Pelosi denounces City College's accreditors

Rep. Nancy Pelosi at a press conference, Monday
Photo by Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez

Rep. Nancy Pelosi denounced the accreditors seeking to close City College at a press conference held yesterday at the school’s Chinatown campus.

“You can be sure it will be subjected to harsh scrutiny in terms of how they do what they do, who they are and why is it the Department of Education cannot do more,” she said to the crowd of local luminaries and City College faculty. 

City College of San Francisco is one of the state’s largest community colleges, home to a student body of over 85,000. The school came under fire from its accreditors, the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, last July, who moved to revoke the school's accreditation. Such a move would force the college to close. 

Since then the ACCJC has been beaten back from many directions: it’s tangled in three lawsuits, as well as a state inquiry from the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. Arguably the highest profile thrashing the agency received was from Congresspeople Anna Eshoo and Jackie Speier in November.

“I think the ACCJC has run amok, they have lost their vision -- if they ever had one,” Speier told the Guardian. “They are riddled with conflicts of interest and arbitrariness.”

Pelosi voiced support for those views yesterday.

“I want to associate myself with remarks Congresswoman Jackie Speier and Anna Eshoo,” she told the crowd, to cheers. 

Singing the praises of City College is all well and good, but the Guardian asked her directly: what can you do, and what is your next step?

Pelosi indicated that Congresspersons Speier, Eshoo, and George Miller, would review the role of the Department of Education regarding accreditors at a congressional higher education committee. This is something they’ve looked at before

“We’ll see what is recommended when we go there,” she said. “Suffice to say this is not something that will be ignored.”


Posted by Guest on Jan. 07, 2014 @ 4:52 pm


Posted by Guest on Jan. 10, 2014 @ 3:57 pm

"Nothing brings more money to the treasury than the education of the American people."

Posted by Guest on Jan. 07, 2014 @ 5:53 pm

It exists to provide jobs for a bunch of people who would struggle anywhere that had genuine competition.

It's a giant welfare enterprise with a crappy school attached to it.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 07, 2014 @ 6:07 pm
Posted by Guest on Jan. 07, 2014 @ 9:39 pm
Posted by Guest on Jan. 08, 2014 @ 11:04 pm

for sticking one's head so far up one's ass - congrats on doing the only thing you apparently are good at. You obviously never went to CCSF - or if you did, never learned a damn thing (for no fault of the fine teachers there). All you learned how to be is a POS troll.

Long live CCSF - a fine excellent institution of higher learning.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 08, 2014 @ 11:02 pm

Close the poor thing down already.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2014 @ 7:48 am

It's good for the econ of SF and good for the future of young ppl to take away their ability to get an education.

You sir are either a rookie comedian (keep working on the act - it needs work) or one stupid fool.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2014 @ 1:00 pm
Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2014 @ 1:26 pm

You may think watching Faux News has given you a good education but, sorry Charlie, it just makes you ignorant (as your posts show).

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2014 @ 2:51 pm

"Genuine competition" = Not having to compete with uppity poor & working class folks that excel despite substandard schools & living with extreme adversity.

If you have to fix a game to win it, you're unworthy or corrupt, not a mastermind of strategy. Characterizing colleges serving the children of people that work for a living as a "welfare enterprise" assertion is either cynically dishonest or massively ignorant, like saying Mexican corn is somehow inherently lower in quality than corn from a multi-billion dollar-a-year US agribusiness corporation because it doesn't get the massive subsidies & tax breaks from the crony capitalist public-private revolving door. A majority of American households, taken alone, pay more real tax on revenue than the most profitable corporations in the world, which often pay less than none.

Like most of the Colonial Ivy League, Harvard's undergrad admissions are about 1/3rd legacy & development admissions (academically substandard children of amulni/ae & wealthy families), meets diversity requirements with the children of the professional-mangerial or upper class & foreign elites, individualizes assessment, and practices rampant grade inflation. The other 2/3 may be the smartest & hardest working children of the most privileged US elite, but there is little genuine competition with gifted/genius students from traditional middle, working, or lower class applicants for lack of a level playing field.

