JORGENSEN & HIS UNION, 1993 & 1994
Department of Philosophy
Los Angeles Valley College
Van Nuys, CA 91401-4096
(818) 781-1200 x 467
Monday, 6 December 1993
To: Leon F. Marzillier, President
AFT College Guild, Local 1521
Los Angeles Valley College
5800 Fulton Ave.
Van Nuys, CA 91401-4096
Dear Dr. Marzillier:
Thank you for your letter of November 30. I am sorry that the inquiries contained in my letter of 18 November 1993 were not "questions" of a form that you felt needed answering. Being "curious" about something and expressing "interest in" certain things both strike me as invitations for a response; and since you were concerned that your "perspective" on Chuck Jorgensen's case be known, the obvious thing to me was that you reply to these points, instead of just using my letter as a reproach against Jorgensen and Broslawsky. If my expressions were not precisely "questions," then you have scared a point in the debate, but I don't think that really helps matters. But if this is to count as an "illogical" aspect to my letters, let me consider your other points in turn.
I did not hear much of your conversation with Chuck and Farrell, but I heard enough of it, and of him, to know that he was dissatisfied with the response of the union in his behalf. I said that, "If they are dissatisfied with the support they have received from you," then that was good enough for me. Obviously you do not see Jorgensen's academic freedom threatened and see no great need to "drop everything" to make a big issue of this. I believe that he sees these kinds of charges as direct threats to academic freedom. I agree with him. And I believe he sees you as uncomprehending of the problem and expressing great complacency by saying things like, as you now say to me, "Chuck has ... his academic freedom." I think the point is that he does not have his academic freedom if a charge like this can be brought for the kind of language or humor that he uses in the classroom, especially if the administration violated its own procedures, as Jorgensen is charging, in the filing and handling of the charge. Whether this means that you must "drop everything," I cannot say; but it does mean that it is time for the "crusade" that he requires. If you have no special concern or urgency over this, then I think it is time for you to get your priorities straightened out and, indeed, to immediately "jump to his ... defense."
Next, on 23 August 1993 you did indeed call Proposition 174 "evil," unless I am confusing you with someone else who spoke on that day, which I suppose is always possible. Whether my pay or my job was endangered by Proposition 174 is an issue that is completely irrelevant to whether or not Proposition 174 was a good thing. It may well be that the business of the union is to fight for the pay and jobs of the faculty, but you are the one who is displaying your "naiveté" if you think that this self-protective instinct on the part of an institution automatically means that the fight, the pay, the jobs, or even the institution are worthy. In short, self-interest is not goodness. Appeals of the form, "we get you this benefit," are irrelevant to an argument for goodness and worthiness. There is even a Latin name for this as a logically fallacy: argument ad crumenam, the "appeal to the pocketbook." Your claim that "Proposition 174 would have been incredibly destructive of public schools in general," thus calls for some different kind of evidence. I believe that your argument stated on 23 August 1993 was simply that losing money because of 174 would be "destructive of public schools," if indeed Proposition 174 would have resulted in a net loss of money to the public schools. Assuming that it would, however, your argument presupposes that more money makes for better schools and less money makes for worse. I would be happy to consider the merits of that proposition for you sometime, but it would make the present letter too long. For the present I merely note the Union's own complaints about the costs absorbed by administration in the District. I also note again, with Marx, that the self-interest of "public" bureaucratic institutions is always ultimately adverse to the true interests of the people. I recommend to your "naiveté" a consideration of the institutional incentives that produced the present failures of public education and how the very same incentives can possibly correct them.
Next, whether or not I want to be represented by Pat Allen or by you in a union has nothing to do with her or your academic freedom or freedom of speech. Academic freedom and free speech mean that she can teach whatever kind of Leninism in the classroom that she wants to and that I would be willing to defend her against Joe McCarthy or whomever. And she can be as active in the union as she likes. The "illogic" of your point here is that it is a denial of my rights, not the denial of hers, that my "representation" by people of her persuasion is not something about which I actually have a choice. If this is who gets elected in the union, then I must regard the union as adverse to the true interests of myself, of education, and of the country. Ordinarily, except for the government, if we wish to repudiate some organization, we are not forced to continue giving them money. Thus, you and Pat are not the aggrieved parties, unless you consider that the union has a right to my money, which indeed you do. That is your assault on my liberty, not any attack by me on your academic freedom or free speech. And I note that your letter is not very responsive if it is indeed supposed to be clarifying just what your (or her) political beliefs are. I am willing to see the hearsay and inferences upon which my impressions rest corrected, if you wish to do so.
