Rebel Girl's Poetry Corner: The Weight of the World is Love

~
LAST WEEK, a long week filled with one thing and another, but mostly filled with the weight of death, the sudden death of my son's "Baja grandpa," Rebel Girl walked into the Humanities Center and saw a student reading Allen Ginsberg's Howl, the small black and white City Lights edition. She wasn't reading it, the student told me, because it was assigned. She was reading it because she always wanted to. She was deep into it too, past "Howl," past "Footnote for Howl," beyond "A Supermarket in California" and "Sunflower Sutra" and "America."

And so, for that student and for my friend, dead now, heart attack underwater while doing what he did best and often: helping others, and for the rest of us, one of Allen Ginsberg's earlier poems from the back of the book, a sweet thing, maybe too sweet, but hey.

Song

The weight of the world
is love.
Under the burden
of solitude,
under the burden
of dissatisfaction

the weight,
the weight we carry
is love.

Who can deny?
In dreams
it touches
the body,
in thought
constructs
a miracle,
in imagination
anguishes
till born
in human—

looks out of the heart
burning with purity—
for the burden of life
is love,

but we carry the weight
wearily,
and so must rest
in the arms of love
at last,
must rest in the arms
of love.

No rest
without love,
no sleep
without dreams
of love—
be mad or chill
obsessed with angels
or machines,
the final wish
is love
—cannot be bitter,
cannot deny,
cannot withhold
if denied:

the weight is too heavy

—must give
for no return
as thought
is given
in solitude
in all the excellence
of its excess.
The warm bodies
shine together
in the darkness,
the hand moves
to the center
of the flesh,
the skin trembles
in happiness
and the soul comes
joyful to the eye—

yes, yes,
that's what
I wanted,
I always wanted,
I always wanted,
to return
to the body
where I was born.

Was a Sunny day

.
K & L

Was a sunny day
Not a cloud was in the sky
Not a negative word was heard
From the people passing by
'Twas a sunny day
All the birdies in the trees
And the radio's singing songs
All the favorite melodies

—Paul Simon

LAST NIGHT, Jan and I hosted a party in honor of Ken, a student in my Intro to Philosophy class during my first semester at Irvine Valley College—many years ago.

Now, Ken has a doctorate in philosophy and, recently, he was offered a tenure-track position in the philosophy department of a state university on the Central California coast.

Oh, what a lucky man!


A good time was had by all. Even the normally shy Sunny Girl came out to visit—with the lovely Laurie, who, in fact, is mom to Sunny's two kittens, who are now 16 years old and living the good life, with Laurie, in Laguna Niguel.

After several hours, we moved inside, and proceeded to watch rare videos of the Ramones, Patti Smith, Elivis Costello, and Jonathan Richman. Jan drank Glenlivet (I never touch the stuff), then Laphroaig. This inspired him to demand that I play The Modern Lovers. I obliged the fellow, blasting forth Roadrunner (1972), to the delight of all:

Alright!
I'm in love with modern moonlight
128 when it's dark outside
I'm in love with Massachusetts
I'm in love with the radio on
It helps me from being alone late at night
It helps me from being lonely late at night
I don't feel so bad now in the car
Don't feel so alone, got the radio on
Like the roadrunner
That's right!

TODAY, Sunny and I spent some time outside, enjoying the sunshine and the spectacular view. I sat in my SUN chair. Sunny hunted bugs and ate grass. We listened to the Modern Lovers' Jonathan Richman.

Do yourself a favor and check out this loony video, set to a wacky Richman tune.

It'll make you smile, I promise!

And, oh: Sunny says "Hey!"

Coarse FUR & Mathur's inventiveness

MAN, I wish I could find me a better crew of critics and opponents. The "Friends uv Raghu" (F.U.R.) are an embarrassment. If they don't come up with better stuff soon, I'll have to write my own anti-Dissent comments.

Have you been reading the comments to our blog? There's been lots of support, but lots of FUR, too.

