Prospective Students Beware; Wayne Watson stop abusing your power

Great publicity this morning in the Sun Times one day before CSU graduates a number of students. All the preening onstage and the puffed up sloganeering that will go on for hours tomorrow about CSU's greatness under the leadership of Wayne Watson, irritating for most of us in past years, is going to be particularly disgusting this year. Jokari Miller, a student who was goaded into a verbal exchange with Wayne Watson by Watson himself, for wearing a freaking baseball hat inside the library at the Board of Trustees meeting on Friday that ended with Miller being held in a chokehold, charged with disorderly conduct, and jailed, is facing criminal charges and today has to put up with the indignity of a judicial hearing at CSU's own kangaroo court. He may not be able to graduate from our august institution tomorrow.

I can take Watson's and Interim Provost Henderson's hate speech against the white/atheist/communist faculty "who can't get jobs anywhere else." I can take their contempt for us, but their extreme reactions to African American students who cross them the wrong way is another thing. In the long list of Watson's abuse of his power as president of CSU, this is the most disgusting example. And of course he is supported by that craven disgraceful "board of trustees." And look at who he and Henderson pick on. If what happened to Miller happened to my white sister's white kid, even if the white kid were in his 20s or 30s, she would be in that President's Office with a lawyer on Monday morning with a lawsuit already filed. But my white sister has the resources to do this. Willie Preston and Jokari Miller both had to scramble to get their bail money. Bravo Wayne. Well done Mr Educator of the Year.

And yeah, you're right Dr Watson, we white faculty "got ours." But so did you and your porsche-driving friends.

Good way to teach our students on the eve of graduation: no opposition to presidential will will be brooked. Criminalize the students. The pipeline to prison begins at graduation or the day before.

Check out what the Sun Times has to say about us today.

http://voices.suntimes.com/news/breaking-news/suit-chicago-state-administration-tried-to-silence-students-critical-of-university/#.U3Nxr9JdVkp

Sam Charles, Sun Times Breaking News/Voices

May 13, 2014 8:25 pm

Suit: Chicago State administration tried to silence students critical of university

A current Chicago State University student and another who was expelled are suing the university, alleging that after they spoke out against the school and its practices, the administration used “authoritarian” of tactics to silence them and quash any influence they had at the university.

The suit, filed Monday in federal court by Willie Preston and Brittany Bailey, stated that as the two were members of the university’s Student Government Association, they were critical of the university’s administration. The university, they allege, responded by “invalidating” student government elections, suppressing the editorial freedom of and later eliminating the university’s student newspaper and orchestrating a series of unsubstantiated claims to discredit the two, which eventually resulted in Preston’s expulsion and criminal prosecution.

The named defendants included the university’s board of trustees, President Wayne Watson, Interim Provost Angela Henderson, Vice President of Labor and Legal Affairs Patrick Cage, Director of Student Activities and Student Leadership MaToya Marsh and Chicago State University Police Chief Ronnie Watson.

“Plaintiffs were active members of the student government at CSU who spoke out against what they viewed as the autocratic and corrupt practices of several powerful and politically connected members of the CSU administration,” the suit stated.

A spokesman for the university said the allegations have no merit.

“[The complaint] can best be described as categorically untrue,” said Tom Wogan, the university’s director of public relations. “We will allow the judicial process to play out and we’re very confident the university will be vindicated.”

Bailey and Preston began attending CSU in 2010 and have since married, the suit stated.

In the fall 2012 semester, the Student Government Association held elections for several positions, including 25 Senator positions and one Illinois Board of Higher Education Representative position, the suit stated. In September 2012, Preston and Bailey were elected to IBHE Representative and SGA Senator, respectively.

In his role as representative, Preston would be part of university-wide committees, including the budget and tuition and fees committees, the suit stated.

In the spring 2013 semester, Bailey ran for SGA president while Preston ran for Student Trustee, both on a platform of reducing administration corruption, the suit said.

Preston pledged to propose a motion to the Board of Trustees to remove Watson as university president, the suit stated. Bailey also said she would work toward removing Watson from his position.

According to the suit, Marsh — who also served on the university’s Board of Elections — continuously directed students not to vote for Preston and Bailey, instead encouraging them to support three other candidates “who were not political opponents of President Watson.”

On May 1, the first day of voting, one of the three candidates Marsh supported tried to punch Preston. Preston ducked out of the way, but was still suspended from classes and student activities for the upcoming semester, the suit stated. The student who tried to punch him was not disciplined.

Both Bailey and Preston were elected to their desired positions “by an overwhelming majority,” however the Board of Elections “invalidated” the election results on the basis that Marsh had inappropriately interfered with the election, the suit stated.

“So, rather than act to stop Ms. Marsh’s interference while it was happening, the Board of Elections waited until the candidates [the] Defendants favored had lost, and then used Ms. Marsh’s interference against [the] Plaintiffs,” the suit stated.

On Oct. 11, 2013, while serving his suspension, Preston met with the interim director of judicial affairs, who told him that while he could not attend classes, he was still allowed on campus, the suit stated. However, the suit claims a meeting was scheduled for later that day in the presidential chambers to potentially change university rules that would prohibit Preston from being on campus while he was suspended.

Three days later, Preston went to the Cordell Reed Student Union building while an open house for prospective students was being held, the suit stated. After he walked in, he was approached by university officials who told him he had to report to the interim director of judicial affairs. The director informed him that he was no longer allowed on campus because several students allegedly felt threatened by him.

All the students were provided incentives — including scholarships — to complain about Preston, the suit stated.

