The Movie
As a replacement to the November phone conference, I’d like to hear your response to the movie Children of Men. This is a science fiction movie, but there are a couple of scenes in particular where we see policy analysis in action. I hope this will be an entertaining and low stress way to continue your critical thinking about policy analysis.
If you have the time (and interest), you can watch the full movie, and then post your response here. (Your responses can be publicly viewed. If you are sensitive about using your name, you can just use initials or post your comments and e-mail me a copy so I know who wrote it.)
The movie is rated R for violence, language and drug use. It is also almost 2 hours long. If the film itself doesn’t interest you, you can fully participate in the discussion by just watching one of the movies bonus features. The DVD (or youtube) includes a film called The Possibility of Hope which is about 25 minutes and is a discussion about the themes in the movie. The politics of both are very one sided, but the concepts I think are really intriguing.
The Questions
Tension over identity is a persistent theme in this movie. This is demonstrated in a number of ways, but with a common result. Borders are created, and out of fear those who belong humiliate those who do not.
1. For centuries geography has been a dominant factor in determining identity. This is true both nationally and institutionally. Recent technology allows us to connect our selves with others independent of our geography. Thinking about your campus(es) what is the role geography plays in forming identity? Are there policy decisions that create winners and losers based on geography?
2. When Theo meets his cousin the art collector, he asks him how he can go about collecting art while the world is falling apart around him. His cousin responds “I just don’t think about it.” Are there policy issues regarding access, accountability, or affordability that are of major concern locally, nationally, or globally that colleges are ‘just not thinking about?’ Why (or why not) should your campus think about these things? What are these issues, and how do you as a policy maker lead your campus to engage with these issues?
3. Even when groups form for noble purposes, it is human nature for groups to exclude others in order to seek benefits for their members. Jesus frequently describes the Kingdom of God as a kingdom that seeks to bless those ‘outside’ the system. (“Love your enemies”) Is it possible for Christian institutions (like colleges and universities) to adopt policies that benefit both those who are members and those who are not? How?
4. Thinking about the meeting in the farm house about what to do with Kee, there are at least three different ways that she is viewed by the policy makers.
Kee as utility: Kee must be used as leverage to gain rights for immigrants. Using Kee is a means of continuing the differentiation between groups, but now on different terms. Currently the State has security that the immigrants desire, but with Kee the immigrant groups possess security that the State desires. Kee’s preferences are not important because using her represents the greatest good for the greatest number (of immigrants at least).
Kee as symbol: Kee’s pregnancy represents hope that transcends borders. She represents a universal hope. Immigrants see an opportunity to remove fear by sharing her for the good of all.
Kee as individual: Kee is just a woman about to have a baby who is going to need a safe place to deliver and care for her child.
When making policies for our campuses, it is easy to make similar abstractions of students (or faculty). On your campus is it possible (or even worth while) to balance the needs of the individuals with the needs of the institutions with the needs of the world?
5. The state is personified in the movie by the news reports, the art collector, and the immigration officer. The news reports describe the state as the benevolent protector of the people. A few immigrants need to be rounded up, but it is for the good of everyone. The art collector represents the state as an unthinking bureaucratic machine. The state does what it does because it does what it does. The immigration officer represents the state as a collection of mercenaries who are willing to commit atrocities as long as there is the potential for personal gain. These stereotypes are common to all institutions. What kinds of policies can mitigate the influences of these types of actors within our policy arenas?
I just noticed how long these questions are, but that is because I love this movie and policy analysis so I get a little carried away. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
(P.S. If you like this movie…there are three movies released the same year that kind of make an informal trilogy along similar themes Pan’s Labyrinth, Babel, and Children of Men.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In response to questions #2: Are there policy issues regarding access, accountability, or affordability that are of major concern locally, nationally, or globally that colleges are ‘just not thinking about?’ YES.
ReplyDeleteAs traditional (18-22 year old) residential liberal arts institutions I don't think many of our schools want to think about the diversification of higher education. Some are catching the online bandwagon, but many have reinvigorated their commitment to traditional classrooms, traditional aged students, and traditional residence halls. It is challenging to fight history, but my institution needs to consider the varied needs of the kinds of students that are headed to college. Our commitment to 18-22 year old students may negatively impact the success of other students (lack of services, lack of residential space, lack of online options) and cause our school to "miss out" on a large segment of students. Especially in tight budget times, our lack of conversation around diversity will eventually negatively impact our bottom line and ability to attract students. Unfortunately the conversation has been more centered on staying "true to our history" as a way to attract students. It feels like a gamble to assert tradition will prevail the demographic and economic shifts within our country.
In response to #4, When making policies for our campuses, it is easy to make similar abstractions of students (or faculty). On your campus is it possible (or even worth while) to balance the needs of the individuals with the needs of the institutions with the needs of the world? It's not easy, but I think it's necessary.
ReplyDeleteAs I have been writing about Calvin's response to homosexuality, I think they have largely forgotten students and that there are gay and lesbian students actively involved in the Calvin community. It will be challenging to maintain institutional commitments to a specific theological position and meet the need for students to feel fully accepted as members of the community. It's also interesting to note that staff have also not been fully accepted into the community if you consider full membership as being invited into the governance process of the community. The structures of the college make membership full of requirements and specific commitments, thus excluding a large portion of the community. Ironically, Calvin has often written about and touted their commitment to diversity, but the college's historical governance structures do not reflect the values espoused about diversity, inclusion, and full acceptance.
