newcollegecommunity

brookelober · Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 1

An open letter, to the Faculty Council of the New College of California,

We want to take this time to tell you our story and to make a case for change at the New College of California, based on our experience, our research, our analysis, and our hope. Some of what we have to say will be difficult to hear, but we hope that you understand that we speak from a place of great love for radical education and genuine transformation. We ask you to have the patience to hear us out.

This summer, when both of us were traveling in Mexico, we heard the news that marked the beginning of the most difficult period of our time at this school: our entire program, our fragile little community, had been broken up. Railroaded out of recognizable existence, our program had exploded with the indignant resignations of our directors and the simultaneous resignation, in protest, of almost the entire student body of the Activism and Social Change (ASC) MA program. We were online every day, communicating with our professors and colleagues, trying to find out what was going on.

At that time, during the first week in June, Media Studies alumnus Ian Elwood set up a riseup.net group to talk about the problems and changes at the school. On this list of about 100 New College community members, our entire department, students and faculty, were repeatedly attacked by messages from an anonymous source. Of course we were horrified to receive these disgusting emails, and we were shocked when we found out that they came from a faculty member. But now we understand the history that makes these seemingly insane communications make sense. We highlight these emails now, because they openly state the real feeling of hostility against our excellent program that is more quietly, but still hurtfully, expressed by many members of the New College community.

ASC MA and BA program co-directors Helene Vosters and Rachael Stryker led our program through the contentious fall 2006 semester, during the revelations about school founder Jack Leary. These events hit some members of our department, and our larger community, with the pain perhaps only understandable by those who have worked hard in their lives to overcome, and struggle against, rape and sexual abuse. Not Leary himself, but the school’s denial of responsibility to share this history, inspired people across the school who joined the voices of abuse survivors, determined to act against silence, for justice, and for positive change in every forum: inside the school, inside the city, inside the country, and in the rest of the world.

This discussion and action around the failure of the college to release the Leary information responsibly, further politicized what was already a contentious relationship between the directors of ASC and the school's administration. Sadly, fourteen months after the SF Weekly article was released, the college still has not published a letter to the community at large expressing honesty and regret around school founder Father Leary’s story. The Jesuits did issue a very compassionate letter, also accessible online, that might be useful to use as a reference when you, the faculty, and the administration, draft one.

During the time of intense school discussion around Leary’s history, ASC MA students experienced hostility on and off campus, directly related to this issue. Professor Daniel Cassidy’s emails are a later extension of these and other hostilities. We know that these hateful emails were seen by some of you because you received the same posts that we did. Adam Cornford, Jon Garfield, and Linda Meyers all sent communication to this riseup.net group; the archives can be accessed online. But not one faculty member on the list openly expressed concern for us, or our teachers, the objects of harassment by a professor. We know that many people inside of the college have received Cassidy’s abusive verbal and written attacks. We know that the executive council knew about his behavior for years.

President Luis Molina, Michael McAvoy, and Marina Sitrin saw these hate mails a month ago, and we have had no reply from them. You all must begin to act more responsibly now. We thank the faculty council for being the first to respond to us with serious concern about our grievance. We urge you to help us to process our complaint against this professor because of his illegal and abusive behavior towards us, which created an unsafe environment for learning for all of the Activism and Social Change program students at this school. Because we do not believe that the faculty council can be neutral in this case, we ask you to help us work with an independent neutral party who will help to hear our grievance in the coming weeks.

We know that the administration’s mistreatment of our department stemmed from long before this debacle. It is related to their basic mistreatment of all of you, the faculty, who have never been structurally empowered for autonomous decision-making in this school. Those that have been in the rulers’ favor have been in the in-group, empowered through personal networks to create and maintain the school. The rest of the faculty have been exposed—in varying levels of intensity—to the whim of those at the top. As students in a department that was considered a “threat” by the administration of the college, we have felt the real and ugly effects of this system. Right now, we are in need of the swift application of structures of accountability—including a prompt grievance process with the possible results clearly stated.