Less than a week later, Preston was invited to attend a meeting at the CSU’s campus library held by the Illinois Board of Higher Education faculty advisory committee. During the question and answer session, Preston said that he was among many students who believed that members of the administration, including President Watson and Interim Provost Henderson, were engaged in corrupt practices, the suit stated.

Henderson followed him out of the meeting and tried to speak with him, and as Preston left the building, he was arrested by CSU’s campus police and detained at the station for three hours, the suit stated. An officer told Preston that the police showed up because someone called and said he was disrupting the meeting.

Henderson later said she called Police Chief Ronnie Watson directly, the suit said. A trespassing charge was filed against Preston, but it was later dismissed.

“While he was detained, Mr. Preston denied Chief of Police Ronnie Watson’s allegation that he had threatened the Interim Provost,” the suit stated.

On Oct. 23, Henderson filed a petition for, and was later granted, a restraining order against Preston, the suit said.

“Dr. Henderson’s purpose in obtaining the restraining order was to retaliate against Mr. Preston for his speech and ensure he would not be engaging in speech critical of her or President Watson on campus or in her presence,” the suit stated.

Five days later, Preston’s expulsion hearing was held, and a witness for Preston who was present when he allegedly threatened Henderson was not allowed to testify, the suit stated.

During her testimony, Henderson called Preston an “American terrorist.” She added that she was afraid to come to work and that she felt Preston was “prepared to engage in ‘murderous’ activity,” the suit said.

On Nov. 14, Preston was expelled from CSU, but he was never given the meeting’s minutes or told who he could file an appeal with, the suit stated.

Four months later, Preston attended a public meeting of the CSU Board of Trustees. He was arrested for stalking Henderson and violating her no-contact order, despite the fact that she was not present at the meeting, the suit said.

The seven-count suit alleges First and Fourteenth Amendment deprivation, retaliation, deprivation of due process, violations of the Illinois State Officials and Employees Ethics Act, violations of the Illinois College Campus Press Act, violations of the Illinois State and Chicago State universities law and breach of contract. They’re seeking an undisclosed amount in damages.

Preston and Bailey are seeking Preston’s reinstatement at CSU and both of them to be appointed to the student trustee position for one year. They are also seeking Bailey’s appointment as SGA President for one year, the reestablishment of an uncensored, student-run newspaper and the reversal and dismissal of all charges against the two.

Here's a Look at What Our Lavishly Paid Administrators Spend Their Time Doing: Bullying Students, Rigging Elections, Running the Place Like an Amateurish Crime Family

“How a person treats people who have less power than they do is a fundamental test of a person’s real character.”

http://cryingoutforjustice.com/2012/06/01/a-real-test-of-character-how-do-we-treat-the-powerless-by-jeff-crippen/


Willie Preston and Brittany Bailey are strong young people. However, in a contest with the entire weight of the Chicago State University power structure, abetted by the police power of the State of Illinois, they are short of both resources and influence. Their recent lawsuit demonstrates this power inequity graphically as it details the egregious behavior of Chicago State administrators toward them. Through their pleading in the U.S. District Court, we are able to construct a portrait of how a number of the university’s administrators treat persons who disagree with their behavior and who have no ability resist a variety of administrative abuses. The picture is ugly. There is only one permissible multi-part narrative for Chicago State: Wayne Watson as champion of the African American students, opposed by “disgruntled white faculty”; Wayne Watson as the infallible great leader; frankly, Wayne Watson as the heroic educational “reformer”. Any deviation from that party line by anyone risks severe consequences. Neither Willie Preston nor Brittany Bailey subscribe to that narrative and the administration has responded accordingly.

According to the pleading, the administration’s abuses begin with a conversation between Angela Henderson and Preston in Fall 2011. After the “Occupy Cook” event in November of that year, Henderson asked Preston to meet with her. Demonstrating that she viewed Chicago State’s students as a bunch of weak-minded fools, Henderson advised Preston (who she apparently believed had just fallen off the turnip truck in front of the school) that “faculty members were using students to attempt to hurt the President who she said was fighting every day to ensure African American students had just as many opportunities as white students across the state.” Henderson warned Preston that “he should not let a ‘bunch of white, Communist, atheist professors’ trick him.”

In Fall 2012, Preston and Bailey got involved in student government and ran afoul of Matoya Marsh, the Director of Student Activities. Marsh’s constant interference with the operation of the student government went far beyond her role as an “advisor” and positioned her squarely against a number of proposals Preston and Bailey made to improve campus life for Chicago State’s students. They proposed the re-creation of a student newspaper, implementing scholarships and grants for students and the establishment of a system that would reward students for attending poorly populated student government meetings. Preston and Bailey circulated petitions among students to gauge interest in their proposals. In response, Marsh “publicly criticized Mr. Preston during Executive SGA meetings for distributing these petitions.” The proposals generated forceful opposition from Marsh “who did not contend that the proposals violated university regulations, but barred their implementation because she disagreed with them.”

The proposed student newspaper became especially contentious. Marsh said that the “student body could only publish a newsletter under her close direction and approval. When Mr. Preston asked whether they (students) would be able to include in such a publication proposals about changing the administration, Ms. Marsh responded she would definitely not approve that type of speech. Ms. Marsh did not cite to any policy that such speech would violate.”

