What We Learn from Sports and Business

Together Everyone Achieves More

"Coming together is a beginning.
Keeping together is progress.
Working together is success." -- Henry Ford

Ford's assembly line was built on a principle of teamwork. Everyone had to do their job well. Everyone had to assume that the others on the line would do their jobs well. Everyone needed to realize that their own work was part of a greater whole. We can glean a lot from those words.

“The way a team plays as a whole determines its success. You may have the greatest bunch of individual stars in the world, but if they don't play together, the club won't be worth a dime.” -- Babe Ruth

At one time, George Herman ("Babe") Ruth held several of the great "individual" records in baseball. He was the home run king, but he knew that his home runs were only a part of winning games. Often, he'd have a great day, but the game would be lost. Alternatively, there would be days when he struck out several times, and yet the game was won. The players comprise the team, but the team wins games and championships.

"The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. " -- "Terrence Mann," from Field of Dreams

If you have seen the film, or even if you haven't, at points baseball is used in it as a metaphor for relationships within a society. Here, we read that when our world is spinning on -- seeming to overwhelm us -- we individuals need something constant in our lives. The relationships that we build with one another (even if they are only the perceived allegiances that come with sports franchises) -- these things "mark the time." Our relationships with one another are the one constant. When we feel as though we are losing track of our mission, our objectives, and our goals, are relationships with the other members of the community are still there.

Whether we're looking at football, baseball, hockey, or volleyball, the team is more than a collection of individuals. A good team ethic reinforces the best qualities of each of its individuals and downplays their worst attributes. Sometimes we can get caught up in our own worlds to the point where the others' worlds seem unimportant. However, it is at those times when we need one another the most. It is at those points in our lives when a great team is the most successful.

Great businesses operate the same way: not with a top-down, heavy-handed authority structure but with what we college types call "shared governance." Everyone buys into the goals. Everyone experiences the college mission first hand. Faculty, staff, and administrators recognize the value in one another and realize their own importance in achieving the goals.

Yes, we can learn a lot from sports and business...about teamwork strategies that WORK.

A Matter of Accreditation

In 2003, the President's Council -- in cooperation with the faculty and staff, and with input from the students -- developed a new Strategic Plan. This plan was created as a direct response to specific recommendations from the accreditation team. Instead of focusing solely on academics, as the prior Academic Master Plan had done, the Strategic Plan contains the following elements:

1. Educational Programs
2. Resources
3. Culture
4. Economic and Community Development.

The third goal was described as follows: "This goal refers to collegiality and communication within all facets of the college; student services, evaluation of services; and program and institutional improvement."

Four years later, it is this goal that most needs to be addressed. Productive discussions about the college's direction and shared focus are going to be held, and in order to do so, we must agree together on some ground rules for these discussions. Dave Gottshall proposed the following rules for making the discussion of different ideas more productive:

1. Give equal time.
2. Do not gripe.
3. Do not compare systems.
4. Do not idly show and tell.
5. Do not hold back.
6. Mutually enforce the other five.

Yet these "rules" come from principles. Indeed, it is necessary to share principles in order to work together.

1. People will be positive and productive.
2. People learn best from one another, from sharing their expertise. They have vast, sometimes untapped, knowledge about their profession.
3. Diversity generates creative thinking.
4. The collective wisdom and experience of the group surpass any individual or single approach.
5. Less is more. Simplification is key to learning.

These principles are reasonably similar to the principles guiding any great relationship between people. For example, "Dr. Phil" writes...
"Choose to forgive. Holding onto a grudge will only eat you up inside and cause huge family rifts."
"Sometimes relationships need a hero. That means someone has to step up and be the bigger person to close the gap. Someone has to make the first move, the first compromise, to heal the relationship."
"No matter how flat you make a pancake, it still has two sides. Step into the other person's shoes and try to see their side of the story."

Aren't these principles for addressing family conflict similar to the principles for addressing community conflict? When all the shouting is done, and when all the angst has been emoted, we must all work together. It is not productive for us to shove one another aside. It is not productive to tell one another that we do not need them. I need your help, and you need mine. We are part of a collective, and so we need one another.

