A civility policy? Arf!

     Today, I was among the many who received an announcement from the IVC college President. It revealed the (huge!) membership of a new committee: “the IVC Civility Policy Workgroup.”
     A civility policy?
     That doesn’t sound good.

* * *

     I recall a meeting of the IVC Academic Affairs committee some time in the late 90s. At the time, Kate Clark was the chair. The committee was charged with considering pursuit of some sort of “civility” or “ethics” code for faculty. Some in the room were well aware of the many tools—refusal to grant tenure, firing of noisy adjuncts, trumped-up charges of discrimination and violence—that had been employed to make life difficult for critics of the then-current regime (Raghu Mathur and the Board Majority: Steve Frogue, Dot Fortune, John Williams, et al.). Especially with that in mind, but also because of our independent regard of free speech, we agreed to eschew such codes. They could too easily be used as a bludgeon to punish or deter valid criticism, we reasoned.
     Besides, as academics, don’t we seek to champion freedom rather than to limit it? Plus: do we really want to start policing the conduct of our colleagues? That's an ugly business. Is it really necessary?

* * *

     I’ve been away on sabbatical, and so I don’t know the origins of this “civility policy” initiative, though I have some idea what’s going on here. Obviously, when interest in civility policies crops up, it is usually a reaction to alleged “incivility.”
     I.e., somebody's been unpleasant.
     On this blog—and its newsletter predecessor—we criticize and object. We’ve always tried to do that responsibly. I think we’ve succeeded. But I’ve learned that some people just don’t take criticism well. In their minds, any criticism, even implied or gentle or just criticism, is an assault.
     Being a leader or some other public person demands a thick skin. I’ve certainly learned that lesson in the last dozen or so years, pursuing Brown Act lawsuits (two of them), highlighting administrative folly (e.g., banning faculty “war” talk), noting trustee cluelessness and unsavoriness (Fortune’s residence issues, Tom Fuentes’ nixation of the Santander “study abroad” program, etc.), and so on. You get some push-back. You get called things. It can get pretty rough, even dicey.
     These days, top administration at IVC is arrogant and contemptuous of all who seek a place at the decision-making table. The key problem here is the VPI, a fellow with a well-deserved reputation for ruthlessness and vindictiveness. He’s the sort who, in the end, insists on running things. Everyone else needs to get the heck out of the way.
     Faculty's job: to raise no questions, to cause no ripples.
     Naturally, a guy like that will be all over a “civility” or “ethics” policy. I have no doubt that he views the preceding paragraph as an instance of incivility or unethicalness most foul—something that, if possible, should be stamped out, punished.

* * *

     I recall the many lies and machinations that former administrator Raghu P. Mathur would deploy. Starting in 1997, I responded to this by stating the facts and then calling him a “liar” and a “schemer,” etc., in Dissent and The 'Vine. Lots of people seemed to reason that, ipso facto, I was engaged in “name-calling.” I.e., I was being uncivil.
     Well, maybe, I said. But it’s true, isn’t it?—he is a liar and a schemer. Look at the evidence! And if it’s true, given Mathur's power and authority, it’s important to point it out and to understand it, no?

* * *

     Back in the nineties, our newsletter (Dissent) engaged in criticisms of the powers that be. The push-back was ferocious. I had to go to federal court to defend myself against outrageous (and implausible) trumped-up charges—e.g., that I personally caused the colleges' accreditation woes!
     In the end, Judge Gary Feess stated:

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…. [My emphasis.]

     Yeah. In our system, people in positions of power can be criticized. Nobody is immune from that.
     Deal with it.

* * *

     At one point—I believe it was in the May of 1998—Mathur was in a bad spot. The faculty had just recorded a stunning vote of “no confidence” in him. Mathur was furious.
     He responded by accusing three faculty leaders, including me, of racism and “mail threats.” He offered no evidence. I recall John Williams shaking his head at me. Dot Fortune too. "You're bad," their bodies sneered.
     There was nothing really that I could do about Mathur’s absurd charges. I had to live with them.
     And I did.

