SMC Re-arranges Deck Chairs on the Titanic

A simple peek at Santa Monica College's Administration webpage reveals that there has been quite a mass exodus of administrative positions at the college. Starting with the SMC Board of Trustees, we've seen the departure of Carole L. Currey, Dr. Dorothy Ehrhart-Morrison, and Herb Roney. New to the Board is retired judge David B. Finkel, who has taught political science at SMC, focusing on Constitutional law, an area that SMC is in much need of understanding and compliance. Also new to the Board are Louise Jaffe and Andrew Walzer. Listening to the thoughtful questions and concerns of these three new board members, I am hopeful that SMC is moving forward in the right direction to solve its numerous problems.

SMC's Senior Administrative Staff has also seen some adjustments. David Muller (husband of AET Dean Katharine Muller), Associate Vice-President of Facilities has vanished. For the last decade, the college has provided not a single photo or bio on Mr. Muller, questioning what exactly he did for the college. According to a confidential source, former SMC President Piedad Robertson hired both Mullers as part of a package deal when she first took office. Prior to his position of VP of Facilities, David Muller received $7566 per month as a Facilities Management Consultant. According to the SMC Board of Trustees minutes for July 6, 1998, "Mr. Muller is needed in order to complete projects in the facilities area during the recruitment period for the Associate Vice-President, Facilities created by the management reorganization." Somehow, as a consultant, he succeeded in recruiting himself for the VP position.

Also gone from the SMC administrative roster is Vice-President of Planning and Development, Robert Sammis. On or about November 2006, Marvin Martinez eased into this position. There was complete secrecy governing Sammis' departure from SMC. According to confidential sources, Sammis' was quietly "released from his duties" at SMC. Sammis also served as inside legal counsel as well as chief negotiator in faculty contract disputes. Both the Classified Senate and the SMC Faculty Association constantly criticized Sammis for allegedly unfair labor practices and were pleased with his dismissal from the college. Sammis also had a history of stonewalling compliance with the California Public Records Act.


From left to right: Robert Sammis Living it Up; Piedad Robertson and Don Girard

Both the Vice-President of Human Resources and Vice-President of Business/Administration positions are vacant. Jeff Shimizu is listed as the Vice-President of Academic Affairs. Two new administrative positions have emerged. Teresita Rodriguez has been appointed Vice President of Enrollment Development in an effort to fix SMC's ongoing enrollment problems. According to the college, it is having difficulty both retaining its students and recruiting new ones.

Don Girard, SMC's marketing director, and a man who has been cited for his well-versed knowledge in the college's politics, has moved into a very questionable administrative position. Previously, he had been listed as Executive Assistant to the President and was a founding member of the SMC Foundation President's Circle. Girard also had a hand in preparing the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the troubled Bundy campus. Now, Girard is listed as Senior Director of Government Relations and Institutional Communication. Precisely what government relations are needed and how institutional communication will be improved is not described, as SMC's webpage simply has no information on Girard's new position. Will SMC provide this information or will Girard's more expensive administrative position remain a mystery as David Muller's had been in the past? Is SMC merely re-arranging deck chairs on its institutional Titanic or will these new positions actual serve to benefit the SMC community? Only time will tell.

-- Des Manttari,
Editor-in-Chief,
Phoenix Genesis

(c) 2006: Phoenix Genesis/MBS LP


Feel free to link or print this; just include the SAVE SMC URL: http://savesmc.blogspot.com/

Technorati Tags: Santa Monica College, Robert Sammis, public schools, Don Girard, senior administration, board of trustees, David Muller, Jeff Shimizu, Teresita Rodriguez, enrollment development, News and politics, government relations, California Public Records Act

Chanukah, Tikkun Olam, and Social Justice

Sadly, Chanukah ends tonight. For many Jewish people, it is a celebration of lights, food, and family, but for me, it has always been a profoundly spiritual transition period, a time to reflect on the previous year and to center myself for the year to come. During this time, I try to follow the path of Tikkun Olam, a Hebrew phrase for "repairing the world." To walk the path of Tikkun Olam is to reach out for social justice. According to the Kabbalah, the world was viewed as a pottery vessel that was insufficient to hold the light of God. As the universe was unstable, it inevitably shattered into shards. Since the universe was broken, it was in need of repair. It is through one's deeds of goodwill and social justice that the universe can be rendered whole again.

Thus, during the eight days and nights of Chanukah, I try to reaffirm my Jewish faith and dedicate myself to working toward this social justice. When we place our Chanukah lights in the window for the world to see, we are connecting to the outside world and rekindling our commitment to social justice and truth through advocacy and positive steps in repairing our small share of the larger world that connects us all regardless of our religious beliefs. Without the courage to first examine problems, we will never be able to search for viable solutions.

In a world that is often shrouded in shades of moral grayness, one needs a spiritual light to guide one towards the truth. Arthur Schopenhauer, the 19th century German philosopher, stated that all truth passes through three distinct phases: "First, it is ridiculed... second, it is violently opposed... third, it is accepted as being self-evident." When I think of a perfect example of this search for truth, I think of the American Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. First, African-Americans were ridiculed, humiliated, and set aside with separate lunch counters, water coolers, and restrooms, to name a few of the segregated accommodations.

YouTube has some very revealing black-and-white documentary footage of this very disturbing period of American history. I have gathered a collection of some very powerful tributes to the Civil Rights movement and the Holocaust, which you can view on my YouTube page HERE. With your own eyes, you can see and listen to racist college students stating that African Americans did not deserve to attend the same colleges as they did because they were intellectually inferior. When Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr. and other leaders stepped up to provide human dignity to their spiritual brothers and sisters, truth entered its violent opposition phase. Suddenly, the police that were supposed to protect and serve its citizenry were turned against it. Children of color were blasted with powerful fire hoses, beaten with police batons, and attacked with fierce canines. Peaceful demonstrators were arrested for exercising their rights to freedom of speech and assembly.

Even more shocking were that otherwise civilized Caucasian women, perhaps loving mothers and wives, would turn to such hateful acts as pouring hot coffee and ketchup on the heads of African Americans who did nothing more than sit at their lunch counters in public establishments. Many innocent people lost their lives to stand up for their beliefs and to repair this shattered world of racism. Finally, truth found its home in the self-evident fact that all people, African-Americans, Jews, and others are created equal in the eyes of God and the state and federal laws finally caught up to their moral counterparts.

