THAT AWFUL LITTLE MAN by Red Emma

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

February (?) 2002 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     Larry: Steve, is that you? 

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

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

The J. Edgar Mathur Memorial Scholarships 

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

     Yeah. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 —RE

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

An “archive” post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ENTER ADJUNCT KEN BROWN]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If it’s Brown, flush it

Tolerance is another word for indifference.

—Somerset Maugham

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our whimsical contract:

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

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

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


From the OC Weekly, October 13, 2000

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

by Matt Coker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A “Conservative” Occurrence

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

PRESS RELEASE—TONKOVICH
THE SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

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

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

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

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friends of the Tom Fuentes Urban Park (FTFUP)

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

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

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

GUESS WHO’S CHANCELLOR? 

By Red Emma Editor’s 

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

Dear Editor: 

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

 

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

Dear Editor: 

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

—Woof, “Stipey” the Security Hound 

Dear Editor: 

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

—Blessedly, Dr. Robert Schuller 

Dear Editor:

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

—Obsequiously, Anonymous Dean 

 

Dear Editor: 

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

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

Dear Editor: 

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

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

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

From Dissent 60, 10/22/01

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

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

* * *

One gadfly, one gadfly swatter

I, Chunk

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

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

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

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

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

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

Making their own sauce

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

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

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

She has a haystack on her head.

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

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

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

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

The “JFK forum” episode

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The last straw?

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

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

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

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

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

“Good grief,” I said.

Mr. Shit

“I feel discriminated.”

—Raghu Mathur, 10/9/89

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

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

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

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

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

The six elements

“You’re just not couth!”

—Judy Holiday (Born Yesterday)

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

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

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

Lawyers, guns, and money

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

Federal court preliminaries

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

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

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

Victory, part I

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

—U.S. Judge Gary Feess, 10/25/99

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carol was awarded $127,00.

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

The appellate hearing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, no.

Had I brought a weapon to school?

No.

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

No.

Did I have any history of arrests or confrontations?

Nope.

Victory, part II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The press took some interest in the victory:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 In any case, dissent continues.

--FU

THE “HOWARD HILTON”

From Dissent 65, September 30, 2001

[Raghu Mathur has a remarkable record as an employer and promoter of very special administrators. Rodney Poindexter is a real standout in this regard (see ARCHIVES: “Mathur vs. Women”, 9/05). Another is Howard Gensler, who was appointed interim or temporary dean some years ago, but Raghu liked him, so he was eventually named permanent dean (of PE/Fine Arts/Humanities!). But, not long after some negative press concerning a project of his and Raghu's that is commonly referred to as the "Howard Hilton," the fellow left that position in a cloud of dense smoke and quizzical expressions.

Ultimately, Howard popped up again as a full-time Econ instructor at Saddleback College, sans the usual search and hire process. He is now fully tenured.

The following piece from a September 2001 Dissent tells some of the Gensler story at IVC. Please note that, at one point, Rod Poindexter was chosen by ASIVC as "administrator of the year." (The ASIVC president at the time was a noted Mathurian.)

We figured we would complete the picture by offering Howard the same title.]

DISSENT’S “ADMINISTRATOR OF THE YEAR,” HOWARD GENSLER

Howard Gensler, Dissent’s “Administrator of the Year,” first entered our lives in 1989, when he was hired as an adjunct. Now, he’s a Dean at IVC, and he’s made quite a splash!

Dean Gensler’s background is fascinating. In the late 70s, he received five Bachelor’s degrees, and soon thereafter, at UCB, he received a law degree. By 1983, he was teaching tax and law at Northrop University, where he assisted Dean Carl Sederholm.

In 1984, he succeeded Sederholm, becoming Dean of Northrop’s School of Law (see Times, 1/26/85). As such, Howard was the Chief Academic Officer of the Graduate Tax Program.

