Today's Senate meeting: a "civil" discussion

Sunny Girl

     I’m too bushed to write a lengthy account of today’s senate meeting. Maybe tomorrow. For now, I’ll provide a brief and partial account.
     When we got to “my” agenda item (for it was thus described on the agenda), IVC Academic Senate President Lisa Davis Allen provided some background: that this civility thing started with a request from Chancellor Poertner, etc. Her comments were helpful.
     Then it was up to me to “present” my view. I reminded everyone that VPI Craig Justice had sent out the civility report exactly two weeks ago—with a brief introduction in which he stated that the document was for our “review.”
     I went straight to the offending sentence of the “Statement on Civility” that was included in the report—the business about how supervisors should be on the lookout for employee incivility and include such observations in personnel evaluations.

Sunny Girl

     I briefly described my own experiences with abuse of district policies, namely, the use of the district’s anti-discrimination policy to attempt to shut down Dissent back in 1998. Back then, I was called in to meet with the Chancellor, who looked right in my eyes and said that my use of “Mr. Goo” to refer to Raghu Mathur in Dissent was discriminatory. “How so? ‘Mr Goo’ is merely an allusion to Mr. Magoo,” I protested.
     But no! The Chancellor looked at me and said: “'Mr. Goo' is plainly an allusion to the term ‘gook.’”
     I kid you not.
     (Back to today's meeting:) I next suggested that, in my view, there likely are instances of bullying at IVC and that they should surely be addressed, though I could not see how a civility code would be helpful in that regard. In the meantime, I said, a policy that permitted disciplining of those deemed “uncivil” opens the door to abuse, to silencing dissent.
     After my "presentation," many senators (et al.) spoke, some noting the odd circumstance that union representatives were not invited to the December “workshop” upon which the report was supposedly based. Others emphasized the danger in allowing supervisors to wield so undefined a notion as "incivility."
     Dan R suggested that the approach to IVC's problems represented by the report was unwise.
     Eventually, Lewis Long, the faculty union president, assured all present that there was no way that the union would allow citings of “incivility” to become part of the personnel evaluation process. He also questioned the college's focus on "incivility," suggesting that we should be developing a statement/policy re free speech.
     It turns out that the participants in December’s “workshop” were rather surprised to see the aforementioned objectionable elements of the report. They (at least three workshop participants were in the room) seemed to say that Mr. Spevak, the hired gun who wrote the report, included elements that were not part of the discussions back in December.
     Jeff, echoing Lewis, seemed inclined essentially to leave the report (or at least it's problematic attachments 3 and 4) behind and to pursue a statement or policy that promoted safe and free speech rather than one that punished "incivility."
     At one point, even VPI Craig Justice stated that the “discipline” business in the report just didn’t belong there.
     Meanwhile, LDA insisted that, had I not asked to make the report an agenda item, the senate cabinet would have done so on their own.
     Well, that's reassuring.

TigerAnn

     I briefly noted that the information vacuum that attended the release of this report for two weeks led to some discord and confusion that could and should have been avoided.
     Craig asserted, plausibly, that the report was supposed to inspire "dialogue," and it had surely done that. At any rate, we all agreed, I believe, that the dialogue that occurred at today's meeting was good.
     It turned out to be a good day.
     Well, there’s more, but I’ve gotta book.

The scourge of "reassigned time" was a union Old Guard preoccupation back in the day, as was homosexuality

As I recall, somebody had made Rich's life miserable on this day.  Probably the Chancellor.
I seem to remember that Andreea kept saying "moose and squirrel" to cheer him up. Didn't work.

OCC's Hearlson back in the news

     Michelle Woo of Navel Gazing reports that, according to at least one student, right-wing Orange Coast College Poli Sci Professor Ken Hearlson is spouting off indecorously in class:

Student Claims OCC Professor Ken Hearlson Wrote "Gays are Racist" on White Board During Class

     …[18-year-old Ali] Azarifar claims that political science professor Ken Hearlson made several anti-gay remarks in his U.S. government lecture on Feb. 7, the day of the [Prop 8] court ruling. Some of the alleged comments include:

     "Being gay is a sin."
     "No one voted no on Prop 8 because gays are racist."
     "Soon, all of the U.S. will be illegal for the gay community to marry."
     "Gays don't go to black churches because they are racist."