But I am sorry to say that my judgment of the NEA and CTA rests on my knowledge, not my ignorance. The national officers of the NEA are a self-perpetuating group insulated from direct election and from the actual views of the grass-roots membership, a membership which is often involuntarily part of the union, involuntarily paying union dues. This is Soviet-style "people's democracy," and is designed to stifle dissent and lock in the leadership's own agenda. Whether the leadership is precisely "radical" in some sense that we can possibly agree on is not as important as the fact that your trotting out a few Republicans as evidence of the great bipartisan consensus in the teachers' unions is not the kind of evidence that is going to cut it with me. For all your hostility towards Pete Wilson, and for all the possibility that Del Weber was trying to make political points for Wilson, you all share in the same destructive assumptions, are motivated by the same institutional incentives, and are all in the same boat as far as I am concerned. The choice in the last presidential election between Tweedledee, Tweedledum, and Mussolini was not any "choice" worthy of the name. More of the same from Clinton, or less of the same from Bush or Wilson, is still more of the same. The "radicalism" of organizations like the NEA is that its leaders actually believe in the statism and collectivism that politicians and fellow travelers adopt out of opportunism and natural instincts for self-aggrandizement. Rejecting all this of course makes me a different kind of "radical." That's fine.
Finally, as for Jack, he has the fine old sense that you have become a pet dog "company" union. However "misinformed" he may be, I think the point is that your practice of following your own rules and feeling satisfied about it is irrelevant to whether those are just or reasonable rules or have anything to do with the wishes of those affected by them. I did not expect that your conscience would bother you about having non-members pay their "fair share." It is a little too neat that you are "required" to represent nonmembers but then derive from this the right to make them pay for it. If you are going to perform some specific service for non-members that they request, you can easily bill them for that service at the time. Or, like insurance, you can offer policies for specific services, like legal representation, that non-members can accept or reject at their option.
As for sharing in the raises that the union negotiates, you should know that I do not blame you personally, since it is a common mistake, for not understanding that in America wages and prices are supposed to be set by the free market, or for not knowing that coercive price fixing, whether through political means or through gangsterism (or both), always achieves added benefits at the expense of the livelihood of others whom we will never know and whom we will never be aware of--unless they are those people on the streets with the "will work for food" signs. So if you are telling me that I should be grateful that the union has negotiated wages for me above the market price, I certainly can use the money, since I am as self-interested as anyone, but I can be no more at ease with your procedure than if you told me that you had been out robbing people on the highways and were adding the proceeds to the pot. But if you are telling me that I should be grateful that the union has negotiated wages for me at or below the market price, then there is certainly nothing to be grateful for about that. And I am sure that you work extremely hard. Hard work is a laudable virtue. But if what you mean to say is (1) that you work hard, (2) that you mean well, and (3) that what you do is above reproach, the first two can easily be true, and I see no reason to doubt them, without making the third true. The issue is not whether you are a worthy person for your intentions or your virtues, but whether the actions that serve or employ those intentions and virtues are worthy.
For the moment I have no specific further "questions," but I am willing to respond again if you wish to clarify the things that you have not clarified, or if you wish to pursue an argument over any issue I have raised. And you are welcome to share this with Pat.
Yours truly,
Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D.
Instructor of Philosophy
Lawrence C. Jorgensen
Professor: History & Political Science
Los Angeles Valley College
Van Nuys, CA 91401
December 28, 1993
Leon Marzillier, President
AFT College Guild, Local 1521
3356 Barham Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90068
Re: Sexual Harassment Complaint against me:
Acting Assistant Dean Thomas W. Oliver, Sexual Harassment Compliance Officer of Los
Angeles Valley College (of the Los Angeles Community College District), has notified me
that the complaining student wishes to proceed to Step 4 - "Formal Fact-Finding
Procedure," per LACCD Board Rule 15400 E. Oliver has requested that the district
office proceed with the complaint procedure. (See attachments 1-3).
Dear Leon, As you know, at this point in the procedure, my teaching ability, my job, is now on the line. As you and Marty so vigorously told me, the union could only come to my defense if my teaching or my job was jeopardized, well, that time has come.