President Martin Hamilton refused to meet with our program’s co-directors for the nine months following the community meeting about the Leary scandal. This was an unacceptable demonstration of disregard for institutional integrity and accountability to faculty and students.

During their stay in the ASC program, our directors Kai and Helene, and later Rachael, learned first-hand of the abuses of power by those in charge of the school. It is no surprise to us that in January of last year, a substantial group of faculty and staff from across the school’s programs went and reported to WASC that the school was out of line. Reporting New College’s gross violations of power and process is an act that has been done by community members here, faculty and students, many times: notably, sixty students did so in a brave allied effort in 1995. Only a powerful group like WASC, from outside of the school, can hope to provide the necessary leverage needed to combat the ruling clique who have used many techniques in order to maintain the totality of their control.

In late May, the executive council of the college (Martin Hamilton, Michael McAvoy, Linda Meyers, and Peter Gabel) made personnel decisions for the ASC MA program over the stated objections of our department directors. The executive council’s decision demonstrated clear disrespect for process and authority within the ASC MA program. Instead, hierarchical, centralized authority outside of the program negated the power of the department's internal process. The voices of faculty and students were not included in this decision-making. Our directors’ request for appeal was flatly denied.

The executive council stopped our co-directors from enacting their plan for the hire that was to be made in our department; Helene Vosters and Rachael Stryker proposed putting out an open call, doing several interviews, and then selecting the new faculty for our program. Instead, the executive council forced the program to hire the council’s choice of new ASC MA program faculty, with no review process. Over the stated objections of our directors, Marina Sitrin was hired as core faculty, and Michael McAvoy was moved into his onetime position of program director. Every faculty member and student in the department objected to these unilateral decisions of the executive council that were enacted nonetheless, against the will of our entire program. Our remaining director, Helene, resigned her post in protest, along with core faculty member, and former co-director, Rachael Stryker.

The exodus of the majority of students from two ASC MA cohorts stems directly from these events. The loss of tuition money to the school was at least $150,000. These students have suffered academic and financial setbacks that are very real and very painful. We urge you all to think of our colleagues right now. They left a program that was no longer recognizable to them under a barrage of political attacks and verbal abuse. We imagine every one of our twenty lost colleagues standing here with us right now.

We also recognize that when Helene Vosters was singled out for a “layoff” in September, that this was done in the spirit of political retribution. This is unacceptable. The practice of retribution keeps our faculty in fear of action, and keeps students quiet as well. Waiting for our grades, our work-study checks, and our diplomas, we fear retribution even as we speak out now. But we must act to break the dominant narrative that denies our story and our truth!

Today, six months after our program was destroyed, after mishandling just about every communication with former, on-leave, and even current students, without even telling the four remaining current students about the changes that were to be made, Michael McAvoy has resigned his position to Marina Sitrin, who now holds the title of program coordinator. Michael often tells us that he started our program—itself a dubious claim—and therefore he seems to think that he has rights to any position in it that he chooses. We beg to differ. He pushed Helene out of a job he didn’t even want, regardless of the fact that this decision meant the loss of eighty percent of the students in the program, as well as our entire faculty! He continues to deny the unquestionable veracity of our story.

Sadly, this semester’s new "program," with four remaining students and four faculty/staff, has been extremely disappointing. Despite our request, they have not formally apologized to us, the students who got burned by this whole process. They have never effectively reached out to the students who left, to begin negotiations for the minimal ethical obligation of a teach-out. They have mishandled communication with us, their current students, throughout this semester, even when we have given them the benefit of the doubt. We and our colleagues on-leave have multiple unanswered emails from our farce of a program right now. We ask them to change their behavior starting at this moment. We repeat to them our request for a written apology for all ASC MA students. If they are in need of a template, they might want to look at the kind apology from the Board of Trustees to ostracized PHLUTE students that has been on the school’s website since August. We expect the same to come to ASC MA students. Then perhaps the hard work can begin of figuring out how these students can be offered compensation or a dignified teach-out, neither of which has genuinely been offered yet.

