MATHUR'S "ENEMIES LIST" by Chunk Wheeler

[From the ‘Vine, 7/28/98]
[Originally entitled:]

A GIFT FOR THE NEW PRESIDENT, UNWANTED
by Chunk Wheeler [Roy Bauer]

Years ago [in 1994], after Dan Larios was selected as IVC president—but before he arrived on campus—the cunning Mr. Goo, sensing an opportunity, busily constructed a document that listed IVC personnel and that drew yellow lines over the names of those employees whom Goo judged to be troublesome or unsavory. Essentially, it was a Mr. Goo “enemies list.”

When Larios arrived, at some point, the ignoble Goo presented himself to the new president and handed the document over to him, hoping the unsolicited “gift” would create a useful debt of gratitude. Some say that, at that moment, Mr. Goo genuflected and then tearfully implored, “In view of my extraordinary helpfulness, perhaps you would consider helping me to further my non-presidential administrative ambitions!” (Could be somebody just made that part up.)

Unfortunately for the Gooster, Larios was not a slimy and duplicitous rat-bastard, and so Goo’s gambit was about as useful as that damn seed that Onan spilled upon the ground. (I’ve been studying my Bible lately.)

I’m told that Larios still possesses the document (and, possibly, others possess copies). His peculiar and unfortunate sense of professionalism precludes surrendering it to those who share his low esteem of the Gooster and who might make good use of so perfect an artifact of rank Mathurian duplicity and weaselhood. —CW

Student complaints? (Raghu has God on his side)

From the 'Vine, 6/30/98

UNTITLED; [by Chunk Wheeler, aka Roy Bauer]

     Last week, I had a conversation with the VP of Instruction, Glenn “Roquee” Roquemore. I had dropped in to speak to him about persistent rumors to the effect that Raghu and the Goo Squad were pursuing student complaints about me. The rumors were perplexing since, first, I could think of nothing that might occasion a significant student complaint and, second, the student complaint/grievance process is such that complaints or grievances must always start with a conference between the student and the instructor and then, if necessary, a conference between the student and the instructor’s dean. A month had passed since the close of the spring semester, and neither I nor my dean had heard or read anything about a complaint.

     Well, Glenn and I talked about that. We talked about other things, too.

     It had been a while since Glenn and I had spoken, and so I took the opportunity to raise some issues that had developed in the meantime. For instance, I asked him why he had dropped the ball one year ago, when, during a meeting with Pam Deegan, I urged him to spend a day with me in order to help overcome the unhealthy atmosphere of distrust and mutual hostility that had developed between faculty of his area of the campus and mine. At the time, he and I had just begun our ill-fated tenures as chairs of our respective schools.

     During the meeting, Glenn seemed to acknowledge the felicitousness of my suggestion, but he never again contacted me about it. (I believe that, after a few weeks, I voice-mailed him to follow-up, but he didn’t return my message. Serious ball-droppage, that.)

     Glenn readily acknowledged that he had indeed dropped the ball. “But,” he added, “you have burned bridges with me.” “How so?” I asked. “The KKK cartoon,” he said.

  In Glenn’s mind, the KKK cartoon—which did not appear until the spring of 1998--had offensively associated him with the KKK.

     Again, I was perplexed, for, in my mind, the cartoon’s “joke” concerned, not the idea that Glenn (and Sherry) are closet white supremacists--which, somehow, I doubt--but, rather, the idea that either (i) Glenn and Sherry are liable to make spectacularly bad judgments or (ii) they are willing, for whatever reason, to go along with virtually any board innovation or decision, no matter how idiotic or irresponsible.  (“Yeah, sure, I’ll accept this appointment without the required ratification from the Academic Senate!” “Engage in a massive reorganization without significant discussion or input from faculty? Sounds good to me!” Etc.)

     After my conversation with Glenn, I talked with two or three friends about the matter, and they agreed that Glenn’s interpretation of the cartoon was odd at best. “Perhaps he is incapable of objectivity when he is the butt of a joke,” offered one friend. “Maybe so,” I said.

     I mentioned to Glenn that I had heard about two alleged complaint episodes. One concerned a remark I allegedly made to a student in class in the spring; the other concerned my being late for a final exam, again in the spring. Concerning the first, Glenn claimed to have no knowledge whatsoever. “Oh,” I said. I told him that I would take him at his word about that. (Bad move. Later, it became very clear that Glenn had discussed the matter long before my conversation with him.)

     I pressed Glenn concerning the remaining “complaint.” I noted that, if there were a complaint against me, then the student in question should contact me or at least my dean. Neither I nor my dean had been contacted, I said. When I persisted  concerning this so-called complaint and its status, he stated that nothing was happening and that the matter was finished. “Good,” I said.

     There’s more to this complaint business, but I can’t talk about it right now.

     Obviously, a new era of harassment has begun, just as many of us predicted.

     Bob Deegan is among those instructors identified by Mathur, et alia, as a key trouble-maker. In May, you will recall, Raghu identified Bob—along with Kate C. and me--as a member of the “core group” of persons who have fomented discontent concerning his regime. Raghu said that he was “confident” that these core groupers were involved in sending him “mail threats.”

     Guess what? It looks like Bob, too, has now been targeted by the Goo Squad. Reliable persons have informed me that a plan is afoot to transfer Bob to Saddleback. (The transfer of someone named Armando Ruiz [?]to IVC is a part of the deal, reportedly.)

     Can they do that? According to one of my sources, in a sense, yes. Over the years, various bodies have sought to define a faculty transfer policy and corresponding faculty transfer (or non-transfer) rights, but, I’m told, none of these efforts bore fruit.  (Another source, also reliable, insists that there is language in our contract that forbids involuntary transfers.)

     Of course, that they can transfer Bob does not mean that, in trying to do so, they aren’t harassing him—which is illegal, unethical, and pisses me off. I shall assume that it pisses you off too.

     I hope that the rumors are false. Just to be on the safe side, start making your “Love that Bob!” and “Give me Bob or give me death!” signs. While you’re at it, make a sign or two for me. Rough seas ahead.

     As I write, I am aware of a certain suit—one unrelated to the above--that shall be filed against the district (or a particular president of the district) on Tuesday, the 30^th. Look for an article in the Register on Wednesday. It seems our president just can’t help violating people’s rights, the poor thing.

     A coupla weeks ago, Jeff K and Rich Z spoke with Raghu on behalf of the Academic Senate. (Such meetings are routine.) I am told that, in the course of the conversation, Raghu briefly raised his hands to the heavens and declared that he believes in God and that (therefore?) the latter entity is on his side. He went on to refer to a coming era of justice or retribution, evidently of the divinely instigated variety.