As if that weren’t enough, he then published an epic poem, The Avenger of Blood. [Note: you’ve really got to get a copy of this book. It is quite special.]

Northrop University:

Northrop U sure is an interesting place. Founded in 1942 by the well-known aeronautics firm as a school for airplane mechanics, Northrop later expanded into “computer science, business and law studies” (L.A. Times). In August of 1979, it became the site of the Institute for Historical Review’s first international Holocaust “revisionist” conference.

In 1986, Northrop began a master’s program in international business and taxation. Alas, the program ran into difficulty. According to the Times (9/12/89),

Northrop University…should lose its accreditation because of ethical violations in recruiting foreign students, awarding credits and bookkeeping practices involving millions of dollars, the agency that monitors California colleges announced Monday…The rare action by the Western Assn. of Schools and Colleges stems from complaints about Northrop’s master’s of science program in international business and taxation, which enrolls many students from Asia. But the problems have “substantially affected the infrastructure of the university in nearly every aspect,” according to a WASC official…The agency recently voted to strip the school of its accreditation beginning in November…According to [the WASC official], Northrop operated part of the master’s in international business program in Taiwan without WASC approval. An investigation also showed “substantial irregularities” in how the school admitted foreign students, processed immigration documents, graded student performances and awarded credits, he said…[He] also said millions of dollars in tuition are unaccounted for or improperly accounted for. “We are entirely unsure of the magnitude,” he said…

Soon, Northrop’s long time president, B.J. Shell, unexpectedly retired; he was replaced by John Beljan, who was “given authority to take any measures necessary to guide the institution out of its financial troubles” (Times).

Northrop appealed WASC’s adverse Accreditation decision; still, the school has dwindled, and it is now the tiny Northrop Rice Aviation Institute of Technology.

Howard’s “extraordinarily unusual” legal victory:

Howard left Northrop U in 1987, whereupon he worked for the IRS, but only briefly. In 1988, Howard ran for a seat on the Costa Mesa City Council, though he was later forced to withdraw from the race, owing, evidently, to his failure to register to vote (see OC Register, 10/6/88).

Starting in 1988, Howard practiced law. In 1990, he represented a UCI math professor who accused the university of “punishing him for failing to publish enough scholarly articles” (see OC Register, 4/20/90). Not long after, he represented another UCI math instructor, Paul McGill, who sued because he had been denied tenure. Eventually, McGill prevailed. According to the Times (7/23/93), a judge “ordered UC Irvine to rehire” McGill. Said Howard, “This is an extraordinarily unusual and unique situation…The university is given remarkable latitude in terms of giving tenure; it’s a really hard area to win.”

Howard’s Cato years:

Howard, always the busy bee, received his doctorate in Economics in 1993. Then, according to the Laser Beam, during the mid-90s, Howard “taught for three years at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology,” where he was a lecturer in Accounting.

During this period, Howard published at least 2 articles for the Cato Institute, a conservative/libertarian think tank that opposes government regulation and welfare. In one article entitled “The Effect of Race and Sex on Welfare Benefits” (Vol. 15 No. 2-3), Howard argued:

At the national level…disparities exist in the allocation of welfare. Black single female-headed households received $756 more welfare per year than similarly situated non-black families…At the state level for single female-headed households, 15 states gave blacks an average of $1,569 more welfare per year…The analysis…indicates that fundamental problems of equity in either access or assessment persist in the income maintenance system….

Gee willikers! In another Cato article, entitled “The Effect of Welfare on High School Graduation” (Vol. 16, no. 2), Howard offered a fascinating study of welfare mothers:

The hypothesis that higher welfare levels adversely impact high school graduation rates is confirmed with a high degree of statistical precision…Increases in the welfare system do not promote accumulation of human capital…[T]he basic negative relationship between welfare and education must be understood before effective public policies concerning welfare, education, and poverty can be formulated.

Meanwhile, Howard found time to edit a book entitled The American Welfare System, which remains in print.

