Demagoguery: the dark side (some DtB apologetics)

From Dissent 63

March, 2002?

[originally entitled THE DARK SIDE OF DEMAGOGIC MOONS
by Chunk Wheeler, aka Roy Bauer]

Everyone is a moon, and has a dark side which he never shows to anybody.

—Mark Twain

     I once read that, back in the 20s, Huey “the Kingfish” Long, that notorious demagogue, accused a political opponent of “living in open celibacy with his sister.” The clueless Louisiana voters were horrified. The Kingfish won the election.
     Think of what it takes to do something like that. Wow.
     Well, at the SOCCCD, we seem to have a veritable Kingfishery.

Graphic demagoguery:

     In the early days of the ‘Vine, I often fashioned caricatures by pasting headshots onto the bodies of cartoon figures, other people, and (rarely) onto beasts. My first such effort, back in ’97, involved the placement of Mr. Frogue’s head on the body of a Neanderthal (get it?). Later, I placed Teddi Lorch’s head upon the body of a pterodactyl, thereby producing the now-beloved Teddidactyl figure, available in fine stores everywhere.
     Now, it never occurred to me to exclude the then-IVC president or the then-union president from the “caricature” treatment. Why should those two be excluded? They were at least as evil as Frogue or Lorch. Probably more so.
     When the Mathur and Miller-White caricatures appeared, so did the demagoguery. For instance, on Pacifica Radio’s Lawyers’ Guild program, the Old Guard’s Ken Woodward, in full gaping sneerage, declared:

     I have right in front of me a publication that Mr. Bauer is responsible for called the ‘Vine, which is one of the most vitriolic, hateful publications, you know, [it’s] racist; [it] shows the African-American, uh, president of our union, you know, the, uh, president of his college—that’s a person of color—with their heads decapitated and put on animal bodies. It’s just absolutely outrageous [therefore] that he makes these charges of racism [against Trustee Frogue]! (2/19/98)

     For the record, none of my newsletters had ever depicted any sort of decapitation, though, in response to Woody’s absurd accusation, I later published a lovely depiction of a Frogueian beheading.
     Further, as a lover of animals, I have never attached Sherry’s head onto any beast.
     I did, however, place her head on the body of a woman dancing with a joker. (See.) For some reason, Mr. M’Goo and his gang of visually impaired buffoons have always insisted that this graphic depicts Sherry “dancing with the devil” or dancing with animals. Nope, but I do wish I’d have thought of that. (Pace animals.)
     In the early days of the ‘Vine (and Dissent), Raghu’s head appeared on all sorts of bodies. Recently, I examined the old issues and discovered that I had placed the Mathurian Noggin on the following bodies: Julius Caesar, Henry VIII, Eraserhead, the Grinch, teen wolf, Beaver Cleaver, Pinocchio, an action figure doll, Austin Powers, Abe Lincoln, Alfred E. Newman, Tweedledum, Henry Fonda, Ferdinand Marcos, Uma Thurman, Napoleon, Tweedledee—and, my personal favorite, Fat Elvis.
     True, I once placed his head on some sort of primate, as part of my ape/Neanderthal series, which started with Frogue.
     Did I mention that I once lived in open celibacy with my sister?

No animals,  no decapitation

The Dark Side:
     When I hear the phrase, “the Dark Side,” I do not think of race. Nope. I think of evil.
     A perusal of internet sites reveals that I am not alone in this: a search on YAHOO for “the dark side” yielded 60 hits; a similar search at the LA Times web page yielded 152 hits. None of these instances concerned race or skin-color; all of them seemed to refer to evil, though often ironically.
     One fairly typical use of “the Dark Side” (TDS) occurred in an April 19 review of the movie Murder By Numbers. According to the reviewer, the movie’s director has an “affinity for the dark side”—that is, he is attracted to the theme of evil, having once provided employment for Mickey Rourke.
     A search at the OC Weekly website yielded 29 hits, including the subtitle of a 1999 article, by Scott Moxley, that said that the LA Times has crossed “over to the dark side”—that is, it has ceased reporting local corruption and, instead, has joined the forces of evil, namely, developers.
     The most recent appearance of the phrase “the dark side” in the Weekly appeared on April 19. In a letter to the editor, a man named Stephen Smith, of Irvine, wrote that

[El Toro Airport foe] Larry Agran has gone over to the Dark Side by accepting tens of thousands of dollars in Newport Beach pro-airport developer money….

     Do you suppose that Smith, Moxley, and that Times reviewer are talkin’ about dark-skinned people?
Like me, when they talk about “the dark side,” they’re talkin’ evil, not race.

J’accuse:

     A few years ago, I began on occasion to refer to “the dark side” (TDS) in my newsletters. Like Moxley and Smith, I used the phrase to refer to a semi-organized group of evil bastards. More specifically, I used it to refer to the union Old Guard/Board Majority/Mathur AXIS. Accordingly, I sometimes called individual members of that AXIS—e.g., Ken Woodward, Lee Walker, et al.—“dark siders.”
     To my surprise, however, soon, various members of that odious confederacy started citing the usage as evidence that I am a racist. (See, for instance, John Williams’ remarks in his piece in the OC Register, 11/14/99.)
     “How’s that?” thought I.

Reasoning:
     I could think of two possible arguments for the “Bauer as racist” thesis—both unsound. The first goes something like this:

1. Roy uses the phrase “the Dark Side” to refer to the union Old Guard/Board Majority/Mathur AXIS.
2. Two members of the AXIS (viz., Miller-White and Mathur) happen to be people of color.
3. Thus, Roy uses the phrase “the Dark Side” specifically to refer to people of color. (Thus, Roy is a racist.)

     The problem here, of course, is that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. That I use the phrase TDS to refer to a group does not imply that I use the same phrase to refer specifically to a subset of that group. Duh.
     But the Dark Siders might have another argument in mind. Perhaps they think that it is quite evident that I use the phrase “the Dark Side” specifically to refer to people of color. The argument starts there:

1. Roy uses the phrase “the Dark Side” to refer specifically to people of color (namely, to Miller-White and Mathur and to no one else).
2. Anyone who uses the phrase “the Dark Side” to refer specifically to people of color is a racist.
3. Thus, Roy is a racist.

     The problem with this reasoning is the falsity of the first premise. I do not now, nor have I ever, used the phrase “the Dark Side” to refer specifically to people of color. And everyone knows it.

The crucial IF:
     Nevertheless, let’s pursue this matter. Now, as we all know, context can determine meaning. Though the term TDS does not refer to race per se, IF I had consistently used TDS to refer only to people of color, then one could justly suspect that I had something racial in mind by speaking of TDS.
     But, again, I (and other ‘Vine/Dissent contributors) always use the phrase to refer to the entire Old Guard/Board Majority/Mathur Axis. Just look at the newsletters themselves. I shall spare you the tedium of demonstrating this thesis. (But, please, look.)
     But wait! What about the early days of Rebel newsletterage? How did Dissenters use the phrase back then?
     I have examined many old issues of ‘Vine and Dissent—you are welcome to do the same—and the same was true then.
     Let’s consider a concrete instance. The earliest use of “the dark side” that I could find—I’m still lookin’—was in ‘Vine 12, November 30, 1998, in an article entitled “Truth, Lies, and Masking Tape,” which concerned the Brown Act lawsuits.
     Now, the Axis powers—a.k.a. the Dark Siders—love their ad hominems, which is to say, they are the sort who will try to defeat a point by trashin’ the guy makin’ it. Often, this ploy—popular even outside the state of Louisiana—takes the form of describing a person’s motives, as though that casts any light on the cogency of his views.
     By 1998, Mathur and his cronies had sought to discredit my rebellious clamor, not by identifying failings in my reasoning (never that), but by attempting to characterize my motives—by suggesting, specifically, that I was “disgruntled” over loss of my gig as School Chair.
     In response, in November of ’98, I wrote the following, in which I made use of the phrase “the dark side”:

     I started my involvement in the Brown Act lawsuits in mid-May of ‘97—i.e., before I became School Chair and before the July 16 reorganization that eliminated the chair model. Hence, logic fans, contrary to the denizens of the Dark Side, my involvement in the [law]suits cannot be explained in terms of my supposed anger at having lost the chairship and/or its reassigned time. (11/30/98)

     To whom was I referring when I wrote of “denizens of the Dark Side”?

Econo demagogue:
     By far, most prominent among the logically-challenged “denizens” who, at the time, had “charged” that I was “just disgruntled” was a certain Caucasian instructor, the Old Guard’s Ken “Econo Boy” Woodward, one of the chief architects of the current contract. As I reported at the time (‘Vine, 2/22/98), Woodward had publicly asserted that

Roy Bauer has never belonged to the union until, you know, suddenly, he became interested when he lost, you know, some of his administrative duties…But, you know, it’s a very small group of people who are disgruntled about having, you know, to teach again.

     He said this, you know, during the aforementioned Lawyers’ Guild program, you know, about eight months after the Reorganization, you know.
     How accurate (if that is the word) was Ken’s ad hominem? That is, did he at least correctly identify what motivated me to dissent so?
     Nope. I lost my “administrative duties” in July of 1997, when, to everyone’s surprise, the Board reorganized the district. But, as Ken well knows, I joined the union—and, more importantly, I attended many of its meetings—long before then. Ken knew that, for he too attended those meetings, sneering and bleating most indecorously, as I have occasionally reported.
     Further, as numerous newspaper articles and letters to the editor attest, I was a card-carrying member of the Rebel Alliance by the mid-90s, long before the 1997 Reorg. (See my quote in the Times, 11/25/96, and my piece in the IVC Voice, 5/11/95. See also the 1996 letter, signed by “concerned faculty,” to CCA/CTA.)
     And, finally, I helped initiate the Brown Act process (May 1997) months before I was canned from the Chair job.
     Q.E.D.

