THE ACCUSATION & CONTROVERSY, 1993

Question: How do you feel you were discriminated against?

Answer: "In my Tuesday night 7-10pm Political Science class, I felt I was sexually harassed by the teacher -- Mr. L. C. Jorgensen. One student asked Mr. Jorgensen if he accepted extra credit. Mr. Jorgensen said that he doesn't believe in extra credit. He said that he used to ask for sexual favors as extra credit, but he doesn't do that anymore. Not because he doesn't like it, but because of AIDS. He also used frequent profanity, such as the F____ word. Another thing he talked about was how he had a heart attack and his doctor told him he had to give up 5 things: fooling around; illicit drugs; hard alcohol; (something else I can't remember); and stress. He then said, "Well, 1 out of 5 isn't bad -- so I just don't get stressed as much."

I felt extremely uncomfortable in Mr. Jorgensen's class and decided to drop Political Science. I do not feel comfortable with profanity or with sexual language not pertaining to the course being studied. I feel Mr. Jorgensen's behavior is totally inappropriate in an educational environment."

Question: What remedial action(s) do you propose?

Answer: "I propose that the teacher, Mr. Jorgensen -- is talked to and asked to discontinue his use of profanity and sexual language, if this stops him, then I feel that is all that is necessary. If he continues, I feel he should be reprimanded in some way."

And that was that --- LCJ

Remarks by Lawrence C. Jorgensen,
to the Academic Senate of Los Angeles Valley College,
October 7, 1993

Hello, my name is Lawrence Charles Jorgensen, and I am an accused sexual harassed.

This situation is making me feel like the miner's canary in the old west Virginia coal mines, except that instead of a coal mine, this whole P.C., or Politically Correct, issue is more like a mine field. You just don't know where to step, or from where the next explosion will come. A mine field is a terrifying place. If someone has a map of where all the charges have been placed, I sure wish they'd tell us.

My paranoia (I was referring to the tape reorder that I had turned on as I had begun to speak) does not stem from the fact that I believe that there are folks out there trying to get me. Don't misunderstand me. I do think the motivation is both more general and more pathological than that. This is character assassination. And it isn't just this character, because this character is getting ready to retire anyhow. The worst thing, the very worst thing, that can happen to me, I am told, is that I'll be pressured to retire earlier than I had planned.

When this first came up, when this charge was first made against me, and so that everyone could see what was happening, I photocopied it, and distributed and posted it around campus.

I had to wait five days to find out the specifics of the charge, for the notice they sent me just says "a sexual harassment complaint," which can be anything from asking someone to go to bed with you, or whatever, in return for a grade, to groping, to - well - a whole host of other things, down to the use of the infamous and apparently the most powerful four letter word in the English language.

In any case (note: I had distributed photocopies of the written, sexual harassment complaint against me), this is the notice you get. And you hear nothing else for the four to six days you have to wait to hear if you can allow granddaughter in the room with you alone, without someone else being there.

And then you go to the committee meeting (note: held in the President's conference room, October 7, 1993), and the entire procedure begins to remind me of history, as in the Spanish Inquisition.

And then they pass to you the form with the written statement describing the specifics of the charge. I'm passing all this around to you, so that you can see what, for yourself, what are the specifics of this charge of Sexual Harassment, of what I allegedly said. Look at it. Does what is written here sound to you of sexual harassment?

Part of what I am concerned about is if you look at this complaint form, there is a whole list of things on it that you can mark if you feel you have been discriminated against, oppressed, offended or harassed…..

For example, in regard to Ethnic Group Identification, does that mean I can't talk about Irish-American police firing upon German-American strikers in Chicago in 1884? And how they were used against each other, because my Irish-American students might be offended?

What about my German-American students who feel offended because I lecture about the Second World War and the holocaust? What about my "white" students who are tired of hearing about the Sand Creek massacre? What about male students who are tired of hearing how the women victims of the Sand Creek massacre were scalped in their private parts, and how the skin was made into oil lamp shades for brothels in Denver?

Stop and think about it, if I have to be afraid of giving ethnic offense, then whose history am I to teach? Do I have to worry about every little bit of ethnic pride?

How about religious discrimination? What if you teach that the world began "millions and millions and millions and millions of years ago," and there are students in your class who religiously and seriously believe that it all began in the year 5009 B.C.?

How about age discrimination? We cannot talk about entitlement programs, about social security, Medicare, public employee pensions, and the growing generational war in this country between the 13ers and the GIs and us Silents? How about the rationing of healthcare? All because old people might feel threatened and therefore oppressed or harassed by such a discussion?

Look at the box for Sexual Harassment, which is the one marked in my case. Sexual Harassment includes, I was told at that meeting or hearing, that if someone "feels" that they have been sexually harassed, they have in fact been sexually harassed. Well, what does that mean? There we go, and where does that lead us?

Check the Color box. I was giving out a test the other night on Native American history, and I had half the tests printed on red paper and half on white, each with their own scoring key, so that every other student would get a different test. And I started to think, am I now going to be accused of stereotyping because of the red paper, or a racist because of the white? I realize that this is stupid, but don't laugh. Because if you laugh, and a laugh is speech, and the laugh offends somebody, then, you are guilty, too. That is where we are coming to.

How about the Mental and Physical Disabilities? Well, in the first place, "disability" means without ability. And as we all know, these are "specially challenged" people, or people with "special challenges." So, here you have the whole bloody form itself being offensive to whole groups of people. And does that mean I can't talk about "a whole nation of crazies being led by a real sick person," ie. Hitler's Germany, because that offends somebody?

