SOME WRITTEN EXPRESSIONS OF SUPPORT, 1993
MARK S. POLLOCK
LITIGATION COUNSEL
CONSULTANT ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
1207 COOMBS STREET
NAPA, CA. 94559-1289
October 18, 1993
Lawrence C. Jorgensen
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Re: Your Lack of P.C. and Other Problems
Dear Chuck:
Forgive me, or perhaps, indulge me, for looking at your problem as an attorney.
The problem is not so much one of being accused of sexual harassment as much as it is the fact that the term "sexual harassment is not adequately defined, but rather loosely interpreted by an out of control, knee-jerk bureaucracy. A bureaucracy where each participant in the process is running, afraid for the security of his or her own job, and the process itself is proceeding without clearly defined rules of procedure, slowly, inquisitorially, stripping the accused of the ability to adequately defend against a vague and amorphous charge.
The result of this dynamic, this lack of due process, in the academic setting is a pernicious intellectual malignancy among the faculty. This malignancy is quiet and insidious by virtue of the. fact that it causes the members of the faculty to self-censor their comments, their associations, their lectures, and, yes, even their thoughts in order to steer wide from a prohibited conduct or speech which is ill-defined.
This dynamic was used very effectively by the late Joe McCarthy at the height of the hysteria in 1953 when individuals working in the motion picture industry were placed on a list that the Senator told the press he was "intending to call as witnesses". These lists of "intended witnesses" were then published in the newspapers of the time resulting in the individuals, loss of jobs. The domino effect of this was that any individual who knew these people on the Senator's list were also clouded with doubt and, in order to secure their own jobs, they forsook their old friends or acquaintances in favor of "job security".
Chuck, the actual allegations against you in this thing are absolutely ludicrous. What is frightening is that school bureaucracy has actually taken them seriously to the point of convening a hearing. What this tells me is that the bureaucracy itself lacks adequate standards by which to measure the validity of a complaint and totally lacks adequate due process for the purposes of confronting a ridiculous complaint like this.
The purpose of having laws, regulations, and rules, generally, is so that regardless of what the masses determine as "politically correct" for any given day, the rules regarding speech and conduct remain the same and therefore all of us know where the line is and can get as close as intellectually possible to it for the purposes of continually pushing the edge of the envelope and expanding what we are collectively. Without that line, law, rule, definition, we all have to guess at what is prohibited conduct and it is human nature to guess in a conservative fashion when our own jobs may be on the line. This is what censorship is all about.
As usual you're right. And the majority of the students in your class know you're right which is why only one of them filed a complaint and the rest have chosen to continue to attend to listen and to learn.
Remember, in the apology, Socrates standing accused of perverting the youth of Athens by speaking the truth and asking questions commented that his eloquence was not the manner of his speech, but its content and the fact that the content was the truth. Let those with no backbone dine on the hemlock of political correctness, but I applaud you for not sitting down at that table and joining them in that feast.
Best of luck and if there is anything I can do to help, please feel free-to give me a call.
Sincerely,
Your pal Mark
NOTE: Mark Pollock, a "San Fernando Valley guy," attended Valley College in the
late 1960s. --LCJ
DEENA METZGER
November 10, 1993
Dear Chuck:
I'm on a writing retreat but my assistant Barbara opened this letter and insisted -- quite correctly -- that I read it. There isn't much that would pull me out into the world -fires did it last week, and this.
What do I think? Well, first of all, you are -- amazingly -- who you've always been -an extraordinary, brilliant, conscious, committed being. So, first, we celebrate endurance and survival.
Second this situation is untenable. It reminds me of a conversation I had with my son -- uh oh, I find myself censoring this letter -- it reminds me of listening to my son say, I'm going to give Jamie [his daughter] a bath. Jamie is almost two -- and in that moment I thought of all the fathers or stepfathers who have lost or are losing their children over such not only harmless but necessary human activities and my heart sank with grief and foreboding about the direction of our world.
What terrifies [this is not hyperbole] me about the situation is, in addition to everything else, the grave lack of humor from which the girl [whoops!] woman and everyone else connected to this are suffering.
