Comments were relevant
An article appeared in the Ukiah Daily Journal . (We are currently looking for a copy of the UDJ article to post here) Collins wrote the following letter in response to comments by Lynda Myers, President of the Academic Senate:
To the editor of the Ukiah Daily Journal
Dear Editor,
This is in response to an article by Glenda Anderson titled "Instructor threatens to sue over reprimand" which appeared July 8, l998, The article concerns some comments I made when presenting five awards to deserving students at the annual college award ceremony. I presented the award and my comments on behalf of the Mendocino College Part-time Faculty Association (MPFA), the union that represents the part-time faculty at the college.
I want to thank the Journal for the article, which raises the question of freedom of expression at our college.
My comments at the ceremony were based on my experience as a member of the committee of part-timers that selected the awards. We looked at the applications and we talked with each of the five student finalists. There were a lot of warm feelings between the students and the part-timers (MPFA volunteers) on the selection committee, as the students talked about their educational goals and the financial stress they felt. Several were interested in the source of the scholarship money and we told them that it came from our union dues. After the interviews, the selection committee decided to increase the awards so that none of the finalists would go away empty-handed.
At the award ceremony I started by saying that I represented the MPFA and that
"part-timers are noted for their imagination in curriculum, their devotion to students, their innovation in many areas, and the consternation they have (recently) caused the administration and the board."
I think most people will agree that the statement was not only true, but provided a meaningful context for the awards. Maybe it wasn't exactly the perfect, shuffling, "Yes Sir, anything you say, Sir!" remark, but the tone was light, and was meant to amuse. (For all the uproar about this you might think that I was up there rapping like Lenny Bruce or Eddie Murphy. Not quite!)
I also said,
"The MPFA selection process takes special consideration of the economic need of the candidate. And that's appropriate because part-timers understand the difficulty of making ends meet,"
and
"We have increased the amount we contribute every year for the last few years. The scholarship money comes entirely from the paychecks of the part-timers and now includes 5 awards totalling $950."
These are the comments that really drew the ire of the administration. I think it is obvious that the administration reacted inappropriately and illegally in writing letters of reprimmand to me for these comments. Let's bear in mind that the letters in question are not merely exchanges of viewpoint: They are put in my personnel file and are meant to have derogatory effect on my future at the college.
Now for another significant point. According to your article Lynda Meyers, president of the academic senate, said that my attorney misrepresented the academic senate in that "The academic senate neither planned a formal reprimand nor to regulate future speeches at such events."
However, Glenda (and Lynda), the minutes of the 5/21/98 senate minutes say,
"Maheny and Sligh (senate members) will draft a letter to Rick Stewart (Dean of Students) and Katie W. (the college employee who handles the award ceremony) suggesting that presenters be instructed to keep remarks to the congratulatory for students."
If that is not an attempt to regulate speech, then what is it?
Lynda Myers, herself, emailed these minutes to the entire college email list.
Lynda Myers is a nice person and she does a good job in her role as head of the Learning Center, but on the subject of free speech, this is not the first time she has been willing to, shall we say, subvert the truth.
I am referring to her letter to the editor of your paper in the fall of 1997 when she shamelessly defended the administration's attempt to shut down the college newspaper, the Eagle. She said "over the past year, part-time advisors have written two-thirds (!) of the articles (in the Eagle)." Those who actually read the paper knew this was untrue and an insult to the students involved.
In fact, the three student editors during that interesting year, Russ Emal, Zack Darling, and Marya Legrand were quite prolific and contributed much more than anyone else. When I attempted to present this data at a Senate meeting, I was gaveled down by Ms. Meyers. Of course, that matter and my documentation never made it into the senate minutes.
And a last word to the faculty: You are paid (in the case of the full-timers, you are well paid) to represent the academic and intellectual interests of the people who live here. Can we agree that free discussion is essential to our work? And I'd really like to know: Do you support the administration in these attempts to limit speech on our campus?
As for myself, I won't feel comfortable until freedom of expression is respected and practiced as the root of intellectual life at our college.
King Collins
Part-time instructor
Mendocino College.
Copyright MPFA 1998
Permission granted to excerpt or use this article if source is cited[Return to Free Speech Discussion]
[Return to Mendocino College Part-time Faculty Home Page]
Webmeister: Jon Degallier
Email: Mendocino College Part-time Faculty
Last Update: 8/23/98