Jeff and Rich insist that glossolalia was not involved, though Jeff thought he saw stigmata form on Raghu’s right cheek. (Hey, everybody in A100: hide all the dictionaries! While you’re at it, hide the Captain’s palm tree.)

GRAPHICS:

“Morale at IVC” Graphic

“State Enters Fray Between Faculty, Administrators,” Robert Ourlian. 6/20/98 GRAPHIC

“Former college administrator wants to dump the whole board,” Everett Brewer. 6/20/98 GRAPHIC

“College Trustees Spreading Ruin,” Everett Brewer. 6/21/98; Times. GRAPHIC

“Another embarrassing incident,” IWN editorial, 6/25/98 GRAPHIC

[“Mr. Toady” page.]

[cartoons pages-2]

[“The Birdbrains” Hitchcock spoof]

“Strangers in the Night: exchanging glances and vitriol with Steven Frogue,” by Matt Coker (OC Weekly, 6/26/98) [GRAPHIC]

---CHUNK WHEELER

A MOTLEY CREW OF NAZIS VS. JDL THUGS: OH, WHAT A NIGHT! by Chunk Wheeler

See also ARCHIVES: January 1998 and August 18, 1997.

A cartoon produced by someone at the National Review

.    [By 1994, the union old guard’s own Trustee Frogue got into hot water when some of his high school students complained that he was denying the Holocaust and making offensive racial remarks in the classroom, but that storm seemed to pass. Then, three years later, Frogue invited 4 far-out conspiracy nuts to a “Warren Commission” seminar that he organized at Saddleback College. The event required board approval. The morning of the board meeting (such meetings are held in the evening) I read the board agenda, and I thought I recognized the name of one of Frogue’s 4 guests: Michael Collins Piper. I looked him up and found that he was the chief reporter for Spotlight, a notorious anti-Semitic tabloid, owned by Liberty Lobby. I immediately called the Anti-Defamation League and alerted them. That night, an ADL official addressed the board and explained Piper’s relationship with the anti-Semitic Liberty Lobby and the wacky theories (about JFK) of the other guests slated for Frogue’s seminar. None of this stopped the Board Majority from approving the seminar, the 4 wacky guests included. The next day—thanks to some well-placed telephone calls—the excrement really hit the fan. Headlines all over the country (and beyond) shouted: college invites conspiracy nuts and anti-Semites to seminar!

[Employee X was a classified staff member who has since retired. I gave her a tape recorder and asked her to ask Piper some questions. (He had already “made” me. I wasn’t going to get anything out of him.)

[Eventually, JDL head Irv Rubin met a bad end. He and Earl Krugel were arrested for conspiring to plant bombs at a mosque in Los Angeles. While awaiting trial, Rubin committed suicide, slitting his throat. (Some insist he was murdered.) Krugel eventually got 20 years in federal prison. Very recently, he started his sentence but was killed by a white supremacist with a cinder block to the head.]


[From the ‘Vine, 6/21/98]

June 15, 1998 BOARD MEETING: Oh, what a night!

I. 6:00; we are waiting in the hallway for the doors to open and the meeting to start

Amid considerable hallway noise, Maryanne Wardlaw of the Irvine World News was interviewing Michael Collins Piper as he awaited the start of the district board meeting. Stealth employee X approached with a tape recorder and preserved the following for posterity:

PIPER: May I see that [one of Roy Bauer’s handouts], please?...I would like to look at it...[Finishing his thought:] --In any case, I thought it would be nice if I would be able to come to the college and say something....

WARDLAW: Why now?

PIPER: Why now? Because it was the first time that was convenient for me to do it, and I just got so tired of hearing all this nonsense, so I thought it would be something that I should do...No particular reason for this date...These things have continued...I thought, ‘Well, I should go out there.’ You know, I get tired of hearing, you know, ...

WARDLAW: Do you live in the area?

PIPER: No, I live in Washington, D.C.

WARDLAW: Did you come out here for this?

PIPER: Yes, I did, yeah.

EMPLOYEE X: Who paid your way?

PIPER: Who paid my way? Uh, it was paid for by my employer.

WARDLAW: Who do you work for?

PIPER: Liberty Lobby.

EMPLOYEE X: What’s Liberty Lobby?

PIPER: Uh, it’s, uh, it was established in 1955. We call it a “populist” institution.

EMPLOYEE X: What’s it about?

PIPER: What’s it about? It publishes a weekly newspaper called the Spotlight. We say it’s for America first, for the Constitution. Obviously—may I ask who you are?

EMPLOYEE X: My name’s (X). I’m an employee of the college.

PIPER: Oh, and what part of the college are you employed by?

EMPLOYEE X: I’m a (...).

PIPER: And, uh, are you here—In what capacity are you in here with the tape recorder—Dare I ask?

EMPLOYEE X: (I’m here because) I’m interested.

PIPER: Oh!

EMPLOYEE X: I’m a citizen. I pay taxes, and I’m interested.

PIPER: OK.

EMPLOYEE X: My day ends at 4:30 at the college and I have a right like everybody else—

PIPER: OK, I’m just curious. I mean, that’s, yeah...I’m surprised you don’t know the details then; you’re not...

EMPLOYEE X: I know everything.

PIPER: You know everything.

EMPLOYEE X: Everything...I’ve been here listening to all this from the start—from when Mr. Frogue started this.

PIPER: Wait a minute. Mr. Frogue didn’t start this. That’s where the problem comes in...My opinion is that I wrote a book. I accepted an invitation to speak at this college. I never heard of Saddleback College in my life, and frankly at this point I wish I never had. But the bottom line of it is I was invited to speak here and I accepted this invitation, and the next thing I know all of a sudden it’s in the newspapers. And did I call these newspapers up? I didn’t call those newspapers up. Who called those newspapers up? Your friend Roy Bauer. Did he call the newspapers?

EMPLOYEE X: I would imagine a lot of people...I don’t know why you’re directing—why Roy Bauer...?

PIPER: There was this—just all of a sudden there was this great commotion on campus. Students came running out of their classrooms saying, ‘We must stop Mike Piper from speaking!’—Is that it?

EMPLOYEE X: I think there were a lot of students. I think there were classified staff, and I believe there were faculty and...administrators that felt that way [namely, that Piper’s participation in the forum was a problem].

PIPER: Do you think there were people like Chancellor Lombardi who thought there was a problem with it?

EMPLOYEE X: I never spoke to Chancellor Lombardi. If he didn’t [think there was a problem], I’m sure he should have.

PIPER: I read that he said that he was concerned about—that it was a matter of free speech.

EMPLOYEE X: You have to speak to Lombardi.

