Dissent the Blog

Making History: the First Years of Saddleback College

noreply@blogger.com (Roy Bauer) — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:31:00 +0000

Saddleback College's original faculty (from Making History)

A couple of weeks ago, I posted about the inadequacy and incompleteness of the district’s “history” page (see The District's Undeveloped History Page). That drew a comment alerting us to a Saddleback College faculty’s recent efforts at some kind of history of her college. That was welcome news! (For the first dozen or so years of their existence, the district and Saddleback College were essentially the same entity.)
At last night’s board meeting, someone noted this project, evidently a sabbatical leave activity by the estimable Ana Maria Cobos, Librarian. He may have referred to a website that presents information about her project, but I didn’t catch the name (nor have I found the website).
Here’s what I have found.
Evidently, back in 2001, Lynn Wells and Julia Brady-Jenner produced something entitled “Making History: the First Years of Saddleback College.” (See also SC Fall 2001 In-Service.) It sounds pretty intriguing, but I’ve been unable to track it down. (Anybody have it or know where it can be found?)

I also came upon Ana Maria Cobos’ spring semester 2013 Sabbatical project (proposal) (actually, a revision of the proposal). Her goal was “to compile and publish a second edition of Making History, the oral history of Saddleback’s founding faculty that was published in 2001.” It would be entitled, “Making History, Volume 2.”
Essentially, Cobos’ project was to contact Saddleback College faculty hired between 1968 and 1979 and to ask them to “submit narratives about their experiences during their tenure at Saddleback College.” A committee would then select from those narratives to create a book, complete with graphics and pictures.
I noticed the following item in Saddleback College’s In-Service handbook for Fall 2013:

Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Saddleback College History Website; Sabbatical Report
The Saddleback College History website will be presented. The website will include resources about the college history including Making History, a volume with reminiscings from the founding faculty, video oral histories from the founding faculty, new documents submitted by faculty hired between 1969 and 1979 plus oral interviews, and new historical documents and images discovered through the project.
The Saddleback History website will continue to document the college's history. In the future, when faculty and staff retire, they will receive an invitation to be interviewed or to submit materials for the college history website.
Presented by Ana Maria Cobos, Online Ed. & Learn. Res.

SADDLEBACK COLLEGE SOUTH? A side note: I also found the following pages from “The Accreditation Self Study Report of Saddleback College,” pages 5-8. (Click on graphics to enlarge them.) I can find no attribution. See especially the history section, “Period IV.” It asserts the following:

The name of the Main Campus was changed to Saddleback College South, and a new President was appointed. The designation of the north Campus was changed to Saddleback College North.

Saddleback College was once known as "Saddleback College South"? I did not know that!

UPDATE:

AMC sent me the following:

Thanks for including info about my sabbatical project in Dissent. The original work, Making History: The First Years of Saddleback College can be found in the Saddleback College Library catalog, http://sirsi.socccd.edu/uhtbin/cgisirsi.exe/?ps=dfbDl6yMTh/SADDLEBACK/78170018/9 My sabbatical project was originally proposed as a print book but became a web site (you can view the "under construction" web site, https://www.saddleback.edu/college-history). The web site will include access to the complete Making History, the oral history interviews that were the basis for MH, plus new materials. The new materials will include written responses from college faculty hired 1969-1979 and new interviews from same. The web site will continue to grow as new materials are created/found. The SC history web site will also connect to the SC archive (to be developed), a digital resource with relevant materials we now have in the library's special collections. I hope this is helpful. Thanks again.

See HERE for full "Making History" (2001 version) pdf, broken down into sections.

Here's Making History's Table of Contents (from the above pdf files):

The June meeting of the SOCCCD BOT: "jackass free"

noreply@blogger.com (Roy Bauer) — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 01:05:00 +0000

[Please see Tere's Board Meeting Highlights.]
I just entered the "Ronald Reagan" room here at Saddleback College—at pretty close to 6:00—and the meeting seems to have just begun. Evidently, no actions were taken by the board during closed session.
Bill Jay lays on the religion pretty thick for his invocation. Dave Lang asks the audience to join him in "paying respects" to the flag. Really? To the flag? (Sorry, I'm a philosopher.)

Commendations:

Right away, Nancy tears into the meeting. "Commendations" commence. Martin Carbone, Saddleback College Emeritus volunteer, comes up to receive recognition.
Burnett explains that two commendation recipients couldn't attend. The SC chapter of Phi Theta Kappa wasn't present somehow. Also, Andrew Craven isn't present for some reason. I think he's in charge of parking or something. Lots of applause. You know how this goes.
IVC's Glenn Roquemore comes up, asking that Diane Oaks and her "team" come up. They got some sort of recognition from CC Pro. So this is a case of giving a prize to people for getting a prize. (I don't understand why they stop there; why not give 'em another prize for the prize they just gave em'?) They seem like deserving people, though. They're pretty smily and happy.
Glenn asks Officer Tony Mancini to step up. He got an award from the CCUPCA for identifying a suspect, etc.

Public comments:

Bob Cosgrove comes up, praises some people re SC's accreditation effort. (It sounds as though there's a dying squirrel in Bob's mike.) Mentions a Saddleback College retreat. Commends various people. Bob's old-fashioned that way. "An excellent presentation" by Todd B, evidently.
A person named Mark Goodleaf also wants to address the board--re "IVC's ATEP," the purported layoff (an instructor in a particular program) coming up to a vote tonight. If you were to understand the contribution of this program (whatever it is), you wouldn't consider doing this, he says. I don't need to teach there, but I have for years, he says. "That's not why I'm here." Talks about the contribution of the school (program?). And "the youth." I was a little bit afraid of the youth, but...blah, blah, blah. These students are now contributing to the community. They're "positive citizens," fully employed. This wouldn't have happened were it not for ATEP and this particular program!

Board reports:

Bill Jay: no report

Tim Jemal: it was a pleasure last month to participate in commencement at IVC. Commends everyone involved. Went off "pretty well," he says. Had an opportunity to be interviewed on TV. A legislative action, TV show--something about Emeritus. Legislation that would throw older folks "under the bus," and he doesn't support it. The budget seems to be stabilizing. FTES equivalent of 1200 elderly students at Saddleback, evidently. Etc.
Marcia Milchiker: agrees with Tim about the Emeritus Institute (should support it, protect it). Have always fought for these courses, these students. Last meeting, I read a list of the "60 things" I did. This time, commencements. "Can't thank enough" the people responsible. Went to Human Services certificate award ceremony. Marcia says she got a certificate from those people for having always attended.
Mentions Bob Cosgrove's remark about me (yes me) at the last board meeting (Bob noted my efforts reporting on board meetings). A "Cumbaya" moment, says Marcia: in his report about the last board meeting, Roy Bauer wrote (she reads this):

Yes folks, here we are yet again for another meeting of the SOCCCD BOT. This is, as I’ve suggested previously, the best BOT the district likely has ever had, which ain’t saying much, I know [big laugh], but it’s a damned good thing nonetheless. Essentially, the board is now jackass-free. [More laughter.] Plus we've got a Chancellor we can work with and trust.

High praise from Roy Bauer, says Marcia. [Much laughter-like noise. Mostly, I keep my eyes closed, hoping for the moment to pass.] Nancy says something positive. I give her a thumbs up. What did that mean? I don't know. Everybody seems to be in a good mood about this. Well, OK, me too.
TJ Prendergast: discusses the problem of addiction to prescription drugs. Attended an event about that, wants to spread the word. A disturbing trend.
Nancy Padberg: she offers a helpful household tip: if you go to your pharmacist, they've got some method to dispose of your old drugs, she says. (You mail 'em somewhere.) Attended this and that. Won some prize somewhere. Mentions retirements: Don B, someone else.
James Wright: also attended graduation ceremonies, both "wonderful events." Went to retirement dinner for Carl Abrams. Gravely mentions recent tragedy at Santa Monica College.
[I see that the latest board innovation is a timer, a countdown from 3 minutes or 2 minutes while the person speaks. Nancy is like the Library Cop on Seinfeld.]
Dave Lang: I also enjoyed both commencement ceremonies. Dave thanks the two Presidents. Participated in the SC golf tournament. "Not a skilled foursome..."
Student trustee David Robinson: thanked board members for "warm welcome." Condolences and prayers re Santa Monica College tragedy. (Prayers? These kids today!)
Chancellor's (Gary Poertner's) report: "I have no report this evening."
IVC President Glenn Roquemore: blah, blah, blah.
Saddleback College Prez Tod Burnett: introduces Kathy Werle. (Do you suppose she's getting tired of all this attention?) She stands; receives applause. Tod appreciated strong faculty turnout for commencement. Thanked people who helped with the event. Thanked the Ac. Senate for bestowing honorary degree on UCI Chancellor Drake, the keynote speaker. Mentions a successful governance retreat.

Reports requested:

TJ Prendergast requests a report of impact on employees (cadillac tax, etc.) of federal health care bill implementation. They vote (to pursue report): unanimous approval. Nancy opines that it seems like a good idea (asking for the report)

Item 4.1 — discussion item — Basic aid allocation recommendation for FY 2013-4

Deb Fitzsimmons presents.
Discusses BAARC (Basic Aid Allocation Recommendation Council), "the district wide participatory committee responsible for making recommendations to the Chancellor."
Outlines BAAARC's activities, timeline. BP3110 was strictly followed. [This concerns an accred recommendation to do budgeting in a less top-down fashion.]
Net amount available for BAAAARC. Allocation: $52,853,446
Capital projects: $26 mil. Various others.
District wide tech projects: $10.8 mil
Small renovation projects: $ 5.75 mil
etc.
ANY QUESTIONS?:

Prendergast: this is a lot of work; nice to see so many groups involved, making sure that it's not top-down. I hope the groups agree with that. This is a really good thing. (Response to accreditation recommendation.)
Jemal: echoes Prendergast's comment. Happy about techno investment. There's a lot in here. Asks Bramucci to summarize....
B: Student Success Dashboard. Everything will be on one page per student. Mostly we're just keeping the lights on, getting things refreshed. Replacing desktops. This dashboard thing is a culmination of lots that we've done.
Jemal: when will the dashboard be operable? B: was supposed to be a year project. Contingent on ....
Padberg instructs trustees on how to use the new buttons on their desktop. Lang asks, "Which button?" Confusion. Nancy gives up: "just raise your hand." [Laughter.]
Lang: congrats to the BAAAAARC. Getting lots of imput from the entire community [as per accred rec]. Also pleased we're making investment in tech. It seems to me that we once had discussion about some of this generating a revenue stream? Any news on that front?
B: there's some work that needs to take place for that.

Consent calendar. There's a correction. Lang pulls 5.8. Vote: unanimous

5.8: confused about this item — Brandye comes up to explain about demolishing classroom cluster "building project." She's her usual clear and competent self, it seems.

