|
|
|
| Richard Busacca,
Ph. D.
13 Sept. 2001 Dean Joel Kassiola
Re: Professor Richard Busacca complaint This letter is a formal complaint about Professor Richard Busacca. I have found him to be among the most offensive people at SFSU. During each class he enjoys giving sermons on a variety of political causes, and I have found the curriculum to be lacking academic seriousness. Why is it that the religion of liberalism is the prominent theme of my Social Science 600 class? I am asking you to bring a quality to Professor Busacca’s classes and suggest that someone who cares about providing a strong college-level education come to our class to find out what goes on there. I am disappointed and unhappy when I go to that class because I know I will only be hearing Busacca spout his far left extremist ideology for most of the class period, and I am not willing to talk to the man about my academic needs any longer after the way he mistreated me in his office. At about 10:55 on September 11, 2001, I went to Prof. Busacca’s office and stood outside because it was not yet 11:00 AM, the time his office hours start. At about 10:58 or 11, a woman came out and I asked her if Busacca was inside. She said he was, but he was on the phone and said something about people usually calling to make an appointment. I said his syllabus lists his office hours from 11 AM till around noon and that I didn’t mind waiting. She asked me my name and then as I told her, she shook my hand and told me her name, something like Elma. Anyway, I waited outside for approximately 20 minutes before I was asked in; I did not keep an accurate record of my wait. I was not especially nervous about talking to Prof. Busacca because I assume all professors welcome their students during office hours. When I got in the office I started my conversation after just a few minutes (when another woman who was likely a professor finished up her conversation with Busacca.) I handed the professor my short description of my topic selection for my senior paper. I wanted to see where I was on track and what, if anything, would raise issues for him. While he read it, I was a bit anxious that he was going to argue my idea, since I have seen him do that with other students during our class. And argue my ideas he did. I am troubled by the man’s very political agenda during the four classes so far, but I just sit there and listen, because I have learned how to deal with passionate, overly political professors at SFSU. But I was not going to just listen to him in his office without backing up my viewpoint and trying to debate a little with him as a way to come to an understanding about how I would proceed with my paper. Professor Busacca has a bad habit of spouting off his political beliefs and openly challenging the party with whom he is dealing, even by stating falsities and labeling the other person as a liar. I really think he gets a kick out of his strong-arm behavior. I don’t want to have to debate an irascible professor continually, however, and that is why I am writing this letter of complaint. Certainly I don’t enjoy being called an outright liar. Professor Busacca started going on about how many talk shows are “tools of the right” and are to the “right of Attila the Hun.” I told him he was changing the topic and that I was here to discuss how to write about the mainstream media, which is my paper topic, and I do not include talk shows in that category. I did manage to get him to give up his going offtrack that time, only because he let me start talking again, something that happens when he wants a break during his sermons. He told me in very strong language that Senator Helms is a fascist and a racist. Fine, I don’t mind a little political debate, and I told him why he is wrong. I defined fascism and I backed myself up after he said twice that Helms supported dictators around the world. I was asked to name one that he Helms stopped, since I maintained such, and I did. There was no refuting my answer. I also told him at least three or four times in the visit that we have different philosophies, and we could both write papers with evidence that we are each right in our outlooks. I also told him that I didn’t want to talk about politics and could we please get back to how I can do my paper. Going along with his suggestion, I said I would bring in a definition of racism in my paper, but he insisted on spouting on more about Jesse Helms’ race based politics(!). Busacca adamantly said I didn’t know what I was talking about. I said I have seen Helms’ voting record, and Busacca said no, you haven’t. I do not appreciate being called a liar by my professors, and I will most certainly not be eager to ever again visit with Prof. Busacca. I realize he is a man who will not change, and his manners towards others is destructive. I actually left his office at 12:25 PM., I believe I was, a little sweaty, but basically I have seen the intolerance and collusion against me by others at this school, so really I just wanted to get on with my day and wasn’t overly traumatized. I have ultimately been desensitized by the bigotry I frequently experience at SFSU. Prof. Busacca told me without my bringing it up, that he had spent some time discussing me and my problems at SFSU with faculty on campus. He quickly added that this would be the first time I was hearing about this. Well, truly, I have been quite suspecting that he would have heard about me since the police have investigated me, the victim – not the suspects, after I received a death threat. The police refused to question anyone in the matter for months, even the people who witnessed it. I have been made out to be a problem for months. Now if the professor knows that the campus officials are watching me so closely, why would he bring this up, and then go right on to another topic, which was what professors go through to be professors. He bounced around with my problem and mixed it with professors paying their dues and universities only teaching what is known to be true – of course this is again, way off topic. To his credit he did say that he has continually backed me up when discussing my situation with whoever on campus has discussed me with him and that other viewpoints should be welcome in classes. But after I said, “I should hope so”, he was back to his preaching again. I was in his office for advice, not to be indoctrinated or upset. I think about the police on campus everyday. I have already been anxious when I go to school because I know they are firmly against me. I also get a bad feeling when I see my former professors because I suspect they have been told about me and my suing a professor. I have not gone to any former professor’s office, but I have seen them as they were walking on campus. Point is, I am the one with the screw to my head, and I don’t need Busacca lecturing me about my case unless he really wants to stay on subject and fill me in on what he knows about the situation. In addition, I am not going to bring this up with him unless he does. I do not get in touch with the police unless something new is happening in my case. I have been branded (by some professors and the police) as a person who is a troublemaker and someone who could possibly be dangerous to others. Do you think that is a healthy situation for me during my studies? No. And that is why I have documented my visit with Busacca. I now plan to work on my senior paper without his or any professor’s help. I do not have a good relationship with any of my former professor’s who would be suitable to deal with, because of the whole being labeled as a dangerous, right wing nut. If I have any questions, I will ask them while class is in session or by email. I do not want to be in the uncomfortable situation with a control freak. Busacca is a heavily motivated person who wants to stir up division. How else can I interpret the implication of me lying and not knowing what I was talking about, not to mention the harsh fanaticism I witnessed even after I asked him to stop? I told Busacca that I have already heard the other side’s viewpoints on Helms. I didn’t care for his heavy-handedness, which he says all his students get. Yes, I believe he treats everyone that way; only it is destructive behavior, and I don’t care for it. My viewpoint is not wrong, and I was much gentler with Busacca than he was with me. Busacca, like the other closed-minded liberals on campus, cannot tolerate a viewpoint that is in contrast to their own. That is why I met with you and wanted to meet with President Corrigan. I can either bury my head and give up, or I can write letters of complaint when something really outrageous happens in the hope that perhaps more tolerance will come about at SFSU. May I also say that the level of my voice matched Busacca’s. It was a strong debate (when I was allowed to speak) and I was the one who was pounded with attitude and ideology. This is why I am looking forward to finishing my studies at SFSU. This Social Science class is the one I most looked forward to; now I am leery of having to face this radical, battlesome professor. After all, he did not let up with his hate-filled invective about Helms. I could perhaps go along with a unique style of a professor who challenges students to think of different views, but that is certainly not the case here. I have already heard the liberals spew their disgust with Helms. I have found professors to assume their students are unlearned of basic ideas, but that isn’t the case with my outlook. I only wanted a skilled outlook in guiding my senior paper - not an educator who spouts outrageous, biased comments. To make Busacca look worse, he couldn’t even acknowledge my good points that proved him wrong. There is far too little tolerance for any conservative views on the SFSU campus. I find it highly disgraceful. Sincerely, Roger 1 Enclosure (note - the enclosure was a pro Jesse Helms article by Robert Novak.) Teacher review of Richard Busacca
| |||