When I ask for courage to fight for social justice, I think of those who went before me and who sacrificed so much to make this world a better place not only for themselves, but also for future generations. Small steps can make a difference in improving this world, whether it is to give a voice to the voiceless, to provide love and support to someone in physical or emotional pain, or to bring a hot plate of food to a homeless person on Chanukah or Christmas. Even if one is homebound or economically disadvantaged, one can spend as little as a few minutes a day to make a difference such as posting a comment against the many racist and anti-Semitic ranters found on YouTube and other online forums, or emailing one's public officials about a social injustice one may witness, or even telling someone that you love them.

As one single person, I cannot repair the entire world. I cannot feed the starving, repair the ozone layer, end the world's petty wars or global warming, or find a cure for cancer. So, I work within my knowledge and limits and do my part to make Santa Monica College a better school for those who attend it or wish to attend it in the future. Through my SAVE SMC blog and website, I bring to light serious issues that need to be addressed that might otherwise be overlooked. I have also worked to educate the students of their rights under the law and the policies that SMC's administration are attempting to pass that might very well jeopardize those liberties we hold dear. Additionally, I have worked tirelessly for about a year and a half to obtain vital public records from the school and to make those records easily accessible for the public.

Slowly and surely, despite great obstacles, personal sacrifice, persistence, and a belief in the search for truth and moral justice, I have seen significant changes at our school. Administrators have resigned or have been released from their jobs and SMC has examined some of its policies and implemented new ones to help students, especially the disabled who have previously been disenfranchised. I have given courage to others to stand up for their rights and hopefully have been a role model and voice to many.

Finally, SMC's attorney, Joshua Morrison, has agreed to comply completely with the California Public Records Act in regards to all six sets of our requests for records. This was no simple task as I had to spend months researching the public records act, researching the records we wished to obtain, writing many emails and letters, and entering into many legal negotiations and discussions. I had to file two lawsuits to encourage compliance with the law, muster up the courage to speak personally to the SMC Board of Trustees, and I had to endure many encounters with SMC's campus police as they attempted to scare us away through interrogation and intimidation. I even had to endure wrongful disciplinary sanctions including arbitrary enrollment holds and being thrown out of school without any due process rights whatsoever. Yet, I knew deep inside that God would always be my advocate and guide and that truth was on my side and that I would persevere. I read that courage is not the absence of fear; it is the ability to continue in its face. I also read the following: "Adversity truly introduces us to ourselves." I feel that both these words of wisdom ring true to my ears.

Ironically, SMC has dragged me to court during both Rosh Hashanah and Chanukah. They also dragged me through a mock kangaroo proceeding on Holocaust Remembrance Day. Perhaps this was no coincidence, but a reminder to me of what I was fighting for and that my faith would get me through all of these hard times. Yesterday, during Chanukah, I once again went to the Los Angeles Superior Court to stand up for our rights under the California Public Records Act. If justice is a fountain, let all our rights flow freely now and in the coming new year.


-- Des Manttari,
Editor-in-Chief,
Phoenix Genesis

(c) 2006: Phoenix Genesis/MBS LP

Feel free to link or print this; just include the SAVE SMC URL: http://savesmc.blogspot.com/

Technorati Tags: Santa Monica College, Chanukah, Tikkun Olam, social justice, Kabbalah, Judaism, legal, Los Angeles Superior Court, civil rights, YouTube, News and politics, student rights, California Public Records Act

SMC Crime Alert: AET Computer Theft

A picture speaks a thousand words. On November 3, 2006, three unknown suspects allegedly burglarized the Academy of Entertainment and Technology (AET) computer lab, stealing several expensive Dell computers. The surveillance photos caught the suspects red-handed, although so far the SMCPD hasn't been able to retrieve the stolen property. Perhaps if Santa Monica College wasn't so busy misusing its campus police force against its students, it might have been able to protect its students from this type of violent crime. Ultimately, these computers will have to be replaced at an expense to us all.



-- Des Manttari,
Editor-in-Chief,
Phoenix Genesis

(c) 2006: Phoenix Genesis/MBS LP

Feel free to link or print this; just include the SAVE SMC URL: http://savesmc.blogspot.com/

Technorati Tags: Santa Monica College, Academy of Entertainment and Technology, public schools, vocational schools, SMCPD, campus police, campus crime, crime alert, computer theft, police misconduct, News and politics, aet, Dell computers

Springtime for Penchansky and SMC

Well, it was time to do another YouTube video. "Springtime for Penchansky and SMC" deals with Campus Disciplinarian Judith Penchansky's year long attempt to impose a new administrative regulation, AR 4412, down the throats of unsuspecting students at Santa Monica College. Known as the Honor Code, AR 4412 would allow an Honor Council to have unlimited and unchecked powers to discipline and potentially suspend and expel students found in violation of the slightest infraction. Dean Penchansky would have an army of law firms at her disposal, yet you, as a student, would not be afforded any legal representation whatsoever. The Honor Council proceedings would be held in secret and would deny the accused student basic due process under the law. Our free speech and liberties are at stake. Let's take a stand against AR 4412 before it is too late.




-- Des Manttari,
Editor-in-Chief,
Phoenix Genesis

(c) 2006: Phoenix Genesis/MBS LP

Feel free to link or print this; just include the SAVE SMC URL: http://savesmc.blogspot.com/

Technorati Tags: Santa Monica College, free speech, public schools, due process, legal, Judith Penchansky, Honor Code, Honor Council, AR 4412, disciplinary hearings, News and politics, student rights, YouTube videos

Santa Monica College's Financial Death Spiral

While Santa Monica College's administration paints a false and rosy picture of enrollment and fiscal health to the unsuspecting public, the Santa Monica College Faculty Association has the moral courage to tell us all the harsh truth of the college's fiscal and enrollment recovery problems. In an article written by SMCFA President Lantz Simpson, entitled, "Playing Dice with the Future of SMC," Mr. Simpson alleges that SMC is on a continuing and downward "death spiral." By failing to recover students, cutting classes and programs, and laying off faculty, the college may lose $2.2 million!

