Friday, November 20, 2009

That Raghu sure can pick 'em


I’ve done a little quick ‘n’ dirty research on the lawyer Raghu hired to defend plaintiffs in the “prayer” lawsuit: David Llewellyn. He’s seriously right-wing. According to the website for Llewellyn’s law firm,
David Llewellyn is a legal advocate, civil rights lawyer and law professor now practicing in Sacramento, California. … He is a member of the faculty of the Chapman University School of Law [uh-oh], where he has taught Constitutional Law and the First Amendment and currently serves as a law professor and legal counsel with the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. He was formerly Dean and Professor of Law at Trinity Law School…. Previous to that he was a founder, President and senior legal counsel for the Western Center for Law and Religious Freedom [WCLRF], a public interest law firm.
Founder of the Western Center, eh? Hmmm. Wikipedia’s article on far, far, far-right religious wacko—and pal of Fuentes—Howard Ahmanson explains that Ahmanson
contributed $62,500 to the [WCLRF], which, among other things, aided the citizens and leaders of the Kern County school district defend their choice to ban One Hundred Years of Solitude, a book by Gabriel García Márquez, for its "profanity" and "vulgarity."
Evidently, the "Western Center" is now known as the Pro-Family Law Center of Abiding Truth Ministries. I Googled that and got the website for the Pro-Family Resource Center of Abiding Truth Ministries, which presents writings by Scott Lively, the “President of Abiding Truth Ministries and lead attorney for ATM's Pro-Family Law Center.”

The Pro-Family Law Center (see) seems obsessed with the EVIL that is homosexuality. PFLC sells such books as:
The Pink Swastika (by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams)
The Pink Swastika is a thoroughly researched, eminently readable, demolition of the "gay" myth, symbolized by the pink triangle, that the Nazis were anti-homosexual.
Bill Berkowitz (in Buzzflash) called this book, by Lively, a “Holocaust revisionist anti-gay book.” According to Berkowitz, Scott Lively declared “war against the Southern Poverty Law Center for refusing to remove his Abiding Truth Ministries (http://www.abidingtruth.com) from its list of hate groups.”

Clearly, this Scott Lively fella is seriously bad news. Gosh, he's Frogueworthy!

Does that make Llewellyn seriously bad news too?

Well, no.

LLEWELLYN & ANTI-GAY NUTJOBS. I came across an amazing book called As We Sodomize America, by O. R. Adams Jr.

Adams is a nutjob.

Well, at some point Adams refers, positively, to a VCR tape entitled The Gay Agenda, which is narrated (in part) by Llewellyn:
…[It] is an authoritative and comprehensive explanation of the homosexual movement, and homosexual activity. The narrators on the tape are David Llewellyn, President, Western Center for Law and Religious Freedom; Stanley Monteith, M.D., author of "AIDS, The Unnecessary Epidemic;" Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D., a well known specialist in homosexuality, and author of "Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality," and many other publications; John Smid, an ex-homosexual, and Director of Love in Action, an organization which helps homosexuals who want to change to a decent way of life; and John Paulk, an ex-homosexual, and Administrator of Love in Action. Dr. Montieth gave the statistical references on homosexual acts….
Wow. Lawyer Llewellyn, it seems, hangs out with a far-out crowd not dissimilar to Mr. Frogue's "Liberty Lobby" gang.

I’ll keep looking. But it doesn't look good. Gosh, why don't they run down the street and see if Steve's available?

P.S.:

I found some videos featuring Stanley Monteith, co-narrator, along with Llewellyn and others, of "The Gay Agenda." See below. Good grief.

Joseph Nicolosi, another co-narrator, is a major advocate of reparative therapy, which attempts to "cure" people of their homosexual feelings and desires. He's a crank.

Evidently, John Smid headed an organization--Love in Action--dedicated to the notion that homosexuality is a "myth." Right.

Read about the troubled Mr. John Paulk, the remaining narrator, here.





COMMENT:

Anonymous said...

Yikes - it's worse than I thought. Stop scaring us Chunk!
7:42 PM, November 21, 2009

Raghu saves the day, hiring an expensive lawyer!


OC Weekly’s Matt Coker has noted our “prayer” lawsuit (here) and has managed to dig up some cool facts! One cool fact concerns the Chancellor, that clever fellow who played a certain video three months ago--you know, the one that ends with that remarkable assertion about Jesus?

According to Matt,
District Chancellor Raghu Mathur, who is also named as a defendant in the suit, has retained David Llewellyn of the Sacramento-based Llewellyn Spann law firm. Llewellyn, who often represents conservative Christian groups, left a message with the Weekly vowing that Westphal v. Wagner will be settled through "constitutional law designated in the courts."

