Friday, April 24, 2009

Part II -- Lewis Takes On

This blog picks up where I left off last week...

“Kill the Messenger”

Faculty members may see this manifest itself in a variety of ways, but most likely during in-class discussions/debates or in on-line discussions. Of course, those courses which lend themselves to debate will be most prone to this unprincipled attack. Other areas where this may rear its ugly head may include elections (student government, greek letter organizations, etc.) In these arenas, student affairs professionals have a great opportunity to engage in not just traditional student development, but in “classroom-esque” academic development as well.

In order to properly address this, we – faculty and staff – must engage students preemptively in discussions about the differences in principled and unprincipled debate. Also, we cannot shy away from using current events and current commentators to illustrate not only the weakness of these arguments, but the social irresponsibility of those who engage in them (usually under the guise of “journalists”). It will be clear in a moment where I stand politically on most issues, but, politics aside, the effect cannot be ignored. Commentators like O’Reilly (who resorts to name-calling – e.g., “Pinheads”), Hannity (who will “shout down” those who disagree, or turn down their microphones), and Coulter (whose work at times is not only poorly argued, but poorly researched) are lowering the standard of discourse, and our students are, at times, following suit. It is up to us to teach them how to engage in debate that speaks to the message, not the messenger; and is well thought out, well researched, well organized, and amicable.

Note: I am sure that Franken, Stewart and Colbert will come up as well – and they should – they are good illustrations of satire, a good form of entertainment, not argument. (Although I did have one first year student who did not get the “joke” of Colbert’s show – he thought he was serious. Sigh.)

“Stop the Madness”

Again, it is imperative that we address this issue “head on.” There is no shortage of data on this, and Student affairs professionals should start engaging in programming that addresses how and why society’s threshold for violence has lowered, while the use of violence has increased in severity (and subsequently, frequency). Even utilizing students’ own emails – where they use inappropriate or aggressive tone – as instructional tools should be considered. Too often, we are afraid to use these “real life” examples to illustrate how students’ aggressive behavior is considered (by students) to be “acceptable” and/or “assertive.” It is only by addressing these low-level or “entry-level” behaviors that we can begin to make a societal difference on our campuses.

“All or Nothing”

It is this construct where I am most concerned about our millennial students (and increasingly about our non-millennial students, given the “osmosis effect” I speak about in my faculty/staff training programs). Given their well documented mental health issues, lack of basic stress coping mechanisms, increased propensity for self-injury, and the above mentioned issues, confronting their hyperbolic response is fast becoming not just a student developmental issue, but a health and safety issue. It is critical that we teach them that one bad grade is not the end of their academic career, that a lost relationship is not the last one they will have, and that there are healthy and appropriate outlets for these stressors. But, we must use real life illustrations and examples – or they will see us as disingenuous.

So, what about the students I mentioned in Part One? We must focus on:

1) Preventive efforts, especially in the area of mental health,
2) Challenging intellectual dishonesty, and
3) Changing the construct that allows for zero-sum argument and outcome only.

I realize that the last two are large initiatives, but it is fast becoming a health and safety crisis. Finally…what do we do when they are already acting out? How do we respond on the scene? That is for another entry.

Have a great weekend.

Scott

Friday, April 17, 2009

Scott Blogs This Week PART 1

Dear Colleagues,

There were three seemingly unrelated news items this week which – when viewed through a different lens - are actually very related to the work that we do, the climate we are in (with our students and in society) and speak very clearly to the approaches we need to take.

“Kill the Messenger”

The first is the “breaking” news regarding Sarah Palin’s response to her daughter’s former fiancĂ©e speaking out about their relationship. In his interview (on the Tyra Banks show, which speaks to another phenomenon), he discussed whether or not Gov. Palin knew that he and Bristol were sexually active, whether they used protection, etc. Gov. Palin’s response was to attack him, essentially referring to him as an opportunist, as opposed to addressing his message.

