Frozen in San Diego

From this morning’s Inside Higher Ed:

Student Government Freezes Funds for Student Media at UC-San Diego

The student government president at the University of California at San Diego temporarily froze funding for all student-financed media operations on the campus after members of a student media group made racially charged comments on a broadcast, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported. The incident, which was the second involving derogatory comments about black students in a matter of weeks, led the president of the student government to freeze student funding for all media outlets while the campus drafts a new policy on funding student media. The Guardian, the student newspaper, which does not receive student fee support, blasted the decision in an editorial entitled "Stopping the Presses Won't Heal the Hurt."

Meanwhile, at the Chronicle of Higher Ed:

Student Media Groups at UC-San Diego Lose Funds Amid Controversy Over Race and Speech

The head of the student government at the University of California at San Diego has temporarily suspended funds for all of the university's student-run media outlets after a broadcast prompted new outrage in a controversy over a party mocking Black History Month, The San Diego Union-Tribune reported. The broadcast was produced by The Koala, a controversial campus humor magazine, and aired over the student-run television station last Thursday. The freeze on funds, which affects 33 student media outlets, has in turn prompted complaints of muzzling free speech. Utsav Gupta, the student-government president, said he wanted the campus to craft a new policy for student media groups before lifting the freeze.

Also in IHE:

Merced Bans Chancellor-Mocking Art From Exhibit

The University of California at Merced has banned from an art exhibit a student's series of photographs that mock Chancellor Steve Kang, the Associated Press reported. The photos, among other things, show the chancellor speaking into a microphone that has been covered with a condom. University officials said that the art exhibit is billed as a family event and that this series was inappropriate. A video by the student, showing and explaining her work, may be found here. She writes: "My piece is a reflection of the torn feelings students face when discovering themselves. It outlines the ability to love two different campus idols: Steve Kang, our chancellor, and Lady Gaga, a pop idol."

And at the always entertaining OC Reg:

School board adopts patriotic policies

FULLERTON - All high school classrooms in the Fullerton Joint Union High School District will display the American flag and hold a patriotic activity on a daily basis after a 5-0 vote Tuesday by district trustees.

The new policies were researched and developed by an eight-member student advisory council in the past four months.

"The whole goal of these policies is for students to have an appreciation for the country we live in, and for all our freedoms," said Amanda Wong, the district's student board member – and a senior at Sunny Hills High School – who led the council effort.

A handful of students and residents complained to the board last July that the district wasn't following the state Education Code, and urged trustees to adopt a written policy.
. . .
"Our fear was that if the (Pledge of Allegiance) were recited every day, we could lose touch with the students," Wong said. "So, we decided that period of time could also be used to read a quote from one of our presidents, read a patriotic passage, discuss the meaning of words in the pledge or hold a moment of silence.
. . .
Ultimately, the council decided those students who chose not to participate must remain silent, Wong said….

The February board meeting: honoring that paragon of Bergesonian virtue

.....The board meeting was supposed to start at 6:00 p.m., but it didn’t actually start until nearly 7:30, suggesting, of course, that the board had lots to discuss in closed session. [See Tracy's Board Meeting Highlights.]
.....No noteworthy action taken during closed session was announced.
.....Next came “public comments.” Said bemused Board President Don Wagner: “No requests to speak, is that true? People are learning!”
.....This evoked some laughter.
.....Trustee reports were unremarkable.
.....Chancellor Raghu Mathur described our administrative delegation’s contributions to the recent ACCCA conference in San Francisco. He praised a presentation concerning ATEP and VC of Tech Robert Bramucci’s keynote address. (At the conference, he got people to sing. Seems like a bad idea.)

nepotism: the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, esp. by giving them jobs. (New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd edition)

.....One trustee requested a report: Tom Fuentes wanted a report on nepotism. In particular, he wanted to know how well the district board policy on nepotism is administered “to prevent nepotism.” He said he was concerned to have “the cleanest operation possible.” The report, he said, is especially important in view of our economic downturn.