6.1: tentative budget.
Again, Deb Fitz presents. Shows the usual stats, slides. Again, there seems to be a dying squirrel in her mike. [Meanwhile, the meeting has been plagued with minor problems with the overhead or "computer" system. Nancy is slightly peeved about that.]
Sorry for my disinclination to follow this presentation. I'm just in no mood to think about numbers, fiscal. Evidently, nothing alarming or surprising is being said. The board exhibits mild interest, perhaps boredom.
Fitz is talking "liability" and "estimates," etc. Prop 30. Etc.
Fitz gives her usual evidently clear and competent presentation. On it goes. I always get the feeling that she does a good job with this stuff, but that's an odd coming from someone who neither understands nor seeks to understand fiscal matters. Whatever.
She continues..... She looks pretty earnest, but everything's OK, I guess. The board seems reasonably pleased. She said something about funds for "scheduled maintenance." The factoid is pleasing, evidently.
Nancy: we're sticking to our rule about basic aid funds are we? (a reference to the idea that basic aid funds are never for ongoing expenses)? F: yep.
Student trustee Robinson asks: do you anticipate keeping fee [?] to $40? F: state fees are set by state.
Prendergast: we're waiting for the Governor to sign the current budget, are we? Good news mostly about amount budgeted? F: very positive for Cal CC system as a whole; very positive for our district in particular. Governor has veto power on certain sections. It'll be interesting to see "which bills pass." P: something about 1.63% growth. Someone comes up to explain some seeming discrepancy, I know not what. Everything is cool, though. Sorry, I don't know what this is about. Half of my brain is on summer holiday.
Lang: back to comment about deferred maintenance money available at state. What sort of allocation for us? F: It's project based. "About 2% of the total." She gets into the weeds, I'm not following. Blah blah blah. Lang: several of our capital improvement projects involve state monies. How will that be affected by state budget? F: shouldn't be.
Voting on the item: unanimous approval.

Tentative student government budget(s).
SC student Prez (didn't catch his name) presents. (Nice suit, dude.) Goes through process, etc. Pretty halting, awkward. Luckily, everything is projected on screen. His presentation is brief, thank God.
Lang: I think you did a wonderful job. We're starting the year with pretty healthy beginning fund balance. You're using all of the funds available except for emerg. reserve for the categories you've indicated. So why do you have an ending balance?
Student: we have a rollover every year. The figure is an estimate based on last year. Lang seems satisfied.
Next, IVC student gov budget. This time, Jee Chung(?) speaks. Says he wants to be quick and clear. Formal, a bit awkward. Goes through process. Halting, but again, the slides lay out the data. Yadda Yadda. Painful. But no more than usual.
Jemal: IVC revenue seems higher than Saddleback's, which is odd (Saddleback is much bigger.) To what may this be attributed? Nancy points to Saddleback kid: ASC receives 40% contract revenue, he says. The other 60 not in alignment with "our mission."
Burnett: the college determined that ASG was being asked to make decisions on ongoing academic matters. Inappropriate. So a change was made, and now ASG sticks to its mission.
Prendergast: great presentations. In past, we've gotten comparisons of last year with this year. Fitz: yes, that makes sense. That comparison will be included in the final budget.
Student Trustee Robinson: do you anticipate increase in scholarship allotment? ASG kid says something about $20,000.
Lang: since we don't have the comparative info now—can you give us idea on what you have emphasized in this budget vs. last year? Answer: our co-curricular programs, he says.
Wright: do you talk with your colleague at SC? I noticed discrepancies between the two colleges re ASG budget items. (I didn't follow the resolution of this. Too weary.)
Unanimous approving vote (with Jay out of the room on a bathroom break).

Oscar

6.3: Authorizing design-build procurement for the SC site improvements project
Brandye D presents.
Prendergast: do we know when we use this approach--do we have criteria about which (approach) to use when? (Reference to previously customary approach—Lease/leaseback—vs. newer design-build approach)
B: we have a preference for "design-build." Etc. I didn't follow this, but P seemed satisfied.
Lang: unfortunate publicity recently surrounding (cc college construction?, overruns?), how still competitively bid? Give us some comfort in this area, says Dave.
B: some of the controversies you've heard about—these districts use a less stringent approach in bidding. We understand the conservative nature of our board, so we are very conservative in our approach. Current approach mirrors competitive bid process, etc.
Jemal: follow-up to Lang. Is there a dollar amount minimum (I didn't get this). The answer involved the figure $15,000--that is, the approach in question applies to all projects over that amount (I think). Don't expect that to change, says B. [This issue--the advantages to moving to design-build--was discussed at length previously. As I recall, B and Co. have been very positive about our use of design-build vs. Lease/leaseback. The latter seems inevitably to lead to big problems with sub-contractors, thus contractors. They get locked into prices and then things change, they go belly-up. This new method avoids all that.)
Jemal: Projects over $15k will be competitively bid then? (The answer seemed to be "sort of" or "yes" but I didn't follow the details.)
Milchiker: why prefer design-build? Blah blah blah. The board seemed satisfied.

6.4: Board policy revisions. Unanimous approval.

6.5: BPs for review and study.
Lang: BP164, the first one. This item involves increase in trustee stipend from $400 to $700 per month. There's good justification for that. Has been through shared governance process. Public should be aware of this increase. Nancy: we've been authorized to do this for years, but held back because of budget. Accept for review and study? Unanimous. (This issue last came up four years ago: Trustees to delay 67% pay increase for themselves, Jan 16, 2009; Trustees set to nearly double their monthly stipend, Dec 2, 2008)

6.6: request, rescind sabbatical leave. Unanimously approved
6.7: Academic Personal actions. Unanimous
6.8: Classified Personal actions. Unanimous.
6.9: resolution re classified employee layoff. Revenue not there to continue. Thus lay off recommended.
Prendergast: is the position related to the program the public speaker referred to earlier?
Bugay: yes. It's categorically funded.
Roquemore: we've lost the (something). Grants involved. Coming to an end without any replacement funds. The funds are drying up. Unanimous approval of rec. layoff.
7.1: info item about speakers.
. . .

8.0: reports from shared governance groups.

I'll just mention highlights here, if any occur.
SC academic senate guy (unfamiliar to me). Echoed Bob's comments. Mentions retreat. "Collegial and informative experience." A "palpable sense of comaraderie in the room." 1st Senate meeting: new degrees approved. (Boy does this guy have lots to say. But he does a good job.)
There is now a site for "History of Saddleback College." Professor Cobos' website. 1967-68, oral histories. "Making history, the first years of Saddleback College."
Faculty union: negotiation team.
No rep for IVC Ac. Senate.
Peebles: no report beyond written.
Bramucci: blah blah blah about technology
Bugay: something about training deans, coming from ACCA. Local personages involved.
Fitzsimmons: [The timer's working!] Blah blah blah. Awesome fiscal team, etc.
IVC classified ac senate, Dennis Gordon: conference, etc. End of year celebration. My last meeting: appreciate this opportunity. Board meetings: "A refreshing change from how it's been in the past."
. . .
Wright: Adjourned meeting in memory of Steve S, who passed away.
The meeting ends before 8:00 p.m. Pretty dang efficient.

Lots of cloud

noreply@blogger.com (Roy Bauer) — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 00:20:00 +0000

[The further adventures of the Bauer family of Trabuco Canyon, including my parents, my sister (Annie) and I—who live nearby—and sometimes my younger bro (Ron) and his family.]

"It's alive!"

On Sunday, Ron & Susan and the kids came by to help celebrate Father’s Day, and that went very well, though, as usual, it felt like a hurricane. (But I'm not complainin'!)
After Ron and the gang blew out toward the ocean, I found what I took to be Susan’s cell phone on the bed in the extra bedroom. (The kids had been in there, playing, telling ghost stories, etc.) I drew attention to the thing as I left for home that night. “I think Susan left this here,” I said.
Next day: Annie and I came by for lunch. There occurred three conversations. [Imagine now that I am Rod Serling.] Three Bauerian adventures in thought and language—in an area which we call the Bauer Zone.
The main adventure, which centered on the word "it," was sandwiched between a before and an after adventure:

The a priori adventure:

Ma: “Roy called about his radio this morning.”
“Roy?” I ask. “I'm Roy. You mean Ron, right?”
“Oh yes, of course,” says Ma. “Ron, then, called about his radio.”
“His radio?” I asked. “What radio?”
“Yeah, the radio you found yesterday,” said Pa.
I stared at Annie. She stared at me. I then said: “do you mean the cell phone I found?”
“Yeah, the radio,” said Ma.
Annie got up to find the dang thing.
“Oh,” I said, “that’s not a radio. It's some kind of cell phone, I think.”
Annie found it nearby and brought it to the table. She removed the gizmo in question from its small leather sleeve. Said she: “It’s a Blackberry.” She briefly explained what that is.
“Right,” I said. “Its not a radio and it's not a cell phone. It’s an internet/email/phone gizmo, a precursor to smart phones, sort of. You know what smart phones are?”
“The original cellphones,” asserts Pa, “were called radiophones.”
Oh. Beyond anything else he was trying to do, my dad was signaling that we had better drop the subject. We—Annie and I—were causing disharmony, evidently, by picking at my mother and her trivial linguistic errors.
OK.

The a posteriori adventure:

"Who's alive?"

Ma: “He sure has some cloud.” ["He" was some guy—doesn't matter who. I never found out.]
Pa: “Yeah, lots of cloud.”
Me: “What’s that you’re saying? ‘Cloud’?”
“Yeah,” says Pa. “Juice.” He sure had a lot of juice. Or cloud.” He said this with his usual enthusiasm for having mastered a colloquial expression. (My folks are originally from Germany. My dad loves to pick up "new" expressions.)
I offer: “I think you mean ‘clout.’ He had lots of clout.” (This reminded me of the "blood cloth" saga. Do your recall that one?)
My dad commences staring in disbelief.
“That’s what I said,” says Ma. “Cloud. He has lots of cloud.”
Friends and acquaintances sometimes witness these episodes. At such times, my mother's obliviousness and cheerful disregarding positivity is invariably warmly embraced as Big Old World Charm. —Really Big.
“No," said I. “It’s not ‘cloud.’ It’s ‘clout,’ with a ‘t.’”
I pronounce the word very clearly, stressing the hard “t” sound: “ClouTTTT.”
“Clout?”
“Yep. That's what you mean to say. He has CLOUT.” (I worry that my folks are running around saying "cloud" when they mean "clout." But I really shouldn't. One more malapropism among dozens: who cares?)
Says Ma: “Why do they spell it with a ‘t’?”
“They don’t spell the word 'cloud' with a 't.' The word is clout; they spell that word with a 't.'”
Ma and Pa look at each other. I do believe they’re giving each other the “there he goes again” look.
It’s a look of resignation and dismissal. It is communicated quickly, efficiently. A shorthand.
It is final, a death sentence.
It means: Evidently, our son Roy is a real troublemaker. And, perversely, he insist on finding error where there is none.
Why does our son do this? It's a painful thing to contemplate. Horrible, really.
Tick, tick, tick, tick....
Oh well, we'll just soldier on, as we always have. We will survive, somehow. (Sigh.)
--They immediately drop the subject, having identified the nature of the problem and its solution.

OK, so here’s the main event. Get ready.

"He is."