*  *  * 

     Very recently, Woody has resurfaced, this time as a spam-happy candidate for the Faculty Association president-elect. Please note that, at the time of the Lawyers’ Guild program, Ken was a negotiator for the union, then controlled by the Old Guard. When Jan Horn and I noted (on the Guild program) that, during negotiations, the union had sought to eliminate reassigned time for everyone except union officials, Ken responded by bleating: “What they said about reassigned time being eliminated is completely false!”
     In reality, dear reader, what we said about reassigned time being eliminated was completely true.
Think of what it takes to fib like that. Wow.
     It gets worse. Though, as union apologist, Ken repeatedly demonized teachers who held “administrative duties” and who, he said, were “disgruntled” about “having…to teach,” he later arranged to have himself appointed dean.

A Force is a Force, of course, of course:
     As noted earlier, when I first used the phrase TDS, I had in mind a semi-organized group of evil bastards, like OC developers. But I also intended an allusion to the Evil “Galactic” Empire of the Star Wars saga. In fact, that saga reads like an allegory of the SOCCCD. Check it out:
     Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, a regime called the Old Republic went belly up:

From the bloated carcass of the Old Republic, an ambitious politician carved the Galactic Empire…Rather than offer the people of the galaxy newfound hope, the Empire instead became a TYRANNICAL REGIME, presided over by a shadowy and detached despot steeped in the DARK SIDE of the Force. PERSONAL LIBERTIES WERE CRUSHED, and the governance of everyday affairs was pulled away from the SENATE, and instead given to UNSCRUPULOUS regional governors. (From the official Star Wars website; caps added.)

     The Empire’s oppressiveness inspired rebellion; chief among the rebels were the “Jedi warriors,” people who, owing to a familiarity with The Force—evidently, a kind of cosmic oomph—were vulnerable to its “dark side.”
     Darth Vader, scourge of the Jedi, “abandoned the precepts of knowledge and defense and instead [sought] abandon and strength through the Force’s hateful energies,” i.e., its “dark side.”
     …But enough about that.

Epistles to the Times:
     Well, the district’s demagogic satellites are spinning again. In response to the Times’ coverage of the recent court victory against the district by students, the Old Guard’s Ray Chandos—evidently, chair “for life” of IVC Accreditation—wrote the editors to say:

     Your article about the South Orange County Community College District Speech and Advocacy Policy neglected certain basic facts … The policy was written in part to respond to some faculty-sponsored activities that were disruptive or life-threatening. One event called for students to smash a car with a sledgehammer as a “blow” against the administration. Students were hospitalized as a result…. (Times; 3/31/02)

Ray Chandos

     Chandos, like Woodward, can always be counted on to whitewash the Empire’s dirty linen and to invent lurid rebel atrocities. The car-smashing event (apparently, car-smashings are commonplace on campuses) was not, as he suggests, a political demonstration; rather, it was a non-political fund-raiser for the Honors Society. Faculty-sponsored? The event was concocted, as a fund-raiser, not by faculty, but by the Honor Society, and it was duly approved, as such, by the administration.
     True, at one point, a peripatetic wag named Jeff spontaneously sprayed “El Presidente” on the side of the car, causing Armando Beyondo to soil his trousers, but that hardly justifies Chandos’ description of the event as an anti-administration demonstration! Further, though, at some point, a student was mildly injured by flying glass (she was not, as far as I know, “hospitalized”), nothing about this event was remotely “life-threatening.”
     Think of what it takes to do fib like that. Wow.
     Ray went on to write:

Some faculty newsletters attack ethnic background, integrity, families, religion and the gender orientation of district employees….

     Do you suppose Ray is referring to ‘Vine/Dissent? D’ya think?

Integrity-attackage:
     It is true, of course, that I have impugned the integrity of some persons, including Mathur. Is that objectionable per se? When they are not busy castigating me, some Dark Siders condemn my castigations, implying that castigations are intrinsically illogical or unseemly. At such times, they seem to reason as follows:

1. Roy is “attacking” (e.g.) President Mathur.
2. Thus, Roy is being illogical and unjust.

     This, dear reader, is patent nonsense.
     Castigating a person can, of course, be illogical, as when one supposes (falsely) that facts about the person (e.g., his lack of integrity or his motives) have relevance to the cogency of his views. I have not supposed that. I have castigated Mathur, not in order to cast doubt upon his views, but, rather, in order to reveal that he is an inveterate liar and schemer—the sort of person who ought not to hold a position of authority.
     Castigating someone can be illogical—and rude and unjust—when the criticisms leveled against him are leveled unfairly, as when, for instance, he is accused of racism owing to his innocent pop cultural allusions.
     So now we come to the heart of the matter. Is it unfair to suggest that Mathur lacks integrity, that he is a liar and a schemer?

A Paradigm of Duplicity

Or: THE GOOFISH

     On July 7, 1997, nine days before the infamous Reorg, in a memo, Mr. Goo assured IVC faculty that no reorganization (from the chair model to a dean model) would be considered until after faculty returned in the fall. He wrote:

…[I]nstructional Council cautioned that more input is needed from the Academic Senate, which does not meet over the summer, and from faculty who may be gone over the summer months. Based on their recommendation, this matter [viz., adopting a “Dean model”] will not be considered at this time and it will be set aside until a permanent president is in place this fall.

     In fact, however, as several sworn legal declarations later established, nearly two months prior to the memo, Mathur had ordered the Vice President of Instruction to prepare a plan to reorganize the college from chairs to deans.
     According to then-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. Mathur stated that he wanted Vice President Burgess to develop a plan to institute a “Dean Model” for the college. (Legal declaration, signed, 9/8/98)

     Stunning, isn’t it?

     There’s more. On July 16, during a closed session, over howls of protest from the Board Minority, the Board Majority adopted Mathur’s plan. (That it was Mathur’s plan is also sworn to in legal declarations.) Accompanied now by the Chancellor and the two presidents, the Board Majority emerged from the session and announced the reorganization. When they started to leave, faculty clamored for an explanation, especially from Mathur, who, again, just nine days earlier, had assured the faculty that no reorganization would be “considered” without their input.
     Chancellor Lombardi and Saddleback’s Doffoney, neither of whom had a hand in the plan, stayed to take the heat; in the meantime, Mathur, the plan’s de facto architect, wedged his nose deep inside a passing trustee’s butt and deftly tracked said butt out the door.
     Kingfish? Behold the Goofish.

*  *  *

Religion-attackage, etc.: 
     I have no idea what Ray means by saying that the newsletters have attacked “families.” Maybe I said somethin’ negative about the Manson Family. Who knows.
What about religion? ‘Vine/Dissent has on occasion criticized Pat Robertson’s odious, right-wing political organization—the Christian Coalition—the local coven of which has been a minor player in district politics. (They defended Frogue.)
     And gender orientation? For what it’s worth, I was the faculty advisor of IVC’s short-lived Gay and Lesbian Associated Students, and, as far as I know, all ‘Vine/Dissent contributors are supporters of gay and lesbian rights.
     We have, of course, occasionally referred to the district PIO as Pam “Same-Sex” Zanelli, but that, dear reader, is a reference, not to her sexual orientation (who knows? who cares?), but to her role in Sherry’s decision to use the aforementioned homophobic flier—a document upon which was emblazoned, in large red letters, the phrase “Same-sex ‘marriage.’”

Put up or shut up:
     At a recent Academic Senate meeting in which Ray was in attendance, I stood up to read his Times letter; I remarked on the Rayster’s stunning disregard of the truth. I then turned to Ray and said that, if he is going to accuse people of racism, homophobia, and the like, at the very least, he is obliged to cite concrete instances. I sat down.
     More than three weeks have passed, and I have not heard a peep from the fellow.

     Ray’s letter to the Times was accompanied by a similar epistle by one Anthony Kuo, president of the IVC Associated Students, who, despite his role as student advocate, wrote to “commend Raghu Mathur for four years of superb service to the college as president.” According to Kuo, IVC has been beset, not by a tyrannical rights-violating college president, but by “rebel faculty…and a small number of students” who “have tried to make our campus a war zone by using hate literature….”
     About two weeks ago, I wrote Mr. Kuo. Referring to his accusations regarding the use by “rebel faculty” of “hate literature,” I said:

I hereby request that you show me exactly what it is that I have written or published that constitutes “hate literature.” If I…or some unnamed person or persons…[are] to be publicly charged with “using hate literature” by you, surely you are obliged to provide evidence…I await your response.

     There’s been no response.
     Student government officers tell me that, despite the care I took to fashion my letter as a “request,” Kuo is describing it as a threat.
     I’m told that Mr. Kuo has made the best of the situation, for he has distributed copies of my letter to members of the Board Majority.
     No doubt, soon, I will be visited by stormtroopers, determined to avenge the “violence” done to their hero, Darth Kuo.
     May the Force be with you!

—Chunk Wheeler

RED AND IRV (Red Emma)

[Editor’s note: perhaps you’ll be surprised to learn that there’s a Irv Rubin/SOCCCD connection. More than one! The following article appeared, I think, in a March 2002 edition of Dissent.] 

  Six Degrees of Alienation: And I am Right, and You are Right, and All is Right as Right can Be! 

