One step forward, two steps back: Roquemore's clueless announcement

     After the Academic Senate meeting of two weeks ago, in which Senators expressed unanimous concern about new developments in the administration’s “civility initiative,” one would have thought that IVC Prez Glenn Roquemore and Co. would take a step back. —Maybe gently apply the brakes. Offer some assurances perhaps.
     But no.
     At that meeting, senators agreed that certain elements of the notorious Feb. 2 "civility report"—e.g., the notion that any “incivility” of employees should be noted by supervisors and included in employee evaluations!—were counterproductive, civility-wise. There seemed to be agreement that the very idea of enforcing civility via a "civility statement" or district policy was a move in the wrong direction, especially considering our college's benighted history, which has left conscious employees in an ongoing state of suspicion and distrust—that, instead, we’d achieve what we really wanted by making our college a place where employees can speak up without fear of retaliation.
     So you’d think that IVC Prez Glenn Roquemore would modify his rhetoric a bit, maybe communicate assurances that the "civility" initiative is a thing warm and fuzzy.
     No such luck.
     Here’s the latest “communication” from our “leader":

TO: All Members of the IVC Community

FROM: Glenn R. Roquemore, PhD, President

RE: Open Meeting March 23 on Civility and Mutual Respect

DATE: March 2, 2012

On December 16, 2011, the Working Group on Civility and Mutual Respect was formed in response to District-wide Goal 1, “SOCCCD will create a district-wide culture which is characterized by mutual respect and collaboration and which celebrates the uniqueness of each institution.” In addition, District-wide Planning Objective 1.1.3 states, “Draft a Board policy on mutual respect and forward for BPARC review.” It is expected that the Working Group on Civility and Mutual Respect will engage the campus community in dialog regarding campus and district civility and mutual respect and develop a statement that is intended to contribute to the development of a Board Policy on mutual respect.

On Friday, March 23, 2012, from 12:30 to 5 p.m. in room BSTIC 101, the second meeting of the IVC Working Group on Civility and Mutual Respect will be held. This meeting is an open forum and everyone in the IVC community is encouraged to participate. Please arrive at 12:30 p.m. for refreshments and informal conversation. At 1:00 p.m. sharp the meeting will begin.

The meeting will be facilitated by a five-person team. Professor Lewis Long, President of the IVC Faculty Association, will be joining the four persons who facilitated the first meeting on December 16th: Classified Senate President Dennis Gordon; Faculty Senate Vice-President Jeff Kaufmann; Dean Keith (Shack) Shackleford; and John Spevak, a member of the College Brain Trust.

The facilitators will review the prioritized comments and suggestions made on December 16 (see attached) and use them as a starting point for crafting recommendations to the District's Board Policy and Administrative Regulations Committee. We will also create an action plan with specific steps to develop a culture of mutual respect and civility within the IVC community.

I will be sending another email between now and March 23, with additional information, including an agenda for the meeting.

The facilitation team and I believe this upcoming meeting will be an opportunity for an open and honest discussion about creating an environment which will enable us to accomplish positive things for the IVC community, in both the near and extended future.

If you have any questions or comments, please send them to me or to any or all members of the facilitation team. The email addresses are groquemore@ivc.edu;dgordon@ivc.edu; jkaufmann@ivc.edu; llong@ivc.edu; kshackleford@ivc.edu; john.spevak@gmail.com.

Thank you.

Very Respectfully,
Glenn R. Roquemore, Ph.D.

     It's as if the Feb. 16 meeting never happened.
     Commissar Roquemore can't even get his facts straight. He says the working group was formed on Dec. 16. According to the “Civility” report sent out by VPI Justice on Feb. 2, “the IVC Working Group on Civility… had met … on October 17, 2011....” Thus, by the time of the Dec. 16 “workshop,” the Working Group had already existed for two months, which was more than enough time for folks to figure out that no faculty union rep was included—and, indeed, that the very idea of drafting a civility statement is clueless and oblivious to fairly recent history, including our own.
     But why schedule this third meeting for a Friday—a day almost guaranteed to minimize participation by Friday-phobic IVC faculty? Roquemore might as well announce that Raghu Mathur and Tom Fuentes will be there to take pictures with your kids!
     Has the massive application of brakes that occurred at the Feb. 16 Senate meeting—a meeting attended by VPI Craig Justice, who seemed agreeable to senators' sentiments—been forgotten? How can that be?
     What on Earth is going on here?
     My God, these people are freakin’ unbelievable.