If we decide, as Dr. Phil says, to be the hero and to forgive...
if we decide, as Dave Gottshall says, to be positive and embrace our diversity...
then we will easily agree to rules for productive discussion.
We will share, and we will not gripe.
We will speak honestly and freely to one another without anger or disdain.
We will focus on finding solutions rather than pointing out other people's faults.
We will realize that we are all equal partners in this community.
We will change ourselves rather than trying to change others.
Before you know it, we will have the culture of collegiality about which we dreamed four years ago.

Sharing Our Governance

Frances Nguyen once wrote that if students are ever to be educated about the value of diversity, then the faculty must first learn that value and then must model unity in diversity. We teach, for example, that it is necessary for the socio-economic groups and nationalist states of the world to understand and accept one another. In this postmodernist society we would not dream of teaching that every society must conform to a specific model, or that cultural diversity must cease to exist. If we want our students to believe this, then the employees of a college must model it ourselves. We must learn to cooperate toward shared goals despite our distinct individual values.

We All Stand Together

A central aspect of this unity in diversity is the acceptance of one another as they are. It is easy to accept others who are like ourselves. It is easy to accept what we want others to become. It is much more difficult to let others be who they are right now. When we try to weed out employees who vocally disagree, we are not accepting. When we put pressure on others to resign because their methodology, or pedagogy, or philosophy differs from our own, we are not accepting. Again, it is easy to accept someone who is always nice to you, who does what you want them to do, and who is generally agreeable. The challenge before us is not merely to accept such people but to accept all who are part of our community. In doing so, we become a unit. We become a cohesive and united front, and we model what we teach.

Freedom of Speech

Our relationships with one another should be characterized by freedom of speech. First and foremost, we must encourage others to speak freely to us. It is crucial that we allow others to share their unvarnished opinions. A society in which the truth is rarely spoken will never model the principles that we hope to teach to others. Just as in the Greek assembly every citizen was expected to share his view openly, so also it must be in an institution of higher learning. Therefore, you and I must not seek to restrict others from doing so. We must never punish others for speaking openly and truthfully.

Then as we allow others to speak freely, we ourselves must gain the confidence to speak, knowing this: that a relationship in which honesty is the policy is a relationship that is capable of genuine cooperation. If you and I know that we are sharing our views with one another, then we can learn from one another. When we learn from one another, then we value one another more. Finally, as we value one another, our sense of belonging to a team is strengthened. We work together, but do we work together? If our relationships are characterized by acceptance and honesty, then indeed we are capable of such unity.

What It Means to Share

To some people, "Shared Governance" means that not only do I get to control my own affairs, but also I get to control yours. At some institutions, this sort of mutual meddling is passed off as colleagiality. Shared Governance means primarily trusting someone to do what he or she is supposed to do. The president should be trusted to have the best needs of the community as his top priority when negotiating with regents and legislators, or when speaking to Nevada's business leaders and citizens. The faculty should be trusted to operate autonomously in areas related to teaching. The staff should be trusted to make sure the business affairs of the college run smoothly.

We do not all teach the same way. We do not all administer the same way. Neither does everyone share the same philosophy of how a job or task ought to be done. In short, we are different; diversity exists. Sharing governance means encouraging this diversity, in word and in deed. As each of us works separately and differently, and as you and I accept one another in honesty, we become strongly bonded to one another. We should not become worthlessly conceited, thinking that our ways are the only ones that work, and provoking one another. Instead, we look ahead to what we can be if we both esteem and treat one another as equals.

Creating a Culture of Trust

Since this is Thanksgiving Day, it would be productive for us to examine one of the goals of the GBC mission: to create a campus culture built on trust. If any community is to survive the everyday trials and troubles that befall it, that community must be cohesive. It is a manifest necessity that the people who comprise the community must regard themselves as being a collective unit that is greater than the sum of its parts.

While some people may believe that creating such a culture is as simple as bringing in sports teams or extracurricular activities, I believe that the three steps that follow are central to our goal.

1. Be trustworthy

This is the most important of the three steps. There is no reason that we should trust someone who is not trustworthy, so how do we do this in a community setting?

• Do what you say you are going to do. Even if other people disagree with what you say, if you follow through on your promises and commitments you will become more worthy of the trust of others. Your perceived competence affects the trust that others are able to give you.
  
