Racism, Violence, and Discrimination versus the Sacredness of Creation

While the first week of the new term is always filled with stress and uncertainty of new classes mixed with the anticipation of new things ahead, this past week held something else: challenging thoughts for the new year. Three different events were held on campus this week that showcase what we mean at Carlow University when we talk about respecting the dignity of every human being--a concept that is closely related to the core value of focus for Carlow’s 2019-20 academic year, “Sacredness of Creation.” As I have noted in another post, this value is not just about respecting the world around us, but also about recognizing that every person we encounter is a unique creation of God. Thus we honor the “Sacredness of Creation” when we recognize the presence of God in every person, and when we treat all people with the dignity they deserve. Three events this week brought this idea into sharp focus as they addressed issues of racism, violence, and discrimination.

The first was a student panel in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr day, co-hosted by the Social Justice Institutes and the College of Leadership and Social Change. The event was entitled “Disruptive Empathy” and began with psychology faculty member, Dr. Pat Jameson, sharing from her research in relational cultural theory—a framework in psychology which promotes the benefits of empowering relationships in contrast to the destructive dynamics of power/over relationships. Notably, she began with mention of the concepts of justice and mercy that we focus on in our Contemplation and Action courses. Specifically, the idea that justice is "finding out what belongs to whom, and giving it back" (citing Walter Bruggeman). In this case: the respect and human dignity that every person deserves. Her comments set the stage for students' talking about their experiences of marginalization based on their multiple identities whether related to gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, or even place of origin. They also spoke about where they sought strength and encouragement, and gave some really thoughtful insights into ways the Carlow community might move forward to become even more of a place where “all are valued and all may thrive.” A key takeaway for all attendees was the advice to listen, really listen, to what our students of color, as well as other individuals with identities which are prone to be marginalized by the majority culture, have to say. And in that listening, not assume that "we" (ie the majority culture) know what those individuals are going through or what they need.

The second event was a faculty and staff training opportunity led by our Student Affairs leaders and chief of police around the university’s new Green Dot training. Green Dot is a bystander awareness and intervention program aimed at producing a culture change related to interpersonal violence whether sexual violence, intimate partner violence, or stalking. The purpose of the faculty and staff session was to share the details of the program with the community prior to its being rolled out with students. Part of the key to this program is having a campus culture that reinforces the message that violence is not ok and that everyone does their part to promote a safe campus. Rather than just a one-time training or seminar, Green Dot looks to be a very comprehensive and multi-pronged approach aimed at culture change. From the statistics that were shared, the program produces measurable and meaningful results where it has been used. A key insight was the idea that there are many ways to intervene in situations where someone may be in danger, and these range from simple distraction to delegation (finding someone in a suitable position or relationship to address the problem) to direct involvement. With awareness of the scope of the problem and with a range of tools in hand, members of our community can be better prepared to respond to a questionable situations where an individual’s safety may be in jeopardy.

The third event was a faculty lecture by Dr. Clara Cheng related to her research on implicit bias. Her talk was part of the President’s Lecture Series celebrating Carlow’s 90^th anniversary and showcasing Carlow’s faculty expertise for the university and the broader community. Dr. Cheng did some myth-busting based on her extensive research and explained that implicit bias is something everyone has and that it is absorbed from the culture around us. Further, the problem with implicit bias is that it leads (even if unintentionally or unconsciously) to real impact in peoples’ lives. Dr. Cheng referred to research studies related to school achievement, college admission, job applications, career success, health care, criminal justice, and engagement with police officers, as areas where implicit bias impacts outcomes in very disparate ways for different groups. One recommendation from her talk was to recognize that implicit bias is a habit—and like any habit, if we work at it we can break it. When we catch our minds moving down a well-worn path of judgment of someone who is different from us, we can take the small step to replace biased thoughts about a person we encounter with a neutral thought.

Most encouraging to me about these events was the attendance—by faculty, students, and staff. During a very busy week, all three had better turnout than I have seen at many other open events addressing needs in the campus community. With this level of interest, and the rich content of challenging ideas shared, we all have a lot to think about as we seek to live in ways that recognize and honor the value of each person we encounter. And what a worthy goal to work toward in the new semester, new year, and new decade.

Notes on Some Challenges and Trends in Higher Education

After returning from the CIC annual Institute for Chief Academic Officers earlier this month I prepared some comments related to a few sessions I attended and shared these at our monthly college meeting. They touch on issues of innovation in higher education, changing trends in faculty work, and the challenging issues of race and inclusive excellence on college campuses.