Apparently feeling the need to apply additional pressure to Preston, at the beginning of 2013, the university began to use the force of its judicial apparatus to involve Preston in a string of judicial affairs complaints that were supported by only flimsy or often simply mendacious claims and/or evidence. Preston met with Watson in February or March 2013. During that meeting, Watson told him that they “should work together because they are from the ‘same hood’ and that he (Preston) ‘should not be hanging around them white communist professors who got theirs and don’t give a damn about you getting yours.’ Mr. Preston told Dr. Watson that he listened to the students at CSU and was acting according to their concerns.”

Shortly after this meeting, Preston announced his candidacy for the position of Student Trustee on the Chicago State Board of Trustees while Bailey opened a campaign for the presidency of the Student Government Association. Their platform included the “reform of CSU policies” and the “enact[ment of] procedures to guard against corruption. Central to Mr. Preston’s campaign was his pledge to propose a motion that the Board of Trustees remove Dr. Watson as president.” These candidacies spurred an immediate reaction from Marsh who first baselessly told Preston that he “was not eligible to run because he had been disciplined,” then urged students to vote for candidates who “were not political opponents of President Watson.” In addition, Marsh allegedly “told other CSU employees to campaign against Mr. Preston.” Finally, Marsh approved campaign material for the pro-Watson candidates but not for Preston and Bailey.

At one point during the election, one of the candidates opposing Bailey told Preston that “Watson had assured him that he would not lose the election (‘we take care of our own’),” and that “even if he received a lower number of votes during the election, he would still win.” However, both Preston and Bailey won their races, necessitating the administration’s intervention into the process. Waiting until their favored candidates had lost, the Chicago State Student Board of Elections invalidated the results, allegedly because Marsh had “inappropriately interfered.”

Ultimately, the rigged election resulted in the elevation of pro-Watson candidates to the Board of Trustees and the SGA. Also, the university ultimately expelled Willie Preston and subjected him to criminal prosecution for alleged offenses against Angela Henderson, offenses that at least one member of the university community described as “a plan they concocted to get him off campus.” The university official wondered “Why do they keep messing with this guy, trying to ruin his life when he’s not even breaking the law? Angela Henderson is not scared of Willie.” Although Preston’s arrests were clearly politically motivated, the university police had to “comply with orders if they wanted to keep their jobs.”

This is what we have at this university. Someone who disagrees with the administration of Wayne Watson, someone who attempts to exercise the right of free expression, is warned, threatened, harassed with judicial affairs complaints and subjected to arrest and prosecution. I suppose this is what the university means when it talks about “progressive discipline.”

Although the statements and behaviors described in the Preston/Bailey complaint are currently allegations, let us take a look at the records of the two opposing camps. On one side, we have the university administration, led by Wayne Watson, a “leader” who on at least two occasions has been found culpable for retaliatory firings, whose “academic” and “teaching” careers are dubious at best, a man who has severely damaged the reputation of one college system and one university, a man who would not have the job he currently holds if he were not a local political hack, and a man who needs desperately to secure what political influence he still wields to hold onto his job.

He is aided by an interim provost whose original application contained demonstrably false statements and whose massively plagiarized dissertation disgraces her. This so-called “Doctor” blights two academic institutions and notwithstanding all the legal nonsense should have been discharged months ago. No need to describe again the various misadventures of our intrepid Chief Counsel who, almost on a regular basis, exposes the university to national ridicule. Another opportunity for bad press will undoubtedly come soon.

The image created by the Preston/Bailey complaint--of a university president and his administrators bullying students, rigging elections and running this “university” as if it were a corrupt political ward or even worse, some kind of fifth-rate dictatorship, would be comical if it were not so true. Is it imaginable that this kind of behavior would be acceptable in any other educational institution? If the faculty at this institution are willing to let this kind of behavior go unchallenged, if they are willing to rationalize the choking of a student at a public meeting for wearing a baseball hat, if they are willing to stand mute or quibble over rhetorical styles while this administration wreaks havoc on this school, then we do not deserve to exist as a university.

This is What Being a Bully Looks Like. Willie Preston's Press Release

Friday, the unprovoked attack on a CSU student demonstrated the depths to which this administration and its flunkies have sunk. Since the beginning of Wayne Watson's tenure as Chicago State president, his administration has made a concerted effort to stifle any opposition, both from the faculty and from the students. There is no need to rehash the various and sometimes sophomoric attempts made by Watson and his minions but I think his pattern of bullying and oppression marks him as a true intellectual coward. Let me explain.

Chicago State University is ostensibly an institution of higher learning, dedicated to the search for intellectual honesty and, if possible, the revelation of truth. In such an environment, there is bound to be discord and disagreement. Indeed, some disagreements can become quite heated as individuals on different sides of an issue passionately extoll the virtues of their positions. Over the past several years, members of the Chicago State faculty have made what I believe is a solid case for Watson's mismanagement and questionable ethical practices. We have provided evidence to support our charges. In an intellectual environment, a viable administration would attempt to refute those charges with evidence of its own and the resulting exchange might even benefit the university, its students, staff, faculty and administrators.

Instead, what have we gotten? Glib sloganeering and empty rhetoric. Bullshit claims of raising "standards," increasing "accountability" and "responsibility." This seemed the tactic of choice until late 2012 when the president and his supporters began circulating anonymous and vicious attacks against sitting members of the Chicago State Board of Trustees Z. Scott and Gary Rozier, then University Provost Sandra Westbrooks, and of course, Faculty Senate President Phillip Beverly. In late February and March 2013, when some members of the board attempted to remove Watson as president, he hid behind a cadre of attorneys, ministers and political figures, apparently unable to articulate on his own a defense of his administration. Instead, we had to listen to his legal mouthpiece compare Watson's travails to those of Jesus or Martin Luther King. Perhaps the most telling evidence of Watson's intellectual vacuity came from his appearance on public television, where he appeared with his mouthpiece who managed to prevent his client from getting himself into trouble.

