In Defense of Community Colleges

In response to President Trump's inability to recognize the value of community colleges or even understand the role they play in higher education, we at Dissent received this spirited defense of the community college with which we share with you:

In Defense of Community Colleges
by Mary Harris

Mary Harris

Think what you like about the person with this opinion. I'm sure you already know what I think about him.

But maybe you don't know what I think about community colleges. Buckle up, kids, because I have OPINIONS and they’re about three pages long (after editing down).

As the author, Wong, points out, these places serve the students who might not otherwise have a shot at college, because we’re affordable and accessible. What she doesn’t really tell you is who these students are, and why we exist for them. Let me fill you in.

First, I want to clear something up. Just because we’re open access doesn’t mean we’re for “dumb” kids. In fact, let me tell you something about “dumb” kids, the kids who don’t pass tests, the kids who don’t do their homework.

Yes. Some of them, some small percentage, really have cognitive defects or disabilities. We work, sometimes, with people who have no other place to go, because they’re too advanced for the child-care like group homes available to them, but don’t have the skills/abilities to join the workforce. For them, we’re a space where they can be safe and feel like part of a community, even if they’re going to fail our classes every time. Even if, say, we’re a little embarrassed when they loudly announce to the whole writing center that they’re scared of working with you because they’ve read your “Rate my professor” and everyone says you’re really tough. They deserve the chance to try, and the chance to hang out with neurotypicals (if that’s what they want), and the chance to fit into our society. COMMUNITY COLLEGE gives them that chance.

Or take a student like Flower (names have been changed); let’s talk about her. She was in her forties. The first time I sat down with her in the writing center, I thought, “Oh, man, here we go. This is going to be IMPOSSIBLE.” She’d been in a car accident, suffered a traumatic brain injury, and she just didn’t get SO MUCH. She failed. I think she failed every damned course we offered at least once. But you know what? She was in the center every. single. day. She busted her butt. She read, and she asked, and she wrote, and she asked, and we talked and talked, and everyone in the center worked with her, and then…She did it, eventually. She passed WR2, one of our hardest courses, and she got into a sophisticated research university’s psych program. This is a woman who woke up one day who literally couldn’t read anymore, who worked her way back up that ladder of learning and made it. Why? BECAUSE OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE.

Then there’s the other “dumb” kids. These are the ones who went to schools where—thanks to our funding structure of property taxes supporting public education—they didn’t have any books to take home. Maybe they got to share an outdated textbook about history with a classmate or two during class, but they couldn’t read up on their own, they might not have had internet service at home (YES, that’s really still a thing), or worse still, they might not really have had a secure home to go back to. Maybe their parents are addicted, or missing, or working two low-wage jobs to try and just get food on the table for their families and a roof over their heads, and they can’t ask for help on their homework. Maybe they—and I have worked with students for whom this is true—didn’t do the reading because they can’t afford the textbook. Or they didn’t print their homework because they LITERALLY live in their car. Where do you think kids like that can afford to go, or where can they get accepted? COMMUNITY COLLEGE.

Oh, sure, you’re thinking, you bleeding heart liberal—blame everything on the system, but never the students. What about those LAZY kids?

Yeah, what about those lazy kids? Do they exist? Yes. I’m not an idiot. Sometimes, when they don’t do their homework or study for the test, it’s laziness. Pure and simple, they didn’t do it. Maybe they’re super smart, but coasted through high school and now they’re “stuck” at community college because they didn’t apply themselves.

Maybe, like Amy, dad died while she was in high school of some horrible disease, and understandably, the kid didn’t bother about school so much. She had the time. She had the ability. But she didn’t do it. Maybe, like Jim, he listened to his parents compare him every day to his older brother, who always aced everything. Jim didn’t ace anything. He busted his butt early on, but he just didn’t get it, and he got tired of being compared to Johnny and failing when he was working hard, so he decided to skip the working hard part and just fail. Maybe, like Greg, he just didn’t give a crap during high school, but after graduation, he realized the world wants some kind of degree now. Maybe he still has those old habits.