PIPER: That’s what I read in the paper. Now, are you saying that I can’t trust the papers?

EMPLOYEE X: I never said that. You’re putting words in my mouth. I didn’t put words in your mouth.

PIPER: I know, I asked you...

EMPLOYEE X: You know what? She’s [i.e., Maryanne’s] the one that’s interviewing you. I’m gonna let (mixed voices)...I heard you talking and I wanted to—

PIPER: You’re standing here with a tape recorder. Could I take your picture?

EMPLOYEE X: No.

PIPER: Well, then, you can’t tape.

EMPLOYEE X: Fine. (X abruptly shuts off the recorder.)

…..

IV. Public comments (at the start of the meeting)

At about 9:30, public comments commenced. The first speaker was an honor student named Julie Abel, who had recently received some sort of commendation that was signed by members of the board, including the four members of the “board majority.” I was unable to tape the first few seconds of her address:

JULIE ABEL:

...members of this board whose behavior has been an appalling embarrassment to the entire student body at both district campuses. One member, Mr. Steven Frogue, is a high school history teacher who tries to indoctrinate his students against ethnic and religious minorities and who tries to associate my college with the forces of bigotry. Three other members—Mr. Williams, Ms. Lorch, and Ms. Fortune—stand behind this lunatic. Together, they’re willing to swallow any nonsense, [commit] any (infamy?), necessary to preserve this precarious, peculiar, petulant majority—including ambushing a young woman in a restaurant. [This is a reference to Mr. Frogue’s inviting a former student, who swore that teacher Frogue denied the Holocaust in class, to a restaurant. When she arrived, she discovered that Frogue was accompanied by a group from the local Moral Majority.]

…So what do you expect me to do with this thing? Do you expect me to place it on my wall with these signatures (staring?) down at me shouting, “the Holocaust never happened!” and whispering “but we didn’t really say that”? To Williams, Lorch, and Fortune [I ask]: please send me a new certificate without your signatures....

To Mr. Frogue [...] of the conspiracies, denials and lies: to him, I have nothing to say.

ROY BAUER:

Hi. I’m Roy Bauer and I just wanted to alert you to two handouts that I distributed tonight. One of them simply discusses the question of who Mr. Michael Collins Piper is—I understand that he is visiting with us tonight—and I’ve done some research and I’ve provided this handout. I hope that you’ll take some time to look at it and see what sort of character he is.

I wanted to alert you to, in particular—what I did is I had about 4 or 5 random Spotlights—he [Piper] works for [the] Spotlight newspaper, which is the newspaper for Liberty Lobby—and simply scanned some articles and advertisements, editorials. And as you can see, this is an embarrassment.

I hope you do look very carefully at it. You have ads here for [reads:] “the Caucasian race”; “collectors/historians: Ku Klux Klan memorabilia”; “The Truth about the bombs in Oklahoma.”

Also we have an article here by Mr. Michael Collins Piper, which apparently suggests that the Oklahoma City bombing, too, can be attributed to the Israeli Mossad!

So this is the kind of man that Mr. Frogue has wanted to invite to this district. I’m ashamed that I’m a part of a district in which something like this can occur.

Also, I wanted to...point out that I have a letter that was sent to me by this so-called “scholar,” which I’d like to read:

“Dear Roy: I just happened to be going through my files and I found this seventeen year old letter to the editor of the George Washington University student newspaper...Note that I came to the defense of a ‘liberal’ professor who was under fire from ‘right wing’ students who wanted to censor her views.”

Mr. Piper goes on to say:

“Isn’t it ironic that fifteen years later a filthy, anti-free speech mother-fucker like you came on the scene and caused such a big commotion in an effort to silence my views?”

I know a lot of scholars, and they almost never say “motherfucker.” [Laughter.]

“Looks like I’m the good guy, Roy, and you’re the fucking piece of shit that you are. And by the way”—

This is my favorite part of the letter:

“Some of my Black Nationalist supporters in Southern California are watching your activities closely. They believe in Freedom of Speech, motherfucker, but you don’t.”

[Looking directly at Frogue:] This is the “scholar” that Mr. Frogue sought to invite to his idotic JFK Forum.

Thank you very much.


IRV RUBIN:

My name is Irv Rubin. I represent the Jewish Defense League [JDL], and I just wanted to take a moment of your time to shed the spotlight (on) another supporter of Mr. Frogue who recently left, about an hour ago, a fellow by the name of Joe Fields.

How many people in the room know who Joe Fields is? He’s a self-admitted Hitler-lover. He’s also a convicted sexual morals offender—tries to pick up young girls and put them in his dirty little movies.

And (yet) we have nothing but silence from Mr. Frogue.

Mr. Frogue, your silence speaks a great deal. Maybe you ought to look yourself in the mirror and wonder who you’ve associated with.

PHIL TRYON:

My name is Phil Tryon. I’m a retired civil engineer and I want to thank the board again for allowing me to say a few words about free speech versus thought control, since there has been so much hatred spewed out against Mr. Frogue by the criminal ADL [...] for inviting Mr. Piper—the author of Final Judgment, a book on the Kennedy assassination—to take part in a seminar on this tragic event.

I suggest to the board that Mr. Piper...be given some extra time to present the facts as brought out in his book. Then I suggest that some extra time be given to a representative of the ADL to refute these facts. [...] This way it will be out in the open and the people can decide for themselves what is true and what is false.

This is the American way. It is the communist way for us to sit back in fear and wait for the thought police and the anti-American ADL to tell us what we can or cannot read or hear.

I say to you trustees tonight that you who oppose [Piper/Frogue]...are tantamount to being intellectual hypocrites.

Thank you.

BARRY KRUGEL (JDL):

...This is ridiculous—allowing 12 people in and having us wait hours on end to get to speak!

[Mr. Krugel’s address almost immediately deteriorated into a rant.]

[After Mr. Krugel completed his remarks, Trustee Fortune questioned Mr. Rubin about his visit to a Saddleback class. Then, at long last, Michael Collins Piper came up to speak:]

MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER:

I feel like I’m in a really bad John Waters movie here, uh...

KRUGEL: “Your makeup job is pretty bad.”

PIPER: You need some sun, my boy, and get some speech lessons. At any rate, I did write a nasty letter to a—what’s-his-name back here—Roy Bauer—because I was very frustrated. And I do use nasty language in private letters, but I wouldn’t have read that letter out loud to a group of people here like that, so I think that goes to show the kind of caliber this man is.

I’m not the one who started this controversy on this campus, and, in my opinion, neither is Steve Frogue. It was Roy Bauer—this gentleman sitting back there—In collaboration with the Anti-Defamation League. [Someone--Rubin?--laughs.]