.....Possibly he’s right about all that. Dunno. Still, I feel compelled to observe that Tom Fuentes is Mr. Hypocritical Politician, par excellence. I dunno about nepotism, but Tom has got to be the most cronyistic guy the world has ever seen. I won’t go into the usual examples.
.....Tell me, why are the most unchristian people always noisy, pious, self-righteous Christians? How does that work, exactly?
.....Tom asked that the report be as “detailed” as possible.
.....Sensing that ugly politics were afoot, Don Wagner asked for clarification. What do you mean by “nepotism”?
.....Fuentes turned to Mathur, who referred to the district’s board policy, which, he said, underwent a “legal review.” In his mind, that suggested that it contained legal definitions. So there you go.
.....Wagner asked, “Is the report looking for violations of the board policy?” Wagner noted that the presence of relatives among employees is one thing; nepotism is something else altogether.
.....Fuentes clearly wanted the “broadest” report possible. That is, he wanted to see lists of relatives.
.....It’s the usual witchhunt. Why bother with a tiny list of possible cases in which employees acted to benefit relatives when one can assemble a much longer and more impressive list of, well, just relatives.

I have here in my hand a list of 205 … names.  —Joseph McCarthy

.....Wagner noted that the presence of relatives in the workplace is not in itself nepotism—not in any meaningful sense. He decided to illustrate his point with the name of a volunteer that appeared in a footnote somewhere—a Michael Telson, whom, he said, is the nephew of Saddleback VP of SS Lise Telson.
.....Telson was in the audience. She spoke. She has no such nephew, she intoned.
.....She looked seriously pissed. I got the sense that her anger was not only about this apparent misunderstanding, if that's what it was. Emotions were running high. Naturally, there were plenty of characters in the room who could be the ultimate source of her consternation.
.....Next came a discussion item: Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Recovery Plans. Bramucci, Palmer, and Glenn took turns presenting. There were lots of warm and fuzzies. Even Mathur got slathered with ‘em.
.....Next came Curriculum Review for the two colleges. As you can imagine, so riveting was this presentation that, by the end of it, trustees were speechless. There were no questions.
.....A handful of items were pulled from the consent calendar.
.....Item 5.5 concerned that semi-hinky business about cosmetology program review. The item recommended the payment of $3,400 to a beauty college in Lake Forest.
.....We were told that Saddleback College contracts out to this business, but the contract does not include program review, which requires time and effort. And so the beauty college people must be paid for that time and effort.
.....Lang suggested that paying these people to review their program involves an apparent conflict of interest. Yeah, said Saddleback College President Tod Burnett (who seemed addled), but faculty routinely review their own programs. They’re paid to do that.
.....Lang offered a painful milquetoastian smile. OK, he murmured.
.....Item 5.7 was the “loop road project.” I’ll spare you the details. They’re gonna go forward with the study of this road. Gotta think of the future.
.....Item 5.19 was trustee requests for conference money. There was a solitary request to attend the “Campus Safety Conference” in Long Beach.
.....Nancy Padberg was skeptical. She said she wanted to know which trustee made this request. (Translation: “What’s that rat bastard John Williams up to this time?”)
.....There was some hemming and hawing. But Padberg did not relent. Eventually, Williams said that he’ll go, if he can--as though he had nothing to do with the request. Padberg made clear that a “request” only appears when a trustee makes a request. So who did that in this case?
.....That would be John “junket boy” Williams.
.....Next came the wild discussion of “Chancellor recruitment.” (See yesterday’s post.)
.....Item 6.6 concerned the “Marian Bergeson” award. Fuentes grabbed the mike. He gave an absurd speech about his pal Bergeson and her values. Who among us is a paragon of Bergesonian virtue? Well, that would be John “two scathing grand jury reports” Williams!
.....Eyes rolled.
.....John accepted the nomination. Aw shucks, he said.
.....The board voted unanimously in favor of the nomination. I stared at the tally of votes displayed above my head and to the left.
.....Nobody said anything.

