thought police of this college?”

[What Tryon actually said:

My name is Phil Tryon. I'm a retired civil engineer, a citizen and taxpayer. Thank you. I want to say a few words about this ongoing farce here at Saddleback College. It all started when Mr. Frogue proposed to have a seminar on the Kennedy assassination, a very significant event in American history. And Mr. Frogue invited the author of Final Judgment, Mr. Michael Collins Piper, as one of the speakers. This is when it all started. Let me ask you how many of you board members who are trying to silence...Mr. Frogue have ever read this book? ...We have here a classic example of Pavalovian (sic) reflex. The hate mongering ADL rings a bell and the brainwashed Zombies start marching and nipping at Mr. Frogue's heels. It's hard to believe. I want to add: just who in the hell appointed the ADL as the thought police at this college? Are they to tell us what we can read and what we can hear? Are they telling us that we are unable to decide for ourselves on this issue? Or are they afraid that an open discussion on the Kennedy assassination with Mike Piper will prove that the Mossad, Israel's KGB, had a big hand in the assassination? So I say to you board members, have the seminar. Bring out the facts and let people make up their own minds. That is what you are getting paid for. You're not being paid to be brain-washed pimps for the anti-American, anti-free speech, criminal rabble in the ADL. Thank you.]

PAM BUSTAMANTE:

Next, Pam Bustamante, another former student of Frogue’s, read from her own affidavit. According to her statement, when asked why his lectures on World War II described Japanese internment camps but ignored the Holocaust, Frogue answered that the latter event was of questionable validity and significance. Bustamante also described the “atmosphere” of racial insensitivity in Frogue’s classroom.

Frogue shook his head and smiled sardonically.

SHIRLEY RICHARDS:

A woman named Shirley Richards--apparently, an important leader in the OC African-American community--spoke passionately on behalf of Pauline Merry. She implored the Board to retain the services of Vice President Merry, whom she praised.

Prior to public comments, Board president Williams announced that, during the closed session, which had just been held, no actions were taken, and thus no action was taken on the controversial administrative contracts. Apparently, Trustee Hueter, who could not attend, requested a postponement on the contracts vote until her return.

I believe that Williams indicated that a decision on the contracts will be made during a special Feb. 11 meeting.

GEORGE KADAR:

Next, a fellow named George Kador walked up to the mike. He denounced alleged acts of “censorship” against Trustee Frogue. Our district, he seemed to say, is no different from the former Soviet Union with respect to silencing opinions.

[What KADAR actually said:

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak...I view this whole controversial situation around Mr. Frogue as a question of censorship and nothing else. In my opinion, this society as a cornerstone has freedom of speech just as the Bolshevik empire, where I spent my first 20 years, had a cornerstone and that was a lack of freedom of speech. Then ADL and other organizations are permitted to look over on this basic human right in this country and they are given an opportunity and possibility to exercise this censorship of...(unintelligible word) to our lives. At that point I think we are heading into a source of degeneration that is totally unacceptable and undesirable, and I would like you to consider this basic idea. Thank you.]

(At about this point, Williams called for Anthony Garcia to speak. Evidently, Mr. Garcia was not in the room.)

NORMAN DOCTOROW:

Norman Doctorow, a familiar face at Board meetings, brought affidavits from several former students of Frogue’s. He was only able to read two of them before being cut off by time-keeper Mike Runyan. According to one student, Mr. Frogue denied the occurrence of the Holocaust and described Jews as “rude” and “big-nosed.” The Mormon Church, she wrote, was described by Frogue as a devilish cult.

Another student, who evidently took one of Frogue’s classes during the 94-5 school year, wrote of Frogue’s racial bias and discriminatory stance in the classroom.

Once again, Anthony Garcia’s name was called, but, apparently, the fellow was not in the room.

KIT (Kip?) KRUBA(?):

The next speaker was familiar. I recall that, during a Board meeting in August, she spoke in defense of Mr. Frogue. She held up odd books such as Jews for Guns, or some such title, though I seriously doubt that she is a member of that particular group, if it exists.

This night, Ms. Kruba held up and promoted two books that looked as though they had been published in Orange County in the early ‘60s. One was entitled Which Way to World Government? The other: The State of the World Forum. (I observed that she held yet another book; it was entitled Are We Communists?) Eventually, Ms. Kruba alerted us to the specter of a “world income tax” and then displayed a photograph depicting Ted Turner, M. Gorbechev, and “Hanoi Jane.” The significance of this photo seemed to escape many in the audience.

BOB DEEGAN:

Mr. Deegan urged the Board to deal with the issue of the IVC President. President Mathur, he said, became President through an illegal process, for the search committee was prevented from excluding any applicant. This insured that the unqualified Mathur would survive the process to be selected by the Board (Majority). He explained that, owing to the cloud over Mathur’s Presidency--and his reputation on campus--little or no work is getting done at IVC. For instance, he said, our Courses Committee has not passed a single course this year; further, staff development and the “Weekend College”project are stymied, since no faculty member has come forward to organize this work, for “no one will stand behind this President.”

Deegan reminded the Board that, a few years ago, Mathur was censured for lying to the instructional council. (It is rumored that Mathur is a member of the “one thousand inch club” among repeat rhinoplastic patients.)

Perhaps for the third or fourth time, Williams called Tony Garcia’s name. This is odd, for, typically, the Board is disinclined to call the name of a speaker more than once. After his third or fourth call, Mr. Garcia awakened from his dogmatic slumber, and he walked up to the mike.

TONY GARCIA:

Mr. Garcia sought to attack the Board Majority’s opponents by attributing their efforts to a single, allegedly fiendish, individual--retired Trustee Harriett Walther. You will recall that, one or two months ago, the Faculty Association’s Newsletter contained a piece that presented an elaborate and idiotic scenario according to which Harriett Walther is the Professor Moriarty of the SOCCCD, for she brilliantly controls the press and orchestrates all opposition to the Board Majority, to Frogue, and to the faculty union’s leadership.

This scenario is, of course, a fantasy, and one wonders whether anyone is really stupid enough to suppose otherwise. The opposition to Mr. Frogue and his friends--especially in the last 15 months--has virtually nothing to do with Ms. Walther. It has been inspired and fueled by outrageous conduct perceived by various independent parties, some of whom (e.g., me) have no connection to Harriett Walther or her political activities.

