Search News


Browse Archives

News

Fiscal Prudence or Scare Tactics

August 10, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

It wasn't the kind of memo a college's employees like to receive. Carolyn Denham, the president of Pacific Oaks College, sent the note this summer outlining plans to "stabilize" and "sustain" the college and calling for the development of a "contingency plan for a teach-out of the college" should those plans fail. The memo pledged the president's commitment to "saving the college," but much of the language suggested a crisis. There were references to a hiring freeze, problems with "unauthorized commitments" and the need for college activities to be "managed more tightly" -- all in the name of "giving us the best chance of stabilizing and sustaining the college."

Many things about the memo disturbed faculty members and alumni. But one thing seemed especially odd to them. All signs of late have been that the college was in as strong shape financially as it has ever been -- a view that the president had boasted about in other notes and that accreditors had verified. Why would a president imply that her college was in danger of going under?

The answer depends on whom you talk to. Many alumni and current and former professors believe that the president is trying to curb the idealism that has made Pacific Oaks a beloved if unusual institution. Based in Pasadena, Calif., Pacific Oaks focuses on early childhood -- training future teachers, counselors and human development professionals, in both undergraduate and master's programs. A hallmark of the Pacific Oaks tradition has been the ability of faculty members to create special outreach efforts for low-income parts of the state. If there was a poor area that lacked teachers or resources, Pacific Oaks professors might go there, set up weekend classes, recruit students and personally see it through until a cohort was trained.

As part of the process of "saving" the college, Denham has shut down the office that manages such outreach efforts and announced strict new controls on them -- barring any new enrollments in them for now. The president's critics -- who say her desire for "order" is a poor match for the college -- say that she was trying to scare the campus into going along with her agenda.

Denham, in an interview this week, acknowledged that the college is not in danger of going under and is in fact in good financial shape, running surpluses every year and watching its enrollment and endowment grow. She characterized her memo as just one of responsible contingency planning and said she wasn't trying to scare anyone. She said that it was her determination to keep the college healthy that led her to take the unpopular steps she outlined in her memo.

Pacific Oaks "is clearly a progressive college in the way things are taught," she said, "but in the way things are run, we have to be part of the world of doing things in a business-like way."

The backdrop for the debate at Pacific Oaks is fear that too many progressive colleges are endangered. Antioch University's plans to suspend operations of Antioch College have received the most attention. But in recent weeks, the New College of California has been in turmoil over probation imposed by its accreditor, faculty anger at the administration, and the president's admission that he let a student from Nepal enroll without following standard procedures, expecting the student to subsequently be able to make a large gift.

Dissent at Pacific Oaks is on the one hand hard to identify -- many faculty members are unwilling to speak, even without their names attached, saying that they fear for their jobs. But a Web site called Pacific Oaks SOS is full of documents from the college, analysis of what critics consider flaws or inconsistencies with those documents, and calls for fighting the president's agenda. Several people associated with Pacific Oaks who would not talk about their feelings about the situation said that the SOS Web site is an accurate reflection of the concerns.

In essence both sides at Pacific Oaks see the difficulties at Antioch and elsewhere as a model. Denham is clearly mindful that other idealistic colleges have died, unable to sustain themselves. The president's critics note that Antioch University's attempt to provide what it considers sound financial management of the college could lead to its downfall, and say that the lesson of Antioch is to challenge administrators who don't share a college's vision.

Elizabeth Prescott, a professor emeritus at Pacific Oaks, said she was willing to speak publicly because she is retired and in touch with many who are fearful. "The situation has puzzled everyone. We are not in a financial crisis," Prescott said. A college focused on training early childhood educators is never going to have a Harvard-sized endowment, and Prescott said that while money has always been carefully watched, the college's leaders historically have been engaged with its mission. The current board is dominated by business leaders. Previously, Prescott said, board members regularly chatted informally with professors and shared ideas. Now the situation is much more hierarchical.

"We've always had certain core values -- open communication, trust, respect, and a lot of curiosity and willingness to take certain risks," Prescott said. In contrast, the current leaders of the colleges have "a bureaucratic vision."