This was back in 2003 and his predictions seem to have come true. Mr. Simpson writes that "the administration at SMC has been playing dice with the future of the college, taking a huge gamble that could result in the college going into a death spiral of contraction, unable to stop. In fact, it may have already begun." The FAB has further alleged that SMC has hidden $3 million in its current budget. The question on my mind is where did this money go?

Fast forward to September 2005 and Mr. Simpson has written another editorial entitled "College Rolls Snake Eyes." Mr. Simpson offers these words of truth:

The college has failed to return its enrollment back to the level of 2003. This means the college has permanently contracted with a $2 million net loss in state revenue for next year. This also means that the college teeters on the edge of a death spiral of funding cuts, lay offs, and further enrollment drops. Only a massive transfusion of more equalization money or a brand new funding system can save SMC now.

SMC's administration has tried everything to get its students to return back to its educational pasture. It blared from its ivory towers at Pico Palace of its greatness to a deaf student audience. It turned to strategies that panned out to be mere gimmicks that no one was buying. Through its "Field of Dreams" strategy, it funneled bond money into the new Bundy campus and library to the tune of $45 million. This did nothing to attract potential students as is evident in its less than stellar enrollment numbers for 2003. Additionally, the Bundy campus was plagued with access and environmental concerns, costing more money from expensive outside consultants who were brought in to fix these problems.

SMC then launched its student success and retention campaign, which also failed. Then the administration thought that all it needed was a Welcome Center to draw in the students. Despite all this warm and fuzzy hospitality, the Welcome Center remains haunting devoid of students. Not being able to solve its more pressing problems, SMC launched into the free parking campaign, again with little success. As recently as this summer, I received unsolicited emails from SMC that if I registered early, I could potentially win free parking. Somehow, a solid education with quality faculty seems much more appealing.

SMC has seen loss of classes, loss of vocational programs, loss of donations, loss of faculty, and lost educational opportunities. Mr. Simpson asks: "When are those responsible for gambling away the college's future going to be held accountable?" Over a year after he wrote these words, we are all still waiting for an answer.

-- Des Manttari,
Editor-in-Chief,
Phoenix Genesis

(c) 2006: Phoenix Genesis/MBS LP

Feel free to link or print this; just include the SAVE SMC URL: http://savesmc.blogspot.com/

Technorati Tags: Santa Monica College, fiscal problems, public schools, vocational schools, Lantz Simpson, SMCFA, faculty association, student retention, enrollment recovery problems, Bundy campus, News and politics, Welcome Center, hidden funds

Written Demand for SMC Post-Exclusion Hearing

It's simply amazing how far SMC's administration will go to violate a student's rights. Once again, here's another email and certified letter to Santa Monica College President Chui L. Tsang. Since he's never bothered to respond to our August 1, 2006 request for public records under the California Public Records Act and since he's failed to respond to my several certified letters requesting a suspension appeal hearing, I am not holding my breathe that SMC will step up to the plate to acknowledge my rights under either state or federal law. SMC claims that it wants to avoid costly litigation, yet is seems to foster such an environment. Is our new president merely a sock puppet to the abusive administration? That question remains as yet unanswered.

Furthermore, with SMC continuing to cancel classes due to its plummeting enrollment, one would think that SMC would do everything in its power to keep its students happy, not perpetually violate their rights and arbitrarily discriminate against them. Judith Penchansky has found endless excuses to deny me any due process while following orders from SMC attorney Robert Sammis. With Sammis now out of the picture, after a swift and silent departure, Ms. Penchansky is now left vulnerable to be accountable for her wrongful actions. It is no mystery why she is using campus police against me to silence her abuse of power. However, all lies inevitably lead to the truth.

-- Des Manttari,
Editor-in-Chief,
Phoenix Genesis

(c) 2006: Phoenix Genesis/MNS LP

---------- MY EMAIL AND CERTIFIED LETTER TO PRESIDENT TSANG ---------

ATTENTION: PRESIDENT CHUI L. TSANG,
SANTA MONICA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

RE: WRITTEN DEMAND FOR SMC POST-EXCLUSION HEARING

VIA EMAIL AND CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

DECEMBER 5, 2006

Dear President Tsang,

I am writing to you to request a post-exclusion hearing within the next seven (7) days as required by statute based on Santa Monica College Police Department's Withdrawal of Consent to Remain on Campus, dated November 30, 2006, and as set forth in California Penal Code Section 626.6.

As you are well aware, based on my numerous emails and certified letters to you over the past several months, I was wrongfully suspended for two years from Santa Monica Community College (hereinafter "SMC") without any finding of facts or investigation. Pursuant to Robert Sammis' written communications, SMC's own internal board policies, and the California Education Code, I was to be afforded a suspension appeal hearing within ten (10) days of the date I filed my appeal back in June 2006.

Despite my written insistence that SMC comply with the law, I was not afforded a suspension appeal hearing. Rather, Mr. Sammis (who no longer works for the college as its in-house legal counsel) unilaterally postponed that hearing until mid-September, in violation of my rights. A few days prior to this hearing, SMC's Office of Judicial Affairs, unilaterally cancelled the hearing, despite my written objections.

To date, I have never been afforded a suspension appeal hearing, despite the length and breathe of the deprivation of my property rights to a public education at your school. Additionally, since August 2005, I have requested in writing that I be allowed to inspect my student records, including disciplinary records, and have been denied this opportunity as statutorily set forth in the California Education Code. Furthermore, I had sent you, on August 1, 2006, a legitimate request for inspection and copies of vital records not otherwise prohibited from disclosure under the California Public Records Act. Although the California Government Code is clear that such records, absent a written justification for non-compliance, shall be produced within ten (10) days, SMC simply ignored my request, thus necessitating court intervention. Over four months have elapsed since this public records request and SMC has still failed to provide these records.

As you should be aware, when a suspension appeal hearing is not afforded a student, especially in the light of SMC's restrictions from entering campus, both substantive and procedural due process have been denied said student. Add to this injury that most of the boilerplate allegations against me were based on constitutionally overbroad restrictions of free speech issues and the right to redress the college for grievances, and my rights have been grossly violated on all levels, through SMC's own written policies, the California statutes, and the Constitutional safeguards.