. . .
     In 1998, a student said that [Hearlson] told his class that if a homosexual ever taught his child sex education, he'd "string him up by the toes and shoot him in the face with a .357 Magnum." In 2001, a week after the Sept. 11 attacks, Hearlson was accused of calling Muslim students "Nazis," "terrorists," and "murderers." (An investigative report said that most of the allegations were "unsubstantiated.") And in 2003, the tenured professor harangued college protestors at a peace rally.
. . .
     A gay rights supporter made this flier in hope of bringing attention to Hearlson. [Azarifar’s boyfriend, Nolan] Robert, who is active in the gay community, aims to start a larger movement.

The IVC civility initiative: "Roy Bauer will present his concerns" (What? They're not faculty concerns!?)

Will the IVC Academic Senate defend the policing of "civility"?

5th in a series

     Two weeks ago, an IVC administrator distributed a report that (it said) was based on the results of a December workshop. That workshop—an all-day affair at the IRWD “Duck Club”—was part of a larger effort instigated by Chancellor Poertner, who had asked the college to address some accreditation concerns.
     The latter request led to formation of something called the “IVC Working Group on Civility,” which first met in October.
     In November, a Sacramento consulting firm was hired; they provided a “facilitator” named Spevak. (He was the author of the report.)
     Spevak, the Working Group, and two guests (including to UCI Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky) gathered for the “workshop” in mid-December (some members of the “group” did not participate in the workshop). They were tasked with brainstorming about episodes of “incivility” on campus and what could be done about them.

Will Hays

     As we’ve explained previously, one element of the report was a draft of a “civility statement” that included the following paragraph:

When encountering incivility, members of the IVC community are encouraged to confront it respectfully but directly and to intervene appropriately in situations where others are inflicted with uncivil behavior. Supervisors should call attention to uncivil behaviors of persons they supervise, and when necessary, note such behaviors within with [sic] the processes of evaluation or progressive discipline.

     Let’s call the notion that “supervisors” should note “uncivil behaviors” and include them in the “process of evaluation or progressive discipline”—the “Disciplining Incivility” notion, or DI.
     The report also included a “draft” of “possible elements within an … Action Plan on Civility and Mutual Respect….” That draft presented a list that included the following:

Send recommendations related to civility and mutual respect to the District for its related new or revised policies and procedures.

     Let’s call the action of sending “civility and mutual respect” recommendations to the District for the sake of “revised policies and procedures” the “prospective incivility policy” action, or PIP.
     At this point, I wish to draw attention to some facts:

.
• Given that IVC’s “civility initiative” seemed to be, among other things, an effort to produce or clarify a basis for employee (including faculty) discipline in response to perceived “incivility,” one would have thought that the unions would have been included in the “Working Group,” or at least in the group that met for the workshop in December. But, in fact, they were not invited.
• Evidently, it did not occur to those who participated in the December workshop to demand or ask that the unions be involved, if not immediately then in future. (I say “evidently” because I have heard nothing from any leadership, including faculty leadership—two academic senate officers attended the workshop—about this oversight.)
• Board Policies have been wielded against vocal critics of college and district officials (et al.) previously. In 1998, I was called into the Chancellor’s office and told that a letter would be placed in my personnel file. It stated that, in my newsletters (Dissent and The ‘Vine), I had violated the district’s “workplace violence” and anti-discrimination policies. (I protested, but to no avail.) I was ordered to cease violating those policies in my writings. I took the matter to federal court and prevailed. Judge Manella described the district's actions as “Orwellian.” Judge Feess, who took over the case, stated that the district was stretching policies (one of which he declared unconstitutional in itself) simply in order to silence a “vigorous critic.” He said that my writings were plainly protected by the 1st Amendment. The letter was removed from my file. (See “Make things nicer!” and Roy Bauer’s 1st Amendment Battles or "One Gadfly, One Gadfly Swatter")
• The civility report was initially distributed in a fashion that made it easy for faculty (and perhaps others) to overlook. I cleaned up the messy emailed copy and made the entire report available as a DtB post. I distributed the url to all members of my School. Among them is Lewis Long, the President of the Faculty Association (faculty union).
• Upon reading the report, Lewis immediately wrote IVC administration, objecting to their failure to include union representatives in the Working Group (he called it a “serious omission”) and strongly objecting to the above-mentioned Disciplining Incivility (DI) notion among other elements contained in the “civility statement” of the report. (Lewis also noted the inclusion of reference to “training the recidivists” in the report.)
• I am told that Lewis has now been made a “co-facilitator” of the Working Group.