There is a box for Other. How about "Other, please specify?" You know, your teaching style, like my teaching style, is a reflection of your personality, no doubt, and of your political, cultural, whatever, beliefs. And as it should be. And I am not questioning it, even if I do not approve of it. That is your business. You do a good job, and that is your business. It is none of my professional business if you are sexually uptight. It is none of your professional business if I'm not. Or whatever. The business of all of us is to see to it that the job is done, that people are challenged to think. And to do that, you are going to have to offend some people. I think.

How do you teach history, whose history are you going to teach without talking about abuses that somebody, some group, has inflicted upon somebody else? Whose politics are you going to talk about?

Well, what if you Politically offend someone? There is no box for that, yet. But there is one that says, "Other, please specify." Today, it is me and "Sexual Harassment;" tomorrow it could be you and "Other." So that lists of boxes can get longer and longer and longer.

Well, I refused to answer this complaint. I neither denied or affirmed whether I even said, to an entire room of some 60 people, what the complaint form alleges. By answering this complaint, by officially responding to it, I would be raising the entire procedure to a level of dignity it did not deserve. And that I did not believe that they even had a right to do what they were doing. However, and unlike Woody Allen in the movie, The Front, I did not say, "and fuck you." Actually, I don't even want to bring up Woody Allen, because that is politically incorrect now, too.

(At this point, Professor Jack Sterk, President of the Academic Senate and a participant at the infamous committee meeting as one of my two personal representatives, interjected that his recollection of our response was that we did not consider the complaint to be an example of sexual harassment. To which I responded: No, I said that I refused to respond to it. I'm not even admitting that I said what the complaint says I said. And that is aside from whether I did say it, and if I did whether that constituted sexual harassment, in a room of 55 people and talking to them all.)

In fact, I repeated to all my other classes this week what I allegedly said that first night in that one class, because I wanted to both explain the grading procedures to those who still didn't understand, and, actually, I wanted to get it all on tape and the response of the class. I asked if anyone was offended by what I had just said. And the response I got was, "Offended? By what?" So, I told them: Let me tell you something. Because of just that, what I just said now and what I had allegedly said on the first night of my Tuesday class, I have been charged with Sexual Harassment.

You can imagine what happened in each class. But that's okay, for these are Political Science and History classes, and this is the sort of stuff we deal with. "P.C." is one of the hot issues of the day. Its not only a hot issue at the universities and the community colleges, but everywhere, in the business and corporate world, and so on. I have been in communication with innumerable people here in California and back east, and it is all over the place.

What I think we academics have to do is draw a line "in the sand," perhaps, though I prefer a brick wall separating speech and ideas from actions. If they can breach that wall because of your speech, your words, particularly in an academic situation, in a classroom situation, then next is…is what? Your mind? And thoughts?

That means we will then have campus police patrolling our speech and ideas. Maybe we already do. And that raises still another issue: Are there already thought police on this campus? Are there already the P.C. folks running around here keeping little books, with names and dates, on us all? Waiting, waiting, for the opportune moment.

So, let's get this all out in the open. Sunlight is good for diseases, I'm told. So let us expose it to the sun. For example, I was told, when I was first notified of this charge and I initially looked for advice, that I should be quiet about it, and we'd work out a compromise and the worse thing that would happen is that I'd have to apologize. And I said "apologize for what?"

First of all, I didn't even know what I was accused of, except for that general term, "Sexual Harassment." I assumed, as did Professors Broslawsky and Sterk, my personal representatives at this meeting, after I told them what little I knew, that it all had to do with my choice of language, and my general style of teaching, which I do not doubt offends some people.

What do we want to do? Well, first of all, teachers and professors have to draw that line, to teach in a way that manifests the distinction between ideas and thoughts, words, and deeds or actions. And you have to do that by teaching it. That's my advice to you all.

Personally, I want this record expunged. But I know, from reading in great detail, the story, the ever unfolding story of J. Edgar Hoover's vast secret files, where everything was cross referenced, and copied, so that there was a copy here, a copy there, copies everywhere. No one is quite sure where all the remains of his files are even now.

Therefore, I want it more than expunged. You can't expunge anything anymore, anyhow. Its out there. I want a letter of apology from either the school or from the district. And I want that letter published in the school paper, or some other official place.

And I want this done this way, not just for me, because I am at the end of my teaching career. I am not going to be called by Clinton to serve on one of his executive committees.

I am not going to have to sit in front of a Senate confirmation hearing where someone will say, "Is it not true that in 1993 you were accused of sexual harassment, Mr. Jorgensen?" That's a sex offense. That's a morals charge. And then I'm going to have to say, " well, yeah, but it was over this…this, you know, the F-word, or some reference I made in and to a room full of 60 people."

What employer, what personnel director will wish to take a chance? So, I ask you, think of the young people. Think of young people just starting off in teaching: think of young people in general who have careers ahead of them, who have lives ahead of them, nobody knows what the next day, the next week, the next month, the next year, the next decade is going to bring, and what choices people are going to be given an opportunity to make in terms of their careers, their movements around the country. And how does something like this look in somebody's file? And how, x-number of years from now and down that road of life, they say, "is it not true that…………?"

Now we went through that just a few years ago in the McCarthy era. We have gone through this periodically throughout human history, at least the history of civilization, as far as I know. And every time it comes up, we have got to stop it.

I'm not looking to punish anybody. I just want this procedure straightened out. I want a clear policy established, and in the establishment of that policy I want the victims of sexual harassment included as well as the victims of the false charges of sexual harassment. There has to be protection for everybody.

In conclusion, there is a pernicious and evil pathology out there that states "all men are guilty of sexual harassment." I know that. I read that stuff. "That all heterosexual activity is rape." And that's bullshit.

But in any case, that has nothing to do with what I allegedly did, as stated here in this complaint. Or what you might do in your classes.