Furthermore, when due process is not afforded a student such as myself who has complied with all her obligations under the law, the suspension becomes null and void. The law is very specific that there is no need to continually exhaust administrative remedies when such efforts have become futile. Not only in the instant case have these efforts on my part become futile, SMC has used its campus police force in conjunction with the Office of Judicial Affairs, to retaliate against me.

Accordingly, since the suspension has become null and void at this point, SMC's Admissions Office sent me a written confirmation in the U.S. mail that I could enroll in the Winter 2007 and Spring 2007 semesters. This was further confirmed in emails sent from the college as well as the online SMC student self-serve system. I was given an enrollment date and time for November 17, 2006 at 4:00 p.m. for said semesters. However, on the allotted date and time that I was to register, a mysterious and malicious "disciplinary enrollment hold" was placed on my enrollment, preventing me from registering.

To clear this up, I came to campus on or about Wednesday, November 22, 2006. At this time, Admissions informed me that I could in fact enroll for classes for these semesters. I was given two copies of an official letter from SMC stating this fact and which confirmed the November 17, 2006 enrollment date and time.

I returned to campus again on November 30, 2006 and spoke with Station C, now called the Bursar's Office. Station C again confirmed that I could enroll, but that I had to speak with the Counseling Office to print out a copy of my signature page. I was instructed to sign the signature page and turn it into the Admissions Office.

At this point, I immediately complied and spoke with a counselor in the Counseling office. Two copies of my signature page were printing out for me and I signed one copy. However, on my way to the Admissions Office, near the Cayton Center, I was accosted by SMCPD Officer Mark Kessler, who was later joined by Officer Charles Bays. I was told that I had to accompany him to the Office of Judicial Affairs and speak with Judith Penchansky to have the enrollment hold issue resolved. I once again peacefully complied.

However, Ms. Penchansky once again blatantly violated my rights. When I was in the middle of my first sentence with her, explaining that admissions had sent me a letter, she abruptly cut me off and stated point blank, "You've been suspended for two years, Des." When I then indicated that SMC's board policies and the California Education afforded me a suspension appeal hearing within ten days, she once again cut me off and stated rather rudely, "Des, we're not having this conversation." At this point, Ms. Penchansky turned to Officer Kessler and ordered, "Officer, she needs to leave campus." When I asked her upon which grounds, she stated to me, "Des, you can't be here. You need to be escorted off campus." Again, she stated to Officer Kessler, "Officer, she needs to go."

At this point, Officer Kessler, Officer Bays, and I quietly left the Office of Judicial Affairs. Shortly thereafter, Officer Kessler issued the aforementioned "Withdrawal of Consent to Remain on Campus," citing California Penal Code section 626.6. Under this statute, I have been barred from campus for seven (7) days under the guise that I was "committing any act likely to interfere with the peaceful conduct of activities or such campus or facility, or has entered such campus or facility for the purpose of committing any such act." Since I had done absolutely nothing to warrant such a gross violation of my rights as a student of SMC, I did not consent to this withdrawal.

At the bottom of this Withdrawal Order, confirmation of the action is required by the Executive Officer or Designee, with a signature attesting to the fact, or lack thereof, that there was or was not "reasonable cause to believe that the above named individual committed an act that disrupted, or was likely to disrupt the peaceful conduct at Santa Monica College." To date, I have not received any confirmation of the action taken by the SMCPD on that date.

Clearly, neither you in your capacity as Chief Executive Officer of SMC or anyone you designate could come up with any legal rationale or finding of facts that I disrupted the orderly operations of the campus on this date. I was instructed by the college to enroll and I was peacefully on that campus to exercise that right. Furthermore, since I have never had a suspension appeal hearing, either I would be considered as still in the appeal process or that the suspension has been nullified. Therefore, under either theory, I am still a student at SMC and not an "outsider" or "non-student" as defined by California Penal Code 626.6. Given the fact that SMC has sent me multiple verifications of my ability to enroll as such in the two upcoming semesters, this gives further invalidity to this California Penal Code section.

If you further examine subsection 3(b), it clearly states the following: "The provisions of this section shall not be utilized to impinge upon the lawful exercise of constitutionally protected rights and freedom of speech or assembly." As such, my rights have been violated.

The various legal decisions have found that California Penal Code Sections 626.4 and 626.6 on their face suffer from the defects of First Amendment overbreath, unconstitutional vagueness, and the lack of procedural due process. The purpose of this legislation is to provide a swift remedy, by means of exclusion from campus, of those students who commit overt acts of violence or otherwise engage in illegal conduct which disrupts "the orderly operation of such campus." This law is to protect SMC from illegal campus disturbances or from the possibility of disturbance. Since no disturbance took place on November 30, 2006 and none could be reasonably anticipated, as there were no facts to point to this belief, there were simply no grounds to exclude me from campus for an entire week.

The law is quite firm that a willful disruption is one of physical nature of such magnitude that due process is sacrificed for the sake of an emergency situation. There was simply no substantial and material threat or significant injury to persons or property warranting exclusion from campus. The law further makes clear that SMC must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the exclusion order rested upon an actual disruption by unlawful conduct, something that SMC cannot possibly do without outright fabricating circumstances and facts surrounding the events of my day on campus.

Accordingly, when an exclusion order issues without a hearing, as is the case here, a post-exclusion hearing must be held as soon as reasonably possible and not later than seven (7) days following a request by the person excluded. By copy of this written demand, I am requesting that the exclusion order be immediately revoked and that I be allowed to enroll in my classes peacefully or that a post-exclusion hearing be held to either prove or deny the facts that I had disrupted the orderly operations of the SMC campus on November 30, 2006.

A broad reading of section 626.6 yields such constitutionally impermissible applications, that I urge you to declare this exclusion order void on its face. Neither the content of speech nor freedom of association can be restricted merely because such expression or association disrupts the tranquility of a campus or offends the tastes of school administrators such as Ms. Penchansky. Citing from the court's decision, "Protest may disturb the placidity of the vacant mind just as a stone dropped in a still pool may disturb the tranquility of the surface waters, but the courts have never held that such 'disruption' falls outside the boundaries of the First Amendment."

The landmark case of Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969) made clear that "undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. Any departure of absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority's opinion may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on campus, that deviates from the view of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk."

Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) adds that "a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger." Although the tastes of administrators, students or the public may be offended, campus free speech cannot be restricted merely because others find its exercise distasteful. Papish v. University of Missouri Curators (1973) states that "the mere dissemination of ideas -- no matter how offensive to good taste -- on a state university campus may not be shut off in the name alone of 'conventions of decency'."

Although conduct entwined with speech may be regulated if it is completely incompatible with the peaceful functioning of the campus, section 626.6 on its fact fails to distinguish between protected activities such as peacefully trying to resolve my enrollment hold issues and unprotected conduct that is violent, physically obstructive, or otherwise coercive. Since my speech and activities on campus were in no way offensive to anyone, perhaps with the exception of Ms. Penchansky who seems to have a personal vendetta against me, and refuses to acknowledge why my rights have been violated for the last six months, there is no conceivable way that this exclusion order would hold up under intense scrutiny.

To reiterate, I request that the exclusion order be forthwith withdrawn by you, or absent a withdrawal, that a hearing be held on the November 30, 2006 exclusion order within seven (7) days. The notice of time, place, and date of such hearing, should you choose the later alternative, should be mailed to the following address:

Des Manttari, P.O. Box 64563, Los Angeles, CA, 90064.

Additionally, by copy of this written correspondence, I ask that the two year suspension be nullified based on SMC's refusal to give me the required appeal hearing as set forth by law and that I be allowed to enroll in my classes as promised in writing by the Admissions Office. Finally, I ask for a confirmation by you whether SMC intends to comply with my August 1, 2006 request for inspection and copies of records under the California Public Records Act.

I look forward to your prompt response to this very urgent matter of the ongoing violation of my rights as a student at Santa Monica College.

Very Truly Yours,

Des Manttari /s/

cc: Office For Civil Rights


Feel free to link or print this; just include the SAVE SMC URL: http://savesmc.blogspot.com/

Technorati Tags: Santa Monica College, civil rights, public schools, campus police, legal, Chui Tsang, Judith Penchansky, Robert Sammis, California Penal Code, student rights, News and politics, post-exclusion hearing, California Public Records Act

Santa Monica College Student Rights?

THE SMC SCAM: STUDENT RIGHTS?

SMC's Hidden Loopholes and The Double Standard

-- A SAVE SMC Editorial

Have you ever wondered why an institution of higher education such as Santa Monica Community College does so little to uphold the rights of its students (which it supposedly advocates)?

The Board of Trustees recognizes the importance of faculty, staff, students and the community to a safe campus environment. Violent or coercive behavior or the threat of such behavior will not be tolerated. The District through the development and enforcement of violence prevention procedures, will seek to provide a safe environment for students, staff and faculty.

-- BP 2415 Campus Safety

BUT THE REAL QUESTION IS:
Violent and coercive behavior or the threat of such behavior against whom will not be tolerated?

In the past, both faculty and students perceived the Office of the Disciplinarian as a place to go for "bad" students. The Office of Student Judicial Affairs is perceived as a place where students go to have problems solved, to sit down and come to agreements, to gather information, and to feel that they have experienced "due process." In addition to improving campus morale, this approach has the potential of assisting the College in avoiding costly litigation.

-- DRAFT **MASTER PLAN FOR EDUCATION** DRAFT
2001-2002 INSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIVES ANNUAL REPORT
(July 22, 2002)

Here's how Campus Disciplinarian Judith Penchansky deals with problem resolution:

She refuses to have a written dialogue. She repeatedly refuses to speak to the student. She uses campus police to remove the student from campus. She denies the student any procedural and substantive due process. She refuses to disclose student records for inspection as required by law. Furthermore, she forces faculty, staff, and students to lie against innocent students under coercion and fear of retaliation.

This approach erodes campus morale, dehumanizes the student, and inevitably leads to costly litigation.

The College's Student Conduct Code includes a Code of Academic Conduct that clearly states expectations and consequences for academic dishonesty. These documents are accessible in college publications, through the college website, and posted in all classrooms. Incidences of dishonesty are handled through the Student Judicial Affairs Office.

-- STANDARD II: STUDENT LEARNING PROGRAMS AND SERVICES
Description-IIA.7(b)

BUT WHO AT SMC IS MONITORING THE DISHONESTY OF THE STUDENT JUDICIAL AFFAIRS OFFICE RUN BY JUDITH PENCHANSKY?

Let's turn to SMC's Academic Freedom Statement:

The intellectual search for transmission of knowledge should go forward in an atmosphere free from fear of reprisal, while providing opportunities for critical thinking and understanding of conflicting viewpoints. In order that special interests or conflicting public opinion not impede the educational process, instructors and students must be free to investigate, to form conclusions, and to express judgments and opinions. Academic freedom also includes the right to constructively criticize college policies without fear of retribution.

Academic freedom carries with it several responsibilities. Faculty members must strive for factual accuracy and show restraint in dealing with topics outside their area of expertise. While showing respect for the opinions of others, the instructor should, after impartial examination of the evidence, present the conclusions to which the evidence points. Selective omission of available data would not be in keeping with academic responsibility. Promotion of a partisan point of view to a captive audience would be equally unsuitable.

-- ARTICLE 5200: ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITIES
BP 5210 Academic Freedom Statement

On March 1, 2006, SMC Professor Jim Keeshen made a formal announcement to his ET18 Storyboarding class in which he stated that Autism and Asperger's is a "mental disease" that causes a person to be a "problem" and "destructive." Was this a topic within his area of expertise and relevant to storyboarding? Of course it wasn't. Furthermore, had Professor Keeshen done any research online, he would have found an open letter (dated January 27, 2006) from all the major Autism advocacy groups stating emphatically that Asperger's is "not a “mental illness” or a “disease."

The fear of retribution prevailed in Professor Keeshen's class that day, especially for a student with autism who heard his tirade.

Professor Keeshen threatened his students:

"I'm gonna come after you ... and I'm going to get you to the letter of the law and have you either kicked out or whatever other consequences they can do to you.... Got it? All right, that's all I have to say."

The District is committed to a work and learning environment conducive to open discussion and free of intimidation, harassment, or unlawful discrimination, whether purposeful or inadvertent.