Nevertheless, Tuesday night, Mr. Garcia referred to his opponents as the “Walthers [sic] group,” and he attempted to discredit Walther. Evidently, in Garcia’s mind, the illegitimacy of the opposition movement is established, as a matter of logic, by the alleged misconduct of Ms. Walther. (Not so, logic fans.) Apparently resurrecting a gambit from the union’s 1996 campaign playbook, he read a 1994 document, written by state investigators, that asserted that, in 1993, Ms. Walther had violated the “conflict of interest” provisions of the Political Reform Act by voting to support a contract for the Association of Community College Trustees (ACCT), an organization for which she briefly worked as a telephone consultant within 12 months prior to the vote.

It is worth noting, however, that Mr. Garcia, like many of his equally unprincipled predecessors (Williams, Frogue, et al.), presented this document while suppressing important “mitigating” facts also in his possession. For the state’s investigation ultimately produced a “case closure memorandum” (5/3/95) that asserted

However, we have determined that prosecution for this violation is not warranted based on several mitigating factors which include: 1) the vote to approve the ACCT contract was unanimous and apparently would have been approved without Ms. Walther's vote; 2) it appears that Ms. Walther did not believe that she had a conflict of interest with regard to the ACCT contract, and had she known, it appears she would have abstained from the decision; 3) as a telephone research consultant, she did not stand to gain any commission or bonus as a result of the contract; 4) all other members of the SCCD involved in the ACCT contract were informed by Ms. Walther that she had been employed by ACCT, and 5) Ms. Walther has no prior enforcement history with the Commission.

You will recall that, during the ‘96 Trustees campaign, union leaders stated (in ads, fliers, and letters) that Ms. Walther “took conflict of interest money.” If, however, the California Fair Political Practices Commission’s final report can be believed, she did no such thing. Union leaders (and Trustees hostile to Walther) understood this, for, in their attacks on Ms. Walther, they quoted from the same document (namely, the 5/3/95 Case Closure Memorandum) in which the above passage appears.

Shame.

JULIE BEN-YEOSHUA:

Julie’s statement was undoubtedly the high point of the evening. Here it is in its entirety:

My name is Julie Ben-Yeoshua and I am presently a secretary at Irvine Valley College in the Office of Instruction. Although I have wanted to speak out in the past, I remained quiet out of fear of losing my job. But that is no longer the case since tomorrow is my last day of work and, quite frankly, I am relieved to be leaving. Although my decision to quit was a well thought-out decision, I am here tonight because I believe you, as the Board of Trustees, deserve to understand what motivated my decision to quit working at IVC.

When I was first employed here almost 3 years ago, IVC was a wonderful place to work. With more than 20 years experience in the secretarial field, this has been--by far--my most meaningful and rewarding position. I felt that everyone--whether they were an administrator, faculty member, or classified staff person--was proud of the college and went well beyond the call of duty to make IVC the best that it could be. Why? Because we were made to feel that our contributions were valued and that we--as people--were important to the institution.

But now that feeling is gone. Since you first appointed Raghu Mathur as the interim president, the atmosphere at IVC has changed drastically; morale is in the gutter; and it seems as though very few care to do more than what is absolutely required of them.

He tells everyone that everything is wonderful. It is not! His inability to tell the truth is so natural that I have come to gauge everything he says and writes by believing the complete opposite. One instance is when he wrote in the staff newsletter that his brown-bag luncheon was a complete success even though only two people attended. Yet his article led you to believe that the house was packed. He is not respected in any way and is the buttof considerable joking. We are so glad when he leaves that one day when he was out of town, we celebrated with a luncheon in honor of his absence.

My most wonderful job has turned--almost overnight--to a most miserable position. I have never worked in a more oppressive and hateful environment. Others I have spoken with--including faculty and administrators--are looking for other jobs or considering career changes, following the many who have already left. That is a disgrace since so many of them have spent years developing IVC’s fine reputation, a reputation that is gone since Raghu Mathur became president.

In closing, I would like to say that I am amazed that any one person could be allowed to do so much damage in only nine months. However, you, the Board of Trustees, have the power to do the one thing possible to begin the road to recovery and stop the rapid deterioration that IVC is experiencing: remove Raghu Mathur as president. If you don’t, you will have more people like me, standing before you to say that, regardless of the exceptional people I work with, I can no longer stand to be a part of what is happening and I refuse to spend any more time under his control.

Thank you.

JAMES SCOTT:

Mr. Scott, the last public speaker, began his remarks by explaining to us that, in the course of his education, he discovered that history is written by the winners. In fact, said Scott, there “never was a Holocaust.” He referred to a Holocaust industry or “racket” involving “Communist cockroaches.” He informed us that, in the little time they had, the Nazis could not possibly burn six million bodies (or did he say “cock roaches”?). In the end, he shouted to Frogue: “Keep up the good work, Dr. Frogue! There never was a Holocaust!”

At this point, a Saddleback College (?) student named Antonio, who had been listening quietly to Scott, could take no more. He walked right up to Scott and shouted that he (Antonio) had lost relatives in the Holocaust. Mr. Scott, who was only inches away from the student, turned quite red and shouted back with equal ferocity, using a variety of curse words. (He may have spoken of “cockroaches” again.) The exchange continued for some seconds.

Luckily, campus cop Harry Parmer was standing only inches behind Mr. Scott, and perhaps only this prevented a skirmish or worse. Virtually everyone in the room was amazed or horrified. I fully expected a fight. But the situation was controlled fairly quickly. The student went to one side of the room, and Scott went to the other.

Remarkably, neither Frogue nor any of his friends on the Board immediately responded to this incident or to the ugly things that had been said on Frogue’s behalf by Scott and others.

[What SCOTT, ET AL., ACTUALLY SAID:

SCOTT: Thanks a lot for letting me talk tonight. I'm going to get back to the main event which is the continuing sniping attacks on Mr. Frogue for having the intelligence to have something important to say -- contradict the political line. As a sixteen year victim of the public school system--Tustin High School, Orange Coast College. and Cal State Fullerton -- amazingly enough, in history yet. I found out that history was basically written by the winners. And there never was a holocaust. It's nothing but six milllion lies. It's become a racket. Everywhere you go, every time you pick up the paper, turn on the radio the TV, here's some Jew screaming about this and that and everything else. They're after the Swiss government, all the rest of the governments...

[interruption from a young man in the audience: "You are a sick son of a bitch! Sixty-nine of my ancestors died in the holocaust...!"]

[Shouted obscenities back and forth]

Scott: Get this guy out of my face!