Now, I will defend your right to say that "all heterosexual sex is rape;" I will do that, defend your right to say it, but I am not going to give you a gun. I am not going to put you in charge of anything…not of my life.

Thank You.

Lawrence C. Jorgensen
Professor: History and Political Science
Los Angeles Valley College
Van Nuys, CA 91401

October 16, 1993

Re: P.C. Strikes V.C. (Los Angeles Valley College)

The community college campus to which President Clinton came to endorse Mike Woo for Los Angeles Mayor will soon be the site of a major political, ideological and legal battle involving Political Correctness.

It had to happen sooner or later in the California southland, so what better place than Los Angeles Valley College, the site of southern California's first Vietnam War "teach-in," 28 years ago in 1965.

It will be great drama, involving numerous veterans from the "1960s," most particularly the Free Speech, Civil Rights, and anti-Vietnam War movements. For many of those veterans, this will be their last hooray. For this battle, however, those old troopers will be joined by a new generation of faculty and students in placing Valley College once again in the forefront of the never-ending struggle to protect free speech in general and academic freedom in particular.

Sub plots include rumors of thought police patrols, sinister conspiracies, moral extortion, political and ideological incest, vacillating administrators, a divided teachers union, a leaderless district, all against a background of a generally declining commitment to public education.

Well, probably I shouldn't write your story for you. Particularly since I am one of the accused. Apparently, several others have been accused, secretly interrogated, and ….well, we do not know, since all this is secret stuff. I am the first not to rollover, not to cooperate, and to go public with the process and procedure that looks exactly like a re-run of the "red hunts" of the late 40s and 50s.

I have enclosed materials that give any reader a pretty good idea of one example of what we, out in the mine fields of the P.C. wars, are forced to encounter as we attempt our professional duties.

And they said it couldn't happen here, not at Los Angeles Valley College!

You folks be the judge, but in any case, "LET THE SUN SHINE IN."

Yours for Free Speech, Academic Freedom and the 1st Amendment

Letter from Jorgensen to Oliver, October 25, 1993

Lawrence C. Jorgensen
Professor: History and Political Science
Los Angeles Valley College
Van Nuys, CA 91401

October 25, 1993

Thomas W. Oliver, Acting Dean, Academic Affairs
Sexual Harassment Compliance Officer
Los Angeles Valley College
Van Nuys, CA 91401
NOTE: By Hand, 10/25/93

Dear Dean Oliver,
As requested by you, I attended the October 1, 1993, meeting "regarding a sexual harassment complaint," filed against me. At that meeting, I officially refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the process, the procedure and the proceedings. I also requested that all records of this complaint be expunged and that I be presented with a public apology.

You have had three (3) weeks to respond, more than enough time. Thus, I insist that by Friday, October 29, 1993, that I shall receive an acceptable official, written and publishable apology from you, as Los Angeles Valley College's Sexual Harassment Compliance Officer. I also insist that by said date that I be presented with proof that the process of expungement has begun.

If you fail to meet this most reasonable demand, as my first step toward the resolution of this matter, I shall immediately file a grievance against you.

Since I prefer not to expend my own, the Guild's, the college's and the district's time and money in this matter, I hope that your office will comply with my above demand(s).

Dean Oliver, this is not personal. This is principle of the highest nature. I hope we are able to keep it up there where it belongs.
Yours for Free Speech and Academic Freedom,

Lawrence C. Jorgensen

C: Pres Lee, FB, et al.

Academic Senate Resolution, October 28, 1993

Los Angeles Valley College Faculty Association
Jack Sterk, Faculty President
5800 Fulton Avenue, Van Nuys, CA 91401
(818) 781-1200 x.234

Date: October 28, 1993
To: Dr. Mary Lee, College President
From: Jack Sterk, Faculty President
Re: Sexual Harassment

The following motions passed the Senate today dealing with the area of sexual harassment. I would remind you that according to Title 5 you must rely primarily on the advice of the Academic Senate on Academic or professional matters and only for compelling reasons, stated in writing to the Senate, can you disagree.

Additionally, the Senate unanimously endorsed the letter I sent you earlier today.

LOS ANGELES VALLEY COLLEGE
ACADEMIC SENATE
RESOLUTION
Whereas the Senate Executive Committee engaged in a good faith effort to help the administration tailor procedures on sexual harassment complaints so that they would protect the rights of the accused while providing an appropriate an d fair course for complaints and,

Whereas the Los Angeles Valley College administration, while these discussions were underway, continued a procedure which abandons due process and,

Whereas among the primary functions of a Faculty Senate are to promote a nurturing environment for education and to protect academic freedom and,

Whereas any further participation by faculty in the sexual harassment procedures as they are now being carried out at Los Angeles Valley College would constitute abandoning the rights of faculty and undermining the educational functions of this institution,

The Los Angeles Valley College Academic Senate herewith withdraws from any further participation in the sexual harassment procedures NOW IN USE at Los Angeles Valley College and recommends that faculty members not cooperate, indeed seek AFT representation, should they be approached in the matter of a campus sexual harassment dispute.

November 1, 1993
TO: MS. TYREE WIEDER
Vice-President, Academic Affairs
Los Angeles Valley College
5800 Fulton Avenue
Van Nuys, CA 91401

RE: REQUEST FOR MEETING

Dear Vice-President Wieder,

Professor Lawrence "Chuck" Jorgensen has. appointed me his personal representative and in that capacity I am requesting that you chair a meeting of the involved parties in an effort to resolve Chuck's grievances so that we can avoid carrying the matter beyond the campus. Contingent upon your approval, I have requested that your secretary schedule the meeting for Friday, November 5 at 2:00 P.M. in your office. I request that the following parties be invited to attend:

Professor Lawrence "Chuck" Jorgensen;
Thomas W. Oliver, Sexual Harassment Compliance Officer;
Ms. Jeanne Polack, Assistant to Thomas Oliver;
Professor Jack Sterk, Faculty Association President;
Professor Penny Pollard, AFT Representative;
Professor Rose Drummond, History Department chair;
Dr. Mary Lee, President, Los Angeles Valley College.