But you know what, in COMMUNITY COLLEGE you get another shot. You get to show up, like Amy, and realize that studying literature makes you feel better. You read about all these other people who struggled and a lot of times made it, and you start thinking you’re going to be okay, and you start reading and contributing. Maybe you’re Jim, and you come to college because your folks won’t get off your back, and you run into some hardass professor who won’t let you slack off, and you struggle, but you can’t stand that prof asking you one more time what’s wrong and why you’re not trying, so you give it a shot, and you do something right, and maybe you’re never going to be Johnny, but you can be okay. Maybe you’re Greg and you show up and you flunk your first semester, and they put you on academic probation, and you flunk most of your classes second semester, but it’s COMMUNITY COLLEGE, so they give you another shot, and you take a cooking class because it sounds easy and holy shit, you discover you really enjoy this. And you take a couple more, then ask one of your profs to help you write a letter to get into the Cordon Bleu program, and you make it, and you go on to work as a pretty great chef in a pretty great restaurant in LA.

And it’s not just kids, kids. How about Jane, who already had a job, who showed up in my creative writing class because her boss at work—for a software company where she helped out with their media image—didn’t like her writing. I expressed some concern: maybe she should have been at another college studying technical writing. But she wanted it to be fun. So she came to COMMUNITY COLLEGE because classes were cheap and she didn’t have to wait around to be accepted, and she could take classes in the evening after work. She read about poetry and fiction and creative nonfiction. She practiced different kinds of writing, and started studying her favorite podcasts like a writer, then presented podcast writing to us. By the end of the semester, her boss was trusting her with FIVE times as many projects, and she was up for a promotion.

Because I started teaching while I was working on my MFA and PhD, I’ve taught in some pretty primo research universities. The students we have are usually just as good. They’re here, at COMMUNITY COLLEGE, because something—money, family, jobs, prior situations—kept them out of what…“real” college? Maybe they weren’t sure about college and didn’t apply, and then they’re stuck alone while all their friends go off somewhere else, so they sign up, last minute, for classes with us. Maybe she got pregnant early and she’s been waiting till her kid was in school to get back to school herself. Maybe he was terrified of college, and this seemed like a good (cheap) way to test it out.

Proud father of gradaute.

Are we perfect? No. We still let way too many people slip through the cracks. We’re constantly trying to figure out how to have plenty of opportunities for all students but to run efficiently. And when you look at our “completion rate” numbers, they probably look abysmal. But those numbers hide a lot of real, human stories—real need, real suffering, and real triumphs. Vocational education is—or can be—fine. I think plenty of people who are in college would be much happier and much more fulfilled, and would better serve our society, by learning a trade. But you cannot convince me, not for a single second, that we should take the CHANCE at college out of the hands of anyone. COMMUNITY COLLEGE represents that chance and I couldn’t be more proud to work in one, more proud of the students who work here with me, and more proud of a country that supports everyone having that chance.

President Trump opines. 

"I don't know what that means, 'community college'...."

"I don't know what that means, 'community college'...."

Donald Trump Doesn't Understand Community Colleges (The Atlantic)
In a speech on Thursday, he revealed he doesn't appreciate the vital role they play in the country's education system and economy.

     During a speech on Thursday, President Trump revealed a striking ignorance of one of the pillars of his country’s educational system. In the course of promoting his infrastructure plan, he, a bit perplexingly, dismissed the country’s community colleges, suggesting he doesn’t know what purpose they serve. “We do not know what a ‘community college’ means,” he told the crowd in an Ohio training facility for construction apprentices, moments after expressing nostalgia for the vocational schools that flourished when he was growing up—schools that offered hands-on training in fields such as welding and cosmetology….

OC: land of corruption (even without Tom's help)

The Trumpster responding to recent events.

     "Brave citizens"? Try "corrupt creeps."

     Trump's referring to members of the City Council in Los Alamitos and especially the OC Board of Supes, both of whom voted to join Sessions' lawsuit against California's sanctuary law.

     To get a sense of the longstanding love of corruption in OC—something we've written about for years—consider the saga of the OC "Ethics Commission" and the Supes' never-ending efforts to prevent or undermine such oversight.

     (They're all Republicans.)

     It's enough to gag a maggot!

● Smoller/Grindle: Time is Now for an Ethics Commission

(Voice of OC, June 24, 2015)

Shirley Grindle

     Orange County is the only major metropolitan jurisdiction in California that does not have an Ethics Commission….