I am a proponent for gay rights and would consider myself an advocate for homosexuality within the church- there are times when I see "the cause" over individual stories, although relationships with individuals is what prompts my advocacy. When you are in the middle of big debate it can be easier to de-personalize issues instead of deal with the emotions of personal stories, but it's crucial to also hear the stories and allow those to be part of the process.
Response to question #1:1. For centuries geography has been a dominant factor in determining identity. This is true both nationally and institutionally. Recent technology allows us to connect our selves with others independent of our geography. Thinking about your campus(es) what is the role geography plays in forming identity? Are there policy decisions that create winners and losers based on geography?
ReplyDelete********************************************
Geography has played a unique role in forming identity and in making policy on my campus in two distinct ways. First, our institution had its birth in Pasadena, as Pasadena College. The college ideals and ethos were greatly impacted by the location and close-knit surrounding community. The main self-concept of the school as a residential Christian college with a focus on teaching rather than research, was supported by the small campus, like-mindedness of the faculty, and the ability of most faculty to live in close proximity to the school.
When the decision was made in 1973 to move the college to Point Loma in San Diego, a division arose between Pasadena loyalists and supporters of the move. This divide lingered well into the 1990's and can still be felt today, though aging out and retirement of the older faculty has served to soften the division.
Due to the Pasadena/Point Loma division, policy decisions have been weighed less on merit than on how they comply with the original self-concept of the school and the traditions held dear by those who have been on faculty the longest. This includes resistance to developing off-campus programs and allowing some traditional programs to remain, despite declining enrollments.
Reverence for tradition even played a part in site selection for a new building. Rather than build on a spot well-suited, but currently occupied by a structurally unsound building brought over from the Pasadena campus, the new School of Theology was placed literally as an outcropping of the library on a strip of land barely able to acoommodate it.
The second way geography has been instrumental in identity formation is through the eventual adoption of distance programming. Because the city of San Diego limits the use of our Point Loma campus to 2500 students, economically the institution was forced to seek ways to increase enrollment in locations elsewhere. We now have regional centers in locations as far afield as Bakersfield. The faculty at these locations have been instrumental in growing successful programs that generate a great deal of revenue for PLNU, yet they are treated as the illigitimate off-spring of the school. Policies serving to reinforce this notion include mandatory monthly faculty meetings held only on the main campus (use of remote cameras was tried, then abandoned), lack of voice on campus committees for several years, and a separate governance structure that resulted in near-implosion of the Education department. Facilities and equipment were also allocated based on location - rented buildings or borrowed classrooms for distance programs, used PCs installed in those locations rather than supply of newer models.
Steps have been taken to ameliorate this situation, and PLNU is now a more cohesive institution. However, this situation serves as an example of location playing a huge part in the winners and losers where campus politics are concerned.
Response to question #3:
ReplyDeleteEven when groups form for noble purposes, it is human nature for groups to exclude others in order to seek benefits for their members. Jesus frequently describes the Kingdom of God as a kingdom that seeks to bless those ‘outside’ the system. (“Love your enemies”) Is it possible for Christian institutions (like colleges and universities) to adopt policies that benefit both those who are members and those who are not? How?
********************************************
This is going to sound pessimistic at best, but though I do believe Christisn institutions can, and try to, adopt policies that benefit both members and non-members, I also believe there are always unintended consequences when any policy is enacted.
Those outside the regular membership of any given society will be at best excluded, and at worst harmed by, many policies adopted by the membership. This sounds harsh, but the reality is that most policy on campus is enacted by groups of people who share a common interest and who often fail to hear the viewpoints of those who will be affected by their decisions. In the case of a Christian insitution, this inequality in voice is heightened by the rules and regulations stipulated by the sponsoring or governing denomination.
How do we go about making policy that works and does not exclude? Most policy is created and enacted by committee, unless it is a top-down decision of the cabinet or governing board. In order to create better policy, the ear of every committee, every administator must be trained to hear the voices of those who do not make policy. If policy regarding physical access is being made, the voice of those with disabilities must be heard. If making policy with regard to class times and locations, the voices of non-traditional and off-campus students must be heard.
In order to fully implement this idea, committee membership would ideally include traditionally excluded populations such as staff, the student body, and non-traditional consituents. Seeking input from those outside what is traditionally thought to be the "membership" of any society must be the first step toward understanding needs and creating ways to serve those needs.
Deb Vetter
ReplyDelete1. What role does geography play in forming identity on the AC campus? Are there policies that create winners and losers based on geography?
Historically, the undergraduate population at AC has been 60 to 70 percent out-of-state. Over the last decade or so, state governments have developed various financial incentives to entice their high school graduates to attend colleges and universities in their home state rather than go to an institution in another state. Coupled with the recent downturn in the economy, more and more students have begun to stay in their home state to attend college, thus changing the student demographics of AC which this fall was 50 percent out-of-state. As a mostly tuition driven institution with a moderate scholarship endowment, AC students from in-state have more of their financial need met due to Keyes, an in-state tuition incentive, than do those students who are from out-of-state. Thus, the students from in-state graduate with less debt burden than do those students who attend the college from out-of-state.
2. Are there policy issues regarding access, accountability, or affordability that are of major concern locally, nationally, or globally that colleges are “just not thinking about?” Why (or why not) should the AC campus think about these things? What are these issues, and how do I as a policy maker lead the AC campus to engage with these issues?