* * *

     Academia—colleges and universities—are associated with free speech. If you can’t speak freely and criticize authority at a college, so the saying goes, then where can you speak freely and criticize authority? Judge Gary Feess made that exact point in court. It was also made by several people back in 2003, when administration at IVC banned faculty comments about the war in the classroom. (Do you suppose Dennis "Moneybags" White and Glenn "Clueless" Roquemore are at long last ashamed? —Of course not.)
     But some people don’t see it that way. Even in academia, there are some with a little bit of the Pious Puritan or Grand Inquisitor in ‘em.
     Remember those speech codes at colleges, back in the 90s? Luckily, academics with a longer view of higher education and free speech pushed back against them, arguing that restrictions on speech are contrary to the very idea of higher education. Thus we have the American Association of University Professors’ famous policy concerning “Freedom of Expression and Campus Speech Codes.” It's marvelous.
     Some excerpts:

     Freedom of thought and expression is essential to any institution of higher learning.
…
     This mission guides learning outside the classroom quite as much as in class, and often inspires vigorous debate on those social, economic, and political issues that arouse the strongest passions. In the process, views will be expressed that may seem to many wrong, distasteful, or offensive. Such is the nature of freedom to sift and winnow ideas.
     On a campus that is free and open, no idea can be banned or forbidden.* No viewpoint or message may be deemed so hateful or disturbing that it may not be expressed.
     …Most campuses have recently sought to become more diverse, and more reflective of the larger community, by attracting students, faculty, and staff from groups that were historically excluded or underrepresented.
…
     Hostility or intolerance to persons who differ from the majority … may undermine the confidence of new members of the community….
     …[S]ome campuses have felt it necessary to forbid the expression of racist, sexist, homophobic, or ethnically demeaning speech, along with conduct or behavior that harasses….
     …But … rules that ban or punish speech based upon its content cannot be justified. An institution of higher learning fails to fulfill its mission if it asserts the power to proscribe ideas…. Indeed, by proscribing any ideas, a university sets an example that profoundly disserves its academic mission.
. . .
     … A speech code unavoidably implies an institutional competence to distinguish permissible expression of hateful thought from what is proscribed as thoughtless hate. [My emphases.]

     As near as I can tell, nobody’s accusing me or anybody else of “hate speech” at IVC. It’s a lesser charge, I suppose: some kind of loutishness, boorishness. —“Incivility.”
     On the other hand, I suspect that that mean spirit that lets people assume that they and the “institution” are competent to distinguish permissible and impermissible speech—well, it's alive and well at IVC.
     Maybe I'm wrong. We'll see. (I'm thinking of monitoring the proceedings of the IVC CPW, doin' a play-by-play.)

* * *

     But what, exactly, are those who shout "incivility" referring to? That’s the funny thing. When you ask that question, often, the “victims” of allegedly obnoxious speech (or their terriers) seem unable to cite anything relevant.
     Back in 1998, incensed by Dissent’s endless criticisms, administration accused me of  “discriminating” (against Indians, I guess—I called Mathur “Mr. Goo”—and against Christians—I said something snarky about the Christian Coalition) and violating the “workplace violence” policy (I told Glenn Roquemore he was “going down” along with Mathur).
     I recall challenging the Chancellor (Fredrick Sampson) over this anti-Christian blarney. I asked: where exactly did I exhibit hostility to Christians? In fact, I hadn’t. Not once. A certain speechifying member of IVC’s faculty evidently “believed” that I was anti-Christian because I had once criticized him (he had led his forensics students in prayer before tournaments). He complained to Mathur. That was it. I kid you not.
     Even now, I am often accused (by commenting DtB readers) of being an anti-religious atheist. When I challenge them to show where I have evinced that perspective, they come up with nothing.
     Poor readers, I guess. They oughta go to college.
     It’s part of the blog (or newsletter) thing. Bloggers are routinely accused of anything anyone ever says in their blogs, including reader comments over which they have no control. 

* * *

     QUESTION: People need to ask themselves why a “civility code” is being pursued right now. What exactly has occasioned this? (The official "story" seems to be that it's demanded by the accreditors.)
     My guess: as usual, people with power do not like to be criticized. They use their power to push-back against the critics, to portray them as hateful or uncouth or even sporting bad hair.
     Again, I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

* * *

     GOSH, since I’m going to be accused of saying loutish things in loutish ways, I may as well come right out and say them. Clearly. (In my view, of course, these things are not loutish; neither are they delivered loutishly!)
     So:

• Just what are we to make of a faculty member who makes no secret of her administrative ambitions and who then attains the Presidency of the Academic Senate (the obvious faculty “step” toward an administrative career)?
   Might there be some conflicts of interest in this scenario? My answer: in this case, I do think so. (Please note: I am not objecting to administrative ambitions per se.)
• What are we to make of a faculty leadership that must be goaded to take to task the bad initiatives (e.g., the infernal Early College program; the quietly mounted and initially disastrous Crean Lutheran set-up) of top administration? That steadfastly refuses to acknowledge a spirit inimical to "shared governance" in the latter? My answer: get straight, lady, or move aside. 

