Moving In

Actually, we didn’t. Lynn and I, along with Rhody and Lily (our son’s dog on temporary assignment to URI) live here. But about 6,000 students did move in over Labor Day weekend. Advanced students, staff, faculty, deans and administrators very much enjoyed welcoming the new students to the campus and assisting them in settling in. Thanks to all who helped make our annual “move-in” weekend such a tremendous success.

Move-in weekend is more than welcoming new students to the campus, however.  It is about welcoming new students to the University of Rhode Island community.  The URI community is an increasingly diverse one (for example, 22% of the entering class self-identified as individuals of color, and 49 states and 27 nations were represented). It is a community that is vibrant, engaged, and strives to be welcoming and supportive of all its members.  It is a community that spans the entire university, from Athletics to WRIU, and is characterized by the following statement regarding its “cornerstones”, see (uri.edu/provost/documents/cornerstones.pdf):

The University of Rhode Island is a principled community guided by values. As members of this community, we subscribe to the following principles, which form the foundation of our endeavors.

We pursue knowledge with honesty, integrity and courage.

We promote independent choice, intellectual curiosity, open-mindedness and free expression.

We respect the rights and dignity of each individual and group. We reject prejudice and intolerance, and we work to understand differences.

We accept personal responsibility for our actions and their consequences.

We actively cooperate to improve the University, the state of Rhode Island, and the global community beyond our borders.

We strive to be a community where the environment and property are treated respectfully.

We seek to create and maintain an environment conducive to personal health and wellness.

We work to develop skills that promote lifelong learning, leadership and service.

Welcome to the University of Rhode Island.

The Boy Scouts Have It Right

Opportunities generally seem to present themselves at inopportune times; challenges invariably do.  Challenges seek us out, but opportunities frequently have to be discovered and then pursued.  And we should not assume that we can always tell one from the other, at least initially.  Indeed, discerning the opportunities amidst the challenges may require substantial analysis, thought, and deliberation.  It seems to me that the best advice we can offer one another in times like these is simply: “be prepared.”

Obviously, being prepared means something different for a climbing or backpacking trip as compared to university operations.  One of the reasons I believe that shared governance is critical to the success of a university is that it is an essential factor in order to “be prepared.”  Shared governance assures that multiple minds, with diverse experience and expertise, and representing a variety of perspectives, will be involved in assessing the challenges and opportunities that arise.  What may appear to be insignificant or unimportant to a single individual or group, others may properly recognize as a serious threat or a significant new opportunity.  Moreover, broader participation assists in formulating the best institutional response.

Shared governance also fosters greater transparency and accountability.  In higher education, “accountability” is frequently invoked in the context of an institution’s external constituencies.  Accountability in this context is certainly essential. Equally important is the accountability of the many members of a university community to each other, which is aided by robust, collegial shared governance.  Mutual accountability creates the appropriate environment for consistent and sustained transparency. In turn, a commitment to accountability and transparency is central to the goal to “be prepared.”

However, for a university to thrive in the current climate of substantial and rapid change, it must be flexible, adaptable, and responsive – and this means that some of our current practices in shared governance must also adapt.  In short, shared governance needs to become more flexible and responsive; we need to make decisions more quickly and without regard to the academic calendar.   Given the magnitude of the issues we have successfully dealt with in the past, and the technologies now available, I am confident we can create a 21^st century version of shared governance that enables us to truly be prepared to deal with all the challenges and opportunities that may come our way.

The Real Issue Associated with MOOCs

As I observe, and occasionally read, the ever-escalating number of articles, polemics, assessments, testimonials, and critiques of MOOCs, I sometimes wonder: “what am I missing here?’  It seems to me that MOOCs are a 21^st century, university-level textbook.  Take a star professor (or at least a successful teacher), add state-of-the-art presentation and graphics, mix in a student guide with exercises/problems/study questions, include course and reference materials for instructors, build a marketing campaign, and in the 1990s you got a textbook. In 2013, a MOOC may result.  Both reflect the perspective and pedagogical approach of the author(s). Both may be used by thousands of students simultaneously, who may, or may not, interact very much with each other, or with the instructor for that matter. 