-- BP 3120 Diversity/Affirmative Action

Was Professor Keeshen's announcement to his class an "open discussion" that was "free of intimidation, harassment, or unlawful discrimination"? Of course it was not!

Santa Monica College, as a public institution of higher education which receives federal assistance, is legally bound to prohibit discrimination in the recruitment process, the admission process and the educational process of students with disabilities.

-- SMC Disabled Student Services, The Laws

We will now take a look at SMC's "Student Bill of Rights" ...

Academic institutions exist for the transmission of knowledge, the pursuit of truth, the intellectual and social development of students, and the general well-being of society. Free inquiry and free expression are indispensable to the attainment of these goals. As members of the academic community, students should be encouraged to develop the capacity for critical judgment and to engage in a sustained and independent search for truth.

But what if the "pursuit of truth" contradicts the lies that the college administration wishes to uphold at any cost? And what if this "free inquiry" and "free expression" calls for something to be changed at the college through a particular person? What if you send an email to Professor Keeshen, requesting an apology on behalf of the disabled students for his hate speech against those with Autism?

Well, according to Judith Penchansky, you are in violation of Administrative Regulation 4410 L, Rules for Student Conduct, which states that you have engaged in the following:

Willful or blatant misuse of email or other inappropriate forms of communication towards faculty.

For that "crime," you are suspended for two years and will be arrested if you step foot on campus. Furthermore, you are not given any due process or right to appeal your suspension, despite the provisions set forth in SMC's own internal board policies and the California Education Code.

So, if you confront someone such as Professor Keeshen for his ignorant and discriminatory remarks, and SMC's administration wishes to cover its apparent liability, you can be suspended with a simple email from the Office of Judicial Affairs. But the school is accountable under the law for its thoughtless and indifferent acts as follows:

In the Gebseret case, the Supreme Court found that a school district could be held liable if the school official had actual knowledge of the wrong of a teacher's misconduct and had thoughtless indifference.

-- Gebseret al. v. Lago Vista Independent School District, No. 96-1896 (1998)

If you desire to publish your views, you are in luck since SMC's Student Bill of Rights, Student Publications, recognizes your freedom of expression through written materials:

Student publications and the student press are a valuable aid in establishing and maintaining an atmosphere of free and responsible discussion and of intellectual exploration the campus. They are a means of bringing student concerns to the attention of the faculty and the institutional authorities and of formulating student opinion on various issues on the campus and in the world at large.

However, you will find in this provision something interesting:

At the same time, the editorial freedom of student editors and managers entails corollary responsibilities to be governed by the canons of responsible journalism, such as avoidance of libel, indecency, undocumented allegations, attacks on personal integrity, and the techniques of harassment and innuendo. [emphasis added]

So what if the statement you wish to offer contests the integrity of a member of the college?

Then you are no longer a "RESPONSIBLE" WRITER.

SURE, you're free to express yourself, BUT

DON'T TRY TO CHANGE ANYTHING

and

DON'T SAY ANYONE'S DOING ANYTHING WRONG

because that contests a person's "integrity," and we all know that

EVERYONE HAS INTEGRITY AT SMC...

(DON'T THEY?)

Well, actually the faculty and administration (those whom are our examples at the college), and the SMCPD campus police officers (those who protect the college's students and property) do abide by the SMC College Policies... the new and improved viewpoint discrimination version.

SMC CHANGED THE RULES
(with a few slight additions)

1. Thou shall not beat up students (without "just cause" or within the sight of credible witnesses or video recording devices).

2. Thou shall not have students arrested (unless they find problems with your personal ethics or lack thereof, discover financial lack of accountability and hidden funds, seek vital public records under the California Public Records Act, or express their views about the questionable and arbitrary policies you have created or choose to defend at the college).

3. Thou shall appreciate thy students (if they contribute to the false image and/or finances of the college).

4. Thou shall honor thy faculty (if they pad enrollment and do not seek cost of living pay raises).

ALL MEMBERS OF THE SMC COMMUNITY ARE EQUAL,
BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.

With that in mind, here is the...

SURVIVAL GUIDE TO SMC

1. Don't make waves or file any sort of grievance to defend your rights.

2. Do not openly contest your professors or administrators on their position on any issue.

3. Do not attack the college's stance on any issue.

4. Do not request inspection or copies of public records belonging to the college.

5. Do not attempt to assert your legal rights in a court of law.

6. Do not create a personal blog or website outside of campus to express your views.

7. Stay out of the way and sight of SMCPD campus police officers.

THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT
(As interpreted by SMC)

You have the right to only remain silent, and no other rights, when you speak out about any dehumanizing politics at SMC.

Failure to exercise that right after you have exposed the College's harassment and retaliation of those who oppose SMC's political stance will result in interrogation and brutality by SMC's campus police, false charges, and imprisonment.

SMC's various college policies tell us that first and foremost, before any learning can take place or any policies be enforced, there must be the moral elements that constitute a place where people (including faculty, administrators, and campus police officers) can be trusted, a place of integrity.

And, in order to ensure this integrity, the college must go through a periodic "housecleaning," as it were, to weed out those who have gone against the standards of integrity. This means that there can be no "environment of integrity" within the college unless we all take the responsibility for taking whatever actions are necessary to ensure this "housecleaning."

Santa Monica College, is as a community-oriented, open-door, educational institution whose purpose is to educate and enlighten members of the community who seek knowledge. In order to uphold the academic integrity of the institution, all members of the academic community, faculty and students alike, must assume responsibility for providing an educational environment of the highest standards, characterized by a spirit of academic honesty; therefore, under no circumstances will academic dishonesty be tolerated at this institution.

--Preamble to SMC Code of Academic Conduct

To sum it all up...

We have the responsibility to CHANGE whatever needs to be changed to uphold the principles of INTEGRITY

BUT

YOU'RE ONLY OKAY as long as you PAY AND OBEY. $$$$$

-- Des Manttari,
Editor-in-Chief,
Phoenix Genesis

(c) 2006: Phoenix Genesis/MBS LP

Feel free to link or print this; just include the SAVE SMC URL: http://savesmc.blogspot.com/

Technorati Tags: Santa Monica College, student rights, public schools, academic freedom, Judith Penchansky, discrimination, judicial affairs, college policies, litigation, Jim Keeshen, News and politics, campus police, California Public Records Act

eCollege ET61 History of Animation Online Scam

So far, we've written three articles on Santa Monica College's Online History of Animation course (ET61), offered through smconline.org and eCollege. We have discussed how AET Professor James (Jim) Keeshen tampered with online quizzes, concealed vital public records regarding the webpages that linked to the overpriced required CD-ROMS, and how Professor Keeshen is no longer allowed to teach the course due to repeated copyright infringement legal issues. We've even made two handy charts, which you can view HERE.