Since Professor Jorgensen has waived all right to confidentiality in all matters pertaining to his grievances, he has no objection to any other party attending the meeting if you feel that such attendance is useful.
Professor Jorgensen feels that the best interests of the students and faculty of valley College will be served if the matter of the attack upon his integrity as an individual and as a teacher is dealt with in the proposed semi-formal setting. It is important that it be understood by all of the parties involved that Professor Jorgensen is granting a courtesy to his accusers that was not given to him. He is providing specific notice of the nature of his grievances against the parties as well as the course of action that he intends to pursue.
Professor Jorgensen's grievances and potential legal causes of action arise out of the following sequence of events:

1. On August 23, 1993, the first evening of the present semester, a student was ostensibly offended by words purportedly used by Professor Jorgensen in the course of introducing himself and the nature of the class he was going to present. It must be emphasized that the language used by Professor Jorgensen was general in nature, not specifically directed to any one student and that the content and context of the language allegedly used is protected by the Education Code. Supposedly because the student felt herself to be offended, though not harassed, by the words used in the class, and with no consultation or discussion with Professor Jorgensen explaining her objections, the student dropped the class.

2. On or about September 9, 1993, the student spoke with Ms. Jeanne Polak. Though Ms. Polak knew, or should have known, that student complaints regarding classroom materials should be referred to the appropriate department chair or the dean in charge of the area of study, she did not follow established procedures. Instead, Ms. Polak solicited a written complaint charging Professor Jorgensen with sexual harassment. (Copy attached) By her actions Ms. Polak violated Section 15400(A)(2) of the Complaint Procedure of Chapter XV of the Rules of the Board of Trustees.

3. Ms. Jeanne Polak was acting with the knowledge and approval of Mr. Thomas Oliver, who allegedly submitted copies of the inappropriate and defamatory complaint to various individuals, agencies and institutions. In each instance there was a continuing defamation of Professor Jorgensen's character and professional abilities.

4. The student dated her signature September 9, 1993, while Ms. Jeanne Polak delayed signing the complaint until September 17, 1993. Professor Jorgensen was not informed of the presence of a written complaint against him until September 27, 1993, by a letter sent to him dated September 24, 1993. He was not given a copy of the complaint until October 1, 1993.

In each instance, Mr. Thomas Oliver and Ms. Jeanne Polak acted in violation of Section 15400 (C)(2) of the Complaint Procedure.

5. On October 1, 1993, Professor Jorgensen attended a meeting upon the request of Ms. Polak and Mr. Oliver. (Copy attached) Professor Jorgensen was represented by myself and Professor Jack Sterk as President of the Faculty Association.

At the meeting, Professor Sterk and I voiced our objections to the process by which the alleged complaint was solicited and processed. We further objected to the presence at the meeting of an attorney who identified herself as being employed by the district and who proceeded to prevent other interested parties from attending over the objections of Professor Jorgensen. The attorney proceeded to run the meeting and sought to advise both Ms. Polak and Mr. Oliver over the continuing objections raised by myself and Professor Sterk.
All of the above actions constituted a violation of Section 15400 of the Complaint Procedure.

6. At the October 1, 1993, hearing Professor Jorgensen refused to affirm or deny the use of the alleged language on the grounds that the complaint was an inappropriate infringement upon settled standards of academic freedom and that to classify and pursue the matter under the rubric of sexual harassment constituted a defamation of his character as an individual and as a professional educator.

7. On October 25, 1993, Professor Jorgensen directed a letter to Mr. Oliver insisting upon an expungment of the complaint directed against him and an official publishable apology from Mr. Oliver for the defamation of Professor Jorgensen's character. (Copy attached)

8. On or about October 26, 1993, Mr. Oliver telephoned or attempted to contact at least three female students from Professor Jorgensen's class. The telephone inquiry was for the purpose of interrogating the students about the content and teaching methods used by Professor Jorgensen during the course of the semester.

The phone calls that were made were beyond the scope and authority of Mr. Oliver acting as Sexual Harassment Compliance Officer and must be viewed as being retaliatory in nature directed against Professor Jorgensen for contesting the defamation of his character. By taking retaliatory action against Professor Jorgensen, Mr. Oliver violated Section 15600 of the Complaint Procedure.

The phone calls invaded the privacy of the individual students involved, intruded upon the orderly processes of classroom instruction and could have no other purpose than to seek to intimidate Professor Jorgensen and to discourage students from openly participating in his class. By his outrageous behavior, Mr. Oliver actively sought to create a hostile and intimidating environment for the students in Professor Jorgensen's class.
By singling out female students for unwanted phone contacts, Mr. Oliver could properly be viewed as violating the very policies that he is responsible for overseeing.