More importantly, in this context students largely split into two major groups.  I was able to learn a lot from textbooks or monographs. Most academics likely share that ability; it’s an attribute that helps us succeed over a lifetime in the academy. Most of the students I taught at Amherst College or Montana State University had difficulty learning material solely from a book, no matter how distinguished the author.  The early results on MOOCs appear to suggest a similar divide among students, based on actual completion rates.  MOOCs, like textbooks, will likely become a very useful tool for learning.  I am skeptical that MOOCs, by themselves, will be adequate for a majority of students to actually master material at the level required.  I also think the Provosts associated with the Committee on Institutional Collaboration (see the link below) did an excellent job outlining the advantages and issues associated with MOOCs and other online learning approaches.

But none of this gets at the real issue. My concern about the current debate regarding MOOCs is that it distracts us from the more important task of fundamentally remaking undergraduate education to meet the urgent challenges of the 21^st century.  Consider this: the vast majority of colleges and universities continue to structure education around an academic calendar originally designed to accommodate agriculture, and continue to use some version of an arbitrary credit system vaguely related to occupying a seat in a room for a specified period of time. Further, progress towards a degree is largely measured by the satisfactory accumulation of such credits within specified time periods. I would guess that most of us who have taught in universities have encountered students who could complete all the work associated with a 14-week semester course in 10 weeks, or even seven. We have likely also had students who probably could have succeeded in that same course if they had 15 weeks to do so.  In addition, our grading systems and standards are highly idiosyncratic, and comparisons among and between institutions are frequently fraught with difficulty. To be sure (and when done well and systematically), the definition of specific educational outcomes and the implementation of assessment strategies is an incremental improvement. 

We can do better, and we must.  The magnitude and complexity of the global challenges we face simply demand a more highly educated populace.  We must be able to improve access and student success without driving the cost of public education beyond the means of our average citizen.  To do this we must be serious about creating a 24/7 learning environment for students that takes full advantage of all the relevant and supportive technologies, enables students to learn at the rate best suited to them, continuously challenges students to excel, engages students in research, scholarship, and creative work, and provides opportunities for them to engage in solving real problems.  MOOCs may become a very valuable tool in this endeavor, but only that. 

(See: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/716121-cic-online-learning-collaboration-a-vision-and.html)

20,000 Voices and Fisher v. Texas

Once again, all higher education institutions, especially selective public universities, have been confronted by the continuing issues surrounding the role of diversity on our campuses.  It is certainly an American set of issues, but not uniquely so.  One of the outcomes of globalization and global mobility is that increasing diversity – religious, ethnic, racial, economic – is raising a host of questions, problems, and issues at colleges and universities across the world.  American higher education has been grappling with the questions, problems, and issues for decades, but with mixed success, as is evident from the recent Supreme Court decision.

I think one of the difficulties is that our focus on creating and accommodating diversity has generated suspicion among many Americans about our motives, and whether there is any underlying and principled rationale for building diversity, or even attending to it at all.  Most American colleges and universities believe that diversity is central and important. Judging by the briefs filed in this and other cases, many sectors of our society also believe that diversity is important, even critical.  The decision in Fisher v. Texas, and much of the accompanying commentary, suggests that we have not yet provided a compelling rationale for our convictions about the importance of diversity, at least to a sizable fraction of our fellow citizens and several members of the Supreme Court.  I think it is possible to do so.