The Chancellor recruitment goes forward—but only after a brouhahahahahaha

----"You could cut the tension with a knife." —So said a friend after tonight’s meeting of the SOCCCD board of trustees.
----Tomorrow, I’ll have a fuller report. For now, I’ll focus on the big news of the night—and the cause of all the tension. It was item 6.1: Chancellor recruitment.

PLEDGING AN "ABOVEBOARD PROCESS"

----The agenda item made reference to the relatively new Board Policy 4011.6, which outlines the “employment procedures for chancellor” and “formalizes the process for recruitment.” And though I could not find it in the agenda, a draft of a brochure outlining a hiring process—including criteria for evaluation of candidates—became a big part of tonight's discussion too.
----As you know, I have raised concerns about the hiring process (Who will oversee the hire?), since board policy 4011.6 designates the Chancellor or a “board designee” as the overseer of the process, including selection of the hiring committee membership and its chair. My fear was that the wily Raghu P. Mathur could end up as Mr. Overseer.
----Ah, but my worries are over. Tonight, it was clear that the “new board” that emerged during the stormy December meeting is still intact. It is a board utterly divided between the odd new “majority”— Don Wagner (Board President), Nancy Padberg (Vice President), Marcia Milchiker (Clerk), and Bill Jay—and the angry and disgruntled new “minority”—Tom Fuentes, Dave Lang, and John Williams.
----Tonight, Wagner clearly hoped to initiate the chancellor “recruitment” process. Meanwhile, Fuentes and his gang plainly sought to prevent or delay that action, by hook or by crook. It was a noisy and sometimes brutal struggle. Fuentes provided all of the brutality. He was like a caged tiger. It was way cool.
----Wagner began the discussion by referring to the Board Policy, adopted three or four years ago, and the brochure, a work in progress (something evidently intended to assist the trustees; probably composed by VC of HR, David Bugay). He suggested that, for tonight, the board could discuss who would serve as “board designee” and whether the board should hire a consultant.
----And so, from the very start, no one was thinking that lame duck Mathur would oversee the process. Maybe that was decided during the closed session (which ran over by over an hour). Dunno.
----But it was great news.
----Someone suggested that the brochure, which evidently described the hire as occurring “by July,” was overly optimistic.
----Wagner then said—well, he said all that one might hope that he would say! He explained that he was committed to a process that was as fully open and exhaustive and aboveboard as possible. Speaking for himself, he pledged that there certainly were no candidates with a "leg up." He said that he was looking for a process that everyone could get behind. He was determined that the community would embrace the process as a good and honest one.
----I carefully studied his face and the faces of his colleagues. (BTW, Mathur looked like a corpse.) He really seemed to mean what he was saying. The new board majority had evidently decided that the Chancellor hire would be a model of transparency and professionalism.
----I was impressed. What could be better!
----Bill Jay said he agreed that the process should be started right away. He indicated that he supported item 6.1 (i.e., initiation of the recruitment process).
----Nancy Padberg agreed, though she acknowledged that the July date was optimistic. She motioned to approve the item.

