Lanning, Partie de Trente-Sept

I know I said I'd never come back here but I decided I would to share two pieces of information, one self-serving and the other as a public good.

First, let you know that I'll soon be opening a blog at a new site called "The Old Rhetorician's Divertissements." 

Second, and related to the first, is a rhetorical analysis made by my friend Michael Van Meter in a letter to the editor of the Bend Bulletin.   I was given permission by Stacey Donohue to repost her Facebook status update reprint of the letter along with the Bulletin's response.

Original letter:

Stacey:  The Letter to the Editor that The Bulletin refused to print because they disagreed with the author. Discuss.


Blaming the victim?

To the editors:
My head hurts on this sleepy Saturday from The Bulletin's front-page re-framing of the Associated Press’s story on a lawsuit against Chemeketa Community College and Patrick Lanning.  [As posted  at Oregon Live.)

The AP:
SALEM, Ore. — A woman who accused a community college administrator of raping her has sued the school, seeking at least $4.8 million and alleging it knew of the man's "history of sexual misconduct" and failed to protect her.

The Bulletin’s revision:

SALEM — A woman whose accusation of rape derailed Central Oregon Community College’s presidential search last spring has sued the Salem-area college where she and her alleged attacker worked at the time, seeking at least $4.8 million and alleging the college knew of the man’s “history of sexual misconduct” and failed to protect her.

Leaving aside the lead sentence's word count — ballooned to 51 words from an already-long 35 — I am perturbed that The Bulletin blames the victim for the derailed search. This is especially aggravating given that it is Lanning who is alleged to have committed acts not befitting a would-be college president, and it is Chemeketa Community College that failed to disclose Lanning’s administrative leave during background checks by COCC. Who derailed this search?

I understand well the importance of localizing the perspective on the wire story. In doing so, it is vital to not simultaneously transform the story into an accusation against someone exercising her rights in federal court.

Michael Van Meter
Bend, Oregon

The Bulletin's Response (according to Stacey's "comment" post):

 Thank you for your submission.
I have read and reread this introduction that you brought to my attention. I showed it to two of my colleagues, as well.
I don't think it blames the victim. Neither do my colleagues. Your letter is rejected.

Richard Coe
Editorial Page Editor
The Bulletin
541-383-0353

There was also a VERY interesting set of comments but I do not have permission from those folks to quote them here.   Suffice to say, some folks recognized at least one rhetorical fallacy in the Bulletin's response.  (An an emotional appeal to conformity.)

For more of what I had to say about similar issues related to Patrick Lanning, please see this post.  It's possible I was also blaming the victim.  Someone could let me know.  (Because there are forms of rhetorical analysis that seek the subconscious intentions of the creator of the discourse, I know that I might be expressing a discourse with which I disagree without a complete understanding of my utterances.  In other words, I can, without meaning to, say stupid things.  Like most humans.  And some cats (see Henri Part Deux) Nevertheless, I continue to believe this was a moderately sedate rhetorical analysis of the situation.

LY #121 Presidential Candidate Visit #3

Patrick Lanning on left*

As a feminist I hate to say it but I liked the dude the best of the three.  Dr. Patrick Lanning is from Prineville and I have a feeling that COCC would not be a springboard for him to better places.  He said that this was the only place he was applying -- that he wasn't on a job search.

I like the idea of a college president who stays for ten years or more.  Would he?  In his autobiographical statement he mentioned that his mentors in the trade of academic administration (both women) had advised him to move from Lane to Chemeketa for more and wider experience.  So I could be wrong about reading him as wanting to make a longer term commitment to COCC.  Yet at the end of his presentation he spoke about wanting to return to Central Oregon to be with family here.  Some of what he talked about seemed a bit too personal and yet not atypical for this part of the country.

What I liked about Patrick Lanning was his quiet focus on others combined with some self-awareness of both his strengths and weaknesses and a good dose of humor.  He had a speaking habit of closing his eyes when beginning to answer a question, as though blocking out extra stimulation so that he could think clearly about what he was being asked.  (He also had the old Eddie Foy spit problem when he was excited and at one point apologized to the folks in the front row.)   He was more aware of some of COCC's challenges than the other two candidates seemed to be.  He showed some concern about our faculty being too part-time and adjunct heavy.  His talk about planning six years into the future and finding out more about where people are at now rather than barging in with lots of vision was nice for my financially conservative little heart to hear.

I especially appreciated the answer he gave me when I asked him a question about his dissertation, The Implementation of a Year of Shared Governance at a Vanguard Community College.  I'd looked at the abstract and some of his findings a couple of weeks ago but I hadn't noticed that Jim Middleton had been a member of his doctoral  committee.  In the dissertation, Lanning analyzes the effectiveness of governance councils and other aspects of shared governance. He has great concerns about the involvement of stakeholders in institutional decisions that impact their lives.   I wanted to ask him about how he differed from his former committee member.  So after identifying myself as a soon-to-be retiree, I asked about what if any philosophical differences he saw between himself and Dr. Middleton.

He smiled and hesitated and laughed (there was general laughter in the room).  Then he said, "I'm not sure what to say" and went on to say that he'd really only gotten to know Jim over the past two years  after working with him on various statewide community college issues.  He said that he didn't know if Jim had this motivation but that "I am passionate about the community college's job of lifting people out of poverty."  He then went on to note, "I enjoy working closely as a team and I trust the people I work with."  It wasn't clear if he thought this was also a "difference" between the two of them.  He also said that Jim had helped him to get better at interjecting his own opinion rather than always standing back as he used to and spend too much time listening.  He finished his answer by pausing and then saying, "However all that fits with how you see Dr. Middleton."

I thought this answer a combination of directly stated values and slyly critical observation.  But I could be wrong.

 The only thing that seemed a bit flashy about the quiet Patrick Lanning was the honking hefty emerald in that college ring flashing green sparks throughout the Q n A.


* In photo from Oregon Community College Association website:
Patrick Lanning - President, Yamhill Valley Campus, Chemeketa Community College
Ed Dodson - Board Member, Chemeketa Community College
Judith Ervin - OCCA President and Board Member, Clackamas Community College