• Don't push off your work onto others. If you have been assigned a task, or if it is part of your job, or if you volunteered for it in some capacity, finish the job. A trustworthy person does not take on tasks -- only to assign them to unsuspecting coworkers. Acting in such an inappropriate fashion may also convey the message that you believe that you or your work are more important than other people and what they are doing.
• Speak your mind openly and honestly. If you go around telling people what you think they want to hear, your associates will learn quickly that you can only be trusted to say things that serve your own interests. In order for a culture of trust to prevail, openness must be encouraged by everyone in the community.
• "Do not look only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others." Put aside the notion, so common in businesses, that your purpose at the institution is to make money, ease your own workload, and put away enough to retire. Since education is a service industry, we will be unable to survive as a collective if we are self-centered. Our mission is focused outwardly, not inwardly. Embrace that mission, and regard every co-worker as an equal.

2. Trust others to do their own jobs.

Now that you have focused yourself on the collaborative task of education, it is crucial that you let others do their own jobs. If you are a supervisor, micromanagement might be the downfall of your ability to lead. If you are not anyone's supervisor, then meddling in the affairs of others would be both inexpedient and foolish for you.

Don't you have enough work to do? Why would you want to do someone else's job, too? If they do not do their jobs, they will have their reward. Therefore, do not concern yourself with whether others are doing what they are supposed to do, and do not seek to cause trouble for them if they are not. If anyone is lazy, his sloth will be revealed. Trust that the vast majority of us have embraced the same goals to which you now adhere, and allow each person the freedom to do her own work. In that way, your own freedom will be justified.

3. Do not seek to control.

When we esteem our own opinions too highly about "how something should be done," we run the risk of destroying academic freedom. If you believe that something should be done a certain way, then whenever you are doing that thing, you should do it that way. When others do the same thing, however, it is necessary for them to follow their own convictions. This may mean that others organize differently, grade differently, or teach differently than you do. This is both a blessing and a necessity for every college that believes in its mission.

Too frequently, the vote of the majority (for example, in Faculty Senate) may be used by well-intentioned individuals to bind everyone to a means, an instrument, or a method that works perfectly well for me but which might not work well for all. In these cases, I need to allow you the freedom to be yourself -- to do things your own way. Since I now trust that we share similar goals, I must realize that you are putting your own plans into action to advance toward those goals. I must realize that the path that I have chosen is not the only path leading to our destination.

When we realize these things, we will be better equipped to treat one another as equals and with respect. Then we will no longer look down upon one another's methods and actions, thinking that "everyone here is undisciplined," or "messed up," or "wrong." Instead, let us look up at one another as worthy examples. We should not expect them to do as we would do. It is enough to realize that our coworkers hold the same hope for the students that we ourselves hold.

Where there is conformity, unity dies. If we are to be united, then we must accept the diversity of thought that exists in such a great community. When we truly know that everyone is working together in different ways, then not only will we reach our present goals (by means of a culture of trust), but also we will reach far higher objectives than we can now imagine.

I am thankful to work together with the administration, faculty, staff, and students to make our community the best that a college can be. Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

Blog Creation Form 1044-6B

When a process first begins, someone decides that it might be easier to remember what to do or how to do it if there's a piece of paper explaining it. Then a smart-thinking bureaucrat determines that it would be useful if a form were generated, listing all of the information needed for the process. In later stages of the whirlpool of paperwork that is a government-run institution, the paperwork becomes more important than the task it is supposed to facilitate.

Consider this exchange, which is based on something that really happened to someone at GBC:

"Hello, professor?"
"Yes, student? How are you doing?"
"I'm fine. I'm over in Berg Hall. I need permission to get into your class."
"Oh yes, I know your work experience. You can add my class. Are you at Admissions & Records?"
"Yes, I'm standing right here."
"Please put them on.... Hello, A&R?"
"Yes."
"Hi, this is the professor. Please allow that student, Excellent Pupil, to enter my FAT 100 class."
"The student who is standing here?"
"Yes, that's her."
"You have to fill out the override form first."
"But the prerequisite is instructor approval, so it's not an override. I'm giving my approval."
"You still need to fill out the form."
"Do you doubt my identity -- that it's really me?"
"No, I recognize your voice."
"I thought the purpose of the form was to let you know that I approve."
"It is."
"Well, I approve."
"I still can't do it without the form."
"*Sigh.*"

Back in 1998, one fine blogger wrote, "Sometimes it starts to feel like the real purpose of the paperwork is to make it so complicated that the insurance companies in the end won't have to pay anything." (endsoftheearth.com) Isn't this how we often feel?

