I first learned of the removal of ESL classes from the jurisdiction of the AFA into Continuing Education at a meeting of the AFA Executive Board. The situation was brought to light by our then English Department Representative, the late Robert Blake. Professor Blake indicated that several of his members in the English Department that taught the beginner and intermediate classes had lost these classes and suffered loss of work. One, at least, suffered an adverse impact to his pension.       The administration had, up to this point, not mentioned this action and, as I recall, I put the issue before Dr. Ostling to discuss the ramifications of this unilateral move.

            Dr. Ostling and I had a number of discussions on this matter during which he suggested several different courses of action that the college might take. Of course, none of these discussions really added up to consultation in the official sense. If the administration really wanted to open a new approach to the ESL concept and, in so doing, impact the jurisdiction of the AFA, the proper place to bring this to our attention would have been during negotiations. If this had been done, I feel sure the current difficulty could have been resolved.

            This was not to be the case. Not a word was said because the violation was on going and the college was making a great deal of money on the new program. It seems that despite our informal discussions the college was not ready to move in the direction of reconciling the new program with the AFA contract. The official line of the college was something like, “We have the right to set up any new program we want and the union(s) has nothing to say.”

            Of course, the unions know the administration can propose any program it wishes, but union contracts do limit managerial prerogatives. Neither unions nor administrations can do anything they want to do. Much time has passed and many legal actions are pending. The administration has already agreed that in taking the actions it did it violated the AFA contract. It has also agreed to pay the instructors in the program AFA scale. Changing the name and pretending that LINCC is a new program has fooled no one.

            Their argument that students can’t function and learn if they have more than one teacher is perhaps one of the more ridiculous ones they are using. The reason proffered for this is that if the students had more than one teacher they would become confused by the pronunciation and use of language by different instructors. This means that one instructor must teach the students for 18 contact hours every week for the entire semester. After discussing this rationale with a number of experts in the field, it became clear to me that this was a totally specious argument that had no basis in research, practice, or logic.

            There is no rational reason for insisting that one teacher must teach the same group of students for their entire 18 hour program. But the administration continues to use the above nonsensical reason.

            As the same program with the new name lingers in litigation, the students are victim to the ploy of eliminating the summer session. This does a great disservice to the very students it purports to serve.

            The current program meets only in the spring and fall. The administration hoped to show that this was a full-time program, but they gave up that pretence quickly. The change, however, places a severe limit on the availability of the program to the students.  In addition, the program only meets during the day, not at night. The foreign visa students can work only at the college as student aides. This is a federal regulation. The non-visa students, a majority in the program, can do any work they can get on campus or off. Since the program no longer operates during the evening, these students are now forced to seek employment only at night. This of course restricts the income they can hope to earn. So, in addition to the academic weaknesses brought out by President Loiacono in the February Vanguard, the LINCC program harms in other ways the very people it means to serve. This program has failed because it lacked union involvement, the very thing the administration sought to avoid. Left to their own designs, they exploited unqualified teachers, shafted foreign students, and violated union contracts. But they did make money.