ReplyDeleteThe inequality of educational preparation and the disparity of cost for attending an institution of higher education in the US are accessibility issues for many individuals. Individuals who are poorly prepared for college will either be denied access to a college education, or if they do receive access, will often not be successful or persist. The inability to pay for college prevents access to higher education for some individuals or limits the quality or type of institution that individuals can attend.
The administration and faculty at AC value educating a diverse group of students and not just those that can afford a private education. This past year, AC made a decision to not raise tuition, room, and board, as well as committed more institutional funds to financial aid given the current economic downturn in the US to ensure that students who were interested in attending the college could attend, and that those already attending could continue with their education at the college.
The federal government, state governments, and institutions of higher education need to continue their efforts to ensure that every citizen has access and can afford a higher education. The future success of our country is dependent on educated and productive citizens. An untrained and uneducated population will result in a decreased economy and status as an innovative and global power.
Another group of people who in recent years have found higher education in the US inaccessible and unaffordable is non-immigrants. The federal government has had the difficult task of ensuring that non-immigrants seeking access to a US higher education do not threaten the safety of US citizens or take an economic opportunity (financial aid or employment) from a US citizen. Thus, non-immigrants must pay numerous processing fees to the US government to attend a college or university, and show proof of funding for all tuition, room, board, fees, and living expenses at the onset of any higher educational endeavors. The challenge is that international diversity on US college and university campuses enhances the educational experience of the US citizens also attending those same institutions. International diversity on college and university campuses will help US and international students to be more globally aware and understanding; therefore, creating a greater opportunity for future government and economic decisions to be made which will enhance the prospect of prosperity and peace for everyone.
As an administrator at AC, it is my responsibility to help the President and the senior officers on the President’s Cabinet to be aware of the issues, to increase the financial aid endowment for US and international student scholarships, and to work through professional higher education organizations, as well as state and national legislators to lobby for the policies that ensure the access and affordability of higher education to all US and international students.
Response to Annie Question #3
ReplyDeleteAnnie, I agree with you that it is challenging for colleges and universities to adopt policies that benefit both those who are members and those who are not. I desperately want to believe that Christian institutions have the capacity to be different in how they set policy; however, my experience has been that the very beliefs that bring Christians together also divide them. How Christian beliefs are interpreted with regard to social and political issues have the potential to be the most volatile. I have witnessed the unreasonable and irrational side of strong convictions turned fanatical when some faculty, staff, and students who believed their ideas regarding the future direction of an institution were the only correct ones, become willing to destroy the very same institution rather than operate under policies that differed from what they believed to be the only right way of running the institution. I have also witnessed a beloved, long-tenured, past-President try and sabotage an institution because it was changing in a direction different from what he desired. Even so, I still find myself wanting to be optimistic and believe that Christian colleges and universities can be different and adopt policies that benefit both those who are members and those who are not members. I think there will always be those who do not like or want change, who, for reasons that are difficult for me to comprehend, want time to stand still or resume to the good old days. I believe however, that there are more Christians who understand the precarious balancing act of preserving the basic tenets of the Christian faith and being a relevant and vital Christian community in an ever changing world.
My thinking diverges from yours a little Annie, when you suggest that to fully implement an idea requires committee membership from “traditionally excluded populations such as staff, the student body, and non-traditional constituents.” As Christians, I believe we are called to be other-centered, and in so being do not always need to ensure representation on college and university committees from every underrepresented group. As a student affairs administrator, for instance, it is my job to represent the interests and needs of students when serving on a committee or attending a meeting, such as the Vice President’s Cabinet, that does not have student representation and which would not be appropriate. I do however, believe that it is imperative that those in decision-making positions to know the constituents they represent and for whom they are making decisions. I have experienced committees that have become incapacitated and ineffective due to over representation. The committees became bogged down in minutia which prevented them from doing the very things they were established to accomplish.
Response to Jolyn Question 4
ReplyDeleteJolyn, it was interesting to read about the specific student group of students at Calvin, gays and lesbians, who you thought about in answering this question. When I looked at the question, I considered a different group of students, the student athlete. For some individuals, being a student athlete is a means for earning a scholarship in order to attend college and to earn a degree. For some individuals, being a student athlete means acquiring the perks that come with recognition and status. For some individuals, being a student athlete meets a need for competition, while for other individuals, being a student athlete is a means for being part of a group with similar interests in a particular sport. Institutions on the other hand, perceive student athletes as a recruitment tool for athletes and non-athletes alike. Some institutions have added particular sports to increase their enrollment. Having a winning athletic program—one that wins championships—builds the reputation of the institution which translate into a potential increase in enrollment for the institution. Having a successful athletic program also meets the needs of the institution by increasing school spirit and pride which in turn aids in the retention and persistence of enrolled students. A strong athletic program also provides the institution with increased alumni commitment and financial support. Communities also benefit from community pride in their successful collegiate student athletes who later provide these same communities with renowned leaders. Some student athletes, who go on to become professional athletes, bring additional recognition and notoriety to the colleges and universities they attended and the communities they call home.
While student athletes are not as quickly forgotten or invisible as students who are homosexual, they are also used and abused by institutions. The needs of student athletes are often met as long as the institution still benefits from her or his performance. All too often however, once a student athlete has fulfilled her or his eligibility, the institutions’ interest in a student’s future drastically diminishes. Similar to you Jolyn, I too think some colleges are better at meeting the individual needs of students than do others. I believe however, that it is possible to balance of the needs of the individual with the needs of the institution—it is a balancing act that requires honestly, compromise, and intentionality on the part of all constituents.