     There is nothing personal here. On the contrary, I have always liked LDA. We’ve been friends for years. I’ve even given her a pass for being a Texas Republican for chrissake. (I can be absurdly tolerant.)
     But a whatchdog has got to do what a watchdog has got to do.
     Arf. ~

*As I have explained previously, my adventures in "free speech" in the last dozen years have led me to reconsider positions I once took publicly. For instance, I no longer feel that the appropriate response to Mr. Frogue's planned "forum"—one that included participation by Holocaust deniers and members of an anti-semitic organization—was cancelation of the forum. A better response: the setting up of a corrective "forum" plus the deposit of a burning sack of shit on Mr. Frogue's doorstep.**
**Just kidding about the sack of shit. Fudge maybe. And those cool fake flames.

Orange County corruption, fully on display

Another County Political Aide Lands New Job Despite Hiring Freeze (Voice of OC)

     Orange County's trash agency continues to solidify its reputation as the recycling bin of county politics with another quiet transfer of a top aide to a supervisor despite a much-heralded "hard" countywide hiring freeze and layoffs.
     Matthew Harper, a top aide to Supervisor Janet Nguyen, was quietly transferred from Nguyen's office this month to OC Waste and Recycling as a public affairs manager. The move raised a few eyebrows in the fifth-floor offices of the County Hall of Administration.
     Harper recently announced he's running for the newly created 72nd State Assembly District touting himself as a fiscal conservative.
     Yet when called to explain why it makes fiscal sense to move him from Supervisor Nguyen's office to the trash agency because he's running for office, Harper asked if he could return the call. He never did, despite repeated attempts late Friday to reach him again for comment.
     County CEO Tom Mauk defended Harper's transfer despite the budget-cutting environment.
. . .
     Harper isn't the first top assistant from a supervisors fifth floor offices to be moved into a lucrative slot at the waste and recycling agency between political gigs.
     Denis Bilodeau, chief of staff to Supervisor Shawn ["Gasbag"] Nelson, was briefly transferred to OC Waste and Recycling after his former boss, Supervisor Chris Norby won a special election to the State Assembly. And Chip Monaco, former chief of staff to County Supervisor Pat Bates also moved from the fifth floor to the trash agency recently despite the hiring freeze….

also:

Faculty Fears in Washington (Inside Higher Ed)

     It just got easier to lay off full-time faculty members in Washington State, thanks to a declaration of financial emergency last month by the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges. But some faculty leaders say the board’s move is more about a power grab than saving money.
     Either way, faculty members are worried about the possibility of layoffs. And some observers say other cash-strapped states could try similar maneuvers….

Downtown Chicago

(Click on pics to enlarge them.)
I've been in Chicago since Wednesday. Great town.
Took most of these pics during a boat cruise of the Chicago River.
Marilyn, here, is actually 26 feet tall; she stands just outside the beautiful Chicago Tribune Building, near the river.

The Wrigley Bldg.

I love the look of the Carbide and Carbon Bldg. It really did shine like this at the end of the day.

Along the river

The Cops were protesting Egypt.

Chicagoans are nuts about weddings

The "mouth" of the river, sort of (harbor)

A marvelous mix of the old and new.
Again we see the Carbide and Carbon Bldg., built in 1929 and covered in polished black granite.

As I recall, this building--the Merchandise Bldg. (1930)--was built by the Marshall Field family but was eventually purchased by the Kennedy family (1948).
It's enormous--for a while, it was the largest building in the world--and it's right on the river.

Most of these shots were taken relatively late in the day.

Friday's Chicago adventures

We drove along Lakeshore Drive. The weather was good.

Our hotel is in Evantson. We were headed to the Museum of Science and Industry.

We visited the magnificent U-505, which was captured in 1944. It's huge and impressive. We even got to walk through the interior. Amazing.

All but one of the crew of 59 survived. They were secretly transported to a POW camp in Louisiana.

The machinery inside this torpedo was impressive.

Gotta say: Chicago did a great job with this exhibit.

The captain's insignia

A Stuka. We also saw a Spitfire. Loved it.

Rainy Chicago (Hull House)

It's been rainy today in Chicago, but Chicago is a town that looks good wet. This is true of other things as well.

I'm a guest of sorts of the Association for Humanist Sociology, which is having its annual meeting this week.
From the conference HQ (the Hilton-Orrlington), conferees took a bus to Hull House, which is a very cool place indeed.