 By Red Emma 

 I couldn’t help but overhear Rebel Girl in the next room last week, chatting telephonically with yet another puzzled LA Times reporter. The poor, confused fellow, apparently new to the SOCCCD “beat,” couldn’t quite wrap his mind around the unlikely story we call everyday life at IVC and Saddleback. His incredulity was due partly, I later learned, to his residence and normal beat assignment in Los Angeles County. Meanwhile, the Rebellious One kept repeating, a la “Chinatown,” one of my favorite films, “It’s Orange County, Jake, it’s Orange County.” Certainly Los Angeles County education politics has its own bizarre cast of characters, but people seem to deal with it up there. They know what’s going on. They are momentarily distracted by the sexy widow, but, eventually, they notice the broken eyeglasses in the fish pond. Which reminded me, as I read the most recent (and much awaited!) Dissent, of a funny story, and by that I don’t mean ha-ha funny, or isn’t it funny how Raghu is the chancellor, but I do mean completely true funny. Some background might help. As it happens, Red Emma spent his youth collecting signatures, signing petitions, yelling on street corners, raising money, protesting, and occasionally getting arrested as a result of politely objecting to the policies of exactly the asshole whose photograph hangs in the office of our new chancellor. I mean the other asshole, the one shaking hands with Raghu. And in those heady days of objecting to nuclear weapons, state murder in Central America, attacks on education and poor people’s programs, support for apartheid and Zionism and racism and militarism and all the rest of the Reagan Revolution, Red often found standing opposite himself and the other lefties on Wilshire Boulevard a small group of nuts, including (depending on the cause) pro-Shah Iranian nationals, right-wing Roman Catholics, Young Americans for Freedom, Born-again fascists and, indeed, the Jewish Defense League. Perhaps you see where I’m going with this. Maybe you do—and maybe, no, comrade, you do not. Yes, JDL head goof Irv Rubin was recently arrested for allegedly threatening to kill people. (See the 12/21/01 OC Weekly article.) Well, no, threatening was his previous arrest. Oops. This time Irv was arrested for planning to actually blow up a mosque or an institute or something with the word “Arab” in it—or even real, live Arabs-Americans or Muslims. He and his Brown Shirts hate Palestinians, Arabs and non-Zionist Jews almost as much as they hate Peace Now, peaceniks, and lefties. Friends, you have not seen or heard a louder, more obnoxious ambassador of twisted national chauvinism and cultural-religious imperialism than ol’ Irv when he’s hot. But what, you ask, does that have to do with us, here in the Land that Time Forgot? Here’s the funny part. After not seeing him for a couple of years, Red Emma helped set up a Saturday morning Signature Gathering Drive for the Frogue Recall. Remember that nifty campaign? I’m gonna review for those of you from LA County: A group of moderate Republicans and a few brave, conservative Democrats (plus a couple of weirdoes like me) tried to remove a certifiable loon from office who was using—and being used by—a cadre of perhaps conservative but mostly just plain opportunistic other Republicans. Consequently, many people here in South OC who had never in their entire adult lives done more than vote (and some even less) were learning to organize a campaign, set up phone banks, get out the vote, and mobilize for what, even in L.A., would be a pretty darn hard job in a district set up to prevent exactly this kind of recall. Imagine having to gather signatures representing a percentage of voters not from the targeted official’s area, but an entire “at-large” college district the size of two and a half congressional districts! Some trick by that darned Board Majority, huh? To further mess with W.S. Gilbert: “Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.” It was a lot of fun that Saturday morning for this small minority of IVC & Saddleback friends, faculty, students and staff—about 60 of us, as I recall—who worked hard to try to get rid of Nazi Boy. There was a terrific spread of brunch treats, and a raffle. We played Twister, I think, and sang a few choruses from H.M.S. Pinafore. (I was Little Buttercup, though I never learned why.) At some point in the morning, when most of the clipboards, ironing boards, signs, and their new owners had gone out to libraries, Trader Joe’s, Costco, and all those other arenas of civic discourse to gather signatures, into the Irvine city park rec room walks, yes, Mr. JDL, Irv Rubin. Now, as far as I could tell, nobody except Red and Rebel Girl (stalwart sidewalk protester of the 1980’s, too) recognized the guy. I was confident he wouldn’t recognize us (too egotistical to care), despite the many unhappy hours we’d spent marching on opposite sides of Wilshire Boulevard (Red Emma’s sign: “Stop Apartheid.” Irv’s sign: “Hang Nelson Mandela”) and so I sidled up to watch, learn, and be amazed. Irv went around introducing himself to the other event organizers, taking advantage of unlearned peoples’ confusion of his organization with the Anti Defamation League or the League of Nations, La Leche League, The Red-Headed League, National Baseball League, and League of Superheros. (People get confused by that “league” deal. Remind me to name our next recall effort, the League to Recall Tom Fuentes.) Der Irver was shaking hands, giving out cards (I got one, which I still have in my rolodex!) and, at one point, pulling out $100 and contributing it to our Recall Frogue Campaign. I remembered then that, yes, one of Irv’s henchmen (hench-mensch?) had famously stood up a few months earlier and yelled at “Froguey” at an open-to-the-public SOCCCD Board Meeting. It was kind of fun. (His name was Barry. He was a bulldog. He barked.) Finally, in a cloud of dust and a mighty Hi-Ho Irv-o!, Mr. R. departed, leaving me and Rebel Girl shaking our heads and trying, pointlessly, to explain to a few colleagues just how weird was this right-wing nut’s appearance at our little gathering that morning, and the complete and beautiful logic of it. Irv goes anywhere to spread his message of nationalism and state religion—even Irvine! We soon gave up, feeling happy to have gotten the dough and not engaged Irv Rubin on the further dimensions (dementia) of his politics. But, no, that’s not why this is funny. Currently, Irv Rubin of the JDL and the brother of the loud, angry Zionist guy—Barry—who hollered at Frogue are in jail, suspects in a murder conspiracy. The FB of I is no doubt going through their stuff (at least that’s what they do on “The X-Files”). And, yes, friends, among all their dismal and greasy appointment books and personal calendars, Rolodex and computer files, I am confident that our fine federal agents will discover a listing for The Committee to Recall Steven Frogue. Mulder: “Look at this, Scully. Irv in Irvine.” Scully: “No. Are you saying...” Mulder: “It’s too obvious to be random.” Scully: “You’re right. I-r-v. In Irvine. Mulder: “The truth is out there.” Scully: “In Irvine?” And soon, I suspect (remember that word!), some guy in dark glasses and a bad suit is going to show up at the home or office of one of our fine Recall organizers wanting to know about their connections, if any, to a couple of “Zionist” murder guys. Nobody will know what the nice G-men are talking about. They will have forgotten about the weirdly enthusiastic contributor to our Recall donations coffee can that day and the confusing narrative offered by Red and Rebel Girl. When a tree like this falls in your neck of the woods and only a few people see or hear it, did it ever really fall? I wonder. And when the aliens do arrive, dontcha think they are gonna be smart enough not to look like aliens? Well? (I, Red Emma, will deny all of this if you fink to the feds.) No, the ironies of life in the world at large are only magnified, it seems, by the ironies of our strange lives in SOCCCDland. Yes, a murder suspect contributed money to the anti-Frogue campaign. No, nobody even knew who he was (except Red and Rebel). Yes, a group of well-meaning neophyte democratic activists tried, against considerable odds, to make a difference on behalf of shared governance in a community which does not believe in shared governance. They fought a good fight against elected public education officials who don’t even believe in public education. It doesn’t get any weirder than that, Jake. It’s Orange County. —RE

THAT AWFUL LITTLE MAN by Red Emma

    [Note: Dick Jones served as interim Chancellor of SOCCCD between Cedric Sampson and Raghu Mathur. I think that he was very glad to leave our district. No one has ever heard from him again.] 

February (?) 2002 

     Hi friends. Red Emma here. Or is she? With these wacky science guys going around cloning calico kittens and a guy as Chancellor who says he’s a doctor, I could be anybody. 

     Chancellor McGuffey: By the way, what is it about Doctor Dick Jones, former Chancellor, that makes me want to put on my gingham, churn butter, and get out the old buggy whip? Is the fellow a Quaker, a Mennonite, a Taliban, or only an extra on “Little House on the Prairie”? 

     Friends, it’s hard to know with whom you are dealing at SOCCCD. 

     Red of course admires Peace Religions, but wonders how Brother Dick could possibly get up each morning, saddle up the horses, not button his buttons and go to work with Minister of Pancakes Raghu Mathur, Ed.D. and the rest of the disciples. 

     Appearances can be almost as deceiving as public relations officers. Did you know, for instance, that Richard Nixon was raised a Quaker? Did you know Steve Frogue was a Boy Scout troop leader? Did you know that Red was once a Republican? (I made up that last one.) 

     Recently the good doctor asked Red, a writing instructor, if “you folks still teach the five paragraph essay?” 

     Well, yes, Brother Dick, we do. And then, sometimes for fun, we get out our McGuffey Reader or count up the number of stars on the flag. Yup, all twenty-eight of ‘em are still up on Old Glory. 

     Valentine’s Day: Not having visited campus recently, I was pleased that IVC’s typically state-of-the-art technology was, well, something typical, if less than art. Arriving for a fine Valentine’s Day reading sponsored by three English Department stalwarts (whose names, if mentioned here, will only climb higher on the dean’s shit list), I encountered an hourly parking-pass dispenser machine, which refused to accept my coins, bills, or gentle head hammering. 

     Judging it unlikely that I’d find valet parking, I tooled around in my new BMW (well, actually, an old VW, but it does sport a W, like the president), looking for the parking lot near the old orange grove, and found parking aplenty—but no damned orange trees. I fully expect that, upon arriving for a visit in, say, a month or so, I’ll find no school at all, only a small commemorative plaque, naming the site the “Raghu P. Mathur, Ed.D., Distance Learning Campus Mini-Mall.” 

     That night, the Humanities Building seemed to be my destination, but, providing a metaphor this rednik could not dream up, it was of course under renovation/construction, with windows boarded up and frightening Police ribbon strung decoratively. 

     The folks in the School of Humanities and Languages have been under a lot of stress lately. I watched my step, half expecting to find a chalk silhouette drawn on the pavement. 

     That awful little man: People who clone cats are not the people I want to have at my college event but, like so many things last week, this infelicitous feline science development caused me to consider the new chancellor, or, as I like to call him, “Chance.” 

     Did anybody else hear the eight-minute news update on KPCC’s “Airtalk” with Larry Mantle the other morning? It was more fun than a cat in a petri dish. The political reporter from the Register led Larry through recent developments at SOCCCD, with Larry interrupting every once in a while to exclaim “Really?” or “You’re kidding!”—or to wonder aloud if the new Chancellor could possibly be the same awful little man who, in recent years, sued his employer, took on student protesters, went after this very journal, and so on, delightfully. I don’t really like Larry, but he knows a weird, strange, unlikely story when he hears one. 

     Later in the week Larry did a special call-in show on whether Dr. Raghu P. Mathur should be given the Gold Medal for figure skating instead of those Russians and Canadians, though I may have heard that wrong. 