Llewellyn also revealed his defense strategy, saying official government sessions have begun with prayer invocations since the United States was founded and that the public college district simply wants to follow that tradition.
Yeah, but it isn't that simple, L-man:
[T]he Americans United complaint references more than just invocations before public meetings. Saddleback officials are accused of showing a video titled God Bless the USA during a faculty training session this past August.

"The video included religious images and closed with two pictures of military personnel carrying a flag-draped coffin," according to the complaint. "Superimposed on those images was the following text: 'Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you. Jesus Christ and the American G.I. One died for your soul, the other died for your freedom.'"

Such spectacles subject some members of audiences to "unwanted religious practices," according to Americans United, which adds that attendance at some events where this occurs are mandatory, citing students who are awarded scholarships but must go to a public ceremony or forfeit the financial aid.
This isn't just about prayin'.

COMMENTS:

Anonymous said...
You can't make this stuff up, can you?

That video is shameful.
7:36 PM, November 20, 2009

Anonymous said...
It's about time something was done about this. But does the lawsuit not say anything about prayer at Irvine Valley College?
8:34 PM, November 20, 2009

Anonymous said...
Well, the Chancellor's "opening session" in August was at IVC. So there's that. The notorious "Jesus Christ" video was shown there.
9:16 PM, November 20, 2009

13 Stoploss said...
I (still) take offense that Mathur thinks soldiers are willing to die for assholes like himself. 

btw, do you have video of this invocation? I'm sure there are scores of veterans, possibly hundreds, that would love to see that video.
11:54 PM, November 20, 2009

Anonymous said...
Does this also mean that the District, using taxpayer dollars, will be paying these lawyers to defend these actions? Just what we need on the heels of this week's announcement that the State is projecting another $21B deficit and education funding is again at stake.
1:39 PM, November 21, 2009

Anonymous said...
Yes, it does mean that. The behavior of Wagner, Fuentes, and Mathur seems to have been particularly provocative. And so now they've got a lawsuit on their hands, and it will cost the taxpayer many tens of thousands of dollars at the very least.
5:03 PM, November 21, 2009

AUSCS press release: targeting SOCCCD's "prayer practice"



Americans United Challenges California Community College Prayer Policy In Federal Court

Americans United for Separation of Church and State has filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging official prayers during public ceremonies at a Southern California community college.

The lawsuit challenges the South Orange County Community College District’s practice of opening its events with prayer. The District oversees two Southern California community colleges – Saddleback College in Mission Viejo and Irvine Valley College in Irvine; the legal action challenges prayers at Saddleback.

School officials, the legal action asserts, routinely sponsor official invocations at events for students and faculty, including scholarship-award ceremonies, commencement ceremonies and training programs for faculty.

Plaintiffs assert they are subjected to unwanted religious worship at these events, a stance AU backs in its lawsuit.
 
“These community colleges need to stop promoting religion and get back to the business of education,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “Faculty and students should be able to attend school events without being subjected to official prayer and religious worship.”

AU’s lawsuit notes that students and faculty members have protested the mandatory prayers many times. The student government of Saddleback College has twice passed resolutions opposing the prayer practice, and similar resolutions have been passed by the faculty’s Academic Senate of Saddleback College, the Academic Senate of Irvine Valley College, the statewide Academic Senate for California Community Colleges and the South Orange County Community College District Faculty Association.

School officials ignored the complaints and, in response, actually increased the religious content of these public events.

In August of 2009, Saddleback officials showed a video titled “God Bless the USA” during a faculty training session. The video included religious images and closed with two pictures of military personnel carrying a flag-draped coffin. Superimposed on those images was the following text: “Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you. Jesus Christ and the American G.I. One died for your soul, the other died for your freedom.”

The legal action asserts that these types of activities subject many in the audience to “unwanted religious practices.”

AU points out in legal documents that attendance at some of these events is mandatory. For example, students who are awarded scholarships must attend a public ceremony or forfeit the financial aid.

Plaintiffs are: Karla Westphal, Alannah Rosenberg, Margot Lovett and Claire Cesareo-Silva, all professors at Saddleback College; Roy Bauer, a professor at Irvine Valley College; Ashley Mockett, a former student at Saddleback and two current Saddleback students who have chosen to remain anonymous.

AU’s complaint notes that for years, faculty, students and parents have protested the prayer policy. College officials, the complaint asserts, “responded by expanding the prayer practice, by making the prayers ever more religious and divisive, and by publicly attacking members of minority faiths and nonbelievers for not sharing the District’s preferred faith.”

