"Got to be a joker. He just do what he please."
In July, 1969, Dr. Timothy Leary was giving serious consideration to making a run for the US presidency. He had just given a popular series of lectures at UC Berkeley (and at other colleges) and was widely known for having told Americans to "Turn on. Tune in. Drop out."
Leary's first goal was to win the California gubernatorial election against Ronald Reagan. Leary was busted for drug possession, and his career in politics wound up being permanently derailed. However, Leary's campaign left some thought-provoking ideas behind:
"The basic function of government is to protect individuals against organized gangs and groups."
Leary wasn't entirely wrong about that, was he? At every level, people seek protection from groups -- in part because the individual needs to know that she has a voice. The individual has to matter. Any elected official worth his salt knows this and keeps it in his heart; politicians who forget this wind up bringing upon themselves the wrath of the people. This is a basic expectation of government: that it help individuals where they cannot help themselves.
"Another basic function of government is to entertain/educate."
At times, we in education laughingly refer to our service as "edutainment." Articles have been written for and against the connection between education and entertainment. Leary believed that the two ideas could go hand in hand. He further expressed that government should take on the edutainment role itself. Sometimes comedy is the best means of providing information. Sometimes, though, seriousness is called for. A good politician would be able to distinguish between those times.
Leary's campaign, however, was shortsighted at times and narrowly-focused. As a "drug guru," he pushed more strongly for legalization than for anything else. Had Leary become governor of California, his lack of leadership on other issues would surely have shown. But he was right about one thing for sure: there was room for everyone in the process. His tongue-in-cheek slogan, "Come together: join the party!" was somewhat inspirational. He didn't want to exclude his opposition; instead, he wanted everyone to be taken seriously.
We may not need all of Leary's shenanigans, but we certainly need his sense of inclusiveness today. Aren't faculty, staff, and administration equally deserving of participation? By virtue of the examples that we present to others, shouldn't we all be engaged in education? And maybe...just maybe...a little entertainment, too?
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
The Necessities
When we speak of academic freedom and shared governance, I tend to hear the terms defined this way:
"Academic Freedom means I can do whatever I want, and Shared Governance means I can tell you what to do."
In a business-minded, self-centered society, this is indeed how the concepts play out. We rarely hear one another say things like, "I enjoy sharing the governance of my department with others," but we often hear how administrators are expected to share governance with us. When other instructors disagree with us, do we rush to protect their academic freedom? I hope so; we should.
At some colleges, there is no pretense of shared governance. In the strongest cases, a military-minded, authoritarian administration dictates policies without the input or agreement of the faculty. The faculty, meanwhile, exhibit the same tendencies toward one another, so that department chairs are lords of their departments, senior faculty are barons of their offices, and junior faculty live to serve.
Other colleges and universities claim to practice shared governance in one form or another. If shared governance is to work properly, though, it must be desired. A self-directed faculty has little desire to share governance with anyone else. A faculty who view their work as merely a job that pays the bills will be unable to glimpse the benefits of shared governance. An administration who adhere strongly to a business model of the college -- wherein the students are clients and the faculty are employees -- will likewise have great difficulty thinking that there might be any advantage to shared governance. Thus, a shared paradigm must precede shared governance.
Simply put: in order to have it, we must want it. In order to want it, we must know what it means to share. We must realize that if things get out of control, it is not our job to "fix" them. If others do contrary to what we would do, not only should we accept it, but it behooves us to embrace their freedom to do so. Sharing governance means that the community deliberately obtains input from one another prior to, and in the process of, making decisions. We do not seek such input because we are required by policy to do so; on the contrary, we do this because their input might likely be useful, and because we do not wish to marginalize anyone. If people stop caring, then they stop sharing, and shared governance ceases to exist.
Academic Freedom is likewise an ideal that must be closely guarded. Protecting the academic freedom of others means letting them speak when we think they should shut up. It means letting them teach when we think it will blow up in their faces. To have academic freedom means allowing others to do whatever decision we would like the liberty to make for ourselves.