In "Techniques for Lightening the Load of Paperwork," from 1959, Ben S. Graham wrote:
"The purpose of paperwork should be properly understood. Too often the paperwork becomes the objective, the development of more and better paperwork for the glory of paperwork. Paperwork is only a tool to help accomplish the essential end results of the business organizations. Until we recognize that it should be considered only as a tool, we are going to build empires involved in paperwork which do not contribute to the end results."

That expresses the paperwork situation at Great Basin College rather well. In fact, an e-mail was recently forwarded to me that originated as an announcement from the people in Admissions & Records. This e-mail informed departments that they had run out of storage space for all of the paperwork they had been saving. Do you think they'd lighten the level of paperwork? No. The purpose of having the form is to have the form. Their solution? From now on, the departments must create forms on white paper only. That way, they would be able to more easily scan the paperwork into a computer. Couldn't we submit everything on the computer to begin with, avoiding the forms entirely? Of COURSE not!

We also have a "CLASS" form, the purpose of which is to praise someone's performance, professionalism, and/or kindness on the job. There is a committee that considers the "best" CLASS nominations every month and awards a prize. Someone told me recently that if you don't fill out the form correctly, the committee won't consider your nominee for the prize. Clearly, the form is more important than the praise merited by a great employee.

Whenever there is paperwork, the paperwork seems to proliferate to the point that it sweeps the process away. We become so bogged down in paperwork that we no longer remember what the forms are for. This fact became so apparent to our own politicians that the federal government enacted a Paperwork Reduction Act in 1980...and again in 1995. I wonder how successful these attempts have been. In 2003, UC Berkeley conducted a study that showed conclusively that paperwork production in offices has risen 43% (on average) since 1999. According to that study, over 4 billion pages of paper documents are generated in offices every year in the United States. Most of that paperwork is regarded as unnecessary, but it multiplies exponentially nevertheless.

Bureaucrats who resist change repeatedly utter the phrase "paper trail" in response to statistics like these. This is a concept created by bureaucrats in order to justify their own existence. For the same reason we need to keep our tax records for seven years "just in case" we are audited -- even though very few people are audited, we also need to keep every form that the college concocts. In triplicate, we maintain copies of the Form for Ordering More Forms. That way, if someone asks how busy I am, I can produce a mountain of paperwork to justify my position. "Yes, I'm positively overwhelmed. See?"

Secretly, most employees regret that their days are so consumed with filling out forms that they cannot get anything worthwhile accomplished. If there's ever a fire at Berg Hall -- something that would be terrible and which I hope never happens, I certainly wish for no one to be hurt. But I suspect that more than a few people from all walks of life would secretly smile when told that "All of our paperwork for the last 40 years was destroyed in the fire." If that does happen, though, I suspect that the first responders will hand someone a Form for Response to Fire. We'll need copies for the legislators, the regents, and of course the president will need to keep a copy in his new office. On the wall next to his diploma.

The Cost of Reading

Three years ago, the Washington Post (09/18/2004) quoted Congressman Buck McKeon as saying, "If a student signs up for a class, they're pretty much at the mercy of the publishers. It's not like they have any other place to go." Three years later, Nathassia Torchon (a student at Massachusetts Bay Community College) told the Boston Globe (10/03/2007), "They always tell you 20 hours is good enough to work and go to school full time. I have to work three jobs to pay for two books."

Anyone who has had to pay for textbooks knows this instinctively, but two reports called by the title "Ripoff 101" (2nd Edition, February, 2005) make several points:
1. "Textbook prices are increasing at more than four times the inflation rate for all finished goods, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Producer Price Index."
2. "New editions of the textbooks surveyed cost, on average, 45 percent more than used copies of the previous edition."
3. "Bundling [of textbooks with workbooks or software] drives up textbook costs."
4. "Textbook publishers charge American students more than students overseas for the same textbooks."

