Consider this...
While we engage in some very thoughtful debates about recent student protests of commencement speakers, there could be a silent majority we are overlooking...

While this cartoon initially seems to blame the NRA (and they are partly culpable, but it is too easy to focus on the NRA and erase the culpability of the rest of us), it is also suggesting a larger system-wide failure to provide less violent channels for more open and productive communication, a failure to create a culture and public pedagogy that makes respecting others foundational...

Still More on Student Protests
A Chronicle article on the recent student protests of commencement speakers quotes one replacement speaker (Mr. Bowen) as encouraging ‘civil non-disruptive protests.’  Students at OSU are cited as unhappy with the choice of Chris Matthews, because they do not know who he is. 

As usual, some of the most thoughtful ideas emerged in the exchange that followed the article.

A:  Student protests are a sign of student engagement, perhaps even critical thinking, designed to create publicity in the hope that more will pay attention…encouraging us to see something presented as bland entertainment as controversial and contested.

B: Counters that the protests signify mindlessness, but then strays from this mindless comment to quite thoughtfully note that the type of protest matters:  if you silence opposing ideas there is no engagement, and therefore no learning, no appreciation for the nuance of arguments on all sides, no progress. Bullying opponents into silence is not critical thinking; quite the opposite, as B points out.

C: Agrees with B and adds that we need to know more about the vitality of communication channels that might have made more effective protest also more deliberative…shifting our attention from student to administrator agency, where it belongs given the power relationships here. 

C and D also remind us that when Mr. Bowen-types are the substitute speaker we have to wonder out-loud if the administrative decision makers are even interested in hearing student messages, delivered in any form, rather than being only interested in their own political spectacle, as A suggests.

E: focuses much more directly on power and the ways that our perspective on conflicts like this often reflect more about our relationship to the status quo than they do about our understanding of free speech, civil disobedience, or protest.

Here are the comments from A-D, in full and without editing:

A: ‘I couldn't disagree more with Mr. Bowen's view. I am delighted that there are still bright, critically thinking college students who objected to their school's choice of commencement speakers. If they were brought to campus (and paid handsomely), any discussion of views between speaker and students would have resulted in no publicity and nothing would change. At least now, those beyond the campus, who are paying attention, would investigate the reasons there was protest. In these cases I agree wholeheartedly. Chris Matthews? What a joke.

In fact, I wish Emerson College students objected to its' choice to give, CNN teleprompter reader, Don Lemon, an honorary degree. Mr. Lemon exemplifies how far from true journalism the media has sunk. It is, as Edward Bernays, advocated it to be ...totally scripted propaganda.

It is refreshing, however, that some college graduates are paying attention and they have not become mindless zombies. I appreciate Ms. Jerde's [author of Chronicle piece] effort to bring this to our attention.’

B: ‘I have serious doubts about the assumption that these are "bright, critically thinking college students." Rather, they are mindless zombies of another kind, responding in a knee-jerk manner to speakers who are opposed by the group-think evident in their particular campus subcultures. The close-mindedness of these protesters is revealed by their unwillingness to engage intellectually with those with whom they disagree. Instead, they bully their opponents by trying to prevent the free exchange of ideas and failing to engage those ideas. Their notion that there is only one way to think about important issues of the day (and that their way is the only way) is anti-intellectual and pure arrogance. All of the issues surrounding the graduation speakers who backed out of their speeches have much more nuance attached to them than these individuals are capable of absorbing and, apparently, understanding. Let's stop the hero-worship of those who engage in thuggish behavior on college campuses.’

C: ‘Thank you for this. The kind of protest we too often see is thuggery of the worst kind, not genuine protest. There are effective channels for protest, and I wonder if these have been exhausted. The real problem is how effective administrations are at insulating the deciders from alternative viewpoints. The sometimes echo chambers of administrative meetings causes this problem. To pretend that the substitution of one monochordic drone for another is somehow virtuous denies everything "bright" or "critical" about the "thinking."’