Williams: This is out of order.

Woman from audience: Keep your filthy mouth shut over there with your name calling!

Scott: Aw, go to hell, you communist cockroach! Anyway, I will finish my talk right now. Garbage like this is not the way it's supposed to be here. Mr. Frogue has a right to an opinion. Not everybody's going for this holocaust monkey business. And if you bother talking to a mortician who cremates bodies all the time, look at the facts. Look at the logistics. A little tiny nation of Germany fighting a twelve-front war (end of tape) [could not have killed six million....] ...[beginning of other side of tape:] Thank you very much.

[The above was taken from a transcript of the board meeting apparently provided by D. Martin of the district.]

* * *

MORE ON KADAR/FIELDS:

Evidently, the founder of “American Spring” is GEORGE KADAR. The organization is discussed below in an exerpt from Novick’s White Lies, White Power:

“American Spring at the Mexican Border,” held at the U.S.-Mexico border at San Ysidro in June 1992, and again in 1993, was a recent example in a series of racist mobilizations aimed at stirring up anti-immigrant hysteria and blaming immigrant workers for all the growing problems of our society. It can serve to illuminate several key aspects of the issue.

In front of the ten-foot border wall, the AMERICAN SPRING nazis raised the confederate battle flag and flashed the Hitler salute. The rally united an assortment of right wingers, open nazis, skinheads, and "White Nationalist" Richard Barrett. It resulted in physical attacks on Chicano-Mexican protesters and the stoning of migrant workers by the nazi boneheads. It was the outcome of a continuing unity of purpose between repressive agencies of the government, reactionary and demagogic politicians, and hard-core racist elements which pose as being anti-establishment, but actually work hand in glove with the state to maintain exploitation and oppression.

In 1994, American Spring attempted to attach itself to a border rally planned by Ross Perot's United We Stand America organization (UWSA). UWSA had provided most of the petition circulators for the so-called Save Our State ("S.O.S.") initiative, placed on the November 1994 state ballot. Proposition 187 aimed to deny all education, health, and social service benefits to the undocumented, and require teachers, health care practitioners, and social workers to report "suspicious persons" to the INS, including even the parents of U.S. citizen school-children. END OF QUOTATION

More on Fields from Novick's book:

The head of the L.A. County chapter of the POPULISTS when [Bo] Gritz ran for President, also then a member of its national executive committee, was JOE FIELDS. One Joe Fields in national leadership is more than enough to discredit any political formation, and Fields is typical, not exceptional, in the ranks of the Populists. Fields has been a nazi activist of long standing in the L.A. Harbor area. He also became a national "footnote" to the story of David Duke's campaign for governor of Louisiana, after a tape-recorded interview with Fields and Duke was widely circulated. On the tape, made at a gathering of Carto's revisionist Institute for Historical Review, Fields openly asserted his nazi identity and beliefs, such as that the Jews deserve "everything they get, even extermination," while Duke admonished him to be more discreet.

It's ironic that Fields, who boasts on the tape that he would "never deny" he is a nazi, now is denying it, having taken Duke's advice to heart. Fields specifically opposes democracy on the tape, noting that it allows "anything that can claim to be human to vote." His interview is riddled with references to "kikes" and "niggers." Now Fields professes to be a supporter of the Bill of Rights, but on the tape he declares matter of factly that he would suppress any speech that he deems not in the interest of the white race. He ran for State Assembly in 1992 on the American Independent Party ticket (the group that achieved ballot status running George Wallace for president, and which gave its ballot line to Duke and the Populists in 1988). As this book is being prepared for printing, Fields is the American Independent Party candidate for U.S. Congress from the same vicinity. END OF QUOTATION.

The Faculty Association Luncheon

THE FACULTY ASSOCIATION LUNCHEON
by Chunk Wheeler
The ‘Vine, 1/19/98

     Later, at 11:00, the union held its in-service luncheon at Saddleback College, so down I went. The turnout was quite good, despite the poor IVC representation. Kathleen Hodge, Rich McCullough, Sherry Miller-White, Ray Chandos, Ken Woodward, and Sharon MacMillan were among those who spoke before the group.
     Hodge and McCullough seemed as pleased as punch to be hanging out with the union crowd. I don’t know why.
     Chandos and Woodward spoke about grievance procedures, among other things. Woodward, a union negotiator, seemed to be preparing faculty for disappointment concerning the contract. He seemed to argue that our district’s financial problems--which, he insisted, are not so bad--are not the fault of the Board. He also complained about “free riders” among the faculty: people who complain about the union but who refuse to join it and make it better. (A few months ago, Woodward cited the “free rider” problem when he advocated negotiating for a district rule according to which faculty who quit the union would be fired. Naturally, the leadership went for it.)
     There I was, mesmerized!
     A student paraded before us on the outside walkway, and we all panned her. I almost shouted, “Hey, I joined the union, and what did I get? At meetings, they send me outside without pie!”
     Inexplicably, Mr. Woodward kept reminding the audience that he has a Ph.D. in economics.
     Sherry Miller-White and Sharon MacMillan suggested that some faculty have been conspiring to instigate well-timed negative newspaper articles designed, evidently, to undermine the union’s efforts to negotiate higher salaries with the district. They also suggested, I think, that these faculty are a part of the international Jewish conspiracy. Or maybe it was the International House of Pancakes.
     At one point, Sharon, who seemed continually ready to burst into tears, pleaded with the unnamed faculty turncoats to cease and desist. When her dirge was at its most lugubrious, she looked right into my eyes as though I were the conspiracy’s kingpin. (I was sitting only five feet from her.) “How odd,” I thought. “We’re having a staring contest.” I think I won, too. I get a lot of practice with Buster.
     It goes without saying, I hope, that speaking with reporters about the regrettable state of our district and college does not constitute engaging in a conspiracy. (Can one “conspire” to alert the public of facts?) Nor does it necessarily constitute attempting to undermine the union’s current negotiations. I’m certain no faculty member has that particular aim. Personally, I think money makes the world go ‘round.
     Some of us, however, do seek to address various serious problems--especially those concerning “process” and shared governance. Thanks to the union’s current leadership--a group who have provided us, not only high salaries, but President Mathur, Vice Chancellor Runyan, and the notorious Board Majority--faculty no longer have a significant voice in district or college governance. Under the circumstances, concerned faculty have no choice but to go to the press--i.e., the public.
     The proportion of the district’s budget that is devoted to salaries is only one issue--by no means the fundamental issue--in a complex web of issues of concern to that loosely associated group who constitute the “concerned faculty.” It should not be surprising that reporters, who value “sexy” stories, sometimes emphasize the “salary” story more than the “process” and “shared governance” stories, despite the advice and requests of most (perhaps all) “concerned faculty” who communicate with them.
     The latter stories are terribly important, and we will continue to urge the press to cover them.