WHAT'S THE RUSH! they said

----John Williams pushed back. This should be done slowly, he said. Commencement is only 12 weeks away, and that time is too short to properly advertise for the position. It doesn’t make sense to “rush” the process, he said. He said that, normally, Chancellor hires start in the fall. “We’ve missed the window of opportunity,” he declared.
----Williams struck me as confused. Despite his verbiage, his point wasn’t that Wagner sought to initiate a rushed process; his point was that they need to wait for the optimal recruitment season. This equivocation caused a fair amount of confusion, I think.
----Wagner explained that the process is already defined; it is defined by the board policy. The process is what it is whenever we start it. One reason to start the process now, said Wagner, is to shorten the interim period (between Mathur’s exit and the new Chancellor’s arrival). It is best to have a short interim period for the sake of stability, he said.
----That seemed right.
----Williams then reiterated that “now” is not the optimal time to start a Chancellor recruitment process. To optimize the process, one would choose a search committee by late spring and then proceed with hiring early in the fall. Again, he said that they mustn’t "rush."
----Wagner then reiterated that no “rush” was being suggested. All that was being suggested was that they follow the policy, which essentially defines the pace of recruitment and hiring.
----Williams then repeated his point that we’ve missed the window of opportunity. Mid-year hires are not very common, he opined. He referred to some ads in the Chronicle of Higher Education. He noted the timeline of a hire in Australia.
----Freakin' Australia? That example produced quizzical and annoyed looks.
----Tom Fuentes, already in Bully Mode, then spoke. With customary Gigantor candence, he bellowed that he was very concerned about the “rush in this process.” He noted, with great and and oozing passion (rage?), that the board hadn’t had a presentation on the hiring process. Such a presentation was necessary, he said, to “expose” it to the trustees’ constituencies (i.e., the wonderful TV people out there in the dark). Oddly, he then blasted the “draft brochure,” calling it "very disappointing." It doesn’t reflect, he said, his priorities, such as the Chancellor’s responsibility to the “taxpayer.” The brochure refers to a requirement of five years of specifically community college administrative experience. Why exclude 4-year college experience? Fuentes then repeated that the board needs a full presentation from the Vice Chancellor of HR (David Bugay). Item 6.1, he said, was premature, and it was very poorly presented.
----Then Fuentean minion Dave Lang weighed in. We’re proceeding “a bit hastily,” he burbled. He said he didn’t understand quite what was being recommended by 6.1. Plus we need to consider whether people are comfortable with the process that’s in place (a reference, I suppose, to the 2006 board policy).
----Wagner then argued that revisiting the policy in the middle of a Chancellor search undermines the idea of having a policy. The policy tells us what to do when these circumstances (i.e., needing to hire a new Chancellor) arise. It would be improper to change the rules in the middle of the process.
----Wagner couldn't figure out what sort of presentation Lang and Fuentes wanted. The policy already exists (and it is pretty clear). We should now use it, he said. The brochure, he said, is not finished. It can still incorporate trustee suggestions. Right now, we need to consider who should serve as the board designee and whether a consultant should be hired.
----Marcia Milchiker then stated that hiring a Chancellor is the one thing that the board does. There is no reason to expect a presentation from administrators—unless the board asks for one. She did not object to a presentation on the process. She did not object to having a special meeting (within two weeks) in which the board could define just what kind of Chancellor they wanted to hire. We need to get the word out what a fabulous district this is and what a fabulous place this is to live, she said. But none of this, she seemed to say, is a reason not to get started right away.
----Nancy Padberg agreed. We can make adjustments along the way as necessary.
----Lang, ignoring Wagner's argument, then stated that just because we have a policy doesn’t mean it is "cast in concrete." Our starting point, he said, should be "looking at the policy."
----Williams then said that he was troubled by the lack of a “timeline” in the agenda item. We need to adequately "expose" this job in the Chronicle of Higher Ed, he said. What upset him the most, he guessed, was the July date.
----Wagner then noted that, according to the policy, 50 days (of advertising?) are specified, but that period can be extended. What I’m hearing, he said, is “not yet!”—but we can make adjustments as necessary.
----Wagner noted that the policy actually addresses some of the concerns that were being expressed. (It did seem to me that few on Team Fuentes had actually read the policy.) He said he couldn’t see a reason not to start the process. We should empower administrators to get started right away (with forming the committee, etc.).
----Bill Jay chimed in to say that there’s nothing wrong with hiring a Chancellor during the summer. He cited cases in which the board had hired Chancellors during the summer and that turned out well. He noted that the Chancellor hire is important to faculty and that they would be willing to serve on a committee even during summer. (I nodded, hoping that that would matter to someone.) We need to move forward as quickly as we can, he said. If we don’t like the first group of applicants, we can always extend the recruitment period.
----Fuentes then boomed that they were “putting the cart before the horse.” He was visibly angry. They had received a poorly written brochure, he said. We’re expected to vote on a process that we haven’t had presented to us, he repeated. Constituencies and the media deserve seeing that presentation. He said that this process shouldn’t be “railroaded.” He moved to table the matter.
----That failed: 3 to 4.
----I smelled sulphur, heard faint screams.
----Lang again suggested that it is unclear which action is being recommended.
----Milchiker then explained that nobody is ramming anything down anyone’s throat. They're merely initiating the recruitment process. We need to hire a chancellor. That's clear. So let’s do it.
----Wagner stuck to his guns. We can also have a presentation; but, in the end, we will follow the existing board policy. He indicated that trustees were assuming that the Vice Chancellor of Human Resources (David Bugay) should be the board’s designee. So we now need to consider whether they'll need the services of a consultant. We’re just trying to get the process started, he said.
----The motion was clarified: the board would initiate recruitment. Bugay would be the board's designee. There would be a special meeting within two weeks to clarify what sort of Chancellor the board wanted.
----Fuentes, now in full Bully Mode, roared: “I’ve never heard of anything so ridiculous in my life! We’re going to put an ad in the newspaper, ‘Chancellor wanted,’ but we don’t know yet the qualifications for the job.” He played the "I've been in the public sector" card. He got seriously ugly.
----“What is the rush in this!” he snarled.
----Lang then stated that he preferred Gary Poertner to David Bugay as board designee.
----Wagner then explained (I didn’t really follow this) why Bugay is a better choice than Poertner. (I think it had something to do with the possibility that some of our administrators might be interested in the Chancellor gig. Bugay was clearly not among that group.)
----Wagner again attempted to hold the vote on the item.
----But Marcia wanted to make sure that everyone had had their say.
----Lang said he had a question seeking clarification.
----Wagner said no, they were finally going to vote, goddamit.
----Fuentes bleated that the board has never done that “discourtesy” to a board member before.
----Wagner relented. Lang wanted to know if we were talking about Bugay as the “chair” or as the “board designee.” (Actually, the board policy makes clear that the board is to choose a designee, not a chair. The chair is chosen by the Chancellor or designee. Gosh, did these people bother to read the policy?)
----Finally, they voted: item 6.1 passed, 4 to 3. The process had started.