     These oversight groups were established because of the need to properly enforce local campaign contribution limits. They also oversee conflicts of interest, lobbyist activities and gifting of public officials.
 
     The Orange County Grand Jury and private individuals have repeatedly asked the Orange County Board of Supervisors to set up an Ethics Commission but the Supervisors have steadfastly refused.


     The need for an Ethics Commission is vividly illustrated by the felony conviction of former Sheriff Mike Carona, which took federal authorities to bring about, and the sexual harassment charges against Carlos Bustamante, the former head of the Public Works Department and former Santa Ana City Councilman. These charges festered for years because the victims, who were county employees, were reluctant to report the offenses because they feared retaliation.


     Recently, the entire District Attorney’s office was disqualified from prosecuting an admitted mass murderer by a Superior Court Judge because it illegally used jailhouse informants and hid information from the defense.


     A scandal is presently brewing in the OCParks department in which top officials are accused of awarding contracts to friends. Independent auditors have said the county’s in-house investigation will be disqualified because it is “riddled with serious conflicts of interest.”


     Also, there is currently little enforcement of the county’s Campaign Reform Ordinance (TINCUP) by the District Attorney.


     Nor is there any oversight of either the Gift Ban or the Lobbyist Registration Ordinances.


     And there is no recourse available, other than the District Attorney’s office, to file any complaint of ethics violations.


     For these reasons, a group of citizens have written an ordinance to establish an independent, non-partisan Ethics Commission tasked with overseeing ethics and campaign law violations by county elected and appointed officials and county employees.


. . .


     This group will request the Board of Supervisors to place this ordinance on the November 2016 ballot.

● Shirley Gets Her Wish: Ethics Commission Plan Will Go Before Voters

(Voice of OC, October 21, 2015)

     With a 4-1 vote Tuesday, the Orange County Board of Supervisors put a proposal for an ethics commission on the June ballot, and in doing so gave local voters a chance to make OC the largest county in California with an added layer of political accountability.

     It was a major win for political watchdog Shirley Grindle, who – with her tens of thousands of index cards documenting political contributions – has for over 15 years single-handedly enforced the campaign finance law she authored in the late 1970s.

. . .

     When the item was approved, Grindle became overwhelmed with emotion, her eyes tearing up as she placed her face into her hands.

. . .

     Beyond [Supervisor Michelle] Steel, opposition also came from Steve Rocco, an eccentric figure in local politics who served as a board member at the Orange Unified School District.

. . .

     If approved by voters in June, the five-member commission would be tasked with enforcing campaign contribution limits on countywide elected officials, as well as the county’s gift ban, lobbyist registry, and certain parts of the county’s ethics code.

● Countywide Ethics Commission Overwhelmingly Approved [by Voters] 

(Voice of OC, June 7, 2016)

John "Corruption AND Stupidity" Williams

     Three years after a county grand jury recommended creation of an ethics commission to increase public confidence in local government, Orange County voters approved it overwhelmingly.

     With 100 percent of precincts reporting, 70 percent of voters were in favor of the proposal.

. . .

     In April, 2013, the grand jury reported … “It is evident to the Grand Jury that some employees at all levels of county government are unable or unwilling to learn from the mistakes of the past.”

     Decade after decade since the early 1970s, Orange County has been rocked by one political scandal after another that sent to prison members of the Board of Supervisors, the sheriff, a member of Congress, some of the state’s biggest political donors and dozens of others.

     In addition, the county declared bankruptcy in 1994, which at the time was the largest in the nation by a government body.

     “Sadly,” the grand jury reported, “it is the Grand Jury’s hypothesis that untoward behavior continues and is actively festering in today’s political environment. In point of fact, this and several other studies conducted by the 2012-2013 Grand Jury address the fact that corruption has permeated all levels of the organization, and does not apply only to elected officials positioned visibly in the public eye.”

● OC Supervisors Have Chosen an Ethics Director

(Voice of OC, March 10, 2017)

Steel

     Nine months after Orange County voters overwhelmingly approved an ethics commission to enforce county-level campaign finance and lobbying laws, the Board of Supervisors has taken the first step toward its creation: picking an executive director.

     A county staff report quietly posted online Wednesday shows they chose Denah Hoard, the senior assistant city attorney for Orange.

. . .