Ultimately, Watson succeeded in keeping his job. In short order, he fired Glenn Meeks and his administration intruded into the student election in the Spring of 2013. Ultimately, the Watson administration managed to get its chosen candidates into office by having his stooges invalidate the legitimate election results. What administration in any other U.S. university would take such an interest in what is essentially a function of student-run government? Likely none, however, Watson's desire to control all aspects of the university operation, particularly the "message" made it imperative that any potential dissenters be kept out of student government. Deploying the tools at his administration's disposal, Watson moved decisively against students who hold no power and possess few resources. If this is not bullying, what is?

Since Fall 2013, things have gotten far nastier. Willie Preston has been expelled from school and subjected to two arrests. The Watson administration has attacked the Faculty Senate through ridiculous trademark infringement claims. Currently, there is a "cyber-bullying" policy making its way through the board. Undoubtedly it will be approved. We'll see how that goes for the board and the university. If there is any doubt about the ethical bankruptcy of the Chicago State Board of Trustees, here's Chairman Anthony Young on Friday talking about Jokari Miller's arrest: "And before we go to our first matter, I'd like to state to everyone there was an unfortunate incident at the end of our morning session. All of the Trustees regret that incident and we'd like to avoid further incidents if at all possible. This is our board meeting, we don't think it's unreasonable to request for people not to wear hats, considering we're inside. If we ever had a board meeting outside, of course anyone could wear their hat, but we intend to publish a dress code for our meetings in time for the next meeting." Based on this comment, I must assume that Young thinks that choking and arresting someone is an entirely appropriate response to wearing a hat in violation of a non-existent dress code. What will the board do? Make the wearing of certain kinds of apparel a capital crime?

So this is the way Wayne Watson and his lackeys respond to dissent. They use the power of the university to stifle free expression. They engage student stooges to inveigh against the alleged abuse of free speech by Watson's opponents. They use the power of the state to attack and arrest critics. They use their political influence to insulate themselves against the potential adverse consequences of their actions--to good result so far. After all, this is just a university filled with African American students, who really cares about them? Certainly not the administration, the board, or to this point, anyone else in Illinois with the ability to stop this travesty. Cyber-bullying indeed, here at Chicago State, the oppressors position themselves as the oppressed.

This is a press release sent out by attorneys for Willie Preston and Brittany Bailey. We'll see if anyone in the media picks this up.

Holy Injunctive, Declaratory, and Monetary Relief Batman!!!

So the  long journey of this failed administration continues. After the arrest of one student on Friday at the Board of Trustees meeting, a current and a former student have filed suit in federal court to stop the madness that has become Chicago State University. In the 36 page filing, the plaintiffs allege a number of illegal acts on the part of senior administration officials including Patrick Cage, Matoya Marsh and Angela  Henderson. The seven count filing requests relief from the court in a number of areas including compensatory and punitive damages. The facts as laid out in the complaint are disturbing and yet not surprising as my colleagues and I have been reporting on this misconduct for several years. At some point, someone in this state is  going to tap out and say enough is enough. Unfortunately, it is likely going to be too late to save the university  from declining enrollment, negative publicity and a 135% increase in spending by the legal department since 2009. That this lawsuit comes the week of commencement, when the university should be celebrating its students not answering questions raised in this suit, also saddens me. How do faculty explain to students and each other why this behavior is continuing? Yes, I know I should have said alleged behavior, but some of the facts presented by the plaintiffs are facts, not allegations. It is sort of like plagiarism. Plagiarism isn't  alleged, it just is. And how much more will the cost of the legal office grow as a result of this lawsuit, for loyal readers, you and I both know this won't be the last lawsuit alleging misconduct by this administration.

Guess What, We've Got Another Lawsuit Filed Against Wayne Watson and His Abominable Chicago State Administration

Although I don't have time to give a fuller account of this right now, I want to inform the university community that this morning, Willie Preston and Brittany Bailey filed suit against a number of Chicago State administrators in the United States District Court. I will have excerpts from the complaint shortly.

Is Chicago State a University or a Penitentiary? An Update on Yesterday's Board Meeting

Willie Preston:

I spoke with Jokari Miller this morning and he's doing fine, all things considered. Here is his abbreviated account of the events surrounding his arrest yesterday:

During a break in the board meeting, Wayne Watson approached Miller and told him to remove his cap. Wayne Watson then told the police chief, Ronnie Watson to get Jokari to take his hat off. Jokari asked what law he was breaking, went outside the auditorium and according to him "was just talking" about the request to no one in particular. Suddenly, he was attacked from behind by one of the University police, Michael Jones. Jones pushed Miller's head against the glass of the auditorium then pulled Miller around the corner and began choking him. The police eventually cuffed Miller and took him down in the elevator. While in the elevator, Jones repeatedly threatened that he would "fuck you (Miller) up," and Ronnie Watson said several times, "over a hat, why didn't you just take the god-damned thing off?" Despite the threats, there was no further physical force used by the police on Miller.