“Annie, maybe you can help us with the ad for the rental,” said mom.
“Just put it on Craig’s List,” Annie proclaims.
Guess so. I know what Craig's List is, but I've never actually gone there. Annie's into Craig's List. Yeah, whatever.
My folks, however, don’t know about Craig’s List. They know it has something to do with computers and the internet (two things that they refuse to distinguish). Any mention of the internet is, to them, like mention of, say, a “College Professor” to, say, a Tea Party Person. It's a red flag waved in front of a bull.
Bewilderment. Plus hostility. That's what comes up. And a primitive impulse to grab a torch and commence marching up a hill to a castle to help secure an evil-doer's fiery death.
“We have that ad. It’s been done and done and done,” said Ma.
She was referring, I think, to all of the ads of all of the rentals in her life, going back many years. Yes, there’ve been many of those, I suppose.
But here's the thing: none of those ads has much to do with this ad for this house.
“Well, it doesn’t cost anything to write a specific ad for this rental,” said Annie.
“It doesn’t need to be different,” said my mom.
“Well, this isn’t complicated. Just a brief description of the house,” said Annie.
“It’s pretty much the same thing,” said mom.
“What is?” I ask.
“You can write the ad and give it to me. I’ll take it from there,” said Annie.
“It’s crazy,” said mom.
“What is exactly? What do you meant by ‘it’? What, exactly, is crazy?”
Uh-oh. That never works—every time I ask my mom to explain who or what she is referring to by some pronoun, she gets seriously defensive and hostile. Then my dad gets seriously defensive and hostile on her behalf. I could tell that she and my dad (and maybe my sister too) were getting confused about what they were talking about. There’s the needed ad. There's the decision where to run it. There’s the old ads for the same rental--created years ago, before anyone knew about Craig's List. There’s the effort and action of putting out the ad. Etc. I could sort it out for them, but I'd pay a price: I would be accused of "lecturing" them, of bullying them with all manner of clarity and logic. But there's only so much of this kind of endless confused discussion that I can listen to before I say, "Please stop!"
My folks have a funny way with language. It is very typical of them to use "he," "she," or "it" without any clear idea what they are referring to. They do it all the time. Things are confused all the time.
It drives me nuts.

"Who's he?"

“There you go again,” mom said. “I’m being perfectly clear.”
“Look, I just want to understand what you’re saying. If somebody hears another person say, ‘It’s on the table,’ it’s always fair to ask, ‘what do you mean by IT?’ WHAT is on the table?”
Good Lord, was I asking for it. I had torn open a festering wound!
“We don’t need a lecture,” says my dad.
“You (I was facing my mom) just used a sentence with the word ‘it.’ I’m just asking you what you are referring to with that word. That's all.”
“There he goes again,” says my dad. “Let’s be pleasant. It's a nice day. Let’s change the subject.”
That pissed me off. “I’m not being unpleasant," I said. "I’m only asking what you (mom) are talking about.”
I turned to Annie: “Isn’t it fair to ask what a person means by ‘it’ when they use the word ‘it’?”
“Well, yes," she said. "And when Roy asked you (Ma) what you meant by ‘it,’ I had no idea what you meant either. And then, when Roy asked what you meant, you didn’t answer,” said Annie.
"I just want to know what you are saying," I said. "That's all."
"No," she said. "You do this," she said, accusingly.
Yeah, I do.

But mostly now, I don't. And that's OK too. Really, it is.
I love these people anyway.
Good grief.

Saddleback memories

noreply@blogger.com (Roy Bauer) — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:30:00 +0000

A recent post by the OC Weekly’s Gustavo Arellano (An Incomplete, Embarrassing Timeline of Anti-Black Moments in Orange County) reminded me of an incident in Saddleback College’s past

from Dec. 30, 2009:
Much ado about nothing? —Or: a pattern of distressing incidents at a cheery college in a sunny place (OC) with a cloudy history

I’ve been looking for stories about our district’s history, and, in the course of pursuing the lurid tale of a certain notorious former chancellor (no, not Mathur), I came across an old (4/10/94) OC Reg article about “anti-black harassment” at Saddleback College—and the hiring of Ned Doffoney, an African-American (not the first; he succeeded Constance Carroll), as President. (See A VISION OF CONFIDENCE: Ned Doffoney, president of a college with a history of racial problems, says he is not single-issue oriented).

You know about Ned: he’s from Louisiana but spent time in education in LA before taking on the Saddleback gig. After he was ousted by 1997’s notorious right-wing Board Majority (Frogue, Williams, et al.), he went back to Louisiana. More recently, he was the President of Fresno City College and, a year and a half ago, he became the Chancellor or the North Orange County Community College District. (See North Orange County gets a New Chancellor.)

According to the Reg article, back in early 1994, “anti-black harassment” had often “put the college in the news”—for years, evidently going back to about 1991.

The Reg explained:

Since 1991, a handful of black staff members and students have sporadically received threatening or harassing fliers or phone calls. Last fall, two black students running for homecoming king and queen abandoned their quests after receiving hate mail. ¶ In November, even as nearly 600 people packed a campus forum on racial intolerance, Ricc Waddell, the would-be homecoming king and president of the black student association, found a threatening, racist note under his vehicle's windshield wiper.

According to the Reg, at the time, the college had hired consultants “to help smooth the way as the campus becomes more diverse.” Evidently, just then, these consultants were about to file “a report…calling for a department of ethnic studies.” (See College May Offer Ethnic Studies Dept. (L.A. Times, 5/19/94).)

The Reg seemed to expect the recommendation to inspire opposition “from parts of the faculty.”

Don’t know what that’s about. (Do you?)

This Waddell kid (of the black student association) was pretty cynical about the Doffoney hire:

…Waddell, 23, the history and psychology major who was the target of the latest racist fliers, said Doffoney has yet to "see the irony in this whole situation." ¶ "He's the master token, and he doesn't realize it," Waddell said. "I just think he's being brought in as a pacifier. (District trustees) don't want Saddleback to get the name of being racist."

But Ned is a pretty charming—and genuinely nice—guy, and so Waddell met with him and then reported that "He's a real cool guy. I'm very happy that he's here."

Nevertheless, Waddell opined that Doffoney would be dealing with a “hostile climate” for minorities. (No doubt there was some hostility. Any old-timers want to weigh in on whether this episode leaves a false impression? A correct impression? A small handful of rat bastards can cause quite a stink. Is that what this was, essentially? On the other hand, South County is the home of both the Minutemen and the Birthers, both arguably racist organizations. Newport Beach, of course, is the home of the nation's foremost Holocaust denial organization, the IHR, whose friends came to the district in significant numbers to support their hero Steve Frogue a decade ago.)

Within a year or two after Doffoney’s arrival, trustee Steve Frogue commenced his perplexing series of criticisms of the IVC Academic Senate--and the Jewish Anti-Defamation LeagueHe even seemed to question an instructor’s inviting an ADL official to speak to a class (at IVC), learning about the Holocaust.

Naturally, that didn’t please the district’s Jewish population.

Digression: the "Menorah cartoon" incident, 1989-1990:

The 26-year old art editor of the Saddleback College Lariat ran a cartoon criticizing Israel's nuclear policy--using Jewish symbols (Menorah, Holocaust). People went apeshit. For a (partisan) review of the facts concerning the incident, see Orange County: A Tragicomedy in Three Acts, by Tom Moran, 3/90 in the willing-to-criticize-Israel (yikes) Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. See also Apology: offensive Lariat editorial cartoon, LA Times, 12/17/89

TigerAnn, cat

I then (as now) taught at Saddleback’s sister college to the north, and, frankly, I didn’t pay any attention—indeed, I was oblivious—to the racial tensions referred to here. I came into the (political) picture only when Frogue commenced sniffing around my office mate’s Holocaust course (c. 1995). (I wrote a piece for IVC’s Voice, criticizing Mr. Frogue’s apparent embrace of the incompetent Institute for Historical Review, a local Holocaust denial organization.)

Do any readers have information concerning these events at Saddleback College of the early 90s?

The article reveals how times have changed—not just with regard to interracial relations (which seem good these days, on our campuses). Doffoney identified among his challenges the setting up of a “computer network”: “Many of our students have computers. Their homes are technologically equipped. And it's our task to catch up," he said.

It's hard to remember a time when we didn't have computers in our offices. Our computers arrived in the mid-to-late 90s.

I recall the district dragging IVC’s computer-savvy (and otherwise-savvy) Peter Morrison out of the classroom (this must’ve been about 1997) to organize and plan this computer catch-uppery. I think they were also trying to keep him above the various frays that then raged at IVC and the district.

Did you know former Chancellor Robert Lombardi? I never had a problem with him, but he occasionally offered less-than-articulate comments to the press over the years. This particular article ends with a typical Lombardian "comment." Commenting on Doffoney, he was quoted as saying

"He makes us all easier with diversity…. When you experience people who are different from yourself and you have a real positive experience with that ... that experience helps us then deal with other people who are different than we are."

Um, yeah. Sure.

“Moments in SOCCCD History” coming soon*:

• Saddleback instructor’s lurid “wide stance” student/teacher conference in the Utt library restroom
• Saddleback instructor’s student-bimbo v. wife brass-knuck-assisted on-desk bout leading to über-costly medical payout
• Irvine Valley banana boy’s unseemly & illicit internet surfin’ in the stacks
• Irvine Valley gasbag leading student prayer huddles pre-tournament, amen

*Well, no, we won't be delving into this kind of history. I mention these events (all real) only because three of the instructors were supporters of Raghu P. Mathur and were part of the corrupt union inner circle that brought us the 1996 Board Majority. And guess what? Those are the three who weren’t fired.

Photo from Steve Turnbull’s “The Great Laguna Fire of 1993”

Comments

Anonymous‬ said...
I was there.  Brother Ricc invited the Minister of Information from the Nation of Islam [to] speak in the BGS large lecturer hall. The "bodyguards" from the Nation Of Islam were patting down anyone who attended at the entrance. Who knows where our Campus Police where.  

Later in the semester the "note incident" occurred. Things were very odd at the time. Linda Newell and her assistant Norma Yanni were the "District Diversity Office" or something like that. They seemed to have an agenda, but I couldn't figure it out.  

The forum was hosted by another "Diversity Officer" from another college. Paid, of course. To me it smelled like a RICO investigation was needed. Cause some trouble and collect the cash. Why didn't Linda run the forum? Did her paid host get her a gig on his campus for a forum? Pure speculation on that part, but it sure felt like it.  

Not long after that the "District Diversity Office" was dissolved and Saddleback got both employees.  

I had the pleasure of working with Ned and he was a professional and a gentleman. He did what was best for the college and—shock—believed in shared governance. He was in charge, but he did listen and work for the best outcome.  

Peter Morrison was a most interesting person. He pushed through a District Budget Allocation Model that favored IVC for many years. He was the terror of "DRAC". He got drafted to the District network/computer project because the colleges were bypassing the district in technology. For those in the know "The (Ed) Buck Stopped Here".  

My favorite memories of Peter was when he walked out during Frogue's tirades in the BOT meetings about the IVC Academic Senate elections. When he was done, Frogue would look up and ask "he wouldn't stay to hear me out?"

12:29 AM, December 31, 2009

20 minutes ago: deer

noreply@blogger.com (Roy Bauer) — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 23:31:00 +0000

Flucht-Kinder

noreply@blogger.com (Roy Bauer) — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 00:11:00 +0000

Edith, about age 8,
Bärwalde, Pommern

[From the Bauer Family Blog:]
The story of the Bauers is, among other things, an immigrants’ tale. One cannot understand Bauerei unless one comprehends the adventurousness, hope, and ambition of two remarkable German teen-agers—one barely 18, the other 19—and their trials and tribulations crossing the ocean and making their way in that great hodgepodge that was eastern Canada in the early 50s. (They became U.S. citizens in 1965.)

I’ve chronicled some of that slog-fest on this blog [i.e., the Bauer Family Blog].

It is only a slight exaggeration to say that the Bauer saga is also, in part, a post-apocalyptic tale, with the apocalypse at issue being WWII (i.e., the European front) followed by the collapse and occupation of Germany. Everything, it seems, points always to that.