THE ACADEMIC SENATE: 

     After the FA luncheon, I drove back up to IVC for the Academic Senate meeting. There, I learned that the deans had been told to write an assessment of the July 16 reorganization (relative to their schools) and that they have completed first drafts. The assembled reports were sent to Kate Clark for review by the Academic Senate.
     Kate was told, however, that the document was “confidential.” Hence, apparently, the Academic Senate was being charged with reviewing a document that it may not read.
     Everyone stared into the face of this dilemma, stupefied. We could think of nothing to say or do, so we went home.

David Lang’s “Brown Act” depositions (Jan and Feb 1998)

From the ‘Vine 11, October 12, 1998

THE REORGANIZATION BLUES

     This issue of the ‘Vine presents more information regarding our district’s infamous July, 1997, “reorganization.” Trustee Lang, in his depositions of January and February ’98 excerpted here, explains that, in the months preceding the July meeting, the issue of eliminating the “chair” model at IVC in favor of the “dean” model had not been discussed by the trustees and that the body had neither authorized nor accepted studies or materials from staff, including administration, regarding that kind of administrative change.

     But, as we saw in the last issue of the ‘Vine, according to former VP Bob Loeffler, “In May of 1997, during an executive meeting of the three Vice Presidents and interim President Mathur, Mathur directed Vice President Burgess to develop a plan for the reorganization of the administrative structure of the college.” According to Loeffler, “Mathur stated that he wanted Vice President Burgess to develop a plan to institute a ‘Dean Model’ for the College.” Further, “Mathur directed…Burgess to calculate the cost attendant to a Four-Dean Model and a Five-Dean Model as compared to the costs associated with the Chair Model.” I have included the actual report of the latter calculations in the pages that follow. They do not seem to support Mr. Williams claim, made two months later, that the elimination of the chair model would save the district $600,000. Quite the contrary.

     When Burgess, then the VP of Instruction, was given these instructions, he naturally proceeded to discuss the matter with Instructional Council at the first opportuntiy, May 13. The IC unanimously recommended that the planning process to develop and implement this kind of massive reorganization be put off until the fall, when consultation with faculty, students, et al., would be possible.

     Mathur responded to the situation by endorsing the recommendation—deceptively, it seems—and then issuing Burgess a formal reprimand for failing to keep the “Dean Model” business confidential, among other sins. I have included the reprimand letter in this issue. (Later, Mathur was compelled to withdraw the reprimand, owing in part to his failure to grasp the facts of Burgess’ conduct.)

     As we saw in the last issue, the reorganization that was adopted on July 16 was one of the plans that Burgess had developed at Mathur’s direction. How, one might ask, does that fact square with the fact, noted by Lang, that the board never authorized a study of administrative changes of this kind? Inquiring minds want to know.

     As Lang explains, the first he heard about the elimination of the Chair Model in favor of the Dean Model was Williams’ notorious July 11 memo, in which he explains that the “performance of some chairs has fallen short of the expectations for their position.” (Translation: the goddam chairs won’t stop complaining about us.) I have included that letter, here, too.

     Clearly, there’s a weasel in the woodpile.

LANG’S DEPOSITION: EXCERPTS

            The man asking the questions is attorney Bill Shaeffer. Dave Lang, of course, is the witness. The district’s Spencer Covert is Lang’s counsel. Wendy P and Roy B were present. --The editor.

Q         …to your knowledge, did you receive any documents from the district or other board members prior to the board meeting on July 14, 1997 regarding a reorganization or a change from the…chair to the dean models other than Mr. Williams’ memo?

A         Not to my recollection.

Q         And I take it if you had received such information, you would have produced it?

A         Correct.

Q         Prior to your receipt of this July 11, 1997 letter, had you discussed with any other board member the pros and cons of a dean model as opposed to a chair model?

A         As I said earlier, the only person that I might have had a conversation with about this was Trustee Heuter, to the best of my recollection.

Q         Prior to July 14, 1997, were there any other board meetings at which time the topic of replacing the chair model with the dean model was discussed?

A         Not to my recollection.

Q         Prior to July 11, 1997, had you received any written materials from the district staff regarding the pros and cons of a dean or department chair model?

A         Not to the best of my recollection.

Q         Prior to July 11, 1997, had any district staff member made a presentation to the board or individual board members regarding the merits of lack of merits of a dean and department chair model?

A         No, none that I recall.

…..

Q         …Now, prior to July 11, 1997, had the faculty presented to the board their observations or desires regarding a dean or a department chair model?

A         No. That was one of my objections to…the action that was taken…I felt that we—the board—did not have enough input from other shared-governance groups.

Q         And who would those shared-governance groups be?

Q         It would certainly include the faculty; certainly include the Senate, Academic Senate; input from Associated Student Government.

Q         Anyone else?

A         Faculty Association.

Q         Why do you believe that these entities or groups were excluded from the decision process?

MR COVERT: Objection. Calls for his mental process and is irrelevant and immaterial. I instruct the witness not to answer.

Q BY MR. SHAEFFER: Well, as of July 11, 1997, why do you believe these various groups were exluded from the decision process?

            MR COVERT: Same objection. [I] instruct the witness not to answer.

Q         Did you attend any board meeting where the faculty or faculty representatives presented their view on the dean and department chair models prior to July 16, 1997?

A         No.

Q         Did you receive any correspondence from the district which included or outlined the views on the dean and chair models as presented by the faculty?…

A         No.

Q         Prior to July 16, 1997, did you receive any correspondence from the district, including its staff and faculty, which represented or summarized the viewpoints of the Academic Senate?

A         No.

Q         Who do you believe was the primary advocate of the department chair model?

            MR. COVERT: Objection. Calls for his mental process. I instruct the witness not to answer because it’s irrelevant and immaterial.

Q by MR. SHAEFFER: Has anyone told you who the primary advocate is for the change from the chair model to the dean model?

A         No.

Q         Prior to July 16, 1997, did you attend any board meeting at which time the board authorized the staff to prepare a study comparing the pros and cons of a dean model?

A         No.