9. On October 29, 1993, Mr. Oliver responded to Professor Jorgensen's demand for an apology by refusing to comply with his requests. (Copy attached)

Even though the student has evidenced no desire to continue the matter, and even though the matter is no longer viable under the Complaint Procedure, Mr. Oliver and Ms. Polack refuse to apologize for the defamation or take action to expunge the initial libel on the pretext that the investigation is continuing. Professor Jorgensen is forced to the avenue of filing official grievances against all of the parties involved.
Since you are the administrator who would be the initial recipient of a formal grievance, we have asked for this meeting as a last effort to contain the matter within the campus. It is obvious that there are two issues of concern to be addressed: The first is the defamation of Professor Jorgensen which is our primary concern; the second is the need to clarify the definitions and procedures related to the concept of sexual harassment. Because of the merging of the concerns in Professor Jorgensen's case, we request the presence of the organizational representatives previously named.
Our immediate concern is the restoration of Professor Jorgensen's reputation which will be satisfied by the fulfillment of the demands presented to Mr. Oliver on October 25. we insist that Professor Jorgensen receive an acceptable, official, written and publishable apology from the Sexual Harassment Compliance Officer. We further insist that copies of the apology be sent to all of the individuals, agencies and institutions that received the original complaint.
Professor Jorgensen is also concerned that the students involved in this matter not suffer as a result of the misbehavior of Ms. Polak and Mr. Oliver. He feels that it would be appropriate that the student who was misdirected by Ms. Polak and the students who were telephoned by Mr. Oliver receive written apologies from those who abused their administrative duties.
Since the semester is past the mid-point and the damage to Professor Jorgensen's reputation will continue until the matter is rectified, we feel that time is of the essence and we must insist that our efforts to resolve this situation without further action are satisfied within a few days after the meeting.
Should Professor Jorgensen fail in his efforts to have the matter resolved informally, it is his intention to follow his administrative remedies to their conclusion and then, if not satisfied, to seek his remedy through filing a law suit against the individuals and the institutions responsible for propagating and maintaining the defamatory characterization of his professional activities.

Sincerely, F. R. Broslawsky

Professor Farrel Broslawsky
Designated Representative for
Professor Lawrence "Chuck" Jorgensen

cc: Professor Lawrence Jorgensen Mr. Thomas Oliver Ms. Jeanne Polak Professor Jack Sterk Professor Penny Pollard Professor Rose Drummond Dr. Mary Lee

MS. TYREE 0. WIEDER et al
Vice-President Academic Affairs
Los Angeles Valley College
5800 Fulton Avenue
Van Nuys, CA 91401
RE: CORRECTIONS TO LETTER OF 11/5
Dear Vice-President Wieder et al,

It has come to my attention that I mistakenly identified the dates of some of the events in my letter of November 1, 1993. To clarify the matter, I am enclosing a corrected copy of the original letter and I would like to call your attention to the proper dates below which are in bold type.

2. On or about September 9, 1993, the student spoke with Ms. Jeanne Polak. Though Ms. Polak knew, or should have known, that student complaints regarding classroom materials should be referred to the appropriate department chair or the dean in charge of the area of study, she did not follow established procedures. Instead, Ms. Polak solicited a written complaint charging Professor Jorgensen with sexual harassment. (Copy attached)

By her actions Ms. Polak violated Section 15400(A)(2) of the Complaint Procedure of Chapter XV of the Rules of the Board of Trustees.

4. The student dated her signature September 9, 1993, while Ms. Jeanne Polak delayed signing the complaint until September 17, 1993. Professor Jorgensen was not informed of the presence of a written complaint against him until September 27, 1993, by a letter sent to him dated September 24, 1993. He was not given a copy of the complaint until October 1, 1993.

In each instance, Mr. Thomas Oliver and Ms. Jeanne Polak acted in violation of Section 15400 (C)(2) of the Complaint Procedure.

I also inadvertently misspelled Vice-President Wieder's name. Though I might take refuge in my position as a teacher who views administrators as interchangeable beings, I feel that it is only appropriate that each individual be given the dignity of having their proper name identified as such. To Vice-President Wieder I extend my fulsome and sincere apologies for the error.

As of this writing I still have not had the Friday meeting of November 5 confirmed. Professor Jorgensen and I sincerely regret the personal loss that President Mary Lee has suffered. Since our invitation to Dr. Lee was only intended as a courtesy, we would like the meeting to continue in her absence. Common decency, as well as our personal regard for her, would indicate that this controversy not intrude upon her time of grieving.

I must emphasize again that time is of the essence in this matter. The defamation of Professor Jorgensen's character continues until the original complaint is expunged. To let the matter drag on past the end of this semester will only exacerbate the damage to his reputation.

It is my understanding that Vice-President Wieder is the appropriate person to address any grievance that is presented against an administrator and we are hoping that this meeting will resolve the situation. If we are not to have the meeting, we request that vice-President Wieder inform us of the name of the proper Superintendent to whom we should next proceed.

Sincerely,

Professor Farrel Broslawsky
Designated Representative for
Professor Lawrence "Chuck" Jorgensen

cc: Professor Lawrence Jorgensen Mr. Thomas Oliver Ms. Jeanne Polak Professor Jack Sterk Professor Penny Pollard Professor Rose Drummond Dr. Mary Lee

Lawrence C. Jorgensen
Professor: History & Political Science
Los Angeles Valley College
Van Nuys, CA 91401

November 8, 1993

Thomas W. Oliver, Acting Dean, Academic Affairs
Sexual Harassment Compliance Officer
Los Angeles Valley College
Van Nuys, CA 91401
NOTE: BY HAND, 11/9/93

Dear Dean Oliver,

Last Monday, November 1, 1993, you asked by telephone to my home whether I would agree to a compromise statement that you had prepared. In the process of reading to me that statement, you included words to the effect that I, Lawrence C. Jorgensen, agreed that in the future I would no longer….At that point, I stopped you and said I could not agree to stop doing something, as I had done nothing wrong in the first place.

Let me emphasize once again. I have neither said nor done anything legally or morally wrong; thus, for what should I apologize, and apologize to whom? What should I promise not to say or do in the future? And to whom should I promise?