It's Art!

from this morning's New York Times:


2012 Whitney Biennial: A dancer in Sarah Michelson's "Devotion Study #1 - The American Dancer."

*

Scholarship program woes: a complete overhaul

     At Thursday’s meeting of the Irvine Valley College Academic Senate (Rep Council), senators and visitors (including Richard Morley, recently-hired Foundation Director, and Darryl Cox, long-time Director of Financial Aid) discussed IVC’s troubled Scholarship Program, which has been the object of much criticism recently—and, indeed, for years.
     The scholarship program has grown quickly over the last dozen or so years, so much so that it became necessary to purchase a computer program called STARS (Stars Online?). Unfortunately, employing STARS has been a case of fitting a “square peg into a round hole.” One difficulty evidently concerns entry of faculty letters of recommendation into the system.
     That was bad enough. Then, very recently, it came to light that IVC’s scholarship system is possibly out of compliance with state and federal standards—specifically with regard to awarding scholarships to “protected classes.” The college received an 18-page legal opinion that lays out the issues. That was in early February (the district had received the opinion in December). The letter’s arrival sparked a mad scramble to tweak the computer program, yielding some recent snafus.
     Nevertheless, we seem to have cobbled together a fix that allows us to move forward for now.

Richard Morley

     As things now stand, scholarships can be earmarked to specific groups, but because we are a public college, we may not disperse by class; hence, we will work with donors to adjust the language in reference to protected categories. The scholarship pool is chosen with donor criteria and scores on students’ written essay. These essays, Morley explained, are scored on the basis of content only, read by a “highly trained,” monitored, broad-based committee of faculty, staff and community. Applicant can submit letters of recommendation. Donor criteria and essay score determine applicant pool ranking for each scholarship. Donors are then involved in an advisory role. The scholarship committee recommends final awards to the foundation board of governors.
     During yesterday’s Senate discussion, I questioned the purported “objectivity” of the process’s approach to the student essay, given that there is no mechanism for determining the accuracy of its “content.” (I also questioned whether essays can be read without regard to “style.”) My colleague, Melanie, also questioned the “content, not style” provision, noting that some students’ poor writing skills prevent them from adequately conveying their points. Others noted the difficulty of writing letters of recommendation without reference to the student’s sex (and other protected categories). Biologists at the meeting noted that they have received very few requests for letters from students this year.

Darryl Cox

     It appears that the current system relies heavily on assessment of the student essay—a rather dubious document—and much less so on (more reliable) faculty letters of recommendation, which are not even required.
     Recognizing legal constraints, I nevertheless questioned the adequacy of such an approach. Some, during discussion, noted that faculty letters can compensate for inadequacies in student essays—e.g., stating relevant facts that students might fail to recognize as important.
     In the end, a member of the cabinet motioned to assemble a task force (housed under the Academic Affairs committee) to overhaul the entire process. The senate supported the motion unanimously.
     That, I think, is a good outcome.
     Naturally, the product of that overhaul will come too late to apply to this year’s process. (I wish to thank Melanie H, whose notes formed the basis of some of the above.)

Trying (and failing) to be all things to all people

Community colleges: $6.4 billion buys confusion (OC Reg; OC Watchdog)

Constance Carroll (one-time
Saddleback College President)

     What is California hoping to buy with the $6.4 billion it spends each year on community colleges?
Remedial academics? College prep? Vocational instruction? ‘Educational enrichment’?
     The answer is “yes” — and that is the root of many problems plaguing the California Community Collegesystem, according to a new report by the Little Hoover Commission, the independent state watchdog.
     California’s Community College system is the nation’s largest college system, with 112 campuses governed by72 districts and more than 2.6 million students. In Orange County, that includes Cypress, Fullerton, Orange Coast, Irvine Valley, Coastline, Santa Ana, Golden West, Santiago Canyon and Saddleback community colleges, with tens of thousands of students.
     “(T)he community colleges have opened doors to people who want to improve the quality of their lives by earning more income, building skills to run a business, excelling in careers, being better parents, or taking another chance to realize their dreams and fulfill their potential,” the Little Hoover Commission said. “Yet, the Commission found that in trying to be all things to everyone, community colleges are coming up short for many.
     “In this study, the Commission found that the state lacks a clear, uniform set of goals for its community college system and campuses. Too many students leave without accomplishing what they set out to achieve, whether learning new job skills or completing a certificate or degree program. Too many are unprepared for college-level work and do not receive adequate guidance to help them make up their educational deficits. At the same time, many students are hobbled in their progress by system policies that encourage campuses to increase enrollment at the expense of the services and supports that can help students move through the system and on with their lives. The result is that community colleges are rationing access, but not in a rational way, putting students on waiting lists who are prepared to succeed at college-level work. In making its recommendations, the Commission envisions a system that asks more of students, but asks more of colleges as well in supporting students and helping them move up and out of the system.”
     While the colleges pride themselves on serving as “a critical entry point to higher education” — particularly for low-income and minority students who otherwise might not pursue college — studies have found that only 3.3 percent of students actually managed to earn a certificate, and and only 7.9 percent earned an associate’s degree. Nearly 23 percent transferred.
     A big problem: Community colleges are open to, and must accept, all comers.
     “Unlike the state’s four year universities, California Community Colleges operate as open institutions, by law admitting ‘any California resident who possesses a high school diploma’ or anyone 18 years of age or older ‘who is capable of profiting from the instruction offered.’”
     But graduating from high school doesn’t mean students are ready for college work.
     “As long as it is acceptable for students to pass the [California high school exit exam] with 10th grade English and 8th grade math skills, we will have problems,” San Diego Community College District Chancellor Constance Carroll told the Commission.
     The Little Hoover Commission makes a long list of suggestions on how to fix things — from reforming enrollment, funding and governing systems to, essentially, deciding what community colleges want to be when they grow up….