Sharing our governance with one another and protecting one another's academic freedom are central concepts in the educational paradigm. These things distinguish us from corporations. They are what allow us to focus on education as our primary objective. But notice that we have turned the definitions around. Shared governance and academic freedom must not be things that we "take" for ourselves. If we hold such an attitude, then these things will escape us. We must always remember that shared governance and academic freedom are things that you must all give in order for any to have.
"Academic Freedom means I can do whatever I want, and Shared Governance means I can tell you what to do."
In a business-minded, self-centered society, this is indeed how the concepts play out. We rarely hear one another say things like, "I enjoy sharing the governance of my department with others," but we often hear how administrators are expected to share governance with us. When other instructors disagree with us, do we rush to protect their academic freedom? I hope so; we should.
At some colleges, there is no pretense of shared governance. In the strongest cases, a military-minded, authoritarian administration dictates policies without the input or agreement of the faculty. The faculty, meanwhile, exhibit the same tendencies toward one another, so that department chairs are lords of their departments, senior faculty are barons of their offices, and junior faculty live to serve.
Other colleges and universities claim to practice shared governance in one form or another. If shared governance is to work properly, though, it must be desired. A self-directed faculty has little desire to share governance with anyone else. A faculty who view their work as merely a job that pays the bills will be unable to glimpse the benefits of shared governance. An administration who adhere strongly to a business model of the college -- wherein the students are clients and the faculty are employees -- will likewise have great difficulty thinking that there might be any advantage to shared governance. Thus, a shared paradigm must precede shared governance.
Simply put: in order to have it, we must want it. In order to want it, we must know what it means to share. We must realize that if things get out of control, it is not our job to "fix" them. If others do contrary to what we would do, not only should we accept it, but it behooves us to embrace their freedom to do so. Sharing governance means that the community deliberately obtains input from one another prior to, and in the process of, making decisions. We do not seek such input because we are required by policy to do so; on the contrary, we do this because their input might likely be useful, and because we do not wish to marginalize anyone. If people stop caring, then they stop sharing, and shared governance ceases to exist.
Academic Freedom is likewise an ideal that must be closely guarded. Protecting the academic freedom of others means letting them speak when we think they should shut up. It means letting them teach when we think it will blow up in their faces. To have academic freedom means allowing others to do whatever decision we would like the liberty to make for ourselves.
Sharing our governance with one another and protecting one another's academic freedom are central concepts in the educational paradigm. These things distinguish us from corporations. They are what allow us to focus on education as our primary objective. But notice that we have turned the definitions around. Shared governance and academic freedom must not be things that we "take" for ourselves. If we hold such an attitude, then these things will escape us. We must always remember that shared governance and academic freedom are things that you must all give in order for any to have.
Friday, March 21, 2008
You Didn't Hear This From Me
| "I heard it in the night Words the thoughtless speak (Like vultures swooping down below) On the Devil's Radio." |
The exchange professor from Bangla Desh is getting deported because he propositioned his students for sex.
Dr. Noah Boddy got a tattoo of President Killpatrick's face -- on his buttocks!
Some gossip is silly, but all of it is malevolent. It might seem well-intentioned to tell a few friends that Dr. No hates Dr. Yes, but then someone will say that Dr. Yes has a grudge against Dr. No -- and when word gets back to them, they both feel betrayed. Now they really do dislike one another, and it's your fault.
It is a nice thing to console a friend during a crisis, but it is not nice to stir up the whole department about it. Sometimes I wish that my own lips had come pre-buttoned from the lip factory!
I'm not sure about all of you, but I like everyone I work with -- even though we disagree sometimes. But if one of you sees one such disagreement and tells someone else, "Oh, Pascal really doesn't like Aloysius," then if that person or someone further down the gossip chain tells Aloysius, "Pascal is trying to get your tenure revoked," all that accomplishes is to place a fine friendship in a proverbial pickle.
These seeds of distrust are sown every day. No one wants to walk around campus feeling like everyone is whispering about their personal (and personnel) matters, but this is what we are doing to one another. This is the atmosphere of discontent that we are creating for one another,
and if we bite at and gnaw on one another, we need to beware or we will consume one another.