     For years, ethics advocates have complained about lax enforcement of the campaign finance rules by District Attorney Tony Rackauckas’ office.

     "The District Attorney’s office has shown little interest in enforcing voter-approved campaign finance violations," the county grand jury declared in a report. Rackauckas' office has disputed the allegation.

     Supervisors were pressured into putting the commission before voters by [corruption watchdog Shirley] Grindle and other activists, who had threatened to collect enough signatures to put their own ethics commission proposal on the ballot.

. . .

     …Grindle has been frustrated at how long it’s taking supervisors to set up the commission.

     Voters approved it nine months ago at the June primary election, with the commission gaining the support of nearly 70 percent of the vote. Then, the November election campaign came and went without a commission to monitor campaign finance limits.

. . .

     “I think they’re dragging their feet, big time,” Grindle said. “The voters voted on this, the first part of June last year. And here we are…nine months to get an executive director.”

     “We’ll see if it takes 'em another nine months to appoint the commissioners.”

     The supervisors’ chairwoman, Michelle Steel [who opposed the ethics commission], didn’t return a message through a spokeswoman asking when the commission will be established.

. . .

     For years, Grindle has nearly single-handedly tracked campaign contributions to county candidates and called out violations of the county’s campaign finance limit law, known as TIN CUP, which she co-authored in the 1970s. The name stands for Time Is Now, Clean Up Politics.

● OC Supervisors Seek More Power Over Ethics Commission, By Changing What Voters Approved

(Voice of OC, July 10, 2017)

Do

     Orange County supervisors are preparing to change the law voters approved for a county ethics commission, in an effort to expand their influence over the panel tasked with enforcing campaign money violations by supervisors, their election opponents, and other county-level candidates.

. . .

     Supervisor Andrew Do, who supports the effort, has suggested to his colleagues that they make it so the ethics commissioners "serve at the pleasure of the supervisor" who appointed them.

. . .

     That's concerning to Shirley Grindle, who co-authored the county's campaign finance law and supported the ethics commission ballot measure.

     “If they keep trying to emphasize 'serving at the pleasure' of the board, all they’re doing is telling the public that if their commissioner voted against them on a campaign finance issue or a gift ban issue, [then] that supervisor could get rid of them," Grindle said in an interview.

. . .

     So far, three of the five supervisors – Do, Shawn Nelson and Michelle Steel – have publicly supported changing the term rules. If a fourth agrees to changes, the supervisors can make the changes without going to voters, according to their top attorney.

. . .

     While it's been more than a year since voters ordered its creation, the supervisors still haven't established the ethics commission, even as the campaign season for next year's elections is already underway. 

. . .

     “The whole idea was to make this as independent of political influence as possible. And that is not what they’re doing,” she said. By increasing their influence, she said, "that is not furthering the purposes of this commission.”

. . .

     The supervisors directed [County Counsel Leon] Page to come back with action they can take to change the rules for ethics commissioners' terms…. 

● League of Women Voters Urges Supervisors to Drop Plan to Change Ethics Commission

(Voice of OC, July 31, 2017)

     The League of Women Voters is “disappointed and dismayed” by the Board of Supervisors’ plan to give supervisors more power over the ethics commission that was approved last year by county voters and called for supervisors to back off.

     The supervisors’ plan “jeopardizes the independence of the commissioners,” Michelle Musacchio, member of an Orange County chapter of the League of Women Voters, told the Supervisors Tuesday, reading from a letter on behalf of Susan Guilford, president of both the Orange County-wide and Central Orange County chapters of the League of Women Voters….

Ethics! That's the ticket!

● Supervisors Appoint Lawyer as Second Member of Ethics Commission

(Voice of OC, August 23, 2017)

     Orange County supervisors, without discussion, on Tuesday appointed the second member of the still-unformed countywide ethics commission.

     H. Josh Ji, an attorney with Greenberg Gross LLP, was appointed unanimously after he was nominated by Supervisor Michelle Steel to serve on the Campaign Finance and Ethics Commission.

. . .

     Voters in June 2016 overwhelmingly ordered the panel created. But more than a year later, the county supervisors – who would be subject to possible enforcement penalties by the commission – have yet to form it.

     The only other commissioner appointed so far is Peter Agarwal, who inaccurately claimed in his ethics commission application that he is on the governing board of a national association, and repeatedly defended his description as accurate, despite acknowledging he doesn’t serve on the governing board but instead is one of the group’s 17,000 members.