Dean Oliver, I vigorously protest your telephone invasion of my class room and your interrogation of female students from my class. If one or more of them now feel too harassed or intimidated to continue this semester's work, I and perhaps they also, will hold you responsible. My advice is that you immediately contact those already interrogated and apologize. Let them specifically understand that none of this reflects, one way or the other, on them.

Oh, and apropos of the above "ongoing investigation," if you have already or are going to look through my campus office and records, please observe how dusty and in general need of painting my office is. Perhaps you could pass that observation along.

Now, Dean Oliver, except for my refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of this procedure, I have complied with all relevant Board rules. This process, instigated by your office has been gong on since September 9th. My life and my teaching has been disrupted since September 27th, when your office notified me of some complaint.

The alleged incident occurred August 24th, the second evening of the first week of this semester. It was reported to your office September 9th. Today is November 8th, and the beginning of the 12th week.

What is going on? What kind of an investigation are you folks doing? You have got to move; other people need the room. I realize that you just happened to step on this. That's why this whole area is called a "mine field." I also suppose that forces superior to you do not wish to give in to a "mere teacher," an administrative and economic inferior. And if they are using you as administrative fodder, I am really sorry. But that is the fortunes of war.

This issue and its telling is going to get bigger and bigger and bigger. You have the entire legal and administrative apparatus of the district at your disposal. I have only my friends, public opinion, and the certain knowledge that this is "a good fight."

Your office has gone way past the prescribed time for this procedure and "investigation." By this Thursday, November 11th, I insist that you either close the investigation and meet my demands or go on to the next administrative step. I am going to start the grievance procedure against you after that date.

Yours for Academic Freedom and Free Speech

Lawrence C. Jorgensen

C: FB, ET. AL.

DEAN THOMAS OLIVER
Sexual Harassment Compliance Officer
Los Angeles Valley College
5800 Fulton Avenue
Van Nuys, CA 91401

RE: STEP 3 MEETING

Dear Dean Oliver,

This is to confirm our brief meeting of this afternoon in which I informed you that I will be continuing to act as Professor Jorgensen's personal representative throughout the proceedings arising out of an allegation of "sexual harassment".

I also asked that Professor Jorgensen be given a copy of the written request for a Step 3 proceeding allegedly sent to you by the student who is the original complainant.

Both Professor Jorgensen and I will be available for the meeting on Monday, November 22 at 3:00 P.M. Unless otherwise informed we assume that the meeting will take place in the President's Conference Room at Los Angeles Valley College.

I also requested that you be recused from participating in an active manner at the November 22 meeting. In my letter of November 21 I listed a number of procedural violations involving the processing of this matter that has so tainted your participation that it raises serious questions about your ability to maintain the requisite objectivity at this and subsequent hearings.

I recognize that your position as Sexual Harassment Compliance Officer requires your presence at the meeting, however it does not demand that you lead or actively participate. We have no objection to a designated representative of your office or any other individual appearing on your behalf. Further, we would actively encourage that you invite participation by the Affirmative Action Office, the Administration, the Board of Trustees or anyone else who might benefit from attending the meeting.

I must emphasize that by appearing at the meeting, Professor Jorgensen is not acknowledging the procedural or substantive legitimacy of the manner in which this matter has been handled. We continue to maintain our original position as follows:

1. This is a matter that properly involves academic freedom and an effort at administrative censorship. It is an administrative abuse of authority to attempt to deal with it under the guise of "sexual harassment".

2. A student who attended approximately forty-five minutes of class and who was ostensibly "offended" by generalized and protected speech allegedly used by Professor Jorgensen, has traditional and accepted avenues to register her displeasure. She was inappropriately counseled to file a complaint alleging "sexual harassment".

3. The maintenance of files containing an improper allegation of sexual harassment constitutes a continuing defamation of Professor Jorgensen's professional abilities and demeans his reputation as an individual and as a professional teacher.

4. The manner in which the complaint was initiated and subsequently processed violated a series of procedural requirements of the Board Rules regarding sexual harassment complaints.

5. The Administration of Los Angeles Valley College, as well as the Affirmative Action Office of the Los Angeles Community College District has failed to protect Professor Jorgensen against an improper allegation of "sexual harassment".

Our concern continues to be the restoration of Professor Jorgensen's reputation which will be satisfied by the fulfillment of the demands presented to you by Professor Jorgensen, in your capacity as Sexual Harassment Compliance Officer, on October 25. We continue to insist that Professor Jorgensen receive an acceptable, official, written and publishable apology from the Sexual Harassment Compliance Office. We further demand that copies of the apology be sent to all of the individuals, agencies and institutions that received the original complaint.

It is our sincere hope that this matter may be resolved at the November 22 meeting so that we all may return to our responsibilities and so that the orderly processes of classroom instruction at the school may resume without further disruption.

Sincerely,
Professor Farrel Broslawsky
Designated Representative for
Professor Lawrence 'Chuck" Jorgensen

Lawrence C. Jorgensen
Professor: History and Political Science
Los Angeles Valley College
Van Nuys, CA 91401

November 30, 1993

Thomas W. Oliver, Acting Dean, Academic Affairs
Sexual Harassment Compliance Officer
Los Angeles Valley College
Van Nuys, CA 91401
NOTE: By Hand, 11/30/93

Dear Dean Oliver,
As I stated to you and Dean Adrienne Foster on Tuesday, November 23rd in the "Step 3 mediation meeting," I will accept the following statement, officially signed by you, published in the Valley Star, and sent to all agencies and offices to which the original sexual harassment complaint against me has been sent, as part of the process of "expunging the record."