Another deanship for Howard:

In 1999, Howard became the interim dean of Humanities and Languages, replacing Richard Prystowsky, who had resigned after brief service. (Prystowsky had succeeded Dan Rivas, who also resigned after brief service. [As I recall, Dan resigned in part because then-President Mathur was instructing him to include negative remarks in the evaluations of those faculty who had been critical of him and the board—remarks that Dan regarded as unwarranted and unjustified.]

In 2000, owing to President Mathur’s staunch support, Howard was appointed permanent Dean of Humanities and Library Services (and, later, of Fine Arts). The details of the appointment evidently raised concerns about “process”:

Three administrative appointments were approved in closed session on Monday…Howard Gensler was appointed dean of humanities and library services at Irvine Valley…[The other appointees] were appointed with unanimous votes, but Gensler was appointed on a split vote of 4-3, with trustees Lang, Marcia Milchiker and Don Wagner dissenting…“I personally haven’t heard anything negative about the guy himself, but there were questions raised about process that I didn’t get fully answered,” said Wagner. (Irvine World News, 6/22/00)

Process problems notwithstanding, then-president Mathur exclaimed that Howard was his “first choice.”

Howard and Raghu’s “top secret plan”:

About a year ago, faculty began hearing about a massive project that would provide facilities for Fine Arts (and fish). The word was that Howard was developing the project with the blessing and encouragement of his mentor, president (now chancellor) Mathur.

Howard eventually provided Chancellor Mathur with a “report” concerning the project on May 23, 2002. According to my sources, then, in early June, Howard and Raghu met with three Board Majoritarians, including Wagner, to discuss the project. (Ask Dot.)

That’s about when the L.A. Times caught wind of it. On June 15, the Times reported

Irvine Valley College officials are quietly trying to find investors for a private hotel, entertainment and office complex on campus that could cost as much as $800 million, officials confirmed this week…As described in recent meetings among campus officials, the project would include a hotel, a multistory parking structure, two 2,000-seat theaters, office buildings, a sound stage and a lake, replacing orange groves and an athletic field at the southern end of campus…The scope of the privately funded, for-profit project—whose cost estimates nearly double Staples Center in downtown Los Angeles—is believed to be unprecedented, not only for a community college, but for any public university in the state…The cost would be enough to build two community colleges, said Kirsten McIntyre, spokeswoman for the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, which was unaware of the proposal…The project is a long way from reality and would have to be approved by trustees for the South Orange County Community College District, which includes Irvine Valley and Saddleback colleges. [My emphases.]

According to the Times, some college employees had doubts about the project: “they don’t understand how the two-year college benefits from such a deal. ‘It would be a commercial enterprise that would not be a benefit to our students,’ said Jan Wyma, Irvine Valley’s choral director.”

The Times reported that Dean Gensler was the man behind the plan and that Mathur was aware of it. Glenn Roquemore, president of IVC, however, said that he hadn’t yet received a proposal.

The scope of the Gensler/Mathur venture was truly stunning:

The proposal has changed over the months, but the basic plan calls for construction on 25 to 35 acres…Several sources said Gensler was pitching the deal to investors as a 99-year lease, and that it would include a Hilton or Hyatt hotel with conference center facilities, restaurants, a four- or five-story parking structure, an office building of several stories, the theaters, an art museum, an observatory and a building with sound stages for TV and film…Also contemplated are a movie complex and soccer stadium.

Massive unbeknownstitude:

City officials were miffed about all of this secret planning. The Times quoted an Irvine official who said: “Any construction not associated with the college’s educational mission must be approved by Irvine.” Nevertheless, “she had not heard of the proposal.”

Three days later, the Register weighed in with a story that presented Howard’s project—now described as involving a paltry $463 million—in a less sympathetic light:

Board members interviewed said they were surprised at the planning that has gone into Gensler’s vision and that they should have been informed about it earlier…“Apparently this was really being pursued by just a few people unbeknownst to other members of the board,” said trustee Dave Lang…One instructor described the project as “absurd” in that it “flies in the face of the college’s long-term planning.”

