The SMCCCD Dumpster Fire Continues . . .
The dumpster fire at the SMCCCD District Office continues, and less than a year after Dr. Jennifer Taylor-Mendoza left the CSM presidency due to instances of what Ibram X. Kendi has labelled as “racist abuse,” yet another high-level Black administrator is experiencing racism in the workplace and has filed a formal complaint against members of District leadership for harassment. This complaint has subsequently led to an investigation. In a letter that was sent by someone to dozens of district leaders and the Board, it is indicated that Dr. O’KenZoe Selassie-Okpe’s – the District’s Chief Diversity Officer and E.D. of the Skyline Equity Institute – has filed a complaint of harassment against three administrators – two senior administrators on the district chancellor’s cabinet and one mid-level administrator at Cañada College.
Before getting into the details, as someone who has researched and written about social and racial justice in institutional leadership, my own district office has become a fascinating case study. In the midst of the fallout from Dr. Taylor-Mendoza’s departure (and several other administrators of color), several scholars and employees have publicly (and privately) decried the pattern of racist abuse at the district office. However, instead of taking that to heart and engaging in introspection, the district has continued to foster a toxic working environment for its Black employees. The District has not learned from the large-scale exodus of Black employees – particularly administrators. As someone who has studied these types of scenarios, it is perplexing that the district has not engaged in any type of reforms. In fact, it seems like they have doubled-down on its problematic – and frankly, racist – culture. In fact, as Dr. kihana miraya ross advises, let’s just call this what it is – anti-Blackness.
So what happened here? From what I’ve been able to uncover, the incident in question revolves around a chancellor’s cabinet retreat, in which Dr. Selassie-Okpe described experiencing various forms of harassment and microaggressions from an employee at Cañada College and the district leadership’s refusal to address his complaints. In other words, another Black administrator was feeling racist abuse from a peer, they reported this abuse to their superiors, and their superiors did not address it, at least not in a way that allowed them to feel protected and heard. Instead, Dr. Selassie-Okpe was clearly rebuked.
Although the specific circumstances are different, this is exactly what Dr. Taylor-Mendoza experienced. Instead of celebrating her accomplishments, such as her advocacy for social justice and the fact that she was the first Black female president at CSM, the District responded with contempt and obstacle after obstacle (as I detail in my first “Dumpster Fire” blog). With Dr. Selassie-Okpe, we again have a staunch advocate for social justice and an accomplished scholar and leader. In fact, he was even celebrated by the Board last fall for his work as Chief Diversity Officer! In both instances, their accomplishments were followed by instances of racist abuse and anti-Blackness, the latter of whom has filed a formal complaint, including for sexual harassment.
However, it seems like the District’s response to instances of racism (and sexual harassment) in the workplace is to hope that the aggrieved employee just leaves. And this seems to be the way of it. Dr. Taylor-Mendoza left for another presidency, and apparently, Dr. Selassie-Okpe has been on leave since the beginning of the year.
Prominent social psychologists Claude Steele and Valerie Purdie-Vaughns (along with their associates) studied the impact of “critical mass” and diversity statements in institutional settings, and they determined that for Black employees, the institution either needed pronounced diversity in its workforce, especially as related to its Black employees, or it needed a strong diversity statement. I mention this study because the SMCCCD district office has an interesting dynamic unfolding. Since I started in the district, the district office’s employees have been fairly diverse, and in the last few years, my district has, at least on paper, had a strong regard for equity and inclusion. In other words, the factors that Steele and Purdie-Vaughns studied have worked well for us.
However, with so many Black administrators leaving and the Board’s interest in abandoning antiracism – they have toyed with removing it from our mission – it is becoming clear that the District’s investment in diversity was a noxious form of virtue signaling and tokenism. The poisonous soil of the District – as Dr. Jeremiah Sims noted when Dr. Taylor-Mendoza departed – is just too toxic for retaining talented Black professionals and administrators. It is also clear that this is an issue that starts at the very top.