Evidently, FUR imagine that I, Chunk, instigated Cely's suit, or that Carol Sobel did.

No. Cely had been victimized (does anyone really doubt that?), and she needed an attorney. At some point, she approached Carol. Carol did not approach her.

I have never been involved in this case in any way.

My connection to this case amounts to this: I was aware of it. I attended 4 of the 6 days of the trial. I attended and reported on the trial because I support Cely (qua victim of workplace violence, qua victim of Mathur), because Carol is a friend of mine (she was my attorney), and because reporting on this trial made sense for Dissent.

How so? I knew that, whatever the trial's outcome (which was always in doubt, for discrimination suits, I was told, are notoriously difficult to win), testimony would permit highlighting the truth about Mathur.

Example: on the stand, Mathur acknowledged that the documentation for his mysterious "4th reference check" (on Poindexter)--the other three provided no substantial grounds for hiring P--has been lost (or, anyway, has not been produced by the district). How very convenient for Raghu.

That reminds me of Mathur's 1998 accusation that some IVC faculty were sending him "hate mail" and hate messages--perhaps a half dozen instances. That was mighty convenient, too (Mathur had just suffered a vote of "no confidence").


MATHURIAN CLAIMS, MATHURIAN DOCUMENTATION:

During a subsequent depo (see below), he was asked if he kept any of the mail. No, he said. He was asked if he kept any of the emails. No, he said. He was asked if he kept any of the alleged voicemail. No, he said. He "kept" nothing. Absolutely nothing. He had zero documentation to support his stunning and obnoxious claim.

And now, again, he has no documentation for the crucial claim (to defending the wisdom of his chosing Poindexter) that there was one reference who had "very positive" things to say about Poindexter, the man he hired despite his manifest lack of qualifications.

One needs to ask: how likely is it that this crucial required documentation was lost? Of all the "ref check" forms filed at the district, why is this one lost?

Mathur deposed: Sept. 28, 1999

During the May 21, 1998, board meeting, Mathur, stung by a recent 74% faculty vote of no confidence, lashed out at an alleged faculty cabal who were, he said, “at the very core” of the vote against him. In the course of his rantings, three instuctors were named, including Bauer. Remarkably, without offering a shred of evidence, he asserted that “People in this core in the past have sent me mail threats saying, ‘Go back to your country.’ These threats have come from some of these people, I am confident of it. When I went to the Sheriff’s Department and exposed it, all of a sudden those mail threats stopped.” He ended his remarks with a rhetorical flourish, describing how he had arrived on “American shores some 31 years ago with eight dollars in my pocket [and]…a dream.”]

The attorney asking the questions is Carol Sobel. Mathur’s attorney, David Larsen, was provided by the district.

Q Did you ever make any statements to the effect that you had received e-mail you perceived to be threats against you?

A Yes.

Q When did you make those statements?

A I made a statement to that effect at a board meeting….

Q What did you tell the board about the e-mail you received?

A That I have received threats. I don’t recall exactly what I said, but something to the effect that I have received threats from a small group of faculty staff members, and that’s essentially what I said.

Q How many threats did you receive?

A I believe I have received about three or four.

Q Were they all received close in time to each other?

A Over a period of time. I don’t know if I would characterize [it as] close together.

Q Over what period of time were they received?

A About six months or so.

Q Did you print them out?

A Some were already imprinted. I received them in the form of letters, and I remember one was a voice mail.

Q So it is not correct then that you received e-mail threats; is that correct?

A I may have received them, but I don’t recall right now.

Q You don’t recall if you received any e-mail threats?

A I’m thinking. I believe I have received one or two….

Q Now, let’s talk about the first threat you recall receiving. Was that voicemail, letter, or e-mail?

A That was a letter.

Q Do you have that letter today?

A I had turned the letters over to the sheriff’s department….

Q Is there some document you can consult to find out the name of the individual at the OC Sheriff’s Department you consulted with?

A I did try, but I think maybe—yeah. I can try.

