Yesterday I participated in a day-long seminar on the topic of religious student organizations and denial of recognition and/or funding by the college or university for refusal to agree to institutional non-discrimination policies. I have been involved with many controversial legal issues over the years, but none that seem to have held the deep personal impact that this issue holds on individuals. The lines of this controversy are unpredictably drawn and not predictable based on religious beliefs, race, sexual identity or gender.
I provided the introductory presentation that set forth the legal issues and the court decisions handed down over the past few years. The panel discussions that followed my presentation provided an eye opening experience of passion, anger and perspective that was like peeling back the layers of an onion. From a legal perspective the issue revolves around First Amendment rights. Those rights encompass freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of association. Generally a Constitutional issue requires a “compelling governmental interest” to limit or regulate. However, the courts have carved out circumstances, based on a forum analysis, that allows a lower standard for regulation of expression in certain circumstances. The higher requirement of strict scrutiny applies in all circumstances regulating religion or association, however. Thus, across the country courts, from district courts to courts of appeals, are rendering opposing opinions on identical sets of circumstances using standards based on expression versus religion or association. The coming years will provide an interesting opportunity to watch judicial bodies address this issue and the legal arguments put forth.
BUT...what I observed throughout the rest of the day was not just a scholarly legal debate of the issue, but was even more interesting, and perhaps more significant from a social justice perspective—and that was the passion and anger and outrage expressed by individuals involved with the actual controversy. Throughout the day participants challenged one another about equality and belief systems and recognition and affirmation. The discussions were loud, emotional and personal.
Clearly this issue cuts far deeper than just a scholarly legal analysis.
Have a great weekend,
Saunie Schuster
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Thursday, May 7, 2009
What a Disaster!
Preparing for the next disaster
With all of the school closings, a group of recent students being “quarantined” from graduation, and Vice President Biden telling everyone not to travel on public transit (later recast as “if you are SICK, don’t use mass transit”), the H1-N1 virus(we have now been told not to call it the “swine flu” so as not to negatively impact pork sales in the US, where no swine have been infected – true story) has dominated headlines. But, as we at NCHERM are in the business of PREVENTIVE law and risk management, we hope that our clients (and readers) will pay attention to other potential threats and prepare accordingly, so as to avoid being stuck in reactionary modes.
So, in that vein, here are some other things to consider over the next year:
A recent forecast for the 2009 Hurricane Season predicted 12 named storms with 2-3 being “intense.” While the Gulf Coast states are painfully aware and prepare every year, the East Coast schools tend to sporadically prepare – as other things (e.g., H1-N1, school deaths, etc.) tend to get in the way. But I would offer yet another cautionary suggestion to our inland colleagues. While I am confident that the Federal response to another Katrina-esque storm will be better, (could it possibly be worse?!?), our inland colleagues should dust off the post-Katrina reports (if you have them) and make sure you are ready to house, enroll, treat, and/or shelter a group if need be. Not only is it the right thing to do, but the positive PR cannot be ignored (kudos to Mayor White and the city of Houston and Stephen F Austin State University among many others). From a risk management perspective, this is a “Natural Disaster;” an inevitability, not a possibility, so get ready – you will be measured not on prevention, but response.
Another news story has been tracking the wildfires over the last year in California, Florida, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, and South Carolina and predicts that, as global warming continues to increase drought days in these areas, the wildfire phenomenon will continue. While these events feel like “Natural Disasters,” I classify them in my Risk Management Arena as “Man-Made Disasters.” Not because of the arson possibility or to make some global warming political statement, but because, especially for those schools in high-risk states and areas, you will be measured – in the risk management world – on your risk reduction activities as well as your response.
In the same arena as Hurricanes, an interesting, yet not well publicized report was made analyzing fault lines around the world. Of particular note was the Heyward fault, which runs through Northern California, and directly through SF and Oakland. For over 700 years, there has been a major earthquake roughly every 104-140 years(defining “major” is apparently a sticking point, but doesn’t matter here). If you count the “Big One” of 1906 (no one seemed to count the World Series interrupting 1989 quake as “major” – except for the victims, I am guessing), we are coming up on time for the next one. If you don’t, we are long overdue (by about 25 years). Either way, imagine a minimum 3500 dead, 50,000+ injured, 75,000-100,000 homeless, and the 30+ schools in the area devastated. These are Katrina-esque numbers, but in larger metropolitan areas.