5. What kinds of policies can mitigate the negative influences of the benevolent protector, the unthinking bureaucratic machine, and collector of mercenaries actors with the policy arenas in higher education?
ReplyDeleteA clearly stated mission statement and strategic plan are a first step in assuring that a higher education institution does veer from its intended purpose and direction. The annual assessment of institutional programs and services must also occur to ensure intentionality of purpose effectiveness. Institutions must also be willing to be externally audited every 10 years for accreditation; however, regular internal and external departmental reviews must occur in the interim. Policies and practices for open communication, input, and feedback with all constituencies of an institution must also be in place and exercised on a regular basis.
Response to Question 1: "Thinking about your campus, what is the role geography plays in forming identity? Are there policy decisions that create winners and losers based on identity?"
ReplyDelete+++++++++++++++++
One of the unique challenges tied to the denominational identity of our institution is a geographical issue. Each of the 8 Nazarene colleges in the U.S. is intended to serve a particular geographical region. The schools operate fairly independently of one another, which means that some fare quite well and others more poorly, with the remaining schools spread between the two extremes. As a result, some of the denomination's institutions are better equipped than others to serve their assigned regions.
The particular challenge in regard to this regional approach is that each school is expected to recruit students only from within its own geographical area. "Poaching" is widely frowned on. All of the institutions are happy to admit students who live outside their respective regions, but actively recruiting them would be met with disapproval.
While I understand the desire to prevent active competition among sister schools in their recruitment efforts, this means that students who may be poorly served by the closest institution are effectively off limits to sister schools that might serve them better. Every institution in the 8-school network has its strengths and weaknesses. If one school is equipped to provide distance education particularly well, perhaps an agreement between schools could allow that institution to market to students living in the rural, agricultural areas closer to another institution. The potential scenarios in which this kind of dichotomy might apply are numerous. When the closest school can best serve the students, the geographical recruitment boundaries are beneficial to all of the schools; however, student needs should transcend policy. As all 8 denominational institutions bemoan the decreasing percentage of Nazarenes within their student populations, rethinking geographical restrictions may open new avenues for serving the denominational student population more effectively.
Response to question 4: When making policies for our campuses, it is easy to make similar abstractions of students (or faculty). On your campus, is it possible (or even worthwhile) to balance the needs of the individual with the needs of the institution with the needs of the world?
ReplyDelete++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think it's compelling to look at the balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of the institution. This has been especially evident in discussions at our recent Board of Trustees meeting regarding whether (or how much) to raise tuition for next year. There are very real concerns about maintaining financial accessibility to the institution--particularly for Nazarene students who are likely less affluent than other students who might attend PLNU. While the institution is admittedly a private university in one of the most expensive regions in the nation, the Trustees are extremely cautious about increasing the cost of attendance without very careful consideration.
That consideration for the financial needs of students as individuals must be balanced with the financial needs of the institution. As a tuition-driven university, the school lives or dies based on enrollment levels and tuition costs. The institution's "cost of living" is extraordinarily high, and that figure includes the salaries of a few hundred faculty and staff members, along with more general operating costs. In some ways, the needs of the institution are the needs of individuals. It's a bit like the chicken or the egg paradox. Neither the institution's nor the individual's needs can be met without considering the needs of the other. At least financially, balancing the needs of the institution with the needs of the individual is absolutely essential for institutional survival.
The needs of the world are a different story. Meeting the needs of the world is not so much a matter of institution survival as of institutional priorities. Unfortunately, the needs of the world are often addressed only in the lofty language of an institution's mission statement, but are set aside in terms of any practical emphasis. Particularly at faith-based institutions, the reverse should be true. The needs of the individual and the survival of the institution should be secondary to meeting the needs of the world. In theory, both we as individuals and our schools as institutions should be means to an end that is larger and more important than ourselves. If any one player has to win out in the "whose needs are most important" game, it should be the needs of the world.
Then again... I suppose the needs of "the world" are just a constructed reality anyway. Who is "the world," after all? Individuals. To remark on the movie, it seems like the general consensus is that ensuring the survival of Kee's baby (an individual) is essentially an effort to meet the needs of the world. I've obviously reasoned myself in circles here, but I think part of the difficulty is that our approach to this question has to hinge on what we really envision when we talk about the world.
Okay, this is a little unwieldy since I can't comment directly on a comment. Oh well. I wanted to reply to Anne-Elizabeth's response regarding policies that exclude people. You make some great points, Anne-Elizabeth--most specifically that when policies affect particular population, those groups should be represented in the committees that are forming the policies. I understand Deb's concern that committees can become so inclusive as to lose functionality, but I feel like that can generally be avoided. In some cases, subcommittees might be convened so that issues of particular interest to individuals with disabilities could include people with disabilities, staff members whose jobs include service to that population, and the policy makers with enough power to make things happen. Other subcommittees might address concerns of particular interest to other populations.
ReplyDeleteOne of the difficulties we face at the institutional level is that we think we're doing things well. We sometimes believe ourselves to be actively representing the people who are are affected by a policy, but we may in actuality be failing to consider issues that are not apparent to us as non-members of that population. No matter how well informed I am about the concerns of a given group (students of color, students with disabilities, or any other group of students or faculty), I simply cannot represent members of that group as well as they can represent themselves.