Not long ago, the IVC Senate supported free speech and
successfully fought administrative & district overreach
—even in court! A golden era of senate leadership

     Last Thursday, I emailed the President of the IVC Academic Senate, Lisa Davis Allen (a workshop participant), asking if it would not be wise to agendize the inclusion of DI in the civility statement of the report:

I'm assuming that you are as appalled as I am by that paragraph and especially its direction that supervisors note "uncivil behaviors" "within the process of evaluation or progressive discipline." Might we therefore add an agenda item about this?

     In the five days since I sent that email, I have not heard back from her. But, today, I did receive the agenda for Thursday’s meeting of (the Rep Council of the) Academic Senate. Item 14 is the following:

Statement on Civility and Mutual Respect
H&L Senator Roy Bauer will present his concerns on the Statement of Civility and Mutual Concern [sic].

     My concerns?
     I’m not sure what to make of this. Am I to assume that my “concerns” are not shared by LDA or the senate cabinet? Dunno.
     I’ve apprised Lewis and the members of my School of these developments.
     And now I've apprised you, dear reader.

For previous posts in this series, see top of left sidebar.

What does academe think of speech/civility codes? The AAUP’s statement

On Freedom of Expression and Campus Speech Codes

     The statement that follows was approved by the Association’s Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure in June 1992 and adopted by the Association’s Council in November 1994.

[Excerpts:]

…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.

…[R]ules 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—and racial or ethnic slurs, sexist epithets, or homophobic insults almost always express ideas, however repugnant. Indeed, by proscribing any ideas, a university sets an example that profoundly disserves its academic mission.

...But freedom of expression requires toleration of “ideas we hate,” as Justice Holmes put it. The underlying principle does not change because the demand is to silence a hateful speaker, or because it comes from within the academy. Free speech is not simply an aspect of the educational enterprise to be weighed against other desirable ends. It is the very precondition of the academic enterprise itself. [END]

2003: VPI White forbade instructors'
discussing the Iraq War in the classroom.
(Some had been criticizing the invasion,
upsetting some students.) The matter
faded without resolution.
Ask Glenn about it!

     Of course, at IVC, as far as I know, nobody is being accused of racist or "hate" speech.
     Bullying seems to occur on our campus. I've made inquiries, and the most persistent claims of bullying seem to center largely on some, um, administrators.
     I'm certain that there are some in our benighted corner of the world who view me (or even my journalistic partner Rebel Girl) as a bully. After all these years of writing about the district and the colleges, I know this: some people at this college are remarkably thin-skinned. Criticize them to any extent, and they go apeshit.
     I recall a colleague who responded to my gentle jibes (really) about xx xxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxx with colossal shriekage and accusations that I was endangering the existence of her program. (—It was something about how a certain trustee might find out that the xxxx of xxxx have some decidedly unconservative ideas! Ridiculous.) I reminded her that we worked at a college—that, in such a place, there can and should be disagreement and debate and dialogue.
     And, yes, there should even be criticism. Imagine!
     That seemed to go nowhere with her. My mild and playful remarks about xxxx were, to her, an assault completely incompatible with civility and, I suppose, civilization. (She's a Republican from xxxxx. Maybe they don't have free speech there. Could be.)
     Over the years, I have occasionally reminded readers that WE INVITE SUBMISSIONS FROM PERSONS WITH OPPOSING VIEWS. We always have done so. We do so now. We've often declared that we seek correction of errors—that we welcome a chance to set the record straight, if we have been in error. We've consistently bent over backwards in this regard. We really try to be fair and honest and to encourage debate (though not with loutish 13-year-olds).
     It is often said, and we at DtB certainly agree, that the best response to speech one hates is "more speech."

Years ago, a certain IVC administrator took this painting down because, he said,
its presence exposed the college to sexual harassment complaints/suits

Don at work

Bill puts $100,000 cap on future state and local pensions (SacBee)

     Assemblyman Donald Wagner has introduced a bill that would cap state and local pensions.
     The Irvine Republican's measure, AB 1633, would cap pensions for workers who don't participate in Social Security at $100,000 per year. Workers who do participate in the federal program couldn't receive more than $80,000 per year from a state or local pension….

