New College Independent Alumni/ae Association

Now that New College is closed and bandits are busy looting the remains, the 

Peter Gabel coterie is probably getting nervous about having to return 

ill-gotten gains. Should a class-action lawsuit materialize against them, 

that is a real possibility.

So what better way to derail the alumni than to drive a wedge between the 

alumni leadership? After all, the tactic of divide and conquer was standard 

operating procedure for the Gabel gang in preventing democratization of the 

school for three decades. They've honed the technique of infiltrating, 

rumor-mongering, and back-stabbing to an art. (There is now evidence pointing 

to a recent undercover operation by a true-believer of the Gabel cult to cozy 

up to some of the alumni leadership in order to undermine the most vocal of 

Gabel's critics.)

In social conflict, there are always those who intentionally sow discord as 

part of psychological warfare. There are also those who unintentionally create 

disharmony due to their ignorance or argumentative nature. 

In order to prevail against enemies of social justice, both intentional and 

unintentional subversion of authentic activism must be dealt with. Whether 

those who disrupt productive organizing do so as a result of being misguided 

or malevolent will determine the manner in which they are dealt with, but due 

to the limited energy available for these distractions, needlessly indulging 

them is strategically unwise.

People get emotional under stress, and even civil discussions can get heated. 

But better that discussions take place than not. Otherwise, no learning. I 

could avoid criticism by flattering the ignorant or cajoling the delinquent, 

but that requires sacrificing the goals we've set. 

Over the years I've discovered that teaching and mentoring means that students 

and proteges sometimes turn on the messenger. It's unfortunate, but it happens. 

But with agents of discord, I find it's best to point out their game straight 

off before they can do much damage. A good policy is that everyone's welcome who 

participates in good faith. Those who don't can suffer the consequences.

Since November, professors at New College law school have been working without 

paychecks, but with the promise of pay. Now that the school has lost its 

accreditation, these professors have been asked to sign a document saying they 

will work for free but reserve rights against the school. According to our 

source, the faculty members pushing this falsely claim that this is what WASC 

wants for the teach-out of existing law students.  

While New College now threatens to replace anyone that will not sign this form, 

they have apparently not checked with outside counsel as to how the form will 

impact a creditor position in a bankruptcy, nor have they checked on how this 

would affect the faculty filing for unemployment benefits. They just say they 

have plenty of friends in the wings to teach if they will not sign.

What is funny is, the two faculty insisting on this signing of forms have 

alleged job guarantees from JFK law school in consideration for delivering 

the majority of New College students to JFK to open a possible 2nd law school 

in Berkeley which they claim all along is what they have had plans to do. So 

in reward for hanging in there with their distraught students since the 

financial scandal hit New College last July, the law school professors are now 

having to choose between their students and their right to get paid.  

To state the obvious, these guys need a lawyer.

A class-action lawsuit by New College alumni against Peter Gabel, et al would undoubtedly be a real circus. But should the alumni determine that it might be worth the effort and expense to sue the trustees for damages, there are some tangible remedies to consider. One of those — based on alumni input — would be the establishment of a community service center that would provide guest instructors, motivational speakers, and mentors from the alumni association as a resource to other schools and colleges. In this way, alumni could receive stipends or fees and simultaneously support ongoing community service consistent with the stated mission of their alma mater. My recommendation would be to use a court settlement to establish this facility in the Mission District of San Francisco. My suggestion for a name is the Ani Mander Service Center.

As the many comments on the February 13 San Francisco Chronicle article about New College’s collapse observe, the story is mostly one of malign neglect of faculty and alumni by a group of self-selected trustees who found a common interest in self-promotion. Part of that self-promotion included marketing degrees in such areas as activism and social change, rather than using more traditional connotations like political science. The coursework and emphasis of study could be the same, but the deliberate naming of programs in recent years to either reflect the ideology of trustees or to support the intentional marketing of a defiant image only contributed to the marginalization of the school.

Were the trustees truly devoted to nurturing agents of social change, they would have offered such academic freedom within recognized fields that would have enabled graduates to pursue these interests unhampered by social conventions. Other state and private universities in the Bay Area do this, and their alumni are able to enter academia and other realms seamlessly while achieving noble goals. For some reason, New College trustees thought they had to present an eccentric image to succeed. They were obviously wrong.

The school’s failure to provide academic conferences, a thesis catalogue, mentoring, and other alumni services, shows that the trustees sole interest was in milking students for federal funds and then abandoning them. This unconscionable malfeasance deserves redress.

With a decision on accreditation due any day, the New College trustees have sent a “new” eleventh hour plan to the accrediting agency–the dog ate our homework, so please give us more time. We kid you not.

Of course the whining includes lots of smoke blowing about what the trustees might do if given another chance, but as usual there is no explanation of why they neglected to do anything they promised eight months ago, or five years ago, or twelve years ago. Also in line with their long tradition of not accepting personal responsibility for the mess they’ve created, the trustees blamed the Department of Education in their latest list of excuses. Anything to avoid accountability.

The sooner this nonsense ends the better.