Denham is "trying to change the college into an institution where everything is very neat and tidy and she can control it and there are no loose ends, and that is quite different from our vision."

Faculty members freely acknowledge that some of their programs -- especially the off-campus efforts in low-income areas -- were not neat and tidy, and didn't always involve top-level administrators. The idea was that the best people to promote early childhood education may be those who already are part of a local community, may already have years of working with children, and have relationships with local parents and schools. But these people may lack a formal education or money for tuition. To Prescott and others, these efforts -- set up in communities all over California -- represent the college's commitment to a vision that all children deserve great teachers. So groups of Pacific Oaks professors would create these programs in various communities.

To many professors, the graduates of these programs represent Pacific Oaks reaching students who would never otherwise be trained as teachers or counselors -- and directly helping some of the most disadvantaged areas of the state.

In an interview, Denham said that she wasn't necessarily opposed to these programs -- just to the way they were run. As the college reviews its plans, she said, it's possible that the off-campus efforts might be restored.

But in her memo to the staff, Denham described these efforts without much reference to the idealism that has motivated them, but with frustration about the way they didn't follow procedures.

"It is a new day," Denham wrote. "No longer will Pacific Oaks allow employees to make unauthorized commitments of any kind on behalf of Pacific Oaks. This applies to any commitments, including those made to outside organizations, to students, to current employees, and to prospective employees. Unauthorized commitments have been a major source of our financial difficulties. Individuals who make commitments without appropriate authorization are subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination."

On Thursday, after she was interviewed for this article, Denham posted an update on the college's situation on the Pacific Oaks Web site. The brief update is generally much more positive than the earlier memo, and says that "there is no better place than Pacific Oaks College for the education of leaders in professions relating to children and families." But even in this note, the off-campus efforts are criticized. "These off-campus centers were being run in a way that was out of compliance with the board-approved model and that would have led to financial uncertainty," Denham writes.

In the interview, Denham spoke with pride about the college being in good shape. Enrollment of more than 1,200 is about twice what it was when she arrived as president nine years ago. Denham said she would like to see enrollment rise to 2,000. She was clear that -- even with the off-campus efforts she banned -- the college has not faced any serious financial crisis.

All of which raises the question of why she urged the employees to develop a plan that might include shutting down the college. "What you have here is an unusual board and administration," she said. With any business, "you start to run and say what's the upside and you look at contingency plans for the downside." That's all that's been happening at the college, she said.

It's all about "being realistic," she said. "So many small colleges don't make it that we are focused on making it. We are focused on it -- maybe to a fault."

But to others involved with Pacific Oaks, the talk of just being responsible doesn't ring true. When employees received a memo about planning for the event the college couldn't be saved, "we believed it," said one former faculty member. "I don't buy it," she said of Denham's argument that she is just being fiscally prudent. "It's hardly responsible to tell people the college might be shut down when that's not what she's going to do."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Fiscal Prudence or Scare Tactics

  • President G.W. Denham
  • Posted by Viva Pacific Oaks!!! , Sophia's Momma at Pacific Oaks College on August 11, 2007 at 5:15am EDT
  • You know, I am getting sick and tired of the flip-flopping that President Denham, or as we like to call her, "The Decider", has been doing. Is the college in trouble or not? Are you closing the college or not? Are you lawyering-up because your husband and his other lawyer friends advised you to do so? I am so tired of the drama and controversy that I will not continue my MA under Dictator Denham's reign. I waited YEARS to attend this awesome college and now that I am here, I am sad and dissappointed. The outright disrespect that the President has shown the students, staff and faculty at PO is in no way indicative of the mission of the college and I believe that the only thing that can save our school is a thorough cleansing of the hatred, bigotry and "business-like" principles that are corrupting our vision. Pacific Oaks is too good for these cancers that infect our campus. It's time for a change. I hope that everyone will see through the President's B.S. and call for her impeachment. Visit www.pacificoakssos.com for more info and make up your own mind.