The conference opened with an address by Jeffrey Selingo author of There is Life After College. His research finds that expectations for what should happen at college have grown to the extent that the current model is being overworked- doing more than it was ever intended to do. In a time of unprecedented change, this has become increasingly problematic. Looking specifically at employment prospects for college graduates, Selingo noted that 50% of current jobs may be threatened by automation (and a quick Google search confirms that it is not just factory jobs but things like accounting, insurance, paralegals, marketing and other jobs where software can be utilized to analyze enormous amounts of data). Selingo asked a very pertinent question: Given the changing nature of the workforce, what kind of college is needed now? His answer was college as a platform for lifelong learning--a hallmark of the liberal arts. As others are suggesting, Selingo recommends an emphasis on the soft skills that employers are seeking:

Curiosity; Creativity (to navigate ambiguity); Digital Awareness (“every job is a tech job in some way”); Contextual Thinking; and Humility. He also noted the importance of experiential learning and internships as one of the top three factors that determines how well students “launch” after college (the other two factors were debt and the credential they received). He believes colleges should make greater allowance for space for students to explore careers as well as their passion.

A session on Faculty Workforce Trends sponsored by the TIAA Institute was very enlightening and provided the data for what has been the experience of many faculty: a dramatic shift in faculty life over the last two decades. Among the major findings: IPEDS data from 1993-2013 show a reversal in the percentage of full-time (tenure, tenure track, non-tenure track) to part time faculty: from 60/40 in 1993 to 40/60 in 2013. The impact of the recession in 2008 began to be noticeable in 2009 and 2010. For example, the percent of faculty spending more than four hours per week in committee work jumped in 2007-08, and has been climbing since. Fewer full-time faculty are having to do more of the work. Another finding was that there is now a drop in percentage of faculty who agree that they are involved in campus decision making. From a high mark in 2010 this has trended down and is continuing to trend down. At the same time there is a marked jump in perception that faculty are at odds with their administration, a perception that is trending up at four year private colleges. Adjunct faculty demographics were also quite interesting: 79% only teach at one school and only 4% teach at 3 or more schools. How satisfied are faculty with their academic careers? Among full-time faculty 69% were very satisfied; among adjunct faculty 41% were very satisfied. The session made a strong case for intentionality about where these trends go based on university policy decisions. There is a need to have the conversation on campuses: What is the national data saying about faculty work and trends? Where are we at? Where do we want to be? How can we get there?

A highlight for me was the presentation by Beverly Daniel Tatum, president emerita of Spelman College. Her session was “‘Why are all theBlack Kids Still Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?’ and Other Campus Conversations about Race.”  She is working on a twentieth anniversary edition of her 1997 book of similar title. Of particular note was her comments that our demography has changed (current k-12 students are more than 50% students of color), but school segregation is worse now than in 1980. She discussed a number of societal factors and reasons for this and then offered the pointed question: Is diversity a core value or just a selling point? She also discussed ways of hiring for diversity, as well as some positive examples that give some hope amidst the otherwise gloomy state of affairs in the area of race on college campuses.

For my part, while each of these talks were challenging in many ways (and what I’ve noted above is just a subset of their many insights), each talk enabled me to see some of Carlow University’s campus initiatives in a broader context.

• The Carlow Compass is our newly designed and launched general education curriculum: its forward-thinking design grounded in the liberal arts is designed to strengthen students’ abilities in just the ways Selingo was calling for. We are still building the curriculum as students are advancing through it. Selingo’s talk was an encouragement to continue to strive to fulfill the design intent of the curriculum even as implantation challenges arise.
• Faculty trends: this is an ongoing point of discussion at Carlow, as at many institutions. Currently, faculty are reviewing a draft of a workload document that has potential to be a focal point for having this kind of candid conversation with faculty and administration.
• Diversity and Racial Climate: I am pleased to note that this issue is being addressed proactively by Carlow University’s president in a number of tangible ways including a President’s Task Force on Diversity and Inclusive Excellence, the use of “search advocates” on search committees, and by a number of other means.

I’m grateful to the CIC and these colleagues at other institutions who shared their insights and expertise. And grateful for my colleagues at Carlow University who are open to trying new ways to adapt to our changing educational context.