Hull House was founded in 1889 by Jane Addams and Ellen Gates Starr. It is the most famous example of the century-old phenomenon of "settlement houses," of which there were 500 in the U.S. by 1920.
Naturally, Addams, a pacifist and progressive sociologist, had an FBI file; she was regarded for a time as "the most dangerous person in the country."
She was a philosopher, you know. A "feminist pragmatist."
In 1932, she received a Nobel Peace Prize. She died in 1935.

There isn't much left of the huge complex that Hull House became, but at least two buildings remain, and they are fascinating. Above is a clock in the larger building. Here we see keys used by Addams and other Hull House officials. You can read more about Hull House here.

In the old community building, we heard a lecture by scholar Mary Joe Deegan. Deegan is attempting to correct neglect of the sociological and philosophical work of Addams and her peers.

Tomorrow, the U-505! 

Instructor "disappears"

     [For a more recent update: go here.]
     I just noticed an article in yesterday’s Mission Viejo Patch about Saddleback College composition instructor Amy Ahearn:

Mental Breakdown Suspected in English Prof's Disappearance: Lake Forest resident Amy Ahearn has not been seen since September.

     Extreme weight loss and other strange behaviors reportedly preceded the sudden disappearance of Saddleback College instructor Amy Ahearn this summer.
. . .
     She was reportedly last sighted in Norwalk, CA in September.
     On the Saddleback College website, Ahearn is listed as an English composition instructor. [Elsewhere on the site, she’s listed as “on leave.”]
     Ahearn has been missing from her Lake Forest home since Aug. 22, the day the fall semester began at Saddleback.
. . .
     The website Rate My Professor has 77 reviews for her teaching, the most recent from Aug. 16. ¶ Postings about her teaching style were generally positive until 2008, when students begin to mention her aversion to students coming within 3 feet of her.
     Members of her family believe she might be suffering from a delusional disorder or the symptoms of Huntington's disease.
. . .
     Ahearn's family is asking anyone who has information on her whereabouts to contact the OC Sheriff's Department at 949-770-6011.
     Sheriff's spokesman Jim Amormino said Ahearn's disappearance is not considered suspicious and she isn't thought to be in any danger….

IN THE NEWS:

• Florida Governor Attacked Field His Daughter Studied (Inside Higher Ed)

     Many anthropologists remain furious at Governor Rick Scott, a Florida Republican, for saying this week that his state doesn't need more graduates in anthropology. Now the Associated Press reports that the governor's daughter, Jordan Kandah, has an anthropology degree from the College of William & Mary. Kandah's career path backs the view of anthropologists that their discipline can be preparation for a variety of fields. She was formerly a special education teacher and recently enrolled in an M.B.A. program.

Chicago

8:00 a.m. - I'll be in Chicago for a few days. See yuh.

9:29 - I’m at John Wayne Airport, waiting for my 10:05 to LV. Nothin’ to report, ‘cept boredom. The security people insisted on examining my continuous positive air pressure machine. It's a little thing, but I suppose you could put a bomb in it. A tiny one.

11:34 - I'm in Las Vegas, which means "the spring," I think. Waiting for my 12:10 flight to Chicago. Beautiful weather. Managed to drop my laptop (MacBook Pro) from the baggage thingy above the seats all the way to the floor. Bang! Still works, it seems. Spent much of the flight thinking about the vast universe and the question whether it is to be feared or embraced. Still don't know.

No doubt I was working with a false dilemma. We're boarding!

7:20 p.m.(?) - I'm happily ensconced in my hotel room in the Orrington (I think that's the name) downtown. Lots of universities, cool shops, restaurants nearby. Off I go!

I've haven't been in Chicago since 1958, when I was maybe three. So this is all new to me. Very cool, so far.

• Professor who offended power elite resigns post (OC Reg)

     Fred Smoller is gone from his post as head of Brandman University’s master of public administration program.
     He’s not fired, as he has tenure, but the situation is a sticky one that raises thorny issues of academic freedom with critics.

• A Decade of Protesting Christopher Columbus Plays Out at Mission San Juan Capistrano Today (Navel Gazing)

• CAIR rebukes Councilman Derek Reeve (OC Reg; letters to the editor)

     Regarding “Of blogs and dogs: Councilman’s message to San Juan.” [Oct. 4] Councilman Derek Reeve needs to take responsibility for his own reckless acts rather than baseless blaming the mayor, his fellow council members or CAIR for his recurring problems, whether they are about allegations of plagiarism or insults levied at Muslims around the world, including his constituents. Being a leader used to mean being ethical, civil and uniting. I hope that standard has not been entirely lost….