Second, the college budget reports say otherwise. As documented by Auxillary Services, we were in the green before the next board took over and gambled it away.

Can we know who the sock puppeteers are?

What you characterize as a “cryptic” comment will not be so to those who imagine they can engage in sock puppetry here on The Siege. Click on the wikipedia link to find out more.

But something in there was somewhat cryptic:
“And one other thing. If a commenter thinks they are clever enough to contribute under multiple anonymous identities and not get caught, gosh, think again.”

Huh? Did I miss something?

The topic under discussion is the original post or the thread of any argument pertaining thereto. All are welcome to throw in with their perspectives, facts, and or/opinions which are germane to the discussion.

While The Siege will allow a certain latitude beyond that, some people have decided to go off on their own little tangents which really have nothing to do with what is offered for discussion. If you want just want to rant against another commenter instead of stay on topic – as in challenging other’s topic-oriented positions – I’ll probably kill that comment. So here’s the heads-up. Don’t waste your time composing irrelevant comments - they’ll get flushed.

And one other thing. If a commenter thinks they are clever enough to contribute under multiple anonymous identities and not get caught, gosh, think again.

In answer to your questions in the first paragraph, I can only ask you to take the time to start from my first posting and read through my blog in chronological order. I think it will give you a much clearer picture. I would also urge you to do the same with this blog. Also, the information on my SAVE SMC website is also very helpful. Information I will post in the future will perhaps shed more light on the whole story.

As to your question about campus police, SMC has used its police against other students (not just me) including two known members of the Corsair staff. SMCPD’s police logs are very revealing.

As to your question in the second paragraph regarding the time for the appeal, if you read through my correspondence with both Robert Sammis and President Tsang, you will see that I promptly responded and suggested several days, up until the first week of July. I was trying to be flexible. Despite my efforts, Sammis did not respond for over a month, well after any possible extension of the mandated 10 day period. Even after SMC’s long silence, and another chance to set an appeal hearing, both Sammis and President Tsang have lapsed into silence. Again, I would re-read my blog pertaining to all these emails and letters between SMC and myself.

I would also suggest reading the SMC Faculty Association website to see what a courageous long-standing battle our faculty members have had to fight to try to get their rights acknowledged by Robert Sammis, who is the lead negotiator for our school. Those in charge of the Faculty Association are very admirable role models for all of us.

I hope my answers point you in the right direction.
Des

I was just wondering, if these individuals don’t actually view your behavior as dangerous, then what makes this case so special that so many individuals would rally to try and have you exluded, and in many cases seek to have you removed by police? Are there some other factors involved? The claims of abuse listed on your site do not seem to add up to the version of the events that were posted. It makes it hard to figure out who is in the wrong.

Also, I read on your website your request for an extension of your suspension hearing due to your lawyer being on vacation. Is it fair to complain that the extension deadline has breached the 10 day period when you specifically requested extra time to coordinate with your lawyer?

I am more than happy to respond to your last email, and SMC’s long laundry list of allegations against me to undermine my credibility. Since I have covered this issue extensively on my blog, I will be concise.

As to the first two allegations, I was exonerated of these charges by SMC Campus Disciplinarian Judith Penchansky in her letter to me a year ago. To bring these charges again is in violation of my Constitutional rights as it places me in “double jeopardy.” In other words, a person should not be charged with the same crime twice, esp. after one has been found innocent.

I have written many blog articles about these charges and the wrongful suspension in general. The AET Advanced Search link on my SAVE SMC blog will take you to a comprehensive database that I have built with keywords and topics pertaining to what I have written about over the last year.

I filed a timely appeal concerning my suspension on June 6, 2006. At this time, the California Education Code states that SMC should have given me an appeal hearing within 10 days. To date, SMC continues to violate my rights by denying me such a hearing. Since SMC has lost its jurisdication due to its failure to comply with the law, I have requested that the suspension be set aside. You can also read my two certified letters to President Chui L. Tsang either on my blog or in my database.

To date, SMC has also violated the law for almost a year by failing to allow me to physically inspect my disciplinary files. Moreover, no one at SMC has ever met with me in person to discuss these allegations, except for the first two of which I was exonerated over a year ago. In fact, Professor Jim Keeshen confirmed that he was blackmailed to write false allegations against me on fear of job loss. This too, is covered extensively on my blog.