Q Well, you said it’s somebody you work[ed] with [at the Sheriff’s Dept.]. In what capacity did you work with the person?

A Whatever his official capacity was. I don’t remember. But I went to file a complaint, reported it to the receptionist. She brought one of the inspectors and I told the story and he wanted copies of those [letters] turned over. And he advised me to talk it up in the college, which I did. And this was after two or three such letters I have received, and in the time being, it stopped. The threats had stopped.

Q Where did you go to report this?

A Laguna Hills Sheriff’s Department….

Q Do you recall when it was that you went to the…Sheriff’s Department?…

A I believe it was sometime in 1990.

Q Did you receive these in 1990?

A Yes.

Q Was there some reason why you waited nine years to raise this with the board?

A It’s because the threats were becoming more violent in nature in terms of references to dropping granite or in terms of attacks on me, on my implications of attacks on my body and so forth. I felt that I had to convey my concerns to the board.

Q Between 1990 and the time Professor Bauer started publishing the Dissent and ‘Vine, which I believe was sometime in late ’97, how many letters did you receive conveying threats to you?

A As I indicated, three to four letters I received, and I did report at the time also to the chancellor of the district.

Q I understand that. You indicated, if I understood your prior testimony—and if I’m incorrect, correct me—that you had received three or four letters at the time you went to the OC Sheriff’s Department, which now turns out to be in 1990?

MR. LARSEN: What do you mean “now” turns out to be 1990? Probably always been.

MS. SOBEL: The witness testified that he went to the board a year ago. The e-mail threats have now become several letters and voice mail and perhaps one or two e-mails, and the letters were all in 1990, so I’m just trying to make sure that I have this chronology accurate.

MR. LARSEN: Your questions and tone of voice are argumentative. That’s all. Go ahead.

MS. SOBEL: I appreciate it, but you can imagine my surprise that these [incidents] turned out to be eight years earlier.

Q In between the letter that you received that caused you to go to the…Sheriff’s Department and the time you spoke to the board, how many letters did you receive conveying threats to you?

A All together including e-mail, voice mail, written letters—

Q I’m just asking for the letters right now, Mr. Mathur.

A It was all together about half a dozen.

Q When were the other three or two received by you? Were they after you went to the sheriff’s department?

A Yes.

Q When was that?

A Some were received in the last couple of years.

Q When you say the last couple of years, Mr. Mathur, can you be more specific? We are only talking about two or three letters here, so were they received in 1990 after you went to the sheriff’s department, or were they received in 1995?

A Well, some [were] received in the 1990 time frame. Some have been received in the last—two or three have also been received in the last couple [of] years.

Q Do you have copies of any of the letters? We are now up to about six or seven…..

A I will have to look into my files and find out if I do or don’t.

Q Did you turn over the subsequent letters to the OC Sheriff’s Department as well?

A This time, I didn’t because—

MR. LARSEN: Well, you answered the question.

Q Why didn’t you go back to the OC Sheriff’s Department, if you received more letters?

A Because of my experience from the first time. What they advised me was to talk it up, and that’s what I’ve done, and that’s why I chose to talk about it at the public board meeting.

Q Had you received the letters just prior to the time you spoke at the public board meeting?

A It’s possible. But I can’t give an exact time frame.

Q Were any of the letters signed?

A They were unsigned.

Q What do you recall was the content of the first letter you received?

A “Go back to your country where you came from.”

Q And that was one of the letters in 1990, correct?

A No. This is one of the letters I receive now.

Q Is that the first letter you recall receiving?

A In the recent times, yes.

Q Was the letter handwritten or typed?

A It was typed.

Q Was it typed in just a regular type face or words cut out of a magazine and pasted on paper?

A No. Typed.

Q Was there anything about the letter that was distinctive that suggested to you what the source might have been?

A No. Seemed it was written by someone from within the college.

Q Why did it seem like it was written by someone from within the college?

A Because this is where Bauer was publishing newsletters and creating a hostile work environment.