I certainly understand that a complaint, when filed, must be taken seriously. But when its nature is explored, then it behooves the adults in the administration or counseling department to take the proper action. In, this case, to try to help this young woman who has evidently been so injured, by the culture or her personal circumstances that she has lost the capacity to understand when she is in the presence of intelligence and humor.
Once upon a time, perhaps when we both started teaching, we assumed that students came to the college in order to be educated. Having been called an elder on rather many occasions in the last few years, I am going to assume that position and assert that this must still be the reason one comes to college. Nevertheless this young, very young, woman is afraid of, spooked by, learning. And her unfortunate condition seems to be contagious. So here we are again: welcome to Planet Earth 1992.
All too often, when people come to me for the first time to do therapeutic work, they ask for a guarantee that they will be able to heal without changing their lives. They are willing, they say, to explore whatever they must within themselves, but they don't want any consequences of this exploration. In other words, they want to be assured that their unenlightened self will continue to govern, even if they become a little wiser. Well, after I tease them a bit about this most benighted attitude, they either stay and dig in and change and take the consequences of the possibility of living an authentic and satisfying life or they leave. This seems to be the same situation: the young woman [and those who take her seriously] are suggesting that she come to a college that will guarantee that she will not be altered, changed, challenged, or awakened.
Well, what do we do about this woman who is so afraid of seeing and understanding? Well, maybe you should offer her extra credit -- I know it is against your principles, but you could make an exception because the nature of your mind and intelligence is to be flexible. Perhaps she could do a serious study of your response to the question of extra credit. Perhaps she could write a serious and extensive analysis of teaching practices, comparing educational philosophies -- those that are concerned with transmitting a body of knowledge exactly [like the Navajo singer who must learn the 9 day Night Chant perfectly or the patient will not be healed] and those who are concerned with the unique development of the student -- ala what's was his name who wrote "The Student As Nigger, " in our earlier days. These are two legitimate points of view, each has its set of consequences, implications, possibilities, and are to be respected. Or she could research the subject of academic harassment, study the history of it -- let's limit it for her sake only to California, or Los Angeles, or the U.S. rather than the history of academic harassment in Western Civilization or the world. Of course, this means she can't start with Socrates but then that's over done, don't you think?
Or she could write a paper on the consequences of sexual hysteria in a puritan country and how it interferes with, undermines, destroys trust, family life, the social fabric -in other words -- brings down the world. She could start with Arthur Miller's The Crucible -- if she's learned to read, if she was able to pay attention or stay in a serious classroom long enough. Of course, when I say learned to read, I don't mean putting letters together to make words -- I expect Jamie will be able to do that in a few months -- I mean understand the meaning, consequences and implications of words and realize that when they are strung together one after another they form, not sentences, but Ideas. Uh oh, the terrible I word.
Or perhaps if the above is too difficult, she could frame 100 questions which, if explored, would lead her to understand the nature of your remarks within their intellectual context and the nature of her response within its non-intellectual context.
Well, if you would be willing to be even a bit more flexible you could let her write a process paper, a creative paper, an autobiographical paper: What were the events in my life that injured me so deeply that I am unable to perceive humor or deal with the complex realities of adult life? Why am I so terrified of these words and behaviors? Out of what pain does this terror emerge and how can I heal it?
I would really be happy if this woman, the Senate the community at large took on the challenge of investigating these areas. They might come to see that we can not, must not, continue to suppress both human nature and difficult ideas. And afterwards they might understand that the charge of sexual harassment is of the utmost seriousness because it refers to an activity that violates the very essence of the human being. Therefore, it must not ever be used casually because it implies that life and soul have been grievously violated. If it is used promiscuously -- as has happened in this case and most frequently in the last years -- and if it is responded to promiscuously -- everyone crying fire every time a match is struck -- several things occur: innocent people are destroyed; the term will loses all meaning so the injury when it does really occur is not be recognized or treated; and, finally, we come closer and closer to establishing a police state exclusively devoted to policing our very private bodies until eros, sexuality, procreation, exchange, mutuality, gender, sensation, feeling, emotion, zest, love, passion, creativity, enthusiasm, have all been eliminated, maybe even forgotten.
Dear Chuck: I'm sorry you have to fight this. I think you must. I can only offer these words that David Finkel said to me when we began fighting my academic freedom case. He said, "Look at this as the unusual opportunity to teach your English lesson to the entire state of California."
