ACCREDITATION SCHOLASTICISM. Senate meetings typically begin with
“executive reports,” i.e., reports by senate officers, and Thursday’s meeting
was no exception. Kathy S, our esteemed president, noted that few of the
important committees of which she is a member have met recently, and thus she
has little to report.
We are, of course, moving forward with our various Accreditation reports. That
seems to be going well. (I will spare you my profound cynicism.)
As you know, the accreditors have spanked (and re-spanked) the college with
various paddles of varying vintage, and this has yielded a multi-faceted
effort, at the district and college levels, to identify and address “barriers”
to communication and civility, etc. Naturally, this effort resembles the grey
background happenings of dystopian novels—it is shot through with elements of
the evil and the dishonest and the just plain freakin' stupid.
Kathy reports that the “barriers” effort moves apace, though nothing of
significance was reported.
(You’ll recall that, last Fall, one product of this initiative was a proposed
board policy that would have allowed administrators to evaluate faculty with
regard to their “civility” or lack thereof! Thanks to (especially) your reps,
our academic senate has led the charge to resist and deflect this dark product,
this assault on Academic Freedom. Stay tuned.)
Kathy reminds us that faculty are needed to fill
spots on the accreditation oversight committee. (Or was it the “barriers” effort?) Anyone interested? Please let
us know if you are willing to serve in this capacity.
CONSTERNATION RE FACULTY IMPOTENCE/ADMINISTRATIVE SUBJECTION. I raised a
question: with all this alleged self-reflection afoot (i.e., accreditation
self-studies), has anyone noticed that administration keeps ignoring our (i.e.,
faculty) input and keeps freezing us out of the decision process? I cited the
Early College Program, reminding faculty that, when the program was introduced
seven or so years ago, faculty squawked plenty; nevertheless, they were simply
presented with the damned program as a fait accompli. Our objections
yielded nothing. Since then, we have made some efforts to examine and to
critique the program (most memorably two years ago—a committee headed by Chris
R produced a report that recommended non-participation or worse), and these
efforts have left many of us with the distinct impression that the program is
going forward, whatever faculty may think.
(I should explain that, in the course of these conflicts/discussions, many
faculty have expressed the view that bringing “college” to a classroom of high
school students cannot work, at least not in many areas of higher
education--history, philosophy, lit, writing, etc. Nevertheless, in recent
years, our college has pursued Early College and other programs, some of them
involving “contract education,” that essentially involve bringing “college” to
high school campuses and groups of high school students.)
My question seemed to spark a lengthy and surprising discussion among senators
in which my disgruntlement and consternation were revealed to be fairly widely
shared.
Some senators acknowledged that some of the initial “logistics” problems with
the EC program have been addressed—Dean Kathy W squawked euphoniously
about that for a round or two—but the more fundamental issues have not been. My
rhetoric included the remark that, if our position on such fundamental issues
as the unworkability of the EC Program will be given no voice at all, then we
may as well stop meeting (as a Senate). I don’t think my remark struck many as
over-the-top.
To a degree, I put Kathy S in the position of having to defend her presidency.
I quickly noted that, with her leadership, things have vastly improved, and
surely that is true. Still, when one steps back and views the fate of the
faculty voice at our college in the last decade or so, with regard
especially to one set of important issues, we’ve been rendered impotent, our
views not even solicited.
Kathy fully agreed. She emphasized that the Early College issue is
only one of several in this regard. She promised that she would continue to
represent the faculty in the strongest possible way, though, naturally, her
efforts might nonetheless be all for naught.
Melanie noted that, recently, she had been told that she must produce an
instructor for a Reading class to be offered at Irvine high schools this
summer. (This appears to be another round of contract education.) Evidently,
there was no opportunity to consider whether offering such a course at a high
school campus was feasible or wise. Others had similar tales to tell. These
programs are simply created and then foisted upon us.
Some of us remembered some of the stunning excesses that emerged in the Crean
Lutheran High School fiasco of two or three years ago (among other scandals,
instructors, typically part-timers, were pressured to sign a statement
regarding their philosophical agreement with the tenets of the Lutheran
Church—or something of the kind.)
In the course of the discussion, we were told that these courses do indeed
receive college credit. This means that we, the faculty of IVC, certify that
these high schoolers are receiving college-level instruction in these various
areas (history, economics, etc.). But we have little control over what goes on
at these schools—e.g., class time, student study time, etc.
BUDGET DISPERSEMENT ISSUES. Bob U, our Vice President, reported his
activities as a member of various committees on campus, including the committee
recently created to consider ways to save money and increase revenue (--it was
created in response to the “crisis” that emerged in Fall, which led to
premature Roquemorian efforts to make bold unilateral moves, such as
elimination of new faculty hires). Evidently, the committee is considering an
approach to funding that would create “buckets” of money. I don’t think I
understand the metaphor, but the point of such bucketry, whatever its nature,
is to have money when it is needed.
Bob reported on the deliberations of some committee concerned with our internal
(college) budget allocation process. That process has long been plagued with
unclarity and opacity and an evident failure ever to produce decisions. Faculty
have submitted the required forms only to find that the forms have been lost.
Now, the forms can be tracked, though it remains unclear how these proposals
are ranked. “They no longer drop into a black hole,” declared Bob. Apparently,
there is now a rating system involving stars. (Yes, stars. No thumbs.) I didn’t
understand that either. Maybe Melanie understood. Dunno.
FLEX OBLIGATIONS. Roopa M, our Academic Affairs Chair, reported about
recent successes in our two lecture series. She announced the Michael Shermer talk, which will occur in early May. That should be
great. (Shermer is a national figure in the “skeptic” movement—essentially, a
response to widespread scientific illiteracy and various failures to comprehend
science [organic fruit, anyone?]—which includes such figures as James Randi and
Richard Dawkins.)
Roopa reminded us that we need to submit our flex
hours for Fall and Spring ASAP.
Evidently, it won’t do to wait until the last minute (or after the end of the
semester). SO PLEASE GET YOUR FLEX OBLIGATIONS TAKEN CARE OF. If you don't,
sh*t will happen, boy.
NEW DEMANDS ON TRANSFER DEGREES. Diana H, our chair of Curriculum,
announced that there is a move afoot to ensure that there is a “narrative” per
transfer degree. (That's what she said.) I think this is coming from the CSU;
evidently, they are demanding that we provide a fuller account of our degrees.
The English Department is dealing with this now. (I briefly spoke with Bill E,
who assured me that his department is on top of it.)
If you need help with this, whatever it is, it is available. Contact Tiffany T
or Diana H. PHILOSOPHY and SPANISH
will be on the hot seat (in this regard) in the Fall. Steve R and Kathy S alluded to confusion or
controversy about just what is required here. Evidently, clarity will be
provided at the upcoming State Academic Senate “Plenary” meeting.
VOLUNTEERS? Again, we need faculty
volunteers to serve on the “accreditation oversight committee.” Anyone interested? We’re desperate. Any
adjuncts?
BYLAWS. We had a lengthy discussion of the proposed changes to the Ac.
Senate’s bylaws. You’ll recall that, recently, Melanie and I forwarded a draft,
urging you to read it. Yeah. We heard from absolutely no one.
In the end, we approved putting this draft on the ballot (during upcoming
Academic Senate elections).
HIRING COMMITTEES. We approved lists of proposed membership of two
hiring committees: (a) Business Science (CIM) and (b) Fine Arts (Speech). Our
own (sort of) Brooke C was approved as a member of a dean hiring committee.
And that was about it. Don’t let it go to your head.
--Senator Roy