When I was invited to speak out here, I just thought I was gonna come out here and I was gonna come before an audience and say a few words about my book along with other people who had other theories on the Kennedy assassination. And what was the result? A major brouhaha that was published in newspapers all over the country. I didn’t contact those newspapers. I didn’t generate that publicity. I didn’t even find out about the conference [being cancelled] until I got a call from the Los Angeles Times, which belies the myth, promulgated by Roy Bauer, that Steve Frogue and I were somehow in collusion.

I noticed that Mrs. Milchiker isn’t here tonight. I don’t know why. Maybe there’s a personal reason. Maybe it’s because she didn’t wanna give me any credibility by appearing here—I don’t know.

But I listened to what she’s had to say about me in—in—in one of your meetings. I saw this on videotape. I heard her talking about a website in Germany that has something to do with the Holocaust, equating things with me that I know absolutely nothing about.

That’s why I came out here. I didn’t come out here to cause a problem. I came out here to show the members of this board and anyone who wanted to listen to me that I am a human being. I’m offended by some of the things that have been said about me. I feel like I’ve been made into a political football by, uh, by people, uh, Mrs. Milchiker for example—Roy Bauer.

—I understand that there’s a lot of conflict out here at this board that I know nothing about. (I have?) nothing to do with them and yet somehow, uh, it’s...my presence in this whole thing—[it] has been made into a major issue.

You know, I could go on, but let me just say this. I think, uh, this gentleman back here [Phil Tryon] expressed it very, very well. If my book is so crazy, why doesn’t the Anti-Defamation League debate me in public about it? Why doesn’t Roy Bauer debate me in public about it?

RUBIN: “Who would give you any credibility? Who would give a nutcase like you any credibility?

PIPER: Ah, I’m gonna ask, could I ask for 10 more seconds—in light of the fact that I’ve been interrupted here several times since I began to speak—so I can conclude?

I’ve been hearing so much about anti-Semitism and the Holocaust and all this kinda stuff...

RUBIN: “You’re an expert on it.”

WILLIAMS: “Please, Mr. Rubin.”

[Piper is discomfited. He pauses.]

PIPER: I, I didn’t interrupt when this unpleasant creature was speaking—who is allied with Marcia Milchiker and Roy Bauer—and I would, I would ask that I be allowed to speak without interruption.

UNIDENTIFIED JDL WOMAN: But you’re a nutcase. Nobody should ever...

PIPER: Uh, where’s the police? I’d like I--I--I would like the police brought in here, sir [speaking to policeman]. Sir, I’m being harassed while I’m trying to speak. I didn’t shout out when I was listening to that...(mixed voices are heard)

HARRY PARMER [chief cop]: Ladies and gentlemen, please!

PIPER: I think, I think if this could be broadcast to the general public on cable, they would see the caliber of the people who are allied with Marcia Milchiker and the Anti-Defamation League...

(An indecipherable voice interrupts)...

WILLIAMS: “Please be quiet.”

RUBIN: “We’re not allied with the ADL.”

PIPER: You’re not allied with the ADL. Well, you’re allied—OK. You know, I’ll tell you something. I’m really glad I came out here. I’m glad because it makes me good, it makes me feel good to see—cuz I know, I know that there’s a lot of people in this room, and I know there’s a lot of people in that room down the hall, who do value free speech, who don’t, who don’t, uh, who don’t make personal attacks on people, who don’t try to cause trouble, and, I know who does, and a few of those people are in this room tonight, and, uh--

RUBIN: “Not you, of course.”

[Again, Piper pauses, as though discombobulated.]

PIPER: I’ll tell you what. I’ll conclude by saying: if ever there was an argument in favor of anti-Semitism, it’s this spokesman—self-appointed spokesman—for the Jewish community right here. You’re a most unpleasant man.

RUBIN: “You’re a creep—and you’re a Hitler-lover...

PARMER: “Please, that’s enough.”

[Next, an elementary school teacher speaks on the topic of free speech; then we hear from Mr. Jim Scott, who, during a meeting several months earlier, shouted, “Keep up the good work, Dr. Frogue! There never was a Holocaust!”]

JAMES SCOTT:

Good evening and thank you board members for allowing us to speak like this. This issue has always been free speech, period...

Unfortunately, this thing over here [motions to Rubin], and that thing [motions to Krugel, who says simply, “Screw you”], have tried to distort this whole meeting and turn it into a big long Holocaust shoot-out.

WILLIAMS: “Would the audience please be quiet?”

KRUGEL: “Well, I’m a person [unlike that?] fat pig over there.”

WILLIAMS to Krugel: “Would you please leave? You’re not welcome in here anymore. [To Parmer:] “Would you please remove him?”

SCOTT: Anyway, this whole matter, it’s very important that we get this issue of free speech out where it’s supposed to be in front of everybody....

ANTONIO AGUILAR (STUDENT):

[Mr. Aguilar out-JDLed the JDL. After only a minute, he began to scream at Mr. Frogue with remarkable violence.]

But, all in all, the crowd behaved very well, I think, given the umitigated hatred so many in the audience had for others in the room!]

UPDATE:

Some time later, Matt Coker of the OC Weekly updated the Weekly's readers on Mr. Michael Collins Piper's activities, at least according to a respected anti-racist organization:

[Back in mid-98] Responding to local critics who had called Piper anti-Semitic and a Holocaust denier, he told the Weekly and others that he had nothing against Jews but that he had not paid enough attention to the most horrific event of the 20th century to actually deny that it occurred. But according to the SPLC [the Southern Poverty Law Center], Piper was speaking at a meeting of the CCC's National Capitol Region in Arlington, Virginia, earlier this month when he got "progressively angrier" as he talked about "the Jews he says control Hollywood." He ended his address, the story claims, by saying, "how sick he is of hearing about the Holocaust, and how he just doesn't care how many Jews died."

Here's the url:

http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/99/16/clockwork-coker.php

I seem unable to access the OC Weekly's original story of that special night in June. It was a doozy, the story. And the night. --CW

May '98 board meeting: Mathur falsely accuses his critics of sending "threats" - by Chunk Wheeler

Mathur: notorious liar

In May of 1998, 74% of IVC’s full-time faculty voted “no confidence” in President Raghu P. Mathur. 87% of those eligible to vote voted.

Looking back, it’s clear that that was Raghu’s popularity high point, for, about two years later, he received a 90% vote of “no confidence.”