Q         Prior to July 16, 1997, had you received any correspondence or any documentation explaining a proposed dean model?

A         Other than this letter?

Q         Correct.

A         No.

Q         Prior to July 16, 1997, did the board authorize any type of study to determine what type of personnel assignments or changes would be necessary to implement a dean model?

A         No. The board as a whole didn’t. It took no such action.

Q         I take it you never participated in those types of activities?

A         Right. The board as a whole did not authorize any such study.

Q         When were you first advised that a dean model, as opposed to a chair model, was supported by one or more board members?

A         This letter would have really been the first indication of that that I would have received.

Q         Prior to July 11, 1997, do you know what the state of the chair model or chair proposal was?

MR. COVERT: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.

            THE WITNESS: Yeah, I need you to be a little bit more explicit.

Q         …Prior to you receipt of this July 11, 1997 memo, did you have any information which generally described how the dean model would be implemented at your college?

A         No. At Irvine Valley College, actually, I represent the district, so…

Q         Well, the district. Prior to July 11, 1997, did any other board member tell you that they had been presented with a summary or an outline of what the dean model would be?

A         No.

Q         When you recieved your memo of July 11, 1997 from Mr. Williams, what did you expect would occur within the district to implement or not implement the dean model?

MR. COVERT: Objection. Irrelevant and immaterial; that inquires into his mental process and is irrelevant. [I] instruct the witness not to answer.

Q BY MR. SHAEFFER: Would you characterize the result of the July 16, 1997 meeting as a major reorganization of the district?

A         Yes.

…..

Q         Why did you believe there was a Brown Act violation on July 16th, 1997[—one] that caused you to leave the board meeting?

            MR. COVERT: I’m going to instruct the witness not to answer as to anything that was said in the closed session on July 16th, 1997 as being confidential.

Q BY MR. SHAEFFER: Do you want me to restate the question?

A         No, I understand the question. I guess what I’m trying to determine is what I can say in light of my cousel’s recommendation not to divulge discussions that occurred for the period of time that I was in that meeting.

…..

Q         …Now, independent of whatever was said or done in the closed session on July 16th, 1997, why do you believe there was a Brown Act violation?

A         I believe that the subject of reorganization is one that should be discussed in a public meeting rather than a closed session.

…..

Q         Do you believe a majority of the board—comprising Frogue, Williams, Fortune, and Lorch—had prearranged the vote on the reoganization issue, including its particulars?

            MR. COVERT: Objection, as it calls for the mental processes of this witness, but you may answer if you have a belief.

            THE WITNESS: I have no proof that that occurred.

Q         All right. Do you believe it occurred?

            MR. COVERT: Objection; irrelevant and immaterial; also calls for speculation. You can answer that. I’m making the objection for the record.

            THE WITNESS: I understand. Certainly the memo that was faxed by Trustee Williams on the 11th dealt with that subject, in my view, in an inappropriate way. That by itself certainly seems to me to have been a signal being sent out to all of the trustees. And I think it may be possible that he spoke with members of the board that he felt closest to relative to this subject.

…..

Q         All right. On the last page of your September 3rd, ’97 letter, you identify the other board members. Did you sent a copy of your letter to them?

A         (Witness reviews the document.) I sent a copy to everybody that I cc’d on this list.

Q         Did you receive any verbal or written response from board members Frogue, Williams, Fortune and/or Lorch as a result of your September 3d, ’97 letter?

A         I received no written responses from the other board members.

Q         Did you receive any verbal comments from them?

A         Yes.

Q         I take it they were annoyed?

A         I think that’s a fair assessment.

Q         All right. Now later on in your letter, you state, “Although Mr. Williams preceded his further discussion of the district and colleges administrative model by naming certain personnel for reassignment effectively eliminating the chair model that was in effect at one of the district’s colleges and transferring personnel within the district and at each college, I believe this action was a thinly veiled attempt to skirt the Brown Act under the guise of a personnel decision.”

            Can you tell me generally what you are referring to in that comment?

A         (Witness reviews the document.)

MR. COVERT: Again, I would instruct the witness not to answer with respect to anything occurring in that closed session or any other closed session.

            THE WITNESS: Okay.

            MR. COVERT: And then, for the record, I would object in that it inquires into the mental processes of Mr. Lang as a trustee, but you may answer that question.

            MR. SHAEFFER: And just for purposes of this deposition, your counsel is not waiving the legislative privilege, so—

            THE WITNESS: Okay.

            MR. COVERT: And for the record, so stipulated that we have that understanding.

            MR. SHAEFFER: Right, because that will make it a lot easier when we get into the next stuff.

            THE WITNESS: My understanding of the Brown Act is that in closed session, the board can discuss specific personnel matters. However, when it comes to a broad restructuring of the district, I know of no exception under the Brown Act that would cover that, which is why I felt that it should have been a matter for public discussion.

Q BY MR. SHAEFFER: do you believe a majority of the board took this closed session approach to avoid the public criticism that was generated as a result of their July 16th, 1997 action?

            MR COVERT: Objection: irrelevant and immaterial, not designed to lead to the production of relevant evidence; also calls for speculation.

Q BY MR. SHAEFFER: You may answer.

A         I believe so.

Q         You next state, “None of the appointed administrators nor other shared governance groups were apparently consulted before actions were taken, resulting in reassignments and newly delegated responsibilities that made no rational sense.”

            Okay. First of all, what information do you have that formed the basis of your comment that none of the appointed administrators nor the shared governance groups were consulted regarding the actions taken?

A         It would have involved conversations with members of administration that were involved in the development of the model by which the reassignments took place.

Q         Can you explain that more for me? Are you saying that some administrators presented some proposals to the board?

A         No.

Q         Okay.

A         Um—

            MR COVERT: Objection; there is no question pending.

            MR SHAEFFER: Well, let me have your answer reread.

            (Record read as follows:

“A       It would have involved conversations with members of administration that were involved in the development of the model by which the reassignments took place.”)

            MR. COVERT: And he answered no.

Q BY MR. SHAEFFER: So you’re saying that these conversations occurred after the board action of July 16th, 1997?

A         Correct.

Q         And in those conversations, the administrators said, in essence, “This is the action taken by the board, now these are the problems we’re having implementing this action”?

A         No, not exactly.

Q         Okay. Did they tell you, “We were not consulted, individually or collectively, by anyone prior to the board’s action of July 16th, 1997”?

A         Okay. Let me go back. Let me think about this for a minute.