If we must talk about one another to others, let it be like this:
"I just heard that Richard is getting an award."
"Everyone says that Gretchen is a great friend."
"Bret really cares about student learning."
"Mike has done some really good things as a leader."
Aren't there at least a few stories that are truly worth telling? I believe there are. I think we have done some very good things in secret that could be told in public. Instead of telling stories that offend and harm, let's sell stories that construct and heal. What a fine place this would be if we all found nice things to say about one another.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
A Typical Unbiased Faculty Survey
1. Why do you think administrators treat faculty unfairly?
2. Which of the college president's qualities or attributes most negatively impact his job performance?
3. Describe how overworked you are.
4. Describe how underpaid you are.
5. Which administrator is most directly responsible for all of the negativity on this campus?
6. Which administrators are not qualified to do their jobs?
7. Describe the impact of the top-down management style at this college.
2. Which of the college president's qualities or attributes most negatively impact his job performance?
3. Describe how overworked you are.
4. Describe how underpaid you are.
5. Which administrator is most directly responsible for all of the negativity on this campus?
6. Which administrators are not qualified to do their jobs?
7. Describe the impact of the top-down management style at this college.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
What the Rough Rider Said
"You stand for Academic Freedom, for the right of private judgment, for a duty more incumbent upon the scholar than upon any other man, to tell the truth as he sees it, to claim for himself and to give to others the largest liberty in seeking after the truth." (Theodore Roosevelt at Trinity College, September, 1905)
With those words, President Roosevelt kept racial issues on the front burner of the political stove. Although it had been practiced for some time previously, the legal concept of academic freedom originated in Germany in 1850, when the Prussian Constitution formally declared, "Science and its teaching shall be free."
This freedom carries with it the responsibility to guard the freedom of others. The failure to protect that freedom allows one side of a disagreement to dominate. This majority opinion becomes the rule of the day, and that rule is used to compel others to conform.
"What were the Romish arguments, from the days of the Nicene debate, down to the pontifical anathama? They were, truth is one -- therefore true believers can not differ. But they do differ Therefore there is heresy. Heresy must be kept out. Make a creed to keep it out; and as to which side is heresy "Quod semper quod ubique quod ab omnibus." That is, "heresy is the opinion which is in the minority." A strange rule in a world where wise heads are certainly not generally in the majority, but a rule eminently convenient and practical. Yes; shear off the troublesome thinkers, and sing stagnant hallelujahs!" (Charles Beecher, "Creeds," the Western Preacher, Vol. 1, 1865).
It is indeed possible for this majority rule to become so strong in the secular realm that academic freedom is infringed. Consider the landmark case, "Adler v. Board of Education," in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a teacher may be dismissed based on membership in an organization that is regarded negatively by the school or system.
"The present law proceeds on a principle repugnant to our society - guilt by association. A teacher is disqualified because of her membership in an organization found to be "subversive." ...The mere fact of membership in the organization raises a prima facie case of her own guilt. She may, it is said, show her innocence. But innocence in this case turns on knowledge; and when the witch hunt is on, one who must rely on ignorance leans on a feeble reed. The very threat of such a procedure is certain to raise havoc with academic freedom." (statement of Justices Douglas and Black, dissenting with Adler v. Board of Education, 1952)
Thus we see how easy it was for such an important principle to be tossed aside because of prevailing sentiments. Fortunately for academia, the majority opinion of the Supreme Court was expressed as follows five years later:
"We believe that there unquestionably was an invasion of petitioner's liberties in the areas of academic freedom and political expression – areas in which government should be extremely reticent to tread.
"The essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident. No one should underestimate the vital role in a democracy that is played by those who guide and train our youth. To impose any strait jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our Nation." (Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 1957)
Taking these words to heart, every faculty member, every student, and every department must jealously guard the freedom of those around us. We should not allow the college as a whole, or its administration, to make decisions that rightly belong to the departments, or to individuals. Even so, an open discussion of ideas is necessary to ensure that the best possible paths are chosen. Think about these things as you plan the upcoming semester, schedule courses, and select and order textbooks.
