Thursday, October 25, 2007

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)



Thursday, October 18, 2007

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.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

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...