Imagine for a moment if members of the Palomar College English faculty taught Pig Latin in their composition classes. Or if they showed movies in class instead of discussing literature. Or if they didn’t actually read student papers but instead allowed students to grade themselves. What would your reaction be?

Of course, we all know the answer. Faculty are paid to teach and perform as professionals, and if we failed to do so, you would rightly ask for our jobs.

Recently, a majority of the full-time faculty at Palomar College voted “no confidence” in college President Joi Blake. Subsequently, both the Faculty Senate and Council of Classified Employees have called for the Board of Trustees to remove and replace her.

These actions come at the same time that a financial review says our college is in economic distress and that we must remedy the situation — remedies that may include increases in class sizes, cuts to class offerings, and perhaps even the elimination of entire programs.


In response, President Blake has claimed that faculty and staff don’t want change, or that we’re resistant to building a diverse community, or even that we have personal antipathy toward her.

As a full-time English professor at Palomar College for more than 20 years, I want to be clear that my vote of “no confidence” — and the vote cast by most of my colleagues — has nothing to do with these reasons.

The actual reason for the vote is quite simple: President Blake and a number of the trustees have failed in their assigned task. They are largely responsible for the fiscal health of Palomar College.


College organization is based on a system of “shared governance.” Generally speaking, this system dictates that faculty largely attends to academic matters — classes, department integrity, pedagogy, etc. — while the president and her administration are responsible for the fiscal management of the college. The trustees oversee the entire college, primarily through their management of the president. Ideally, all of these groups work together for the greater good of the students.

In my department, our focus on academic matters has been clear. Members of my department have published numerous books and articles; we meet regularly with our English Majors group; twice a year we accompany students to the Old Globe Theater to see plays; we offer classes at the Vista Jail; we help run special programs like Umoja and Puente, which focus on minority students; we host an annual event celebrating our literary journal and creative writing students; and our writing and tutoring center continues to support student success despite changes in state law and threats of funding cuts from within our own college.

And it is the same for other departments around the college: faculty guide award-winning programs in speech and debate, television production, journalism, and performing arts; math and science faculty support a robust STEM program; dedicated coaches provide leadership and guidance to our student-athletes; many faculty serve as advisors and mentors for a wide range of student clubs and activities; and of course, our public safety and nursing programs continue to prepare students to serve our community.

In other words, the faculty at Palomar College has been doing its job educating and serving our students.


But, as I said earlier, it is my belief that the college administration has failed to sustain the economic health of Palomar College. The public record and reporting newspapers allege that the ill-considered decisions made by the president and the trustees who support her include the simultaneous opening of two educational centers (contradicting an earlier, slower and perhaps more judicious plan), spending over $1 million on the construction of a presidential office suite, adding over $4 million in payroll spending by hiring more full-time faculty than required by the state, and, maybe most alarming of all, awarding President Blake herself a new contract that includes a 27% salary increase and lifetime benefits. (As a full-time faculty member hired after 1994, I personally do not receive these lifetime health benefits and, along with all of the faculty, may be asked to consider a reduction in salary and benefits.)

This is why I joined the vast majority of my colleagues in expressing my lack of “confidence” in our college president and suggest that all those responsible for the college’s poor fiscal health need to be removed rather than rewarded.

Smith, Ph.D., is in his 24th year as a full-time member of the Palomar College English Department.