In a new statement on their website,
dated March 21st, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
(FIRE), again takes The University of Delaware's Residence Life program
to task for their stated educational priority and co-curricular plans.
The Res Life Priority statement reads:
"Become an engaged and active citizen by understanding how your
thoughts, values, beliefs, and actions affect the people with whom you
live and recognize your responsibility to contribute to a sustainable society
at a local, national, and global level" (bold-word emphasis added by FIRE).
The author, Adam Kissel, Director of FIRE's Individual Rights Defense Program, goes on to state "It is evident
that ResLife cannot bear to rid itself of the mission of teaching
students that they need to recognize their responsibilities as ResLife defines them." Later, he questions the use of a book to promote discussions about sustainability and student awareness of related issues.
"Also, the plan on paper is shorter than last year, in many cases
leaving the specific activities and teachings unclear. A central
teaching resource for freshmen in
ResLife's plan is the book
It's Easy Being Green: A Handbook for Earth-Friendly Living.
The frequent use of the book in the freshman program makes clear that
ResLife still
imagines itself to be in the business of education. [my emphasis added] Since
we do not know whether the readings from
It's Easy Being Green are required, we don't know whether there will be any penalty, overt or covert, if a freshman chooses not to do the readings
—or doesn't agree with the views therein." and ending with the rhetorical lament
"In any case, where is the faculty oversight of this plainly educational agenda?" [again, my emphasis added.]
Kissel's
accomplishments, including a Harvard education, followed by a master's
degree from the University of Chicago's Committee on Social Thought,
are impressive. He is obviously skilled in rhetoric and social
criticism. But like anyone hoping to win a debate, he juxtaposes
selective information with rhetorical devices to imply an answer, and
throws in a little bit of condescension and bile to send anyone who
might disagree with him running for the exits.
I'm both disturbed and undecided about FIRE. On the one hand, they seem to have people who have worked with the ACLU and other organizations I respect. I even
find myself agreeing with some of their criticisms. But is an
organization that recently lamented that a cyber-bullying law might keep them from doing their job
really the best defender of freedom on American campuses? To me, it's
an open question, and a fair one, with no clear answer in sight.
But back to the rhetoric.
It's
not my place to speak for the University of Delaware, or even for my
own institution (Penn State), but as someone who believes he is working
for the betterment of my university and the profession, and who got
into this field to help students find their way through college and
into the real world, I feel I have a responsibility to engage in the
conversation.
First, bolding the part of the educational priority about sustainability only makes it seem ominous to dumb people. Cut
it out. I mean, really. If students aren't worried about doing their
required readings in their classes, they aren't likely to have a cow
about whether their RA, Resident Director, Director of Residence Life
or anyone else tells them they need to read a book and think about
their environmental footprint, how they can save resources, or whether
they ought to recycle. Even the oft-mentioned RA who told freshmen that
they had to attend a "Mandatory" meeting in an announcement to his
floor would probably tell any one of his residents privately that no
one is going to make you read the book, and that "Mandatory" isn't
really MANDATORY. Some RAs
will always tell their residents that, no matter what their supervisor
says, because it's cooler to pass the buck than to come across as gung-ho
about something that "old people" want you to talk about. It's RA
apologetics in action, the RA-wanting-to-be-a-cool-kid equivalent of
saying "I'm just here for the room, dude. Come to my meeting and don't
make me look bad."
Second, Residence Life is in the Business of Education. Just because we provide tangible services (room and board plans, mediations,
room changes, emergency services and crisis response) doesn't mean we
can't delve into the theoretical, by encouraging exploration,
activities, and reflection on broader life issues such as making
friends, maintaining relationships, sharing space, and managing
conflict. After all, when the classroom building closes and the
professors go home, the students spend the rest of their college lives
with us. We see how isolating it is for some students to leave the
comfort of their families and hometowns, and to connect with new
people. We work with the kids who get kicked to the edges of new social
networks in the halls, who feel invisible, who have never interacted
regularly with people who are demographically different from them,
or who have never experienced environments where it is safe to be
themselves. We help settle conflicts between students and take
practical actions like granting room changes, but we are not simply a
loose amalgamation of services, or a shelf with a specific product on
it. Classes prepare you for specific careers, but the rest of college is a
testing ground for life, where every person a student encounters is an
input variable, and every interaction part of a series of ongoing
social experiments. Co-curricular plans and programs should serve as
catalysts for reflection and refinement of values. Professionals may be
teachers, observers, or participants in the process, but learning
happens in the individual. Good curricula should
provoke thought and reflection, rather than prescribe agreed-upon ideology. It is always up to the student to decide what to do with the knowledge they gain.
I
think that most of us in this field understand that, and well, if you
don't understand it philosophically, understand it practically. You can tell people what to think about, but don't tell them what to think. It
is enough to know that students have been presented with information,
thought about it, and then made decisions they can live with. When it
comes to this co-curricular stuff, this is where we seem to be
struggling at times. How specific should your outcomes be, in order to
be measurable? How general should they be, to support a broad array of
discussions, activities and reflections, and to allow for freedom of
speech, freedom of inquiry, and freedom of thought?
Third, what is the value of "faculty oversight," and who counts when you talk about "faculty?" For example, Kathleen Kerr and Jim Tweedy at UD
both have doctorates, and Kerr teaches classes for master's and
doctorate programs in Education, while Tweedy oversees the university's
RA Classes. It's right on their website, so FIRE should have noticed
when they lifted their pictures to use in a recent FIRE "documentary"
about UD's
program. Does that count for anything? It really should, since we are
talking about the practice of education. It seems to me that having a
doctorate in the field, and teaching classes at a university would
qualify someone as a member of the "faculty." If it doesn't, does that
mean that a larger body of faculty should oversee every teaching
activity, and parse over everything a professor in the college of
business says or does, for example? Wouldn't that limit the exploration
of ideas, remove incentives for creative thinking, and effectively
create a cold and hostile environment in the classroom? I think it
would. But then again, I'm only an administrator. What do I know?
EQ-i will join the 