I certainly don’t want to ruin your summer, but I do want us all to be prepared. In an odd way, this makes even more critical the need to have practiced, established preventive protocols and solid risk management practices in place for the (by comparison) “mundane” issues like student self-injury – intentional or otherwise – and other mental health issues.
Have a great weekend.
Scott Lewis
With all of the school closings, a group of recent students being “quarantined” from graduation, and Vice President Biden telling everyone not to travel on public transit (later recast as “if you are SICK, don’t use mass transit”), the H1-N1 virus(we have now been told not to call it the “swine flu” so as not to negatively impact pork sales in the US, where no swine have been infected – true story) has dominated headlines. But, as we at NCHERM are in the business of PREVENTIVE law and risk management, we hope that our clients (and readers) will pay attention to other potential threats and prepare accordingly, so as to avoid being stuck in reactionary modes.
So, in that vein, here are some other things to consider over the next year:
A recent forecast for the 2009 Hurricane Season predicted 12 named storms with 2-3 being “intense.” While the Gulf Coast states are painfully aware and prepare every year, the East Coast schools tend to sporadically prepare – as other things (e.g., H1-N1, school deaths, etc.) tend to get in the way. But I would offer yet another cautionary suggestion to our inland colleagues. While I am confident that the Federal response to another Katrina-esque storm will be better, (could it possibly be worse?!?), our inland colleagues should dust off the post-Katrina reports (if you have them) and make sure you are ready to house, enroll, treat, and/or shelter a group if need be. Not only is it the right thing to do, but the positive PR cannot be ignored (kudos to Mayor White and the city of Houston and Stephen F Austin State University among many others). From a risk management perspective, this is a “Natural Disaster;” an inevitability, not a possibility, so get ready – you will be measured not on prevention, but response.
Another news story has been tracking the wildfires over the last year in California, Florida, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, and South Carolina and predicts that, as global warming continues to increase drought days in these areas, the wildfire phenomenon will continue. While these events feel like “Natural Disasters,” I classify them in my Risk Management Arena as “Man-Made Disasters.” Not because of the arson possibility or to make some global warming political statement, but because, especially for those schools in high-risk states and areas, you will be measured – in the risk management world – on your risk reduction activities as well as your response.
In the same arena as Hurricanes, an interesting, yet not well publicized report was made analyzing fault lines around the world. Of particular note was the Heyward fault, which runs through Northern California, and directly through SF and Oakland. For over 700 years, there has been a major earthquake roughly every 104-140 years(defining “major” is apparently a sticking point, but doesn’t matter here). If you count the “Big One” of 1906 (no one seemed to count the World Series interrupting 1989 quake as “major” – except for the victims, I am guessing), we are coming up on time for the next one. If you don’t, we are long overdue (by about 25 years). Either way, imagine a minimum 3500 dead, 50,000+ injured, 75,000-100,000 homeless, and the 30+ schools in the area devastated. These are Katrina-esque numbers, but in larger metropolitan areas.
I certainly don’t want to ruin your summer, but I do want us all to be prepared. In an odd way, this makes even more critical the need to have practiced, established preventive protocols and solid risk management practices in place for the (by comparison) “mundane” issues like student self-injury – intentional or otherwise – and other mental health issues.
Have a great weekend.
Scott Lewis
Friday, May 1, 2009
A Month of Violence
On the Predictability of Virginia Tech
I am struck by the awesome change in the landscape of higher education since the shootings at Virginia Tech. Not because of the fact that so many were killed in such a horrific manner – that number of people dying at any one time always warrants significant analysis, like in a plane crash, hurricane (i.e., Katrina), etc., and it should. What struck me then, and continues to strike me, is how it was (and continues to be) treated like such an anomaly.
Let me preface this by stating that I mean no disrespect to the victims, the families of the victims, the members of the community, or the staff and faculty at Virginia Tech. My shock is aimed at all of us in higher education, that we ignored the signs for as long as we did, and continued doing our work, “business as usual” in the face of such overwhelming data.