Eventually, the CSU police charged Miller with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. Although Miller had never been informed that he was under arrest prior to allegedly being battered by Jones, and circumstances hardly existed that would have caused a reasonable person to assume that s/he was under arrest, the CSU police had to charge Miller with this offense. The reason has to do with covering the ass of the police officer who, based on the facts recounted by Jokari, committed a public offense against Miller. I do not know if a similar statute exists in this cesspool of a state, but in California, Penal Code Section 149 describes the offense of "battery under color of authority." The section reads: "Every public officer who, under color of authority, without lawful necessity, assaults or beats any person, is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year." In any event, whenever a peace officer uses physical force against a person, that force needs to be justified by a criminal charge that will ostensibly justify the use of force. However, the use of a "choke hold" is extremely problematic and according to the CSU police Captain Maddox, is not permissible. The reason is simple: that kind of "restraint" is potentially lethal. No choke hold should ever be applied to the throat because it only takes a minimal amount of force to crush the windpipe. The type of choke hold used by police in the past is properly called a "carotid restraint." The idea is to close the carotid artery, cutting off oxygen to the brain and rendering the subject unconscious in a very short period of time. Unfortunately, if the hold is not applied properly, if it is extended too long, or even if it is applied properly and held for an appropriate time period, death or serious bodily harm can ensue (I'm sure our colleagues in the biological sciences can explain why). For this reason, the carotid restraint has been prohibited by almost every law enforcement organization in the country since around the mid 1980s or early 1990s.

I do not know how Jokari Miller plans to respond to this, but anyone who witnessed the incident has the standing to file a complaint about the alleged police misconduct with the Illinois State Police. The link to do so is here: https://www.isp.state.il.us/services/citizencomplaint.cfm.

This incident occurred in full view of a number of witnesses. It will be interesting to see if this spurs any outrage among the university community or anywhere else. But this much seems evident: this stupid situation occurred because of a hat. We are supposedly at a university with a range of ideas and expressive behaviors. However, at Chicago State, our students are under the thumb of a ridiculous and petty tyrant who apparently cannot control his desire to bully people. Was Jokari Miller's cap so threatening or inappropriate that Wayne Watson felt it necessary to order him to remove it? Is Wayne Watson the arbiter of sartorial good taste on the CSU campus? Is there a new Chicago State policy on felony cap-wearing? Was the cap-wearing offense committed by Miller so serious that it warranted the intervention of the police chief? Was it so serious that it warranted Miller being choked and arrested? If Miller had suffered death or serious injury because of being choked, would that be alright because he had offended Wayne Watson by wearing a baseball cap? This entire situation was completely avoidable. Can you imagine this happening on any other college campus?

I think it is extremely difficult to recognize when you have worked in a place so long that you have become a liability instead of an asset. I suggest that both the two old fools who created this situation are in that place. Based on this and prior incidents, it seems apparent that neither one of the Watsons has the capacity to adapt to the university world of 2014. In fact, it seems obvious that they view Chicago State as more like a penitentiary than a university. Wayne Watson has suggested that he needs to ensure "diversity," which for Watson means hiring people based on their appearance, because the faculty are often "afraid" of Chicago State's students. In fact, I am unaware of any faculty who has had to use physical force against any Chicago State student, that option seems reserved for our administration, particularly at public meetings. However, we now have a model that we can use on our unruly students. If you have students who disagrees with you in class, choke them out! Then call the police and file charges. If you have students in your class that are not dressed in a way you feel is appropriate, wait until they leave class then attack them from behind! Students arguing with you in your office? Kick the crap out of them! Colleagues who disagree with you at a meeting? Time to go fist city! The possibilities are endless. We need not restrict ourselves to choke holds. Sucker punches, thumbs to the eyes or ears, punches to the soft parts of the body (avoid the bony parts because you can break your hand)and kicks to the groin and the shins are all part of the arsenal possessed by the well-equipped Chicago State faculty member. The hell with intellectual arguments, let's follow the example of the Watson twins and get down on the ground with our students and brawl. In any viable university this kind of administrative abuse would not be tolerated. Here, under the leadership of a pathetic board that props up a true 1950s man and his attack dog, we get to continuously relive the bad old days.

This is a university? Frankly, if this is the way this school operates, I wonder how long it can continue to exist.

Yet another student was arrested today at the Board of Trustees meeting and you won't believe why. All of us should be ashamed.

As I write this, a CSU student is at the 111th Street jail trying to make bail. He was arrested outside the CSU Library Auditorium at our Board of Trustees meeting today. This is the second student arrested this year at a Board of Trustees meeting, a public meeting. He is also another one of the more outspoken and anti-administration students on this campus and tonight he is in jail. I won't try to recreate the scenario that landed him there because I was not at that part of the meeting. Others who witnessed this will post something in more detail. From the accounts I've heard this afternoon, however, someone, either Dr Watson or the CSU police chief Ronnie Watson, began the provocation by telling the student to take his baseball cap off. An exchange escalated and within a few minutes the student was choked on the ground  and dragged out of this public meeting.

If nothing else you've read on this blog about the disgusting cronyism, the cynical empty phrases about caring for students first, the outlandish salaries created for administrators for jobs that never existed before they were hired, the shameful countenancing of the administration and trustees of a provost who  plagiarized her dissertation, this kind of police state that Wayne Watson has created in order to rule this school should fill you with disgust and shame. How many police officers were present at the Town Hall last week --do you remember any other president who needed them there in such numbers? How many were at the student Town Hall meeting? For a couple of years, Wayne Watson has clucked and clucked about how the faculty "do not know our students," "do not look like our students," how "the faculty are afraid of our students." Well, who is the one who is so afraid of them now Dr Watson? Your Dr. Henderson is so terrified she goes straight for a restraining order against one of them. Are you afraid of them too?