Raghu responded with the following [edited for length] address at the May 21, 1998, Board Meeting. In it, he makes some remarkable charges against his perceived faculty foes:

President [John S.] Williams, I’d like to respond to the vote of no confidence. …

For the past one year that I have served as President of the college, including interim and since I was appointed permanent, a lot of things have been said about me…and I have pretty much by and large kept my mouth shut, because I really want to be the kind of leader to try to bring everybody together. …

This vote of no confidence was politically motivated. …

I want to share with you something about the people who are at the very core…of this vote of no confidence. They want a weak president that they can control like they have done before a few times...The people of the core have already disliked me whenever I have stood up for fair and equitable distribution of financial resources, be it for supplies or equipment, staffing resources all across the board, for various educational programs and services….

[S]ome of the people here in the core have had many sweet deals in the form of reassigned (time) and other areas, which this board has cut out, and they are angry. The fact of the matter is that these faculty members were hired to teach. Instead, some of them, they just don’t want to teach and want to either perform administrative functions or have a lot of free time or both….

…Within days of my appointment as interim president, academic Senate president Kate Clark told me personally that she was going to work toward shutting down Irvine Valley College (Clark interrupts: “I never said that”). …I stand by my statement in front of God.…

This is an un American way to treat anyone not to give people a chance. This is an un American way to treat anyone, leave alone the first generation American immigrant like myself, and now a US citizen. And I’m proud to be so.

… [F]irst they stand in the way and then they say “He’s ineffective.” Well, I’d like to ask, respectfully, Where is their sense of responsibility? Where is their sense of integrity before they cast stones at others?

Bob Deegan: later, honored President of Palomar College 

[HERE IT COMES:] We should not condone anyone who embraces hate and bigotry. People have come here to speak against hate and bigotry at this board meeting many a times. None of these people have spoke against hate and bigotry implied in someone holding a bottle of [Ragu] Spaghetti sauce with my Indian name misspelled. Or hate in crimes explicitly evident in publications of professor Roy Bauer, who claims to be a professor of logic and ethics.

… People in this core in the past have sent me mail threats saying, “Go back to your country.” These threats have come from some of these people, I am confident of it….

[T]hey use shared governance as a smoke screen. They really don’t want shared governance. They want total control and power period, pure and simple.…

They’re bullies, and they want to have their way at any cost. They do not understand something that my parents taught me a long time ago that no amount of newspaper coverage, lawsuits, running to state agencies will ever solve our problems. It is us who have to solve our problems ourselves, through open, honest, and respectful communication, and [the] sooner we learn this and engage in this [the] sooner we can accelerate the healing process.

Later, President, State Academic Senate

…With 31 years in education, I have shed blood, sweat, and tears for the students, and I’m honored to do so. I have taught at high school, community college, and the university levels…I have served as president of the board of trustees in the Saddleback Valley Unified School District for five out of nine years of my service. I have served as chair for the school of physical sciences and technology at IVC for about ten years, and now serving as President of Irvine Valley College.

I’m a first generation immigrant who came to American shores some 31 years ago with eight dollars in my pocket with a dream with a strong belief in the American dream that you work hard and you will, you can achieve anything. But some people want to take that away. I have dedicated my life to service for the students, and I will continue to do so till the last breath in my body.

Let’s focus on serving the best interests of the students rather than our egos or our pocket books. Let’s get back to the business at hand and stop playing politics.

Thank you.”

JUST THE FACTS:

Pocket books? Before Raghu became IVC’s interim president in 1997, he was, according to district records, the second highest paid faculty member in the entire district, making about $124,000 a year. 

Sweet deals? For many years, Raghu received 80% reassigned time. I do believe that, at IVC, he was the all-time “reassigned time” champ. 

He also received money as the “Tech Prep” coordinator, a program that, during his involvement, failed miserably. At the same time, he invariably did overload to the max.

Contrary to Raghu’s accusations, the record will show that I (one of the “core group” identified above) have never received more than 20% reassigned time and have never sought an administrative position. 

None of my “publications” has ever included “hate crimes,” implicit or otherwise. Surely, comparing Raghu to Mr. Magoo is not a hate crime. 

During campus protests in 1998, some participants held up jars of Ragu spaghetti sauce. I was not among them. But surely this act was not a hate crime either.

Most of Raghu’s prominent critics (including me) have never sought administrative positions. Meanwhile, from the very beginning of his career at IVC in ‘79, Raghu repeatedly sought administrative positions.

And when he did not secure them, he immediately played the race card. For instance, when, in 1989, he failed to secure a deanship, which went to Clella Wood, he wrote a letter to Chancellor Sneed. He said: “I am the best qualified to do the job 100 times better than Clella Wood or any other dean in this position at IVC on any day of any week, month, or year…I, as a past candidate for the dean position, cannot help but honestly feel that [Clella Wood] was hired for the position not because she is knowledgeable and competent but because she is white.” 

As always, Raghu offered no support for his accusation.

DEPO:

The estimable Carol Sobel

On Sept. 28, 1999, Raghu was deposed in connection with my successful 1st Amendment lawsuit against the district. In the course of the deposition, Raghu acknowledged that, despite repeatedly claiming to have received threatening e-mail, voice mail, and letters, he had not kept or printed the alleged e-mails, he had not recorded the alleged voice mail, and he had not kept the alleged letters. He had ZIP.

Despite his inability to document the threats he alleged, in 1999, the board voted to give Raghu a $200/month “security stipend.” He is still getting that money.

Later, Raghu sued the district for failing to protect him—after he lost a lawsuit he brought against me. In the end, the district gave him another $40,000.

In the above speech, Mathur seems to accuse Bob Deegan, among others, of sending him “threats.” During the 1999 deposition, my lawyer, Carol Sobel, pressed Raghu to explain the grounds of that charge:

CAROL: What about Bob Deegan? Did you make the allegation that he could be the source of these communications? 

RAGHU: I may have mentioned his name. 

C: Do you know Bob Deegan? 

R: Yes. He worked at the college…. 

C: What were the anti-Mathur comments you believe he made that led you to conclude he might be the source of these communications? 

R: Mr. Deegan has been pretty hostile to me in college meetings. 

C: What were the comments that he made that caused you to believe that he was hostile to you in college meetings and [that he] might therefore be the source of these communications? 

R: Well, on one occasion, in a meeting, he was [asking]…about if I were going to be a candidate for the permanent [president] job. This is when I was acting president. [He asked me] whether I was going to be a candidate for the permanent job. I said, “I don’t know.” I mean this was a college-wide meeting held within two or three weeks of my appointment as acting president. And that if I were offered the position, would I accept it…. 

C: What is it about that exchange that caused you to form the belief that Bob Deegan might be the source of these communications that you have identified as anti-Asian…? 

R: It was just the manner in which he was asking the question in an extremely hostile manner. 

C: Describe for me what you mean by that. What was it about him that caused you to form the conclusion that he was extremely hostile? 