The students at Great Basin College are all too aware of these issues. eFollett, the contracted private business that operates a bookstore on (the Elko) campus, is often higher priced than the majority of its competitors. Want some examples?

The SFWriter, required for ENG 101, costs $64 new or $48 used from eFollett.
The suggested retail price for a new copy is $60, and you can buy it directly from the publisher for that price. Amazon.com has new copies for $56.84 and used copies for as low as $33.69. Since you'd have to pay postage through Amazon, it only pays to get a NEW copy through them if you live outside Elko, because students outside Elko have to pay to have their books shipped to them. However, used copies for under $48 are relatively plentiful. On half.com, new copies can be had for as little as $34.

In other subjects, particularly science and math, the cost differences are even more pronounced. The textbook for PHYS 100 costs $105.50 from eFollett -- and that's USED! You can get the same book package new for less than that on Amazon, and used copies are selling for as little as $76.48.

But this is the real shock:
The SF Writer is ring-bound and has 640 pages.
The ring-bound edition of the Betty Crocker Cookbook has a comparable 576 pages. But the cookbook only costs $19.77 NEW from Amazon.
The brand-new book, Photopedia: the Ultimate Digital Photography Resource, also has 600 pages and costs $26.39.
And yes, the most recent Harry Potter book has 784 pages and costs $19.24 in HARDBACK.

Apparently, any book that has "textbook" in its description costs three times as much. Students are held up by bandits every time they step into a bookstore.

Possible solutions?
1. Increase the number of textbook-optional courses. Instructors can make the course content available through online lectures, free handouts, Internet links, and through PDF files or on cheap CD-R's. This won't work for every subject, but if half of our courses had no traditional textbooks, that would reduce the costs for students by roughly one-half.
2. More instructor-written books. If GBC instructors compiled their own material, they could avoid the big publishers and get the texts to students more cheaply.
3. More "low frills" books. Instead of books with coated paper stock, photos on every page, and hardback covers, how about ordering books with fewer pictures, less-costly paper, and paperback covers?

I'm sure every student and every faculty member agrees with these things. Now if only the book publishers of the world would agree!

The Secret Life of Socrates

According to Diogenes Laertius, Socrates "was very clever in all rhetorical exercises, as Idomeneus also assures us. But the thirty tyrants forbade him to give lessons in the art of speaking and arguing, as Xenophon tells us. ... For he was the first man, as Favorinus says in his Universal History, who, in conjunction with Aeschines his student, taught people how to become orators. And Idomeneus makes the same assertion in his essay on the Socratic School. Similarly, he was the first person who conversed about human life; and was also the first philosopher who was condemned to death and executed."

The accusations against Socrates may have stemmed from the following conversation that may have been recorded by Plato in his Secret Lives of Eminent Philosophers:

SOCRATES: Thus we see that Justice is so great a virtue that it cannot be denied to any man, and that freedom of speech is likewise.

KORPORATIOS: It is not Justice that is our stumbling-block. Tell us, O Socrates, how it is that your students learn.

SOCRATES: They are instructed through discussion. As the discussion progresses, viewpoints are both expressed and examined.

BUROCRATES: And how is their learning measured?

SOCRATES: They learn as they debate. Their comprehension of those principles progresses at their individual rates.

BUROCRATES: But it is necessary that your goals and objectives be clearly stated in writing.

SOCRATES: The comprehension of societal virtues is the goal. Of this my students are certain.

BUROCRATES: These goals must be written on papyrus, and it is necessary that they be accompanied by measurable outcomes.

KORPORATIOS: It is no surprise that you do not have enough students to maintain your workload, according to the formula established by the Thirty, and approved by the Thirteen.

SOCRATES: The goal of instruction is found in the heart of every student who comes to learn. The outcome is simple. The learner has a better grasp of how to function in a free society.

BUROCRATES: Firstly, write these things down. Secondly, it is difficult to see how you measure their progress in completing your courses.

SOCRATES: Some students never understand. But as they speak freely, I am able to perceive their comprehension of the virtues.