So yes, I agree with you, Deb, that committees can turn into ineffective giants without careful management, but I agree with Anne-Elizabeth that doing what's necessary to include "primary source" information in policy making is vital. In cases where the inclusion of individuals on a committee or within particular meetings is unrealistic or inappropriate for some reason, the input of those individuals can (and should) still be actively sought in order to formulate the best possible policies.
Jolyn's response to question #2 really focused on meeting the needs of non-traditional students or of students who need to learn in less traditional ways, but the comment on institutional identity caught my attention. I find it interesting that Calvin is marketing itself in terms of staying true to its mission at the same time my institution has adopted the new tagline--"Forward." Yep, that's it. It's a huge communication campaign that is essentially trying to convey something along the lines of, "Well, yeah... we're a Christian school. But we're not hymnal-toting weirdos. We're into all that cool modern stuff." Yikes.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that we will soon see some specific policy implications of the desire to present the institution as something other than what administrators think it's perceived as. I know that sentence was a little convoluted, but here's the point--the institutional powers that be want the school to be seen as cutting-edge in some way. I'm not certain where those individuals foresee the institution departing from its current path or identity, but those changes don't generally happen without policy shifts. So I guess we'll see. Identity and policy are always intertwined, but I'm not sure how that relationship will be demonstrated over the next few months.
Question #1:
ReplyDeleteFor centuries geography has been a dominant factor in determining identity. This is true both nationally and institutionally. Recent technology allows us to connect our selves with others independent of our geography. Thinking about your campus(es) what is the role geography plays in forming identity? Are there policy decisions that create winners and losers based on geography?
The shift in Pepperdine's location has certainly contributed to a shift in identity. When Pepperdine was originally founded in 1937, it was located in the heart of Los Angeles, just blocks away from where the Watts Riots occured in 1965. In 1972, Pepperdine was moved to its Malibu location. In those years, the demographics of the institution changed dramatically-in ever way. Many alumni that attended the "old" campus do not identify with the "new" campus in any way. In fact, they will say that their college no longer exists. In order to reach these older alumni, the alumni offices have created entire new programs, alumni magazines, and reunions just for this particular group. Now, there are no longer "camps" of people who were on other side of the fence in terms of the move. With the exception of the older alumni, everyone seems very pleased with the current location.
However, the premise as to why the campus was moved (similar to a white-flight sort of experience), has since changed the current campus-and it took decades to reach the level of diversity it had when the campus were located in the heart of los angeles. In its short history, the policies and choices of the institution have dramatically impacted the overall identity of the community and the institution. When people walk across the campus, they might observe a predominantly white and wealthy community...very different than the original campus.
Question #2: Are there policy issues regarding access, accountability, or affordability that are of major concern locally, nationally, or globally that colleges are ‘just not thinking about?’ Why (or why not) should your campus think about these things? What are these issues, and how do you as a policy maker lead your campus to engage with these issues?
ReplyDeletePepperdine has had a "need-blind" policy, in terms of admission, for years. This essentially means that a student's ability to pay tuition is not considered as a part of their admission decision. Further, the Office of Financial Assistance will do what they can do to help fund our needy students. Recently, in light of the current economy (and a stretched financial aid budget), the Board of Regents has asked, "Why doesn't admission just admit more full-pay students?" Alternatively, we would have to explore other changes in policy to expand the financial aid budget. Clearly, by admitting more wealthy students, we would have to admit fewer qualified students that happen to need aid, thereby affecting access to the institution and paving the way for kids who happen to have parents that can afford a Pepperdine tuition without financial aid. All in all, this would dramatically impact the diversity (socioeconomic, geographic, and ethnic) of the student body. By supposing that Pepperdine could just admit more wealthy kids to move the institution forward in this economy, the Board of Regents is "just not thinking about" the other ways such a policy change would affect the overall landscape of the institution.
As it seems, the Board of Regents
1. My campus is a regional state institution and I believe the geography informs the culture. Rather than drawing a national student body as some schools such as Harvard the primarily regional nature of the institution is played out in the student body, the staff, and the faculty. As a result of the nature of “who we are” the decisions reflect the mentality brought to the institution by its constituents. Because of the nature of the institution there are few winner/losers because the institution strives to include regional voices in decisions so the outcomes reflect the interest of multiple entities around the region from the state representative for the region to the local community. However I do believe there are times when an institution is faced with “best interest” decisions where it has to make a decision, which is in its own best interest that results if someone being a loser in the overall decision. My institution has a major city street running through the campus. This semester there have been three students hit while crossing the street. It has been fortunate that there have been no serious injuries but the University purchased the part of the street that runs through the campus and plans to close the street to through traffic. Numerous citizens were opposed to this closure however the University felt the safety of the crossing was important enough to move forward with this decision. One can view this outcomes as that of “winners and losers” but hopefully there can be collaboration and mutual respect so as to create higher level win-win outcomes.
ReplyDelete2. I believe the nature of higher education is that of somewhat isolationist in its response to stimuli. The higher education environment is slower to respond to external stimuli than its peer, the business sector. As a response to having the type of structure such as tenure, where faculty are free to critique the policy, procedures, and nature of the University’s work as well as the world around it, the University tends to have multiple voices speaking into current affairs which serves to neutralize strong swings in reaction. A key to being successful in such an environment is to return to the University’s mission statement and lead from the values and beliefs espoused therein. In order to fully engage in current issues the institution must do so based upon its unique culture and identity. This identity is what has formed the nature of who the University is through the years and will serve to steer it through future decisions. If a university has established itself as an elite institution and has been successful in creating that culture then affordability is not as high a priority as an institution that has positioned itself as a low-costs provider of higher education. The later institution will want to approach decisions regarding price and costs with a much higher sensitivity to its position than the elite institution.