Your agreement to the above by December 6, 1993, as Valley College's Sexual Harassment Compliance Officer, will be acceptable to me as a reasonable conclusion to this entire, unwarranted and unfortunate mess. Your agreement, as I am sure you are aware, will also make additional financially expensive and emotionally harmful actions unnecessary.

For all our sakes, and most particularly for the restoration of a common sense approach to this difficult issue, I hope you are able to be your own person in this matter.

STATEMENT

In regard to the September 9, 1993, sexual harassment complaint against Professor Lawrence C. Jorgensen accepted by Ms. Jeanne Polak, then a Los Angeles Valley College and Los Angeles Community College District Representative, later signed and dated by her September 17, 1993,

1. I, Thomas W. Oliver, Acting Dean of Academic Affairs and Sexual Harassment Compliance Officer at Los Angeles Valley College, hereby officially and publicly acknowledge that the above sexual harassment complaint filed against Lawrence C. Jorgensen was and is without merit or validity.
2. Los Angeles Valley College acknowledges and reaffirms its traditional commitment to academic freedom in general, classroom free speech in particular, and non-interference in the professional student-teacher classroom relationship.
3. Therefore, I apologize to the students of Lawrence C. Jorgensen for any and all restrictions or interference's that this unwarranted and invalid process may have had on this semester's classroom and academic accomplishments.

END OF STATEMENT

Yours for academic freedom, free speech, due process and a sense common to us all.

Lawrence C. Jorgensen

C: FB, ET AL

December 6, 1993

To Concerned Faculty, Staff and Students,

I have been asked by the Chapter Chairs of the College Guild to prepare an analysis of the present District policy regarding sexual harassment and to propose remedial action for Guild consideration. Because the semester is drawing to a conclusion and it is unlikely that any meaningful activity will occur before next year, I am providing an outline of the major objections to the present policy so that you may consider appropriate action in support of traditional campus free speech.

The policy, as presently in effect, is an unwarranted intrusion upon the academic freedom of the entire campus community and, on that basis, I am asking the support of the Guild as well as student organizations, other faculty groups and individual members of the college community to present to the Board of Trustees the following demands:

1. The implementation of the present "sexual harassment" policy as it applies to classroom speech shall be immediately suspended. Students and/or faculty who find classroom speech to be personally offensive shall register their disapproval through other established student and faculty grievance procedures.

2. All existing files containing unsubstantiated and/or unresolved allegations of "sexual harassment" based upon general speech shall be destroyed or partially expunged by official exculpatory letters.

The District Sexual Harassment Policy shall be revised to protect free and unfettered classroom discourse within traditional and legally protected standards of academic freedom. The revision shall take place with the direct participation of the College Guild and consultation with representatives of the campus student population.

The expanded analysis of the deficiencies and dangers of the present policy will be presented to the Chapter Chairs and the Executive Board of the College Guild upon completion and it will be made available to any of those who request a copy. Pending completion of my report, I welcome any comments or suggestions that you wish to make regarding the present policy.

Since implementation of the existing policy has already had a deplorable restrictive effect on academic freedom on individual campuses and while unchallenged presents a potential for more abusive activity against staff and students under the rubric of 'sexual harassment", I urge you to register your objections to the members of the Los Angeles Community College Board of Trustees located at 770 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, 90017.

Farrel Broslawsky
History Department
Los Angeles Valley College

Lawrence C. Jorgensen
Los Angeles Valley College
Fall Semester, 1993
December 12, 1993

TO MY POLITICAL SCIENCE AND HISTORY CLASSES

Well, it has been one strange semester. For those of you who are new to Valley College, I assure you that this has not been a typical semester, even for my classes. On the one hand, however, you have been witnesses to history and to American politics at a most personal level. Certainly the issues of academic freedom and free speech will always have a more immediate meaning to you than to most of your contemporaries. So that's a plus.

On the other hand, these courses are intended to be more of a survey of the subjects than I was able to accomplish. That's a negative; and I apologize for the idiocy of the administration, even though they will not, that resulted in this semester's disruptions.

Right, no apology from the administration. No admission of error, either to fact or to procedure. I told you early on in this dispute, this ridiculous soap opera, that the administration had no mechanism for the admission of error. You might want to remember that, and count it a valuable lesson from this semester.

No hierarchical institution ever provides for the possibility of institutional error. The primary function of hierarchical institutions, today, yesterday, 1000 years ago, 3000 years ago, is always self-perpetuation, with self -aggrandizement a close second.

A public admission of error is a public admission of humanity, of a nakedness that humbles the mighty and thus empowers the many. No, and as I weekly told you, I never expected them to publicly admit to error. I have been studying for too many years for that kind of innocence.

So on my way to retirement from Los Angeles Valley College, after 30 odd years, and some more odd than others, though this one ranks right up there among the oddest, an almost but not quite funny thing happened to me. I stepped on a newly placed anti-personal mine called "sexual harassment." Actually, that particular variety of mine is part of a larger teacher entrapment field called anti-discrimination, or, even more invisible, "insensitivity."

Mines and minefields originated as defensive weapons, a sort of a poor country's border defense against a more numerous and/or a technologically superior and aggressive neighbor. "Political Correctness," however, is being used as an offensive weapon against, apparently, enemies perceived to be too strong to attack directly, that is on the basis of those principles to which the mine layers are opposed.

Mind you, there are teachers and there are teachers; professors and professors. And like all professionals, they should be held to account for the trust that parents and society place in them. And while my world is obviously not the entire world, no teacher or professor that I know supports discrimination against or harassment of students; nor have I ever heard of anyone defending an instructor's right to do either. And in any case, anyone so charged is still entitled to a hearing or procedure based upon due process.