     Caller: I think Jews killed Kennedy. Nova Southeastern University is a swell school. Raghu should get the gold. 

     Larry: Steve, is that you? 

     Cat bite pleasures: Despite not often strolling IVC’s hollowed (and crumbling) halls these days, I do get nifty electronic announcements from the little college in the disappearing orange grove. I receive them via a plastic box my cat likes to call her couch, but which also delivers my email. And, boy, was I pleased to get the announcement of Dr. M’s matriculation to chancellorhood. 

     —It’s like when the doctor (I mean a real doctor) says the nurse will call you in 24 hours with test results cuz you got bit by a potentially rabid stray cat and you’re waiting by the phone to hear if you’ve gotta get those 14 shots in the stomach, but then the nurse finally calls and says, no, the cat wasn’t rabid but they’re gonna destroy it anyway. Well, upon hearing about Raghu’s TOTALLY SURPRISING APPOINTMENT AS CHANCELLOR, I wasn’t sure whether to feel like the doctor, the nurse, the cat, or the guy who got bit. 

The J. Edgar Mathur Memorial Scholarships 

     But I couldn’t have been more pleased when I learned that the Mathuristas (Board members and administrators on whom he apparently has the goods, viz., dirty pictures with animals) were sponsoring a scholarship in the name of the Great Man himself. Meow! An educational scholarship in honor of a lousy Chem Professor who got his “doctorate” through a mail order institution is kind of, well, like cloning cats or something. If you’re gonna clone something, aren’t rabbits the more obviously ironic Kafka-meets-Dr. Frankenstein-meets-Dr. Doolittle choice? 

     Yeah. 

     This news of course caused Red Emma to speculate about other possible scholarships we might see springing up soon and to which we, of course, encourage you all to donate. 

  1. The Raghu P. Mathur Security Stipend Scholarship. Sponsors: Argenbright Security Inc. Description: offers any student being harassed by Kate Clark a monthly stipend for purchase of mace, pepper spray, and a Rottweiler. 

  2. The Raghu P. Mathur-Dorothy Fortune Scholarship for Heterosexual Awareness. Sponsors: Pam “Same-Sex” Zanelli, Sharon McMillan, Sherry Miller-White. Description: a dollar bill, with portrait of our very butchest president, mailed to each voter in the county around, say, election time. –Obtuse, yet symbolic; sleazy, yet certainly not homo, no f**kin’ way! 

  3. The Raghu P. Mathur Revisionist History Scholarship. Sponsors: Steven Frogue, Thomas Fuentes, Michael Collins Piper, Spotlight. Description: an all-expenses paid trip for one lucky IVC history student (a Mathur Fellow) to Dachau, the Dallas Schoolbook Depository, the Richard Nixon Library & Birthplace, and the A-100 building. 

  4. The Raghu P. Mathur El Toro Airport Scholarship. Sponsors: Tom Fuentes, John Williams, Dorothy Fortune, Don Wagner, and Nancy Padberg. Description: employs a lucky IVC student to stand underneath the proposed flight path screaming, “Tom Fuentes was against this, goddamn it! Oh, the humanity!” 

  5. The Raghu P. Mathur Reassigned Time Abolition Scholarship. Sponsors: Hypocrites Anonymous. Description: At an elaborate Pancake Prayer Breakfast, a student is surrounded by a supportive prayer circle. Various godheads are evoked and then the lucky IVC scholar is awarded a keg of Vermont maple syrup and a shiny new “Greed is Good” button. 

      Our whimsical contract: Some readers may recall that your faithful Red scribe once objected, loudly, to the deliberate—or just stupid—failure of SOCCCD to honor the contract, which provides that Adjunct Faculty who’ve worked 5 years are entitled to receive an interview if they are silly enough to want an opening full-time teaching gig in the district. Last month, I finally sat down with, yes, a couple of lawyers, some union comrades, a nice arbitrator, and the district’s sole and singular representative: the acting (and bad acting it was) Chancellor, one Dick “The Woodsman” Jones, who, as I said, waxed so cluelessly about my profession. I wonder if Dick asks dentists about the old grind? 

     Anyway, the arbitration turned into a mediation, which turned nasty when the union had the audacity to suggest a financial award on my behalf. In a few months, I’ll walk into another meeting with lawyers, arbitrator, union comrades, and perhaps the apparent official representative of the district, the Chancellor, when I hope to experience, finally, the happiness, the joy, of meeting, in person, that awful little man.

     Which reminds me of Oscar Wilde’s instructive remark on learning that people were cloning cats: “On an occasion of this kind it becomes more than a moral duty to speak one’s mind. It becomes a pleasure.” 

 —RE

Humanities & Languages Adjuncts speak out: and are fired (archives)

An “archive” post:

Adjunct writing instructor Andrew Tonkovich (aka Red Emma) was fired by Mathur stooge Howard Gensler, apparently owing to the former’s “attire,” among other sins.

In fact, T had written a piece for a local paper that was critical of IVC President Mathur. Do you suppose that was the real reason for T’s termination?

Earlier, a full-time teaching job opened at Saddleback College. Tonkovich was, according to the faculty contract, entitled to an interview, owing to his long-time service at IVC. Nevertheless, he was not invited for an interview, despite repeated efforts reminding HR that he was thus entitled.

No matter, someone was hired, and T was left to confront a district that was determined to do whatever was necessary, including violating the contract, to keep him from being hired full-time. The error was acknowledged by the district, which, nevertheless, did nothing to correct the situation.

This story—and the fate of another part-timer who dared to speak the truth—is told in the following Dissent excerpts from 8 or 9 years ago.

From a piece entitled, “Takin’ Out the Trailer Trash,” by “Chunk Wheeler and Sherlock,” Dissent 49, 5/15/00

A part-timer pays the price for “extramural utterances”

You’ll recall that, a few weeks ago, the full-time faculty of the School of Humanities and Languages walked out on a school meeting when it became clear that Acting Dean Howard G[ensler] intended to prohibit discussion of an apparent change in adjunct hiring policies, among other forbidden topics.

The real issue, of course, was academic freedom—specifically, the right of an adjunct instructor to criticize the college president in a local newspaper, as he had done in December.

Well, a few days after that meeting, I emailed the Acting Dean, requesting that he agendize the policy change, among other topics, for the next meeting, which was scheduled for May 2, a Tuesday. He never got back to me. On the day of the meeting, however, I sought him out to ask about the agenda, and he seemed agreeable to any topic.

At the meeting, Howard showed up with two retired UCI geezers in tow. One geezer called himself Myron; the other called himself Frank. We all regarded the two, wondering what they were doing there.

Myron introduced himself, saying, I think, that, as an instructor, he had been active in the American Association of University Professors (the AAUP); Frank, sporting a John Deere cap, sat at the other end of the room, and he had little to say. Apparently, Howard had asked the two to attend the meeting, and their task, it seemed, was to “monitor” it. (Afterwards, Frank explained that Howard had been his attorney in a dispute with UCI administration.)

I began the discussion by identifying our long-standing “seniority” assignments policy for adjunct faculty. I asked Howard if it was his position that he could change the policy unilaterally.

Others chimed in to confirm my understanding of the policy’s pedigree. The Acting Dean seemed to profess ignorance of, and indifference to, the policy’s long history in the School. “That’s not my policy,” he said, adding that, yes, he can indeed make a unilateral change.

What, then, was our new policy? We sought an explanation of the bases upon which, in general, the Acting Dean might now act to fire an adjunct. Howard’s answer was disappointing; he said that the continued employment of adjuncts was a matter of his “discretion,” and that he planned to use a “broad standard” in making these decisions.

Faculty pressed Howard for details of the “broad standard.” He responded by offering three “examples”: (1) teaching performance, (2) “attire,” and (3) whether the instructor has violated the academic rights of another instructor.

“Attire?” asked Jim. “Yes, attire,” replied Howard. We all stared in disbelief.

Howard’s “examples” were curious, for, as a matter of fact, the adjunct instructor whose treatment at Howard’s hands occasioned this discussion—Professor T[onkovich]—had at one point written a letter to the editor of the school paper and its (temporary) faculty advisor, offering unremarkable criticisms regarding a student editorial and the paper’s news coverage, which seemed often to miss the campus’s political struggles. Some full-timers had expressed similar sentiments in similar communications. Apparently, the faculty advisor took offense to these criticisms and notified the dean.

Further, I have been told that, during a meeting with department chairs, Howard referred to “attire” while discussing his reasons for not rehiring Professor T as a writing instructor. In fact, Professor T’s attire is pleasant and unremarkable, which has inspired the suspicion that Howard is confusing the presentable Professor T with the pierced and bestudded Mr. S, a member of the Student Liberties Club, which T helps advise, though not concerning fashion. Further, nothing about Professor T’s recent letters constitutes a violation of anyone’s rights. T offered only criticism, and he did so most decorously. He gets to do that.

Anyway, we all listened to Howard’s “examples” in polite silence. If Myron and Frank expected a food fight, it did not materialize.

Faculty explained to Howard that the “seniority” adjunct assignment policy—which presupposes that “senior” faculty have received positive teaching evaluations—has worked well for the School for over twenty years. The policy emphasizes teaching performance, not attire, not politics. By what logic, we asked, could something like “attire” be placed alongside the question of actual teaching performance?

Howard’s answers to our many questions were at times evasive. At other times, he betrayed a failure to comprehend our queries, thereby causing waves of quizzical expressions across the room.

I raised a second issue: was it true that the School’s long-standing practice of basing scheduling on faculty recommendations was now vulnerable to the whims of the Acting Dean? Earlier, Howard had expressed the intention of making decisions based on what he called the “totality of circumstances” test. He repeated this intention. Essentially, the Acting Dean was saying that he would not be pinned down regarding the bases of his decisions.

Naturally, faculty again expressed concern: wasn’t the Acting Dean in effect embracing an arbitrary and whimsical decision-making procedure? Someone asked how, given the vagueness of Howard’s criteria, an instructor who had been fired would ever be in a position to remedy an erroneous judgment?