[My parents] Edith and Manny were just kids when the war's end enveloped them in the early months of 1945: 12 and 13 years old, respectively. Naturally, they routinely remember and relive much of what happened to them and to those with whom they were close.

This is especially true of my mother, Edith, whose family was forced to flee their ancestral home—not just their house, but their town, their region, their part of Germany. She and her people didn't just leave that home; it died behind them, first occupied, then in stages transformed to something utterly "other."

It is, I think, difficult to appreciate the sense of loss and injury of that forgotten “Flucht” generation, especially the then-young people, who are, of course, all that remain of that experience now. They seem always to yearn to return, and yet they understand, too, that the place they left cannot exist, its population having long been supplanted by people of a different culture and language—people, we must remember, who were themselves for decades suppressed and thwarted in their strange new home. One wonders if they are capable, now, of enjoying their freedom, such as it is. (In my estimation, it seems not.)

Edith is nearly 80 years old now (albeit a very youthful 80), and so are the other remaining Flucht-Kinder. An elderly bunch, and still forlorn too, I think.

* * *

Yesterday, in Edith’s presence, I grandly asked, “Gosh, do you suppose that there’s a German version of YouTube?” I grabbed the laptop. Two or three clicks later, I found it. Voila!

YouTube, of course, is a big, dumb raft of video cargo, and included among its freight—mostly ephemera and detritus—are marvels of history Writ Small, including simple filmed remembrances by ordinary people—video/audio testimony of "what happened to me."

At first, though, I found a documentary there entitled “Pommern Wie es War” (Pomerania as it was). Edith commenced watching bits and pieces of that. She was at times excited, even gleeful. “Look, that’s exactly what we did!”, "I know that place!" she’d exclaim.

On her laptop, I bookmarked Germany's YouTube and also that particular documentary. I wanted to find even better things.

I came across a series of interviews of Flucht-Kinder (my term, probably Germanically illiterate), entitled: “Flucht aus Pommern" (Flight from Pomerania). It seems to be housed at the site for Gedächtnis der Nation (Memories of the Nation)—some sort of massive private German oral history project. (It seems well worth checking out, but only if you know some German.)

This "Flucht aus... " series is pretty damned wonderful. I showed some of it to my mother: one after another, ordinary elderly people—invariably children or teenagers in 1945—describe their experiences in their attempted escape from their homeland before (and sometimes into the hands of) the notorious, and indeed terrible, invading Soviet army. (Unfamiliar with this? See 'They raped every German female from eight to 80', Guardian. See also Antony Beevor and Silence Broken On Red Army Rapes In Germany [NPR]. Upshot: 2 million German women raped, many repeatedly, systematically. My Aunt Frida was among them.)

Me, I could understand maybe a third of what these people were saying. (My German ain't so hot; I understand German the way a dog understands his master.) Edith, of course, understood all of it, though she was amused by the various dialects. She was riveted by the stories, which were often much like her own and the stories of her friends and relatives.

This morning, I surfed Germanic YouTube anew and found more.

* * *

by Prof. Gordon L. Bowen, Ph.D.

* * *

After lunch today, I got Edith interested in a three-part documentary entitled “Als der Osten noch Heimat war”—I think that translates to “When the east was still home.” I got her started, in particular, on part 3—about West Prussia—when I left her just a few minutes ago. She’s pretty excited.

Series blurb:

Teile des heutigen Westpolen waren früher deutsche Regionen: Pommern und Schlesien gehörten bis 1945 zum Deutschen Reich, Westpreußen wurde nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg polnisch, behielt aber eine deutsche Minderheit. -- Der dreiteilige Film berichtet vom Alltag in diesen Regionen zwischen dem Ersten Weltkrieg und dem Beginn von Flucht und Vertreibung.

[My translation: Parts of today's western Poland were formerly German regions: from after WW I until 1945, Pomerania and Silesia belonged to the German Empire; West Prussia was Polish, but retained a German minority. –This three-part documentary presents the stress of everyday life in these regions between WW I and the beginning of flight and expulsion at the end of WW II.]

• Als der Osten noch Heimat war - Pommern Teil 1/3

[When the east was still home, Pomeranian part (1/3)]

Pre-war map; in case you are unfamiliar with this bit of history: much of what had been eastern Germany became Poland (and even Russia) at the end of the war (e.g., consider the fate of Königsberg)

• Als der Osten noch Heimat war - Schlesien Teil 2/3
[When the east was still home, Silesian part (2/3)]

• Als der Osten noch Heimat war - Westpreußen Teil 3/3
[When the east was still home, West Prussian part (3/3)]

RELATED:

• Edith and her family flee to the west

…Edith’s mother stubbornly refused to abandon her home, protesting, repeatedly, that she had worked too long and hard on it simply to abandon it. The soldiers tried to tell her what the Russian troops would do to women, even to little girls, but she wouldn’t listen. Finally, the soldiers commanded: “Take the two girls and leave here, now!” And so, on the 28th of February 1945—Edith recites the date without hesitation—Edith, her “mother,” and her sister, along with several relatives, abandoned their fine home….

• Ghost Ship Found (National Geographic)

[During their flight west, at one point, Edith and her group had to choose between train or ship. As it turns out, it was a good thing they chose the train:]

The three largest marine disasters in history were the 1945 Baltic losses of Wilhelm Gustloff, Goya, and Steuben [all ships carrying German & Polish refugees from the Soviet advance, all sunk by Russian submarines]. But how many people were on these ships? Approximately 5,200 people were on Steuben when it set sail on February 9, according to our article, and 4,500 people died when the ship sank….
Counterbalance that with historian Heinz Schön, who claims that a smaller total is accurate. … Since 659 survivors were counted after Steuben sank, according to Schön, 3,608 died when the ship went down.
Let's compare that to the sinking of Wilhelm Gustloff on January 30, 1945. The Gustloff's records cite 918 naval officers and men, 173 crew, 373 women's naval auxiliary, 162 wounded, and 4,424 refugees, for a total of 6,050 people. In 1980 a trio of British journalists studied the tragedy and reported an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 deaths on board Gustloff. But Schön, a survivor of the Gustloff tragedy, has revised the Gustloff numbers in his more recent works, based on an analysis of the movement of people conducted by a documentary film company. "When it sank," Schön wrote to me, "there were 10,582 passengers on board. 8,956 were refugees, mainly women and children. 9,343 died when the ship sank (it took 62 minutes after the torpedo attack) and 1,239 survived."
And Goya? One of the more reliable reports says 7,000 refugees and wounded soldiers were on board when it departed Hela, near Danzig. When Goya was hit by Soviet torpedoes and sank in four minutes, all except 183 survivors went down with the ship…. —David W. Wooddell

• Manny’s grandparents; life during the war; war's end

Manny: “I remember when my grandfather Karl Bauer was talking loosely with his friends. He’d always be saying terrible things about the Nazis, about Hitler. He turned to me and said, “You’d better not repeat any of this, or I’ll be dead and you’ll regret it.”....

. . . How was school? Manny: “I had very little schooling because of the constant bombing and strafing, etc. Also, I volunteered to work a hoist, part of the effort to dig out the side of the sandstone hills to create shelters. We built those things ourselves.”

There’d be bombing and even fighters coming down to shoot at us. The first bombing was in the nighttime, the British. Later, the Americans bombed in daylight. At night, the “black angel” would come. Parachutes with burning magnesium or something. Those things would allow the bombers to see their targets.”

The fighters would accompany the bombers? “Yes. They’d sometimes come in and strafe people. The French ‘redtails’—American fighter planes painted red in back, flown by the French—they came separately just to strafe and bomb civilians.

One time, a bomb went off. I could see the plane as a profile from the front. The wing was just a line.... There was this attack, and I managed not to get hurt, but there was someone on a bike just four feet from me. He was just pulp smashed against a wall. The bomb must have gone off just above ground, hitting a steel pole. This guy on the bike must have been on emergency leave. He was just about to get off the bike. Then he was just mush. The two ladies from the store came out with newspapers and covered him.” . . .

“This stuff—the bombing and strafing—was nearly daily near the end. You could hear the hum before they arrived. So, often, there was no school. . . .

“When [the Allied soldiers] first came, we were in the bunkers in the dark. A Frenchman came over, looked down. Saw all these dirty, unwashed civilians. They pretty much left us alone. Then the Americans came in. They were the ones who went house to house, looking for something to steal. They loved to take radios or firearms. Anything they could send home. We’d take tubes out of our radios so the Americans wouldn’t steal them”….

• Canada: a sketch of Manny and Edith's early years

On [the ship] Anna Salen, sailing to Canada, from Bremerhaven, October 7, 1951.
Edith turned 18 on the boat, on the 13th.
Manny: “When we were off the coast of Labrador, we saw beautiful northern lights. Amazing, colorful. Then Newfoundland. We landed in Quebec City on the 17th. We were supposed to land in Halifax, but because the bow on our ship was cracking open, we had to reroute to Quebec City. We were processed as new immigrants. We were taken on a train way west to Ajax in Ontario (it's on the north coast of the lake)."
“They didn’t give me my money [in Ajax, during processing?],” says Edith. “They were supposed to give you $25. You had to buy the $25 in Germany. Then they’d convert it to Canadian money and give it back when you got to Canada. They didn’t give me my money. Happened to some other people too. Some screw-up. Luckily, I had some of my own money.
“But then some German fellow took that….”

• Egypt: Otto Bauer's POW years

[My grandfather, Otto Bauer, served with Rommel in North Africa. Later, he was stationed in Italy, fighting the British. There, he was eventually captured by the British, who put him to a POW camp in North Africa, where he remained for years, until 1947.]

...These are photographs of Otto and his colleagues at a British POW camp (for German GIs) in Egypt. The war (with Germany) ended in May of 1945. Otto was not released from the POW camp until two years later: May of 1947. (See documents below.)
I did some checking, it was not uncommon for German POWs to be released from Egyptian camps as late as 1948. Why so late? That's not clear.
The story I have always been told is that prisoners in the camp were subjected to very bad conditions that killed many of them and that Otto was only released (as early as he was) because he was gravely ill….
…This document suggests that Otto suffered from a stomach ailment, for which he was treated. The story is that, in Egypt, he suffered from dysentery, which caused permanent damage. Further, the policy at the camp was that, when POWs appeared to be dying, they were immediately sent home, and that is why Otto was sent home.
In fact, for the rest of his life, Otto received benefits based on his being disabled, as documents attest....