The course is now taught by SMC Professor Nancy Paris Poirier, who had traditionally taught the class during the Winter and Summer intersessions. As a stockholder of eCollege (ECLG) and a former teaching assistant to Jim Keeshen for many semesters, I am very knowledgeable about this course. Rather than take the time to improve the course, Professor Poirier (in my opinion) has completely abandoned her professional academic responsibilities to her students and, as a result, the course is a complete sham.

Together as a team, Professor Jim Keeshen and I improved the course for the students so that they would have a rich online educational experience and we even worked together on a ground version of the course that was highly popular among the students at the Academy of Entertainment and Technology (AET). Rather than be grateful for our efforts, SMC's self-serving administration would rather pit us against each other at the expense of the students. SMC's administration, however, despite drastically lowering the quality of this online educational experience, doesn't blink an eye as they rake in all those online fees they generate from this course. In fact, through deceptive advertising, SMC is able to get a good number of students, both internationally and locally, to enroll in this course, as a creative and underhanded way to recover its failing enrollment. Remember that in the article we did about SMC's enrollment recovery efforts, that the school mentioned its aggressive marketing efforts via online course offerings.

As usual, we've made a handy online chart so that you can see for yourself what you would get for your money as a prospective student interested in this class. These screenshots were made between August 28, 2006 (the first day of the course) and November 21, 2006. All links and references to screenshots refer to this online chart.

The ET61 online course for fall 2006 (section 2125) is advertised as a 16-week course, starting on August 28, 2006 and ending on December 16, 2006 (screenshot 01). Historically, it has been offered as an 8-week course. Despite the promise of a full semester, the student still receives only 3 units. For Spring 2007, SMC advertises online that its ET61 online course is an 8-week course, starting mid-semester on or about April 16, 2007 and completing on or about June 8, 2007.

This fall semester, approximately 35 students signed up for the ET61 class. In order to keep those enrollment numbers high, SMC gives the illusion right off the bat that this course is in fact legitimate. The course also can't be too difficult, as SMC does not want students to drop until after the administration locks down those enrollment numbers on its course roster. So, the first week is a nice easy assignment where the students simply respond in a threaded discussion about themselves and their interests in animation. Most of the students complete this assignment within the first week and Professor Poirier responds with quick comments to the students' threads. So far, so good. The students are pretty eager to interact with their professor, as is expected in any college course, online or otherwise.

Each week in the course corresponds to one unit, with nice little tabs to the left. Students are expected to complete the coursework within that week's time. Since Professor Keeshen tampered with the online quizzes, providing unlimited time and unlimited chances to take the quizzes as well as answers to the tests, the quizzes have now been removed from the course. Less work for Poirier and less of a standardized criteria to measure student success. Instead of the quizzes, students post in an online journal about an animated television show they are expected to watch throughout the semester. However, by the fifth week of the course, this assignment has completely vaporized. The only thing really left is the threaded discussion.

After that first week, the course makes its slow and inevitable plunge into online oblivion. Professor Poirier has all but completely vanished off the students' radar, leaving them confused, unmotivated, and unstructured. As her announcements show, she only appears to make three directives to her students, to inform them that there is a film screening, to give them a midterm essay assignment (due October 20th) and to finally inform them of a final exam (due on the last day of the course, December 16th). Her most recent announcement was posted yesterday, November 20, 2006. (screenshot 02).

At this point, Professor Poirier was forced to crawl out of the woodwork after many students started posting in the Unit 5 threaded discussion about why they hadn't heard from their instructor and why they have not received any grades, except for the midterm (screenshot 03). Even this was a very feeble clarification on Poirier's part as these students posted these concerns in late October and it took Poirier a month to post an announcement about the final. To this date, 13 weeks into the 16 week course, Poirier has yet to respond to any of the other unit's threaded discussions nor has she allegedly graded the students threads or journal entries up to this point, leaving the students unsure of where they stand gradewise in the course. According to confidential sources, Poirier hasn't even returned students' email inquiries about the status of the course or their grades.

But it gets worse. Although this course is advertised as a 16-week course with a final exam the last week, the course units mysteriously vanish after week 8. As the screenshots reveal, unit 6's threaded discussion instructs students only to return to units 1 through 5 and post comments. The journal assignment is no longer required. Week 7 and 8 shows even further deterioration, with only a link to a "lecture" for each of these units. (screenshot 04). By week 9 of the course, the students started posting their concerns about the lack of grading, the missing assignments, and the fact that there were no more units to explore.

Unit 8 is even worse than Unit 7 as the "lecture" link is merely a list of hyperlinks to the alleged lectures for the course. However, these links are not in fact lectures that the students can read, but dead links to the webpages that SMC had copyright infringed and deceitfully stolen and placed on their own server. Since they have been removed after a legal battle, the links don't work. Why are these webpage links even still online? Is SMC planning to once again infringe on copyrighted work? (screenshot 06).

Those aren't the only dead hyperlinks students will find throughout the course. The actual course lectures (created about six years ago) have not been updated, so many of the links within the lectures are broken and outdated. The real media player with streaming video of Professor Jim Keeshen talking about animation is also outdated, barely audible and visible. (screenshot 05). To add insult to injury, the students are expected to pay well over $100 (including tax) for a two CD-ROM History of Animation set (directed by none other than James Keeshen) along with the required textbooks. Suddenly, this course is becoming quite expensive when you factor in either renting the animation the student is required to watch or actually buying the animation.

And what does the student get for these overpriced ET61 CDs that have become little more useful than beer coasters? One gets to hyperlink to outdated flimsy webpages with more dead hyperlinks. Well, the links are exactly dead; they take the student to outside advertisements completely unrelated to animation. We've included one webpage from each of the two CD-ROMs as illustrative of our point. (screenshot 08).