With those words, President Roosevelt kept racial issues on the front burner of the political stove. Although it had been practiced for some time previously, the legal concept of academic freedom originated in Germany in 1850, when the Prussian Constitution formally declared, "Science and its teaching shall be free."
This freedom carries with it the responsibility to guard the freedom of others. The failure to protect that freedom allows one side of a disagreement to dominate. This majority opinion becomes the rule of the day, and that rule is used to compel others to conform.
"What were the Romish arguments, from the days of the Nicene debate, down to the pontifical anathama? They were, truth is one -- therefore true believers can not differ. But they do differ Therefore there is heresy. Heresy must be kept out. Make a creed to keep it out; and as to which side is heresy "Quod semper quod ubique quod ab omnibus." That is, "heresy is the opinion which is in the minority." A strange rule in a world where wise heads are certainly not generally in the majority, but a rule eminently convenient and practical. Yes; shear off the troublesome thinkers, and sing stagnant hallelujahs!" (Charles Beecher, "Creeds," the Western Preacher, Vol. 1, 1865).
It is indeed possible for this majority rule to become so strong in the secular realm that academic freedom is infringed. Consider the landmark case, "Adler v. Board of Education," in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a teacher may be dismissed based on membership in an organization that is regarded negatively by the school or system.
"The present law proceeds on a principle repugnant to our society - guilt by association. A teacher is disqualified because of her membership in an organization found to be "subversive." ...The mere fact of membership in the organization raises a prima facie case of her own guilt. She may, it is said, show her innocence. But innocence in this case turns on knowledge; and when the witch hunt is on, one who must rely on ignorance leans on a feeble reed. The very threat of such a procedure is certain to raise havoc with academic freedom." (statement of Justices Douglas and Black, dissenting with Adler v. Board of Education, 1952)
Thus we see how easy it was for such an important principle to be tossed aside because of prevailing sentiments. Fortunately for academia, the majority opinion of the Supreme Court was expressed as follows five years later:
"We believe that there unquestionably was an invasion of petitioner's liberties in the areas of academic freedom and political expression – areas in which government should be extremely reticent to tread.
"The essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident. No one should underestimate the vital role in a democracy that is played by those who guide and train our youth. To impose any strait jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our Nation." (Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 1957)
Taking these words to heart, every faculty member, every student, and every department must jealously guard the freedom of those around us. We should not allow the college as a whole, or its administration, to make decisions that rightly belong to the departments, or to individuals. Even so, an open discussion of ideas is necessary to ensure that the best possible paths are chosen. Think about these things as you plan the upcoming semester, schedule courses, and select and order textbooks.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Do We Need a Calamity in Order to C*RE?
Our social system at GBC is designed, in part, by well-meaning attorneys. If one expresses concern for someone's progress, or for their happiness, that concern is misinterpreted, shaken, reconstituted, and recreated as something "inappropriate" or "unprofessional." Therefore, we are all made aware that "care" is a dirty word. Telling a student or coworker that you care leaves both you and the institution wide open for a gaggle of lawsuits.
Sometimes, what someone really needs is a hug. A hug can save the day...truly. However, the willy-nilly dispensation of hugs is misinterpreted, shaken, reconstituted, and recreated as an inappropriate display of affection. If you hug a coworker frequently enough, the gossip mill will churn out stories of the most shocking variety -- and here comes that lawsuit again.
Consequently, we work in a society in which it is best not to care. Keep your head down, and keep your emotions in check. The pure "T" -- the thinker -- is the smartest hire for any position. The system virtually requires the hire of employees who will stare blankly as others fail or go through trials. Getting others to demonstrate care toward others is more difficult than putting a camel through the eye of a needle (or getting a wealthy person into heaven, if I follow the analogy).