3. I believe it is possible for an institution to serve both those inside and outside the system. I believe a university can strive to educate and train the students, faculty, and staff in a way that places a priority on serving those on the “outside of” the system. Returning again to the mission of the university-if it is a value of the university to serve those on the fringes then it will attract faculty, staff, and students who are interested in developing themselves in a way that will allow them to “give back” to those on the outside. Thus I do believe it is possible for a university to serve both but to do so I believe it has to be a value, a belief of the university to do so.
ReplyDelete4. In a world less globalized than ours is today it may have been more likely to be able to make decisions that did not address all three areas: individual, institution, world-but in today’s connected and globalized world an institution would be best served to account for multiple constituents. Decisions tend not to be localized for a university any longer. Rather faculty do research that impacts international interest, students come from all over the world and the institution consumes and delivers products that are complex and multifaceted. Thus thinking through decisions on individual, institutional, and global levels is as important as for leaders to consider the tried and true Kouzes and Posner four frames: structural, human resource, symbolic, and political.
5. Having a collaborative mindset where multiple entities speak into a decision is important. As noted above Kouzes and Posner’s four frames: structural, human resource, symbolic, and political are important perspectives through which to view any decision. Viewing a decision through multiple lenses and recognizing the complex nature of decision making will allow for a leader to avoid falling prey to one extreme perspective and hopefully make thoughtful, well-meaning decisions based upon the university’s mission and values.
In thinking about A-E's response to question #3, an anecdote of a recent situation at my school came to my mind. The Office of Admission admitted a quadriplegic student for the Spring term. On an individual level, this young woman had great essays, rec letters, and great scores, and exhibited (through her application) that she was a great fit for Pepperdine. (In the admission process, committee knew she had disabilities, but they did not know the nature of her disabilities.) All in all, Pepperdine (globally speaking) is not typically attractive to students with severe disabilities, as our campus is VERY hilly and not conducive to wheelchairs. Institutionally, when she was admitted, the school needed to make a GREAT deal of adjustments (per legal and school policy) to campus in order to reasonably accommodate her lifestyle (special remote controlled door openers, elevators, etc). As the cost of the adjustments will certainly be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, people certainly divided into two camps: 1) This is a blessing in disguise, because we have needed to make these changes to our physical campus for a long time, and now we have an immediate impetus to do so, and 2), This student better not have been a "pity admit," because she is going to cost us a LOT of money. Even though the policies would not/could not be adjusted on account of either camp, it was interesting to see select individuals of the university engage in the discussion regarding the policy surrounding the situation...and their opinions were certainly based on their opinion of the global, institutional, or individual perspective.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Deb's answer for #2 about in-state vs. out of state, I was reminded of Berkeley's recent decision to enroll more out-of-state students to increase tuition revenue, as these students pay higher tuition rates. Interestingly, while this adjustment will impact the tuition earned on behalf of the institution, it will likely have a negative impact on the level of diversity in the student body.
ReplyDeletehttp://chronicle.com/article/As-Berkeley-Enrolls-More/49049/
Andrea Kitomary says
ReplyDeleteQuestion #1. Thinking about your campus what is the role geography plays in forming identity? Are there policy decisions that create winners and losers based on geography?
The identity of Calvin College was established by those CRC who migrated to West Michigan-Grand Rapids. It was through the denomination of CRC that Calvin College's identity was formed and continues to be maintained. For a greater part of the school's history, the majority of the students who attended were CRC. Now, as the school tries to diversify, the tipping point has been reached where just under half of the students are from the CRC denomination. Although, the students come from various geographical areas, they are still connected to the CRC denomination. With the shift tilting toward more students who are not CRC, the identity of the school has been challenged by issues that go against CRC theology beliefs, and the regulations established by the college. For example, how to handle gay rights, can compromise be reached on children attending Christian schools, and families having CRC membership if on the faculty. As Calvin continues to diversify by recruiting faculty and students outside of the CRC/geographical area its identity will continue to be challenged.
A student example of how policy decisions create winners and losers based on geography is displayed in the recruitment process through the admissions office. Admissions reps. have traditionally only gone to geographic areas where there was strong CRC church support. Thereby, affording CRC families and students from those areas with the opportunity to learn about what Calvin has to offer as an institution. On the other side, in not going to geographic areas where there are not CRC connections or church affiliations those families and students have missed the opportunity to learn about Calvin. More recently, Calvin has started recruiting in more diverse geographic areas, which is exposing the college to more diverse students, but once the students get to campus there is a divide still between CRC and non-CRC that creates losers and winners.
Andrea Kitomary says
ReplyDeleteQuestion #3
Is it possible for Christan institutions to adopt policies that benefit both those who are members and those who are not? How?
I think if Christan institutions were designed to benefit both members and non-members than yes they could develop policies to benefit both. Unfortunately, most Christan institutions were designed to benefit not Christians in general but a particular brand of Christian found within denominations. If, Christian colleges modeled the ways of the Kingdom, than I believe Christian colleges would have been designed to benefit non-members because that is who Christ came here to save. Of course he loved all people (Jews) but he was here to save those who did not 'think' they knew about Christ. The benefit for Christians would be in serving non Christians and showing them the value of membership in Christ, by the benefits they received. For Christian colleges to adopt policies that benefit both members and non-members means the possibility of changing ideological or theological beliefs. This is the cross road most Christian denominational colleges find themselves at in they quest to create policy to benefit both parties.