The case, Westphal v. Wagner, was filed yesterday in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. AU Assistant Legal Director Richard B. Katskee is overseeing the case, assisted by AU Madison Fellow Jef Klazen as well as Allen Erenbaum and Christopher P. Murphy of Mayer Brown LLP in Los Angeles.

“Prayer and religious worship are intimate matters that must be freely undertaken and never coerced,” Katskee said. “This litigation is designed to remind community college officials of that fact.”

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.



COMMENTS:

Anonymous said...
These people have for too long run this district (and this county) as if they and only they know best - it's infuriating and offensive to come to work at a publicly funded institution and be subject to this.
5:37 PM, November 20, 2009

Anonymous said...
help! help! Will someone take note and help us please! this has gone on for tooooo long!
9:26 PM, November 20, 2009

Thursday, November 19, 2009

The SOCCCD’s “prayer practice” in the courts

"Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you—Jesus Christ and the American Soldier. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom."
—From a video played during
the Chancellor's Fall Opening Session

Today, a complaint concerning our district was filed with the United States District Court, Central District of California.

The defendants include the seven members of the South Orange County Community College District board of trustees, including board president Don Wagner. Also included are Chancellor Raghu Mathur and Saddleback College President Tod Burnett.

The plaintiffs include professors Karla Westphal, Allanah Rosenberg, Margot Lovett, Claire Cesareo-Silva, and Roy Bauer.

A formal announcement of the complaint will be made in the morning.

Papers will be served on defendants tomorrow.

The complaint reads in part:

For years, … college students, faculty, and staff, as well as scholarship donors, community members, and others have publicly objected to the District’s prayer practice, requesting that a moment of silence or some other, less divisive practice be adopted instead. But rather than respecting the beliefs of its faculty and students, the trustees, the chancellor, and Saddleback College’s president have responded by expanding the prayer practice, by making the prayers ever more religious and divisive, and by publicly attacking members of minority faiths and nonbelievers for not sharing the District’s preferred faith. Plaintiffs therefore have no choice but to seek provisional relief and a permanent injunction to stop the prayer.

More information about the complaint will become available tomorrow.

To read the just-released press release from Americans United for Separation of Church and State, click here.

See also A troubling sentiment.

Anonymous said...
It's about time!
7:24 AM, November 20, 2009

Anonymous said...
Great. go get 'em. I can't believe they think we should stay in the room when they play church like that.
7:54 AM, November 20, 2009

Anonymous said...
Well, I'm gald you all are doing this but it will certainly give Don W. a boost as he runs for higher office. Now he can martyr himself.
8:02 AM, November 20, 2009

Anonymous said...
Excellent--yes; go get 'em. The arrogance and disrespect (for persons and for the constitution) manifested in this long-standing practice are breath-taking.
8:17 AM, November 20, 2009

Anonymous said...
I hope you all prevail. I can't stand how they shove this stuff down our throats.
8:45 AM, November 20, 2009

Anonymous said...
Amen!
11:46 AM, November 20, 2009

Anonymous said...
The "Americans United" press release can be found here.
12:30 PM, November 20, 2009

Bohrstein said...
Yes to separation of Church and State!
3:05 PM, November 20, 2009

Amir said...
As a former student of Saddleback, I am honored to have professors that once taught me take this case to court. It is appalling that one religion stands out above all others in these ceremonies. An institute of higher education should never place one religion above another. Allowing such an act undermines the school's diversity and is unconstitutional.
4:48 PM, November 20, 2009

Other comments in the sidebar at right =>

No plotting or scheming behind anyone’s back, we’re assured

Some points of information and clarification re the curriculum chair resignation:

A CURIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT. On Monday, IVC faculty received an email "announcement" from the President of the IVC Academic Senate that stated: “The responsibilities of IVC Curriculum Committee Chair have passed from [KS] to [JT] effective immediately.” That statement was followed by an expression of gratitude for K’s years of dedicated service.

The announcement took many of us by surprise and seemed to many of us in need of explanation and elaboration, but we soon learned that the cabinet had agreed not to discuss the matter with anyone. As far as I know, they have kept that agreement.

Today, during a meeting of the IVC Academic Senate Representative Council (i.e., the “senators”), the Senate President announced and then explained the situation, informing Senators that new and dire curriculum review deadlines had arisen, raising the long-standing curriculum “bottleneck” problem to a genuine crisis.

That was followed by a discussion in which I (Roy Bauer) participated.

1. Laboring under the impression that J was replacing K, I made the point that, according to the Senate bylaws, a vacancy of the office of Chair of Curriculum is to filled by the Rep Council, not the cabinet.

This is true. But, I was told, in this case, there was no vacancy to fill, since, prior to the resignation, the Curriculum committee was “co-chaired” by J and K. Hence, all that has occurred is the continued chairing of J.