So, in these times when people are so hysterical and when so many children, very young children, are the victims of this hysteria -- being filled with fear and suspicion, asked to scrutinize, report, judge all adults, so that they, the children are no longer able to receive affection and touch as the generous and nurturing acts we rely upon to survive -- the gods seem to have provided you with an opportunity to say some very important things to the world at large.
Well, sometimes we get lazy and don't say them when they must be said. Then the gods, because they love us, give us a kick in the ass, and say, get up on your feet and speak out.
Well, it's your turn. I support you completely. I'm sorry you have to go through this one; its a bitch. But, you are eminently qualified because of your political understanding, experience and wisdom. So it's yours. Run with it. And -- you know what? -- at this age and with the detachment that is inevitable for someone who could soon retire -- you could even enjoy it.
Deena
Los Angeles Times 11/23/93
Al Martinez
When Clarence Met Anita
Ever since Anita accused Clarence of it in that
celebrated committee hearing two years ago, sexual harassment has become the issue of the
day.
In response to it, those accused have either crawled
off in embarrassment or apologized abjectly and thrown themselves on their swords.
But today, we have something different, a guy who not
only won't apologize and won't impale himself, but who demands a public apology from those
who have allowed the accusation to go forward.
His name is Lawrence (Chuck) Jorgensen and he's a
professor of history and political science at L.A. Valley College, where the charge was
made.
Unlike those who seek refuge in secrecy, Jorgensen has
distributed hundreds of leaflets throughout the campus outlining the incident and has
alerted the media to his intention to fight it to the bloody end.
At stake, he says, is academic freedom at LAVC and a
reputation built over 34 years of teaching.
The case has become a cause celebre at the little
community college, with students taking sides, the president of the faculty association
backing Jorgensen and the administration wishing the whole thing would just go away.
A gruff, outspoken man, Jorgensen is not about to let
it go away. While he might admit to a sailor's mouth, a sexual harasser he is not. He
isn't even sure what it is. And frankly folks, neither is anyone else.
Hardly anyone ever heard of sexual harassment before
Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of making "unwanted advances" toward her on
his way to becoming an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Since then, it has grown almost as popular as bingo,
striking fear into the hearts of individuals and institutions who must deal with it.
Chicago's Antioch College is a unique example of one
such institution so terrorized by the very notion of sexual abuse that it enacted a code
requiring verbal approval for every sexually tinted act, including kissing and hand
holding.
"Maybe" isn't good enough at Antioch. A firm
"Yes" is necessary every step of the way. Written approval may be next. On the
other extreme, you've got Oregon's Sen. Bob Packwood, whose tendency to paw, grope, strip
and take notes borders on dementia.
Packwood has defined sexual harassment in its classic
state, but there are more obscure decisions to cope with too. Chuck Jorgensen's case is
one.
The incident occurred last August during the first
session of Political Science 1, which is taught every Tuesday evening. There were
approximately 50 students in class at the time.
As he tells it, Jorgensen, 59, was outlining the course
when he was asked how one could earn extra credit. He replied offhandedly, "Well, I
used to accept sexual favors, but I don't anymore." Then he went on to tell a joke
that used the (gasp) F-word, though not in a sexual sense. It was, in fact, a joke that
favored Native Americans and probably would have been cheered on the reservation.
A female student whose name was not revealed complained
that she was offended by Jorgensen's humorously intended sexual favors comment and by his
use of That Word.
How this came to be sexual harassment is unclear,
though Jorgensen feels the student was induced into filing the charge by an overly zealous
administration that loves to tamper with teaching methods.
He doesn't argue with a student's right to be offended
by his language. Others have also objected to it over the years.
"I put on a show," he said the other day. "That's what I do. At least it
proves they're listening." He adds: "But offensive language isn't sexual
harassment. Calling it that is censorship under a different name."
Jorgensen's unorthodox method of teaching hasn't
discouraged most students. He's taught 14,000 of them since coming to Valley College in
1964. They line up to get into his classes.
Beyond the apology he demands from the college, he
basically wants to be allowed to teach without interference. "Just give me some
chalk," he says, "and leave me alone."