We have explored the history and practices of the power structure within the college through our experiences and our contacts here, and also through web research and online communications. So we know that the gutting of our program is but one event within a repetitive historical process that includes not only what we often see as a “lack of structure,” but also, consistent gross misuse of power by the administration of the college, and the alienation of generations of teachers and students who have come here in good faith. In the world of governance, this school has functioned most closely to a totalitarian dictatorship ruled by a small elite. If faculty could have been involved in real governance all along, our department would still stand. We need the faculty to be empowered to act autonomously from the administration of the school right now.

New College will never survive if it continues as it has been. Totalitarianism, and the use of personal networks of power, are not sustainable practices in any sphere. Participatory governance and systems of accountability are what can save the school, and really, those things wouldn’t just save the school; they would make it better than it has ever been. Because what it has been is a shame. Even though brilliant and radical faculty and students have always been attracted to New College, particularly through its stated mission and its physical location, not all worthy parties have been afforded the opportunity to truly flourish here.

Many people (including some of those in the highest circles) in the larger community of the Bay Area are well aware of the struggle inside of New College, and our community stands against the elite network of the school rulers and their friends. We believe that this ruling group, that is, the former executive council of the college, and their closest allies—because of their long history of abusing power in this way—should be dismissed from participation at the school, and should not have influence here in the future. To us, this means that none of them should have any financial dealings here, as employees, or as donors, and they should not sit on any boards or committees. We ask you, the faculty, to carry our request with you in the struggle ahead. If you do this, we will support you with all of our power, with every effort towards building large-scale community solidarity in order to save this school.

The Bay Area, and all of the exciting and diverse movements that we come from, will be motivated to build back burned bridges with a school that is making, and exhibiting, this radical shift. Our support as a school will come from our community when we show real change. Without this change, our community will not support New College. We ask you to consider this seriously.

We have heard the attack that students like us have met with over the years: “you are trying to destroy the school.” But nothing could be further from the truth. We reject the implicit violence in the false call for “unity” that we often hear. We seek to promote a vision for this college based on real social movement work that highlights coming together around points of solidarity by negotiating across complex difference. We believe that when we work towards this seriously here at New College, the diverse movements that we come from will really get to shine. These movements provide us with the political philosophy to effectively analyze and act upon our situation here at the school now.

The college does not belong to the rulers of the school, despite their claim to its ownership because of their version of "History." New College is all of the people who have come through here, as students, as teachers, as community organizers, as artists, as visitors, as neighbors. New College may still have a golden opportunity to be a place that truly exists in harmony and reciprocal relationship with the great “movement of movements” we are all trying to build. The college does not belong to one select group. The missions, visions, and values of the school do not belong to one select group, and they never have. New College is here for the people, in the service of the common good! New College is of the people and for the people! Power to the people! Our time is now!

We cannot change the past; we can only start today. Today you all have the power to work in the interest of your students, this school, our community and our movements. Act now and you may help to save the very definition of radical higher education and alternative institutions. We ask you to create a new day so we can begin the real work we must do of building the future now. Acknowledge the history, and work for change today. This is what we do as activists, and as agents for social change, in every sphere.

Thank You,
Brooke Lober
Soneile Hymn
Activism and Social Change MA Program

Our six requests:
• Help us to process our grievance (using a neutral outside arbiter) against a professor who sent us hatemail
• Faculty/admin: publish a letter of concern about Father Leary
• ASC MA program and Michael McAvoy: publish a written apology for all ASC MA students.
• The swift application of structures of accountability—including a prompt grievance process with the possible results clearly stated
• Faculty must be empowered to act autonomously from the administration of the school
• The former executive council of the college, and their closest allies—because of their long history of abusing power—should be dismissed from participation at the school, and should not have influence here in the future. To us, this means that none of them should have any financial dealings here, as employees, or as donors, and they should not sit on any boards or committees