Undergrad GPAs from colleges like Harvard pay a high tariff win comparison to even an elite public institution like UC Berkeley. Like most public colleges & universities, CCSF uses rigorous standardized assessments in the interest of being fair to all students, with little flexibility even in legitimate special circumstances. A Bachelors from Harvard College is an indication of class background. Professional degrees are more meritocratic, also including some with achieved class status. However, graduate degrees from Harvard University are far more indicative of an actual competition-based merit market.

But you don't want an actual free market when it comes to merit, do you? The plan is to keep the game fixed, with socialism for private businesses & their corrupt political hacks, and the most brutal anarcho-capitalism for the People, workers, & small business owners, right?

Posted by saintlennybruce on Jan. 08, 2014 @ 11:26 pm

A much easier way to categorize your whinery.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2014 @ 7:49 am

The person you're responding to was actually advocating more competition by giving those who aren't wealthy to get a chance to compete by having colleges like CCSF available for them. Try rereading it again.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2014 @ 1:04 pm

several smaller and viable schools out of one large failed school, and then let them compete with each other.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2014 @ 1:27 pm

Well more colleges may be a good discussion for another day but as the person said, closing CCSF would mean less competition as well as less opportunities for those whose families can't afford expensive colleges. That's a pretty stupid way to get more competition going. The truth is CCSF is a great school and it would be idiotic - with terrible effects in many different ways - to close it.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2014 @ 2:59 pm


Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2014 @ 3:36 pm

The truth is City College lost 53 million in state funding during the 2008 crash and they decided to spend down their reserves employing a Keynesian model that the United States used to get out of the Great Depression. Right before the ACCJC decided to revoke accreditation, City College was in the black; in short, they were replenishing the reserves at an unprecedented rate. ACCJC CAUSED the current budget shortfall by causing enrollments to drop because of bad press. I think it is akin to yelling fire in a public space. The fiscal responsibility the ACCJC are talking about is austerity. If you look at the college Steve Kinsella (one of the commissioners) runs they have not hired full time faculty to replace retirees but rather depend on part-time labor to stay in business. You may think this is good economics but once the part time labor pool reaches a tipping point they can strike and shut the college down. I believe Kinesella is betting against the house at this point. It is just a matter of time before part time labor says, enough is enough and his little fiscal plan comes crashing down. You can't bleed people dry forever. Once the middle class is effectively disenfranchised, they will organize.

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2014 @ 7:19 am

Ah, Nancy Pelosi ... good ole you'll have to sign it before you know what it is (Obamacare) is NOW getting involved in CCSF? Let me tell you a story ...

In 2001 I went to emergency at sf general ONLY to be denied and illegally arrested. When I could get no help ... I went to pelosi ... and . Then in 2003 I went to federal court (C02-3485PJH) and my case was thrown out with FRAUD and TESTILYING. Still I continued against all odds and in 2007 the city signed a settlement/confession agreement with the Office of Inspector General for H&HS admitting fault and guilt yet left their vindicated innocent victim for DEAD. It is now 2014 and NO ONE from Pelosi to DPH to Courts to City Attorney have explained.

When I went back to pelosi with the signed confession I was told "WE do not legislate morality or accountability!"

So keep DRINKING the KOOL-AID and go to youtube and enter Jason Garza to see over 250 videos ... still being denied healthcare, justice, humanity, etc.

Please especially look at the Sheriff and sfpd videos. Look at the Gay Liaison ( Safe Zone ) tripe and what I am getting following up ... same as I got from pelosi ... nothing, nada, zip.

Watch, learn, ask questions and HOLD accountable. I would like an explanation form pelosi; however, I am Still not holding my breathe ... meaningless words seem more of what I have seen rather than actual performance and results. As far as SF and their RIGGED inhumanity .. I will continue ... keep going to youtube to watch.

P.S. No one from the offices that pelosi wrote to on my behalf NEVER contacted me either.

Keep DRINKING the KOOL-AID ... I hear that pelosi now wants SNOWDEN to face the music ... I still await the same from her to me.


Posted by Jason Grant Garza on Jan. 07, 2014 @ 7:29 pm

I so look forward to these.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 07, 2014 @ 7:59 pm

A rather large group of people celebrated Chelsea Manning's birthday on the 17th of last month at Harvey Milk Plaza (outside the entrance to the Muni metro). They even had a birthday cake. It was all good to see. Maybe they will do the same for Snowden on his birthday.

Posted by Nonpartisan Guest on Jan. 08, 2014 @ 8:21 pm

politicians that prefer the cocktail circuit of Washington to the drudgery of their district.