Even Myron seemed concerned. Normally, he said, the dean’s recommendation is only “one step”; it isn’t the whole process. Also, when a dean makes a decision, he is obliged to give reasons. That’s just part of “adequate consultation” between the dean and the faculty.

Lewis, Kate, Richard, Frank, Marjorie, Rebecca, and others spoke and spoke well. They asked: are you ultimately justifying this policy change on the ground that, legally, you get to do that? Do you really mean to deny that teaching performance is the central and overriding criterion for the hiring and continued employment of adjuncts? Do you really intend to place your own judgment—the judgment of a non-expert (who has never held a full-time teaching position at a college and who has no advanced degrees in the Humanities or Languages)—over the judgment of faculty experts?

The ensuing “dialogue” did nothing to move Howard from his curious stance.

At one point, Dale, an elder statesman among faculty, suggested to Howard that some of his decisions “baffle” faculty. “There’s an element of bafflement among us,” he said. Howard responded by explaining that he works closely with the chairs and that they help him to arrive at decisions. He seemed to suggest that the chairs “own” his decisions, too. But one chair clearly took exception to the suggestion, noting that, in truth, she had explicitly protested the decision not to schedule a history course in the fall that had been recommended by the faculty of the relevant department. Frank raised other concerns regarding this particular decision and the grounds that Howard had given for it.

Someone suggested that the top administrators of the college “don’t have a clue” what they’re doing, resulting in a decline in enrollments, among other things. She suggested that Howard should help turn the tide by supporting and empowering faculty, who have some experience and expertise regarding scheduling and adjunct assignments and all the rest. Howard appeared unreceptive to this suggestion.

A senior instructor raised further concerns about Howard’s new adjuncts “policy.” She asked: if this is how we are going to treat adjuncts, just who is going to work for us? We’re going to get the “dregs,” she added. That’s what we get now, she said, for administrators. The dregs.

We all looked at the Acting Dean. He looked back.

[ENTER ADJUNCT KEN BROWN]

Ken, the only part-timer present, listened concernedly. Toward the end of the meeting, he was asked to offer his view. He responded with a statement that was both eloquent and impassioned. He reminded everyone what is at stake. It isn’t easy, he said, losing half of one’s employment in one fell swoop, as sometimes happens to a part-timer, for one reason or another. He explained that, at one time, IVC valued and respected adjuncts. Full-time faculty were supportive, and administrators were very fair, willing to do right by adjuncts. In his experience, he said, adjuncts were hired or fired on the basis of merit, and the system worked well.

But now, he said, he was “scared to death.” Based on what he had been hearing, it was clear that he and other adjuncts had no protection based on criteria. Clearly, now, there is no “process,” only “whim.” Sadly, it is now a “different school.”

Ken closed by saying that, in his estimation, he was a pretty good instructor, and he wasn’t sure he wanted to continue to teach for IVC, not under these conditions.

Someone added: “Howard, you should know that Ken is our best philosophy instructor, and that includes full-timers.” He was right.

Howard then consulted his watch, said “Thanks,” and left the room. The meeting was over.

* * * * *
As things now stand, Professor T, despite having received excellent evaluations, will not be teaching for us in the Fall. No word yet on whether he has found alternative employment.

Did you hear what happened at Orange Coast College? They just hired a new dean of literature and languages. Michael Mandelkern, most recently the chair of the Humanities Department at the College of New Rochelle (Brooklyn Campus), has 12 years of teaching experience at the college level, and he’s a scholar and writer. He’ll start work on July 1.

Soon, at IVC, we’ll be hiring the permanent Dean of Humanities and Languages. Who do you suppose will be hired?

What follows is from a piece entitled “The Year of Living Stupidly,” Dissent 58, 5/16/01

If it’s Brown, flush it

Tolerance is another word for indifference.

—Somerset Maugham

As you may know, Ken Brown, a long-time IVC philosophy part-timer and bonhomme, has established an enviable reputation as an instructor and colleague of the highest order. As was explained last year during a tense Humanities and Languages School meeting, he is in fact our best philosophy instructor, or so said the sole philosophy full-timer at that memorable gathering. Plus he has made numerous valuable contributions outside the classroom.

Even so, he has now been fired, evidently owing to alleged rudeness or something. He thus joins a growing list of proud firees who…

—Wait a minute. This episode concerns a part-timer. Who cares?

Evidently, not the full-time faculty, who have done virtually nothing about the situation. I guess they shot their wad (an unimpressive little package) a year ago, when the regime went after Andrew T, that noted raconteur, rabble-rouser, and similarly excellent fellow.

Faculty silence speaks volumes. No wonder the Dissent went into hibernation. It shall do so again, tout à l’heure….

What follows is from a piece entiktled “+” by Red Emma. It appeared in Dissent 61 (I think), about February of 2002.

Our whimsical contract:

Some readers may recall that your faithful Red scribe once objected, loudly, to the deliberate—or just stupid—failure of SOCCCD to honor the contract, which provides that Adjunct Faculty who’ve worked 5 years are entitled to receive an interview if they are silly enough to want an opening full-time teaching gig in the district. Last month, I finally sat down with, yes, a couple of lawyers, some union comrades, a nice arbitrator, and the district’s sole and singular representative: the acting (and bad acting it was) Chancellor, one Dick “The Woodsman” Jones, who, as I said, waxed so cluelessly about my profession. I wonder if Dick asks dentists about the old grind?

Anyway, the arbitration turned into a mediation, which turned nasty when the union had the audacity to suggest a financial award on my behalf. In a few months, I’ll walk into another meeting with lawyers, arbitrator, union comrades, and perhaps the apparent official representative of the district, the Chancellor, when I hope to experience, finally, the happiness, the joy, of meeting, in person, that awful little man.

Which reminds me of Oscar Wilde’s instructive remark on learning that people were cloning cats: “On an occasion of this kind it becomes more than a moral duty to speak one’s mind. It becomes a pleasure.” —RE


From the OC Weekly, October 13, 2000

Cirque du Socccd
Goofiness is back at South Orange County Community College District

by Matt Coker

Let us revisit one of the weirdest marriages in the history of Orange County’s political freak show. It’s 1996, and the leadership of the liberal union representing South County community college faculty members has locked arms with four conservatives running for the board of trustees.

Their reasons are simple: the union, which spends more in these races than all other sources combined, will use its ample treasury to prop up conservatives in one of the most conservative voting areas in California, the South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD), which encompasses Saddleback and Irvine Valley colleges. In return, said conservatives will protect teacher salaries, already the highest in the state community college system, in the face of the financially strapped district’s looming bankruptcy.

The strategy of this unholy alliance was best illustrated in what became known as the “homophobic hate mailers of ’96.” To ensure the conservatives’ victory, the union paid for campaign mailers that played on the fears of conservative voters. The mailers claimed that the conservative slate would fight to protect voters’ hard-earned tax dollars from being used to fund health benefits for the same-sex partners of district employees.

Same-sex benefits were neither an issue in the race nor on the district bargaining table, but the tactic worked beautifully. Three of the four conservatives—Dorothy Fortune, John Williams and Steven Frogue—breezed to victory; fellow conservative Don Davis lost to incumbent David Lang.

The ’96 election left a bad taste in the mouths of many in the district. Acrimony led to lawsuits, turf wars, recall campaigns, outgoing staff stampedes, closed-door meetings, closed-door-meeting-law violations, threats of lost accreditation and an eventual changing of the guard in the faculty-union leadership.

But now it’s election time again, and gay-baiting has returned to the SOCCCD. Faxes that have been dropping like SCUDs at Irvine Valley College (IVC) the past few weeks riff off the same homophobia used in 1996. Claiming to be newsletters produced by IVC’s “Gay-Lesbian Task Force,” the faxes applaud a reform-minded slate of candidates—incumbent Lang and newcomers Bill Shane, Bob Loeffler and Bill Hochmuth—for supporting same-sex benefits.

Using political reverse psychology—and lots of capital letters—one fax reads: “Please, do not vote for those candidates who would DENY us our domestic-partner same-sex benefits (DON DAVIS, JOHN WILLIAMS, DOROTHY FORTUNE and TOM FUENTES).”

Fuentes, the chairman of the Orange County Republican Party, recently replaced Frogue, who stepped down from the board after a tumultuous reign that included two unsuccessful recall campaigns against him amid allegations that he is racist and anti-Semitic.

As is par for the SOCCCD, the faxes are total bullshit. There is no Gay-Lesbian Task Force. The name of the “registered Democrat” identified as the author of the abovementioned fax is not in the phone book, the district’s employee roster or the county registrar’s list of registered Democrats. The “author” listed on a second fax does exist but denies having created either fax and is offended by being linked to them.

A third fax sent out last week makes the same claims about same-sex benefits but directs all inquiries to IVC’s Gay & Lesbian Student Club—which does exist, although club members deny any involvement in this sordid mess. Fax No. 4 claims that Lang has won the endorsement of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).

Despite their over-the-top quality, the faxes prompted another IVC professor—who also exists—to announce the formation of a conservative faculty group to fight “liberal extremists” who have taken over the union and created a rogue and illegal PAC that has secretly recruited candidates to push for same-sex benefits. That professor confirmed to the Weekly that he authored that fax.

Andrew Tonkovich, a liberal adjunct faculty member at IVC and a constant thorn in the side of conservative trustees and administrators, responded to the fax campaign by putting out a satirical release from the “One True Conservative Faculty Association.” Noting that his organization “put the ‘con’ in ‘conservative,’” Tonkovich announced his group’s endorsement of Fuentes for not one but all four vacant district trustee seats this November. He concludes his delicious lampoon by pointing out that his public “remarks were met by complete indifference.”

“Complete indifference” is how we’re supposed to regard community college districts. When it comes to government fiefdoms, community college districts rank near the bottom in importance, sandwiched somewhere between vector-control and lighting-assessment districts. Here’s a little secret: community college boards don’t actually do anything. Most money for community colleges comes from the state and is earmarked for specific purposes. Talking about gays and lesbians is just a way to get some voters to pay attention.

