« Contract Proposal | Main | Dementia Defense? »



Think of crap as manure, for nurturing reform.

Peanut Gallery

Think I'm just depressed from all of the crap


PG: The faculty is dejected, not demoralized.

Never lose sight of the difference.

Peanut Gallery

BSB, My Friend:I don't know about a preemptive strike given our limited options to strike, secure a contract or stop the harrassment. They are grasping at anything they can and using the reason of curriculum changes makes us supposedly available for meetings.I'm not even sure what curriculum changes/revisions are being referred to since I do not recall seeing this as a point of discussion in minutes or hearing it in dept. meetings. We can bring it up at the next Dept. meeting and see where that goes.Do we get Article Xs if we cannot attend a Jan. meeting?

But is it unethical? Yep. Is it morally reprehensible? Of course.Worse, it's working on demoralizing faculty more than ever before since we seem powerless to retaliate. This needs to be on the agenda for the FAOCC meeting except somehow admin gets all the inside scoop and can plan their evil deeds and stay one step ahead. Twisted game.


Basic psychological truism: all attempts to bully derive from desperation, many forms properly categorized as clinical.


Is this "preemptive strike" supposed to force us to acquiesce to the administration's demands? How can this be legal? Do we not have a hostile work environment?

Is it preemptive, desperate or both? When does that Comptroller's report come out?


When your adversary's strength, Sam, finds forms indistinguishable from petulance, arrogance, and incompetence, sometimes the best job action consists of sitting back and passing the popcorn.

No "preemptive strike" (the phrase you choose to dignify this feeble fuse) can silence the percussion of the Fact Finder's report.

Be patient. With such an adversary, time becomes our ally.

Support Staff Sam

You don't get it. Your association minutes come out on Thursday. This notification hits on Friday. Did the minutes mention job action? This is the admins. preemptive strike.

Can past practice be invoked?


Your take on this seems sound, BSB.

The semester break meeting fetish reveals how unimaginative, desperate, and out of control this power structure has become, as its legitimacy weakens under the decisive contract rejection, the sick leave PERC rebuke, and the unraveling of the bogus Article X assaults.

With the pacifier of power removed, this kind of pouting is what we should expect.


Grapevine: Administration is p.o.'ed about details of the fact-finding being revealed & the contract veto in general. That's why we are being bullied & harassed about mandatory meetings in January.

Peanut Gallery

You are probably and sadly right, BSB, that this is payback but it is also bullying and creating a hostile workplace.Whatever it is, it sucks. Does anyone out there have any ideas as to what we can do as a bargaining unit about this travesty? I am not sure what our current contract stipulates with this"Be available 24-7 just in case we want to call a meeting" directive. And what's the deal with course curriculum revision? What's next? Summers? Weekends? Holidays? Most of us have lives and families and plans.


And if that horrendous MOA had been approved in September there is little doubt in my mind that we would have agreed to be required to be on campus in January.

Peanut Gallery

Another Friday at 5 memo. I agree BSB this is ridiculous and also that it is not so subtle intended intended bullying and harrassment. Can they make us be there and what might the ramifications be if we have legit reasons for not attending meetings just meant to make our lives miserable? I hope the entire faculty can unify on this and that our union can step up to the plate on this most important issue.


Are they now trying to require us to be on campus in January? Those A-holes make twice the money that we do & they have twelve month jobs. Either leave us the hell alone while we make half of your salary or double our salaries to your inflated rates. Stop being jealous, micro-managing assholes & control freaks. You have ruined a once-great place to work. That is your legacy Larson, Strada & Hubbs. You are Republicans.


Forgotten, not gone:

If you want to commiserate in a private dialogue, or if you could feed on a more positive perspective by knowing what sustains the energy of another, just indicate so in a post here.

We can then use the Webmaster as a point of contact for exchanging email addresses. Though we have good reason for feeling indignation, we should not feel forlorn and defeated.

No need to hesitate in reaching out, right?

Forgotten, not gone

Trying my best, day by day, to hang in there BlueStreet. Not so sure it's worthwhile anymore though.

By the way, I agree with the bookstore comment. Further, I understand they aren't on the same accounting system as the rest of the college. That definitely seems unethical to me.


Many of us feel the same way that you do, FNG. We forget what it's like to work for decent people who value us. Hang in there...

Forgotten, not gone

"Quietly support a colleague in the struggle for fair treatment . . ."