I have never been more ashamed of  this administration and the Board of Trustees than I am at this moment. Bullying students and parading students in handcuffs across campus to launch them into the prison system is the new CSU brand. Or is it simply that you, Dr Watson, want the power to determine which students will get the trips to China and accolades on campus and which ones will get the chokehold and handcuffs?  Civility Policy. Cyber-bullying Policy. And now wearing hats indoors is cause for chucking someone into the system. Time to reread your Herodotus Dr Watson. We are witnessing the expurgation of the word "university" in CSU. It is anathema here and Chicago State has no right to be called a university. It is not a place that fosters the free exchange of ideas. Students of Chicago State told us at the forum on repression a few weeks ago of the intimidation they have experienced. Nothing is more intimidating than to think you can end up like so-and-so if you speak up or express your dissent be it by wearing your pants below your waist or trying to hand fliers out on campus or, apparently, wearing a baseball cap inside the library. Dr Watson has concern and acts only for his select few who claim trauma at the hands of students or faculty who "oppress" them.

And civility policy or not Dr. Watson, IT IS NOW LEGAL IN THE STATE OF ILL TO VIDEO RECORD SOMEONE without their consent. So no more throwing faculty members out of town halls for trying to do that.

To my colleagues, especially faculty colleagues, whether or not you agree with the cadre of Dr Watson's vocal "disgruntled white/male/communist" __________(fill in the blank) faculty critics, be it with the "tone" "the attitudey-ness" or the content of what we have been bringing to light here--this is what we are part of--all of it. We should be ashamed of ourselves as academics and scholars if we let what happened here today go without comment.

Tenure Decisions? What Tenure Decisions? The Warren G. Harding of University Presidents Turns All His Attention to Protecting the Feelings of His Cronies

I ran across this quote, apropos of Wayne Watson's demonstrated administrative abilities. “I am not fit for this office and never should have been here.” Warren G. Harding quoted in Nicolas Murray Butler, Across the Busy Years: Recollections and Reflections, Vol. 1 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1939) 411.

Wayne Watson cannot be bothered to extend any courtesy to the faculty members anxiously awaiting his tenure decisions. However, he has the wherewithal to assign his crack legal team to draft a new policy which will hopefully enable Watson to stifle free expression and control the message emanating from Chicago State. The newest iteration of the Computer Usage/Communications/Trademark Infringement fiascoes is headed for passage by a complicit board.

The Cyber-Bullying Policy posted recently by Corday has undergone rather substantive revision. In fact, the version she quoted no longer exists.The following are excerpts from the new and improved policy, revised March 3, 2014.

First, instead of one-plus pages, the new policy sprawls across eight pages and one paragraph on page nine. The important text begins with definitions on page three (at this point there is no electronic copy available). The university is defining “cyberbullying” as (i) “deliberate and repeated conduct or activity that threatens, harasses, intimidates an individual, places an individual in reasonable fear of harm to the individual or damage to the individual’s property or has the effect of substantially disrupting the individual’s daily life via the use of electronic information and communication devices; (ii) the use of information and communication technologies to support a deliberate, repeated, and hostile course of conduct that is intended to harm others.” Included are “internet blog postings, social media site postings, internet chat room postings, and/or other internet postings.” The university provides a number of other definitions, however, it offers no definition of how it intends to define “harm.”

The material on page five is amazingly vague. It prohibits all “Off-campus expressive conduct (verbal, physical, aural, graphic, symbolic, or written), including, without limitation, cyberbullying and electronic speech, that is intended by the speaker to reach the CSU campus and does, in fact, reach the CSU campus.” Any conduct that results in the following violates the policy:

1. “creates (i) a material and substantial disruption of CSU’s educational mission, operations, activities, or programs, or (ii) a reasonable foreseeable risk/likelihood of causing such a disruption:”
2. “materially and substantially denies, limits, or interferes with another’s ability to fully participate in or benefit from CSU’s educational programs or activities, or creates a reasonable foreseeable risk/likelihood of causing any such effect;”
3. “causes a material and substantial adverse impact on the work environment of a CSU faculty member or employee that amounts to a material and substantial change in the employee’s terms or conditions of employment, or creates a reasonable foreseeable risk/likelihood of causing such adverse impact;”
4. “is severe or pervasive, and objectively and subjectively has the effect of unreasonably interfering with another’s work or equal access to education, or is severe or pervasive and creates a reasonable foreseeable risk/likelihood of causing such interference;”

This is what our administration spends its time doing. As an aside, apparently none of the persons who are due to receive tenure in two days has been notified of their status by the administration. I guess they should just show up at the board meeting Friday to find out if they are going to be employed next year. This disgraceful administration will not adhere to contractual or university policy (the contract specifies the president’s tenure decisions by April 21), but it can create elaborate policies to deal with the problem of some persons at the university feeling bad because they have been “attacked” by having their lies publicly exposed. Clearly the feelings of some Chicago State employees deserve every consideration, the feelings of others—who cares? The tenure nonsense is another excellent example of how well the administration has responded to the concerns about communication and compliance articulated in the HLC accreditation report.

Forget the "Cyber-bullying policy", forget the "Civility Policy" --let's just make all new students, all new hires, heck, let's make everyone at CSU attend Charm School!

While the faculty have their heads in their gradebooks this week two new policies are circulating around campus . One, a Cyber Bullying Policy, will be having its second reading at the Board of Trustees meeting this Friday, May 7th. It was trotted out at the Board meeting in March and I suppose if all goes well will be voted on at the June Board meeting. It was cribbed from something from Winston-Salem University (a problematic policy already) and doubtless, the academically-illiterate ruling body we call the CSU Board of Trustees will carry this water for the President it was appointed to serve.