Q When do you recall receiving this letter?

A Before I made those comments at the public board meeting.

Q But you don’t know when?

A I can’t give you the exact time….

Q Did you look at it to see where it was mailed from?

A Yes.

Q What did it say?

A Santa Ana.

Q And did you keep the envelope?

A I may have. Like I said, I don’t know whether I saved the letters or not, based on my experience with the previous situation.

Q Did you inform anybody at the time you received the letter that you had received it?

A Informed my family.

Q Did you receive the letter at home or at work?

A At home….

Q Who did you show the letter to in your family?

A Showed it to my wife….

Q Now, other than saying “Go back to your country where you came from,” what else did the letter say?

A I don’t recall. That was the statement that stands out in my mind.

Q How long was the letter?

A About half a page.

Q And you don’t recall anything else said in the letter?

A No.

Q Other than the fact that Professor Bauer was publishing his newsletter, do you have any other basis on which you form the conclusion this came from somebody within the Irvine Valley College campus?

A No, I don’t.

For the entire depo, go to Mathur’s deposition

Get a baseball bat

.

EXONERATE

Today, the district (i.e., Raghu Mathur) issued a press release:

JURY VERDICT EXONERATES...RAGHU P. MATHUR...A federal jury returned a unanimous verdict yesterday finding that there was no illegal discrimination or harassment on the part of Dr. Raghu P. Mathur, Chancellor of the South Orange County Community College, toward Dr. Acely [sic] Mora.

Six years ago, Dr. Mora filed a lawsuit alleging that Dr. Mathur, then President of Irvine Valley College, failed to promote her to a dean’s position based upon her gender and ethnicity. She further alleged that Dr. Mathur failed to remedy a hostile work environment created by the person subsequently hired for the position, Dr. Rodney Poindexter.

After 6 days of testimony and presentation of evidence, the eight member jury of five women and three men returned the verdict in 45 minutes. They found no illegal activity on the part of Dr. Mathur or Dr. Poindexter.

“I am gratified with the jury’s verdict. It underscores that we are able to choose the best candidate, regardless of race, creed or national origin. Our district and colleges do take immediate action to investigate all complaints of discrimination,” said Dr. Mathur.

The attorney for the case, Dennis J. Walsh, commented, “I’m extremely pleased and honored to represent Dr. Mathur whose commitment to diversity and fairness was obvious during this trial.”


UNDERSCORE

That Raghu sure has a way with words. The verdict, he says, “underscores that we are able to choose the best candidate,” etc. Well, that makes no sense.

But it’s true that things have now been underscored.

As you know, trial testimony revealed that the man that Mathur chose in the spring of 2001 was not the best candidate. This trial, if not this verdict, underscored that Mathur chose the worst candidate.

It underscored, too, that, four years earlier, he refused to choose the best candidate (for a biology position) “because of her ethnicity.” (The hiring committee chair and the Staff Diversity Officer testified that Mathur told them: I refrained from hiring a Sri Lankan candidate because I did not want to be accused of “reverse discrimination.”)

PROTECTED

I wonder how female employees of the district feel about Raghu’s “exoneration”?

Women of the district, I ask you. Now that Mathur and the district’s commitment to protecting you from workplace violence has been laid bare, how would you feel were your boss to scream at you and menace you? Confident of protection?

My advice: get a baseball bat.*

DUCK

At IVC today, everywhere I went, people spoke to me about the expected Mathurian retaliation. It was starting to bug me.

A colleague wrote an email that said simply: “It’s going to be duck and cover—or stop, drop, and roll—for a while.”

Meanwhile, Mathur’s supporters showed their true colors in numerous comments to this blog. Read 'em!

Odd. Mathur's fans all go by the same moniker: “Anonymous.”

(*Re Cely's baseball bat, see

Cely's testimony)

The verdict is in

.