            I was again made aware by a member of the administration that Mr. Mathur had asked for information about what a dean model at Irvine Valley College might look like subsequent to the July 16th meeting, and that model was the one that apparently was adopted by the board majority.

Q         When did you have this conversation with this administrator?

A         I don’t recall the exact date.

Q         Was it before or after July 16th?

A         After.

Q         And this administrator told you that he had been contacted by Mr. Mathur and asked—what?—to prepare a proposed model or what?

A         Well, I’m trying to recall exactly what—how the conversation went. And it was some time ago. But apparently the model that was adopted or the model that was utlimately adopted, the dean model at Irvine Valley college and the assigment of responsibilities that occurred under that model was based on information that Mr. Mathur received from members of the administration at Irvine Valley Colege.

Q         Can you tell me who the administrator is that told you the board action was based on a model and assignment that had been prepared by this administrator at the direction of Mathur?

A         I prefer not to answer that question.

Q         All right…Did you approach this administrator or did the administrator approach you with this information?

A         I recall—well, to the best of my recollection, it was based on my inquiry, my subsequent inquiry.

Q         All right. So you negotiated the contact?

A         Yes.

Q         Why did you conduct this inquiry?

MR COVERT: Objection; inquires into the mental process as well as consideration of the thought processes and material considered; I instruct the witness not to answer.

Q BY MR. SHAEFFER: Did you—

MR COVERT: Also object on the grounds it’s not designed to lead to the production of relevant information.

Q BY MR. SHAEFFER: …When you conducted your inquiries, did you interview more than one administrator or just one administrator regarding his or her knowledge of the development of the model and assignment?

MR COVERT: Same instruction.

Q BY MR. SHAEFFER: All right. You next state, “Further violations of the Brown Act include discussion of specific agenda items in closed session that are on the open session calendar.” Was that comment directed both to the July 16th, 1997 reorganization and the permanent appointment of Mr. Mathur as IVC president?

…..

A         No, I think that particular phrase was intended to incorporate other discussions that may have occurred where the board was perhaps not being as circumspect as it should be in closed session discussions.

Q BY MR. SHAEFFER: What do you mean by that?

MR. COVERT: Objection; instruct the witness not to answer based upon the Brown Act privilege.

Q BY MR. SHAEFFER: All right. These concerns you just mentioned with respect to circumspection, do those apply both to the Mathur permanent appointment and the July 16th, 1997 reorganization?

A         In my opinion, yes, as I state in my letter.

THE SAYINGS OF CHAIRMAN FROGUE (1997?)

Prepared by R. J. Bauer for the Recall Frogue Committee

STEVE FROGUE, SEEKER OF “TRUTH”:

“Was it 6 million who died?” Frogue asked, saying he wonders “whether it’s the number of people who were actually killed, or the number of people who actually died, or the number of people who were actually put in the gas chambers.”

--From the Register, 4/4/95

“...there are too many questions about the Holocaust for it to be judged a certainty in all aspects.”

--Frogue quoted in the IVC student newspaper the Voice, 4/20/95

“There’s a group, right here in Orange County, called the Institute for Historical Review...they have raised questions about [the occurrence of the Holcaust]. I’ve looked at some of their publications, kind of strange and definitely new, I’ve never seen anything like it before. There’s somebody that wants to engage in the debate about the Holocaust. In 1984 their headquarters in Torrance was burned to the ground. Maybe that guy was back from his CIA stint. The guy who killed Alex Odeh. I don’t know. It was not terribly long after that the FBI reported most of the terrorist actions in the United States in that previous year had been by pro-Israeli groups...Whatever their opinion about the Holocaust, if it’s garbage, expose it to the light of day, why bomb their headquarters and burn all their information and research? Then I say, ‘wait a minute,’ is it maybe they have uncovered some stuff that the public should know?”

--Frogue, quoted in the IVC Voice, 3/23/95 (The Institute for Historical Review, founded in the early ‘80s by notorious anti-Semite and racist Willis Carto, is the foremost Holocaust denial organization in the U.S.)

“...a bit of a nightmare, and all for telling the truth.”

--Frogue describing the toll he had taken over the controversy over the April, 1995, OC Register article. (Voice, 4/20/95)

PUBLIC ENEMY #1: THE ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE

An Irvine Valley College class on the Holocaust has been called into question by a college district trustee due to the professor’s involvement in a Holocaust project...Trustee Steven Frogue has publicly questioned the role of the ADL in Professor Richard Prystowsky’s class and the Holocaust Oral History Project, saying he is “distressed” that Prystowsky “is a Holocaust scholar and heavily involved in the Anti-Defamation League of Orange County’s Holocaust Project”....

Frogue spoke out against the ADL at the Jan. 23, 1995 meeting of the Board of Trustees, alleging that the ADL has conducted a “massive espionage apparatus against thousands of law abiding American citizens.”

According to Frogue, the conspiracy is widespread. The ADL has been “violating the rights of Americans, working in conjunction illegally with various police departments and police agencies, federal, state, and local.”

--From an article in IVC’s Voice, February 23, 1995. In fact, Prystowsky has never been a member of the ADL, and the ADL had no role in his course. Frogue’s charges against the ADL have not been substantiated.

“[The ADL is a] group of spies that actively keeps files on people...people like me.”

--Frogue, quoted in the LA Times, 11/25/96

“I believe Lee Harvey Oswald worked for the ADL...That’s right...I believe the ADL was behind [the JFK assassination].”

--Frogue, quoted in the LA Times, 11/25/96.

STEVE FROGUE, PROTECTOR OF FREEDOM:

“[The ADL] keep[s] files on over 10,000 individuals in this state, 950 organizations...I consider the group a threat to academic freedom and a danger to civil liberties in this country.”

--Frogue, quoted in the IVC Voice, 3/23/95

“Freedom of speech does not entail license.”

--Frogue, responding to a concern, expressed by Tamara Carnine, that those who criticize or question IVC president Raghu Mathur seem to risk disciplinary action from him; at a board meeting, 5/19/97

LIARS, LIARS EVERYWHERE!

“An April 4, 1994, article in the ‘Orange County Register’ quoted four students saying things that I had supposedly said in my classes two years before. The quotes were absolutely and totally false. I never could or never would have said such cruel, vicious and untruthful things...The manner in which the reporter tried to put words into my mouth, and into the mouths of three colleagues leave little doubt in my mind as to how he elicited such comments from these young women.”

--Frogue, from a letter, dated 10/6/96, distributed by the faculty union (which supports him).