In response to Deb's comment on not necessarily having representatives at the table from particular groups, and Anne Elizabeth's insistence's that there should be representatives so their voice is heard, I agree with both. Anne Elizabeth commented that ears needed to be trained to hear the voices of those not at the table, while Deb mentioned that the person at the table could speak on behalf of the population he/she was representing. I think these ideas would work well together. Yes, the voiceless need to be heard, and those listening need to be trained but I want to combine this piece with Deb's idea and comment that those representing the voiceless should be trained on how to hear, and all representatives at the table need to be trained in how to listen. So often we (staff, faculty, administrators) come to the table to get our agenda heard, but not to listen to what others are saying and how we can collaborate to help one another. Jolyn mentioned in her response about hearing others stories. As representatives of voiceless populations, we may know the data, research, and stats for our institution on those students (a way of knowing the student) but do we know the students' stories and can we communicate those stories in a compelling way that leads to their voices being heard and action being taken?
In response to Deb's comment on question #2, I think the immigrant issue is one that some institutions are not thinking about, more so in states where there is not a heavy migration of immigrants. For those colleges in Cal or Texas, I think it is an issue that is discussed and closely watched politically. Sadly, many colleges are still trying focused on American diversity or multiculturalism. Institutions have not expanded their definitions of diversity to include immigrants nor the international students on many of our campuses. As our countries racial composition shifts to Hispanics becoming the majority in the nation, colleges will then be forced to expand their scope of diversity to include immigrants.
Response to Question #1 (in addition to Kristy's response regarding this question):
ReplyDeleteGeography has absolutely been a dominant factor in determining Pepperdine's identity. Pepperdine University is a medium-sized, private institution with an enrollment of 8,3000 students across its five colleges and schools. Pepperdine is located overlooking the Pacific Ocean in Malibu, California, occupying 830-acres, and it the home to Seaver College, the School of Law, the Graduate School of Education and Psychology, the Graziadio School of Business and Management, and the School of Public Policy. In addition to courses taught in Malibu, students take courses at six graduate locations in Southern California and at international campusses in Germany, England, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, China, Thailand, Australia, Africa, and Argentina.
George Pepperdine, a Christian businessman and founder of Western Auto Supply Company, founded Pepperdine University in 1937. The institution was very small and mostly an undergraduate college for the first 30 years of its life. In 1970, Pepperdine schieved its University status as professional and graduate schools were added. The University opened its new campus on the beaches of Malibu in 1972. Pepperdine is intentional in its commitment to the highest standards of academic excellence and Christian values. It prides itself on being small, private, faith-based liberal arts college with a division I athletic program and a top 50 (or so) ranking among colleges and universities in the nation.
The geography not only has changed Pepperdine's identity in terms of its transition from downtown LA to the coast in Malibu, but its current location also causes quite an identity crisis as it tries to identify itself as a values-centered Christian institution. Like Kristy mentions, "when people walk across the campus, they might observe a predominantly white and wealthy community...very different than the original campus." Surrounded by a materialistic and wealth-driven environment, Pepperdine has to continually ensure that all university transactions and activities are aligned with its mission, goals, and purpose, despite its location, geography, and composition. Especially in a broken economy, winners are those that can afford to be a part of the "privileged" community and losers are those who cannot. Because Pepperdine continues to select students who are a mission-fit and not necessarily students who can afford the sticker price, it strives to retain its high-quality reputation. However, without its geography (and subsequently its high tuition), one could argue that Pepperdine's "high-class" identity would be compromised.
Jake's question #4 thoughts...
ReplyDeleteOne policy tension that I see in play in higher education institutions is the creation of a strategic identity or direction in regards to what “type” of institution a college is going to be. As universities become more specialized and competition grows, they cannot continue to be all things to all people. In each case, there are winners and losers, both within the college and in regards to their outward impact in the world. For instance, policies of research 1 institutions require focus on bringing in grant money and conducting large-scale research. What then happens to the freshman liberal arts major at this school? Or what about small liberal arts colleges, who in being completely student-focused may lose out on significant grant money from research? Who is being served if doing so means they must cut programs due to lack of funds. Is cutting programs a disservice to the students? Would it be better for them to change their policy and focus more on research dollars, even if it goes against the mission of the institution?
Question #3 thoughts...
ReplyDeleteI may be misunderstanding the question, but in my experience universities are torchbearers in adopting policies that possess mutual benefits for both “insiders” and “outsiders.” An example from a non-Christian institution that I used to work at is how their mission is research, instruction, and extension. The “extension” part is basically a philosophical foundation for the creation policies and programs that serve “outsiders.” It’s an organized effort of educators who take their research and turn it into practical uses that seek to improve the lives of people in the state and help them make sound decisions about their lives, businesses, and communities. They ultimately want to help them develop economically, socially, culturally, etc. Many Christian institutions probably have similar policies that seek to serve others, and in doing so, also greatly benefit the “insiders” of the institution.
Question #1 thoughts...
ReplyDeleteThis question makes me think about the in-state enrollment problems at UT-Austin. I don’t recall the specifics, but I think that the state of Texas has a policy that anyone who graduates in the top 10% of their H.S. class automatically gains admission into UT. Now, after a few years have passed under this policy, the school is in danger of having all of their admits being in-state students. This is considered a policy “crisis” because any school of UT’s stature thrives on possessing diversity amongst the student body. And even in the midst of an ethnically diverse student body, can a school really consider themselves to be diverse if EVERYONE is from the same state?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to Jake's comments on question number 4:
ReplyDeleteI agree that mission is a big problem for any institution in both the way it is set and how it is implemented. As an example, I serve on our Institutional Effectiveness Committee (used to be called the Assessment Committee) and we are currently working on our Institutional Learning Outcomes (ILOs).