At the University of Rhode Island, and at many other universities, two relatively recent forces influence our commitment to diversity: the burgeoning diversity of our own country, and the impact of the global economy and an increasingly globalized society.  It is an educational imperative that we prepare our students to thrive in contexts where they have to work effectively with people who do not look like they do, who do not share the same world view, assumptions, politics, economic status, religion, sexual orientation, or fundamental beliefs.  Our graduates must be able to find common ground and develop shared goals with an enormous variety of others.  The massive global challenges they will face cannot be solved or overcome by a single nation or group.  Truly, the security, prosperity, and health of our students will depend upon their success in living and working productively in a world and country where they are, in effect, a minority. 

Frequently, fractious and divisive forces in our society hinder our efforts to provide our students with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed.  To mitigate these influences, I think it is critical to foster a community on campus where every member is valued, respected, welcomed, and affirmed.  We do not need to agree with one another, or even to have much in common, in order to create such a community. We have this in common – we all wish to be valued, respected, welcomed, and affirmed as a person.  One of the finest attributes of a residential campus is the possibility of creating such a community – a community that encompasses the students, faculty, and staff and extends throughout the dorms, dining facilities, libraries, gyms, classrooms, and offices of the university.  Creating such a community is part of the foundation for equity and justice, not just on the campus, but also in the societies in which we live and work.

As a step towards that goal, the University of Rhode Island, through the Office of Community, Equity, and Diversity (and co-sponsored by the Division of Student Affairs, the Office of the Provost, and the Office of the President) put together a continuing event termed “20,000 Voices”, to reflect the fact that URI is striving to build a community where all 20,000 members have a voice.  The exciting work begun in the daylong initial event continues through the work of discussion groups, committees, and organizations.  I have no doubt that these efforts will substantially assist URI in becoming the kind of community of which all 20,000 of us will feel proud.  (See uri.edu/diversity/voices and the recent edition of Quadangles uri.edu/quadangles for more information.)  Thanks very much to everyone who is participating. If you haven’t been involved so far, there are still many opportunities to make a difference.

The Work Is Its Own Reward

I have been working in higher education since 1978 – at Amherst College, Montana State University, and the University of Rhode Island. The current climate for higher education is the most challenging I have experienced or observed, especially for public colleges and universities. With public higher education caught between declining state support and escalating demands to restrain tuition increases, the financial climate is increasingly difficult. Expectations for access, accountability, and innovation are expanding for many private as well as public institutions.  The sustained budget impasse in Washington is taking a toll, constraining research funding at a time when the nation, and the entire world, needs America’s research universities to do more, not less.

These factors, and many more, contribute to a growing set of issues around adaptation, flexibility, and governance.  Governance questions associated with the role of shared governance on the campus, and the role of governing boards and government off the campus, have become especially pointed and problematic. In short, problems are multiplying, resources are diminishing, expectations are increasing, and stress is high.

So, why are so many people still interested in academic careers, especially on the faculty, and why do people with desirable options outside of academe choose to stay?

I like to read Yankee Magazine. Lynn indulges me by maintaining our subscription. Several months ago, Yankee ran a story on a person who trains border collies.  One of the memorable quotes about border collies was that, for them, “The work is its own reward.”  I believe that is true for many people – staff, faculty, and administrators – who devote their careers to higher education.  Simply stated: the work we do is very rewarding. Higher education makes a profound and extremely positive difference in the lives of people, in the societies in which they live, in understanding the universe, and in sustaining the hope that we can build a brighter, sustainable future.  The work we do is good work, in two common senses of the word: it is, in my judgment, far more frequently than not, of high quality, and it is virtuous. 

That’s good, because the work is not easy and the preparation required to carry it out can be lengthy and arduous, especially for faculty.  For many of our staff, the work can be physically or emotionally demanding, and the compensation relatively low.  Consequently, although it is true that “the work is its own reward”, that should not be the only reward.  Many full-time faculty at the University of Rhode Island are significantly less well compensated than their peers, and this problem needs to be urgently addressed.  The University also needs to improve the working conditions for part-time faculty and decrease its reliance on such appointments, in part by increasing the number of full-time and tenure-track appointments.  We need to increase the number and compensation of our staff in critical areas as well.  None of these steps will be easy and, given the constraints on tuition increases, will require increased support from the state of Rhode Island.  But it will certainly be rewarding if we succeed.