• French kiss: the sad story of baby Peter

...When the time came, young Edith [Hänfler] went to the nearby town of Neustettin, which had a hospital. Meanwhile, Frederic was a [French] POW in Berlin, but he was determined to be with his love. When Edith gave birth to the child—she insisted that she didn’t know who the father was—Frederic declared that he would steal himself to Neustettin by train.
Naturally, this was a lunatic notion, but Frederic would not be dissuaded, and so brother Hänfler (reluctantly, I hope) helped Frederic with operation Loony Lover: smuggling this non-German-speaking Frenchman from Berlin all the way to Bärwalde and back without alerting the authorities. Edith [my mom] remembers that a great effort was made to dress Frederic properly for the trip. The plan involved his saying nothing, dressing well, and hiding in the train’s restroom. It was all very French….
So, on the 28th of February, 1944, Peter was born and was handed over to Else, who was thrilled. The arrangement was decidedly unofficial, off the books.
The great German flight to the west—in response to the dreaded Soviet invasion—occurred exactly one year later. Martha, Edith [my mom], Else (Georg had died), and little Peter managed to escape by train, ending up in the Munster area south of Hamburg.
Meanwhile, Frederic somehow ended up back in France. He and his family made great efforts to locate Edith and Peter, and, pretty soon, Edith and Frederic were reunited, in France, where they married. They wanted to retrieve their son, Peter, who, of course, was being raised by Else.
. . .
… Then, suddenly, it became clear that Else was suicidal. Over a period of days, she attempted suicide, unsuccessfully.
It was during these tense “suicidal” days that Sierra, riding her bike to work one morning, stopped by Else’s place to check in on her. (Peter was in the care of others.) Sierra, who would have been sixteen or seventeen, called out to Else, but there was no answer. Sierra used her key to open the door. Everything was still; the place was immaculate, as always. There was a bedroom to the left. The door was closed. She entered it. Else was hanging, motionless, from the curtain rod, her face draped.
It was obvious what had happened.
Sierra was horrified. She does not recall what she did then. After a time, she realized that she had to get help, but there was no phone. Sierra managed to ride her bike to the office, which was perhaps a quarter mile away. From there, she called her boyfriend, a cop. He said he would get right over there (evidently, all relevant personnel were elsewhere than Bärwalde). Sierra then returned to Else’s. She stayed downstairs, in the basement. Finally, after a half hour or so, her cop boyfriend arrived, but he “brought everyone”: the usual officials and workers for such circumstances. It was overwhelming.
Until just a few days earlier, no one had thought of Else as someone who might commit suicide. But she had kept the fact of Peter’s imminent departure from everyone. Even during the few days after Else’s death, no one understood what had motivated Else’s action....

• Rosengarten and Kristallnacht

As I explained previously, Edith remembers that Rosengarten, the Stettin street where she lived each summer from about 1937 until perhaps 1945, had a significant Jewish population. Indeed, many shops revealed in old photographs of Rosengarten Strasse appear to be Jewish.
I've done some reading about the plight of Jews in Stettin, and, as it turns out, the events of Kristallnacht occurred very near Rosengarten….

• Otto Bauer and the celebrated Hanns Klemm

My late grandfather, Otto, was a friend of an aircraft designer and manufacturer named Hanns Klemm (See Wikipedia.) Opa, a wood worker, was with the R&D unit (Klemm was a great believer in wood construction and made significant contributions to wood construction and glue for aircraft). Like my grandfather, who was a communist, Herr Klemm badmouthed the Nazis, and that finally got him into trouble. I do believe he was arrested toward the end of the war. I seem to recall coming across an article about Herr Klemm's fate. I'll try to dig it up….
. . .
In june 1943 Hanns Klemm dared the unimaginable, he resigned from the NSDAP [the Nazi Party]. The reason he gave on 26th May 1943 was: "I consider my membership of the NSDAP to be no longer compatible with my belonging to the Christian community". [Note: this was about the time that my grandfather was secreted to the Wehrmacht, keeping him out of the reach of the authorities.]….

• Where's Poppa? The Bauer family, without Otto, c. 1942-3

• Schultzean sagas

…Edith reminded me that many Jews were among the powerful and important people of their town [Bärwalde]. This elite—Nazis, Jews—comprised a network of friends.

For some reason, the fate of Jews was quite different in Bärwalde than in other places. There still were Jews living and working in Bärwalde into 1944, though there was increasing reason to worry, and by late 1944, all local Jews had left to Switzerland and perhaps other places for their own safety.

Edith recalled one Jewish store closing. She was there for the going away party. She was all dressed up and people fussed over her. This would have been in 1943 or even 1944. (You’ll recall that a Jewish friend gave Edith [well, Martha] a beautifully crafted piece of cloth in the form of a Star of David for Edith’s baptism.)

Edith says that she cannot recall a case in which Jews were actually rounded up and taken away in Bärwalde. They all left, but they did so on their own accord, though anticipated worsening conditions were the reason for their departure.

Otto [Hänfler, Edith’s beloved step-father] made no effort to hide or disguise his political views, which were harsh toward the Nazis and otherwise unacceptable. His friends—including Nazis—would tell him, “Otto, dial it back. We won’t be able to protect you forever!” But he never did that. He was loudly opinionated to the very end (in 1941)….

noreply@blogger.com (Roy Bauer) — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 15:49:00 +0000

Chaotic Enrollment Patterns at Community Colleges (Inside Higher Ed)

Students at two-year institutions display "astounding variation" in their patterns of enrollment, according to a new study by the Community College Research Center at Columbia University's Teachers College….

U.S. House Panel Questions Value of Accreditation (Chronicle of Higher Education)

Accreditors just can't win in Congress. Republican members generally think accreditation costs too much for institutions, stifles innovation, and is too secretive. Democrats generally think accreditation goes too easy on for-profit institutions and doesn't safeguard parents and students from programs that will saddle them with debt and worthless degrees.
Those criticisms were aired again on Thursday in the U.S. House of Representatives, where the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training held a hearing to discuss the frustrations of members in both parties with the current system….

n.b.

noreply@blogger.com (Roy Bauer) — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 23:18:00 +0000

I want to remind DtB readers of the following:

that those who object to the factoids reported on [this] blog have recourse. For instance, they can email me and explain the problem. (I make no effort to hide my identify or to make myself unavailable.) They can even anonymously write comments pointing out the (alleged) errors. I AM PERFECTLY HAPPY TO INCLUDE SUCH COMMENTARY ON THE BLOG, TO MAKE IT AN ACTUAL BLOG POST, AND TO PRINT IT UNEDITED.

I have often explained the above on these pages, usually to no avail.
On the other hand, over the years, several people have taken me up on my willingness to make corrections and print responses. That has generally turned out to my and their satisfaction.
Recently, a person who shall remain nameless expressed frustration with the spewage of false claims about him—and he addressed the point to me, it seemed. He implied that this blog was guilty of such spewage.
In response, I sent him the above statement.
I also noted the curious phenomenon of readers attributing DtB reader comments to DtB. That's a fallacy, of course.
I explained why DtB tries hard not to delete reader comments, even offensive comments—and the rationale for that policy. Essentially, I said that the solution to false statements is the addition of true counter-statements. As they say, "the remedy to bad speech is more speech." Not censorship.

Rockin' In The Free World - Neil Young
GratefullyNORML | Myspace Video
Ah, the good old days

Agenda for next Monday's BOT meeting

noreply@blogger.com (Roy Bauer) — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:56:00 +0000

Chancellor Gary Poertner just emailed the district community with a link to the agenda for next Monday’s meeting of the SOCCCD BOT. (It’s a large pdf. Know that before you click on the link.) Thanks, Gary.
Traditionally, if a college or board seeks to get away with something, they’ll wait until summer to do it. But I’m not sure this crew is up for skullduggery. Maybe a little craftiness. Minor wiliness?
This agenda makes me wanna stay home.
Here are a couple of snaps from the agenda:

This can be, um, controversial

UPDATE: Gary has now sent us a revised agenda: here. Evidently, "Item 4.1, exhibit A, page 3 of the June 17 board meeting agenda has been changed." 4.1 is, of course, the discussion item: basic aid allocation recommendations

THREE DOG NIGHT/GRASS ROOTS IN OC

The Reb tells me that Three Dog Night will appear at the OC Fair. She asked me not to be negative about that. I wasn't, not really. (I acknowledged that their covers of "One" and "Try a Little Tenderness" were decent.)
Their opening act is the similarly illustrious "Grass Roots." The only decent song of theirs I could remember was "Midnight Confession," which appears above. Such was the music of my high school years. (Mostly, though, I was into Mott the Hoople and Procol Harum.)
Reb reminded me that GR did that awful song "Live For Today." We both laughed out loud. Still laughing. (Check out the lyrics.)

Click here: Otis Redding's version--upon which TDN's version is based

Just love it!

Pal o' Wagner (POW): hysterical homophobic demagoguery

noreply@blogger.com (Roy Bauer) — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 04:27:00 +0000

John Eastman Goes to Washington (NavelGazing/OC Weekly, R. Scott Moxley)
The Chapman University law professor and anti-gay marriage activist stars in a House committee vaudeville act

You remember Chapman University's John Eastman. He’s one of Don Wagner’s pals, a crew that includes Arizona's Joe Arpaio.
Well, the East Man is in the news again, testifying about gay marriage before Congress.
Here's an excerpt from R. Scott Moxley's report:

…[I]t's Eastman's oratory that's most entertaining. He claims he's living in an apocalyptic setting in which, as with any good summer blockbuster, good confronts evil. In the frequent AM-Christian-radio pontificator's mind, he's a fearless warrior for righteousness….

Shameless scoundrel

From his perch atop [National Organization for Marriage], Eastman suggests gay marriage threatens the survival of humans, whose ranks have more than doubled on the planet since 1960. In 2012, he said what “flows” from traditional marriages “are children” and “we need children to perpetuate society.” During a March NPR interview, he ignored two key technicalities: matrimonial vows are hardly necessary to procreate, and no proposed gay-marriage law bans heterosexual intercourse. Having delved into make-believe territory, he then asserted that expanding marriage would destroy the one institution that “is uniquely capable of producing children.”
It takes a shameless scoundrel, especially for a man who wraps himself in a scholarly wardrobe, to try to convert a debate over marriage equality into a hysterical, non sequitur question about whether civilization wants to exterminate itself. But Eastman isn't just a professor. He's also a would-be Republican politician who has been trounced in efforts to become California's Attorney General, a race in which he called for armed revolution if gay couples are allowed to marry….

Right-wing paranoia and foolishness c. 1970: "The depths of your own mind"

noreply@blogger.com (Roy Bauer) — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 19:36:00 +0000

1970: burned entrance of B of A across from UCI (From Anteater Antics)

This morning, I came across the following post on the Anteater Antics blog, a stodgy-yet-interesting site created by the University of California, Irvine, “Libraries’ Department of Special Collections and Archives.”
But first: as you know, back in December, 1970, the Saddleback Community College District BOT, still freaking out over the burning of a bank by student protesters at UC Santa Barbara in February (see)—and likely also over the October UCI B of A incident described below—made remarkable modifications to already-approved plans for the Saddleback College Library/Admin Building—eventually called the “James B. Utt” Memorial Library. They modified them to protect the structure against feared (but, as it turns out, nonexistent) violent student protesters.

Library opening, 1973

Hence the lack of windows, etc.
Of course, the board didn’t just come right out and say that.
Said board prez Hans Vogel, “A fortress without windows is the ideal environment for library study since when you go to the library you are trying to reach the depths of your own mind.”
Yep.
What about high windows? Can’t we at least have high ones? Nope, said Hans: “from a security standpoint I would question high windows and would favor solid walls.”
Yep, security. That's key. (No violent protests have ever occurred in our district.)
How about outdoor reading balconies? Those would be nice!
Nope. Robert Lowery, the architect, explained that “We cut out the second floor outdoor reading balconies … in order to eliminate the chance students will throw books down from them to other students as you [trustees] suggested.”
That's a hell of a suggestion, boys. (What were they smokin'?)