“We have the same type of problem here that we've had over the last three years...And we've seen it in this last week here, where lies get printed in the newspapers...It's called ‘blow back.’ It's the oldest game in the book. You plant something in the newspaper that's false--I've suffered this type of stuff personally from people in this very room: repeating lies. The lies, just by getting printed get--’Well, it was printed; it therefore must be the truth’...They spin this stuff--people (can be) inventive, conscientious, and creative liars and the truth seems to be whatever lies they think they can get away with. And it's time that maybe a little bit of this stuff stops.”

--Frogue, remarking on the district’s Academic Senates during the May 19, 1997, board meeting.

“The Register reporter was inaccurate in everything he wrote, from my hometown to the spelling of students’ names.”

--Frogue, quoted in the IVC Voice, 4/20/95

“I NEVER SAID IT,” HE SAID

During the August 18 board meeting, Joyce Greenspan of the ADL revealed the unsavory nature of the guest speakers--especially Mr. Michael Collins Piper, who is on the staff of an anti-Semitic newspaper--whom Mr. Frogue was about to propose for his forum on the JFK assassination. She also repeated a quote from a November ‘96 Times piece in which Frogue said that the ADL was behind the Kennedy assassination.

Frogue then responded as follows:

FROGUE: Michael Collins Piper--I met him in Washington, D.C., a year ago. He has written a book, Final Judgment, which blames certain elements of the CIA associated through James...Engleton, head of counter-intelligence, and certain elements of organized crime for the assasssination.
Regarding the quote in the Los Angeles Times, November 25th: like about everything else in that article, it’s untrue. I never said it, it’s ridiculous and--how they can quote me as saying something like that--I never said it. It’s ridiculous, and I never said it. So much for that.

ROY BAUER, interrupting: (So) all the papers are liars. All the papers. The Register, the LA Times, the Irvine World News--they’re all liars. Is there a conspiracy against you? Is that what’s going on?

FROGUE: No...we’re getting away from this. What we have...

BAUER: Are you still a fan of the Institute for Historical Review?

FROGUE: Mr...? You’re out of order, please.

“Any person that has any concern about the April 4, ‘Register’ article...need only realize that the vile statements attributed to me are entirely false, and are the offshoot of questions I have raised about the validity of faculty senate elections (or non-elections as is the case this year), and questions about any possible role of the Anti-Defamation League in a Holocaust course at Irvine Valley College. In both cases I found a group of most industrious and inventive liars involved in a propaganda campaign that even a child could figure out. Not much different than certain quarters of our own school district. Chasing the lies is a bit time consuming, but - hey - someone’s got to do it.”

--From a memo from Frogue to some of his High School colleagues, May 2, 1995

“...certain people know that they’re not going to be able to get away with telling lies and falsehoods and some of those people, I honestly think, if they could get by with telling the truth, they’d tell a lie just to keep in practice.”

--Frogue remarking on members of the IVC Academic Senate, March, 1995. (The IVC Voice, 3/23/95)

THE VOICE: How did you feel when Trustee Walther used the term “holocaust denier,” maybe not in direct reference to you, but in a tangential reference?

FROGUE: Well again that’s the general idea of the smear--don’t answer the question, smear people and raise this business of--I never in my life said anything that could remotely be considered denying the holocaust. This is obscene, this is an obscenity to say that--and what can I say? It’s a part of the big lie campaign--tell a lie that’s so stunning that it leaves people speechless. I never said that...It’s just appalling.

--From the IVC Voice, 3/23/95

TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA “LIARS”:

“He decided that the Holocaust was made up...He basically said that the Jews made it up to make people feel sorry for them, because he decided that it was impossible for so many people to have been killed in such a short amount of time...He said that it was more like 60 people that got killed, rather than 6 million...I would raise my hand and tell him, ‘That’s wrong,’ and he would just really get mad at me and send me out of the class.”

--Emily Hoffman, one of Frogue’s students, quoted in the 1995 Register piece

“He said [the Holocaust] never happened.”

--Leah Killen, one of Frogue’s students, quoted in the Register piece

“He said some really racist things that really really hurt a lot of his Asian students...There was this one time, I forget what he was talking about, but he called us ‘yellow people’...He always characterized ethnicity by color, and it really bothered me. Maybe he was trying to be funny, but it didn’t work.”

--Wendy Hayashi, one of Frogue’s students, quoted in the Register piece)

“Five percent of all Jewish people are bad, but 95 percent are just as good as the rest of us.”

--From student Stacey Marcus’ notes of one of Frogue’s lectures. (From the 1995 Register piece).

"He said you can always tell a Jew by their nose and that they are always rude," Danielle Brown, 19, said. "I couldn't believe he was a teacher. When I got to Irvine Valley and saw that he was the board president, I was disgusted."

--From the OC Register, 9/16/97

"He also said the Holocaust did not exist," [Danielle] Brown told the board...Brown, who attends the Mormon church, also told the board that Frogue made derogatory comments about Mormons as well.

--From the LA Times, 9/16/97

Pam Bustamante, 24, who works as a World Wide Web designer, told The Times on Tuesday that she was a student of Frogue's in 1989, before graduating from Foothill High in 1990. Bustamante, who is Jewish, said she complained to school authorities when Frogue refused to mention the Holocaust during a lengthy discussion of World War II.

"I remember him going into great detail about Japanese internment camps, but when I asked him to discuss the Holocaust, he refused, which upset me a great deal,” Bustamante said. "I lost 48 relatives in the Holocaust, so I found his attitude extremely disturbing."

--From the LA Times, 9/17/97

[Former student Danielle] Brown also said that statements by Frogue about the Mormon religion had gotten so derogatory, she walked out of his class. She said Frogue described the Jewish and Mormon religions as “cults inspired by the devil."

--From the Irvine World News, 9/18/97

STEVEN FROGUE, IRONIST:

“The classrooms of the community college district and all public schools are not to be used as pulpits for pushing one particular idea or another.”

--Frogue, quoted in the IVC Voice, 3/23/95. In early 1995, Frogue used up much board time, over several meetings, to attack the ADL, prompting the Irvine World News to ask, What does all this “have to do with running the Saddleback Community College District?”