This is not new to politics, but has seeped further and further into “everyday life” and our students have noticed. See the Facebook pages, Ratemyprof.com, etc. where the individual is attacked not for the substance of their work or teaching, but for seemingly unrelated characteristics that border on defamation (Actual poor Professor ratings included “I’ve seen him out drinking at bars,” “she dresses like a (tramp)” – Actual Facebook Group: “Students who took and hate Dr. Smith”). One fraternity even went so far as to dig up criminal background on a dean they were unhappy with to put it in the paper. This ignores the professional/faculty substance in their teaching and decision, and makes it personal.

“Stop the Madness”

The second news item involved the violent incidents in Oakland, Alabama, Binghampton, and Pittsburgh – all of which involved individuals seemingly at their breaking points for a variety of reasons. The media attributed the violence at some level to the economic downturn/recession, rather than looking at the broader scope and context of violence in the United States over the past 10 years.

While the economic situation may be a contributing factor to the desperate actions of these men (certainly the one who took his daughter with him to rob a convenience store is an example), we cannot ignore the growing trend toward the lower threshold for extreme violence. It has been creeping up on us (in the US) for 40+ years, and this is where we find ourselves. We should not be surprised, we should be appalled.

“All or Nothing”

The third was the recent conservative response to President Obama’s trip overseas. From Rush Limbaugh on the radio to Glen Beck on Fox, the response to him “apologizing for America’s arrogance” to his “rejecting Christianity” has been, to put it mildly, hyperbolic (with one call for his removal from office, and another to “start a fire” reminding viewers that “(we) outnumber them, and they need to remember that”).

While this may make for good ratings, it is inappropriate and irresponsible for anyone with a pulpit to ignore the sociological ramifications of their statements. This immediate call to hyperbole does not represent the “fringe arguments” that advanced certain movements (e.g. civil rights) in history, but instead represent arguments that ignore opposing principles, value systems, and worse -- call for the removal of those with opposing views.

Why are these related and why do they matter to student affairs professionals and faculty? Well, when combined with what we already know about the troubling trends regarding our student populations, they paint a dismal picture if not addressed properly. I certainly do not want to be “Beck-esque” in my assessment (that is to say – hyperbolic), but it merits analysis from a college and university perspective.

Imagine the student who:

1) Doesn’t like your message so s/he wants to attack you personally,
2) Has a lower threshold for violence, and
3) Believes that your values are different, so you must “be removed”.

I will blog in Part II of this blog thread next week about how to address this...to be continued.

Have a great weekend,

W. Scott Lewis

Friday, April 10, 2009

A Great Campus Visit

Hello Colleagues,

I had a great campus visit this week. What made it so great? Well, I had three good ones, but my visit to Columbus State Community College stood out because it gave us a challenge that is new for NCHERM. It was engaging and compelling. Saunie Schuster and I visited on Monday, for the purpose of helping CSCC to assess and overhaul its admission process for those with histories of criminal activity or misconduct.

We've never had a chance to re-envision such a process from scratch and our charge was aided by the administrators at CSCC who are really proactive and looking to design a new process that is fair and protective of their community. They don't want to do just enough, they want to create a process that will be a model for the other community colleges in Ohio, and I think that is just what the end result will be.

Some community colleges are open admissions with no exceptions. In Ohio, community colleges have more latitude for excluding those who may not be safe, and for placing restrictions on those who are admitted, but on whom restrictions are needed. The campus has both a day care center and an adjacent high school, which are complications for the admission of sex offenders. So, we're creating objective criteria and a secondary admissions process to help screen and make admissions determinations.

Key to this effort is that CSCC has recently put a Behavioral Intervention Team (BIT) in place. By broadening this team to a second tier, each BIT member will have a backup and that backup will also serve as the primary member of the newly named Enrollment Review Committee. Why is this key? Because the training skill sets are similar. Both teams need to know how to do threat assessments, and need to be able to address issues of pattern violence, recidivism, rehabilitation, criminal background screening, and more.

It is efficient to parallel their efforts, and once our proposal is submitted, Saunie and I will return in May to spend a day training both teams on these key topics. We'll blog about that then. Happy Easter and Passover.

