You have undoubtedly heard about cases where intolerant administrators target professors who fail one of the ideological litmus tests that increasingly characterize higher education. Such instances have become commonplace, perhaps even banal. But when they come for you, it does not feel mundane, and you’ll want to understand the structural mechanisms such administrators abuse to achieve their devious ends. As a survivor of just such a campaign, at California’s Bakersfield College, I am now free to write about the ordeal and suggest reforms and remedies to help address the reign of terror in higher education.
The educational-employment system overwhelmingly favors administrators.In December 2022, the Kern Community College District (KCCD) board meeting took a dark turn when trustee John Corkins declared his desire to “cull” dissenting faculty and take us “to the slaughterhouse.” His remarks were in response to a race hoax orchestrated by Professor Paula Parks and her students, who dishonestly accused me (and others) of racial misconduct during a committee meeting. I had never met the accusers, and Parks later testified that she used class time to coordinate the allegations, but no rebuttal could undo the damage of her lies.
National media made note of Corkins’s violent rhetoric, which overshadowed another key comment he made in the board meeting: “We know, better than all of you know, that it’s hard to get rid of some of those people.” His words revealed a deep-seated frustration with the difficulties of ousting faculty members who are protected by legal safeguards. What Corkins failed to grasp, however, was that the district’s repeated failures to win those legal battles were not due to a system rigged to favor faculty but were, rather, a testament to the dishonest administration’s pursuit of innocent targets and the naïveté of the board members who allowed such witch hunts in the first place.
In many ways, the educational-employment system overwhelmingly favors unscrupulous administrators, and, despite my eventual vindication, my experiences demonstrate that reality.
Several years ago, my openly questioning “cultural Marxism” triggered several years of false accusations and relentless administrative retaliation, which the Martin Center’s George Leef wrote about here. In their frantic attempts to expel me, KCCD administrators consistently ignored my valid complaints while labeling my every breath “unprofessional.” Legal experts and advocacy groups across the nation (FIRE, PEN America, FAIR, and NAS) took notice, lambasting KCCD for its flagrant First Amendment violations.
The case progressed from disciplinary notice to formal charges, then eventually a courtroom showdown. On the final day of courtroom testimony, the opposing counsel surrendered. The KCCD Board of Trustees finalized my financial settlement in July 2024.
Having come through this gauntlet, I offer the following recommendations to take back our colleges for free speech, academic freedom, and viewpoint diversity.
Throughout the difficult process, expected institutional supports offered little practical value.Recommendation #1: Expand the Office for Civil Rights’ mandate to include First Amendment complaints.
Throughout the difficult process, expected institutional supports offered little practical value. When I approached my faculty union representatives, they initially refused me and denied me access to the union attorney. I appealed to the federal Office for Civil Rights (OCR), but they combat only discrimination cases. With no other recourse, I filed a First Amendment lawsuit, only to see it languish for years in the backlogged federal court system.
Throughout this ordeal, I immersed myself in the legal landscape governing faculty rights. Landmark cases like Pickering v. Board of Education and Demers v. Austin became my guiding principles, affirming my right to speak out on matters of public concern, research, and teaching. I also discovered whistleblower protections and the expectations of the California Brown Act, both of which KCCD blatantly disregarded. Understanding these legal standards fortified my resolve as I faced constant administrative retaliation.
As the Paula Parks race hoax escalated in late 2022, KCCD Human Resources ran a phony investigation without ever consulting me or other key witnesses. My covert recording and transcript conclusively disproved her allegations; however, I feared volunteering it to the administration, which seemed more likely to discipline me for making the recording than to address the lies it exposed. My fears were justified when my supervisor, who had been present during my supposed misconduct, dishonestly advanced Parks’s baseless allegations in a 90-day notice of unprofessional conduct, accompanied by other nonsensical and unfamiliar charges.
California law mandates a 90-day notice to allow tenured professors an opportunity to correct any alleged misconduct before a board seeks dismissal. In my case, however, the district effectively sidestepped the supposed safeguard by citing perfectly reasonable actions as “misconduct” and issued correctives so broad and ambiguous that full compliance was impossible (e.g., “You will not substitute your own judgement for the judgment of your supervisor or other administrators”). The district refused to clarify and even characterized my inquiry as further evidence of misconduct.
Recommendation #2: Faculty should demand their unions commit to support the full expense of legal defense.
I again solicited the union to help me file a formal grievance, noting the encroachment on numerous contractual rights that I held. My local representatives were of little help. When I filed the forms myself, the administration reviewed them and declared itself innocent.