That J was a “co-chair” before the resignation appears to be beyond dispute. I do feel, however, that Monday’s announcement invited confusion when it described “responsibilities of…Curriculum…Chair” passing “from [KS] to [JT].” I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that such language can be understood as saying that JT is replacing KS as chair.

That J had already been serving as co-chair was further obscured for me by the circumstance that, in my memory, only K reported during Senate meetings for the Curriculum Committee. Contrary to the impression this left with me, the Curriculum Committee has for some time been "co-chaired."

(It is perhaps worth mentioning, however, that J’s status as Chair has changed in one sense, for, evidently, significant changes will occur for her in reassigned time/compensation, suggesting an increased workload. Also: the Senate cabinet might want to correct the IVC Academic Senate website, which clearly identifies only K as the Chair of Courses.)

2. Proceeding with the understanding that some of the cabinet had decided to ask for K’s resignation in discussions that did not include K, I objected, arguing that, since K was a member of the cabinet, she should have been included in those discussions. In my mind, I was making a plea for transparency and I was rejecting processes that involve some committee members secretly plotting/arranging actions against another member.

Unless I misunderstood, the Senate President (and other members of cabinet?) assured me today that such was not the case.

Questions to ponder (for those chained in a cave, staring at shadows)

What is likely to occur next month at the Board’s yearly organizational meeting (Dec. 7)? Who will emerge as President of the Board?

Trustee Wagner, the current Board President, seems to be doing well in his pursuit of office as a California Assemblyman. If he can reasonably expect to succeed in that race, will leadership of our Board continue to be attractive to him? (The election for his Board seat is but a year away.)

Trustee Williams’ difficulties as OC Public Guardian/Administrator will perhaps continue to occupy his attention. What does that suggest, if anything? (He won’t be up for reelection until 2012.)

Gosh, Oracle of Delphi, what will the future bring?

COMMENTS:

Anonymous said...
Santa. The future will bring Santa and lots of presents for good little boys and girls.
9:30 AM, November 19, 2009

Anonymous said...
and lumps of coal for the rest!
9:40 AM, November 19, 2009

Anonymous said...
er, are there fabulous prizes if I guess right?
9:45 AM, November 19, 2009

Anonymous said...
Marcia?
11:30 AM, November 19, 2009

Anonymous said...
It will bring Fuentes. Emperor Fuentes and his fiddle.
11:34 AM, November 19, 2009

Anonymous said...
Mathur will get a very large and shiny lump of coal.
11:57 AM, November 19, 2009

Anonymous said...
Fuentes, I'm afraid -and one of the Ackermans to take Don's place.
8:58 PM, November 19, 2009

"accessible, affordable, high-quality and accountable"

from the SF Chronicle: "Higher education master plan getting ignored" by Nanette Asimov:
California's Master Plan for Higher Education - which set academics ablaze with the promise of a nearly free college education for all who qualified - is limping toward the half-century mark largely ignored by lawmakers who don't even pretend they can live up to its expensive commitment.

That's the finding of a report released Thursday by the state's Office of the Legislative Analyst. It says today's reality of soaring student fees, volatile college budgets and enrollment caps are so far removed from the guiding Master Plan, that something must be done to bring them in line...

...California's budget crisis has led to cuts of more than $500 million from CSU since last year, more than $800 million from UC, and more than $700 million from community colleges.

The new report doesn't fault state lawmakers for the out-of-control economy, but says lawmakers have failed to set policies to guide colleges and universities through turbulent times, as the Master Plan calls for.

With no new policy on how much students should pay for their education, "fee levels have been unpredictable and volatile, with little alignment to the cost of instruction or to students' ability to pay," the report says.

Not only are lawmakers unaware of what it costs to educate students, they lack a policy for funding enrollment growth, the report says. The result is hit-or-miss decision making...

The California Master Plan for Higher Education

In 1959, state lawmakers asked the UC regents and state Board of Education for a plan that would develop, expand and integrate the curriculum and standards of California's colleges and universities for years to come. The plan approved in 1960 called for periodic increases in fees for noninstructional services, such as activities and athletics. Faculty salaries would be paid by the state.

Most of the Master Plan principles are not codified in state law. Here are two of its key provisions:

Eligibility targets: The top 12.5 percent of graduating public high school students are eligible for UC. The top 33.3 percent are eligible for CSU. Everyone 18 or older who can "benefit from instruction" is eligible to attend a community college.

Other goals: Higher education should remain accessible, affordable, high-quality and accountable.
To read the rest, click here.

(Photo and fee chart from the Los Angeles Times.)

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

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