  • Posted by Front Load on August 11, 2007 at 10:00am EDT
  • If the faculty of Pacific Oaks College have any sense, they will be developing plans to "stabilize” and “sustain” the college; and Carolyn Denham can expect them to soon call for a “contingency plan for her to administrate-out of the college.”

  • Intimidating the Faculty
  • Posted by Bonnie's Mom on August 11, 2007 at 5:40pm EDT
  • From reading the Pacific Oaks SOS website I see one very good reason that faculty were unwilling to be quoted for this article; "President Denham denied the validity of the PO Faculty Policy and Procedures Manual, approved by the Board of Trustees in 1989, that contained the equivalent of a tenure system. Academic freedom is no longer protected, faculty work on a year-to-year basis with no guarantee of being re-hired regardless of their length of employment with Pacific Oaks."

  • Posted by Megan George , Anon at Pacific Oaks Student on August 12, 2007 at 6:20am EDT
  • Dr. Denham spoke with my class at Pacific Oaks this week. The first this she said is that, "There is no crisis." We noted some inconsistencies in other statements of hers, as well; and we're each planning to contact Dr. Denham as well as the board this week. Tell everyone you know to sign the petition at the SOS site, please. We need your help!

  • Posted by Dr. James Squires on August 13, 2007 at 9:25am EDT
  • Pacific Oaks has been one of the true leaders in the field of early childhood education and is one of the primary reasoss that early education has finally gained the national recognition it has long deserved. It would be a travesty if this voice was lost.

  • Trust
  • Posted by Disillusioned PO Alumna on August 14, 2007 at 9:35am EDT
  • When a group of alumna and the Friends of Pacific Oaks started to go public with their concerns - THAT'S when we heard from President Denham saying that there was no financial crisis.

    It seems to me it's a matter of trust. I trust the faculty and Friends of PO implicitly. I do not trust Carolyn Denham or her chosen Board of Directors.

  • Carolyn Denham
  • Posted by Donna Frances Smith , Student at Pacific Oaks College on August 15, 2007 at 10:50am EDT
  • I didn' use her title because she doesn't deserve it. She is systematically taking down the college, I think somehow, she will have financial gain. She had lied, avoided answering questions at the student forums. She appointed her friends to the board so she could follow her own agenda. She systematically shut down the Seattle campus when the students had found a donor who would save the campus with a large donation. Ms Denham called the donor and cancelled it. She succeeded in closing the Seattle Campus.
    She would make a good con artist, she has all the skills.
    Sincerely,
    Donna Smith

  • View of a Faculty Member
  • Posted by A Core Faculty Member on August 17, 2007 at 9:15am EDT
  • I am very appreciative of your investigative article into the affairs of Pacific Oaks College, where I serve as one of the core faculty. I am equally appreciative of the opportunity to offer my personal thoughts and experiences about the welfare of our college, and the present status, given the recent administrative decisions about our college. I need to do this anonymously, since, like my other fellow members of the faculty, whom you quote in your article, I dare not identify myself, for fear of losing my job.

    One of the issues that I have serious concerns about is that the language of the annual contract I have had to sign this current year for my position, along with all my colleagues, has been changed by the administration to, in effect, establish me and the rest of us, as “at will” employees of Pacific Oaks College, jeopardizing, in the process, our personal sense of safety in our academic positions, and thereby reducing our experience of academic freedom, when serving our students.

    Your article discusses at length the position of the college administration, specifically, President Denham, and her wish to “prudently plan” for the present and the future of the college. I would like to discuss briefly, my individual experience of that planning, as I see it from my vantage point.

    Five years ago, our President gave our college the mandate to double our tuition revenue, within a fairly short amount of time, in order to increase our fiscal viability, as per our President’s estimation. The Core Faculty group, all four of our departments, pursued this mandate without question, and under the leadership of our recently departed Provost, Dr. Corinne McGuigan, we were significantly successful in that challenging goal.
    In 2005, our College passed successfully the most recent accreditation review by WASC, the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. The review was so successful that our next full review was scheduled for 2010, an indication that the review committee thought we were doing quite well. A central focus of that particular review was our challenging growth plan, which included a strong expansion of our graduate and undergraduate programs into several areas of California, where diverse communities were in need of our degree programs, but were also particularly interested in the type of special and unique pedagogical philosophy that Pacific Oaks College is noted for.