Recently, however, there was a certain calamity, and in the wake of that calamity, the lawyers have turned the other way. Suddenly, everyone must care. Suddenly there is an outpouring of positive emotion of a magnitude unseen since the colonials won the revolution and secured the right to low-cost tea. Hugs, smiles, and tears have become abundant. It may not be politically correct to care, but we have stopped being concerned about what is socially acceptable. We CARE.
Will it take another calamity, or will we be able to take this genuine emotional event into our daily lives? It would be terrific if the college could be transformed by this shared experience. Let us go forth and delight in one another, worry about one another, and care for one another and give up challenging one another, envying one another, and ignoring one another. Let us become known as "the college where we care about YOU." I continue to dream.
Sometimes, what someone really needs is a hug. A hug can save the day...truly. However, the willy-nilly dispensation of hugs is misinterpreted, shaken, reconstituted, and recreated as an inappropriate display of affection. If you hug a coworker frequently enough, the gossip mill will churn out stories of the most shocking variety -- and here comes that lawsuit again.
Consequently, we work in a society in which it is best not to care. Keep your head down, and keep your emotions in check. The pure "T" -- the thinker -- is the smartest hire for any position. The system virtually requires the hire of employees who will stare blankly as others fail or go through trials. Getting others to demonstrate care toward others is more difficult than putting a camel through the eye of a needle (or getting a wealthy person into heaven, if I follow the analogy).
Recently, however, there was a certain calamity, and in the wake of that calamity, the lawyers have turned the other way. Suddenly, everyone must care. Suddenly there is an outpouring of positive emotion of a magnitude unseen since the colonials won the revolution and secured the right to low-cost tea. Hugs, smiles, and tears have become abundant. It may not be politically correct to care, but we have stopped being concerned about what is socially acceptable. We CARE.
Will it take another calamity, or will we be able to take this genuine emotional event into our daily lives? It would be terrific if the college could be transformed by this shared experience. Let us go forth and delight in one another, worry about one another, and care for one another and give up challenging one another, envying one another, and ignoring one another. Let us become known as "the college where we care about YOU." I continue to dream.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Acting Like Children
During that hour, the students came to Jesus, saying, "Then who is the greatest in the kingdom of the heavens?" And he called a school child to him and stood it in their midst, and he said, "Indeed I am telling you, unless you turn and become like the children, you will by no means enter into the kingdom of the heavens. Therefore, whoever may humble himself like this child, this one is the greatest in the kingdom of the heavens. And whoever may receive one such child in my name, he is receiving me. But whoever causes one of these little ones who trust in me to stumble, it would make sense for him that an upper millstone be hung around his neck and for him to be plunged down in the deep waters of the sea. (Mt 18:1-6)
When problems arise, do we remember how imaginatively we used to solve problems when we were children? When we engage in emotional spats with one another, do we recall how those same troubles used to disappear with each new day? When we become territorial at work, do we recollect how many times we were told to share? As kids, we may have pouted occasionally, but we learned those rules -- only to have forgotten them when we became adults.
Here are some interesting rules that we all learned years ago:
"1. No hitting or biting allowed.
2. Use good manners. Say 'please,' 'thank you,' and 'excuse me.'
3. Say 'have a good day' to employees at the grocery, bank, and so on, as you exit a business." (Raising Respectful Children in a Disrespectful World, p. 92)
Or how about these rules about property?
"1. Share your toys with your friends.
2. Keep one and share one when candy is given out.
3. Always let your friends go first." (ibid)
Or these rules about responsibility?
"1. Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
2. Do not blame others when you get in trouble. Take responsibility for your own actions.
3. Ask before using someone else's belongings." (ibid, p. 93)
Michael Grose writes, "Conflict is part of daily living. Effective people resolve conflict in ways that protect relationships, honour feelings and lead to a resolution. They neither avoid conflict nor do they use power to dominate others or win conflict." (Teach Your Children How to Resolve Conflict Without Anger or Power)
Again, we knew all of these things when we were younger. Have the so-called practicalities of adult living rendered these principles worthless? May it never happen! Therefore, in our dealings with one another let us behave at least as politely and respectfully as we teach our children to behave. Then maybe we will regain the sense of wonder and imagination that we have lost as adults.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)