These are the highlights:
II. DEFINITION:
Cyber Bullying is defined as any activity that deliberately threatens, harasses, intimidates an individual, places an individual in reasonable fear of harm to the individual or damage to the individual's property; or has the effect of substantially disrupting the orderly operation of the individual's daily life via the use of electronic information and communication devices, to include but not be limited to: email messages, instant messaging, text messaging, cellular telephone communications, internet blogs, social media sites, internet chat rooms, and internet postings.

III. PROHIBITIONS:
Cyber bullying by a member of the CSU community directed towards another is prohibited.  It includes, but is not limited to:

• Sending mean, threatening or harassing messages to another person through texts, e-mail, web pages, or instant messaging. 
• Spreading lies and rumors about victims through the internet or text messages. 
• Posting pictures without the consent of the individual.
• Tricking someone into revealing their personal information and sending it to others.
• Creating websites, polls, or blogs about the individual that are meant to embarrass or hurt the person.
• Recording conversations or videos without the individual's consent and then posting it online. 

Well, the thing goes on a little more about violations, suspension of privileges, disciplinary action... Excuse me while I reach for my copy of 1984. WW seems determined to stop the social media of this day and age. Good luck with that. 

Well, CSU's potential  Cyber bullying policy is one thing, but the really creepy policy that is being drafted right now and up for some discussion in some quarters is the "Civility Policy." I guess posting the CSU Code of Excellence on the walls of campus buildings just hasn't done the trick.  The Civility Policy seems to be a mishmash of ideas and language taken from rulings on workplace violence and a very negative view of human nature and a desire to monitor all individual behavior. I can't tell if they are purposely mixing all this up or are just too lazy to reason through the implications of what they are constructing in this list of do's and don'ts and we'll-get-youse-guys if you break these rules.  Be very afraid of this policy it seems to have the potential to allow anyone to charge you with anything if what you are doing, saying, how you are saying it, your posture, your gestures, makes them feel intimidated or harassed. This really is Orwell's dystopia. 

Highlights of this "draft" policy include such statements as: 

Any person who makes threats, exhibits threatening behavior, or engages in violent acts on university property shall be subject to removal from the premises as quickly as safety permits.  For the purpose of this policy, violence and threats of violence include but are not limited to:

·       Threatening or abusive behavior (written, verbal or physical);

·       Possessing weapons, including but not limited to firearms, explosives, knives, etc. in violation of the Prohibition of Weapons in the Workplace provision below;

·       Vandalism;

·       Harassment;

·       Intimidation (written, verbal, physical), gesture, or hand signs;

·       Assault (verbal or physical);

·       Physical contact (hitting, shoving, fighting, etc.).

Note: This list does not include every type of behavior that may be subject to this policy.

It discusses "Expected behavior" and "Unacceptable Behavior"

    Expected behavior.  As members of the Chicago State University community, all employees are expected to conduct themselves professionally and treat each other with civility and respect at all times, recognizing that disagreement and informed debate are valued in an academic community. 

    Unacceptable behavior.  Demeaning, intimidating, threatening, or physically or emotionally violent behaviors that affect the ability to learn, work or live in the Chicago State University environment are prohibited.

What is meant by "expression of intent to cause physical harm?"

Violence.  Violence is a behavior that causes harm to a person or damage to property or causes fears for one’s safety or the safety of others.  Examples of violent behavior include physical contact that is harmful and expression of intent to cause physical harm.  Such behavior is prohibited.  

RAT OUT YOUR COLLEAGUES, OTHER STUDENTS, WORKERS (cf. the Admin's hope that students will rat out profs to them in this year's SGA campaign, a la "IF YOU SEE SOMETHING SAY SOMETHING")

    Responsibility to act.  A member of the CSU community who is involved in or witnesses behavior on campus that poses imminent danger should immediately contact the CSU University Police.

In situations that do not involve imminent danger or for advice on the appropriate course of action, a member of the community is to notify a supervisor, department head, or the Office of Human Resources.

And oddly this seems to appear out of nowhere...oh wait, it justifies one of our terrified administrators...

Orders of Protection.  CSU community members who have obtained restraining or personal protection orders are encouraged to provide a copy of the order to the CSU University Police for enforcement on campus.

Definition of Workplace Violence

The University defines workplace violence as a single action or a series of actions that constitute actual or attempted assault, battery, harassment, intimidation, threats, or similar actions against individuals, as well as actual or attempted destruction of, or threats to, University or personal property. A violation of the Prohibition of Weapons in the Workplace provision will be considered by the University to fall within the definition of Workplace Violence.

 Reporting Incidents

Employees who witness or are on the receiving end of threats of violence or any other situation that potentially falls within the definition of Workplace Violence should assess whether the situation is likely to result in immediate bodily harm...

As I said, I hope someone or the committee discussing this will refocus the animus of this document. In some of the literature on this topic, the distinction is made between "encouraging good behavior, be it civil, or ethical" and trying to "enforce" it. Fascism plays on the emotional over the rational and I fear this is the current campus climate the administration has created. The Administration will not engage its critics  and their "facts" and hard evidence, but rather complain about the "tone" in which it is delivered as "offensive" or uncivil or that it is being delivered "by people who do not look like the majority of our students/faculty/staff..." 