BUROCRATES: Why have you written none of these things in a sullabos? And why have you failed to conform with the established practices that lead to a sound education?

SOCRATES: SIr, I perceive these practices to be counterproductive.

KORPORATIOS: Be careful, Socrates, that you do not approach blasphemy!

BUROCRATES: We must also see that you have informed disabled students of their rights.

KORPORATIOS: It is further necessary that you conduct multiple-choice student evaluations of your instructional processes.

SOCRATES: I am certain, sirs, that my discussions produce learning, for my former students demonstrate knowledge of the principles in which I instructed them.

BUROCRATES: And yet you avoid the necessary things, such as multiple instruments of measurement. I determine that your practices are unsound, and that no one will ever learn through your methods.

KORPORATIOS: I further discern that you should be denied tenure at this institution -- both for corrupting the youth with your concept of the discussion of different ideas and for your failure to conform to the sound educational methods. Disagreement is not expedient, but forms, and measurement keys, and paperwork are both expedient and necessary.

-----------------------

Epilogue: According to Plato's account of The Defense of Socrates, the oracle at Delphi had pronounced Socrates to be the wisest man in Athens, but his opponents did not consider him so. Socrates was found guilty of "corrupting the youth of Athens" by a vote of 280 to 220. For his crimes against the state, he was imprisoned and forced to commit suicide by drinking hemlock.

The Virtue of Disagreement

"Diversity and independence are important because the best collective decisions are the product of disagreement and contest, not consensus or compromise."
(James Suroviecki, The Wisdom of Crowds)

Disagreement among scholarly minds is a great thing. When two or more viewpoints are expressed side by side, true learning can begin. As Plato once said, "One debates and learns in so doing." It is not through agreement but disagreement that unity of purpose truly arrives. Why is this? It is easy to feel good when everyone agrees with you. When others disagree, and when you respect and encourage that disagreement, your level of respect for everyone in the process grows. The knowledge of everyone is augmented by your participation in the process of learning that comes through disagreement.

That process flows this way:
1. You pick up scraps of information and form an opinion, in accordance with your own paradigm.
2. That opinion and that paradigm are subjected to scrutiny as they are placed alongside other opinions, filtered through other paradigms. The conflict of notions occurs.
3. Each person analyzes the exchange and comes to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of each position.
4. Those who recognize their own weaknesses learn from the strengths of other ways of thinking.

Every paradigm shift, every quantum jump in knowledge, has taken place because of the introduction of alternative viewpoints for open discussion.

“Bigotry is the disease of ignorance, of morbid minds; enthusiasm of the free and buoyant. education and free discussion are the antidotes of both.”
(Thomas Jefferson)

"Someone will say: Yes, Socrates, but cannot you hold your tongue, and then you may go into a foreign city, and no one will interfere with you? Now I have great difficulty in making you understand my answer to this. For if I tell you that this would be a disobedience to a divine command, and therefore that I cannot hold my tongue, you will not believe that I am serious; and if I say again that the greatest good of man is daily to converse about virtue, and all that concerning which you hear me examining myself and others, and that the life which is unexamined is not worth living - that you are still less likely to believe."
(Plato, the Defense of Socrates)

Now the skeptic will ask, "How are we able to discuss with one another without becoming enraged?"

The most important tenet of civil debate is to remain on topic. Let your discussion be about something, and let the points that you make support your premise. Stay away from personal comments, and refrain absolutely from attacking persons rather than opinions.

Secondly, think before you speak (or write). Instead of ranting about how wrong the other party is, consider his or her points. Try to understand the other person's way of thinking before reacting to it. If the person has said nothing personal about you, then do not make the matter personal. If your ideas are noble, and beneficial, and positive, then present them to the group for comparison. As John Bland said, "The truth has nothing to fear from discussion." When you do reply, respond but do not react.

Thirdly, remember that you cannot argue with someone's emotions, nor are you able to disagree with them competently. If someone begins to react emotionally, back off and praise her fervor. Praise his level of concern. Say such things expressly, in order to let your opponent know that you are discussing ideas rather than criticizing them as individuals.