I now fully expect the union to do what is right by all its members, in this particular case a founding member of Local 1521. However, you and I, the Executive Board, the Chapter Chairs, and numerous others among the rank and file membership, know that there exists a very fundamental disagreement between you and most of us, and in particular me, concerning the nature and the legitimacy of this complaint against me.
Since our fundamental disagreement has been publicly aired upon numerous occasions, there is no point to raise it again. Suffice to say, that given the history of said disagreement, I obviously can not have full faith in my Local's executive leadership in this matter of my teaching job. Under similar circumstances, though reversed, I'm sure you would agree.
Because of my lack of confidence in your ability to provide objective and effective legal representation to me in "my hour of need," I must officially request that Farrel Broslawsky, another founding member of this local as well as an attorney, be designated as my union's counsel in this matter as it proceeds, and, of course, to be compensated accordingly.
Farrel Broslawsky, as my personal representative, has been closely involved in this dispute for the four months of meetings and discussions of the dispute's duration. More, Farrel Broslawsky, a son of one teacher and the father of another, has been a classroom teacher for some 35 years, 30 of them with me at Los Angeles Valley College. He is clearly more prepared, more knowledgeable, more understanding, and more committed to the class room teacher's real-life situations than any other attorney could possibly be.
Farrell has my full confidence on the very personal level of my job security; more, he fully understands the larger issue of Academic Freedom and its application to Free Speech in the classroom. Perhaps, no other attorney could be so historically situated to fulfill this both personal and transcendent role.
In conclusion, and under the above described circumstances, I believe it only equitable and fair that Farrel Broslawsky be compensated to whatever extent and in whatever amount Local 1521 would compensate another attorney to represent me.
Solidarity Forever; In Union There Is Strength;
Yours for Academic Freedom and Free Speech,
Lawrence C. Jorgensen
Enclosed: 1) Oliver 12/22/93 letter to LCJ; 2) Request to proceed to Step 4; 3) Copy of original complaint.
C: FB, Pollard; Et Al
JORGENSEN AND HIS UNION May 22, 1995
This missile was in response to an "open letter" from a colleague (J----) at Los Angeles Valley College who was critical of my public opposition to the College District's sexual harassment policy, and perhaps my importantly, my public criticism of the leadership of my AFT local. I had discovered, belatedly, that my very own union, one that I had helped to create some 30 years earlier, had been taken over by individuals more concerned, at the very least, with the appearance of political correctness than with defending individual members' academic freedom, free speech, personal reputations, and due process in general. My open response was posted next to the original, in the faculty mail room.
Re: Due Process and the Rule of Law
First off, J----, I'm glad you posted L's (president of our local) recent comments. Apparently, not all dues-paying members of the local are on his mailing list. You know, you might ask why is the local's president defending the administration against an action being brought by a class room instructor? It is bad enough that my union does not take the side of a dues-paying instructor, but now I have to fight my own union which has taken the side of management. Remember, Ms. P (quasi administrative official who headed the sexual harassment office) acted in the capacity of an administrator, assisted by an attorney who works for the downtown administration. To be sure, after my complaint(s), teachers no longer are allowed to so act. But in her then capacity as an administrator, along with the regular administrators, including Board counsel, a sexual harassment complaint was filed against me, with copies circulated as far as the Department of Education in Sacramento, that I know about. Those copies are now somewhere in some secret file(s), to which I am not allowed access.
Second, if in reading the actual complaint, in the student's own handwriting and signed by both Ms. P. and Dean O----, you believe that my classroom language and classroom conduct constituted actual sexual harassment, then there is no hope for any dialogue. Further, your admitted lack of authority on the First Amendment is exceeded by you lack of understanding of what constitutes sexual harassment.
Third, all I ever asked for, from the beginning of all this, was an admission of error on the part of the administration, an admission that no sexual harassment happened, and a public (Valley Star) apology for the error. The public apology is vitally important, for it is the only way an individual has to counteract an accusation against one's integrity as a human and as a teacher. I wish a precedent to be established, so that any teacher falsely and formally accused will be able to cite this example as they attempt to rehabilitate their career. Still seems fair to me.
Fourth, you have no first hand knowledge of any of this dispute. You can quote L---- over and over, as he restates his position over and over, but none of that makes it true. You have chosen to believe L--- in this matter. You might have talked to me, too. That would have been a fair thing to do. No? However, if you are one of those who believe that the organization's truth is always greater than the individual's, or that some unfortunate means are justified by the greatness of the end being sought, let me remind you to what that sort of thinking always leads. Surely you recall Lysenko's institutional biological truth and what resulted from that? On the other hand, believe and say what you want. "It's a free country," thanks, in great part, to the First Amendment.