If SMC does not elect to set aside the suspension and goes through with the appeal hearing, I have made it open to the public. You are more than welcome to attend if you wish. I think it will be a very educational process for all of us, to help understand how SMC operates without even a hint of fundamental fairness or consistency and how our First Amendment rights and due process rights have been grossly violated.

In any reasonable court of law, a person is found innocent before proven guilty. However, at Santa Monica College, a person is found guilty before being proven innocent. The burden of proof should lie with the accuser, not the accused. If I felt I was guilty of these charges, I would not advertise that fact in a public forum such as my blog. I only do so because I feel I am innocent and so that others similarly situated may be helped to fight their wrongful suspension or expulsion from school.

I hope this answers your legitimate questions.

Very Truly Yours,

Des Manttari,
Student, Santa Monica College

“The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”

I know that Longwing has worked tirelessly for the rights of the students to be informed. If he has exhausted his administrative remedies, it is necessary to seek outside intervention to enforce the law. If SMC is unwilling, or unable, to comply with the law, and thus keep its own house in order, then someone else, District Attorney, or otherwise, must step in.

Regardless of whether a student becomes an ICC rep, an AS member, or a student trustee, they should familiarize themselves with all relevant SMC Board Policies, Administrative Regulations, and California Education Codes and Government Codes that apply. If one takes a class, one receives a grade presumably that is fair and equitable to the mastery of the subject matter. If a student who holds a position of power willingly accepts that position, the student should also be graded accordingly. Someone who is responsible would gladly accept the criticism and try to improve. We should place principles over personalities. Let’s embrace the message, not personally attack the messengers.

If Concerned Student has anyone he or she admires, it would be helpful to know his or her name, and what that person has done to champion our rights as students. Believe me, we need more courageous students who are willing to step up to the plate. Conversely, if there is anyone who is intentionally or negligently disregarding our rights, we should be informed of such individuals so that we can address them in their public capacity in order to have meaningful dialogue.

We are all students. We all have something to contribute and we all make mistakes. Is this not part of the learning process? Rather than generalize over whether men or women are more logical, let’s focus on the specifics of how we are going to improve our school, a school that is struggling with enrollment recovery issues, lacks general accountability, and tramples student rights. Longwing has provided a forum to bring forth very crucial issues that need to be addressed. Let’s help him along by contributing positive suggestions and encouragement.

Like Longwing, I have worked tirelessly to expose problems at our school. I know the time and energy such a blog takes to run. I, too, have received both praise and personal attacks. I have received tremendous backlash from those in power such as administrators and campus police. When the civil rights movement was going forward in the 1960s, Malcolm X and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had two opposing viewpoints. When civil rights activists started arguing over their various camps, the entire movement suffered. United we are strong and divided we shall fall. Let’s try to ask what we have to each offer. Together, we will all have a stronger unified voice.

Ignorance is not stupidity. If someone implies that you are ignorant, you are not alone in that predicament. We are all ignorant about most things. In fact, the longer you tread the path of the student, the more you will realize you are ignorant about virtually everything, relatively speaking. Hopefully, some humility follows. It’s obvious The Siege has none of it, though, but we’re messed up.

You ask, “If someone speaks condescendingly in a consistent, almost constant manner, what does that imply?” I guess it could imply a great many things (if in fact the tone was condescending, as opposed to disdainful, mocking, patronizing, et al), but I am not interested in speculating what those things might all be, other than that “someone” was expressing their position with a certain color indicating they disagree with you. The Siege is less concerned with the tone than with the substance of the content. Friendly or in your face, it doesn’t matter.

For instance, if someone was to say, “George W. Bush is the most honorable guy who’s ever sat in the Oval Office,” either we’re looking for the punch line, or we want to see a reasoned argument about how someone could even string such words together. (Yeah, okay, we did, but, you know, we’re The Siege.) Absent it being a joke, we’d expect people to pounce on such an absurdity, and with all kinds of attitude. Colorless, dull essays are for torturing the professor who dared give the assignment in class. This isn’t that.

As for “jumping to conclusions,” the thread speaks for itself. I don’t want to rehash it. This series of comments has wildly deviated from the topic, which was centered on the Office of Student Life’s receipt of a letter from the D.A., and why. It would be good to have comments on that, besides the round and round on how unfair some think it is to criticize students.

You express yourself well and it is good to have your contributions.