Fourthly, do not be so eager to express your own view that you forget to listen to the opinions of others. Sometimes the most difficult truth to admit as that the other person was right. If someone has a better idea, recognize it and publicly acknowledge it. Be a puppy, not an attack dog.

Finally, when discussing other matters, be sure to agree and disagree according to your viewpoint. Sometimes, you will agree in one discussion with the same person with whom you disagreed in a prior discussion. Doing so allows people to recognize that you are not out to get any person in particular. You are merely expressing your philosophy -- a good thing indeed. If you find yourself disagreeing with someone simply because they are that person, withdraw from that discussion.

“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument is an exchange of ignorance."
(Robert Quillen)

It is through discussion that knowledge arises...
"For it is even necessary that there be differing schools of thought among you, so that the approved ones may also become apparent."
(Paul, 1C 11:19)
...and it is through discussion that freedom is established...
“Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate.”
(Hubert H. Humphrey)

...but we must monitor ourselves between discussions, to ensure that our motives remain pure. We must remain focused on learning through discussion. It should not be our goal that we persuade everyone that our opinions are the right ones; it is enough that our viewpoints are heard.

Burying a disagreement does not make it go away. On the contrary, it can make issues fester and become personal divides. Schisms are to be avoided at all cost, but we must treat our collegial relationships with the responsibility and care that are due any partnership. Just as in a marriage it is not useful to bring up every perceived act of wrongdoing when a disagreement arises, so too it is not beneficial among colleagues. Let the past remain there unless a point is particularly appropriate to the specific discussion at hand. At the end, shake hands (literally or metaphorically), and recognize publicly that the discussion is not personal but is productive. Thank the other persons for participating together with you.

Such was the method of Socrates -- a method that was most useful at many ancient and modern sites of learning. Therefore, let's discuss openly with one another the things that matter to us, and let us treat one another with equality and dignity as we do this.

"All residents of a community need regular opportunities to express their attitudes, feelings and disagreements about community matters."
(Dr. Terry L. Besser, Iowa State University)

Absenteeism Running Rampant

When students are handed their syllabi during the first week of class, they expect that every syllabus will inform them of the course's Attendance Policy. Many of them ask what will happen if they miss a day. What if they should miss an exam -- "can I make it up"? These questions often plague instructors throughtout the semester.

When a staff member is not available to come into the office, that day is treated as either a "sick day" (with appropriate excuses) or "personal day." Personal days are paid for with accrued annual leave and generally must be cleared with supervisors first. If you're out of annual leave, you're unable to take a personal day off.

A similar thing happens when a faculty member misses a day. Either the instructor locates a suitable substitute, or the students are supposed to be given enough outside work to take the place of that day's material. Otherwise, not only will the course "fall behind," but also if enough hours are missed, the class will not meet the requirement for the number of credits in the class.

What happens when a president is the one who is frequently absent? Until recently, e-mails would be sent out informing the college community who will substitute for him that day. Does this mean that every such absence is "excusable"? Where should a president's primary responsiblity be: attending meetings and conventions outside of the area or being available to students, faculty, staff, and his fellow administrators?

This web site... http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0LSH/is_8_8/ai_n14891828/pg_1 discusses a few creative things that college presidents around the country are doing in order to stay connected with their students. Are these things enough? Wouldn't the college be better off when its president begs out of meetings in order to manage the affairs of the college? And couldn't another administrator be designated to handle such meetings?

Theoretically, the president is being pulled in all different directions, but I am writing about a matter of priorities. I am asking what colleges hire a president for. Does a president primarily represent the college to businesses in the state, or does a president primarily serve as the leader for the students, faculty, and staff of the college who hired him? Finally, how can job responsibilities be changed so that people understand that the leadership of the institution must be primary? I would really like to know.

College e-Mail and Freedom of Speech

And so the blog begins, taking up where the discussion on GBC-ALL left off. We are destined, though, to take off in a number of different directions, as issues at the great college require.

When last we read the exciting discussion of current events, DL was rebuking SS, making comments along the way about the nature of e-mail. The folks at Penn State disagree with DL's assessment regarding college e-mail as a business communication. They state, simply, that "e-mail is a public forum." They are most certainly right, for e-mail in general is by no means secure. Furthermore, a discussion group of any kind (be it a listserve, bulletin board, or chat room) serves as a public forum for what is best labeled "the free exchange of ideas." At any college, open discussion through public forums ought to be strongly encouraged, and every citizen of the collegiate community should participate in it.