Meanwhile, ten or twenty miles up the road at newish UCI (it opened in 1965; Saddleback College opened in Sept. of '68):

Local Bank of America burned (February, 2011)

A fire was ignited at the entrance to the local branch of the Bank of America, located directly across the street from UCI on the ground floor of the Town Center Building, shortly after midnight on October 26, 1970. This is certainly among the most mysterious, and controversial, occurrences in UCI history. This event was viewed by some in the community as having a direct relation to the burning of the Bank of America at UCSB during anti-war protests in the Spring of 1970. That action drew national attention to the anti-war movement at UCSB. Then Chancellor Aldrich received many calls from the local community with concerns about the Irvine event, many accusing UCI students of this action. Chancellor Aldrich took exception to this assumption. Opinions voiced during this period ranged from those on the far right accusing the students and blaming UCI campus administrators for their tolerance of this type of dissent. Some on the left blamed those from the far right of carefully calculating and executing an event that would cause limited physical damage but significant political damage among local community members and taxpayers. Damage to the bank was estimated at $125,000 but no cash or records were lost in the short blaze.

UCI, c. 1969

There were no witnesses to the event and no one was ever arrested. (My emphases throughout.)

UCI Town Center (as seen from UCI Gateway Commons), 1969

The Age of Stupid

noreply@blogger.com (Roy Bauer) — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 00:39:00 +0000

Former President George W. Bush's Image Ratings Improve

CLICK on graphic

The life and times of Roy

noreply@blogger.com (Roy Bauer) — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 22:21:00 +0000

"You're both wrong."

LUNCH.
So I went over to the house for lunch today, and, eventually, Annie joined us, but Pa was at the rental in Orange. We had lunch without him.

Ma started telling us about some woman, Joanne, and the possibility that Joanne’s daughter, Anna, might move into the rental. Eventually, I caught on that Joanne is the woman who, along with her husband, has leased the old house in Orange—my folks always refer to it as “the rental in Orange”—for about a dozen years. Evidently, they were “good renters.” Now, they’ve vacated the Orange residence and they’re moving out-of-state.

A look of consternation

Pa's been fixing up the house for the new renters, whoever they may be. (At first it bothered me that he worked so hard at his age, but then I remembered: he lives for this shit.)

OK, so Ma mentions that Anna’s boyfriend (Ma at times spoke as though he were the husband, but I do think she said at first that he was just the boyfriend) owns a cement truck. Well, that’s interesting, says Ma, since Joanne’s husband (we’ll call him Joe) also owns a cement truck.

Guess so.

I usually try not to listen to this kind of conversation ‘cause I don’t know any of these people and because I’m not a fan of the kind of interest some people take in other people’s lives. On the other hand, one does not want to seem to be ignoring the conversation when there’re only three people at the table, and so I listened, kind of.

Ma starts talking about Anna’s “father-in-law,” Joe.

WAIT, I SAY.
“Wait,” I say. “If Anna is Joanne’s daughter, and Joanne is married to Joe, then wouldn’t Joe be Anna’s father—or maybe her stepfather?

Well, no, said Ma. To be nice, you wouldn’t call him your stepfather; you’d call him your father.
"Yeah," said Annie, "but from our point of view, that doesn't matter."

"Yes," I said. "But you (I was addressing Ma) just said that Joe is Anna’s father-in-law. And you also said that Joanne is Anna’s mother. So that would make Joe Anna’s father or step-father. He can’t be her father-in-law.

Why not? asked Ma. “It’s exactly like Kathie. When you and Kathie were married, Pa was Kathie’s father-in-law.”

“Well, yes,” I said. “But Pa wasn’t my father-in-law. He was (and is) my father.”

“Yes, it's exactly the same,” said Ma.

“Huh? No, just like Pa is my father not my father-in-law, Joe is Anna’s father, not Anna’s father-in-law.”

Annie indicated agreement with me.

LOOK IT UP.
“You’re both wrong," said Ma. "You should go and look it up,” she added, with great confidence and a minor flourish of the hand.

“What?" I gasped, now fully consternated. "Look, this is a simple matter of English. Joe is Anna’s step-father.”

—In the course of the conversation, that Joe was not Anna's real father became clear, or at least as clear as things get around here. He is certainly not Anna’s father-in-law. "Anna would become Joe’s father-in-law," I said, "if Anna were to marry Joe’s son. That’s how it works.”

No, said Ma. Anna and this cement truck guy are married (or about to be married?). And so their relationship to Joe is through marriage. And so Joe is Anna’s father-in-law.

“No, no, no,” I say. “When Joanne married Joe, Joe became Anna’s step-father. That’s the nature of Anna's relationship to Joe. Her getting married to this cement guy doesn’t change that. It only changes things for the cement guy, who thereby becomes Joe’s son-in-law.”

THAT'S WHAT I SAID, SHE SAYS.
“Well, that’s what I said,” says Ma.

No, that’s not what you said.

I turn to Annie: is that what she said? (Annie stares into the distance, motionless. She’s not taking sides.)

It became clear that this conversation, if it were to continue, had no future except a terrible one. We've been at this point—and beyond it—so many times before.

It did sputter forth a bit longer. At some point, I must have reiterated, “Look, Joe is not Anna’s father-in-law; rather, Joe is Anna’s stepfather.” –To which Ma replied, “Well, yes, that’s what I’ve been saying.”
I was stunned anew.

I GO NOW.
I asked Annie: Is that what she’s been saying? Annie got up to get ready for work.

It was the end of the conversation. Annie walked through the door to the outside.
Such wisdom!
(Later, I checked: sure enough, hell had froze over.)

The "rental in Orange," c. 1965

The rental today

Steve Martin's "King Tut" - Um, cuz I like the term "Babble-onia"

See also On Parental Units. Note: I do not believe that Mom's curious take on the term "father-in-law" has anything to do with dementia. The original title of this little piece was, "It has always been thus." My folks are German immigrants (by way of Canada).

I think of this as a self-portrait—except that I didn't draw or write it.
For a terrific interview of James Thurber, see interview

Don tosses red meat

noreply@blogger.com (Roy Bauer) — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 03:39:00 +0000

On May 24, Assemblymember Don Wagner spoke with Time Warner Cable Local Edition host Leslie Leyton about a proposed bill that would allow non- citizens to become jurors. Natch, Don’s dead against it. He brings “Sharia Law” into the discussion. Natch.

Close to home: shots fired at Santa Monica College

noreply@blogger.com (Rebel Girl) — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 19:44:00 +0000

Breaking News:

Three shot, suspect detained at Santa Monica College (LA Times)

...The suspect was found in the school's library and taken into custody. The extent of the injuries were not immediately known, according to the sources....

Santa Monica shooting was premeditated, police say (LA Times, June 8)

The shooting rampage that left five people dead in Santa Monica on Friday was premeditated, and the gunman had more than than 1,300 rounds of ammunition with him during the attack, police said Saturday....

*

Today's scholarship program debriefing: "It's the first I've heard about it!"

noreply@blogger.com (Roy Bauer) — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 03:07:00 +0000

     In ways that may be difficult to appreciate, today's meeting was important, so I offer detailed notes:

     I attended today’s “debriefing” meeting re IVC’s embattled Scholarship Program. Faculty had been informed that the meeting would be at 2:00, but when I arrived—at exactly 2:00—the room (the President’s conference room) was locked and dark inside. I spoke with friends in the building (i.e., the administration building) and, eventually, it became clear that VP of SS, Linda Fontanilla, who called the meeting, was now under the impression that the meeting would be, not at 2:00, but at 3:00. Three of us standing there (all faculty) proclaimed that we’d be back for the meeting in an hour. Don’t know if anyone else showed up in the meantime. Evidently so.
     I arrived for the meeting at about 3:02, and the usual pre-meeting informality prevailed, though this involved only a handful of people, all of whom were among the usual suspects. Glenn (Roquemore, IVC Prez) was there too.
     Just as Kathy S, the Ac. Sen. Pres. walked in, VP of SS Linda F called the meeting to order. Glenn blathered a bit like he does and then left.
     Here’s who was left: KS, KR, KM, and me (faculty); LF (the VP); DC (the Financial Aid guy); RM (the Foundation guy); HL (Student Life gal); DO (PR person); and a middle-aged woman with whom I am not familiar.
     Linda (Fontanilla) then explained her practice of holding such meetings—“debriefings,” in which all concerned have an opportunity to express “pluses and minuses,” as she cares to put it. That sounded refreshing. She was looking, she said, for ways to make the “event” better.
     Event? I asked whether we would only be discussing the Scholarship Ceremony or the Scholarship Program. She explained that, yes, we’d be discussing the program too. Good.
     Darryl chimed in: he really thinks we should build the program anew from the ground up. Should we continue to use STARS (the troublesome software program we purchased)? Are there better programs? Etc.
     His main point, though, seemed to be that we need to start fresh with the program, and that, he insisted, takes time. The May date leaves so little time. We should do this thing in December—i.e., 18 months from now (December 2014).
     I asked: what is it exactly that you’re saying we should do in December?
     Answer: award the scholarships.
     I asked: doesn’t your suggestion—that we next award scholarships in Dec of 2014— entail that there’ll be no IVC Scholarships next year (Fall 13-Spring 14)? Yep. We need 18 months to do this right, he said. We need to “rebuild from the ground up,” he repeated.
     Eventually, KS chimed in, using this language: your proposal is that we put the Scholarship Program on hiatus for 2013-2014, right?
     Right.
     Darryl seemed to be saying two very different things: (1) that it will take more than a year to plan and build a proper Scholarship Program (hence the 18 month period); (2) that December (late Fall) is a better time to award scholarships than May (late Spring), our customary date. It seemed to me that he was none to clear in his mind that these were two very different points that should be considered separately.
     So Darryl commenced arguing for December as opposed to May as the right time of year to be awarding scholarships. He seemed to think that a change to December would have advantages regarding the “tracking” of students. (I didn't understand the details.) He also said that the summer was a dead period in which little could get done.
     I thought to myself: yeah, but doesn’t any plan—whether the December plan or the May plan—have the same problem? I mean, it’s not as if summer goes away when we move the Scholarship ceremonies to December!
     Kathy made that point and others the gist of which was: dude, you only get the 18-month advantage once, not year after year.
     Darryl explained the advantages, re donors, of moving the thing to December. That all seemed right, though not compelling.