    A year later, in June 2006, President Denham was particularly effusive about the state of affairs of our College, and was particularly proud of our strong expansion of our “off campus” programs all around the state. For example I offer this quote from the President’s report at that, which is still posted onto our college website:

    "Now let’s imagine a tour of Pacific Oaks Academic Centers around California. These Academic Centers, the fastest growing part of the College, respond to community requests for Pacific Oaks degree programs. Last year, we had two groups of students in Academic Centers. This year we have eight. We will come close to doubling that number next year. We are able to deliver programs of uniformly high quality, with faculty from the Pasadena campus teaching most of the courses. The financial plan for the Centers allows Pacific Oaks to remain nimble by sticking to short-term commitments. To begin our virtual tour of the Academic Centers, let’s first travel up to Visalia, in the agricultural center of California, where three groups of Latina/Latino Family Therapy students are earning master’s degrees and setting up a social services structure for agricultural workers in the area. The next stop is in nearby Porterville, where the community, having seen Pacific Oaks successes in Visalia, requested that we offer graduate programs in early childhood education. Next we travel to Salinas, where we offer the only bilingual bachelor’s degree in early childhood education in California. Next we stop in Oakland, where we continue to meet the need for early childhood education leaders in the Bay Area. Next we continue up to Sacramento, and then to Chico, then back down to San Diego for additional early childhood education graduate programs. We complete our imaginary tour in Palm Springs, where we serve students from a large geographic area including parts of Arizona that had lacked graduate programs in early childhood." (PRESIDENT’S 2006 ANNUAL REPORT, Carolyn H. Denham, Ph.D., BUILDING THE FUTURE OF PACIFIC OAKS, Delivered to the Pacific Oaks Associates, June 2, 2006)

    Five months later, in November 2006, President Denham requested the resignation of Provost McGuigan, assigned herself the position of Acting Provost, and immediately thereafter put a hold on all new student recruitment to all our off campus programs, numbering twelve graduate and undergraduate programs at the time, in nine different academic centers around California. In January 2007, the President announced the closing of the department that had been responsible for the recruitment of all students to these off campus academic centers. The decisions were taken by the President without substantive consultations with the core faculty group, or with the departments managing these centers and producing these academic programs. Our faculty protested with the President and the Board of Trustees, but the President stood fast in her decisions and the Board backed her fully. The nine communities affected by the hold on student recruitment were simply told of the temporary hold, but, to this day, as the hold continues, the college has not announced a public position on the status and future of all these academic centers, other than what President Denham shared with you in her interview for your article. This recruitment is a serious budgetary item, exactly because of our laudable success in establishing these programs to a point where our off campus programs represented a third of the fiscal 2006/07 college budget.

    These changes have understandably raised serious concerns among the core faculty, the various departments, and with this particular core faculty. To me, these decisions undertaken and mandated by the President of our College sound more like precipitous planning, rather than “prudent planning.” I believe that the reputation of our college and of our prized academic programs has been severely, if not mortally wounded with the affected California communities, not to speak of the communities in the Los Angeles area, which have worked with us, and have believed in us for this past half-century.
    Within our college, the core faculty group and our four departments have received no specific or detailed instructions by the administration, for us to understand what we were doing wrong. The only specific communication that we have received is that we were implementing these cohort programs in a mistaken manner, because we were willing to start a new annual cohort class with less than the 22 students, which these cohort classes were designed for and were allowed to have. Since the departments need to be committed to enrolling new students annually, some cohort classes were started with 15 or less students, depending on our success with student recruitment on a particular year and in a particular community. The total fiscal budget remained always in the black, year after year, both within our off campus academic community, but for the entire college as well.