The Weekly apologizes for having wasted this much ink to tell you that.

From a piece entitled “The Return of Red Emma (with an appearance by Mrs. Red Emma),” by Red Emma, Dissent 53, 10/9/00

A “Conservative” Occurrence

Responding to a press release sent out by the South Orange County Community College Conservative Faculty Association, a part-time IVC faculty member recently sent his own release. In a shameless effort to mollify one of his favorite contributors, your editor has agreed, despite his best instincts and the high journalistic standards of this publication, to reprint it, below. —R.E.

PRESS RELEASE—TONKOVICH
THE SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

Saddleback College
Irvine Valley College
THE ONE, TRUE,
CONSERVATIVE
FACULTY ASSOCIATION
#1

Our mission: “TRUTH”
Our motto: “ONENESS”

Our constituency:
the really, really truly conservative faculty members of the South Orange County
Community College District.

Our enrollment numbers: wouldn’t you like to know?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

* The One, True, Conservative Faculty Association Challenges SOCCCD Faculty Association
* Membership Announces Endorsement of Tom Fuentes—for ALL FOUR TRUSTEE positions
* Affiliate Faculty Associations endorse Fuentes

Contact: Andrew Tonkovich, Chair, OTCFA (949) xxx-xxxx

Today, Friday September 22, the Chairperson of the SOCCCD-OTCFA denounced the SOCCCD Faculty Association as “a small rogue group of faculty members made up of the majority of faculty in the two-campus district.” Comments attacking the legitimacy of the faculty labor union and its PAC were made by OTCFA Chair Andrew Tonkovich, an Adjunct Faculty member at Irvine Valley College, one of the district’s two colleges.

“Who do they think they are? A union?” sniffed One True Conservative Chair Tonkovich. “Just because they negotiate our contracts and we elect them to office doesn’t mean that they represent us.” He went on to declare, “So what if their membership is at an all-time high. Who cares that the state California Teachers Association (CTA) recognized this remarkable growth with an award? It doesn’t mean that the SOCCCD Faculty Association represents anyone other than the people behind them—the faculty.”

The un-elected, un-appointed, unofficial spokesperson of the One, True Conservative Faculty Association touted the credentials of his own newly-formed organization: “We’re NOT like those other faculty associations you read about in the papers. We’re NOT recognized as a collective bargaining unit by the state. We DON’T collect dues. We DON’T hold meetings. We DON’T negotiate teachers’ contracts.”

“In fact,” offered Tonkovich, “we DON’T have any legal or political standing at all. No, not a lick! Still, we offer the ONE, TRUE CONSERVATIVE VISION: Oneness. Truth.”

Tonkovich added that his organization “put the ‘con’ in “conservative.”

Tonkovich then announced his Faculty Association’s endorsement of Orange County Republican Party Chair Tom Fuentes for not one, but all four district Trustee positions in November. “He’s our candidate. If he’s not on your ballot, just write in his name or ‘GOP guy.’ They’ll know who you mean.”

Fuentes is currently a candidate in only one district, but has raised an unheard of $100,000 to fund his race, more than four times the average amount of other candidates.

Fuentes was recently appointed by the Board of Trustees to replace the retiring Steven Frogue, an alleged Holocaust revisionist, who was the subject of a community recall effort. “We believe Tom Fuentes plans to use this position as a stepping stone toward a Supervisorial run,” said Tonkovich. “That’s fine with true conservatives like us.”

OTCFA’s position follows the SOCCCD-FA’s recent endorsement of four “Clean Slate” candidates for the Board of Trustees’ race. “Their endorsement means diddly squat,” said Tonkovich. “Look, all the Faculty Association did was put together a democratic process allowing all faculty to develop questions about important issues facing the district, interview candidates in an open forum, and then vote their choices. Just because the vote was unanimous doesn’t mean a thing. I mean, this is America, isn’t it?”

Tonkovich cautioned reporters to “Listen to us! Not THEM!”

He also announced the formation of affiliate One, True Conservative groups, each offering individual F.A. endorsements of Trustee Tom Fuentes for all four positions. These affiliate groups include:

The One, True, Conservative Nudist Faculty Association (OTCNFA)

The One, True, Conservative Buddhist Nudist Faculty Association (OTCBNFA)

Friends of the Tom Fuentes Urban Park (FTFUP)

The One, True, Free, Faux Conservative Faculty Association ( 1234CFA)

Tonkovich’s remarks were met by complete indifference. He is, nonetheless, available for comment. (949) xxx-xxxx.

Red Letters, 2/02 (Through a new Times-Dissent partnership)

GUESS WHO’S CHANCELLOR? 

By Red Emma Editor’s 

Note: The Los Angeles Times gets hundreds of letters to the editor. Those published indeed represent only a fraction of those received. Through a new Times-Dissent partnership, we’ve secured copies of a few letters recently sent the paper after appointment of Raghu Mathur as chancellor of the embattled South Orange County Community College District. Regrettably, the paper was unable at the time to publish these due to space considerations. 

Dear Editor: 

Some teachers at Irvine Valley College and Saddleback are naughty. They say bad things about President Mathur. We do not like them. No. Some students listen to them, and then march around the campus, chanting “Mathur Must Go” and cause a lot of trouble, noise and litter. Not us. Some students study the Constitution and get big ideas. No way. No siree. Nope. We are proud of our college and of President Mathur. We have team spirit, school pride, transcripts and letters of recommendation. 

 

—Sincerely, Students for Choice cc: Raghu P. Mathur, Ed.D., Chancellor SOCCCD 

Dear Editor: 

Arf! Raghu Mathur saved my life. Woof! Raghu is a good master. Bow-wow! Raghu feeds me and lets me out of the garage occasionally. His security stipend from the district saved me from a life in the pound, and still left him cash to spare. When I looked out of my pen into his big brown eyes, I wanted to go home with him. Whenever Kate Clark comes around I bark and bark. Grrrr. “Attack,” says master, “attack!” 

—Woof, “Stipey” the Security Hound 

Dear Editor: 

Friends, I have been so very blessed to meet many good men and women, including presidents and kings. Raghu Mathur is a good man. I am a good man. I plan to host a special education-themed “Hour of Power” next Sunday featuring my special guests and personal friends: radio personality Dr. Laura, golfer Jack Niklaus, entertainers Donny and Marie, General Colin Powell, and a very honorable man, fellow American and new SOCCCD chancellor, Dr. Raghu Mathur. This event will feature the amazing Crystal Cathedral chorus singing with Donny and Marie, the folding of the world’s largest American flag into a very tiny American flag, putting tips from Jack Niklaus and a stern talk by Dr. Laura (“Ten Things Bad Teachers Do To Their Students When They Stray From Administrative Free Speech Policies”). We will hear an inspiring message from General Powell, who will present a special award to Dr. Mathur, newly appointed chancellor of South Orange County Community College District. As in our special Christmas pageants, during this special presentation, Dr. Mathur will fly like an angel. 

—Blessedly, Dr. Robert Schuller 

Dear Editor:

As a dean at IVC, I want to offer our school’s appreciation for the appointment of Dr. Raghu P. Mathur as district chancellor. While others dismissed me, even suggesting I was a sociopath, smiling toad, neck groper and funny dresser with not a clue about academic protocol, it was Dr. Mathur who recognized my genius. After earning numerous degrees simultaneously and a coupla advanced degrees, and rewriting The Odyssey and The Illiad so that they have better endings, I had everything but respect from my colleagues (or a fulltime teaching job). After years of toil, it was Dr. Mathur who recognized my talent, not to mention my terrific people skills and Photocopy Accountability Management Program. I owe my success—and popularity!—at IVC to Dr. Mathur. 

—Obsequiously, Anonymous Dean 

 

Dear Editor: 

We at Nova Southestern University couldn’t be prouder at news of the appointment of our recent alumni Dr.(GRADUATE NAME HERE) to the position of (POSITION NAME HERE). At NSU (“Go Fighting Novettes! Go the Distance!”), we take pride in the achievement of Dr. (GRADUATE NAME HERE), and are proud of our close association with Dr. (GRADUATE NAME HERE). Nova Southwestern University is proud of its low residency, distance-education, pay-per-view and mail order diploma programs, for which we were recently ranked 234 of 234 national universities. We are confident that our recent graduate Dr. (GRADUATE NAME HERE) will more than live up to NSU’s reputation. 

—Cordially, Dr. (DEAN NAME HERE), Ph.D. Dean, Nova Southwestern University cc: Dr. (Graduate Name Here), Ph.D. 

Dear Editor: 

This is a routine administrative request, newly instituted by the office of the chancellor, which SOCCCD attorneys assure me is entirely legal and well within the purview of my official capacities. Please, therefore, forward to me the names of all who wrote letters to your paper regarding my appointment to district chancellor. Disloyalty will not be tolerated. Thank you. 

—Sincerely, Dr. Raghu Mathur, Ed.D., Chancellor SOCCCD

ROY BAUER'S 1ST AMENDMENT BATTLES or "One Gadfly, One Gadfly Swatter"

From Dissent 60, 10/22/01

[The following essay was part II of a much longer essay called “A Swine County Almanac.” Part I, which told the tale of the Board Majority circa 1997-8, was entitled “three disgruntled part-timers and a bailiff.” Part II seemed to be entirely about my own 1st Amendment battles.]

[See also ARCHIVES: January 1999, for Bauer's account of being called into Sampson's office and ordered to seek anger management counseling!]

* * *

One gadfly, one gadfly swatter

I, Chunk

During this early period [i.e., 1997], I, Chunk, produced and distributed several satirical newsletters at IVC. By early ’97, my chief publication was called the ‘Vine. By mid-1998, the ‘Vine was largely replaced by Dissent, distributed unevenly, district-wide.

By design, the newsletters, to which several writers contributed, emphasized one overriding district truth: that a gang of greedy and disgruntled faculty—Mathur, Mickey No-Neck, “Baño” Bob, et al.—had made a pact with four opportunistic little devils—the Board Four—and, together, this crew was razing everything worthwhile that had been built.