. . .

     Voters approved specific rules for the commission’s terms of office, which require initial terms of one, two, and three years – chosen at random – in order to set up staggered three-year terms later on.

     But supervisors have wanted to change that, to potentially grant each supervisor the power to choose how long their appointee serves. This would make it so the commissioners “serve at the pleasure of the supervisor” who appointed them, Supervisor Andrew Do, who supports the changes, said last month.

. . .

     They refuse to say who has applied to serve on the ethics commission, and haven’t conducted public interviews of applicants.

     Instead, the public first learns who is up for appointment at the absolute last time that supervisors can legally wait to disclose it – the Friday afternoon before a Tuesday supervisors’ meeting….

● Ethics panel still not inspiring confidence

(OC Reg, September 20, 2017)

     More than 15 months on, and we finally have a county Ethics Commission — sort of.

     Last week, the Board of Supervisors approved the third member, Todd Spitzer’s nominee, retired Superior Court Judge Barbara Tam Nomoto-Schumann. The five-person commission now has the quorum required to hold its first meeting, as reported by Voice of OC. But it has been a bumpy road to get this far, and now we worry that much of what we warned about when cautioning a vote against the proposal seems to be coming true.

     While we sympathize with the idea, we were skeptical that any such body ultimately could avoid all improper influence. We feared that, despite its proponents’ best efforts and claims to the contrary, it could become something of a paper tiger that stifles other, perhaps more meaningful, reforms, or even serve as a political weapon.

     And while Nomoto-Schumann’s qualifications seem above reproach, others appointed have raised some eyebrows.

     “[Supervisor Shawn] Nelson appointed Peter Agarwal, a bank branch manager who falsely claimed in his ethics commission application he was on the governing board of a national association, and then defended his representation,” the Voice of OC reported. “Supervisor Michelle Steel appointed H. Josh Ji, who graduated from law school last year and was admitted to the state bar in December.”

. . .

     The better solution still seems to be demanding greater transparency from our government: empowering media watchdogs, and the Shirley Grindles of the world, to better watch over their government by improving on decades-old public record acts and disclosure requirements.

     But now that the Ethics Commission can actually get to work, there is an opportunity for its new members to prove us wrong.

SEE ALSO:

• Beauteous OC, Land o' Abiding Corruption (DtB, August 19, 2014)
• "You had me at hello," said the County gasbag (DtB, February 24, 2011)
• Uh-oh, Shawn "Ferret Face" Nelson is a member of Team Greer (aka OC's League of Corrupt Republican Thugs) (DtB, October 11, 2010)

One of my faves

Good grief, it's Orange County!

Orange County votes to join Trump administration lawsuit against California sanctuary city law
(OC Reg)
     The Orange County Board of Supervisors voted on Tuesday, March 27 to join a Trump administration lawsuit against California’s controversial sanctuary law.
     The board’s vote may mark the biggest maneuver yet in a nascent local movement against California’s law to protect people residing illegally in the country. The board announced its unanimous decision after discussing the matter during a closed session Tuesday.
     Orange County, they said, plans to join a lawsuit filed earlier this month by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions that alleges three of California’s laws are unconstitutional.
. . .
     More than 60 speakers spoke for and against the anti-sanctuary move, an issue that was dwarfed Tuesday by the county’s proposed handling of the homeless. Many hundreds of residents from Irvine, Laguna Niguel and Huntington Beach protested a plan to move to their cities homeless people who previously lived in a tent city by the Santa Ana River. Others arrived to argue compassion and demand a permanent solution. The board voted to rescind their homeless plan….

O.C. supervisors rescind vote to place homeless shelters in Irvine, Huntington Beach and Laguna Niguel
(OC Reg)
     Bowing to public backlash, Orange County supervisors on Tuesday rescinded their recent plan that could have created emergency homeless shelters in Irvine, Huntington Beach and Laguna Niguel to house up to 400 people.
     But they’re likely to replace it within weeks with a second proposal to shelter the homeless in yet-to-be-selected local cities.
     The board’s unanimous vote, which undid its March 19 approval of a three-city homeless shelter plan, came at the most crowded supervisorial meeting in recent memory. In attendance were a dozen leaders of those cities and hundreds of jeering residents, including a coordinated legion from Irvine that chartered several buses to come voice their united opposition to the project.
     Hundreds more anti-shelter protestors rallied outside the meeting, chanting, “No tent city!”