It is May and Commencement is approaching.  Commencement provides an excellent opportunity to celebrate the good work of the students, of the faculty, and of the entire university community.  It is a time of achievement, a time of promise, and a time of hope.  The celebrations of the students and their families remind all of us that the work we do has tremendous rewards.

Dialog

I confess that I remain a big Simon and Garfunkel fan, and that, in my opinion, Paul Simon was one of the most gifted songwriters of the 20^th century.  Two passages of his have particular relevance at this time, I think.

From “The Boxer”: Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

And from “The Sound of Silence”:  People talking without speaking

                                                   People hearing without listening

Although these lyrics were written in the 1960s, they remain poignant – and accurate, it seems to me.   Far too much of our current political discourse, and far too much of our media coverage, can be aptly characterized as “talking without speaking”, or “hearing without listening”, or simply disregarding everything except what you want to hear.  Moreover, if you are deliberate in your selection of cable channels, radio stations, websites, and media, you seldom have to hear or read anything that you do not already believe.  Consistent, frequent reinforcement of one’s convictions and biases makes it easier to disregard anything different.

To make matters worse, the contemporary tone of much of our public discourse, analysis, and commentary is often vitriolic and, all too seldom, measured and civil.  Those who disagree are not merely wrong or uninformed; they are evil, unpatriotic, sinister, fascist, traitors, bigots, Yankees fans, or worse.  “Facts” are fungible and inconvenient data, no matter how reproducible or extensive, are suspect, or dispensable, or considered as the product of some conspiracy.

In such a climate, we must be attentive to creating environments where dialog and discussion are robust, honest, even pointed, but civil and mutually respectful.  This is part of the mission of all of America’s colleges and universities – or should be.  Such an environment principally depends upon a community-wide commitment to civility, reason, mutual respect, and the quest for truth. Diversity in that community is a substantial source of strength; it is an extremely desirable asset that should be vigorously pursued.  If our community is too homogenous (composed mostly of people who look like us, think like us, and share our assumptions and worldview), then dialog and debate may be constrained, and our intellectual growth stunted.  Colleges and universities can provide excellent settings in which to build diverse communities that foster meaningful debate and dialog.  In this context, all forms of human diversity are valuable: political, economic, racial, social, ethnic, religious, origin, orientation, and more.

Deep engagement with the thought and perspectives of other periods of history, and across the breadth of human culture, is also essential.  This is one reason that all students should pursue the study of the liberal arts.   It is mere prejudice to believe that contemporary thought or analysis is inherently superior to that of the past.  Of course, all areas of knowledge build upon the past, and this is particularly evident in the sciences. Our understanding of the universe and all of its laws is far more advanced and comprehensive now than at any previous time. But this should not blind us to the wisdom and truth revealed or discovered by our predecessors.  Measuring our understanding and assumptions against the insights and conclusions of previous civilizations and cultures can be both very challenging and very illuminating.

To succeed in building communities that are diverse, welcoming, and supportive on one hand, and intellectually challenging and demanding on the other, is not easy.  A certain degree of institutional fortitude is also required because both internal and external criticism will surely come.  But higher education must persevere in this. It has never been more important, not only for the reasons cited above but also because our students need the wisdom and skills that can only be gained by living and participating in such an endeavor.

Athletics

There are multiple questions that swirl insistently around higher education in America: questions of access, affordability, priorities, focus, quality, completion, transparency, and more.  This is to be expected as the costs of higher education escalate and both governments and families seek solutions to the issues and proof that the return on the investment in higher education will justify its cost.  In this climate another question emerges with growing intensity: how can we justify the presence of intercollegiate athletics, and its associated costs?