In order to fit them to our mission and core values, we need to make these outcomes specific in many ways. However, in creating very specific ILOs we designed outcomes that seemed to exclude any student who is not a Christian.
In attempting to correct this situation, we inadvertantly created ILOs that basically called for people to be living and breathing to have produced evidence of our success. No good.
It has taken us 18 drafts and over a year to produce a document that we could present to the faculty. The faculty has found several flaws and we are beginning round 19 of polishing what will likely be completely outdated ILOs once they are finallized.
PS: Sorry for the Phyllis said...post. I wrote my comment without checking to see if my roommate was logged into her Google account. Apparently she was. :)
ReplyDeleteWith regard to both Kristy's and Leslie's comments about geography, I would agree that economics and location often go hand in hand. It is the same with PLNU.
ReplyDeleteEconomics go beyond the student body as well. Because Point Loma is a VERY expensive area in which to live, most faculty at PLNU do not live nearby. This fact has meant that community building events that should be creating a cohesive body for the university are often not well attended by other than the students. It takes a serious commitment to pack up the kids and make the drive in for a basketball game when you live 45 minutes away.
Because of this economic disconnect, it is often difficult to create the kind of Christian community that PLNU was during the years the campus was in Pasadena and all the faculty owned homes adjacent to the college.
In response to question #1, geography is more than just a designated piece of land. Rather, geography is a zip code of demographical statistics—income, ethnicity, education, and status—bearing identity for the individual. If I were to ask someone where they are from, automatically an identity is formed regarding the individual in my mind. “I’m from New York City,” would elicit an identity. Technology allows the individual to transcend physical boundaries, however, does one really allow us to be independent of our geography. Ironically, we are in the holiday season. Many may live in a geographical area different from their original family, but do we not say, “I’m going home for the holidays?”
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do not work on a college campus, many reforms K-12 through to higher education focus on changing status, if not social mobility. Access and affordability of college policies try to level the playing field of admissions based on the demographical identity of geography. If geography is Compton, California, students are apt to be lower socioeconomic status, ineffective schools, and predominantly Blacks and Latino/as. Geography shapes policy not by physical location, but through the economic, political, and cultural identity of the region. Consequently, home geography is not taken from our being but will always reside within our identity. I would venture that policy does not necessarily create winners and losers. Rather that policy tries to mitigate the affects of geography that perpetuates winners and losers.
In response to question #3: The question poses two possible policy perspectives. The first, directly stated, “to adopt policies that benefit both,” and the second covertly stated, “to adopt policies that protects both.” As someone who attended a Christian university, I remember friends asking how I could live without drinking, smoking, dancing, or gambling for four years. I would answer, “The policies of the school are there for the students if they choose to attend. If I don’t like the policies, I can attend a different college.” In a sense, policies can be enacted to “bless those ‘outside’ the system,” but with any college or university policies, students are under the policies of that institution. Therefore, Christian institutions, like any college or university have the possibility to adopt policies that benefit either group under the auspices of mission and vision. For example, although University of Texas, El Paso, is not a Christian institution, their policies are shaped to benefit members and not members alike because of their mission to provide access and affordability along with excellence in science and technology as a Hispanic Serving Institution. Policies are not in isolation, rather, policies are driven by an institution’s mission
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jake's response to question #1: Although University of Texas, Austin maybe having an admission crisis, the irony of the admission policy is not lost in the milieu of geography. A few years ago, 60 Minutes did a special on the 10% University of Texas’ admissions policy. It seems some students moved out of their affluent zip code a poorer region because of the rule. It seems, in the affluent zip code, the top 10% was much more rigorous competition to be part of compared with the surrounding areas. I remember one female student who stated she was going to reach the top 15% of her class, but if she enrolled in a high school, she would definitely reach the top 10%.
ReplyDeleteJake mentions the diversity on a state level. Admittedly, Texas is trying to enact policies to reach equity and access for all students in their state. However, the policy has loopholes that the affluent can find and undermine. When the student who moved to a less competitive region, knew the rules, played by the rules, but also, subverted the spirit of the law, mocked the very policy that sought to provide equity and access to the students it was enacted to benefit.
In response to Andrea’s question #3: Not all Christian colleges and universities are denominational. Azusa Pacific, Westmont, Biola, and Wheaton are non-denominational and are leaders in Christian higher education. That being said, any university, whether Christian or not, stipulates policies of values reflecting mission. Would not all higher educational, regardless of Christian or not, desire to emulate Christ-like values of truth, justice, love, and peace? Many of America’s higher education institutions began as Christian colleges and have evolved over time. Today’s Christian institutions can adopt policies that benefit member and non-members alike. The real question than, who sets the criteria for what is meant by “beneficial” when creating policies? For example (although I know I’m exaggerating here), what if a higher education study concluded that it is beneficial for dorms to be co-ed on the same floor? Would a Christian college enact that policy? By the way, as a freshman at University of Connecticut in the late 70s, my dorm housed males and females on the same floor. I then attended a Christian college with gender specific dorms. Who constructs the meaning of beneficial and then who subsequently formulates policy?
ReplyDelete