Update on Senate Exec and Faculty Senate Meetings since September 27

After September 27 Faculty Senate Meeting, Dr. Masequesmay wrote Dr. Michael Neubauer in Senate Exec. with a list of issues she wanted to raise at Faculty Senate. They were:

1. Vote for 6 units CSUN graduation requirement in ES/GWS/QS
2. Vote of “No Confidence” on President Harrison
3. Mandatory training on race/gender/sexuality/class/disability for administration
   • Faculty doing the training should be compensated
4. Highly recommended training on race/gender/sexuality/class/disability for faculty and having at least one training available every semester
   • Faculty doing the training should be compensated
5. Vote on transparency by our administrators
   • If they are implementing the EOs, we need to know about it. The details of it.
6. Provide new faculty senators with a rulebook of structures and procedures (Robert’s Rules of Order) about faculty senate
7. A discussion about Mary-Pat’s leadership as our faculty president

Michael responded that he thinks the vote of no confidence on Prez. Harrison would be on the agenda but the other items would have to be introduced in new business.

On October 17, 2018, Faculty Senate Exec held an emergency meeting and invited some of us to the meeting.

Gina Masequesmay (former AAS Chair), Will Garrow (faculty senator), Breny Mendoza (GWS Dhair), Gabriel Gutierrez (CHS Chair), Douglass Carranza (CAS Chair), Theresa White (Africana Studies Chair), and Scott Andrews (AIS Chair) were there with some members of the Senate Exec Committee. They asked what we envision as a successful faculty senate meeting. They were deciding on the agenda items for the next faculty senate meeting. Below were issues discussed including recommendation for us to work on the 6 units proposal that would be sent to EPC (Education Policy Committee) for consideration before it can go to faculty senate for a vote.

• Gabriel asked if Senate Exec were informed of this summer meeting where Mary-Pat decided to exclude many of us and claimed to represent ES and the College of Humanities. Senate Exec said that no one were informed of the meeting. We discussed about no confidence in M-P representing us. We asked that Senate Exec to recommend to M-P to resign. If not, we will make a motion for vote of no confidence at Faculty Senate meeting. [We learned later that Dr. Julia Heinen was at the meeting but didn’t identify herself. Her omission of presence had made us believe that Dr. Mary-Pat Stein acted on her own without Senate Exec. Committee’s knowledge.]
• We want transparency and accountability and democratic practices in moving forward. Exclusionary practices by folks in power must stop. They need to listen to faculty and students who have been articulating why the EOs should not be implemented. Admin needs to consult faculty. Shared governance must be honored and practiced. We are tired of repeating ourselves and not being heard. This is an institutional and structural problem beyond any individuals but we do expect better of our admin and representatives.
• We do not really want to entertain any options that we comply with the EOs. The faculty senate has voted. If anything, let’s follow the GE Task Force Report and Recommendations. We are only out of alignment in 1 unit of science. In addition to using the GE Task Force Recommendations, we should push for the following:
  • It is obvious that Admin folks need training on race, class, gender, sexuality and ability (e.g., white fragility).
  • It is also highly recommended that Faculty take race/class,/gender/sexuality/ability trainings to address our diverse student needs
  • Make 6 units requirement for CSUN graduation with classes that explicitly address feminist, anti-racist, queer perspectives in fighting capitalist, white supremacist cisheteropatriarchy.
  • Impact reports must be reviewed before deciding on whether to implement policies and executive orders.
• Other concerns were:
  • Removing a Faculty Senate because she grabbed/violated a student at the last faculty senate meeting.
  • A handbook on faculty senate rules and structure would be helpful for everyone.
  • There are larger racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic issues going on in the nation that we should be addressing instead of these baseless EOs, again. We need to fight the neoliberalization of public education. We need to practice democracy on our campus and win back faculty shared governance. It’s partly a legal battle of interpretation of the law.
    • We need a space to actually discuss these larger issues in substantive ways and how they manifest on our campuses. The EOs are only symptoms of a larger problem.
    • We need to connect with other CSU campuses to fight this.
    • We need better representation in the CSU GE task force.
  • We ran out of time and didn’t even get to discuss EO 1110. We also wanted Admin to inform us of all of their moves to implement these EOs without faculty approval. Impact reports with admin efforts to implement these EOs.