WHATEVER ELSE may be true of Aracely Mora's case against Raghu Mathur, to the trial observer, there can be little doubt that something was very wrong with (1) the Poindexter hire and (2) protections from harassment for women at IVC and the SOCCCD. Without doubt, Poindexter was a disastrous incompetent, a point that is not disputed by the district. Nor is it disputed, apparently, that a simple phone call to Poindexter's previous employer would have made plain the man's incompetence and instability.

With regard to the protection of women, the district appears to be adopting the position that Poindexter was a poor manager, but not a harasser of women. But unless the witnesses at this trial are remarkably accomplished and organized liars, it is quite plain that female employees of the college were subjected to Poindexter's menacing behavior and the college did nothing to protect them. The jury did not judge that these women were protected from a menacing employee. Rather, it rejected the specific claim that Mathur failed to respond to a hostile work environment (for these women). (See Opening statements.)

Please note that the trial's verdict in no way challenges the fact that Poindexter was a disastrous and foolish hire (thank you, Raghu) or that there were people--women, in fact--who were allowed by the college/district to be terrorized by an employee. Remember: it wasn't until that employee got into a physical altercation that the institution pulled him out of the workplace, despite many months of complaints about his menacing behavior. (The judge decided that Cely's attorney may not refer to the altercation.)

FOR THOSE OF US who have been observing the Mathur trial, it will come as no surprise that Cely lost her case today. It comes as no surprise because, during the course of the trial, we were increasingly aware and concerned that most of the jury of eight gave every indication of being a group of immature young people. One juror was always visibly bored and seemed to be sleeping much of the time. A young man (who works for a game show) seemed often to be snickering and joking to the delight of his new female friends on this jury.

My heart sank each time I looked at these people.

But enough about the jury. My advice: watch Mathur. See what he does now.

Mathur: reference checks for Poindexter

    Once again, I’ve got little time—gotta run off to my classes soon. So this’ll have to be quick. 

     (My report concerns the Raghu Mathur discrimination trial up in federal court in LA. Aracely Mora is suing Mathur for discrimination in hiring and for failing to protect her from a hostile work environment—created by Dean Rodney Poindexter. That should go to the jury today.) 

     Yesterday, Cely Mora finished her testimony, then Mathur got up on the stand. Under questioning from Mora attorney Carol Sobel, we learned of the Chancellor’s responsibilities, upholding policies and whatnot. Ditto for the Presidential gig at IVC. Sobel noted that, during his deposition, Mathur claimed that he had never been a defendant nor a plaintiff in a lawsuit. “No,” he said. 

      Well, as we all know, he has been both. 

      Mathur acknowledged that, before interviewing the three finalists for the dean (of Health Science, PE, and Athletics) position back in 2001, he had read the data from the reference checks that had been done by then-VPI Roquemore. (Mathur was IVC Prez then.) 

     One oddity of this case is the fact that Poindexter was hired despite no one’s having contacted his current employer. (Eventually, that employer was contacted, and it was revealed that P had some of the same issues there that turned up at IVC.) Since P didn’t mention that employer among his references, the hiring committee was prevented from doing that. But was Mathur prevented? 

     Under questioning, Mathur seemed to imply that he, too, was prohibited from doing that, though, he said, he could ask for another reference (without specifying). As near as I could tell, Sobel revealed that he was under no such prohibition. We examined the three “reference check” forms for Poindexter’s three references. (These revealed the results of the reference checks—calls to Poindexter’s references, and their answers to a series of questions.) One reference was a former student. 

     Sobel questioned Mathur about that. “We serve the students,” said Mathur. That is, their input is very important (I suppose that’s what he meant). Another reference was a basketball coach. Sobel sought to have Mathur explain what about these references revealed that Poindexter had the qualifications for the dean job. It was rough going. Mathur can be obtuse. 

     The third reference was a prior employer at the US Sports Academy. Sobel asked Mathur if he recalled that that reference “couldn’t recommend Poindexter without reservation.” The reference said he had no knowledge of P’s administrative abilities. Sobel then turned to Mathur’s request for a fourth reference. It was “very positive,” said Raghu. Oddly, the reference check form for the fourth reference “has not been produced.” Mathur acknowledged that. 