THIS IS THE GRIEVANCE AGAINST DANIEL CASSIDY:
To whom it may concern:
The attached email communications come from Professor Daniel Cassidy. They are arranged in chronological order. The first five emails were sent, by Cassidy, to a large list (about 100 people) of New College students, staff, administration and faculty. This riseup.net group was subsequently shut down. Cassidy used an anonymous email address, with the name “Camog49,” to send his hate mail, harassing students and faculty from the Activism and Social Change MA program.
The final email included in this package was sent from Cassidy’s non-anonymous email address. It was sent to Activism and Social Change MA student Soneile Hymn, who was one of many students and faculty to identify Cassidy as the “troll” who sent the hateful mail. Cassidy ended his note to student Hymn with the phrase, “Pog mo thoin,” a Gaelic version of the statement, “Kiss my ass.” After that P.S., Cassidy included a piece of writing about the evolution of the Gaelic word “camog” into the English word “gimmick,” thereby explaining his A.K.A.
Daniel Cassidy should not be employed as a professor at New College. His behavior violates state and national law, creating an unsafe environment for students and faculty. We hope that the school can act swiftly on these matters in order to avoid costly and painful legal proceedings.
Please contact us with further questions about this matter.

Sincerely,

Brooke Lober
ASC MA student
brookelober@yahoo.com

Soneile Hymn
ASC MA student
elienos@yahoo.com

THESE ARE THE HATEMAILS FROM DAN CASSIDY:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <Camog49@aol.com>
Date: Jun 28, 2007 8:03 PM
Subject: VOSTERS AND STRYKER - Cronies of white privilege
To: voyager640@gmail.com

What does accusing Linda Myers and Martin Hamilton of lying, corruption, and weird sex abuse, have to do with student government?

Vosters and Stryker, the two former co-directors of ASC, were unilaterally appointed to those positions with NO FACULTY VOTE OR GOVERNANCE.

THEIR JOBS WERE NOT POSTED PER AFFIRMATIVE ACTION GUIDELINES.

THERE WAS NO FACULTY REVIEW. NO PEER REVIEW. NO PROCESS. NO TRANSPARENCY.

THEY WERE CRONIES OF THE VERY ACADEMIC LEADERSHIP THEY NOW CONDEMN.

They are the symbols of white middle class privilege, CRONYSIM, and abuse of power to many senior faculty.

Vosters was appointed to her pposition by VP McAvoy and then she appointed Stryker and now they want to appoint another faculty member with no faculty oversight, no governance, no review process, no job posting per academic norms and affirmative action guidelines. .

They are products of the mis-administration you claim to oppose.

Ask the faculty who appointed "Queen Helene" to her throne in her all-white so-called activism program.

She was appointed by McAvoy.

There was no job search.

No consultation with senior unionized faculty.

Helene opposed the union and opposed AAUP.

Ask any faculty member who appointed Stryker to he co-directorship of ASC.

She was appointed by Vosters and McAvoy.

She is another white activism crony.

They are the privileged products of the dictatorial academic administration they claim to oppose.

See what's free at AOL.com.

--
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@ james sheldon
@ http://www.jamessheldon.com
@ voyager640@gmail.com
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <Camog49@aol.com>
Date: Jun 29, 2007 9:01 PM
Subject: Re: [takenewcollegeback] KING KAI & QUEEN HELENE
To: voyager640@gmail.com
Cc: takenewcollegeback@lists.riseup.net

I see King Kai ( Queen Helene's white middle class crony) has called for the "bankrupting" of New College.

This is King Kai and Queen Helene's vision of social justice.

King Kai and Queen Helene were both unilaterally appointed (like English and German royalty) by VP McAvoy to their thrones (faculty positions) at New College with no faculty oversight, no job posting, no open call, no affirmative action.

Both Queen Helene and King Kai were opposed to the faculty union and the AAUP.

They are royal examples of lack of faculty governance at New College.

