Incivility or bullying? Name that bully!

Part 2 of a series

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Spevak/College Brain Trust

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

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

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

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

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

*From my Mac's dictionary

autocratic |ˌôtəˈkratik|

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

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

Dec. 16: Working Group on Civility

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

formal politeness and courtesy in behavior or speech

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

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

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

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

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

A PROBLEM OF MERE INCIVILITY?

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

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

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

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

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

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

the “priority 1” list is the following:

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

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

Here are some results for the remaining questions:

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

The “priority 1” list is the following:

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

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

The “priority 1” list is:

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

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

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

Priority 1

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

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

Priority 1

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

     Let us know what you make of all this.

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

Accreditation news

     Earlier this morning, denizens of Irvine Valley College received the following memo from IVC President Glenn Roquemore:

Colleagues,
    I have just been informed that Irvine Valley College has been removed from its warning status and our accreditation is re-affirmed. We are required to submit a follow-up report on October 15, 2012, that addresses progress on recommendations 1 (District wide planning), 2 (Resource allocation),and 6 (Communication). The report will be followed with a visit by accjc staff.
    Congratulations to the chancellor, both colleges and district staff for the herculean effort that resulted in this favorable outcome.

     No word yet about Saddleback College, although, based on past experience, we  can reasonably expect that the news for our sister college will be good too.

San Onofre nuke power snafu grows: small amount of radiation in the air?

More Leaks, Strange Wear (Navel Gazing)

     Since those inspecting the cause of the water leak in a steam generator tube in Unit 3 at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station were there anyway, they decided to take a gander at Unit 2, which has been closed for maintenance and refueling. Leaks and unusual wear were found on several similar Unit 2 tubes, according to federal regulators who add this kicker: those tubes were virtually new.
     The feds reiterated that no dangers were present, perhaps a small amount of radiation leaked into the air, and anyone with concerns can monitor the progress via www.songscommunity.com.

San Onofre: 100s of troubled tubes, gas leak (OC Reg)

Name the Saddleback College library after Richard McCullough?

     We’ve received several comments this evening supporting the idea of renaming Saddleback College’s Utt Library after former Saddleback College President Richard McCullough.
     McCullough, a beloved figure at Saddleback College, died Tuesday of cancer.
     We’d like to hear from others about this idea, especially denizens of Saddleback College.

• Anonymous
   I am so saddened by his death. What a great man. He was a real asset to the district for so many, many years. My symphathy to his family. (Post: Richard McCullough)
• Anonymous
   How about honoring Richard by naming the Library after him? I'd like that. (Post: Richard McCullough)
• Anonymous
   I think that's a great idea! (Post: Richard McCullough)
• Anonymous
   Excellent proposal! Where do I sign? (Post: Richard McCullough)
• Anonymous
   We should name it after Richard McCullough. (Post: IVC Academic Senate supports Saddleback Senate’s resolution re renaming Utt Library)
• Anonymous
   That is an excellent idea. And how can the board refuse that? (Post: IVC Academic Senate supports Saddleback Senate’s resolution re renaming Utt Library)
• Anonymous
   Brilliant idea. (Post: Richard McCullough)

See Richard McCullough

IVC Academic Senate supports Saddleback Senate’s resolution re renaming Utt Library

     This afternoon, the Irvine Valley College Academic Senate voted to support the Saddleback College Academic Senate’s “resolution” requesting that the James B. Utt Memorial Library be renamed.
     Recently, the library has undergone considerable remodeling. Indeed, arguably, when construction is completed (by Fall), it will be a new structure.
     Utt was an ultra-right-wing Congressman who failed to vote for the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts and who embraced plainly incompetent conspiracy theories. Further, he made some very unfortunate remarks, including one about “barefooted Africans” gathering in Georgia for a U.N. military exercise to take over the U.S. (see here, here, and here).
     Today's senate vote was unanimous.

T-shirt for a Thursday

It's on the syllabus.