One of Don's friends makes an announcement

Arpaio with tallish friend

Sheriff Arpaio: Obama birth certificate is forgery (OC Reg)

     Controversial Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio today announced that his investigators believe President Barack Obama‘s birth certificate and Selective Service card are forgeries….
. . .
     Numerous fact checkers have verified Obama’s birthplace, and Hawaii’s top health official announced that she confirmed he was born there....

After all that, I bet that gal had a killer headache.
Not sure about the dancing, but the song works for me.

Excuses, excuses.

Click on graphic to enlarge

Listening?

With regard to the “horse mask” episode:

     THIS IS ONE in a series of episodes that point to inadequacies in our college’s approach to situations that endanger staff.
     You’ll recall an episode in November of 2010 in which, one evening, a manifestly disturbed student with a history of mental health issues menacingly wandered near faculty offices, carrying scissors. Our (resourceful and wise) dean was away visiting relatives, and so it was left to the remaining administrative crew to handle the situation.
     To make a long story short, the situation was handled badly, in part because legitimate faculty concerns were not always taken seriously. (It was hard to watch: a fine new hire suddenly feeling unsafe and alone, unprotected by her institution. We did what we could to reassure her and even to protect her. But it was "us" vs. administration for a while there. Admittedly, part of the problem was laws that protect the rights of the mentally ill.)
     (See More criticism for IVC administration and Running with scissors).
     In this recent case, an instructor reported an odd incident that, as it turns out, involved no threat of danger (near as anyone can tell), but that, in the absence of knowledge of what was occurring (namely, a sociology assignment gone wrong), was truly worrisome.
     Again: four young men suddenly entered a classroom in mid-lecture. When they were asked to identify themselves—one kid wore a horse mask—they were unresponsive. Eventually, the instructor, who is very experienced, got the four young men to leave the room without further incident. He then dutifully advised his dean of the episode and filed the appropriate paperwork. He received an obnoxious CYA letter from the head of the Sociology Dept., a woman who exhibited little interest in taking responsibility for the situation. Meanwhile, faculty were assured that the four young men were adequately dealt with (in a manner left unexplained) by a certain Dean—one notorious for piss-poor judgment.

Sociologists understand people,
they neigh

     We at DtB see, not just an isolated incident, but a pattern. One common element in the day-to-day affairs at IVC of recent years is administrative unwillingness to take faculty concerns seriously. In this case, the trouble-makers showed very poor judgment (and/or callousness, etc.) but they were not truly dangerous. But there was no way for the instructor to know that when he observed these young men entering his classroom. The situation would have been alarming to anyone.
     At this point, many faculty are unconvinced that administration understands this.
     And the notion that the problematic dean has things under control—well, it just won’t do. She is stunningly incompetent. Many of us continually ask: Why has this person been protected by her superiors all these years? What on Earth is going on here? Surely, more competent administrators are available! (And, no, we're not referring merely to her daft "lock the door" advice. That's a mere drop in a full bucket.)
     I and other faculty have no faith whatsoever in this administrator’s ability to handle these situations adequately and professionally. If our assessment is just, then, as Rebel Girl recently said to me, it is only a matter of time before something serious finally happens on this campus. I've got to agree.
     Are you listening, administrators?
     (Of course you’re not listening.)
     After the “scissors” episode, faced with administrative unresponsiveness, some of us took our concerns about the inadequacy of the college’s approach to faculty security to the Academic Senate.
     That seems to have gone nowhere. Assurances were made—ultimately by VPs, the police chief, et al. But Dean Incompetence has a key role still. Meanwhile, our police chief is retiring [This is a false rumor.] and that means we’re in for another transition with regard to how best to approach security.
     Trustees? Chancellor? Are you listening?

A few related points:

Uh-oh

• As far as I know, faculty have long been told NOT to call 911 but always to call the campus police, in the event of an emergency.
• According to the aforementioned letter, sociology students are always instructed to conduct their norm-violating “experiments” off campus.
• Not all classrooms can be locked from the inside. But there are several obvious reasons not to lock them about which Dean Incompetence seems oblivious.
• This might not be clear from the "outside": college instructors naturally do not want to call in the police (or other authorities) unless it is really necessary, for they typically approach their courses as autonomous leaders of classes—as pedagogical auteurs, so to speak. That one has called in the cops means that one has lost control, that one needs help.
• Experienced teachers are often good at sizing up instigators of disruption and dealing with them on their own. I have been teaching at IVC for over twenty-five years, and I have been forced to deal with disruption on numerous occasions; but I was compelled to call in a campus cop only once. My case is typical, I believe.
• Obviously, one could easily institute procedures that would be too sensitive, yielding numerous (highly disruptive) calls for police, most of them false alarms. On the other hand, one could easily institute lax approaches and procedures that do not sufficiently deal with hazards. Getting this right isn't easy.