Allow me to explain. I was giving a presentation when a colleague referred to the murders (I also don’t like referring to it as a “tragedy,” I think that term misrepresents the horrific nature of the intent of the act) at Virginia Tech as “the 9/11 for Higher Education.” I have thought about that for a while, and I think he is almost right. It is the 9/11 for education, not just higher education.
(NOTE: I will acknowledge now the dissent that some may take with the political assertations and analogies I am going to make, but bear with me – we can argue about it later.)
Much like 9/11, there were multiple warning signs prior to Virginia Tech that – like 9/11 – were ignored in their increasing dynamic. The 1st bombing of the WTC, the bombing of the US Embassies and the USS Cole are analogous with the shootings at Paducah, Jonesboro, and Columbine.
The journal articles by K-12 teachers about increasing violence by and violent reaction of students, the crime statistics, and the anecdotal stories they were sharing – that higher education administrators and faculty ignored – are analogous to the memos (“Bin Laden determined to attack in US” and the memo outlining the threat of a repeat attack on the WTC come to mind) ignored by the Bush Administration in the year and a half prior to 9/11.
And now, sadly, the rush to implement response measures and the arguable overspending on them – text messaging systems, loudspeaker systems, security cameras to name a few – in lieu of equal spending on effective preventive measures – like well trained behavioral intervention teams at the college and K-12 level – are analogous to the monies spent on the initial response to 9/11 – the invasion of Iraq – which we now know had nothing to do with 9/11, and which has arguably not resolved the problems that led to 9/11.
Let’s hope that we are wiser in the future in both the observation of warning signs and the focus on actions that make us safer in the long run – preventive measures. Let’s hope our government does the same.
Have a great weekend,
Scott
I am struck by the awesome change in the landscape of higher education since the shootings at Virginia Tech. Not because of the fact that so many were killed in such a horrific manner – that number of people dying at any one time always warrants significant analysis, like in a plane crash, hurricane (i.e., Katrina), etc., and it should. What struck me then, and continues to strike me, is how it was (and continues to be) treated like such an anomaly.
Let me preface this by stating that I mean no disrespect to the victims, the families of the victims, the members of the community, or the staff and faculty at Virginia Tech. My shock is aimed at all of us in higher education, that we ignored the signs for as long as we did, and continued doing our work, “business as usual” in the face of such overwhelming data.
Allow me to explain. I was giving a presentation when a colleague referred to the murders (I also don’t like referring to it as a “tragedy,” I think that term misrepresents the horrific nature of the intent of the act) at Virginia Tech as “the 9/11 for Higher Education.” I have thought about that for a while, and I think he is almost right. It is the 9/11 for education, not just higher education.
(NOTE: I will acknowledge now the dissent that some may take with the political assertations and analogies I am going to make, but bear with me – we can argue about it later.)
Much like 9/11, there were multiple warning signs prior to Virginia Tech that – like 9/11 – were ignored in their increasing dynamic. The 1st bombing of the WTC, the bombing of the US Embassies and the USS Cole are analogous with the shootings at Paducah, Jonesboro, and Columbine.
The journal articles by K-12 teachers about increasing violence by and violent reaction of students, the crime statistics, and the anecdotal stories they were sharing – that higher education administrators and faculty ignored – are analogous to the memos (“Bin Laden determined to attack in US” and the memo outlining the threat of a repeat attack on the WTC come to mind) ignored by the Bush Administration in the year and a half prior to 9/11.
And now, sadly, the rush to implement response measures and the arguable overspending on them – text messaging systems, loudspeaker systems, security cameras to name a few – in lieu of equal spending on effective preventive measures – like well trained behavioral intervention teams at the college and K-12 level – are analogous to the monies spent on the initial response to 9/11 – the invasion of Iraq – which we now know had nothing to do with 9/11, and which has arguably not resolved the problems that led to 9/11.
Let’s hope that we are wiser in the future in both the observation of warning signs and the focus on actions that make us safer in the long run – preventive measures. Let’s hope our government does the same.
Have a great weekend,
Scott
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
“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 fiancée 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
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 fiancée 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
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."
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)