It is a reasonable and fair question. There are very few colleges and universities where intercollegiate athletics pays its own way.  The difference between revenues and costs must therefore come from tuition or state support, or both. So the question posed above really is one of what benefits does athletics provide that justify the investment of tax revenues or tuition?  A common answer posits that athletics is the “front porch” of the university, that it invites and encourages the engagement and support of alumni, the community, and the private sector. Many believe that athletics promotes and strengthens the brand of the institution. It is frequently asserted that individuals or entities that support athletics at a college or university will support academic and student programs as well.  All of these ideas may well be accurate.  And they may provide a sufficient justification for athletics to some, but certainly not to all.  

There can be little doubt that athletics is deeply, and probably irreversibly, integrated into American higher education.   Some might wish this was not the case, but we have to deal with the world as we find it, and not as we wish it to be. Given this reality, are there attributes of athletics that make it a valuable part of colleges and universities?  At the University of Rhode Island I think the answer is yes. 

Excluding facilities for the moment, scholarships are the largest single component of athletics budgets at URI and similar institutions: not coaches’ salaries, not travel, equipment, or operations.  This is important because, in essence, scholarships are direct investments in the student-athletes. Therefore, when we examine the value of athletics to a campus, we need to assess the value of these young men and women to our endeavors and our community. At the University of Rhode Island, our student-athletes are overwhelmingly a positive force on campus.  They tend to perform at a high level academically, have substantially higher graduation rates than the rest of the student body, are engaged, and are leaders. About 35% of them are on the Deans’ List.  They set a terrific example for other students with regard to dedication, time management, engagement, and commitment. Most of these outstanding individuals would not be here if they were not able to compete while pursuing their education, and URI would be diminished by their absence.

Our student athletes bring important diversity to our campus. Diversity is an asset, an advantage, for our student body and for our community as whole.  America is an increasingly diverse country, and obviously part of a diverse global society. Facilitating understanding of the nature, history, sociology, values, and perspectives of diverse cultures, ethnicities, world-views, and orientations is educationally valuable and, I would argue, critical to our students’ success in a global economy and global society.

One notable attribute of global society is its fascination and devotion to athletics and sports. The Olympics, the World Cup, March Madness, the proliferation of professional sports across the world, all are clear indicators of the human fascination (some would say “obsession”) with athletic competition.  Yes this fascination can be divisive, even violent. But it can also play a central role in building the fabric of community, in bringing people together, and bridging difference.  Hollywood has captured and portrayed this aspect of sports in compelling ways (e.g in the movies Mandela and the upcoming 42) and in quirky, amusing ways (e.g Silver Linings Playbook).

Intercollegiate athletics can assist campus communities in bridging differences, in finding common ground, in building relationships. In short – athletics can, and frequently does, foster community.  It connects the campus community at any given moment to a wider community of alumni, constituents, and supporters of the university. Our athletes participate in all aspects of campus life, often in leadership roles. They are great representatives of URI in the wider community, and with alumni and friends of the university.  They give back in manifold ways, such as supporting Habitat for Humanity, serving as Peer Advocates (see our homepage for the story), or saving lives by donating bone marrow. 

Of course, there are times when athletics programs and student-athletes fall short. Intercollegiate athletics, especially in Division I, has suffered both chronic and episodic problems that are serious and troubling. It appears that the cultures of athletics on some campuses may be deeply damaging to the institutions. But both minor and serious problems occur in practically all endeavors that involve people. At URI the athletic leadership and coaches are committed to building a culture of excellence – in competition, in academics, and in service. It is also a culture that embraces diversity, instills pride in oneself and in URI, and that develops leadership, and thereby strengthens the university. Moreover, athletics can enhance a university’s brand, its reputation, and even its funding.  In the final analysis, however, I think the presence and qualities of our student athletes, and the tremendous positive contributions they make to the life of the URI community, justifies our investment in them and in athletics.