    Conversely, with the hold on new student recruitment to all these off campus centers, the institution has been deprived of a substantial amount of revenue for the current fiscal year 2007/08. If one calculates an average of 15 students per cohort program, and six semester units of tuition fees per student for the fiscal year of 2007/08, it means that our college has lost around $840,000 of tuition revenue from the non-starting fall 07 classes in these twelve academic programs where recruitment has been put on hold. The President and the Board of Trustees are rightfully talking about needing to “stabilize” the college. Except for the irony, that this temporary need for fiscal stabilization was apparently caused by the Administrative decision to stop twelve different programs cold, nine months ago, with no real contingency plans.
    It seems to me, though I am not a college administrator, that when one decides, or suddenly discovers, that a program is not being implemented in the best possible manner, that one, first, has to sit down and reflect closely, and in collaboration with all participants, what is going wrong, what mistakes have been made, what needs to be improved, and then one can implement the necessary changes and improvements, while the program is still running. To this core faculty person, it does not seem “prudent planning” to stop twelve different academic programs cold, and then do very little for the next nine months, in terms of exploring the issues and deciding the changes, while the actual programs are on a threshold of dying out from neglect. Again, to quote our President from her interview with you, the Administration is still in the process of intending to begin examining the structures and processes of these off campus programs, in order to decide what to do with the programs. This is a serious concern to me, as, I believe, it is with many of my colleagues.

    Last but not least, I would like to discuss briefly the important fact that the Board of Trustees has been solidly behind the President of Pacific Oaks. Pacific Oaks is a unique institution in that it started from a children’s school, with the college evolving out of the need to train teachers and other human service providers to work in Early Childhood.

    The College started 50 years ago and grew and became well known, while the children’s school remained small, and actually shrank to teach preschool age children only, serving our affluent Pasadena community. Pacific Oaks College and Children’s School has been functioning for decades out of two high-priced real estate properties, owned by the institution, in the expensive part of residential Pasadena. One property with several buildings houses our Children’s School, the other property with two buildings used to house the entire College, but since the rapid expansion of the college in the last decade, it currently only houses the College Administration, while the rest of the college, all classrooms and department and faculty offices, are housed in two leased buildings nearby.

    Historically, the members to the Board of Trustees have been recruited primarily from the pool of affluent Pasadena parents, whose children attend, or have attended our Children’s School. Even our current President, who used to be a member of our Board, had her daughter attend our Children’s School many years ago. Conversely, few Board members have an personal bond to our College, and equally few members are recruited, who have substantive connections to, and expertise in Higher Education.

    here are hearsay reports that the various buildings housing the Childrens’ School are so old that they need major upkeep, to the tune of several million dollars, which the institution does not have. One ugly rumour says, if the college is phased out, according to one of the contingency plans currently being considered by the President, that the eventual sale of the college will free the second expensive, multimillion dollar property that houses the College

    Administration to be put up for sale, thereby providing the deferred maintenance budget needed for the buildings of the Childrens’ School, as well as doubling or tripling the present endowment available to the Childrens’ School. These ugly rumours are not making me, personally, or any body else rest any easier.

    Thank you for the space to share these thoughts,

    Sincerely,

    One Core Faculty from Pacific Oaks College

  • P.O. leadership and changes
  • Posted by Barbara Fowler , none at none - P.O. alumnae (Headstart training) on August 21, 2007 at 11:40am EDT
  • I just wanted to thank you for this article. It has been impossible for many of us to understand what is going on at Pacific Oaks, though much of what this article says is what several of us suspected from our own experience in various other institutions with the post-WW2 institutional leadership 'style'.

    This style is dictatorial rather than democratic; revolutionary rather than evolutionary; secretly deceiving and subtely controlling from the beginning so able to destroy the old and build new power structures unnoticed; effectively silencing opposition who usually depart, forcibly or voluntarily, without public notice; recruiting supporters
    whose own values plus allegiance to the leader and his/her new enthusiastic cause blinds them to faults, deceit, illogic, inconsistencies, financial irresponsibilities, and any need for truly open discussion or careful analysis of actions. Ie, this generation of leaders thrive on receiving the benefit of any doubts by both supporters and opposition for a long time, usually till it's too late for their opposition to be effective.

    The question is, do we want to continue making our changes in this fashion? What determines whether the changes are good in the long run? What proportion of them are necessary and what undesirable? And how can this be decided when the decisions are usually so unilaterally made (though not without plenty of support from new faces and some old ones)?.