See what's free at AOL.com.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <Camog49@aol.com>
Date: Jun 30, 2007 10:17 AM
Subject: [takenewcollegeback] QUEEN HELENE and her ROYAL CRONIES
To: eguevarra50@gmail.com, takenewcollegeback@lists.riseup.net

Why are you anonymous?

How can I speak out without vicious retaliation by QUEEN HELENE'S & KING KAI'S sex and gender police and so-called Activism program?

Why are you trying to bankrupt New College?

King Kai's program for New College is the DESTRUCTION of the jobs of more than a hundred workers and the destruction of the education of hundreds of students.

THIS IS HIS ROYAL ACTIVISM LAID BARE.

Answer these simple questions.

Why was Queen Helene APPOINTED to her faculty position by VP McAvoy with NO FACULTY OVERSIGHT? NO FACULTY PEER REVIEW. NO OPEN JOB POSTING. NO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PER THE UNION CONTRACT, AND NOT EVEN MINIMAL ADHERENCE TO AUUP GUIDELINES?

Why was King Kai APPOINTED to his faculty position by QUEEN HELENE with NO FACULTY GOVERNANCE OR OVERSIGHT? NO OPEN JOB POSTING. NO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.

Why was Princess Rachel Stryker APPOINTED to her faculty position by QUEEN HELENE with NO FACULTY OVERSIGHT? NO OPEN JOB POSTING. NO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. GUIDELINES?

I THOUGHT THEY WERE FOR FACULTY GOVERNANCE?

QUEEN HELENE SAID SHE IS 'STEPPING DOWN' TO "CORE" FACULTY.

"STEPPING DOWN" FROM WHAT?

ANSWER: HER ROYAL PHONEY-ACTIVISM THRONE.

WHY ARE QUEEN HELENE, KING KAI, AND PRINCESS RACHEL ALL OPPOSED TO THE NEW COLLEGE UNION AND THE AUUP?

BECAUSE THEY ARE CRONIES WHO WANT TO SELF-APPOINT ONE ANOTHER LIKE WHITE ANGLO-SAXON ROYALTY.

QUEEN HELENE, KING KAI, AND PRINCESS RACHEL ARE THE ANTITHESIS OF FACULTY GOVERNANCE.

THEY WANT TO BANKRUPT NEW COLLEGE.

The senior faculty and workers of New College oppose QUEEN HELENE AND HER WHITE-PRIVILEGED ROYAL CRONIES.

See what's free at AOL.com.

--
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@ james sheldon
@ http://www.jamessheldon.com
@ voyager640@gmail.com
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <Camog49@aol.com>
Date: Jun 30, 2007 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: [takenewcollegeback] QUEEN HELENE and her ROYAL CRONIES
To: jeremy@itribe.org, takenewcollegeback@lists.riseup.net

In a message dated 6/30/2007 12:31:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, jeremy@itribe.org writes:

You do raise some interesting points about the process of hiring at
New College, which is one of the issues our group is concerned with.
Unfortunately, as a student in a two year program, I don't have the
benefit of history to explain who was hired and why

If you do not "have the benefit of history," my young Anglo amigo, please shut the fuck up and listen to real lifelong activists and teachers at New College who do.

See what's free at AOL.com.

--
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <Camog49@aol.com>
Date: Jun 30, 2007 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: [takenewcollegeback] QUEEN HELENE and her ROYAL CRONIES
To: jasonshaeffer@gmail.com
Cc: eguevarra50@gmail.com, takenewcollegeback@lists.riseup.net

In a message dated 6/30/2007 2:00:09 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, jasonshaeffer@gmail.com writes:

blatant heterosexism

Here come the PC sex police.

See what's free at AOL.com.

--
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Soneile <elienos@yahoo.com> wrote:

Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:04:11 -0800 (PST)
From: Soneile <elienos@yahoo.com>
Subject: Fwd: The camog (trick) is dead. Long live the gimmick!
To: brooke Lober <brookelober@yahoo.com>

I am going to check out your letter. Here is the mail
Dan Cassidy wrote me. I guess it isn't scarey but it
sure is weird.

