Accjc gone wild
CFT and S.F. City Attorney File for Preliminary Injunction – Nov. 24, 2013
Download 2.61 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- CFT Memorandum of Points
CFT and S.F. City Attorney File for Preliminary Injunction – Nov. 24, 2013On November 24, 2013 the California Federation of Teachers (CFT) and San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera (on behalf of the City of San Francisco) independently filed a request for a preliminary injunction against the ACCJC that would block the revocation of CCSF’s accreditation until such time as their lawsuits are settled in Superior Court. The CFT, City Attorney Herrera, and the Save CCSF have all filed lawsuits against the ACCJC. The two preliminary injunction requests were filed in order to prevent further harm to CCSF while the court cases continue. Already the college has lost more than 10% of its students which could result in some loss of state funding for the college. CFT Memorandum of PointsIn the words of the CFT request: “Plaintiffs move for a preliminary injunction enjoining the disaccreditation of CCSF, to preserve the status quo ante the ACCJC's unlawful revocation of accreditation. CCSF was fully accredited until the ACCJC committed serious violations of State and Federal law, and its own policies. Plaintiffs ask the court to enjoin the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges ("ACCJC") from implementing or finalizing its order revoking the accreditation of City College of San Francisco ("CCSF"), suspend or rescind the orders of Show Cause and Disaccreditation, and restore CCSF's accredited status pending a trial on the merits.” It then went on to argue that “Immediate relief is necessary to prevent irreparable and substantial harm to the educational rights and interests of 80,000 students and 825,000 City residents granted by the California constitution, and the employment rights of 1,500 professors and 1,000 staff. Plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of themselves and others under Business and Professions Code section 17200, because disaccreditation and closure of the college rest on unfair and unlawful business practices, and are themselves such practices, which consist of many predicate acts and practices.” As is usual for the ACCJC it responded to the two requests for an injunction by closing its eyes to any of its violations of federal requirements as well as its own procedures. A statement from the Commission concluded that “This motion by the CFT does not align with the real efforts to assure CCSF's future accreditation, but rather distracts from those efforts.” Commission Chair Sherrill Amador: “The best way forward is for the institution, its staff and faculty, to join the college leaders in making needed changes to improve the quality and secure the future accreditation of the college. “ Each of these statements completely ignores any decision on the request for review or the appeal request by CCSF of the ACCJC decision. Of course it makes sense to not take the process seriously since the processes for appeal and review are based on the ACCJC kangaroo court process discussed elsewhere in this paper. In addition, the currently established procedure provides no opportunity for ACCJC to look at CCSF and the progress it has made since their June decision to revoke accreditation on June 30, 2014. Both the review and the appeal process do not allow any evidence to be considered which was not available when the ACCJC made its decision in June of 2013. There is also no requirement for ACCJC to once again consider the accreditation of CCSF. So what is to be made of this talk by Beno, Amador, and even State Chancellor Brice Harris regarding the continuing effort by CCSF to satisfy the ACCJC’s standards? Even if the Department of Education in Washington decides in January of 2014 to sanction ACCJC or even remove the ACCJC as an accreditation agency, the DOE does not have the power to reverse the ACCJC decision to revoke CCSF’s accreditation. In light of the above, the court challenges filed by CFT, the S.F. City Attorney, and the Save CCSF Coalition become even more important. The CFT request for Injunctive Relief is based on the claim, as stated above, that the plaintiffs in the case (CCSF students, faculty, staff, and community) will suffer substantial irreparable harm unless the injunction is issued. CFT also claims, with supporting evidence, that the court case itself has a “reasonable probability” to result in a favorable decision for the plaintiffs (based on the merits of the case). The following point were included in the Memorandum of Points presented by the CFT:
And ACCJC's decision is void because it is tainted by bias. The CFT also claims that:
ACCJC, CFT claims, also:
In short, the issuance of disaccreditation was unlawful and unfair and should be overturned by the court. Directory: uploads uploads -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 uploads -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers uploads -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016 uploads -> Township of winfield uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program What We Want Now! Download 2.61 Mb. Share with your friends:
|