Real crime, disgusting and vile criminality abounds in these last days of the 20th century. In many ways, this entire century has been the most violently criminal in all recorded history. And most reasonable and reasoning people know and recognize criminal behavior from that which clearly is not. Thus, I have to ask, what possible political goal is envisioned by those who create these new social categories of criminality? What sort of future polity do they intend when in the process of enforcing these new categories, they regress to procedures reminiscent of inquisitions, star chambers and show trials?

When I was first notified that a "sexual harassment complaint" had been filed against me, I really thought one of my prankster colleagues was engaging in a joke. After all, I have always known the difference between that which is moral, ethical and legal from that which isn't. And that kind of a sinner, I am not.

Upon checking and discovering that this was indeed an official complaint, I requested advice from several sources, including my AFT union local that is chartered and paid to represent its members in disputes with the college and/or district administration.

Some of the advice I got involved simply meeting with the committee and working out a solution or compromise, thereby keeping the matter quiet and on campus. That sounded like terrible advice. I wasn't guilty of anything. Why should I start acting as if I was? Clearly, that was bad advice.

Some others urged me to take legal representation to the meeting. Fortunately for me, and for those who will not have to follow, I asked my friend Farrel Broslawksy, an attorney, and Jack Sterk, president of the academic senate, to accompany me. (And therein begins a contemporary version of Kafka's classic tale, with just a hint of "The Grand Inquisitor" added for flavor. Ah, as I overstate the case, remember that we do not want administrative tyranny to ever go that far.)

As it turned out, a copy of the complaint had already been sent to the State Department of Education in Sacramento, as well as to the District office. So, even before the initial, the very first, meeting at which I was to be informed as to the specifics of the complaint, files designating me an alleged sex offender had been opened in at least three different locations in the state of California, as well as at least three places on Valley College's campus.

Now, it is a most ancient principle of Viking law (among all others about which I have ever read) that when attacked, the victim of that attack has the right to cry out for help. I did just that, and several individuals instantly came to my assistance, a spontaneous response for which I shall always be grateful.

Had I done what others before me had done, that is not "gone public" and instead "worked out a quiet compromise," what would have happened? Who would have known? You tell me how many people, how many files listing me as a sex offender would exist?

According to several statements I have since received from male faculty in this district, the process of "keeping it all quiet" involves, first, agreeing to and signing a statement that you are sorry anyone felt sexually offended or harassed by what you said, as that was not your intention.

Second, you must, also in writing, agree to change your classroom speech and behavior so as not to say or do anything that might trigger another sexual harassment complaint. Finally, and to seal the bargain, you might be required or "asked" to attend a certain number of hours of sexual harassment sensitivity meetings.

All this sounds suspiciously like a "plea bargain." It definitely means that you are admitting that you apparently did something wrong, wrong of a sexually offensive nature, to one of your students.

Of all occupations and professions, male teachers and professors are perhaps the most vulnerable to charges of sexual misconduct. Societies trust their future to their teachers; and parents trust their young to those same teachers.

Educational disagreements and political controversies will probably always arise among and between teachers, parents, and society as a whole; but charges of sexual misconduct go to the very heart of that trust.

Silently cooperating with this pernicious procedure is to give consent to its legitimacy. I could not do that. Further, when an innocent person cooperates with such a "secret" process and procedure, it adds to the growing irrationality of these most sexually troubled and dangerous times.

Remember, to these newest guardians of classroom behavior and speech, the accused is automatically guilty, convicted and punished. His character permanently assassinated by their forms and by their files. Files have already been opened in several places. The accused is asked to apologize and promise not to do it again, even though they have been convicted of nothing. Even though they have done nothing wrong.

Your cooperation, apology, and promise of "not doing it again" are all duly recorded and sent along to wherever the files are. That is a conviction, call it what you will. How much is your career, your future, your honor, your life worth? How much would you pay to an extortioner , a blackmailer, to keep it "hushed up?"

I cannot give anyone, any administration, any government, any President, Dean, anyone, the power to extort from me my money, honor, votes, or even my silence in the face of their incompetence, their dishonesty, their bigotry, their tyranny. Further, as I have never been a follower of party lines, I will not allow my integrity to be sacrificed upon some alter of "a higher political good."

Life may be a bundle of small and medium compromises, but not of this magnitude. One slight compromise with this principle leads to one small injustice, and one little tyranny too often leads to that mountain so common in history that might have been easily scattered while it was still a mole hill.

Thanks to all of you who have been so supportive. I realize that this has been an entirely new political experience for many of you; but, as I say, "Welcome to America." You now have first hand evidence that the stated political and ideological ideals are too often neither protected nor practiced even at the level of the community college classrooms.

Do not become discouraged or cynical. Those feelings lead to depression and fuel nepotism. This is OUR country, all of OURS. Treat it with the same respect the Native Americans showed it. Get involved and defend those institutions worth defending, beginning with the First Amendment and Free Speech. But, never confuse the country with the government, including a college administration.

Perhaps I will see some of you next semester. Maybe, instead of using the infamous "F" word, I'll just burn a flag or two. I know that's protected by the First Amendment. God, I surely do love this country. Sign up for one of my classes, and I'll explain it. But bring your sense of humor with you. I wouldn't want to offend anybody.

PAX AND LOVE

Chuck Jorgensen

Letter writers: do not fear to complain, for me or against me. If you've learned little else this semester, learn the importance of resistance to that which you are opposed.

Wallace B. Knox, President
Los Angeles Community College District
617 West Seventh St.
Los Angeles, CA 90017

or

Dr. Kenneth Washington, Vice-President (same address)
Dr. Mary Lee, President
Los Angeles Valley College
5800 Fulton Ave
Van Nuys, CA 91401