Brett Sokolow

Sunday, April 5, 2009

NCHERM and the AUCCCD

Dear Colleagues,

Two weeks ago, a member of the AUCCCD (Counseling Center Directors) listserv posted an inquiry about the value of attending an NCHERM seminar. List responses were less than glowing, focusing on two critiques:

1) NCHERM is in this field to profit and therefore of questionable merit;
2) NCHERM seems to make ever-growing claims to areas of expertise that are suspect.

NCHERM clients on the AUCCCD list concerned with the tenor of the exchange let me know, and I forwarded an email to their list as a response. Here is what I wrote:

"Dear list members,

I heard that I have come up in discussion on your list. An NCHERM client who participates in your list contacted us today in distress over comments being made about NCHERM and me. While details were not provided, some of the substance was. I am glad you are questioning the sincerity, expertise and/or validity of the contribution we make at NCHERM. If I were in your position, and an outsider like me who has no experience working on a college campus claimed expertise that would be valuable to you, I’d have hesitations, too.

I entered into higher education with a single purpose, to help colleges and universities prevent sexual assault. The experiences of the women in my life have made that a command for me, not an option. I am an activist, and I am passionate and dedicated. I never expected that NCHERM would become the wide-ranging source of risk management expertise it has, but as my work became known and trusted, our clients called upon us for help with more and more of the issues vexing higher education…alcohol, hazing, campus security, etc.

I am not an expert in all things and don’t claim to be. I do diligent research, and I talk to lots of people who are experts who are a lot smarter than I am, and they inform my perspective. Your colleague Brian Van Brunt has been an excellent teacher. I teamed with my partner Scott Lewis on a webinar on Returning Veterans issues to force myself to learn more about this population who are challenging us to serve them better. I am not and have never held myself out to be an expert on veterans’ issues. Scott is, and he took the lead on that event. In fact, when a campus called and asked me to consult with them on veterans, I refused the engagement, because I am not an expert on veterans.

NCHERM was created to have a positive impact on student health and safety – these have been and continue to be my passions. It is true that NCHERM is also how I make a living, but to imply that I do this solely for money is contrary to my work history, ethic, and ignores the fact that I could have made money in any area of law. I will not apologize for making a living and providing for my family, as I suspect none of you would.

Also, I’d like to think that NCHERM is a good corporate citizen. We give generously to higher education foundations, and of our time in volunteering. Our websites are full of free resources. When we created the CUBIT model in 2007, we could have charged for it, but that is not our mission. If it can help to improve the safety of campuses, it is not our philosophy to consider it proprietary. It is free and posted on our website. We are a not-for-profit corporation, and not many law firms are. That doesn’t mean that we are a charity or tax exempt foundation, but it does mean we take seriously our obligation to give back and benefit not just ourselves, but our field and community.

Value received for value given is honest, ethical and part of the integrity of who we are and what we do. It’s not a detriment to charge for our services, it is a compliment that more than 1,800 colleges have done so in the last nine years.

It is true that I have never worked as a college or university administrator. That means I can’t see some things that you can, but could it also mean that I may objectively see some things that you can’t. NCHERM consultants visit almost 200 colleges a year. Our national travel and constant campus-hopping actually give us a perspective on trends as they are emerging that a geographically fixed perspective cannot provide. We can synthesize what is going on across campuses in a way that is unparalleled, because of our reach and access. And both of my partners have long careers as college administrators, rounding out our skill set very nicely. My purpose in writing this is not to advertise NCHERM to you. Instead, I’d like to ask you to judge us on the quality of our work, as that is the only way you really have a basis from which to accurately critique. I invite each of you who has never attended an NCHERM regional event to come to one in the next year. Your registration fee is waived. Please be our guest. Then, feel free to come to us, as others have, with the perspective of what you saw, what you learned, and whether you feel our contribution to the field is deserving of merit or demerit. This is one way in which we grow and learn as well. Thank you for this opportunity to address your list, and thank you for what you all do to advance the health and safety of our campus communities.

Brett A. Sokolow, Esq."