    More to the point, how could we alter this pattern of change-making back to a more democratic, friendly, and trusting one if we wanted to? This is an urgent question right now because we're losing the generation who knew how to operate that way to wealthier 'I Did it My Way' generations.

    Real democracy requires slow Evolution, involving tough consultation with core constituents and thoughtful contingency plans for all changes proposed. Your article makes plain President Denham is just one more Baby Boomer Revolutionary leader - we've experienced them in public school districts, city managers, college presidents, church ministers, and retirement home executives to date. Their approach requires destroying both the values and the leaders of what presently exists before the new 'vision' can replace them. We are just reaping the results of this leadership change in values of the last 50 years. It is especially sad in Education, which really should carry forward some very different values than the Business community even though it needs to be fiscally responsible.

    This is all that is going on at Pacific Oaks. With tragic results for all concerned, and the fields of education and history, if the Board and President in all our private instutions truly have the power to fire people, close programs, and restructure teachers' powers unilaterally the way President Denham seems to have done. But hasn't our federal Attorney General just done the same sort of thing in his field, with no real negative consequences? Democratic, legal, and Constitutional understandings have changed without our realizing it.

    The comment about the upkeep expense and potential worth of the historic Children's School properties is much more crucial than any of us want to face. Realists immediately suspected this was involved. Money has changed the face of America since World War 2. It is now the tail wagging all our dogs. Idealists, at Pacific Oaks just as in small towns and national political parties, must face the financial issues but find different outcomes than the current administrators, if 'idealism' or many former cultural values are to stay afloat.

    Other and more powerful private colleges and universities will come to the aid of the President and Board of Pacific Oaks if this disagreement becomes a legal challenge, in order to protect their own institutional rights. And there is no countervailing power wealthy enough (especially with the business people on the Board of Trustees), nor I think do teachers, alumnae, or a community at large have many legal rights in respect to decisions of private institutional leadership, for the opposition to do much to change what is happening.

    I am not familiar with your publication, but wonder if you have suggestions of what powers, realistically, the teachers and alumnae might have to require open and inclusive planning and change-making procedures. We are dealing with three decades of this sort of problem in other instituitons and have pretty much given up. There has to be countervailing legal and financial oppositional power to force discussion with dictatorial leadership even within what we all thought were democratic structures - it's really very easy just to cut off information, opponents' power, and 'transparency' and that's the end of the democratic procedures. There seems to be no such countervailing power available to us, though we can spend a lot of time and effort explaining or protesting.

    Sincerely, Barbara Fowler

  • The President: Foolish or Diabolical?
  • Posted by Proud PO Alumna on August 25, 2007 at 6:05pm EDT
  • Carolyn is the definition of penny-wise and pound foolish. By declaring a financial crisis, Dr. Denham can (and has) put a freeze on hiring new Core faculty. She is also making it such a difficult environment in which to work that some Core faculty will be (and already are) leaving, and are being replaced by adjunct (part-timers), who are not vetted nearly as carefully as full-time Core faculty are. This, of course, is a great way to save money in the SHORT RUN, but could very well ruin PO, which has always thrived on long-term, highly committed faculty. In addition, it starts a vicious cycle, in that, if more full-time faculty leave, that will leave fewer Core faculty to take care of advising and thesis. (Adjuncts don't to either of those tasks.) This will make each remaining Core instructor's workload bigger and bigger, probably leading to even more resignations. What a foolish and deadly plan of action.
    Another point: It's no secret that the Children's School campus is in need of a few million dollars of repairs. There are those who believe that Dr. Denham actually SEEKS to close the college, sell the property at Westmoreland, and use the money to get the Children's School in shape. And while it not something that can be proven (after all, who can "prove" what's in someone else's head?) it would certainly explain many of Carolyn's foolish and almost irrational acts, such as mentioning (more than once) that the possibility exists that PO will close. She's either an incredibly stupid person for not realizing how explosive such a statement is, how it could cause a classic "run on the bank" or . . . . she's simply putting the above plan in action, in which case she's not stupid, she's diabolical.
    It's a fine situation when we don't even know if the President wants the college to survive.