R: He was trying to humiliate me. 

C: What was it about asking whether you intended to be a candidate for the permanent position that was intended to humiliate you? 

R: He was trying to create an environment where I would be pressured to say, “No, I would not accept the position. I’m just here for the acting job.” 

C: Why was that intended to humiliate you, in your perception? 

R: Because I’m not aware of any such questions being asked by any—by someone like him or anyone else. 

C: And that’s it? That’s the sole basis on which you reach that conclusion?

[District lawyer] DAVE LARSEN: I think that misstates his testimony. 

C: Do you have any other facts to give? 

R: No. 

In the course of the deposition, Carol repeatedly pressed Raghu for grounds for supposing that I or Kate or Bob were the source of the alleged “threats,” as he suggested, publicly, in May of ’98. Raghu offered no grounds except to say that we were “unfriendly” to him: 

C: …I will ask a different question. Is it your contention that the individuals you have identified—Roy Bauer, Kate Clark, and Bob Deegan—may be the source of the letters you received in 1990 that you took to the sheriff’s department? 

R: Maybe. 

C: And on what do you form the belief that they may be the source of the 1990 letters? 

R: There has been a group of faculty members who have not been friendly to me, and these individuals have maintained [a] certain distance or hostility toward me.

THE MORAL: if you are “unfriendly” to Raghu, or if you maintain a “distance” from him or exhibit what he views as “hostility” to him, you will soon be accused of a racist hate crime. 

–CW [Chunk Wheeler, aka Roy Bauer]

State GOP joins Frogue Recall Effort

During the 1996 trustee campaign, the Faculty Association (faculty union) fully supported the candidacy of incumbant STEVE FROGUE, despite the clear indications (see Register article, March 1995) that he routinely made racially insensitive and Holocuast-denying remarks in his High School classroom. When, in 1997, Frogue made troubling remarks to the LA Times (The ADL killed JFK!) and then further embarrassed the district by inviting four conspiracy nuts, including some with strong ties to the anti-Semitic Liberty Lobby, to a JFK-assassination forum at Saddleback College, a recall effort was born. As you can see below, the State Republican Party joined the effort. Despite gathering a record number of signatures, the effort ultimately failed. Frogue decided to resign from the Board a few months before the 2000 election, in part, perhaps, because he was persuaded that he would lose. But that's just a guess. With the help of the union Old Guard (Sharon M, Ray C, et al., addressed the Board in this regard), Frogue was replaced with extreme anti-unionist Tom Fuentes. Having already funded the victory of the anti-teachers union Padberg and Wagner in 1998, the union Old Guard had, through these actions, helped bring about a board dominated by anti-unionists who are largely hostile to faculty interests. (Nancy Padberg seems to have come around quite a bit in recent years to the faculty perspective. Indeed, it is likely that she will be supported by the Reformed union when she's up for reelection.) Why did the Old Guard do it? Don't know. Why don't you ask them? (Click on the graphic to make it larger.)

PART-TIMERS ATTEMPT TO ORGANIZE by Red Emma

From DISSENT 7, 5/12/98 

Originally entitled: 

WHERE WE’VE BEEN, WHERE WE’RE KOAN by Red Emma 

First, good news: Revolutionary adjunct mega-congratulations to unfailing AOG organizer MARIE ("No Bull") CONNORS on being chosen IVC PART-TIME TEACHER OF THE YEAR! We're proud of you, Marie. 

 * * * 

Q: A tree falls in the woods. There’s no one around. Does it make a sound? 

A: Red Emma, opponent of deforestation, has no idea, but suspects Faculty Association council member Prof. Ken Woodward is putting away his power saw just now, a satisfied smirk on his face. Woodward was, you may recall, lone taker of Red's plea for a union visit to our AOG meeting. Woody failed to attend the Friday, May 8 meeting. He called to cancel, offering no substitute representative (who else would come?) from the F.A. 

This is hardly the stuff of solidarity building, union comrades, illustrating the esteem with which part-time faculty are held by the union which (mis)represents them. 

 * * * 

"A spectre is haunting Irvine Valley College...the spectre of adjunct faculty organizing." 

The Academic Senate informs us that Adjunct Assembly members Tamiko Washington (Fine Arts), Harry Mersmann (Social Sciences), Michelle Mitchell-Foust (Humanities), Bruce Anderson (Bus sci), Helen Maughan (Phys Sci/Tech), Jo Anne Noyes (Math), Mikel Bistany (Phys Ed) and Valerie Gold-Neil (Guidance and Counseling) can VOTE in this week's Senate elections. R.E. suggests they vote NO CONFIDENCE in El Presidente. Why? Faithfully mimicking the F.A. and the board it elected, Mathur shows woefully little interest in part-time faculty, allying himself with the cadre of F.A. full-timers which recently counselled adjunct instructors to form their own bargaining unit. 

Q: What is the sound of one hand clapping? 

A: A union dominated by a majority of part-timers, but represented by a minority of full-timers.  

* * * 

A.A. Senate rep Harry Mersmann has agreed to organize a part-time presence during orientation week activities in Fall. Red Emma will produce the requisite commercial tie-in. Look for a stick-on lapel tag you can wear proudly: "Part-time Faculty are Full-time Professionals." A.A. rep Bruce Anderson pledges to explore building an adjunct Web site. 

 * * * 

Misfortune: Trustee Dorothy Fortune, doing her part to build goodwill between part- and full-timers, took a moment from her busy schedule to attack Saddleback College adjunct organizer Richard Lewis, expressing concern over Saddleback's "irregular Senate representation." Lewis serves as the singular adjunct officer on SB's Senate, a position for which he is meant to receive, not reassigned time (hard enough for full-timers), but a stipend. P/T participation in academic governance should of course be rewarded and encouraged, but Ms. Fortune apparently thinks otherwise. 

 * * * 

Finally, as that great union organizer Joe Hill wrote in Emma's high school yearbook: "Don't mourn, organize. And have a bitchin'‘ summer." --RE

Andrew Tonkovich

THE 1998 IVC ACCREDITATION WHITE-WASH

     Among the many chapters of the Raghu P. Mathur saga is his and his friends’ efforts to submit rosy and bowdlerized reports to the agency charged with assessing Irvine Valley College. 

     In the Spring of ’97, not long after Mathur’s illegal appointment as interim President of IVC, Professor Rebecca Welch, who had been serving as the chair of the college’s accreditation “self-study,” resigned in protest over Mathur. 

    At some point thereafter, Mathur appointed his crony (and union Old Guard pal) Ray Chandos as chair. By law, the chair of this committee is jointly decided by the Academic Senate and the college President. The senate held a vote in which Connie Spar was chosen by a wide margin over Ray. This did not stop Mathur from appointing Chandos as head of the Accred self-study. 

