Friday, March 30, 2012

The civility initiative, part 8: a new proposed statement!

     Today, members of the IVC “civility and mutual respect” workgroup received a draft of a college “statement” based on the work of that group, especially at its meeting last Friday (about which we reported).
     It is likely that the draft was written by John Spevak, the consultant who has assisted in the process since November.
     Here it is:


     The statement does seem to reflect what was emphasized at last week’s workshop. It is surely a huge improvement over the unfortunate draft that Spevak produced after the December (i.e., the first) workshop—something that occasioned dismay.
     First of all, it emphasizes the importance to our community of free speech, something that the last draft did not mention. Indeed, it speaks of encouraging the expression of opinions, whatever they might be. It seizes upon the notion of “professionalism,” which seemed to be the moniker de jour for standards of acceptable conduct at last Friday’s workshop.
     The statement also boldly embraces what others might regard as a fallacy: regarding the expression of a commitment to X as though it were what produces or constitutes that commitment.
     Know what I mean? Suppose someone thinks that I am uncivil. I listen to him/her and then announce and publish my “commitment to civility.” Have I thereby achieved my being civil? Of course not. Indeed, I might have succeeded in elevating my uncivil obnoxiousness to new heights!
     To be fair, the statement goes on to mention other mechanisms to achieve “civility and mutual respect,” etc., beyond publishing the college's “commitment.” It mentions:

  • proactive education of employees [We'd better keep our eye on this one]
  • sponsoring activities that bring members of the community together [yep]
  • regular open forums for an open discussion of issues [yep]
  • maintaining, open, inclusive, and transparent decision-making processes [yep]

     STEEPAGE. Things do get a bit murky toward the end of the statement, where there is talk of a “peer-driven process” for “dispute resolution” in which “all of the governance groups participate.” This process, we’re told, is “steeped in finding mutually agreeable solutions.”
     Can a dispute resolution process be “steeped [i.e., soaked] in finding…solutions”? Can it be “steeped” [i.e., soaked] in mutually agreeableness?
"Steeped" in felinity
     It is customary, I suppose, to talk the talk of “working toward a commitment to X” by declaring a commitment to X. That’s bullshit, of course, but I guess if we say it quickly and then move on to more sensible pronouncements, everything should be OK.
     I do object to that second line, where the “college encourages an atmosphere of professionalism….” Well, it either does that or it doesn’t, and proclaiming that it does is just, well, obnoxious, under the circumstances. Why not use the language of the last sentence of paragraph 1? –That stuff about the college “seeking to establish” transparency, etc.? Saying you seek to establish X is a humbler and far less pompous and bullshitty way to yammer, if you ask me.
     But I want to be positive. This draft is definitely moving in the right direction. 
     What do you think?

"Action plan." I.e., What we're gonna do about it. Each "action step" is the inclusion
of the statement in some manual or catalog. Really. I think they should add "dance steps," too.
The hokey pokey maybe.
The draft was sent to all members of the workgroup. It was explained thus: 
     Attached is the draft, developed by all of the table leaders and John Spevak, of an IVC statement on freedom of expression, civility, and mutual respect, as well as an IVC action plan that accompanies it.     Please review and send comments to any or all facilitators by 5 p.m., this Thursday, April 5.. . .     After April 5, the table leaders and John Spevak will review all comments and based on that review create a second draft that will be send to you and the entire IVC community by April 13.     Thank you, again.

Aim for the body rare, you'll see it on TV
The worst thing in 1954 was the Bikini
See the girl on the TV dressed in a Bikini
She doesn't think so but she's dressed for the H-Bomb
(For the H-Bomb)
I found that essence rare, it's what I looked for
I knew I'd get what I asked for

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Science Schmience

Conservative Distrust of Science (Inside Higher Ed)

     Just over 34 percent of conservatives had confidence in science as an institution in 2010, representing a long-term decline from 48 percent in 1974, according to a paper being published today in American Sociological Review.
     That represents a dramatic shift for conservatives, who in 1974 were more likely than liberals or moderates (all categories based on self-identification) to express confidence in science. While the confidence levels of other groups in science have been relatively stable, the conservative drop now means that group is the least likely to have confidence in science….