The charge against him, which could result in
dismissal, is being processed in the kind of murky way that characterizes college handling
of a ticklish situation. Even Jorgensen isn't sure where it stands.
One member of the Valley College administration calls
the incident "a borderline thing that's gotten way out of hand." Jorgensen calls
it a lot worse than that. Typically, his language is inappropriate. But it sure makes the
point.
Philosophy Department
Los Angeles Valley College
5800 Fulton Ave
Van Nuys, Ca 91401
December 5, 1993
The Editors
Los Angeles Times
Times Mirror Square
Los Angeles, CA 90053
re: Letters to the Editor, "Harassment case at Valley College," Sunday, December 5, 1993
Dear Sirs:
Yes, Los Angeles Valley College, the Los Angeles Community College District, and the American Federation of Teachers College Guild all owe Chuck Jorgensen an apology for accepting, promoting, or tolerating the frivolous and dangerous sexual harassment charges brought against him.
Abby J. Leibman's response to this, that Jorgensen's remarks "sexualized" all the women in his class and were "demeaning," illustrates perfectly Katie Roiphe's point that the newest warriors of feminism are actually advocating a return to Victorian ideas about women, that any sexual language is intolerable to their innocent and blushing ears. All that Leibman means by "sexualize" is to remind people that sex exists; and since Jorgensen is a man, presumptively heterosexual, he can only be reminding women that they exist sexually for him. "Sexual harassment" on those terms means any reference to sex, any sexual byplay, and any sexual humor whatsoever. The Catherine MacKinnon school of sexual harassment demands a completely neutered, desexualized, desensualized, anaesthetic, and anhedonic environment where even one woman, like her, wants it. or even where no woman wants it, since MacKinnon would regard tolerant women as suffering from "false consciousness" and so as incompetent to say what they want. That kind of regime, of course, is not only the "Anti-Sex League" of 1984 brought back to life, but it is actually impossible among anything like normal, living, sexually mature adults with a sense of humor.
Lois M. Bergquist's defense of Jorgensen falls a little short. Admitting that he may have been guilty of "lack of sensitivity" is a mistake, for "sensitivity" is now a politically loaded term. We might say that Jorgensen's language and humor were a little crude, but no child of the sixties regards crudity as anything but an obligation in the face of the Establishment. Now the Establishment consists of people who are ready to interpret what used to be merely a breach of good manners as a Federal crime. "Sensitivity" now means unwillingness to hurt politically and legally protected feelings, even when it is impossible to know in advance how casual and innocent or rough and humorous remarks might offend the feelings of those predisposed to be offended. "Sensitivity" also means willingness to confess political crimes in Stalinist show trials, bending the knee in humble guilt and repentence before the new Thought Police.
I do not honor quite the same political causes as Professor Bergquist and Jorgensen, but I have never had so much respect for Jorgensen as now. He has in effect said, "If what they want is war over free speech and academic freedom, let it begin here!" Let it begin here. Amen.
Yours truly,
Kelley L. Ross
Instructor of Philosphy
C 0 P P E R C A N Y 0 N P R E S S
P.0. BOX 271
PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON 98368
December 6, 1993
Dear Chuck:
Is this the Cultural Revolution or another round of Stalinist trials, the McCarthy Hearings or more fallout from Edgar Hoover's lace panties?
It's sad to note that--not unlike a quarter century ago when we stood almost alone against the war in VietNam and in favor of Black Student Unions and women's rights et al on that very campus--your confreres are notably lacking in vita. Do none of them dare point out the obvious parallels between your case and the above--to say nothing of the trial of Socrates?
I've worked in programs addressing domestic violence and sexual assault for nineteen years now, and I can tell you that sexual harassment is a very real and persistent problem. But the last time I read the constitution, I read something about the accused be presumed innocent until proven guilty. But your academic brethren and sister are too busy running for cover, too busy covering their own exposed gluteus maximus to confront the higher issue of what is right or wrong or even what is at stake. This is academic cowardice, and it simply demonstrates that all the "education" in the world won't improve the ethical convictions of the self-serving.