It was difficult keeping up with the Dark Side’s crimes, hijinks, and peccadillos, but we gave it the old college try. Some people thought we were makin’ things up, what with tales of pants-droppings, loogie assaults, neo-Nazi rallies, gay-bashing, secret bank accounts, and all the rest. In reality, we were tonin’ down the facts, worried no one would believe them in unmitigated form.

‘Vine/Dissent was a hit. Early on, readers sent me “thank you” notes, cash, writings, and suggestions.

Dark Siders really hated Dissent, and they really hated me. Whenever I visited Saddleback, Lee Walker would get under foot, pestering me à la Ratso Rizzo, only without Ratso’s polish and good looks. Ken Woodward, too, would noisily orbit and sneer, offering such jibes as, “I’ve got a Ph.D. in economics. Nnnyeh!”

Such episodes were mostly comical. Others were creepy. Whenever Walter confronted me, as he sometimes did, his quakage and sputterage looked like a heart attack. Once, as I dined at a restaurant, Patrick F appeared from out of nowhere, pointing at me, shouting, “Those who live by the sword, die by the sword!” He trembled. I do believe he soiled his trousers. 

Making their own sauce

[Bauer’s] got some pipeline to the LA Times. I wish I knew what it was!

—Ken Woodward, on KPFK’s “Lawyers’ Guild,” 2/19/98

In ‘97, for PIO, the district hired Pam Zanelli, who functioned as a political consultant and flack for the Four, or so said the Three. Zanelli was the “professional” who, only months earlier, urged her then-clients, the union Old Guard, to use the “same-sex domestic partners” gambit to get Frogue, Williams, and Fortune elected and protect “life as we know it.”

She has a haystack on her head.

Naturally, what with the addition of a full-time Board Majority propagandist, some of us began talking to the press more often, givin’ ‘em the skinny. By early ’97, I (along with a few other rebels) had become adept at puttin’ local news hounds on the scent of stories that, invariably, embarrassed the Four, the union Old Guard, and Mr. Goo. Zanelli’s transparent spinnage was a weak force in this universe.

Mostly, all we had to do was point reporters in a certain direction. We didn’t have to add anything; they’d make their own sauce.

Our success with the press had nothing to do with bias. Hey, if, over time, you never lie or exaggerate or cry wolf, people start trusting you. That’s the secret, but it only works if you’re on the side of the angels. Rat Bastards need to hire Zanelli.

But Dark Siders naturally assume that everybody’s a lyin’, manipulatin’ piece o’ sh*t. Inevitably, to such people, if you get your side, your story, across to the public via the news media, you must be pullin’ a fast one somehow. 

The “JFK forum” episode

“Oh, get out of here!…You couldn’t find ... more embarrassing conspiracists in America. Even among conspiracy theorists, these people represent the outer limits.”

—Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, commenting on the “experts” invited for Frogue’s assassination forum (Times)

Some truths really ought to be revealed, especially when they concern the fate of hundred million dollar chunks of taxpayer cash. The Board Four’s breathtaking intellectual incompetence was such a truth.

On the morning of the August 18, 1997, board meeting, a colleague alerted me to board agenda item 13. It said

Several speakers have been invited to participate in [board president Frogue’s Fall] forum on the JFK Assassination. Expenses for travel, accommodation and/or honoraria are estimated below:
Sherman Skolnick: Not to exceed $1,500.00
Dave Emory: Not to exceed $1,000.00
John Judge: Not to exceed $1,000.00
Michael Collins Piper: Not to exceed $1,000.00

“Hmmm,” thought I. “Isn’t Piper the boy reporter for Spotlight?”

I made a heads up call to the ADL’s Joyce Greenspan, telling her what I knew about Piper, namely, that he worked for Spotlight, the nation’s #1 anti-Semitic newspaper, published by the nation’s #1 anti-Semite, Willis Carto. I advised her to look into Frogue’s other speakers too.

That night, Joyce addressed the board, informing them about Carto, Spotlight, and Piper. She explained that Skolnick, another Frogueian guest, was on Spotlight’s advisory board. Joyce urged the board not to approve item 13.

Frogue responded by explaining Piper’s theory—how the CIA and the Israelis conspired to kill JFK, etc. Piper’s theory, like dozens of similar yarns, is based on poor scholarship and dreadful reasoning. That is why it is not taken seriously by scholars. That is why Frogue’s “forum” was wrong for SOCCCD. Colleges should have standards.

The anti-intellectual Four understood none of this. They happily approved item 13, thereby demonstrating their utter incompetence.

The next morning, I phoned the Times’ Michael Granberry. Two days after that, the front page of the Times roared: “O.C. College Course Claims JFK Conspiracy.” Granberry’s article, which was picked up across the country, revealed that Frogue’s “experts” were pots so cracked that they even embarrassed world crackpottery. Thus it was that, for a day or two, our board and district became a national joke, an object of fun and frettage among Arianna Huffington, George Will, and the rest of American political blabbermouthery.

For the Featherbrained Four, it was an embarrassment of Biblical proportions. They had no one to blame but themselves. 

The last straw?

While the “JFK” fiasco—and resultant recall effort—raged, our Brown Act lawsuits (Wendy Phillips, now “Gabriella,” was one of the attorneys) moved through the courts. Late in ’97, Superior Court Judge Macdonald ruled in my favor in “Bauer I,” as it was called. By late ’98, it became clear that Judge Seymour would do the same in “Bauer II.” Despite Zanelli’s endless haystack spinnage, the Four were getting slaughtered, PR-wise.

A coupla weeks after the trustee election of November 1998, I published a guest column in the Sunday OC Register, revealing anew the ugly truth about our swine and their union piglets. Despite its relatively high profile, the article probably did more to catch parakeet droppings than to win hearts and minds. Still, it must have infuriated the Four.

Maybe it was just coincidence, but, a few days after the column appeared, without a hint of warning (contra board policy), I received a letter from Chancellor Cedric Sampson informing me that, in his opinion, I had violated the district’s “workplace violence” and “discrimination/harassment” policies.

Evidently instigated by Mathur, the letter, which (contra the contract) was already in my personnel file, claimed that I had been (a) making life miserable for faculty of the “Christian religious experience,” (b) using a racist term to refer to Mathur, and (c) publishing violent and threatening things in my newsletters.

In a follow-up letter, I was ordered to seek counseling.

“Good grief,” I said.

Mr. Shit

“I feel discriminated.”

—Raghu Mathur, 10/9/89

By then, despite his staunch Republicanism, Raghu already had a history of playin’ the “race” and “threat” cards, when convenient. At various times, dating back to long before my entrance into district politics, Mathur claimed to receive threatening and racist email, voicemail, and snail mail. (It is worth noting, however, that, during a 1999 deposition, he acknowledged his inability to document any of these alleged “threats.” [See Register, 1/7/00]. What’s that tell you?)

The notion that I was tormenting Christians stemmed from Mathur and Co.’s amazing ignorance. When deposed, Mathur and Sampson acknowledged unfamiliarity with Pat Robertson’s right-wing political organization, named “Christian Coalition.” (Jerry Falwell’s recent remarks that blamed the Sept. 11 attacks on lesbians, et al., were made on Robertson’s TV show.) So, since I have never criticized Christians or Christianity, I can only surmise that the Ignorami Twins had mistaken Dissent’s one or two snide references to Robertson’s political organization for a criticism of Christianity and Christians.

My so-called racist term for Mathur was “Mr. Goo,” which, according to me, was an allusion to the cartoon character Mr. Magoo, but, according to Sampson, was a reference to the racist term “gook.”

Mathur hails from India where Hindi is spoken. It turns out that, in Hindi, “guh” means “excrement,” a fact that, months later, district lawyers gleefully seized upon. It was news to me.

In the lawyers’ view, I guess, if you call a guy “Mr. Shit,” you’re a racist. I don’t get it.

The six elements

“You’re just not couth!”

—Judy Holiday (Born Yesterday)

El Ced’s disciplinary action was based specifically on six newsletter elements, the most celebrated of which appeared in a piece about a 1998 trustee candidates’ debate:

[The debate] started with a reading of a prepared statement by [the absent Nancy] Padberg in which she offered the usual bland campaign promises … Padberg also spoke—er, wrote—of the need to bridge the “gap” between the warring sides in the district. Evidently, she believes that the sides can come together and be pals again—perhaps by means of a carefully planned Halloween party. I don’t think so. I, for one, have etched the name of Sherry “Realpolitik” Miller-White and others of her ilk on my permanent shit list, a two-ton slate of polished granite, which I hope someday to drop on Raghu Mathur’s head. (Dissent, 11/2/98)

Another element was some laughably lurid “crime fiction” artwork, depicting a hatchet murderer and sporting the words: “Crime: Tales of the Back Door Gooster”—i.e., tales of Mathur’s crimes. Another was the acronym MAIM (“Mathur-Milosevic Academic Integrity Matrix”), used by Dissent contributor Red Emma to liken Mathur to the Yugoslavian dictator. Yet another was a still from an old science-fiction movie concerning “downsizers.” This, said Ced, was evidence of my “obsession with weaponry.”

Lawyers, guns, and money

The Chancellor ordered me to meet with him in his office, where he informed me of my “violations.” (The letters were already in my file.)

After the meeting, my then-lawyer, Bill S., who had accompanied me, was stunned by El Ced’s stupidity and unreasonableness. Bill wasn’t sure what I should do. He looked at me and asked, “Would you be willing to go to the counselor?” I looked skeptical. He added: “Don’t be buyin’ a Ferrari or anything. Save your money.”

A few weeks later, I got Bill’s bill: $1,500.

* * * * *

So I got help from Carol Sobel, a Santa Monica-based First Amendment attorney. We immediately sued the Chancellor on First Amendment grounds. I alerted the media, initiating yet another PR nightmare for the Board Majority, which now comprised Frogue, Williams, Fortune, Wagner, and Padberg.

