Directing 'little people' from slanted windows

When acts of power become acts of abuse

It's disturbing when people in high places turn on those with little or no voice. This is the case with the campus e-mail sent Monday by President F. King Alexander about Proposition 92, the community college initiative.

I'm not as troubled that Alexander opines on an issue as I am in the spin he put on it at the Associated Students, Inc. Senate two days later.

What bothers me intensively is the manipulative nature in which he set about sending a mixed message to our community.

The original letter was sort of ambiguous as far as where he stands on Proposition 92. It appeared more like an informational message.

But he declared openly at the Senate meeting that he was not taking a stance as president of a university, but as a teacher and parent.

This public admonition is contrary to the original Monday mailing and more strongly-worded follow-up e-mail he sent on Friday. In the latter e-mail, he takes a clear stand, not as a professor or parent, but as the university president.

Much like all other measures being confused on T.V., he lists an influential list of opponents to 92. At a glance, they even seem credible. With a deeper reflection, though, they are overt in their mass paranoia of being cut off at the knees.

This is a selfish, self-serving approach and is a clear abuse of power. I perceive it as cow-towing to the whims of the CSU Board of Trustees, which I believe Alexander hopes to lead when Chancellor Charles Reed retires.

Ambition can blind judgment.

Tens of thousands of transfer students from community colleges strive each year to reach the university level to earn a higher degree. But Alexander feeds into the Educ-Hater's plan to divide higher education's once-unified lobby coalition.

In backing this assault on community colleges by advocating a "no" vote on 92, Alexander is essentially feeding transfer students to the wolves in Sacramento.

This is irresponsible as a president, as an educator, as a civic leader, and more significantly, as a parent. Current and future public university hopefuls are being dumped on and our own president is driving the truck.

Certainly, his children won't be deprived of educational opportunities. He has their backs. But what about minorities and low-income students who rely on lower-division academics to realize their hopes and dreams?

If his own children were dependent on attending community college to reach the higher plateau, his message would be differently toned. He would be eating his young with his manipulative abuse of position but, because they're not on the equity menu, the rest of our youth are edible.

Muscle can outweigh values

Young people from CSULB voting in their first election will take him at his authoritative word and vote "no" on 92. Faculty and administrators will deem his message as a threat to job security and vote against this important measure. This is fear and loathe to civic responsibility.

I spent many years at Long Beach City College trying to make it to the university system because it was the only way I could make afford basking at The Beach. My sons also must attend community colleges to knock off their lower division coursework, in hopes that they too will grab a more significant parchment.

Apparently, the view from a slanted window in an ivory tower or penthouse office is different that the one down here on the streets, where community college is the only viable and affordable escape from poverty that doesn't require firearms and chicanery.