THE BIG QUESTION:

----To me, the only question here was: what does the Board Minority have to gain by delaying the recruitment process? Their arguments were weak. As Wagner said at one point, the Minority seemed determined to object to the item no matter how it was formulated. All of the Minority's worries were already addressed in the policy or could be dealt with by ad hoc adjustments.
----Why were Fuentes and his Gang desperately scraping up any reason they could think of to delay or prevent the hiring process?
----I smell a rat.

Comments:

----Anonymous‬ said... - The rat? If the minority can get the process of a chancellor's hiring delayed and IF Don gets the nod to serve as a state political representative, then the new BOT member to replace Don might go with the current minority and reappoint—guess who? - 5:36 AM, February 23, 2010
----Anonymous‬ said... - yes, my thoughts exactly – they are waiting for Don to resign then they'll appoint his replacement (at the ready, no doubt, Probolsky?) and well, that's all she wrote.
"gigantor cadence" – love it, Roy. ha ha ha.

Thanks for hanging in there and giving us such gems—and reportage. - 10:08 AM
----Anonymous‬ said... - Thanks for the good and bad news.
Clearly they're hoping Don makes the jump to Sacramento – and then, a la their attempt to ram Norby down our throats via Fuentes – well, they'll fill Don's seat with a Fuentes' flunky and then undo what's been done.
I hope the union has a candidate in the wings for Don's seat...or is prepared to recall again.

(and yes, thanks Roy for this and everything you do, the recent shabby treatment by the Senate's leadership aside – what's GOT into them anyway? Or is it WHO? Dang. Can you imagine Peter Morrison acting like that? Even with his opponents? He honored the institution.) - 10:16 AM
----Anonymous‬ said... - Raghu's laying the groundwork for his reinstatement – he was talking it up last weekend about how he signed his "resignation" under duress – watch out. They're up to something. - 10:41 AM
----Anonymous‬ said... - Why hire a new chancellor when we have the best one money can buy right here, right now???? - 5:19 PM
----‪Anonymous‬ said... - I smell a rat. Several rats. - 9:08 AM, February 24, 2010

zpizza gets PETA prize; plus lunacy and non-fabulosity

• BOARD MEET TONIGHT.
It’s been a wild day already, and, at long last, I have ceased running and spinning, but only for a moment. Soon, I'll be headed to tonight’s meeting of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees.