D: ‘Well spoken.

Not to distract from your excellent post, I would only add that the sentiment expressed by your final sentence should be applied across our entire society and particularly to our political arena (for it has become an arena in all but the literal sense of the word, and not far from that at times).’

Much further down the thread...

E: 'While I find the Haverford folks’ list of “demands” to be disingenuous, since their purpose is not so much to invite conversation with the would-have-been speaker but to call attention to his problematic decisions, I’m bothered by the claim that the protest was not “civil.” In my mind, when attempting to speak truth to power, people should rely on language and non-violent behaviors, which is what the students and faculty did. Could they have been nicer? Sure.

Could Mr. Birgeneau have been nicer, both in responding to protests at Berkeley and in replying to the recent protesters? Yes. And it was hardly civil to endorse the use of violence at Berkeley.

It’s also disingenuous to suggest that open discussion among people with different points of view would happen in the context of a commencement visit and speech. It’s hard enough at a university to engage in open conversation with those who have more power.

 

In my experience—granted, I’m a woman and untenured—people with more power choose to ignore debates and discussions about topics they don’t want to discuss. And if there’s a chance that talking honestly about something (e.g., sexual assault) that might make the institution look bad, those with power will often try to “spin” the talk in a way that protects the status quo. When “freedom of speech” threatens power and its sense of order, it is seen as uncivil and disruptive. Everyone would be more civil if we seriously considered the perspectives of those who wish not merely to be heard, but to engender change for the common good.'

 

Student Success
A decade or so ago I thought that this phrase was the tip of a discursive iceberg that had the capacity to bring faculty and administrators together around an actually shared interest: helping our students learn.

I still want to believe this.  It still could be.  But I wonder as it has begun to sound more hallow, in the same way that once robust resources for resistance get commodified.  Think Led Zepplin music for Cadillac commercials, for a trivial illustration.

Anyway, in politics it is important to enact the goal, to be the change, especially when the competing interests are struggling to find that common language I had hoped this buzzword might have become.

To me, this means doing two things at once.

Call those...diminishing the idea by treating is as a free-floating signifier without empirical referent...on their bullshit.  Do it powerfully and honestly, but also working just as powerfully and honestly to articulate it in ways designed to stand the best chance of being heard.  And redesigning as needed, based on listening and learning.

And...

Call ourselves out.  We can actually accomplish a lot more when we focus on what we can do, on pushing our allies reject dualistic thinking or demonizing sound bites.  And instead, enact and be, live in a way that advances the success of our students.

And we cannot help our students if we ignore the rising cost of education to them and their families or the dwindling prospects for many of them upon graduation.  We need to build bridges between our classrooms and their questions, challenges, and aspirations.

Elizabeth Warren on Colbert
I do not want to see a fight within the Democratic Party, but my preference is for candidate Warren.

She went toe to toe with Colbert.  Informative and funny.  She is always worth paying attention to and here is a Mother Jones summary.

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/79q9bs/elizabeth-warren

Still Thinking About Dissent
Building on my previous blog (in a conversation with myself), I want to be brief and clear.  I am proud of the students for getting involved, caring, taking a stand, being willing to push back and follow through.  The analysis I re-posted in my previous blog is not meant to criticize the students.  They are among the most power-poor actors in these conflicts over commencement speakers.  I applaud their courage...their willingness to express dissent, to take a risk to challenge the conventional wisdom bubbles of elites.  And, while I am disappointed in an outcome where dissent is silenced, rather than engaged to demonstrate its error, I do not blame the students for this sub-optimal outcome either.

Leaders (in this case, university administrators) who choose to schedule a highly controversial speaker without consulting the members of their community are sending a message:  they are willing to use their power in pedagogical moments like these, to simply assert the correctness of their own views, even if doing so is likely to harm our collective respect for the vigorous contestation of ideas, democratic deliberation, and community.  When the powerful ignore the power-poor they have failed as leaders, because they have created a conversation where dissenting voices have too few options for productive participation in the dialogue.