So as a student enrolled in this online course, you've got streaming media that doesn't work properly, lectures with outdated hyperlinks, CD-ROMs with more outdated hyperlinks and webpages virtually devoid of any meaningful content, and a professor that provides no dialogue, interaction, or direction, along with basically no grades for your work. How motivated would you feel in that situation after all the money you shelled out for this course and all the online promises you were given that made you rush to sign up for the course in the first place?

As the Unit 1 through Unit 5 threaded discussions reveal, not very motivated at all. In fact, as the semester unfolded, the students progressively plunged into apathy. Let's break the semester down in a week-by-week playback as follows:

Week 2: Sept. 4-10: A handful of students respond in late August. However, many students respond in late September with students posting as late as November 9th. (screenshot 07).

Week 3: Sept. 11-17: Only 3 students complete the threads within the deadline. The rest post in late September and early October. Several students post in November. Some students post as late as November 19th.

Week 4: Sept. 18-24: Only 8 students complete the assignment within the deadline. Many post in mid to late October. Several students post as late as November 20th, approximately a month late.

Week 5: Sept. 25-Oct. 1: Only 1 single student completes this assignment on time! Many students post in late October and early November, with some students posting as late as November 20th.

As mentioned previously, by week 6, there are no more new threaded discussions, journal entry assignments, or CD-ROM assignments. It seems the CD-ROMs, despite their heavy price tags, don't even get the student through more than a few introductory weeks. With the advent of new technology, better computers and software, all the material on the CDs could have been placed online, saving the financially struggling students their hard earned cash. But it's never been about the students, but about what SMC's administrators can do to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and keep those enrollment numbers reeling in for the purpose of securing more and more funding for its outside consultants and project managers.

So, as a prospective student interested in the History of Animation, I would suggest not taking this course. Add up what it would cost you and go out and simply buy the animation DVDs (many of the classics can be found for a mere dollar at the 99 Cents Only Stores) or rent them and go online and do a google search for many websites that offer free information on the history of animation. You will learn equally as much or more about this fascinating subject and you won't feel that you've been taken in and scammed as some students now feel.

-- Des Manttari,
Editor-in-Chief,
Phoenix Genesis

(c) 2006: Phoenix Genesis/MBS LP

Technorati Tags: Santa Monica College, Academy of Entertainment and Technology, public schools, Jim Keeshen, online courses, distance education, ecollege, smconline, history of animation, Paris Poirier, News and politics, online scams, deceptive advertising

Angry Parents Censor Gay Penguins Children's Love Story

One can understand when concerned parents are up in arms about video game stores selling their impressionable children copies of the M-rated Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas video game. After all, the game had hidden sex scenes and plenty of graphic violence with firearms and gang violence. But parents at the Shiloh Elementary School who have criticized the school's administration for refusing to censor a controversial children's book about two male penguins who partnered to help incubate and successfully hatch a penguin egg is beyond comprehension. The parents complain that the book's content is unsuitable for children as it has homosexual overtones.


From left to right: "And Tango Makes Three" Children's Book; The Real Life Penguins: Roy, Tango and Silo.

I agree with the school for standing by their policy not to sensor the book or move it to the mature reader section. This charming book, entitled "And Tango Makes Three" is written by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson with watercolor illustrations by Henry Cole (Simon & Schuster Children's Publishing, April 26 2005, ISBN 0-689-87845-1). These three men are not secretly conspiring to overturn American family values by inculcating our children with the alleged "evils" of homosexuality, but providing an artistic rendition of a true life story of two male Chinstrap penguins, Roy and Silo, who partnered together in 2004 New York's Central Park Zoo to hatch this egg. See the New York Times article, Love That Dare Not Squeak Its Name, dated February 7, 2004, which was the inspiration for this book.

These penguins shared a mutual experience in which they gave life to their species, far from their native home, in a man-made unnatural environment. This is a story of triumph, love, and life. Here's an excerpt from the book that shocks many fundamental Christian families:

Two penguins in the penguin house were a little bit different. One was named Roy and the other was named Silo. Roy and Silo were both boys. But they did everything together…They didn’t spend much time with the girl penguins and the girl penguins didn’t spend much time with them. Instead, Roy and Silo wound their necks around each other. Their keeper, Mr. Gramzay noticed the two penguins and thought to himself “They must be in love.”

One angry father has written on his blog, "Regardless, this book has been insidiously and deceitfully placed in libraries across America to re-educate young children to accept all families as valid, whether they have two mommies, two daddies, three daddies or three mommies and two daddies." Well, instead of lashing out with such anger, perhaps some of these parents should write their own children's book with the values to which they feel their children should be exposed. America seems to be a place of intolerance: hatred and violence against interracial marriages and gay marriages, anti-Semitism, and now even overt hostility against penguins that show affection for each other. There are no graphic sexual scenes in this book. The penguins merely "wound their necks around each other."

Furthermore, Tango was a female penguin, so there are no anti-female undertones to this children's story. Roy and Silo spent over two months caring for Tango after her birth. Furthermore, the zookeeper was not trying to encourage what many parents refer to as abnormal behavior, but helped to save Tango's life. Penguins can only care for one chicklet at a time. Since the female penguin had two eggs, she was forced to abandon one. Had the zookeeper not given this egg to Roy and Silo, Tango would have never experienced life or love.

Other zoos in New York, Germany, and Japan have reported same-sex penguin couples, both male and female. When the males pair, they often replace a stone for an egg and place it in a nest, unsuccessfully trying to incubate it. So, the story of Roy and Silo is not an isolated incident, but a very fascinating phenomenon. Why should children not read about this, especially since it might inspire a child to someday enter into the field of biology as a researcher to unlock this mystery? Apparently, Roy and Silo have maintained a monogamous loving relationship for nearly six years. How many of these angry parents can say the same thing about their own marital lives?

-- Des Manttari,
Editor-in-Chief,
Phoenix Genesis

(c) 2006: Phoenix Genesis/MBS LP

Technorati Tags: And Tango Makes Three, penguins, mating habits, same-sex couples, childrens books, controversy, gay marriage, censorship, Grand Theft Auto, San Andreas, News and politics, gay penguins, Roy and Silo