Finally, and contrary to what is being repeated over and over again, my union local would not defend me unless or until my job and my salary was threatened. Farrel Broslawsky stood by me, and the principle of a classroom instructor's academic freedom, for several months fighting off the administration's star chamber procedures. Through Farrel's efforts and hours of work, we were able to force the administration into arbitration. At that point in the long and often surreal bureaucratic machinations, my job and salary were potentially on the line. The union's attorney was willing to take over and defend me as an accused sexual harasser. I insisted that this was not about sexual harassment, as none had occurred, but rather it was about the Rule of Law, Due Process, the First Amendment, Free Speech and Academic Freedom.
My union disagreed. Indeed, to this day, I believe that L--- and some others really believe that I actually sexually harassed that woman. Never have any of them said I was innocent, have they? Why - and would you - should I allow someone who believes me to be guilty of sexual harassment to defend me? As long as I had a choice, and Farrel's friendship and skill gave me that choice, I told the union I wished to stay will Broslawsky. More, I asked if the union could please pay him whatever the union would have to pay the regular attorney. Seemed fair to me. Still does.
L--- said no, and as the legal battle was going to get much larger, I sought the assistance of the ACLU. I am the wrong gender, age, color and sexual orientation for the Los Angeles chapter. So, I accepted the offer of the Individual Rights Foundation, which had months earlier offered to assist me. This organization is heavily committed and engaged in fighting cases involving the First Amendment. That they say they are Republicans, as opposed to Democrats, Socialists or Communists, doesn't bother me in the least, as it apparently does some others. As long as they are for the First Amendment, first, and willing to defend a classroom instructor's right to academic freedom, I'll worry about the rest later. Probably, you would, too. Besides, as I've said before, the Cold War is over, as are this century and millennium nearly also. It is all history now. Thus, political alliances need to be renegotiated in light of the sort of future we envision for ourselves and posterity.
As the suit progresses, and depositions are taken, you and everyone will be enabled to judge the "facts" for yourselves. All I now know is that Ms. A----- discovered that she had a previous appointment, and thus was unable to attend that initial meeting to which she had agreed to attend as my faculty representative, only after learning that Farrel was to be my personal representative. As to a confidential, or hush-hush, resolution as promoted by L----, et. al., do you have any idea what that means? It means a plea bargain. The accused writes and signs a statement, sometimes not even knowing to whom or about what specifically it is directed. The accused then promises not do it again in the future. Sometimes the accused is then ordered to attend sensitivity training. Even when complying with these demands, the accusation is kept on file. Now, suppose you are a victim of another false charge, God forbid. Definitely guilty, this time; for now, a pattern of behavior has been established. And two wrongs have magically made a right. Try to defend yourself against that.
And what if you wish to move up the administrative hierarchy? Oh? Not with a sexual harassment accusation in your file, especially one you admitted to, in order to keep it all confidential. How about applying for a position elsewhere, teaching or non-teaching? Do you volunteer the truth, knowing that a background check will probably discover the sexual harassment accusation? Do you lie? Think about it. That is what I, and others who did follow the union's advice, was asked to do. How can something be "quickly forgotten," as you approvingly quote L---- as saying. Forgotten by whom?
Consequently, my suit also demands a public apology for the erroneous accusation along with the expunging of all files relating to this matter. If you were a young person with a life and career ahead of yourself, could you confidently and enthusiastically engage that life, pursue that career, with a sexual harassment accusation in your file? How about politics, campus, union, state or national with a sex offense in your record? This may be sex offense of a minor nature relative to rape or child molestation, perhaps, but a sex offense nonetheless. Who is going to promote you, hire you, vote for you, appoint you?
J----, the unconstitutional policy and the equally unconstitutional procedures must be struck down. Current union leadership disagrees. I call this failure of the union to support a member, from whom they are quick enough to take dues, in a most fundamental disagreement with management over the very meaning of free speech in the classroom, and academic freedom in general, as prima facie evidence of either "sweet heart" collaboration or something worse. In any case, with union leaders like these "protecting" me, I do not need any enemies.
To be sure, "what side are you on?" Even better, "what side is our union on?"
Chuck (Lawrence) Jorgensen
Comments | accused sexual harasser |
LCJ Valley Collage | to
the top