Probably, the Dark Side expected me just to soften Dissent. As it turns out, a week or so before I received the letter, I had told friends that I was abandoning the newsletter, not out of fear, but out of a sense of the unseemliness of assuming personal risks when my colleagues, judging by their persistent silence and inaction, were, with a few exceptions, unwilling to assume even the slightest risk in combating the Dark Side. I found a towel and threw it in.

But now I was a First Amendment poster boy. The Dissent continued.

Our strategy: to win a “summary judgment.” Essentially, you win a summary judgment when the judge thinks a trial is unnecessary cuz your opponents don’t have a leg to stand on.

Federal court preliminaries

The district’s lawyers—Rutan and Tucker—commenced shoring up the district’s weak legal position. Using declarations solicited from Raghu’s unsavory Old Guard and classified allies, the district concocted a case for my being the district bully, the cause of all recent districtular difficulties, including the Accrediting warning.

The flim-flam flopped. In March of ‘99, Federal Judge Nora Manella, calling the Chancellor’s action against me “Orwellian,” issued a preliminary injunction, declaring the six newsletter items to be “protected speech” and enjoining the district from wielding the two policies to restrict speech and from enforcing the counseling order.

Manella next set to work on her ruling regarding the summary judgment.

Victory, part I

“I believe that [the district’s antidiscrimination policy] was used for an improper purpose in this case and that is to stifle dissent.”

—U.S. Judge Gary Feess, 10/25/99

The case was then handed off to Federal Judge Gary Feess (of subsequent DNC and Ramparts fame), who, finally, in October of ‘99, granted the summary judgment in my favor, arguing that my speech was “protected” and that the counseling order was improper. In Feess’ view, both district policies were unconstitutional “as applied,” but the workplace violence policy was also unconstitutional on its face (i.e., it was intrinsically unconstitutional). We had not expected—and, frankly, did not need—the latter “facial” ruling.

In court, Feess ridiculed Ced’s “threat” malarkey. “No reasonable person,” declared Feess, “could have concluded that [Bauer’s] written words … constituted a serious expression of an intent to harm or assault.” He especially derided Ced and Goo’s granite slab worries.

According to Feess, it was “hard to understand what administration was thinking” when they took the action against me. He opined that Mathur’s direction to me (in an evaluation) to “make things nicer” seemed to him to be a possible violation of the First Amendment all by itself. “It’s a college campus.” If you can’t “speak your mind” there, he asked, then where?

Contrary to Larsen’s clients, said Feess, there was no evidence that I was responsible for the district’s problems.

In response, the district’s lawyer, David Larsen, insisted that some faculty (Sherry Miller-White, et al.) feared voicing their opinions, but Feess judged those fears to be “beyond reason.”

“But,” said Larsen, “this is an individual who has been involved in face-to-face threats”! He was referring to the hilarious and hysterical Old Guard declarations from Woody and his pals.

Feess wasn’t buying it. Said he, “That was never a basis which was given in 1998 and that is an after-the-fact attempt to shore up what was a plainly inadequate basis for the discipline.” He added:

I understand that a lot of people would like to do business behind closed doors, that they would like to make decisions that they don’t have to explain, that they would like to come to conclusions and judgments and issue policy without having anyone present to listen and hear and to understand and therefore to make rational, powerful, criticisms of them. That’s just too bad under our system…And if people are afraid of going to meetings and speaking up because … they’re going to be the subject of criticism in a publication, that’s…just life under the First Amendment… I just think this is a case where that concept, a legitimate concept [“workplace violence”], is being stretched for the purpose of taking a vigorous critic of the administration and the board of trustees and trying to keep [him] quiet.

Carol was awarded $127,00.

Next thing I knew, the Board filed an appeal, which meant, among other things, that Carol wouldn’t be getting paid any time soon—and the letters would remain in my file for the time being.

The appellate hearing

A year and a half passed. The appellate hearing—at the 4th Court of Appeals, in Pasadena, with Rymer, Hawkins, and Gould presiding—finally occurred in May of this year. The judges heard oral arguments; they then conferred and produced their opinion.

The hearing was frustrating. Larsen, evidently driven to desperation by the poverty of his case, distorted and invented facts.

The discussion largely focused on the constitutional status of the district’s workplace violence policy in particular, which, again, Feess judged to be unconstitutional, not only “as applied,” but facially. Right away, Judge Rymer objected to the vagueness and oddness of the policy insofar as it referred to “violence overtones.” On the other hand, she could not see, she said, how the policy was unconstitutional on its face: why not just delete the problematic phrase?

Larsen struggled to defend the relevance of the district’s highly convenient after-the-fact declarations. He argued that the six elements needed to be viewed “in context”—namely, my angry and violent conduct, as revealed in Woody and Glenn’s declarations and Larsen’s impromptu courtroom fabrications. I had caused district employees—Sherry—to be “very frightened,” said Larsen.

Carol, always at her best in such settings, noted that, to qualify as truly threatening, an instance of speech must be unequivocal and immediate, threatwise. My speech, she argued, did not come “within a mile” of that standard. Concerning the six elements, the judges seemed to agree. But, asked Rymer, hadn’t I actually gone to individuals and threatened them?

“What are you referring to?” responded Carol. Carol knew that Larsen was distorting and exaggerating what appeared in the briefs and declarations.

Rymer seemed willing to concede that my expressions had been satirical and not violent. But, she asked, how can the whole “workplace violence” policy be unconstitutional on its face? “I just don’t get it,” she said.

Judge Gould spoke; he seemed to have his doubts even about the policy’s unconstitutionality as applied. Maybe the “college” needs its day in court, he said.

Things seemed to be going badly, I thought, but then Judge Hawkins, who had said nothing, ended the hearing by asking Larsen a series of revealing questions:

Were any of these alleged threatening incidents cited in the original disciplinary actions?

No, admitted Larsen, but they were “the backdrop” of the action.

“Really?” asked Hawkins. No references to these incidents were made in the disciplinary letters?

No, admitted Larsen, but, he added, you’ve got to consider “context.”

Hawkins then asked if I had done anything physically to anyone.

Well, no.

Had I brought a weapon to school?

No.

Did I have any history of violence, of shoving, anything like that?

No.

Did I have any history of arrests or confrontations?

Nope.

Victory, part II

The judges issued their judgment in August. Hawkins, representing Rymer and himself (i.e., a majority), wrote the ruling.

Essentially, I prevailed: Judge Feess’ judgments were upheld, with one exception: though the district’s policies are both unconstitutional as applied, in the appellate court’s judgment, the district’s workplace violence policy is facially unconstitutional only in part. Wrote the court:

[Bauer’s] writings and illustrations were prepared during a traumatic time for IVC and the District…The Accrediting Commission attributed the turmoil partially to OC’s financial troubles and primarily to a four-to-three split on the District’s Board of Trustees… [Bauer] voiced his disapproval in a campus newspaper called “Dissent.”….

We agree with [Feess’] analysis that the policies were unconstitutionally applied to Bauer because “though at times adolescent, insulting, crude and uncivil, Bauer’s publication focuses directly on issues of public interest and importance.” We also agree with [Feess] that Bauer’s statements were not “true threats” and that the District’s rights as an employer were not impermissibly burdened by Bauer’s expression….

We agree with [Feess’] holding that although Bauer’s writings have some violent content, they “are hyperbole of the sort found in non-mainstream political invective and in context…are patently not true threats.” (Emphasis in original.)….

Within the larger context of the turbulent IVC campus community, the conduct alleged by Sampson does not transform Bauer’s expression into “true threats.” We agree with [Feess’] that there is simply no way a reasonable reader would have construed [Bauer’s] writings and illustrations to be “true threats,” even if that reader were aware of all of the other conduct alleged by Sampson [my emphasis]….

In light of the Accrediting Commission’s report…, it can hardly be said that Bauer was the source of the disharmony on IVC’s campus. IVC and the District were going through a contentious period—Bauer’s commentary on these troubles may have raised awareness, but the expression certainly did not cause them…[A]nyone who has spent time on college campuses knows that the vigorous exchange of ideas and resulting tension between an administration and its faculty is as much a part of college life as homecoming and final exams….

[Judge Feess] correctly ruled that [the district’s workplace violence policy] is unconstitutional on its face because it prohibits speech with violent ‘overtones’ that falls short of being threatening. However, the…court erred in holding that the entire workplace violence policy is facially unconstitutional…The…court correctly ruled that the Board’s policies on racial discrimination…and workplace violence are unconstitutional as applied to Bauer.

As things now stand, Carol will be awarded about $200,000 in fees, to be paid by the district. No doubt the district has already spent much more than that for Rutan and Tucker’s services.

The press took some interest in the victory:

The Times, August 16, 2001:
College District Loses Appeal in Discipline Case

A federal appeals court Wednesday upheld a lower court decision that the South Orange County Community College District chancellor acted unconstitutionally when he disciplined a professor for criticizing the administration in satirical newsletters.

“It’s a victory for free speech and for those willing to report honestly about the incompetence and misbehavior of people in positions of power,” said philosophy professor Roy Bauer. “I certainly hope the chancellor and the board learned a lesson, but judging on past behavior . . . they will continue to run the district into the ground.”

But the court ruled that U.S. District Judge Gary Fees went too far in ruling the community college district’s workplace violence policy unconstitutional. Bauer sued after Chancellor Cedric Sampson in December 1998 ordered him to seek anger management counseling and placed a disciplinary letter in his file. Sampson also said Bauer violated the district’s antidiscrimination policy.

Bauer sued, and Fees ruled in his favor in October 1999. He awarded Bauer’s attorney, Carol Sobel, $127,000 in fees and costs. With interest and the fees from the appeal, that figure has grown to around $200,000, Sobel said.

David Larsen, the district’s attorney, said the board of trustees will have to decide whether to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

After nearly three years and an uninterrupted string of court victories, to date, Carol has not seen one dime in attorney fees. Further, Ced’s disciplinary letters remain in my personnel file.

So, now, again, we wait. If the Board decides to appeal to the Supreme Court—a request the High Court will almost surely deny—even more taxpayer money will be wasted.

 In any case, dissent continues.

--FU