While I struggle mightily with understanding why the CEO of a large hospital in my town would invite Laura Ingraham as the keynote speaker to celebrate the institutions anniversary, and I am deeply trouble by what that says about his leadership (and capacity to think clearly), confronted with that situation I would consider 

• getting the leadership to change its mind before a decision is made (which does not seem to have been an option in any of these cases) and instead choose a speaker who will challenge us without dividing us in ways that disempower and confuse us;
• work with the leadership to bring in a second speaker and turn the forum into a meaningful dialogue (and it does not seem like this was an option here, though only the insiders would know);
• organize a counterpoint event and speaker, like a shadow cabinet, to indicate the shameful abuse of power by the institutions leadership and counter bad ideas with better ideas.

I do not pretend to think this would be easy or even that it is achievable or optimal.  I do, however, believe that we need to engage with those who see the world differently, including those who do so simply to be divisive, to demonstrate the wrong-headedness of their ideas...while at the same time demonstrating the importance and value of democracy, enacting the change we want to see in the world.

Imagine if students at Liberty University organized to boo Michelle Obama off the stage.  (Of course, this requires imagining the unimaginable, that LU would invite MO in the first place, but run with me on this one.) 

Would those cheering the students booing Rice and others (who rightfully deserve loud disapproval) feel the same way about LU students or would our initial reaction be that they need to hear MO, their rejection is based on their fear of unfamiliar ideas and the clash of ideas is what a university is all about, etc?  This response is different, because hidden (not so well) beneath this debate about speech are debates about ideas and policies--where there are competing versions of what is 'right' and who is wrong.

Anyway, I wanted to clarify that I remain proud of the students and that my disappointed in the outcomes is a reflection of my disappointment in the leadership of these institutions.

Ran into a great quote from Bruce Lee the other day about embracing the paradoxes in life, which seems to fit here:

"Obey the principles, without being bound by them."

Obeying our principles, of free speech and more, starts with understanding them enough to let them guide us through the complexities of the real world, let them help us become better people who are more engaged with others in support of resilient and flourishing communities, rather than empty platitudes 'accidentally clinging to words that express a truth.'

As JS Mill notes, when we fail to “fully, frequently, and fearless discuss” our principles, in ways that recognize these as “living truths,” even our most important ideals become like ashes in our mouths.  Our recitation of them as if they were self-interpreting platitudes existing beyond debate transforming noble ideas into notions “held as dead dogma…one superstition the more, accidentally clinging to the words which enunciate a truth.”

And yes, I just quoted Bruce Lee and JS Mill together...you got a problem with that?! :)

Let's Review:  Dissent is as American as Apple Pie

Republican Columnist, Steve Chapman, who writes for the Chicago Tribune has recently written two spectacular columns about Republican-led voter suppression efforts today.  Highly recommended.

Stephen Carter, Bloomberg columnist and professor at Yale, wrote a very thoughtful and challenging mock commencement address that is also very much worth reading and thinking about.  It is pasted below in full.

Dear Class of 2014: Thanks for Not Disinviting Me

May 15, 2014 By Stephen L. Carter

Members of the Class of 2014, I salute you. My warmest wishes on the occasion of your graduation from this fine institution.  And, before I go any further, I would like to express my personal thanks to all of you for not rescinding my invitation. I know that matters were dicey for a while, given that I have held and defended actual positions on politically contested issues. Now and then I’ve strayed from the party line. And if the demonstrators would quiet down for a moment, I’d like to offer an abject apology for any way in which I have offended against the increasingly narrow and often obscure values of the academy.