So I've taken a few minutes to read the news:

• BE NOT CARNIVOROUS. The OC Register reports that

PETA2, the youth division of the PETA animals-rights group, released the results of its 4th annual Libby Awards, which include best vegan fast-food chain and best overall vegan restaurant. ¶ Irvine-based zpizza nabbed the top honor of Most Vegan-Friendly Restaurant Chain, PETA2 said Monday. … The locally-based pizza joint, which offers a variety of organic and vegan toppings, beat other nominees such as P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Johnny Rockets and Moe’s Southwest Grill. . . . In the fast-food category, Chipotle Mexican Grill nabbed the most votes….

• NOT ON THE SAME PAGE. Meanwhile, the OC Register’s College Life blog reports today that five student groups at UC Irvine “spoke out against the Zionist Organization of America [ZOA], which last week called for a boycott of the university because of on-going tension between Jewish and Muslim students.”

This “speaking out” comes in the form of a letter, which ends with:

Unfortunately the MSU [Muslim Student Union] continues to bring negative programming to campus, which continues to give UCI an undeserving terrible reputation. As proud UCI Anteaters, the rest of us will continue to build a thriving and robust campus life for our fellow and future students.

Here are the groups that signed the letter: Anteaters for Israel, Alpha Epsilon Pi, Chabad at UCI, Hillel at UCI, Alpha Epsilon Phi

• DEMON DEMS. The OC Weekly’s Scott Moxley (see) provides a nifty quotation:

"This is a battle between Christian conservatives versus deceitful, socialistic, liberal Democrats and education bureaucrats who are delusional."

According to Moxley, the quotation is an argument made two days ago at the “California Republican Assembly convention in a winning effort to get the conservative political group to oppose a recall of two Republican Capistrano Unified School District board members who want to slash teacher pay by 10 percent.”

• SHE'S NUTS. The Weekly’s Spencer Kornhaber (Orly Taitz Asks United Nations for 'Protection') reports that

The lawyer retained by Dr. Orly Taitz to fight against her $20,000 sanctions today issued a press release saying the Laguna Niguel dentist has appealed to the United Nations for protection from "persecution" in the United States.

Quoth the release:

The California attorney has been the victim of death threats, vandalism, false complaints, and a suspected assassination attempt. Her reports to law enforcement and the judiciary have been ignored.

 The attempt is the latest manifestation of Taitz's steadily increasing belief, documented hourly on her blog, that she is being personally targeted by the vast conspiracy involving Barack Obama, the media, Saudi Arabia, China, communism, George Soros, the U.N. (?!), Glenn Beck, etc. etc. etc. ¶ We've got a call to lawyer Jonathan Levy's office for details. Levy appears to have graduated from the same unaccredited Santa Ana law school—Howard Taft University—that Taitz herself attended.

• NO LONGER FAB. Finally, I feel compelled to mention that, for some reason, the Weekly thinks that we want to know that Paul McCartney [is] Coming to [the] Hollywood Bowl.

Paul freakin’ McCartney? Who cares?

Remembering the great Louis Armstrong (1901 - 1971)

1933


1925 Bessie Smith, backed by Louis Armstrong on cornet and Fred Longshaw on harmonium


The Day Louis Armstrong Made Noise (NYT)

[September 1957:]….Mr. Armstrong, wearing a Hawaiian shirt and shorts, agreed to talk. Mr. Lubenow [the reporter] stuck initially to his editor’s script, asking Mr. Armstrong to name his favorite musician. (Bing Crosby, it turned out.) But soon he brought up Little Rock, and he could not believe what he heard. “It’s getting almost so bad a colored man hasn’t got any country,” a furious Mr. Armstrong told him. President Eisenhower, he charged, was “two faced,” and had “no guts.” For Governor Faubus, he used a double-barreled hyphenated expletive, utterly unfit for print. The two settled on something safer: “uneducated plow boy.” The euphemism, Mr. Lubenow says, was far more his than Mr. Armstrong’s.

