By Tim Redmond
There are so many reasons to love the lawsuit that City Attorney Dennis Herrera has filed against the City College accreditors. It’s going to force this rogue group to show up in court and answer questions, it’s going to give a judge a chance to see just how rotten this whole deal was … and it’s going to bring a lot of new facts to light.
For example, this.
An LA Times reporter has been reading the documents that the ACCJC filed – and came on a stunning piece of information that everyone on every side of this issue needs to read and consider.
See, the ACCJC sent a team of experts to visit City College. It wasn’t a particularly balanced team – most of the members were administrators, only a small number were teachers. And many of its findings had to do with City College not having enough administrators.
But still: Even this biased team suggested that City College be put on probation and given time to fix its problems – NOT given “show cause” notice. The experts that the ACCJC appointed, the agency’s own team, didn’t want to move toward shutting down the school.
That means the ACCJC ignored the recommendations of its own hand-picked team and, all by itself, decided to hit City College with the worst possible sanction.
A lot of the documents in this lawsuit are still not public. The ACCJC has asked for internal stuff to remain confidential. But nobody redacted this gem of information; it’s part of the public court record.
You can read the entire brief here. A lot of it sounds like legalese, but read it carefully; there’s a lot there. The most interesting stuff starts around page 9.
Not only does the ACCJC admit that 15 members (an overwhelming majority) of the visiting team wanted only probation; the agency also admits that not one of the members of the team wanted “show cause” sanctions.
The agency also admits that many members of the visiting team were unaware that Peter Crabtree, who served on the visiting team, was married to ACCJC President Barbara Beno. Some members were “shocked” to learn about what many call a clear conflict of interest.
There’s also a fascinating snippet of a deposition of Tom Lane, who worked as administrative support for the ACCJC. It goes like this:
Q: But your loyalty to Dr. Beno is stronger than your loyalty to the ACCJC?
A: No, they’re inseparable.
Q: And why are they inseparable?
A: Because they are both the same. Dr. Beno is the president of the ACCJC; it’s one and the same.
That, I have to say, is not the sign of a healthy organization.
So we’re still a couple of months from trial and already enough information is coming out to show what a farce the ACCJC and its accreditation process has been. And there’s a lot more to come.
Dude, the word you want is rebut, not refute. Refutation is impossible since the ACCJC conducts so much of its business in secret. We can’t really know how the ACCJC (aka Barbara Beno) made its decision unless it’s revealed during a trial or a legal filing. That this little bit leaked out is surprising and a testament to the tenacity of the LA Times reporter who uncovered it. Learning what the ACCJC is really up to is like peering under slimy rocks.
It’s amazing how many so-called “progressives” here are totally incapable of refuting a contrary argument and so instead resort to cheap ad hominem insults.
And then people wonder why progressives make so little progress.
Dude, if you can’t even refute an inexperienced political neophyte like me, you have zero chance in the big bad world out there.
Well said! And spoken as the chief propagator of prejudice on this blog.
Sam, it’s time you sought some therapy. It’s not too late to reclaim your life.
ACCJC would have taken into account more information than just the findings of this “biased” team. There is a clear distinction between those whose advice you seek and those who are accountable for the decision.
And since you do not know what other advice they took, you have only a partial (and prejudicial) view.