     WOW. 

Attorney Carol Sobel

     Was there anything in Poindexter’s resume that revealed that P had experience running an intercollegiate athletics program? There was much testimony about that. Mathur claimed there was evidence in the resume that P had experience as a “director” of athletic training—hence experience as a supervisor/administrator. There was some dispute about that. 

     Do you know what chairs of Athletic Training do? No, not specifically. 

     Sobel asked for Mathur’s documentation—or just notes—regarding his fourth reference check. At one point, Sobel said: “You have no evidence that you called the additional reference?” 

     No, apparently. 

     “I do recall that the reference check was very positive,” said Mathur. 

     Sobel then focused on Mathur’s claim that Mora had failed to develop curricula (when she served as Acting Dean prior to Poindexter’s hire). Hadn’t she developed a massage therapy program? Didn’t she put through curricula for that? Doesn’t the President of the college approve all courses that go through the curriculum process? 

     Mathur acknowledged this. He claimed to be “only vaguely” aware of Mora’s efforts on behalf of massage therapy. Sobel returned to the three (initial) reference checks. One was a Scott P. Evidently, Scott was one of Poindexter’s students. On the form, it showed that Scott couldn’t rate Poindexter with regard to relations with management. He was a student. 

     Another reference, Hal W, had been P’s dean for over a year. Hal claimed that he only observed Poindexter’s work as a trainer; he claimed not to know about P’s administrative abilities. So, when it came to rating P on that, he didn’t offer a response. 

     So the three references did not indicate that Poindexter had any administrative experience? Yes. Why ask for the fourth ref? Mathur “wanted additional information.” 

     --Well, I’ve gotta run. I’ll try to finish this later today. Sorry to leave you hanging. --CW

The lost reference: it was "very positive"

.
I attended the Mathur "discrimination" trial today in LA. I'll have more time to report on it tomorrow—I hope! Been too busy tonight to write anything. In the meantime, here's a quick update.

This trial is partly about the infamous Poindexter dean hire of 2001, which looks seriously dodgy. Prima facie, Rodney Poindexter wasn't even remotely qualified for the deanship (of Health Sciences, PE and Athletics at Irvine Valley College)—he had no supervisory or administrative experience—while Cely was amply qualified. And yet Mathur hired Poindexter, who turned out to be grossly incompetent, unstable, and, according to some, a danger to female employees.

That Raghu sure can pick 'em!

Part of the hiring process is the checking of references. All reference checks require documentation. They must be done using a special form provided by HR. So when the hiring committee forwarded three candidates, the chair of the committee (then-VPI Glenn Roquemore) went off (by himself, as it turns out; in court, he said nobody volunteered to go with him) and did the reference checks using those forms.

Today in court, the jury had a chance to look at them—filled out by Glenn Roquemore re Poindexter's 3 references.

It soon became clear that the three "references" for Poindexter were decidedly unimpressive (one was a former student). One "reference" declined to offer an unqualified recommendation for the P-man. These refs added up to practically nothing.

During the second-level interview of Poindexter, Mathur evidently got it into his head to ask Poindexter for a fourth reference. (That's what he said today, under questioning from Cely Mora's attorney, Carol Sobel.) That's odd.

And he didn't ask the other two applicants for a further reference. Strange, ain't it?

So, says Mathur, Poindexter gave him a name and a number.

Mathur now claims that he called the reference, and (surprise!) "it was very positive."

Naturally, he used the required form. It sure would be great if we could look at that form, find out who had such great things to say about Poinsie. We wanna read the superlatives for ourselves!

OK, so where's the form? Can we see it?

Today, Mathur acknowledged that that form has not been produced.

I assume that means that it disappeared. (Got any other interpretations out there?)

Garsh, that's odd! Doncha think? And it was so very positive, too!

TOMORROW: closing arguments. The jury goes off to make its decision.