O.C. lawmaker wants to cap pensions at $100K (OC Reg)

“Monstrosity”

     MATHUR AS PARIAH. Seems like everyone but me attended Thursday’s memorial ceremony for Richard McCullough at Saddleback College’s McKinney Theater. Friends, including Saddlebackians, are telling me that the event, which was well attended, was all that it could be, marred only briefly by a couple of bigwigs who insisted on speaking, despite not being on the program (there was an opportunity for “others” to speak, a category apparently not good enough for said bigwigs).
     I’m told that, to everyone’s surprise, former Chancellor Raghu P. Mathur (who ousted McCullough as SC Prez) attended the ceremony, although I’ve been assured that, if you look up the word “pariah” in one of those illustrated dictionaries, you’ll see a picture of Raghu sitting alone in the otherwise packed McKinney auditorium.
     To everyone’s relief, the fellow did not speak.

"...low-level entertainers...."

     IVC DOES TED. Denizens of IVC just received an email from IVC President Glenn Roquemore announcing that,

On Wednesday, February 29 from 8:00 a.m. to 6:45 p.m., IVC will host
TEDxIVC Live
The Live Simulcast event will be held in the IVC Performing Arts Center.

     Um, what on Earth does all this mean?
     Well, according to Wikipedia, TED, which stands for “Technology, Entertainment, and Design,”

is a … set of conferences ... formed to disseminate "ideas worth spreading".
     TED was founded in 1984 as a one-off event and the conference was held annually from 1990 in Monterey, California. TED's early emphasis was largely technology and design.... The events are now held in Long Beach and Palm Springs in the U.S. and in Europe and Asia, offering live streaming of the talks. They address an increasingly wide range of topics within the research and practice of science and culture. The speakers are given a maximum of 18 minutes to present their ideas in the most innovative and engaging ways they can. Past presenters include Bill Clinton, Jane Goodall, Malcolm Gladwell, Al Gore, Gordon Brown, Richard Dawkins, Bill Gates, educator Salman Khan, Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, and many Nobel Prize winners….
. . .
     Since June 2006, the talks have been offered for free viewing online…. As of November 2011, over 1,050 talks are available free online….
     TED grants licenses to third parties to hold free TEDx events in cities around the world.
. . .
     According to TED these franchised events were "created in the spirit of TED's mission, "ideas worth spreading." The program is designed to give communities, organizations and individuals the opportunity to stimulate dialogue through TED-like experiences at the local level...TEDx events are fully planned and coordinated independently, on a community-by-community basis."

Glenn

     I’ve been only vaguely aware of these TED conferences. I’ve seen some of these 18-minute wonders, and some of ‘em strike me as pretty dang flaky. They remind me of some of the crap we used to get jazzed about back in my college days. –You know, Bucky Fuller, thinking away hunger, that sort of thing.
     Naturally, TED has been criticized. Again, according to Wikipedia,

[influential Lebanese American academic and essayist] Nassim Taleb criticized TED for intellectual dishonesty and lack of substance in the latest edition of The Black Swan (2010). He calls TED a “monstrosity that turns scientists and thinkers into low-level entertainers, like circus performers.” 

     I don’t wanna be a stick-in-the-mud, but I’m guessing Taleb is onto something.
     But that doesn't mean that this TEDx event won't be fun.
     Well, here’s what’s on tap, TEDwise, in a couple of weeks:

     If you've got nothing better to do, you might research these speakers and identify those that are leftists. Then read the Lefty list at the next board meeting, being sure to highlight their leftular accomplishments.

     Then watch Glenn.

     What fun.

Roquemorean tales, part 2: "principles schminciples"

From early 2008. Pressure group manages to force Rocky and His Friends
to take down all those flags in the Student Services Center.

Glenn Roquemore

"Irvine Valley College has removed the Vietnamese flag from an atrium display of flags from all over the world, in response to threats by Vietnamese immigrants in the area to hold a protest of what they view as an inappropriate honor for the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, The Orange County Register reported. A spokeswoman said that the college was trying to be 'considerate.'" 

—Inside Higher Ed, Feb. 27, 2008

SEE ALSO Roquemorean tales, Part 1