Mr. Armstrong bitterly recounted some of his experiences touring in the Jim Crow South. He then sang the opening bar of “The Star-Spangled Banner,” inserting obscenities into the lyrics and prompting Velma Middleton, the vocalist who toured with Mr. Armstrong and who had joined them in the room, to hush him up.
. . .
So the next morning Mr. Lubenow returned to the Dakota Hotel and, as Mr. Armstrong shaved, had the Herald photographer take their picture together. Then Mr. Lubenow showed Mr. Armstrong what he’d written. “Don’t take nothing out of that story,” Mr. Armstrong declared. “That’s just what I said, and still say.” He then wrote “solid” on the bottom of the yellow copy paper, and signed his name.

Mr. Armstrong was to pay a price for his outspokenness. There were calls for boycotts of his concerts. The Ford Motor Company threatened to pull out of a Bing Crosby special on which Mr. Armstrong was to appear. Van Cliburn’s manager refused to let him perform a duet with Mr. Armstrong on Steve Allen’s talk show.

But it didn’t really matter. On Sept. 24, President Eisenhower sent 1,200 paratroopers from the 101st Airborne into Little Rock, and the next day soldiers escorted the nine students into Central High School. Mr. Armstrong exulted. “If you decide to walk into the schools with the little colored kids, take me along, Daddy,” he wired the president. “God bless you.”

Songs bursting in air

Star-Spangled Controversy Pits Martial Anthem Against Pacifist College (Chronicle of Higher Ed)

Playing "The Star-Spangled Banner" at intercollegiate sporting events in the United States is as commonplace as, well, apple pie. But until now, the national anthem has never been performed at Goshen College, a small 116-year-old institution in Indiana whose ties to the pacifist Mennonite Church led it, among other things, to ban the song because of its martial lyrics. According to the Associated Press, the college has agreed to allow the anthem's performance in order to be more welcoming of visitors and students from outside the faith (only 55 percent of the enrollment is Mennonite). But the decision has split the college, with hundreds signing an anti-anthem petition and some 900 joining a Facebook page called "Against Goshen College Playing National Anthem." The college has compromised, however: The version of the song to be performed starting next month will be instrumental.

Who will provide "oversight" of the SOCCCD Chancellor hire?

Item 6.1 of the agenda for Monday’s meeting of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees concerns “Chancellor Recruitment.” The board will “discuss and take appropriate action on recruitment of [the] new Chancellor.”

Included in the agenda item is Board Policy 4011.6: Employment Procedures for Chancellor. Section 1, point 7 of this policy concerns “oversight”:

According to 4011.6, the Chancellor or Board designee “will appoint the search committee….” Further, according to the policy, the Chancellor or Board designee will select the committee chair.

I don’t know about you, but I will quickly cease to have confidence in the search and hiring process if Raghu Mathur is chosen as the provider of oversight of the hiring process.

Two weeks ago, I contacted IVC’s Academic Senate cabinet, requesting that they agendize something (e.g., a senate discussion) that might yield some action to encourage an honest and professional Chancellor hire. As a result (I suppose—the cabinet doesn’t communicate with me, evidently) some sort of “Chancellor search” item did appear on the agenda of last week’s senate meeting, but the meeting ran long and the item was put off until the meeting of the 25th.

But it now appears that an important decision regarding the integrity of this search/hire might be made on Monday, the 22nd—naming the Oversight Person for the hiring process. The agenda item does not make that clear.

Mathur has a history of manipulating administrative searches.

A few years ago, during the trial for a civil suit—a widely-respected and experienced applicant accused Mathur of discrimination in a dean hiring process that yielded a stunningly disastrous hire—attorneys pursued whether Mathur had done “reference checks”—i.e., calling and verifying references listed on the selected candidate’s application. As I recall, it appeared that, had the reference checks been done or had they been done competently, important damning information about Mr. Disaster’s history would have come to light.