     Darryl said he/we needed the 18 months. Kathy: yes, but you only get that the first time. If we do as you suggest, then we’ve got a year and a half until the next awards. After that, though, we’re still on a 12 month cycle, right? Cox: duly noted. I was glad he felt that way.
     Kathy made reference to a recent scholarshipian snafu: something about students receiving scholarships who were in fact leaving us (transferring immediately elsewhere). That was an error, evidently. She did not intend to “beat that horse” (I shall assume she meant to refer to a dead horse, but you never know with these bio people). But what if a student gets a scholarship in December and then continues for only the subsequent Spring semester? Kathy (also) said, I believe, that we’d have better info about students in May, not in December.
     Linda stepped in to praise the points being raised all around. (She's like that.) She then explained what she had in mind: Yes, she said, she was all for rebuilding the program, making it better. And that enterprise will take longer than 18 months. Just switching over to a new software program will take a lengthy debugging period. Etc. (She was implying, I think, that, in the meantime, we need to continue the scholarship program as best we can: no year hiatus, dude.)
     She asked whether the college has ever awarded scholarship in December. Nope, said Darryl.
     Richard spoke. His concern, he said, is “students first.” What about a student who needs money in September, but we’re only giving awards in December?
     Darryl made an important point: generally speaking, financially needy students are taken care of, not with IVC scholarships, but with state and federal monies. This last year, we “pushed out” nearly $12 million in that kind of aid. IVC’s effort amounts to about $200,000. So be clear about that. He seemed to say that we should be careful not to associate our program too much with the bulk of financial aid. We shouldn’t align everything we do with the feds/state. We're doing our own thing (and we need to define it).
     Kay chimed in: awarding the scholarships at the end of the year (i.e., May) makes more sense. Kurt chimed in, too, but I got distracted somehow, so I don’t know what he said, though he looked pretty good sayin’ it. I’m sure of that.
     I brought us back to whether we really wanted to put the scholarship program on hiatus for a year. I was skeptical. I got the sense that everyone else (save D) was skeptical of that idea. It just wouldn't do.
     Richard returned to the time-of-year issue: I don’t know of any scholarship program in the country, he said, that doesn’t do it at the end of school year (May or June, I guess). We can do a search, he said, but I think that’s right. Also, we have signed contracts with various entities that presuppose that we (I’m not sure how he finished this: that we give out scholarships each year? That we give out scholarships in May? Both?).
     He seemed to be seriously down on the idea of the hiatus, as Kathy described it.
     Kay asked if it would not be better to house the scholarship program in its own office, not under (financial aid?). Darryl explained that, when he got here, there were only 65 applicants. Recently, there were 600. So, yes, it would be great to create a separate “scholarship” office. The problem, however, is that there just aren’t the funds for it. No surprise there.
     Linda noted that the vast majority of colleges “have a Spring event.” She also seemed to say that we’ve got to keep the scholarship program alive next year: no hiatus, whether it happens in Dec. or May.
     Linda referred to the “agenda” for the meeting, that sad piece of paper in our hands. We had allotted five minutes per topic, but we were way over that on the present topic, whatever it was. She asked for a motion.
     Kathy commenced moving.
     Darryl said: let’s not lock ourselves into May. Look at the alternatives. It’s a ghost town during the summer, he said.
     Kathy: AGAIN, if we move this thing to December 2014, other than the first year, all years will have the same time issues. How does your proposal give us more time (aside from the first 18 months)? Kathy was hitting the nail on the head.
     Eventually, Linda expressed the need to get buy-in from the college community, to have regular meetings developing the program, conducting the program. This schedule of regular meetings with interested parties should offer some relief (Darryl).
     Kathy recommended/motioned as follows: that we forget the hiatus and stay with the May awards ceremony schedule; that during the upcoming year, starting this summer if possible, we run in parallel a series of meetings to revise the process. (There was a reference to “legal issues” too. I believe these concern the extent and types of restrictions on scholarships coming from federal anti-discrimination laws. We evidently haven’t made much headway answering those questions. I think that's Glenn's department, so natch.)
     So, we’ll use the current system as best we can. Go forward. Maybe we’ll get more "forbearance" (especially from faculty) as the system limps along next year.
     Everyone savored that word: "forbearance." (If Glenn were present, he'd be looking it up.)
     Kurt mentioned that flex time could be devoted to all this. Indeed.
     Kay mentioned that, over a year ago, a taskforce was created to identify problems and recommendations and it met through the summer. It issued its recommendations. Has anything happened with those recommendations? The perception of the membership of that taskforce is that nothing happened with those recs, said Kay. If we’re going to propose people do this kind of work again, we’d better follow through, said Kay.
     Kathy: I have all that documentation. To my knowledge, I’ve had a couple of meetings with Glenn discussing the output of last year’s taskforce. He and I came to an understanding about what the recs were, in words that he was willing to buy into. I thought he was going off to get a legal opinion. But he hasn’t got back to me. (Quelle surprise! This knowledge has not yet been acquired, evidently.)
     Kay: yes but there were many recs. Kathy assures everyone that, as we go forward with rebuilding the program, for her, as Senate Prez, this issue will be on a “front burner.”

     Kathy’s motion—according to which we’ll stick with the May schedule and not impose the hiatus—was approved (unanimously, as near as I could tell).
     Linda took some responsibility for—I’m not sure what. She only arrived on this campus at the start of Fall (she's new), and so perhaps she was not sufficiently aware how important this issue was (or the taskforce’s work?). I asked for clarification, but she got political/defensive on me. Whatever. I really wasn’t trying to pin anything on her. She seemed to emphasize the importance of having representatives of every constituency on the committee or taskforce or coven—not sure which. She was apologizing for something, I know not what. She seems nice, but she needs to work on her gimmicks and gambits. Or just abandon them.
     I remarked about the phenomenon of demoralization among some of the better people on campus. They serve on committees, do hard work, and then they find that all of their work is for naught. They’re less likely to work on committees after that, I said. This is a particularly shameful phenomenon in the case of new faculty, I said.
     Darryl chimed in to emphasize the excellence of the work done by that taskforce last summer. He seemed to make an effort to explain how that group’s work could get “lost,” as it surely did. He regarded the work of some members of the group as “a breath of fresh air.” The calendar, he said, got in the way.
     I then presented six points re the scholarship process that, in truth, had been composed by a (rebellious) colleague of mine who is very familiar with the issues surrounding the scholarship program at IVC. I essentially read them (commenting briefly along the way):

1) Poor outreach. 300 application out of 15,000 students. The majority of applicants seem to be those already plugged into colleges resources (ASIVC, Honors, EOPS, etc).

2) Application process. Applicants need to be advised about submitting FULL applications (letters, statements etc.) and the failure to do so weakens their chances of gaining a scholarship.

3) Some applications that I read had alarming facts – e.g., GPAs were noted but units earned were Zero(?!). Or the number of units earned was [inexplicably] large – in one case, very large (over 500).

4) Concerned about distribution of awards. Is the old policy of limiting the number and/or amount of awards in order to increase the number of recipients is still in place? [I added my two cents: several faculty have expressed to me the perception that some students seemed oddly over-awarded. Kathy noted that, in the case of some scholarships, our hands are tied by donors regarding dollar amounts; but, yes, many have perceived an odd pattern of some individuals receiving multiple awards.]

5) Why are the awards that are won by individual students not listed next to their names in the program? This absence fuels a sense of a lack of accountability. [Again, I filled out the point a bit, noting the consistent absence of any information about who received what, dollar amounts, etc. An old complaint, but no fix is ever made. Richard noted that I can take a look at the spreadsheets whenever.]

6) The timing of the application and decision-making process. This is related to outreach and publicity. Is it possible to begin the application process late in the year (November?) and close in February, thus allowing for a longer period to apply? Is it possible to begin the decision-making process earlier, shortly after the application deadline?

     I had more points, but I left it at that. I gathered from subsequent remarks that, essentially, there was considerable agreement about these six points.
     Kay turned to the issue of the scholarship ceremony itself. It seemed to her (and, evidently, to others) that we need to slow the ceremony down. It came across as perfunctory. Let the audience applaud, she said. Let’s take our time.
     Kathy chimed in: yes, there is general dissatisfaction with the “black hole” of where last year’s work went. She expressed issues about meeting times for the committee(s). We know at least some of the people most interested in the scholarshhip program. We should do some hallway pounding to ensure that we get some young faculty who don’t have long memories of shititude (my word, not Kathy’s). Bring in a fresh point of view. No bad taste in the mouth. (Kathy loves her metaphors.)
     Kathy alluded to the many complaints about the process—I think she was referring essentially to my “six points.” She wasn't going to repeat them. She mentioned, too, that we should make a great effort to accommodate deaf students. We need an interpreter present at the ceremony.
     I think Linda asked that we state the “pluses” re the scholarship program too. I won’t even bother to report those.
     Richard asserted that, with exception of the point about student outreach, the people he talks to (members of the committee? Donors?) had the same concerns that I listed. There’s a perception, by people on the “outside,” that a small group of students were getting the scholarships. He offered a theory regarding how this could have come about. One group made selection, another group made selection. That’s how the “over” awarding occurred, he said. (He said more, but I didn’t get it.)
     He agreed that we need some kind of policy to prevent this from happening, to “spread things out.” One of our donors, he said, stated that they wouldn’t have funded the thing if they knew this one kid was gonna receive this much money, etc. Richard mentioned the need for “writing workshops” (for students, I guess) and involvement of the “English department.” Yes, we can get students to provide exactly those things asked for on the application. Can surely be done.
     In closing, Richard asserted that we came a long way last year, and that he can only see things getting better!
     There was some discussion about the circumstance that the award ceremony is held early in the morning, that it used to be held in the gym, etc. Diane noted that the Scholarship Program booklet (that everyone gets at the ceremony) takes two weeks to print, and that makes it difficult putting all of the info in there. Pretty stressful.
     That’s when I noted that we’ve repeatedly asked for more information about who is awarded exactly what, the dollar amounts, and so on. For years. That’s when Richard chimed in that I can look at his “spreadsheets” any time.

     Kurt referred to the small number of students in the know and who participate. If we look at the IVC home page, how visible is the application/program? How many buttons must a student push to get to the scholarship info/applications? We once had a big, prominent button on the home page, very visible.
     Kurt: that group last summer needs to know that their work will be addressed. We’ll have a difficult time building good will if we don’t communicate that.
     He agree that the ceremony was a bit anticlimactic, too hurried.
     I made my last point, though not really a new one. I noted that cynicism and idealism go hand in hand. If you’re a “corrupt rat bastard,” then you aren’t bothered by the appearance of secrecy and cheating and error and the like. You figure that other people do as you do, it’s no big deal. But colleges are filled with people who, for whatever reason, demand clean and fair and competent processes. If there’s any hint of skullduggery or partiality, etc.—then faculty are seriously turned off. They want nothing to do with it. That’s how I feel. So it is very important not only to keep things clean and above board, but also to make sure that they appear so. (The point about reality vs. appearance became clearer as people responded to my point.)

There were then the expected assertions about how hard people try to be fair and honest, etc. At some point I had to make clear that I was not accusing anyone of bias or skullduggery. But when, year after year, the process is non-transparent (i.e., utterly opaque), and despite continual howls of protest and demands for change, nothing is ever done to bring things to light, to make the fixes—well, you’re “inviting” cynicism and rejection of the process, at least among faculty.

     Kurt referred to incidents that don’t help maintain an appearance of fairness and transparency. Last year, he said, a student was informed that he had won a significant Humanities and Languages scholarship, but, to date, he has never received the scholarship.
     Richard then reared up, said it’s the first he’s heard about it. (That’s odd. I’ve been experiencing piercing caterwauling about it for a solid year. Richard really needs to get around, or turn up his hearing aid.)
     Kay noted that, oddly, she gets few requests from students for letters of recommendation. She seemed to say (what many of us say) that such letters should always be a part of these applications. Evidently, many apps are turned in sans letters of rec.
     Linda ended our fruitful session with an observation about the paucity of “corrupt rat bastards” in her experiences here at the college. I fought the urge to identify some for her. I smiled as I typed.
     She said that she appreciated our meeting today, learning what people value. The people involved in this process, she said, are very serious, worked their “fingers to the bone.” This is one more important thing we do for the students, she said. “I’m not going to say there will be no mistakes made. The work that was done the year before (in summer), I hope that we can remedy that.” She wants people to understand that that work is valued as we move forward. She said she’d try to heal the wounds, insist on utter transparency.
     OK, I believe her.
     I suggested that, if we’re going to follow two tracks—(1) limping along with the scholarship program next year as best we can and (2) slowly developing a new and improved program “from the ground up”—well, maybe we should ask that forlorn summer taskforce bunch to be the core of the group that pursues #2. Would be the right gesture, I said.
     Everybody seemed to agree.
     Yeah, everybody was happy, though Richard made the point that people should stick to “facts” when talking about what's up with the program and such. That was an allusion to DtB. I said, sure, but you can’t complain about a perception of secrecy, etc., if people keep asking for fixes and for transparency and you never fucking do anything to provide it.
     Well, I didn’t say “fucking,” but I was thinking it.