As an alternative to the Civility Policy I suggest Dr Watson found his own School of Charm. It would spare him from telling young men on campus to pull up their pants (hey, wait a minute--is that a form of bullying?). Think of it--young ladies (not women) balancing books on their heads to effect perfect posture, sitting with ankles (not legs) crossed, hands folded daintily on their laps, eyes cast downward,  men in jackets and ties (we could buy more of that green livery he likes to dress the kids in when he takes them to Springfield), opening doors for the ladies (not women), students standing when the faculty members enter the classroom, faculty standing when hizzoner the prez makes his impromptu visits to class, the cafeteria a place where people talk in hushed tones, the library likewise... department meetings all seriousness, decorum and hierarchy...

So, before we admit any more students, before we hire any new faculty (I know, LOL), let's make sure they all have their certificate from the approved CSU School of Charm. And just think, if we can change this outward behavior from incivility to civility then all our problems will be gone. 

Yeah, right.  

A Modest Proposal to My Colleagues

At the end of the semester, Watson and his administration have apparently increased the pressure on various administrators (chairs and deans) to keep their faculty in line. At least one dean reportedly admonished a faculty member not to attend a recent farewell party and not to be so vocal in opposition to Wayne Watson. Department Chairs have reportedly warned their faculty about opposing Watson for fear that he would retaliate by refusing to hire needed personnel. This attempted intimidation caps a school year in which the administration has engaged in other forms of retaliation: an sloppily conducted investigation into ridiculous charges ultimately designed to result in disciplinary action for at least one of most visible members of the anti-Watson faculty; well-documented attacks on the Chicago State Faculty Senate and free expression—including ludicrous threats of legal action against the faculty blog—ostensibly to protect non-existent trademarks. In summary, Watson’s achievements this year have been impressive. They include (but are not limited to): continued ridicule for the school and his administration in the local and national media; revelations of lying, cheating and even plagiarizing by upper-level administrators—all of whom are still employed, some who continue to receive promotions— revelations about the administration’s continued use of “crony” hiring practices and various degrees of mismanagement which have had such a negative effect on the operation of the school. No wonder Watson and his stooges want to shut people up.

I have given the administration-faculty relationship here a great deal of thought and I have the following suggestion: why not stop playing their game? Other than conducting the university’s necessary business, and always with the intention of honoring the contract, why not refuse to participate? Let me use hiring as an example.

As we all know (or should know by now) Wayne Watson has taken over the hiring process for new faculty. This self-described “educator” who knows nothing about the academic enterprise and who has accomplished nothing in the academic field in more than forty years, has arrogated to himself the power to divine which candidates are best suited to specific disciplines. He uses this power in arbitrary ways, deciding to hire or not to hire candidates based on some internal criterion which has been created by personal and anecdotal experience. I realize that a number of departments have a need for new faculty, but might not the price have become too high to participate in the process? Do we want new colleagues who have been hand-picked by someone who simply does not belong in any kind of academic setting?

I realize that there may be budgetary implications, but the way Watson handles the personal services portion of the university budget again demonstrates his arbitrary and capricious management style. For faculty, Watson is concerned about departments “bringing diversity.” In fact, he is so concerned about “diversity” that he has threatened to reduce existing departments by 80 percent if they do not provide a pool of candidates who conform to his mystical conception of how an appropriate candidate should look. This Godfather-like hiring process seems designed to provide more loyal soldiers for the Watson army than to create any benefit to the university at large.

If we decide to discontinue being victims in the abusive hiring game played by Watson and his enablers, what exactly would we give up? First, we would not have to inflict that ridiculous and insulting “writing” requirement on our candidates. The breathtaking cynicism of this mandate—from an administration that consistently produces stupid and inarticulate written communications—seems almost Kafkaesque. Second, not investing a great deal of time and energy in what are likely to be fruitless searches frees us to give that time and energy to our students, to our service, or to our research. In short, to an endeavor that will actually benefit the university. Third, we could materially reduce the ways in which Watson and many of his deans and chairs practice their ham-handed intimidation. Fourth, we would not have to endure the pain of seeing that insufferable presidential poseur insert himself into a process in which he has no place.

I ask you to consider if the university would succeed without faculty participation in a number of joint faculty-administrative endeavors. Would we have received accreditation without faculty participation? Without faculty participation, would our students progress through programs? would they earn their degrees? would they go on to other pursuits? I am not suggesting that we withhold our participation in those kinds of efforts, they clearly benefit the university and our students. Could our administrators run Chicago State all by themselves?

Some time ago, I made the decision not to participate in any committees on this campus that were strictly “advisory.” As we know, “advisory” actually means superfluous, since recommendations from those kinds of committees are almost never considered by the administration. This top-down administrative structure that Watson has attempted to impose on this campus brooks no dissent, tolerates no disagreement and operates in a way that is simply antithetical to the academic effort. Let us stop participating. Let us go to no more pointless dog-and-pony shows (like the laughable “town-halls” the empty suit is so fond of holding); let us participate in no more meaningless committee work; let us attend no more “listening tours” at departmental meetings; let us stop allowing our chairs and deans to do the administration’s dirty work of intimidation and subterfuge; let us simply stop wasting our time on nonsense.

I believe that Watson’s behavior has consistently demonstrated his contempt for academics. His toxic management style has resulted in many mid-level administrators robotically advancing Watson’s interests, often to the detriment of the university, its students, academic departments and faculty. While my suggestions in this post are hardly exhaustive (and for many might not even be acceptable) I believe that the current crisis demands that Chicago State’s faculty assert themselves. Something could be done and certainly should be done to extricate ourselves and our school from this quagmire.