  • Financial Aid? Significance of diploma?
  • Posted by SUE you! on September 4, 2007 at 2:35am EDT
  • I am absolutely appalled at what I am reading about the current state of affairs at a place I would consider "beloved". I have been both an on-campus and am currently finishing on-line. I am expected to graduate in May. One of the many things I have been looking forward to is going back out to Pasadena for graduation. The amount of money I have had to take out in student loans and financial aid is astronomical. It was worth it to me because I felt at home at Pacific Oaks and I thought I would be getting a degree from a reputable institution.
    If this is no longer the case, what should happen then? I do not feel comforted by the fact that "President" Denham says I will be able to finish my degree because I am enrolled. (I put president in quotes because a president to me is one who leads with and for others not for her own interests). What is the use in doing all of this hard work for a degree that means nothing? If the reputation of the institution is compromised because of her actions, what action should I, along with others take? Maybe Ms. Denham should pay for the thousands of dollars in student loans I have had to pay for a school that may not exist any longer. I can tell you right now that I have not put in this time, effort or money for an education that is not going to take me anywhere. If I need to speak to my lawyer, I will.
    I am disappointed and saddened by the situation that Ms. Denham is creating. It is my hope that we rally to change this and save what is left of our school before it is too late!

  • The Dictator (?)
  • Posted by Half Way Through , Student on November 4, 2007 at 9:00pm EST
  • OK, I've remained quiet abut this and read and listened to everything being said. I am sad about what is happening because as a business person I know that the negative publicity and uncertainty that the PO President is causing will have a profound effect on the incoming donations and the reputation of the school. Why don't we start discussing how to remove her from her position? There has to be a way to facilitate that.

  • Dump the Board!
  • Posted by Anonymoys Sister on December 5, 2007 at 6:30pm EST
  • The Board has little or no knowledge of what is happening at PO--and the President told the faculty that she is refusing to fund-raise for the College. Let the Board have its Children School and their bake sales--we need a new Board that knows how to run a college and hold accountable its President--including Denham's refusal to fundraise! Imagine that--a refusal to fundraise--at any other College she would have been canned for not bringing in the $$$. Come on Board--ask the hard questions!

  • The Setting of Pacific Oaks
  • Posted by Nino on June 28, 2008 at 12:30pm EDT
  • I am a person who grew up close to Pasadena, as I lived in San Gabriel for over forty years. What suprises me about much of this discussion is that, despite all of the arguing and analysis, the setting for Pacific Oaks College should have told us that the type of autocratic dictatorship practiced by Denham and the board is indicative of the exact type of oppression that we, the students at Pacific Oaks, are constantly being taught about in our classes dealing with oppression.

    Look, the two houses on Westmoreland are right next-door to the Gamble House, and they are only two blocks away from the Rose Bowl. Doesn't the setting scream elite and elitism to you?

    Having been a brown-skinned boy who was ticketed by San Marino police as I merely rode my bicycle, I can tell you that the subtle message of "not wanted" is in every argument Denham and the board make.

    I mentioned San Marino because the wealthy families of San Marino/Pasadena and the neighboring communities have, even though they do not admit it, been practicing the racist and elitist methods of control for decades in the San Gabriel Valley.

    We all know of racism, reverse racism and elitism. Unfortunately, the minority members of the board have forsaken their original cultural identities for the sake of power on the board and they have turned out to be even more oppressive than the white members who seek to maintain power.

    I write this because it was the Latino head of the board who lead the denial of Betty Jones and the like from attending and speaking at a board meeting.

    If Denham truly knows what is going on at the college then I dare her to teach a course on social justice! Her actions will be a glowing contradiction to what she says.

    In fact, psychologists who specialize in telling whether one is telling the truth or not will tell you that Denham's behavior and demeanor are classic examples of one who is fabricating.

    The closed-door policy of the board of oppressors is also a classic example of cover-up.

    No, we the students and facutly must band together and courageously fight this type of elitist propaganda.