Monday, March 26, 2012

No board meeting report tonight

Brandye D'Lena made
a presentation
     I was all set to go to tonight's meeting of the SOCCCD board of trustees, but then a small medical emergency involving my father arose and, naturally, I had to go.
     Pop seems to be fine--he has a history of heart problems--but, there'll be no report tonight.
     It looked like it was gonna be a real snoozer anyway.
     Tere's Board Meeting Highlights

Sunday, March 25, 2012

$30,000 spent on "College Brain Trust" (but not for the civility initiative)

John Spevak of CBT
     (See UPDATES below. The gist: the $30K doesn't seem to be for Spevak's efforts re the civility initiative.)
     Some readers seem to have a great interest in how much the college is spending on the assistance it is receiving from "College Brain Trust," the Sacramento consulting firm that sent John Spevak down to help with our "civility initiative." Spevak organized and directed Friday's workshop and also the workshop held in December.
     I quickly scanned recent board agendas—including the one for tomorrow’s meeting—and here’s what I found:
     I found no items for “College Brain Trust” in the March or February agendas. There’s a $900 item (expenditure) for "College Brain Trust" in the January agenda. That same item appears (I think as an expected expenditure) in the December agenda. There’s an expenditure of $28,676.23 to “College Brain Trust” in the November agenda. Nothing in October or September agendas.
     So we’re looking at about $30K here. Don’t know if that’s all of it. It's more than I thought they were spending, but, on the other hand, I'm not surprised by the amount.
     I suppose that IVC President Roquemore is thinking that, since this initiative was occasioned by serious accreditation concerns, it is best to bring in a neutral party to run things. Is it worth $30K to help make this process look like it's on the up-and-up? Could we have gone with something cheaper? 
     I dunno. No doubt some of you have opinions.

UPDATE: Dennis Gordon (one of the workshop facilitators) has sent the following:

Roy,
   The College Brain Trust has been used as a consultant for a number of tasks including work on the the District Wide Accreditation report. The $30k you mentioned was for other work that has been done, not for the Civility working group.
   In the spirit of transparency, I think the question of how much was spent for John Spevak to coordinate and facilitate the Civility project is a valid one and I will inquire as to the cost and report back.

UPDATE 2 (3/28):
Dennis Gordon has left a new comment on your post "$30,000 spent on "College Brain Trust" (but not fo...":

   I wanted to report back on the cost for John Spevak (The College Brain Trust) to conduct the Civility Working Group meetings for IVC. The amount paid was $6,750.79 which included multiple meetings and workshops and also included John's travel and hotel expenses.
   I feel this is a fair amount given the time spent by John with our campus community and the work that has been accomplished in support of the civility initative.  
   Every governance group had represenation at our meeting last week and I encourage anyone who has questions or comments regarding the initiative to have an open dialog among your constituants.



"....if a tax measure on the November ballot fails..."


Carla Rivera, a tireless reporter covering higher ed issues, is at it again. This time, in this morning's Los Angeles Times, she covers Jack Scott's recent address at Pasadena City College.

Community colleges chief decries budget cuts' toll on students

excerpt:
"We should be working together to rebuild California and making it a better place for our children," Scott told about 300 students, faculty and community members who gathered in the campus auditorium. "Dreams are necessary to live. If we keep dashing college dreams and denying opportunities for Californians, we're going to lose our best and brightest to other states, which will only further exacerbate our state's economic situation."

Earlier last week, California State University announced that it will freeze most admissions for spring 2013, with the exception of a few hundred community college transfer students who will be offered admission to eight of Cal State's 23 campuses.

The move will shut out an estimated 16,000 others, most of them would-be transfer students who are likely to remain at community colleges and clog access for recent high school graduates and unemployed workers who have been streaming into the two-year system for job retraining.

Scott said he understood the reasoning for Cal State's actions: State universities suffered $750 million in funding cuts in 2011-12. Meanwhile, community colleges took a $564-million hit. Both systems could lose millions more if a tax measure on the November ballot fails.
To read the article in its entirety, click here.

*

Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"

  This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...