In my day, the college campus was a place that celebrated the diversity of ideas. Pure argument was our guide. Staking out an unpopular position was admired -- and the admiration, in turn, provided excellent training in the virtues of tolerance on the one hand and, on the other, integrity.  Your generation, I am pleased to say, seems to be doing away with all that. There’s no need for the ritual give and take of serious argument when, in your early 20s, you already know the answers to all questions. How marvelous it must be to realize at so tender an age that you will never, ever change your mind, because you will never, ever encounter disagreement! How I wish I’d had your confidence and fortitude. I could have spared myself many hours of patient reflection and intellectual struggle over the great issues of the day.

Ladies and gentlemen, you are graduating into a world of enormous complexity and conflict. There are corners of the globe where violence and war and abject oppression still dominate. Capitalism is concentrating wealth in fewer hands but, in the developing world, lifting tens of millions out of poverty. Traditional societies are caught in an increasingly desperate struggle between the perils of fundamentalism on the one side and the perils of modernism on the other.  Given your generation’s penchant for shutting down speakers with whom you disagree, I am assuming that you have no intention of playing any serious adult role in mediating those conflicts. And that’s fine. We should leave the task of mediation to those unsophisticated enough to be sensitive to the concerns of both sides.

Besides, you will face more important problems. Once you depart the campus, the world will make unjust demands on you. You will have to work for a living. You will have to put up with people whose views you despise. Fortunately, as long as you don’t waste precious time reflecting in a serious way on the issues of the day -- or, worse, contemplating the possibility that you might be mistaken on a question or two -- you should have plenty of hours for Twitter and Google Hangout and the nonstop party that every truly just society was meant to be.

Indeed, a lack of reflection can be of enormous assistance to an act of protest. Consider the contretemps at Smith College over the invitation extended to Christine Lagarde, the head of the International Money Fund, who has decided not to attend. Were one to think seriously about the implications of the anti-IMF argument -- and, please, ladies and gentlemen, do nothing of the kind! -- one would also presumably have to bar from the stage Lagarde’s fellow conspirators, particularly leaders of the IMF’s biggest financial supporter, the United States of America. (The Tea Party, happily, opposes the IMF. Perhaps one of its leaders might be invited next year.)

Then there are your fellows at Rutgers University, who rose up to force the estimable Condoleezza Rice, former secretary of state and national security adviser, to withdraw. The protest was worded with unusual care, citing the war in Iraq and the “torture” practiced by the Central Intelligence Agency. Cleverly omitted was the drone war. This elision allows the protesters to wish away the massive drone war that President Barack Obama's administration has conducted now for more than five years, with significant loss of innocent life. As for the Iraq war, well, among its early and enthusiastic supporters was -- to take a name at random -- then-Senator Hillary Clinton. But don’t worry. Consistency in protest requires careful and reflective thought, and that is exactly what we should be avoiding here.

The literary critic George Steiner, in a wonderful little book titled "Nostalgia for the Absolute,” long ago predicted this moment. We have an attraction, he contended, to higher truths that can sweep away complexity and nuance. We like systems that can explain everything. Intellectuals in the West are nostalgic for the tight grip religion once held on the Western imagination. They are attracted to modes of thought that are as comprehensive and authoritarian as the medieval church. You and your fellow students -- and your professors as well; one mustn’t forget their role -- are therefore to be congratulated for your involvement in the excellent work of bringing back the Middle Ages.

Now, before I close, I would like to address those members of the Class of 2014 who might think that it’s wrong to ban speakers whose views you reject. Your reactionary belief in tolerance and open-mindedness is truly distressing. I beg you to remember that every controversial question has only one answer. You have absolutely nothing to learn from people whose opinions you dislike.  And now, graduates, before things go too far -- before you run the risk of being thought to be on the road to becoming responsible adults -- please, rise to your feet, and, speaking with one voice, shout me down!  Thank you.

Thanks Mom!
Today, social media is filled with expressions of appreciation for all that our Moms do for us.  It is kinda cool to see and know that there are millions of other 'best mom evers' out there going to bed hungry as the real MVP (to paraphrase NBA MVP Kevin Durant).