     What follows are bits of some news articles and then an article from the Dissent. 

4/2/98 

Controversy arises over Chandos appointment 

By Jason Chittenden Staff Writer [The Voice; IVC's student newspaper] 

     Contributing to the tension on campus, Irvine Valley College President Raghu Mathur appointed Ray Chandos as Accreditation Self-Study Chair on March 23 despite the Academic Senate's vote of 15-4 in support of Connie Spar for the position…. 

4/21/98 

College: Harsh report softened? EDUCATION: Committee members say south- county accreditation report was altered. 

By KIMBERLY KINDY 

The Orange County Register 

     Harsh criticisms directed at the embattled South Orange County Community College trustees were removed from a draft report prepared for Irvine Valley College's accreditation review, according to district records released Monday…. 

     [Kindy's article included the following comparison: Original draft vs. Chandos' draft:]

HOW DRAFT REPORT DIFFERS FROM ORIGINAL 

ORIGINAL 

"General community perception of the current board majority holds that (it) ... is not an 'independent body' but rather operates at the whims of a small vocal group of faculty, notably the faculty union leadership." 

DRAFT 

"...the board is an independent policy-making board capable of reflecting the public interests..." 

ORIGINAL 

"...this board has repeatedly violated the California Open Meetings Act ... such repeated violations have resulted in additional lawsuits now underway and in a general breakdown of confidence." 

 

DRAFT 

Statement was omitted from draft report. 

ORIGINAL 

"In the past, the board has interviewed the chancellor's final recommended candidates. More recently the board has instead directed the selection process itself..." 

DRAFT 

"The governing board selects the college president under the employment procedures for executive positions, and delegates the evaluation of the president to the district chancellor." 

ORIGINAL 

"The president (Irvine Valley College President Raghu Mathur) makes every effort to review budgets and expenditures, though his unfamiliarity with college-wide budgeting and state fiscal concerns requires him to rely extensively on the advice of others, notably, specific board members' preferences..." 

 

DRAFT

"The president is well informed of state allocations and other income projections early in the budget development cycle." [End] 

4/22/98 

College District's Self-Evaluation Draft Draws Fire for Its Omissions

• Education: Critics say items critical of South Orange County trustees were omitted from the faculty administration report being sent to accreditation agency. 

By ROBERT OURLIAN 

TIMES STAFF WRITER 

     …Critics of the majority of the Board of Trustees charge that a draft report of a "self-evaluation" prepared by faculty and administrators was altered to remove lengthy passages critical of trustees. 

     The editing—while not illegal—shows an attempt to cover up problems at Irvine Valley College, one of the campuses administered by the South Orange district, critics charged….

4/25/98 

College District Not at Risk, Trustees Say 

• Education: leaders offer assurances on quality and accreditation after the latest flap, over criticism edited from a report. 

By ROBERT OURLIAN 

TIMES STAFF WRITER 

     Leaders of the South Orange County Community College District hastened to offer assurances Friday that educational quality is being maintained and that accreditation is not at risk as students threatened to leave the district to attend other colleges...Criticism is intensifying over faculty contentions that a draft college accreditation report on the school system's administration was "sanitized" when criticism of trustees was removed. But administrators said the process has retained its integrity.... 

5/1/98 

OC Weekly 

A Clockwork Orange 

by Matt Coker 

     ERASER HEAD: Stinging criticism of the South Orange County Community College District board of trustees was reportedly removed from a self-evaluation prepared by a committee of faculty students and staff for Irvine Valley College's accreditation review, it was disclosed on April 20. Key passages detailed board micromanagement and violations of the state open-meeting law. Language blaming the district's state financial-watch status on the board's refusal to heed the advice of its own financial experts was apparently excised. The Irvine Valley professor who headed the eight-member committee reportedly said he edited many statements out of the report for length's sake. But it wasn't short enough for trustees, who complained the sanitized version was still too critical of them. Accreditation officials invited committee members to send them an alternative report if they believe the final version is inaccurate.... 

 * * * * * 

From Dissent 6, 4/27/98 

[UNTITLED—“CHANDOS & Press conference”] 

BIG BILL REPORTS… 

By Big Bill 

      I went to the district press conference on the 24th of April, but I was late, ‘cuz I got a speeding ticket. The cop was nice—she warmly thanked me for my cooperation. And then she handed me a big fat ticket. 

     So I entered the smallish Chancellor’s Conference Room at about 12:10—just as Williams was reading his “statement” defending IVC Accreditation Chair Ray Chandos’ edits of the assembled drafts from the various IVC standards committees. The resulting document, submitted to the Board on Monday (4/20), had received very negative media coverage throughout the week. 

     For those who don’t know, I should explain that Raghu Mathur appointed his pal Ray to the office of Chair of Accreditation against the recommendation of the IVC Academic Senate, which preferred the excellent and non-partisan Connie S. (Connie received 15 votes, Ray 4.) As usual, the Ragshire Cat dismisses the charge that he has once again ignored the Senate’s input despite the law, which, in this instance, states that the selection of an accreditation chair shall be made by the President and the Senate together. Indeed, Mr. Goo had chosen Ray and pronounced him “accreditation chair” in a memo sent [to the Senate president] before senators had a chance to vote on the two candidates. 

     Many of us fully expected Chair Chandos to water down specifically those elements of the ten committee drafts that were critical of Mathur and the Board Majority; after all, Ray has been an intimate member of a union leadership group, a gang that has declared, through its actions, contempt for any standards of decency and fair play. But few of us expected Ray’s fix to be so blatant, so naked, for Ray has sanitized the drafts of any significant criticisms of his friends. 

     Consider, for example, the job he did on the draft submitted by the standard 10 (governance) committee. What follows is the committee’s work and then Ray’s bowdlerized version: 

The committee’s verbiage: 

General community perception (10.2) of the current Board majority holds that this Board of Trustees is not an “independent body” but rather operates at the whims of a small vocal group of faculty, notably the faculty union leadership. Further, as local press, lawsuits (10.3), and other documents attest (10.4), decisions made by this Board are often not seen as being made in the “public interest,” but rather are viewed [sentence cut off in duplication] manner. The unfortunate national and international attention brought on by recent Board actions is not believed to be in the best interest of the communities served. While the Board policies and state laws (10.5) dictate their need to “post agendas, establish a protocol for public comment on agendized and non-agendized items,” and to preserve minutes of all Board meetings, since December 16, 1996, this Board has been found to violate those requirements, necessitating “cure and correct” actions, and resulting in legal judgments against the district issued by the Superior Court of Orange County (10.6). Further, pursuant to seeking legal remedies, community members and counsel representing district employees have repeatedly requested relevant documents, particularly minutes of closed session meetings--which this Board does not make or retain as required by law. As the referenced lawsuits indicate, this Board has repeatedly violated the California Open Meetings Act by discussing in closed session matters expressly forbidden by law, and has conducted employee evaluations without the requisite prior notification of the individuals. Such repeated violations have resulted in additional lawsuits now underway and in a general breakdown of confidence and “trust across stakeholders’ groups” (10.8, p. 6). 

