Jan. 20 email to Lisa Davis Allen: “Some ‘Academic Senate’ concerns, informally voiced”

“Some ‘Academic Senate’ concerns, informally voiced.”

Lisa,

I just wanted to share a concern some of us have regarding an apparent decline in the governance role of the IVC Academic Senate.

As you know, as the Fall semester started, some faculty were concerned that issues/concerns once routinely discussed on the floor of the senate were now being taken care of in a less visible fashion—and, seemingly, in the control of the VPI rather than the Senate. In particular, some faculty in biology were adamant that they had brought serious concerns about our “Early College” program to the Senate President in the Spring of 2009, and yet the matter was not agendized for Senate consideration at that time. Furthermore, at the start of Fall 2009, “Early College” was in some sense agendized, but not in a manner that reflected faculty concerns. Senators then learned that issues regarding EC would be addressed, but not at the Senate; rather, they would be addressed by a committee that seemed to be run by the VPI, not the Academic Senate. 

“You can join Craig’s committee,” we were told. 

Objections were voiced, and the upshot seemed to be that a new “early college” committee was formed that was explicitly an Academic Senate committee. Chris Riegle was made the chair.

But toward the end of the Fall semester, another troubling issue arose. It came to light that the college was offering credit courses at Crean Lutheran High School. Indeed, these courses were listed, along with the rest of the many putative “open enrollment” courses, in the college schedule of classes for Fall. 

When some instructors learned of this, they were very surprised. Why hadn’t this arrangement, whatever it was, been brought before the Academic Senate? Why were full-time faculty (in the relevant areas) left in the dark about credit courses being offered in their field at Crean?

Eventually, it came to light that, despite the impression left by the Schedule of Classes, the Crean courses were “contract ed” courses, though they were indeed creditcourses.

Now, this is apparently not widely known, but there were some troubling irregularities in the Crean arrangement that are not widely known:

Part-timers who had been sent to teach at Crean were asked to fill out a form. Among other things, appearing on the form was a series of boxes, one of which was to be checked by the instructor. The various options concerned the official (Lutheran) religious doctrines at Crean and the disposition of the instructor to state or reveal beliefs to the contrary.

I have communicated with adjuncts who taught at Crean in the Fall, and they have verified that this did indeed occur.

To me, this is highly irregular and troubling. The impression left is that Crean intended to screen instructors re their beliefs and their openness about them. Or perhaps they were attempting to discourage some instructors from purusing work at Crean, owing to their failure to be sufficiently Lutheran.

Further, one might suppose that IVCwas offering these courses and that, therefore, IVC personnel were hiring these instructors to teach certain courses at Crean. Therefore, those instructors arrived at Crean supposing that they had been hired. And yet, when they arrived at Crean, they encountered what might be interpreted as yet another step in the process before they could teach. 

I have been assured that one of the instructors that we sent to Crean was in fact rejected by them and did not teach there despite his having been sent to Crean by IVC people to teach at Crean.

I also have it on good authority that officials at Crean asked instructors whether they wanted to teach othercourses. I do believe that an instructor without the requesite credentials was asked to teach a course in Economics and Political Science. Again, this is highly irregular and it is inconsistent with the notion that these instructors were selected by our college and assigned courses by us. In fact, Crean was involved in assigning instructors to courses, including courses for which some instructors lacked the requisite background.

As things stood late in the Fall (perhaps things have changed since then), our college had offered and was planning to offer credit courses taught by an instructor who was not qualified to teach those courses.

None of these things would have occurred had the Academic Senate been consulted about this arrangement. Knowing the Senate, I would guess that they would have nixed the whole arrangement, whatever its details.

I know less about this matter, but I have been told that there have been some serious cheating problems at one of our High School sites for “Early College.” One might suppose that this fact would at least be brought to the attention of the senate. As far as I know, that has not occurred.

And so I feel, perhaps mistakenly (no doubt you’ll disabuse me of any misapprehensions), that, increasingly, the college is running things without appropriate faculty oversight. 

Am I wrong?

I hope to hear from you soon.

Roy Bauer,

Senator, School of Humanities and Languages

Senator Roy’s email to Senate President LDA and Cabinet, January 29:

“More concerns; possible agenda items”

To IVC Academic Senate Cabinet:

1. As you know, Chancellor Mathur will be vacating his office on June 30, 2010. It is likely, or at least possible, therefore, that the district will soon announce a search for his replacement.

Given our district’s unfortunate history with respect to Presidential and Chancellor hires (in the last dozen or so years, some hires were viewed with widespread skepticism), I suggest that the Senate Cabinet contemplate agendizing a discussion of how the Academic Senate might act to encourage or promote a fair, honest, and careful Chancellor search.

2. At the recent January meeting of the SOCCCD board of trustees, the board discussed an item concerning Saddleback College’s Communications program--a program that houses instruction of film and TV. Item 6.1 had two parts. Part 1 was a recommendation that the college’s Channel 39 cease its long-standing practice of broadcasting programs, including student productions, that fall within the PG-13 standard in favor of the more restrictive PG standard. (Since late November, in view of trustee concerns, Communication officials self imposed the PG standard.) Part 2 of 6.1 recommended a review of membership of the Film Program Advisory Committee for the purpose of broadening representation.

Many students and others spoke during “public comments” to defend the program and its practices and to urge the board not to impose the PG standard. Trustee Lang opined that the recommended action smacked of “censorship,” and at least two other trustees seemed to express similar views.

Ultimately, the second part of 6.1 was approved without evident objection. Trustee Padberg, who had initiated inquiries into Channel 39’s practices, agreed to “table” the first part of the item, with the understanding that Communications would self-impose the PG standard and that the board could revisit this matter after a year in order to review the program’s conduct.

Item 6.1 applies also to IVC’s Channel 33.

I submit that the action proposed (6.1, part 1) constitutes an objectionable form of censorship and that the informal “tabling” agreement constitutes de facto censorship. I submit that this result (re 6.1) constitutes a precedent about which faculty should be concerned.

I ask the cabinet: should the Academic Senate agendize a discussion of this matter?

If it would help, I’d be happy to present to you (the cabinet) or to the senators the bare facts of the inquiry and action as a preliminary to contemplating any discussion or action.

Roy Bauer
Senator, School of Humanities and Languages