The founders of freeexchangeoncampus.org are a coalition of faculty and students -- themselves comprising both liberals and conservatives. Their view of college campuses as a place where anything may be said agrees with the historical concept of a college atmosphere as a place where the free exchange of ideas must take place.

The struggle to get ideas heard was what prompted David Horowitz to consider (and later promote) an Academic Bill of Rights. In that bill, several things are written about freedom of speech within a college atmosphere. One of these runs as follows: "Free inquiry and free speech within the academic community are indispensable to the achievement of [a college's] goals."
The bill further asserts that "an environment conducive to the civil exchange of ideas" is essential in any college. Since the college community nicknamed GBC holds no unstructured public forums across its wide service area, the sole venue available and open to every citizen of the community equally was the discussion forum known as "GBC-ALL." It was there that the free exchange of ideas should have taken place and needed to take place. That forum has now been dismantled by well-intentioned administrators.

An exchange of ideas ought to include all matters relevant to members of the college community. Certainly relevant are:news of college-wide events; news of happenings within the community that affect the community's members; and public discussion and debate about all such things.

In the discussion that has been playing out online, an administrator opened the door for discussion by (prematurely) announcing the departure of one faculty member. Since faculty are required to complete one year's service at the college after finishing their sabbatical work, since the announcement deliberately omitted mention of any motivation regarding the faculty member's departure, and since the announcement indicated that the faculty member would leave without completing the required time, intellectual inquiry was stimulated. People with knowledge of the matter felt obliged to comment on or explain the departure -- without bringing up any individual's personnel issues. This inquiry is their duty as citizens of the community. Larger issues of the responsibilities of administrators, the nature of collegial relationships, and whether some faculty and staff departures are connected to one another in some way, were also broached. In my opinion these larger issues should all be debated in the same forum as the one where original public statement was made.

GBC-ALL was the closest equivalent to a free press that the college had, and now it no longer exists. Quoting the AAUP's statement about Electronic Communications, "Academic freedom, free inquiry, and freedom of expression within the academic community may be limited to no greater extent in electronic format than they are in print...."

The principle of self-government, affirmed by the Constitution and the Supreme Court, further promotes the right of every citizen to publicly express his honest opinion. This opinion may
be a statement about illegal immigration (an issue of national interest), or it may be an assertion about the perceived competence of a specific administrator (a matter of community interest), or -- in this case, it may involve an inquiry into the sudden and untimely departure of a respected faculty member.

Therefore, I disagree with what DL said in the public forum. Certainly he is entitled to hold an opinion, and he ought to write it; I disagree with that opinion. If we perceive problems within the community, an online forum is our means of discussing those perceptions. As John Bland once said, "The truth has nothing to fear from discussion." It is indeed true that several community members have left the system angrily over the past few years. Should we not ask why this is so? Should we not try to change the community so that this does not occur in the future? What if the faculty member in question is leaving because her political views are not appreciated by her department? Or by administrators? What if she feels pushed out because our community does not accept her?

Finally, DL's words surprise me. Having read his article to the local newspaper, I perceive him to be a conservative. Historically, true conservatives have always encouraged free discussion.
A leading presidential candidate claims to have an open weblog ("blog") but has removed from it the opinions of those who disagree with her. Our local college officials have now made it more difficult to express opinions on issues relevant to the community. I do not believe this is where we want to go, and I am persuaded that stifling free communication on the college's only free forum would lead us in exactly that direction. Therefore, this blog now exists, and I hope that others will open their own weblogs to share their ideas. I may be wrong. These are only my opinions. Yet I do want the freedom to say them.

By the way: DL's statement in the paper about radio entertainer Rush Limbaugh was inaccurate. The host did not say that soldiers who oppose the war are "phony." He was talking specifically about people who have pretended to be soldiers against the war, but who were (in fact) not members of any branch of military service. It was Harry Reid who asserted that Rush had been talking about servicemen who oppose the war.

Sincerely and with malice toward none...