The Scholarship Program Debriefing, Strike 1

noreply@blogger.com (Roy Bauer) — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 21:29:00 +0000

So, today, I went to the “debriefing” meeting re scholarship (etc.) events (see earlier post, What up, Rocky?). According to the original announcement, sent on May 30 by Ac. Sen. Prez Kathy Schmeidler to VP of SS Linda Fontanilla—and cc’d to faculty—the meeting was scheduled thus:

A123 (the President's Conference Room)
Thursday, Jun 6 2-3 pm

     When I got to the conference room (a half hour ago), at exactly 2:00 p.m., I found the door to A123 locked. Not lights were on inside.

     I talked to friends in the building, and we eventually determined that there was an understanding “out there” to the effect that the meeting would begin, not at 2:00, but at 3:00

     At 3:00, I’ll let you know if they’ve somehow moved the meeting to the Sizzler or something. (Yeah, maybe one of Rocky's people will say, "Yeah, they're down at Tijuana's!")

Roquemore's commencement speaker selection "process"

noreply@blogger.com (Roy Bauer) — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 18:21:00 +0000

Last night, one of our readers posted the following comment:

Anonymous 9:36 PM, June 05, 2013

Gustavo won't be our speaker next year. The [Commencement Speaker] committee met this year and forwarded three names to [President] Glenn [Roquemore] – all of whom will decline. Then Glenn will pick who he wants. That's the process. [T]hat['s] what happened this year and last year. Glenn is a big believer in his process. [I]t works for him. That's what it's all about.

Anonymous seems to be suggesting that

A. The committee’s selections (for 2014) are of a sort that it is highly unlikely any will accept our invitation
B. Last year, upon the failure of the (or any of the) choices to accept our invitation, Glenn simply chose someone not recommended by the committee
C. This year, the same thing happened; he did the same thing

Can any of our readers confirm any of this? (How do you know what you know?)
Is A true (if it is true) because, owing to the committee’s questionable “process,” the committee ended up recommending famous people (e.g., Hillary Clinton, Tom Hanks) who are unlikely to accept an invitation from an obscure college with which they have no connection?
Let us know!
Hope to see you at today’s Scholarship Ceremony (etc.) “debriefing” in the President’s Conference Room (2:00 p.m.).

A123 (the President's Conference Room)
Thursday, Jun 6, 2-3 pm

No nod for Tod

noreply@blogger.com (Roy Bauer) — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 01:22:00 +0000

Struck out

As it turns out, Saddleback College President Tod Burnett didn't get that Cabrillo College job. Just posted:

Cabrillo College board tabs Laurel Jones as school's new president (Santa Cruz Sentinel, 6/5)

The Cabrillo College board Wednesday recommended the hiring of Laurel Jones as the new president of the community college.
. . .
Jones was chosen out of four other finalists: Tod Burnett, president of Saddleback College in Mission Viejo; Marie-Elaine Burns, vice president of student services, San Jose City College; Farley Herzek, interim president, East Los Angeles College; and Pamela Walker, vice president of student services, American River College in Sacramento….

See also
• Cabrillo presidential search committee names Laurel Jones as its top pick

• Saddleback College President Tod Burnett to Impose Prayer on Campus? (Mission Viejo Patch; May 11, 2011)

"Big Ol' Pendejo"

noreply@blogger.com (Roy Bauer) — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 16:43:00 +0000

Pendejo ∞

Why Gustavo Ditched His East Los Angeles College Commencement Speech (Hint: Because He's a Big Ol' Pendejo) (Gustavo)

It'll soon be taps for old Army barracks building in O.C. (LA Times)
The World War II-era Memorial Gardens Building in Costa Mesa will soon make way for a Pacific Amphitheatre improvement project.

Dana Rohrabacher's "Ignorance" Blasted By Washington Post (NavelGazing)

Burnett and Cabrillo

noreply@blogger.com (Roy Bauer) — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 03:03:00 +0000

[See UPDATE.] Some have been asking whether Cabrillo College has decided on who shall be its new President, an open office for which Saddleback College’s Tod Burnett is a finalist.
According to last Wednesday’s Santa Cruz Sentinal,

The name of the next Cabrillo College president will likely be announced by the end of the week, said interim president John Hendrickson.
"We're reviewing the finalist's qualifications and background," Hendrickson said at a College Planning Council meeting on Wednesday. "I'm hopeful that by the end of this week, we can say the name out loud."
The future leader will be selected from finalists Tod Burnett, Laurel Jones, Pamela Walker, Farley Herzek and Marie-Elaine Burns. The five candidates spoke at forums held on the community college's Watsonville and Aptos campuses last week.

Well, no announcement has been made.
I sought information on the Cabrillo College/District Website, but that got me nowhere, though I did find a 2013 Cabrillo College President Search Committee Website. That has a chronological list of “Board Actions” relative to the search. The list ends with three dates:

May 6, 2013 Governing Board meeting
• Search Committee Status Report to Governing Board
• Special Board meeting to Interview Candidate

June 3, 2013 Governing Board meeting
• Designate Site Visit Committee

July 8, 2013 Governing Board meeting
• Appoint new Cabrillo College president

So it appears that the Cabrillo board met yesterday. If they’ve made a decision, they’ve been pretty quiet about it. (See Cabrillo press releases.)

The district's undeveloped "history" page

noreply@blogger.com (Roy Bauer) — Mon, 03 Jun 2013 17:59:00 +0000

As you know, we at DtB love history, especially local history, and we've uncovered quite a bit of it ourselves over the years (see links below).

Districts and colleges have histories, too, of course; they're histories that a contemporary member of the college community can learn from. For instance, attention to the record can help develop an appreciation of our predecessors' efforts and accomplishments. Without the latter, the SOCCCD and its colleges would not exist. And they wouldn't be as good (and sometimes, as bad) as they sometimes are.

THE SOCCCD "HISTORY" PAGE. As perhaps you are aware, the SOCCCD website sports a "history" page. Find it by going to the website (here); then clicking on "About the District"; then clicking on "history." Voila!

(Or just click HERE.)

The district's history page comprises a measly 13 photos. Some of them are pretty cool. I especially enjoy the "shovel" photos from 1967.

Seems like a million years ago. Back in '67, I was in Junior High, listening to the Buffalo Springfield. The Reb was in kindergarten, I think.

Obviously, the district's current "history" page needs work. I mean, just how much history can you capture in 13 photos, especially when 6 of the 13 are about Ronald Reagan? So, it's much too brief and it distorts the actual history, which stretches over 46 years and several distinctive eras.

Wouldn't it be nice if the dang thing were beefed up and improved? Yes!

The last 2 photos on the history page (see below) are about buildings dedicated to political leaders. The first depicts the dedication of the "James B. Utt Memorial Library" in 1973. The second depicts the dedication of the "Ronald Reagan Board of Trustees Room" in 2008.

(Over the years, DtB has taken the lead in explaining just what kind of guy James B. Utt was [see]. In truth, he was paranoid and racist and gullible. An embarrassment. A nice guy, though. And a perfect illustration of one part of the wider story of OC in the sixties.

(And Ronald Reagan? Well, there's no use getting into that. He's not remembered as a friend to higher education. I'm just grateful that our trustees didn't change the name of the district to "Reagan.")

A MODEST PROPOSAL. Gosh, Gary, I'd be happy to assist in the improvement of the district's history page. We can use the original 13 colonies—er, photos—and just build out from there, like manifest destiny!

Then we could move on to the "history" pages of the two colleges!

For those interested in our colleges' and our district's history, I recommend perusing the following:

• College History (DtB)
• The district saga (DtB)
• SOCCCD headlines (DtB)

This graphic appears on a document entitled "Fast Facts," available at the Saddleback College site. It seems to represent the apogee of the site's interest in the college's history.

The closest thing to a "history" page on the IVC website seems to be the "Facts at a Glance" page, which says almost nothing about the IVC saga.

P.S.: THE SOCCCD SAGA

I've updated DtB's running chronicle of the SOCCCD saga. Read it here.
Let me know if you think I've left out anything of importance. I'm sure I have.

No-Confidence (N+1)

At 6 PM on Friday, March 15, the online poll for the NYU Faculty of Arts and Science vote of no-confidence against President John Sexton closed. At 6:09 PM, the results were announced: of the 682 eligible full-time tenured and tenure-track professors, 569 had voted; 298 in favor of a declaration of no-confidence and 224 in favor of Sexton, with 47 abstaining. It was the highest-profile vote against a university president since Larry Summers was forced out of Harvard in 2006, and that was not its only significance: it was also one of the first major acts of faculty opposition to the top-down, corporate model of university governance that has been gaining prominence for the last four decades….

noreply@blogger.com (Roy Bauer) — Sun, 02 Jun 2013 19:13:00 +0000

Nancy agreed that "We must take back our Christian country"

noreply@blogger.com (Roy Bauer) — Sat, 01 Jun 2013 20:40:00 +0000

Prayer and its place in district/college gatherings has been on lots of people's minds lately, and that reminds me that Nancy Padberg, President of the SOCCCD BOT, once went along with calling me, and other plaintiffs in Westphal v. Wagner,* "heathens." (See Queen Nancy's premature pronouncement.)
That factoid amused me then and amuses me still.
Here are excerpts from some of the pleading papers from WvW:

That's right, Padberg evidently agreed with constituents who opined that "we must take back our Christian country" and asked that she "Please keep God in our community colleges."
Some of these people even brought hell into the discussion, and Nancy seemed to go along with that too. Gosh, what she must think of me!

Nancy and the late Tom Fuentes. I don't think they were friendly.

One reason that Nancy's tolerance of such coarse vulgarisms interests and amuses me is the fact that I never refer to her in such harsh terms, even in private conversation among "heathens" and the like. I might refer to her as "Queen Nancy" (she's pretty imperious) or imply that she is among the "Neanderthals" or "Knuckle-Draggers" of the world—but that's just payback for her arrogance and utter eschewery of any form or degree of magnanimity. C'mon!
Gosh, Nancy, I really do like you—you are, after all, kind to animals—so I'm proposing a compromise. I'll cease with the "knuckle-dragger" jive if you cease condoning the "heathen" twaddle. OK?

*Westphal v. Wagner addressed a pattern of behavior by the SOCCCD BOT (and it's officer, the Chancellor), including the playing of "Jesus" videos at the Chancellor's opening session and obnoxious trustee prayers at Scholarship events.

Commencement video

noreply@blogger.com (Roy Bauer) — Fri, 31 May 2013 07:09:00 +0000

I did a quick search on YouTube under “commencement” and “Saddleback College” or “Irvine Valley College.” Here’s what came up: video from this year’s commencement at SC and video from past commencements at IVC:

UCI Chancellor Michael V. Drake gives Keynote Speech at Saddleback College Commencement 2013:

Saddleback College 2013 Spring Commencement: Student Speaker Regina Shiroma:

‪"The Wild Duck Chase" author Martin J. Smith commencement speech at Irvine Valley College, 2011

IVC Commencement 2011 Student Speaker

Irvine Valley College Commencement Speech - Dr John Spencer Ellis (2009)

Somehow, this puts me in the mood for some Dusty Springfield:

Love it.