It's good to see her on some local issue.

That mp3 starting on auto is annoying

Posted by local on Jan. 07, 2014 @ 8:52 pm

Silly Pelosi, we obviously have to pass the revocation to find out why accreditation was revoked.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 07, 2014 @ 9:23 pm

They are such an inconvenience.

Funny how all those other schools seem to manage. These are just union hacks who want their welfare.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 07, 2014 @ 9:44 pm

The problem from what I've read is this commission doesn't state what the problems are beyond generalities so it's not clear what CCSF has to do to get the commission's approval. And they (the commission) refuse to be transparent like any public body has to be and hide behind their weird public-private identity in doing so.

As for your idiotic post, you seem to be as informed on the topic as the average Faux viewer (i.e., completely uninformed) which you no doubt are. But prove me wrong then - show me where the problem is "union hacks."

Posted by Guest on Jan. 08, 2014 @ 11:16 pm

Exactly. The entire reason that this blew up in ACCJC's face is because they deviated from their legal mission of ensuring academic quality, and condemned a college to close over entirely non-academic issues in budget & planning decided by upper management.

Posted by saintlennybruce on Jan. 08, 2014 @ 11:50 pm

Yes, the Republican members of the State Legislature's Joint Audit Committee are in the pocket of the faculty unions. Not even ACCJC said the faculty *working* for a living at CCSF were responsible for budget & planning problems decided by upper management.

What "welfare", idiot? Labor = working for a living, think you're mixing your derailing narratives, schmuck. Simply working at a public college in a state with labor rights is "welfare"?

Community college professors with a PhD, 30 years service, and departmental or governance responsibilities making less in a year than a master plumber. Their career decisions are CLEARLY motivated by greed, which is why they're teaching and not in industry.

Posted by saintlennybruce on Jan. 08, 2014 @ 11:44 pm

Ah, Non-Representative Nancy "Impeachment is off the table" Pelosi trying to give the *appearance* she represents "The People" here, as opposed to her corporate owners.

Posted by Nonpartisan Guest on Jan. 07, 2014 @ 11:33 pm

left have for their fellow citizens.

I would never vote for her, but Pelosi keeps winning elections, it must drive you crazy that you are so smart and everyone is is so fooled and stupid.

Keep posting those links to People's Front of Judea web pages and maybe someday "the people" will vote right.

Posted by Matlock on Jan. 08, 2014 @ 12:14 am

so the fact that she keeps getting elected is more a statement that she has not ever faced competition for being the rep of the Dem party since she won election the first time. Not one supe has ever challenged her - despite there being many - nor has any other prominent SF Dem politician challenged her for her seat. It's a shame but that's reality so the person you're responding to does have it right IMO. Until she faces actual competition for Dem / liberal voters, then her re-elections say nothing.

As for those web pages you're seeing on his post, they're not showing up on mine so one of us must need some meds or something.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 08, 2014 @ 1:37 am

Pelosi has a protection racket in place for her and if anyone within the Democrat fold were to challenge her, she'd CUT YOU UP.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 08, 2014 @ 6:16 am

Yes, it's so "democratic" isn't it? [roll eyes]

Posted by Nonpartisan Guest on Jan. 08, 2014 @ 6:46 am

because a politician you like doesn't challenge her?

It's not democratic because your narrow interests are not represented?

How you differ from a born again Christian is?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 08, 2014 @ 9:06 am

She's been challenged by Krissy Keefer (Green Party) and Cindy Sheehan (independent), but the D-Team Rut prevailed in both elections. The sheep vote the way they've been taught to.

I think 13% of the voters (if memory serves correctly) in that election voted for at least 13% were not entirely brainwashed. I suspect Cindy was surprised at how this city did not support her but rather "supported" (translation: blindly voted for her because of that faux D next to Pelosi's name) the corporatist, Big Business Democratic Party and its corporate hacks.

Posted by Nonpartisan Guest on Jan. 08, 2014 @ 7:29 pm

Around 15% of the vote both times, so it would seem that 15% of the voters are not sheep.

I guess in the general population 15% of the people are not sheep and don't vote for Pelosi.

Your posts are comical in a Born again Christian and Monty Python sort of way.