--- DanCas1@aol.com wrote:

> From: DanCas1@aol.com
> Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 16:38:20 EDT
> Subject: The camog (trick) is dead. Long live the
> gimmick!
> To: elienos@yahoo.com
>
> In a message dated 7/1/2007 12:53:52 P.M. Pacific
> Daylight Time,
> elienos@yahoo.com writes:
>
> >The whole list knows you were the troll!
>
> Are you one of King Kai's helter skelter activists
> calling for the
> bankrupting and destruction of New College and the
> jobs and educations of almost a
> thousand people?
>
> Are you going to arrest me and detain me
> indefinitely in the white middle
> class activist prison? Am I really the Camog? Do I
> know his/her identity? Will
> I allow my computer, bedroom, and underwear to be
> searched for traces of the
> Camog? Will I have a pink slip thrown in my face
> by activist sex-police
> like Martin Hamilton? Will I be water-boarded in
> mountain spring water and
> beaten with animal free activist whips?
>
> Will you APPOINT a Helter-Skelter activist judge to
> condemn me for my words?
>
> I got an email from the Camog today. He said that
> his because his name means
> "a crooked trick" it is not a scam, though a
> scam 's cam (is a trick).
> The Camog id dead. Long live the Gimmick.
>
> ps Pog mo thoin
>
>
>
> Gimmick, n., a gadget; a contrivance for dishonestly
> regulating a gambling
> game, an article used in a conjuring trick; a tricky
> or ingenious device,
> gadget, or idea. The word gimmick does not enter the
> printed English language
> until 1926. Origin unknown. (OED; Barnhart, 432.)
> CamÃ³g, (Irish), camag (Gaelic), n., a trick, a
> deceit, a scam; a hook;
> anything crooked; a stick with a crook; anything
> curved; a device, a gadget; a
> catch, a clasp, a comma; a camogie. (Dineen, 157; Ã“
> DÃ³naill, 183; Dwelly, 157.)
> The OED and others speculate that gimmick may be
> derived from a magic
> anagram. â€œIt is an anagram of the word magic, and
> is used by magicians the same way
> as others use the word â€˜thing-a-ma-bobâ€™.â€?
> (Words, Nov., 1936, 12/2; OED.)
> Goldin and Oâ€™Learyâ€™s American Underworld Lingo
> gives the definitive
> definition. â€œGimmick, n., 1. (Carnival) Any of the
> various devices to control a
> gaming wheel. Gimmicks may be operated by means of
> a footboard, or â€œIkey Heymanâ€?
> axle, which controls the spin of the wheel (of
> chance)... The tripod, gaff,
> or gimmick is always rigged so it can be dismantled
> at a minuteâ€™s notice if
> police investigate. 2. The trick; the catch; the
> deceptive element, whether
> concrete or abstract. 3. Any safety attachment on a
> lock; any gadget that
> complicates matters and confounds the tamperer. 4.
> Any device or means by which
> the element of chance is removed and an outcome
> prearranged: the fix. Gimmick,
> v. To trick; to cheat; to use any kind of
> gimmick.â€? (Goldin and Oâ€™Leary,
> American Underworld Ling, 80-81)
> â€œGimmick, a device used for making a fair game
> crooked.â€? (Maines & Grant,
> Wise-Crack Dictionary, 1926, Cool

>
> The Barnhart dictionary derives gimmick (camÃ³g)
> from gimcrack. â€œGimmick,
> slang, 1926, American English. A gadget or device
> for a trick or deception.
> Perhaps, alteration of â€˜gimcrack,â€™ a useless
> trifle.â€? (Barnhart, 432.)
> A gimmick (camÃ³g, camag, a trick, a hook, a device)
> is always useful.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ************************************** See what's
> free at http://www.aol.com.
>

"they make a desert and call it peace," -Tacitus

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com