Here in Port Townsend, our high school team name is Redskins. Down in Brinnon, half hour south, they hold a "witch burning" for the entertainment of their witless offspring every Halloween. Some of the objectives of "politically correct language" are honorable. But academic witch burning is not a damned bit better than redneck witch-burning, and in fact is worse because your coworkers' silence is a kind of complicity, like the complicity of the French who fraternized with the Nazis.
A quarter century ago, you and I stood up for free speech on that very campus, including the exchange of unpopular ideas. We went to jail for registering voters, we stood shoulder to shoulder with our black brothers and sisters to confront a racist war that sent them to die in Asia while their white counterparts were excused to go to college, to the very college where we learned and spoke.
The real tragedy is that this impudent young woman actually believes she has the right to impugn your integrity and to slander your remarkable teaching career because the word fuck violates her virgin ear. College is a world, including coarse language as well as refined. Genius, Blake observes, is not lawless. When you have no right to blasphemy, you lose your right to question the existence of god. Even the Jesuits couldn't "educate" in such a stifling atmosphere. An open forum for the free exchange of ideas? These poor humorless terrified bureaucrats frightened into silence by one self-righteous, sanctimonious young woman.
I will be in LA next spring--for a lecture at Mt San Antonio College--where-ever-the-hell that is. I will probably try to line up a few readings or whatever to cover costs for a few days' visit. It would be great to see you again.
I spent 7 years in academia, and I'd have to say you were far and away the best teacher I ever had. You and I have known--as have few others in this land of immediate self-gratification that the real revolution is from within, and it is perpetual.
We've always put our bare butts on the line, and now it's your turn again. If there's anything I can do on your behalf, don't hesitate to ask. I'm a contributing editor to American Poetry Review and toTricycle, the Buddhist Review, both prominent national publications with a strong interest in lst Amendment issues; and I've some engagement with PEN and other writers' organizations that oppose censorship. Fraternally, Sam Hamill
Sam Hamill
P.O. Box 468
Port Townsend, WA 98368
December 24, 1993
To: Wallace B. Knox, President
L.A. Community College District
Dr. Mary Lee, President
L.A. Valley College
Dear Friends:
For the past quarter century I have been a one-man advertising campaign for Los Angeles Valley College in particular and for the community college educational system in general. As a young veteran in the mid-sixties, my experiences on the LAVC campus, including service as editor of both the LA Valley Star and the campus literary journal, were a major influence in a life devoted to writing and publishing and social activism which at present includes more than two dozen published books of poetry and essays and translations from classical Greek, Chinese, Japanese, Latin, and Estonian - all multiply-honored - and twenty years as founding editor at Copper Canyon Press, one of the most distinguished literary presses in the country.
During my tenure as editor, in student government where I served a commissioner of elections, as anti-war activists and as (yes!) an advocate for feminist issue and for Black Student Union rights, I often felt I had to go to the wall for First Amendment rights. Now, a quarter century later, I have served many years on the Board of Directors of the Jefferson Country Domestic Violence Program, taught for 15 years in American Prisons, and I remain perpetually engaged it seems with protesting assaults on First Amendment rights initiated by the very educational systems that should be devoted to protecting them.
Which brings me to the immense sadness I feel in writing this letter protesting your frankly deplorable treatment of Prof. L.C. Jorgensen following the accusation against him. I am frankly outraged that you would first impugne Prof. Jorgensen's moral and academic reputation by making the charge semi-public before fully investigating and then have the temerity, the gall, to sit on your hands when he asks only for civil responsibility: you owe the apology, even if you lack the self-respect it takes to stand up and admit the folly. And folly is exactly what it is.
In any case, ask of yourselves a little historical perspective: where were the Speech Police when Ben Franklin's brother was imprisoned for publishing a newspaper? They were putting a price on Tom Payne's head. Is Huck Finn silenced because he says "Nigger?" Is James Baldwin silenced? Henry Miller? Mary Shelley and Amiri Bakra? Under the guise of "sensitivity," you would stand silently by while a great man and brilliant teacher of more than three decades is pilloried by wholly ridiculous charges? And what's worse, you apparently have so little faith in the constitution that you are unwilling to defend it. You cast a pallor over everything I hold dear about my Alma Mater.
Comments | accused sexual harasser |
LCJ Valley Collage | to
the top