We Must Stop Orange County’s Backlash Against “Sanctuary State” Laws
(OC Weekly)
     …With Orange County Supervisor Shawn Nelson openly seeking to emulate Los Alamitos, various immigrant rights activist groups are turning out to protest at 8:30 a.m. before the board’s meeting this morning. I urge everyone who can to show up and not give the Supes one more inch to enact a harmful backlash. California has only just begun to make steps towards a human dignity that was given at birth, and never should have to be fought for. Undocumented immigrants are not going to be dragged backwards….

Skepticism about so-called “forensic science”

     Back when the National Academy of Sciences issued their landmark—and ignored—report (Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, 2009), I meant to post about the glaring problems in "forensic science"—a world to which community college's are tied. But never got around to it.
     Well, here it is at last. Check out this recent article from WashPo:


Bad science puts innocent people in jail — and keeps them there
(Washington Post)

How discredited experts and fields of forensics keep sneaking into courtrooms.

By Radley Balko and Tucker Carrington (March 21, 2018)

     …Since the onset in the 1990s of DNA testing — which, unlike most fields of forensics, was born in the scientific community — we’ve learned that many forensic specialities aren’t nearly as accurate as their practitioners have claimed. Studies from the National Academy of Sciences* and the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology have concluded that there’s insufficient research to support the claims of the broad field of “pattern matching” forensics, which includes analyses of such things as hair fiber, bite marks, “tool marks” and tire tread.
     These forensic specialties were never subjected to the rigors of scientific inquiry — double-blind testing, peer review — before they were accepted in courtrooms. Most are entirely subjective: An analyst will look at two marks or patterns and determine whether they’re a “match.” Most of these disciplines can’t even calculate a margin of error.
     The scientific process is slow and deliberate: A study is published. Other studies verify, contradict or refine its results. There’s no set point at which science declares a theory proven or disproven. It’s about the process itself and the gradual accumulation of knowledge.
. . .
     At the trial level, juries hear far too much dubious science, whether it’s an unproven field like bite mark matching or blood splatter analysis, exaggerated claims in a field like hair fiber analysis, or analysts testifying outside their area of expertise. It’s difficult to say how many convictions have involved faulty or suspect forensics, but the FBI estimated in 2015 that its hair fiber analysts had testified in about 3,000 cases — and that’s merely one subspecialty of forensics, and only at the federal level. Extrapolating from the database of DNA exonerations, the Innocence Project estimates that bad forensics contributes to about 45 percent of wrongful convictions.
. . .
     Once they’ve been convicted because of expert testimony of dubious scientific validity, defendants are usually on their own to find an attorney to challenge that evidence after the fact. And they face daunting procedural barriers. Where science questions the wisdom of the past, the legal system tends to rely on it. So once expert testimony is allowed and a verdict is rendered, the courts put a premium on finality — on precedent and consistency. At that point, even good science often can’t fix the error.
. . .
     Our courts strive for finality because, the thinking goes, if verdicts can be overturned on a whim, the public will lose faith in the integrity of the system. And if the courts were to truly reckon with the mess wrought by bad forensics, we’d see a lot of overturned verdicts, certainly enough to sow doubt about the system.
     But refusing to rectify unjust verdicts doesn’t preserve the integrity of our system, only the appearance of it. Meanwhile, innocent people remain behind bars.

     *National Academy of Sciences: "The forensic science disciplines currently are an assortment of methods and practices used in both the public and private arenas. Forensic science facilities exhibit wide variability in capacity, oversight, staffing, certification, and accreditation across federal and state jurisdictions. Too often they have inadequate educational programs, and they typically lack mandatory and enforceable standards, founded on rigorous research and testing, certification requirements, and accreditation programs. Additionally, forensic science and forensic pathology research, education, and training lack strong ties to our research universities and national science assets...." (My emphasis.)

SEE ALSO
OC Crime-Lab Boss Dodges Inquiry About Forensic-Science Flip-Flops in Murder Cases
(OC Weekly; Scott Moxley; March 28, 2018)