During the Board Meeting of June 24th, trustees decided to pull the plug on the whole business:

Irvine Valley College trustees got their first official look Monday night at a controversial proposal to develop a $463 million entertainment complex on campus–and decided they wanted no part of it… “The feeling was that the proposal that came to us did not sufficiently meet the needs of the college and the students,” said board president Don Wagner, who said trustees first learned of the project in the press…“It came to us as a take-it-or-leave-it proposal, and we are going to leave it.”…. (OC Register, June 25, 2002; my emphasis)

On the 25th, the Times quoted Dorothy “Dot” Fortune, who carped that the Gensler/Mathur project would give “away half the land at IVC.”

Howard, however, defended his project; it would, he said, make IVC “one of the most important cultural centers in Southern California.”

Nonagenarian takes plan elsewhere:

The Times eventually reported the proposed project’s builder:

The complex was to be built by the Newport Financial Group of Newport Beach. One company figure is Charles Ross, 91, of Laguna Woods, who proposed a similar project at UC Riverside, without success, Fortune said…Ross said Monday he would not discuss the plan, but that if the district turned it down, he would take it elsewhere.

In an article for the Irvine World News on the 27th, Wagner is again reported as saying that “trustees first learned of the project after the top secret plan was leaked to the press.” Well, no, according to my sources, he and two other Board Majoritarians heard about the “top secret plan” two weeks before the Times report. C’mon Don!

Some newspaper articles claimed that, on campus, the project was called “the Howard Hilton.” In truth, it had been dubbed “Howie World” by the Chevy Chase fans who have always dominated IVC.

“One has to wonder…”

On the 30th, Times editorial writers offered a harshly critical perspective on “the Howard Hilton”:

Irvine Valley College’s mission statement…[says that the] college exists to provide quality education for students…The document doesn’t say anything about leasing a huge chunk of the campus to a private developer for a $500 million entertainment and office complex…That’s why people were caught off-guard earlier this month when word surfaced that an IVC dean had been meeting with a developer who wanted to build a massive, for-profit venture. The trustees of the SOCCCD are to be commended for putting the educational purpose of the district first by rejecting the plan last week before it could gather more momentum…The proposal was out of sync with the city of Irvine’s general plan and existing zoning. The city envisioned the orange groves…as one day hosting recreational facilities and college-related construction—not hotels, parking garages and a Hollywood production lot. City officials hadn’t had a chance to review the proposal, and from what it suggested, many of the plan’s elements also clashed with zoning in the area…The proposal also was at odds with IVC’s own planning process. Community colleges are required to create a master plan that describe how they intend to grow. There’s nothing in IVC’s long-range planning that was even remotely close to the proposal that was submitted to the board by Howard Gensler…College deans have a lot of clout, but one has to wonder how this kind of major campus land-use negotiation got to the stage it did. It probably should have been handled in the first place at a higher level of administration….

Hey, yeah! Then, on July 9, IVC issued an odd little press release. It announced plans to construct a modest “Performing Arts Building”:

Irvine Valley College submitted plans to the state…for the construction of a 400-seat Performing Arts Building… The…Building has been long in development as part of Irvine Valley’s Educational and Facilities Master Plan to unify campus services and to meet a growing demand by students and the community. The Educational and Facilities Master Plan and, in particular, the Performing Arts Building, is wholly separate from a recent $450 million proposal made by Irvine Valley Humanities Dean, Howard Gensler, who worked with a private investor to develop a possible alternative campus building project…

We at Dissent feel just awful about the unceremonious kiboshery of the “Howard Hilton.” I, for one, was really lookin’ forward to floatin’ around on that lake.

Well, at least we can name Howard our “Administrator of the Year”!

Congratulations Howard!