We need state law reforms to prevent governing boards from exploiting closed-session privileges.In desperation, I appealed to the union’s regional office and gained access to their contracted attorney. However, that support was capped at a paltry $35,000—far too little to mount a credible defense. The union later contributed another $15,000, but the legal fees eventually quadrupled that support, and I ultimately secured independent counsel.
Recommendation #3: We need state law reforms to prevent governing boards from exploiting closed-session privileges to unlawfully discuss non-agenda items, exclude mandated participants, or collude with witnesses to manufacture courtroom narratives.
After the 90-day window closed, the board of trustees met to secretly solidify a vote on charges against me for which I had not been served. State law requires that the accused be given notice and an opportunity to participate, but the board used closed-session privileges to conceal its discussion. Only after securing necessary support in the secret closed-session meeting did the district formally inform me of the charges.
Recommendation #4: State law should also mandate that pre-disciplinary hearings be conducted by an independent, conflict-free arbiter.
Like many states, California law requires a preliminary hearing to review the charges before any government employee can be dismissed. Although this review is supposed to provide an impartial assessment, the employer selects the hearing officer, and the results are predictable. Despite my 95-minute point-by-point refutation of every allegation, the hearing officer’s report dishonestly asserted I had not addressed the “most egregious charges” and then affirmed the fallacious charges.
Recommendation #5: Congress should revisit U.S. Government Code Section 1983 to limit qualified immunity for educational bureaucrats, reducing their protections when they enjoy the luxury of consultation with their legal counsel before violating civil liberties.
In April 2023, the board held the official meeting to formalize their prior decision to seek my dismissal. During that meeting, they disregarded public outcry and my request for an open vote and again cast their lots in secrecy, in consultation with their legal counsel. Political expediency outweighed the facts, and the board voted to violate my civil liberties with the comfort of qualified immunity protecting them from personal liability.
Mechanisms should hold individuals accountable for perjury in administrative court hearings.Recommendation #6: The education code should prohibit the suspension of salaries until an administrative judge approves a board’s request for dismissal, and faculty who prevail should be entitled not only to back wages but also to reasonable legal expenses.
To compound the injustice, the district accused me of “willful refusal to complete assigned duties,” a claim they didn’t bother to defend with any examples. In truth, I dutifully fulfilled all my responsibilities. My evaluations were spotless, and I had just received the campus’s prestigious lifetime leadership award. Nevertheless, this particular allegation enabled the board to lawfully suspend my wages just as my legal defense fees soared.
Recommendation #7: Introduce mechanisms to hold individuals accountable for perjury in administrative court hearings, as district attorneys have little incentive to prosecute such cases.
A grueling year-long court battle ensued, with the trial stretching over three months. The district enjoyed confidential coordination of employee-witnesses, and I was shocked by the outright dishonest testimony. Fortunately, we rebutted with physical evidence that exposed the ruse. On the final day of the trial, the district capitulated and offered a settlement that I couldn’t refuse. I attribute that victory to my skilled First Amendment attorney and the intense pressure brought by devoted community members. In the end, the KCCD board feared the embarrassment of defeat so much that they preferred to settle before the court could issue a judgement.
Recommendation #8: The Department of Education should withhold funds from institutions that maliciously persecute employees or repeatedly violate their civil rights.
The fight against KCCD’s retaliatory actions was emotionally and fiscally exhausting, and it laid bare the lengths to which institutions will go to silence dissent. A parallel example is the case of Professor Ed Madec in nearby Fresno. Madec successfully defended himself in the administrative court and two district appeals and is now fighting off a third appeal even as his governing board has voted to dismiss him again on new charges that restart the entire process as the first continues.
Those who challenge the dominant ideology in academia deserve to have their voices heard without fear of retaliation.In the closing words of its June 2023 judgment, the Fresno Superior Court characterized the targeting of Madec as “embarrassing, if not shameful.” Can Madec—or anyone else in a similar position—defend perpetual litigation filed by state-financed administrations intent on destroying their livelihood? His ongoing ordeal illustrates the capacity of educational bureaucrats to weaponize the state and destroy careers through endless litigation.
Those who challenge the dominant ideology in academia deserve to have their voices heard without fear of retaliation by protected administrators backed by endless state funds. Contrary to claims of a system that favors faculty, professors are often vulnerable targets for unprincipled administrators who control nearly every turn and enjoy every advantage. While Trustee Corkins aimed to “cull” dissenters, it’s the unchecked culture of administrative retaliation that we must eliminate from higher education.
Matthew Garrett recently retired from Bakersfield College, where he founded the Renegade Institute for Liberty, a campus consortium devoted to intellectual literacy through free and open discourse. He is now president of the California Curriculum Center, an online resource for educators and parents launching in 2025.
This article was originally published at www.jamesgmartin.center