The San Mateo Community College District is in dire need of institutional change. These not isolated instances but a pattern of anti-Blackness at SMCCCD.
In other news . . .
The interim chancellor of the District presented the Board with proposed Board Policies that would take the purview of curricular processes from the academic senates and place them under the district chancellor. Yes, “academic senate” was struck through in several of the policies, which included the processes for approving curriculum.
Here are some highlights:
For the policy on Curriculum Development, Program Review, and Program Viability, the policy states, “To that end, the District Chancellor The Academic Senate Governing Council shall establish procedures for the development and review of all curricular offerings, including their establishment, modification, or discontinuance.”
For the policy on Philosophy and Criteria for Associate Degree and General Education, one section states, “The Academic Senate District Chancellor shall establish procedures to assure that courses used to meet the General Education and Associate Degree requirements meet the standards of this policy. The procedures shall provide for appropriate Academic Senate involvement” (emphasis added because “appropriate” is quite ambiguous).
For the policy on Articulation, it states, “The District Chancellor shall establish procedures that assure appropriate articulation of the District’s educational programs with proximate high schools and baccalaureate institutions.”
For the policy on Graduation Requirements for Degrees and Certificates, the proposed policy states, “The Colleges, in consultation with the Academic Senate, District Chancellor shall establish procedures to determine degree and certificate requirements that include appropriate involvement of the local curriculum committee. The procedures shall assure that graduation requirements are published in the District’s catalog(s) and included in other resources that are convenient for students” (again, emphasis added).
In the policy for Grade Changes, the policy states, “The colleges District Chancellor shall implement uniform procedures to assure the accuracy and integrity of all grades awarded by faculty.” Just as an aside on this one, I once gave a student a less then desirable grade (due to plagiarism) and that particular student was related to a previous chancellor. If grade changes are under the chancellor, does that mean that chancellor could have just changed the grade instead of talking to me about it?
In the most egregious example of the power grab, the policy for Prerequisites, Co-requistes, and Advisories states, “The Colleges District Chancellor, upon advice of the academic senate, are is authorized to establish prerequisites, co-requisites, and advisories on recommended preparation for courses in the curriculum.” This policy doesn’t even mention establishing prcedures – it flat out gives the power of assigning prerequisites, co-requisites, and advisories to courses to the chancellor, which seems to indicate that the chancellor can just change them since the academic senate only povides “advice”!
These proposals are obviously scary. They are top-down, authoritarian, and wholly inappropriate, as the faculty have primacy over curriculum, and the language is vague and ambiguous, leaving the actual procedure to the whim of the chancellor. Unfortunately, whoever wrote the procedure was either lazy or intentionally – and maliciously – vague. As written, the District could determine how local curriculum committees and academic senates review and develop curricula - or even take us out of the process altogether.
Now, one could argue that the chancellor has purview over establishing procedures, and this is true to an extent. The chancellor’s job is to create “administrative procedures,” but even this is problematic because it is not the administration’s responsibility to develop curriculum, establish requisites, or determine general education and graduation requirements. This can and should only be done by the faculty. The Board’s purview is final approval of all curriculum, and if they want to delegate that responsibility to the chancellor, that’s their prerogative. However, the policy should state that the procedure is just that – the process for submitting curricula for final approval. But it doesn’t, and as written, it feels more like we an institution of higher education in Florida or Texas, not California.
Click here for the full document.
In other, other news . . .
The $20+ million that College of San Mate received from the State of California for updates to our library are, unfortunately, going back to the state. The Board and District leadership made the decision not to match the grant. This is indicative of two things: 1) facilities planning should be local and not centralized in a district office with zero academics in leadership; and 2) our Board and District leadership have managed to squander our basic aid status by eliminating revenue sources and mismanaging the implementation of SB893. And since our prospects for another bond aren’t looking too good, it seems that many of our academic facilities will continue to be outdated. More details on this topic to come.