Ray’s “edited” version: 

The above mechanisms insure that the board is an independent policy-making board capable of reflecting the public interest in its activities and decisions, with continuity in membership and staggered terms of office. 

—Wow. 

[Inserted: from LA TIMES April 22, 1998: 

The Accreditation commission is aware of the district’s problems—fiscal woes, a drain of top administrators, infighting over institutional governance and a trustee recall campaign—and will not be deceived “for three nanoseconds” by an inaccurate self-study report, [Judith Watkins of the WASC] said.] 

     This, of course, is only one example. There are many others. Nor are the “expurgations,” additions, and modifications confined to Standard 10, for other standards chairs have complained bitterly about Ray’s ham-fisted “edits” of the committee drafts. (For instance, Ray deleted a reference in the standard 3 draft to “low morale” among employees despite overwhelming evidence of enervation and demoralization provided by college and district surveys.) 

     Ray and his crew of defenders—all of them FA-affiliated—have suggested that the committee drafts sometimes expressed idiosyncratic political views of individual faculty. Ray, they argue, merely sought to shorten the drafts by eliminating undocumented claims and elements that did not respond directly to the appropriate questions. Clearly, however, many of the deleted elements were directly responsive to the questions, were well-documented, and (for what it’s worth) reflected the views of many at IVC. Further, as the above example illustrates, Ray added rosy elements that did not originate with, and that even contradicted, the original committee drafts. 

     Way to go, Ray. 

     ANYWAY, I went to this press conference on the 24th. Three reporters had showed: Bob O. of the Times, Laura H. of the Irvine World News, and Bob S. of the Lariat. Williams was the only Trustee in attendance. Pam Zanelli and her hair were there, as were Kathie Hodge, Chandos, Dixie B. [I think], Dean Wormer of Faber, and Glenn Roquemore (interim IVC VP of instruction, and former IVC Accred. chair). 

     Williams’ reading of his (entertainingly underwhelming) Statement was followed by a few Q&As, but then there was a brief lull, and so I made my move: I said that I was there representing the SOCCCD Dissent and the IVC ‘Vine, and then I started to ask a question; but before I could complete it, Williams’ said he did not recognize me as a member of the media. I asked him why. He said, “‘Cuz,” or something equally erudite. 

     Not satisfied with that answer, I returned to my question; I asked, “In the case of Standard 10, Ray deleted the committee’s reference to the Board’s violations of the Brown Act; are you saying that this fact is not relevant to ‘governance’ or that it is not documented?”—or something to that effect. Williams sought to obscure or block my question through the clever gambit of loudly objecting as I spoke. I almost said, “I know you are but what am I?” Instead, I asked, “Are you gonna throw me out?” Williams said nothing. I said nothing. Everybody said nothing. 

     The other reporters eventually asked more questions. Bob Ourlian (who had read the original standard 10 draft plus Ray’s edit) noted that all of the deleted verbiage criticized the Board, and none of it praised the Board. He asked whether that pattern were coincidental. “Is that what you’re saying?” he asked. 

     The response, I think, was something like, “Bla bla bla bla.” 

     At some point, Glenn Roquemore seized upon the notion of “balance.” He said that it was Ray’s job to seek a balance, not just to present the views of one “side.” Eventually, Ourlian responded to Glenn’s theme by asking whether Glenn was saying this: to be objective, the report must have an equal measure of praise and of criticism of the board. (Later, Ourlian and I joked: “It’s a good thing these people weren’t in charge at Nuremberg: ‘Sure, these Nazi fellas did some bad things, but, hey, there were some real positives, too.’”) 

     Before Glenn could hiss “yes,” Kathie jumped in to say no; that’s not what they meant at all, she said, though, in truth, she did not shed much light on what they had in mind by this “balance” talk. 

     After a few minutes, Ourlian pointed at me and said, “Well, if Roy can’t ask questions, can I at least ask him some questions?” And he did. 

     He asked, I think, how faculty at IVC view Ray’s “edit” job. I seized the opportunity to say everything I was going to say anyway, to the horror of Williams, Zanelli, Wormer, et al. I explained that every member of the faculty to whom I have spoken thinks that Ray’s appointment was purely political. Ray is simply doing the bidding of Raghu and the Board Majority, thereby quidding the union’s pro quo. I described the dubious process by which Ray was chosen as Accred. Chair and of the resignation, 11 months ago, of the original chair, Rebecca Welch. (Rebecca had written a memo stating that, with Raghu as president, she no longer had faith in the integrity of the accreditation process.) I added that I disliked Zanelli’s ‘do, which seemed to threaten to sprout dangerously in all directions. 

     Bob S. seemed to be shocked--shocked!--at these allegations. If these charges--in particular, the “charge” that Chandos was appointed in the manner I described and that Chandos’ editing reflected bias--can be verified, he said, well, that’s pretty serious. 

     Eventually, Laura H. expressed her utter bewilderment at President Mathur’s appointment of Ray Chandos as chair of accreditation given IVC’s difficult political atmosphere. Why did he not confer with the Senate? Why did he appoint someone who, obviously, would be viewed as biased? 

     “Bla bla bla bla,” they said. 

[INSERTED: from The Register April 21, 1998: “As a student, I am very concerned that the accreditation team will potentially find major discrepancies between how the final reports portray the college vs. the actual condition of the college,” said Debie Burbridge, who attends Irvine Valley and Saddleback colleges.] 

     It is possible that Williams and his allies scheduled the press conference in part because the “protest” movement at IVC is rapidly gaining momentum. Not only have three successful “marches” been staged, but students have begun to express concerns about IVC’s accreditation status in classes and in the student newspaper, the Voice. 

     I have been told that, during President Mathur’s recent visit to the School of Physical Sciences and Basketweaving, he characterized faculty and staff who have participated in the marches as “despicable.” 

     Now, some say that “despicable” is Daffy Duck’s tag line, but I am among those who demur; surely everyone knows that it is the endearing tag phrase of Sylvester Cat (contra-Tweety-Bird). Dissent would like to get this straight, so we would appreciate any help in this regard.