I could so use that right now. My strength and stamina are on their last legs.



I listened to this on NPR. It's about Pearson giving away their LMS. Didn't OCC give Pearson $100,000 for the LMS? Why did we have to pay if Pearson is giving it away?

I heard from a reliable source that Pearson allegedly tried to bribe a professor who works at a southern NJ CC in order to change to a Pearson book. The alleged amount of the bribe was $5000. Does Pearson offer bribes to all of its business partners?

OCC is one of the only CC who owns its own bookstore. Isn't this a conflict of interest? I have heard that the bookstore rakes in upwards of $500,000 in profits every year. How is this ethical?


However great the hunger for justice, OBL, we do little good sustaining ourselves on a diet of "rumor." This personnel matter gains nothing from speculation on a public blog, no matter how valid the partial truths we air.

Quietly support a colleague in the struggle for fair treatment and be grateful for the model of strength and stamina we have within our ranks--and for the aid of a committed and competent legal team.

Osama Bin Larson

Excited about the rumor that two administrators slandered a faculty member in a recent meeting in front of said faculty member, his or her private lawyer, and several witnesses. The slander charge, if pursued, is a slam dunk - they admitted they have no evidence of the accusation they made. Fingers crossed...



One thing is for sure, BSB: any broad-based numerical checklist rubric that scores, say, "Vertigo" and "Tootsie" with the same three-star grade--because the deep psychological preoccupation in the former lacks comic relief and the deception in the latter lacks ethical probity--tells us nothing about the quality of art in film. Applied to teaching, this system of evaluation, even in the purest of political environments (keep dreaming, folks), is not about education.

It is about POWER.

Despair not, though, for we have the heartening wisdom of George Orwell, one of history's greatest students of the pathology of power: "The essence of being human is that one does not seek perfection."


Nice analogy, BeBop. I don't think that this ratings system will do anything more than to stress out faculty so that we try to kill ourselves placing high in that bs rubric that dick released.

Btw, I LOVE the Friday afternoon email releases. Either they are taking a page from national politics and trying to bury something big by sending it out on Friday afternoon or they are, again, trying to intimidate us with these ridiculous missives so that we worry about the message all weekend.

Nice try, dick. Send out your freaking emails during the week. There is no need to plant some bogus seed on Friday at 5p.


@BSB on the quantitative evaluation of faculty:

The numerical assessment measure of faculty, which I understood shall apply to classroom observations, raises a host of problematic implications, among them what we might call the Mathematical Leveling Flaw, or the Netflix Rating Fallacy.

Clients of Netflix know that the video rental/streaming service guides users in the selection process by assigning a 1-5 star rating for each film, determined by the customer's past viewing habits. Netflix, then, employs an algorithmic probe to get inside the heads of individual users, channeling their own aesthetic taste in the rating of each film. It's the same magic that leads to Web users being stalked by coffee pot ads for weeks should they make the mistake of an online shopping forage for a kitchen appliance (presumably, without making a purchase). But the practice of algorithmic stalking leads to an even greater crime than colonizing sensibility and killing curiosity.

In the case of Netflix, holding individual movie viewing hostage to a one-taste-fits-you rating rubric lends prejudicial primacy to moderation and consistency, homogenizing the art of film by devaluing diversity and creativity.

If an adolescent in your household has a Netflix account, you can easily discover the flaw in the rating system by tapping into it to view the videos consistent with the tastes of a highly educated and discerning adult professional, say, with a few foreign language films, scientific documentaries, and one or more films from before 1960. The Netflix rating system undergoes psychic breakdown, discernment disorientation, rubric rancidity. In its confusion over who you are and what you like, the rating scale produces a three-star rating for EVERY film.

I fear the one-style-fits-all prejudice in the sweeping classroom observation rubric shall produce a numerical rating as useless and fictional as the Netflix Rating Fallacy.


With apologies to BSB, whose post warrants serious consideration, on my differences with Buzzin'By, I must yield to another for the last word (with a humble caution to colleagues on "reading way too much into [his or her] post."

Buzzin’By on 10/8:

“. . . do not for one minute think I am ‘defending’ or ever did support the former Dean. That is neither the case nor what I said or wished to even imply.”

Buzzin’By on 10/6:

“At least in the past there were deans who had their shortcomings but at least were academically and administratively competent.”

The comments to this entry are closed.