Posted by Matlock on Jan. 09, 2014 @ 12:06 am

on this extremely important. Here she's the most powerful SF politician nationally and until now, more than a year after this whole thing begun, she finally says words to the effect of, "yeah, I totally agree with those other NON-SAN FRANCISCO politicians in Congress (just like me) on this San Francisco issue," when in fact she's done nothing for her constituents on this issue until now.

It will be a good day when she's gone and replaced by someone who actually cares about this region instead of just being a kissass to the Democratic president (Clinton previously who she worked hard to get Bush 1's NAFTA anti-union, anti-labor trade pact passed, then worked hard to get Congress to go along with Kerry and Obama's advocacy for bombing Syria). And for the record, I voted for Clinton (twice) and Obama (twice) so this is not an anti-Democratic party post.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 08, 2014 @ 1:29 am

It was so nice having you jump in front of the parade from time to time and demagogue on a select few "liberal issues" while you slaved away for the corporate elites. Here, let me get your carpet bag...

Yes, that *is* a nice thought.

*real lillipublicans or lowlife imp version?

Posted by lillipublicans* on Jan. 08, 2014 @ 2:58 am

I just want to motorboat those big cans of hers.

Posted by Chromefields on Jan. 08, 2014 @ 11:46 am

Pelosi certainly "wants to associate herself with the comments of Rep. Jackie Speier", who actually showed up for her constituents. This is a perfunctory victory lap to share in the reflected glow of those that actually did the fighting, after staying completely out of the issue until it was clear ACCJC was going down.

This is the woman that supported the entire Afganistan & Iraq invasions, including authorizing an end-run around Congress' own war-making powers, despite public opinion in her district over 90% against the invasions throughout the occupations (more than SF registered Democrats & Libertarians combined), until Bush was a lame duck in his 8th year and she suddenly grew a spine to help elect a Democrat POTUS.

Posted by saintlennybruce on Jan. 08, 2014 @ 10:46 pm

or you're just spreading BS and hoping no one knows you're doing so. I have my problems with Nancy Pelosi and would love to see her lose to someone not to the right of her but when you say she "supported the entire Afganistan & Iraq invasions," well truth is she voted against the Iraq invasion in 2002 (I believe it was). In fact most Dems in the House of Reps voted against it - of course almost if not every Republican voted for the Iraq invasion so it passed.

I have my problems with Nancy Pelosi and think it's time she be defeated (but not by someone to the right of her) but I'll give her credit for making the right vote on George W Bush's Iraq war when a lot of big Senate Dems who should've known better, like John Kerry, like Dianne Feinstein, like Hilary Clinton, DID vote for Bush's idiotic war.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 08, 2014 @ 11:30 pm

Stand fact-check, Pelosi did indeed vote against the Authorization of Force in October 2002, but did not oppose Bush's military policies again until debating the Surge in 2007. As I recall, Barbara Boxer & Barbara Lee were two of the only anti-war voices from the Dems during that period, both from the Bay Area. Thank you, and for the record:

My anger over enabling Bush for the intervening 5 years at the height of the conflict as Speaker of the House in government, and near total uselessness as the Leader of the House Dems in opposition clouded my memory. In 2008-2010 with the White House & both houses of Congress, the PPACA was the only significant progressive legislation passed (overdue if unfinished), but post-2008 economic policy has demonstrated how little difference there is between each party when it comes to the economic ideology underpinning their political economy.

Given the most recent & final redistricting of federal seats, the US House seat is now less tied in with Marin & San Mateo counties, pretty strictly SF, and given the rapid demographic shifts & pace of development in progress, with recent migrants seeming completely ahistorical & uninterested in anything about SF other than its climate & real estate, the political landscape seems increasingly difficult to launch a progressive primary from.

Posted by saintlennybruce on Jan. 09, 2014 @ 12:29 am

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Related articles

  • It's a trap

    City College's accreditors offer the school a way out, but their past actions raise doubts whether they can be trusted

  • City College's accreditors bow to pressure, amend rules to save CCSF

  • Student protesters file claim against City College and SF citing injuries, defamation

  • Also from this author

  • Messed up: Did this man vandalize Alejandro Nieto's memorial?

  • San Francisco's shame and triumph: remembering the I-Hotel

  • Mayoral meltdown

    Mayor Ed Lee pushes back against ballot measures for affordable housing, transportation funding