Despite our long list of recommendations and a wish for a more democratic process, the faculty senate meeting on October 25, 2018 was about limiting students access to the meeting. Restricted inclusion were faculty who were not part of faculty senate. In fact, the organizer(s) of the meeting made another blunder by dividing up entrances to faculty senators (who were predominantly white) and to “guests” who were faculty and students of color. In addition, there was a heavy police presence to decide who can go into the meeting and who could not. Apparently there was an “overflow” room where people can view the live-streaming of the meeting but people denied entry were not told where or how to navigate to the overflow room. Interestingly, Admin chose not to video record the event. Faculty and students who entered the “guests” entrance felt not welcomed by officers screening the entrance. Only 13 students were allowed entry and they were told to stand against the wall of one side of the room. When students try to approach the front room to display their signs, Faculty President Stein blocked them and commanded that they back up against the wall. Stein used a chair to block another student whom she thought was moving toward her and the chair hit the student. This is worrisome attitudes and behaviors of aggression from our faculty. The last meeting, a faculty Senator felt entitled to grab a student because she didn’t want the student to video record her. At this meeting, after apologizing for her previous unintentional racist remark and exclusionary practice, Dr. Stein once again failed to see that her aggressive behavior toward students came from some fear of how they might behave. At this same meeting Dr. Garrow and Dr. Masequesmay both witnessed aggressive attitude and condescending behaviors from white faculty toward students of color and faculty who stood with the students. We just learned that there is false rumor going around by faculty that students had thrown bottles and pushed and shoved faculty members. The truth is students have been demonstrating direct non-violent actions. Yes, they were loud and booed Dr. Stein at the September meeting after they learned about her unintentional racist comment toward Dr. Gutierrez. They also were loud to express their anger against exclusive and undemocratic actions by our administrators. We have tried to work with our administrators on the GE task force for months and then to have our work be dismissed and our voices being excluded from meetings. For false rumors to continue to foster and create fear among faculty is unconscionable. It leads to overreaction from faculty. We already know how white fear and fragility have lead to call for police on innocent black and brown people and how implicit and explicit biases from police have resulted in deaths and injuries of people of color. Let us be better than the ignorance out there. You can read Dr. Escobar’s letter here about the problematic process of the meeting here: EscobarLetterFacSenateOct25-2018Meeting

At the faculty senate meeting on October 27, 2018, Senators Garrow and Masequesmay were advised that senators want a list of grievance before they can do a vote of no confidence on Prez. Harrison. Dr. Kathryn Sorrells, Dr. Garrow and Dr. Masequesmay were to work on the grievance list and consult other faculty on campus to create the list. We will also need to do one for the Chancellor. In addition, we will need to also create a proposal for the mandatory race/class/gender/sexuality/ability training for administrators and highly recommended training for faculty.

A faculty senator condescendingly came to Masequesmay afterward to give advice on what we should have done instead of asking for a vote of no confidence. It should have been “a motion to refer the issue to a committee.” Apparently our Senate Exec Committee didn’t inform us to do this when we contacted them twice on the issue. This faculty senator could not hear Masequesmay saying that she was not instructed correctly on the procedures and insisted that she listened to him to understand the rules.

The white, male faculty senator who sat in the back of Dr. Garrow had a hostile attitude toward students and us accusing Garrow of inciting students when he was doing ASL to explain to students procedures. You can read his letter here: Garrow Letter to Senators

Other problematic running of this meeting was that Dr. Stein wanted to do the Admin’s bidding by introducing options of how to comply with the EOs despite faculty senate’s vote to not implement twice last academic year. She also failed to present the option from our coalition that Dr. Kathryn Sorrells had sent her. We basically said that we reject the EOs and advise student to take 1 additional unit of science to align with the CA Ed Code. Dr. Stein also failed to present Dr. Stevie Ruiz’ Analysis_Impact_Report_of EO_1100R and Enrollment Shifts Report that he had sent her. She also failed to present the College of Humanities’ Impact Report and how individual ES/GWS/QS departments and programs are affected. After the faculty senate meeting, Dr. Ruiz sent a follow up letter regarding the options.

In sum, there are 4 motions that Garrow, Masequesmay and Sorrells are working on with others:

1. CSUN graduation requirement of 3-6 units in ES/GWS/QS
2. Vote of no-confidence on Prez Harrison
3. Vote of no-confidence on Chancellor White
4. Mandatory training for CSUN Admin on race/class/gender/sexuality/ability
5. Highly recommended training for CSUN faculty on race/class/gender/sexuality/ability

While the motions are being drafted, we will descend on the CO Board of Trustee meeting this coming Tuesday, November 13, to speak, protest. and and have a press conference.