What seems like a lifetime ago, in only my second year in Akron, my parents came to visit Julie and I at 162 and one of my favorite pictures resulted.  Brian gave me that sweatshirt for either my birthday or Father's Day and it was his favorite sweatshirt.  It became my favorite for years, until it was retired.  My Dad is wearing a T from where I had only just (barely) completed my doctorate.  My Mom looks happy in my Dad's arms, relaxed and content when confronted with any evidence that one of us doing well.  Three happy faces too.  To get the sense that I brought a smile like this to my Mom's face is like winning the lottery.

Then there is this picture from on top of the Guiness Brewery in Dublin.  Mom does not drink hardly at all and is not much for travelling either...so the fact that she joined us for the trip and had a sip of my Guiness...priceless!

Then, as if the universe was not good enough to me, I had the chance to watch Julie mother and the learn parenting from and with her.  Which has been part of learning a lot more about all that matters in life, about myself and our world.  Thanks Mom and Julie...all my love, Bill

Intensive and Personal Engagement for Student Success

The May 6, 2014 edition of the Chronicle of Higher Education reports on a Gallup Poll.

‘If you believe the new "Gallup-Purdue Index Report," a study of 30,000 graduates of American colleges on issues of employment, job engagement, and well-being, it all comes down to old-fashioned values and human connectedness. One of the report’s big takeaways: College graduates, whether they went to a hoity-toity private college or a midtier public, had double the chances of being engaged in their work and were three times as likely to be thriving in their well-being if they connected with a professor on the campus who stimulated them, cared about them, and encouraged their hopes and dreams……’

This poll surveyed 150,000 graduates, focusing not on whether or not they found a job but on quality of life and quality of work measures.  They found that for the most successful two experiences in college mattered most:

1. A professor who cared about them as a person.
2. A long-term project or internship lasting more than a semester.

Further, the survey found that only 27% encountered a professor who cared about them as a person and only 32% engaged in a long-term project or internship last more than a term.  We have some work to do--fortunately we love our jobs!  But sometimes our leaders fail to recognize these two key factors and encourage flavor-of-the-month ideas that diminish both the intensity and the personalization of the engagement we can offer our students.

Strong & Humble Men

Jill Meagher’s husband imagined for more than a year how he would hurt the man who raped and murdered his wife.  In this Salon story he explains how, while listening to this man speak intelligently in court, he recognized this killer as an everyman, rather than the comforting aberration he had constructed him as up to that point.

“What would make this tragedy even more tragic would be if we were to separate what happened to Jill from cases of violence against women where the victim knew the perpetrator, had a sexual past with him, talked to the him in a bar or went home with him. It would be tragic if we did not recognize that Bayley’s previous crimes were against prostitutes, and that the social normalization of violence against a woman of a certain profession, and our inability to deal with or talk about these issues socially and legally, resulted in untold horror for those victims, and led to the brutal murder of my wife.  

We cannot separate these cases from one another because doing so allows us to ignore the fact that all these crimes have exactly the same cause: violent men, and the silence of nonviolent men.  We can only move past violence when we recognize how it is enabled, and by attributing it to the mental illness of a singular human being, we ignore its prevalence, its root causes and the self-examination required to end the cycle. The paradox, of course is that in our current narrow framework of masculinity, self-examination is almost universally discouraged.

Since Jill died, I wake up every day and read a quote by Maya Angelou: “History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage, need not be lived again.” Male self-examination requires this courage, and we cannot end the pattern of men’s violence against women without consciously breaking our silence.”

St. Francis once asked "Can true humility and compassion exist in our words and eyes unless we know we too are capable of any act."

While I do not pretend to be an expert on masculinity or St. Francis, it seems to me that conventional approaches to masculinity squeeze out the space in our lives for humility in men…we (men) need to reclaim that space.