“We live in a nation planted thick with laws and by-laws. They are there for a reason. One needn’t look far in Irvine to see that that fine community has had its reputation besmirched by the Lincoln Savings and Loan Scandal...How did these tragedies occur? Because people didn’t follow the rules, and those responsible for overseeing them were asleep at the switch. This is not going to happen in this district. There have been too many reports and too many observations of shady activities up to and inculding [sic] attempts to manipulate the chancellor search process and even the trustee elections in this district...A small clique has become a law unto themselves, bending the rules when necessary to perpetuate their own power, to the detriment of the campus as a whole.”

--From Frogue’s written report to the Board of Trustees on June 6, 1994. (Orange County Superior Court Judge William McDonald recently ruled that Frogue and other members of the board majority (Williams, Fortune, and Lorch) violated five sections of the California Open Meeting Law. Indeed, it seems clear that the board majority has often violated that law. Further, recently, as the search for the IVC president approached, these same four Trustees pressured Chancellor Lombardi to impose a

process that clearly violated the district’s hiring procedures, a fact later acknowledged by Lombardi.

(Frogue’s disciple, Raghu Mathur, has displayed a similarly strong propensity to violate rules.)

STEVE FROGUE, RHETORICIAN:

“An intellectual drive-by shooting.”

--Frogue’s description of two IVC Academic Senate resolutions that condemned his conduct; Februrary, 1995.

“An intellectual spur posse.”

--Frogue’s description of the IVC Academic Senate, February, 1995. He was referring, of course, to the gang of high school boys who kept a tally of their sexual conquests.

“Thought police.”

--Frogue’s characterization of the ADL and its supporters, February, 1995.

“The Spanish Inquisition carried out by fifth graders.”

--Frogue, characterizing the work of an IVC Academic Senate Fact Finding Committee that was investigating Frogue’s reprimand of the IVC Senate President; 4/94.

“I used the term ‘negra’ to explain southern racist views during the civil rights movement. I quoted a World War II sermon that used the phrase ‘yellow belly japs’ to show racist attitudes in wartime.”

--Frogue, explaining his use of racial terms in his high school classroom. (The IVC Voice, 4/20/95)

THE “RIGGED ELECTIONS” EPISODE, May 19:


The following exchange occurred at the May 19, 1997 board of trustees meeting. A few minutes earlier, the president of the IVC Academic Senate had informed the board of the results of a faculty-wide vote of “no confidence” in the trustees concerning their appointment of Raghu Mathur as Interim President one month earlier. 73% of the voting faculty, she said, voted “no confidence.” Not long after, Trustee Frogue spoke of “liars” in the press--and in the room. Then, when faculty union president Miller-White, a supporter of Mr. Frogue, suggested that the Academic Senates, which had been critical of the board, fall “under the auspices” of the board and should be investigated by them, Frogue offered this remark:

FROGUE: I've seen rigged elections. (Indecipherable) votes of no confidence--I've seen rigged elections in one of the colleges. I've seen it twice, personally, personally--with rigged elections. And so when...people talk about...votes of this or votes of that, I just think you have to take it with a grain of salt. Moving along...(Philosophy instructor Roy Bauer begins to speak over Trustee Frogue: "Are you saying that...")

BAUER: Excuse me. Are you saying that the [IVC faculty] referendum was rigged?

FROGUE: No.

(?): Then what are you saying?

FROGUE: I'm saying that there've been rigged elections in the past.

(?:) By whom?

FROGUE: The Academic Senate of Irvine Valley College [mixed voices. Frogue responds to something:] I just said it. There have been rigged elections...

BAUER: Was it [i.e., the vote of no confidence] rigged or not?
.....
JAN WYMA: We've been called liars here tonight; we may as well get it out in the open.

BAUER: (Addressing Frogue:) Who is the liar and what's the lie?

WYMA: (We're having) a public meeting and you [Frogue] call our faculty liars!

FROGUE: I said there have been rigged elections at Irvine Valley College. I've seen them. Twice. You want me to name names?...The evidence is in the record.
.....
(?): The record exonerated the Senate.

FROGUE: The record did not exonerate the Senate.

(?): I'd like (you) to name names.

FROGUE: The record...We can, if you'd like [mixed voices, indecipherable; reference is made by someone to Frogue's speaking of liars.] No, I didn't call anybody "liars." I said there were rigged elections.

BAUER: You, sir, are a coward.

FROGUE: No, I'm not.

DAMN, I’M GOOD!

THE VOICE: Why are you no longer teaching?

FROGUE: I don’t know. They reassigned me [to detention duty] without consulting me or my department chairman. It makes no sense for me to spend all day supervising students...

THE VOICE: Are you being disciplined?

FROGUE: If it was anything like that, it was not brought to my attention. The only reason I was given was that I would do a good job...I think it’s a waste of taxpayer money. It could be run by campus supervisors...and here you have detention run by the best historian, the best history teacher in the school, maybe in the district, who knows, maybe even in the country. I think I’m good, judge for yourself.

--From an interview in the IVC Voice, 3/23/95

STEVE FROGUE: INSPIRATIONAL SPEAKER

“I turned, however, and there's an inscription on the wall that left me transfixed. And it said that every time a person stands up, and stands up to, that which is wrong, they start a small ripple, and if enough people stand up against what is wrong, they can truly cause a wave to form that will change the world. It was the most beautiful thing that I've ever seen. Very inspiring and something that we can all learn from and profit from.”

--Frogue, at the May 19, 1997, board meeting, describing his trip to Arlington national cemetary.

WEIRD STEVE:

“In that there be no taint of sex discrimmination [sic] or reverse sex discrimmination [sic] in the process of choosing our next department chair, I would like to point out that for over ten years...our department chair has always been a woman, either by election or administrative selection. In that we will have only one full-time and one part-time female teacher in our department next year..., it is perhaps time to consider an alternative to a female department chairperson.”

--From a memo from Frogue to members of his department (at Foothill High School) in which he solicits their “support for the position of Social Science Department Chair”; May 2, 1995

ANGRY STEVE SOILS HIS TROUSERS:

“I’ve had my name dragged through the mud. You want to look for a hate crime, you look in this room where people here have soiled my name.”

--Frogue, speaking to the Orange County Human Relations Commission concerning comments made about him and his JFK conspiracy course, 9/11/97. (Taken from the OC Register, 9/12/97.)

STEVE ON “BLACK HEROES”--AND AIDS:

“O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson, Mike Tyson, Magic Johnson, Arthur Ashe. Five black heroes who have fallen into disgrace.”

--A Froguian observation made during a board meeting. When asked about Arthur Ashe’s inclusion on the list, Frogue is said to have replied: “He died of AIDS.” Oh.