In court, to the amazement of observers, Mathur stated that, somehow, the form that documented these reference checks (he was supposed to have done them) had been lost.

Lost?

Yes, lost.

Item 5.13 concerns a speaker for the IVC Academic Senate “Distinguished Academic Lecture Series.” In April, Jazz man (and UCI professor) Kei Akagi will present “message of jazz.” He will receive $2,400 for travel expenses/honorarium. (Presumably, this is an honorarium.)

Oddly, this has been added to item 5.13:

We're renting or leasing a Lexus? For whom?

Comments:

Anonymous said... — Yes, the Chance is good [at] losing or discovering information "vital" to the district (aka "him"). 5:45 AM, February 20, 2010
Anonymous said... — Usually the senate meetings run long because a self important philosophy instructor talks too much... 7:28 AM
Bob Cosgrove said... — You know, at the Saddleback Senate we relish having folks who engage, even when we disagree. Senates are forums for different views on topics of concern. Be happy that you have someone who is ethical and thinks.
IVC has had a series of excellent Senates over the years and I know since I have attended many of them. Your Senate has been receptive and skeptical of some of the ideas we have shared with you and you with us.
But the exchanges often identified common ground. 7:44 AM
Anonymous said... — 7:28, as I recall, that instructor barely spoke. He did recommend a change that was ultimately endorsed by the senators. 8:16 AM
Anonymous said... — I like the fact that ideas ARE discussed in the Senate -- that the Senators are asked to cosider -- and not just rubber stamp agenda items. In general, if the meetings run over -- it's a matter of minutes. Everyone knows that. Senate meetings are from 2-4.
(same with curriculum -- or used to be -- items read and discussed -- now it's not -- people bragging in the meeting that they don't read the stuff and never will) 8:18 AM
Anonymous said... — Face it, many people resent doing their jobs, fulfilling their responsibilities. They just want their paychecks and the shortest work day possible. 8:54 AM
Anonymous said... — Oversight? yeah right. 9:42 AM
Anonymous said... — Gee, hard to see how looking out for ethical integrity and thoughtful consideration of crucial issues to the welfare of the District translates into "self-important." 

"Self-sacrificing," yes--especially when those lacking that sense of integrity or work ethic simply attack.

Thanks Bob, for putting it well: "Be happy that you have someone who is ethical and thinks." I wish he had more company in the Senate in that respect. 10:39 AM
Bob Cosgrove said... — The Lexis issue—land that was not being used by Saddleback or probably will be. Lexis needed an area to park vehicles. It did not go through the process, unfortunately, for discussion. It was a done deal.
We do receive some money and a new entry way from that side of the college.
The trade off seems ok. 11:34 AM
Brenda Borron said... — I am proud that Roy Bauer is my representative to the Senate. I am proud that he brings courage, integrity, and thought to the Senate meetings. We have all been trained to ask questions, to challenge prevailing ideas, to get to the bottom of things. Surely, if nothing else, our experiences at IVC during the early years of this decade must have taught us that we must be ever vigilant, that we must do the things that we ask our students to do: read critically,think deeply, write persuasively and honestly. That someone would contend that we can be "talk[ing] too much" about the serious issues that confront us — issues that the School of Humanities, through our elected representative, Roy Bauer addresses in Senate meetings — is perplexing to me.
If we are not willing to spend a few extra minutes at meetings of the Senate and the union in order to understand issues, communicate those issues to our membership, call for discussion, and vote as REPRESENTATIVES of our schools, why even bother?
We call it "shared governance" for a reason. All of us share in the governance of the Senate, and we do so through our elected representatives. "Thank you, Roy" is something I often say to Roy privately. Now I'm thanking 7:28 for giving me an opportunity to say it publicly. 11:51 AM
B. von Traven said... — Garsh, thanks. Naturally, our school has two senators, and my colleague has turned out to be excellent. Totally reliable, and she soaks up info lots better than I do. My mind is a sieve. 12:07 PM