Old News Found
From the January 13, 2005 New York
Excerpts from the Essay by Sister Helen Prejean, Death in Texas
page four
"George W. Bush during his six years as governor of Texas presided over 152 executions, more than any other governor in the recent history of the United States ."
pages five and six
As governor, Bush certainly did not stand apart in his routine refusal to deny clemency to death row petitioners, but what does set him apart is the sheer number of executions over which he has presided. Callous indifferences to human suffering may also set Bush apart. He may be the only government official to mock a condemned person's plea for mercy, then lie about it afterward, claiming humane feelings he never felt. On the contrary, it seems that Bush is comfortable with using violent solutions to solve troublesome social and political realities. The aphorism "A hammer, when presented with a nail, knows to do only one thing" applies par excellence, to George W. Bush. As governor of Texas , Bush tackled the social problem of street crime by presiding over the busiest execution chamber in the country. At the time of the thirteen death row exonerations in Illinois , Bush stated publicly that although states such as Illinois might have problems with a faulty death penalty system, he was certain that in Texas no innocent person had ever been sent to death row, much less executed. That remains to be seen. What is clear is that he had, as governor, no quality of mercy."
From my friend, Mitty Varadan today:
I have a new flash fiction published online at Whim's Place. "Sapphire" Mitty http://www.whimsplace.com/010105/Sapphire.htm
For Ron Cervero and Kettering
Work and Integrity: The Crisis and Promise of Professionalism in America by William M. Sullivan (Jossey-Bass)
Arguing for the importance of a new civic professionalism in keeping the ideals of democracy and public service alive within an even more complex economic environment, this important and timely book examines the crisis as well as the promise of professionalism in contemporary society. A vital resource for educators of future professionals, this book makes a powerful argument for renewing the social contract between the professions and the wider public they serve.
For Ron Simpson
The Wisdom of Practice: Essays on Teaching, Learning and Learning to Teach by Lee S. Shulman (Jossey-Bass)
What do teachers need to know in order to teach well? How can teachers best be educated, and how can we assess their accomplishments as teachers? What kinds of educational research can provide deeper understanding of teaching, learning and the reform of education? These are among the questions that are addressed in this landmark college of Lee S. Shulman
For Ron Simpson
Teaching as Community Property: Essays on Higher Education by Lee S. Shulman (Jossey-Bass)
For almost two decades, acclaimed education scholar and current president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Lee S. Shulman has been bringing uncommon wit, passion and vision to issues of teaching and learning. Teaching as Community Property is a collection of Shulman's most influential papers and presentations, giving readers a unique window into his ideas and proposals for the improvement of teaching and learning in higher education. What emerges is a vision of Shulman's overarching agenda--to improve the quality of teaching for all students by making teaching a more respected dimension of all the disciplines and professional fields.
For Kettering
Educating Citizens: Preparing America 's Undergraduates for Lives of Moral and Civic Responsibility by Anne Colby, Thomas Ehrlich, Elizabeth Beaumont, and Jason Stephens (Jossey-Bass)
Educating Citizens reports on how some American colleges and universities are preparing thoughtful, committed, and socially responsible graduates. Many institutions assert these ambitions, but too few act on them. The authors demonstrate the fundamental importance of moral and civic education, describe how the historical and contemporary landscapes of higher education have shaped it, and explain the educational and developmental goals and processes involved in educating citizens. They examine the challenges colleges and universities face when they dedicate themselves to this vital task and present concrete ways to overcomes those issues.
For Kettering
What's Wrong With Democracy?: From Athenian Practice to American Worship by Loren J. Samons II (University of California
"A bold and unbridled look at the nature and history of democracies . . . An engaging, provocative, and timely study of ancient Athens and modern America that should serve as a cautionary reminder to both romantic scholars and zealous diplomats." Victor Davis Hanson, author of The Other Greeks and "Elegantly written, carefully researched, and perceptive . . . A penetrating analysis of ancient Athenian democracy's dark sides. His book is as much about the errors and weaknesses of our own political system as it is about those of ancient Athens ." Kurt a Raaflaub, author of Discovery of Freedom in Ancient Greece
Blogging
January 4, 2005
Henry James in a letter to do-gooding friends:
Only don’t, I beseech you, generalize too much in these sympathies and tendernesses – remember that every life is not yours but another’s, and content yourself with the terrible algebra of your own.
_____________________________________________________________
From Thomas L. Friedman’s book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree
_____________________________________________________________
From Thomas L. Friedman’s book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree
Six Dimensions:
Politics
Culture
National Security
Financial Markets
Technology
Environment
Culture
National Security
Financial Markets
Technology
Environment
[assign different weights to different perspectives at different times in different situations – the interaction of all together is the defining feature]
“ . . . . I am not a realist who thinks everything in foreign affairs can be explained by the quest for power and geopolitical advantage – and markets don’t really matter. I am not an environmentalist, who looks at the fate of the world only through the prism of the environment and what must be done to save it, - and development doesn’t matter. I am not a technologist – one of those Silicon Valley techno-nerds who believe that history began with the invention of the microprocessor and that the Internet will determine the future of international relations – and geopolitics doesn’t matter. I am not an essentialist who believes that people’s behavior can be explained by some essential cultural or DNA trait –and technology doesn’t matter. And I am not an economist who believes that you can explain the world with reference only to markets – and power politics and culture doesn’t matter.”
“World Bank president James Wolfensohn has proposed that we revise our methodology for measuring countries from the current checklist, which is almost entirely confined to financial statistics – GDP – GNP, per capita income – to ‘a new form of accounting’ that would measure a country’s health as an emerging society and not just an emerging market. Countries must be graded on the quality of their governing software, judicial system, procedures for settling disputes, social safety net, rule of law and economic operating systems.”
“It has been said of America that it is a system designed by geniuses so that it could be run by idiots.”
“ . . . I define globalization this way: it is the inexorable integration of markets, nation-states and technologies to a degree never witnessed before – in a way that is enabling individuals, corporations and nation-states to reach around the world further, faster, deeper and cheaper than ever before, and in a way that is enabling the world to reach into individuals, corporations and nation-states further, faster deeper, cheaper than ever before.”
“I define healthy glocalization as the ability of a culture, when it encounters other strong cultures, to absorb influences that naturally fit into and can enrich that culture, to resist those things that are truly alien and to compartmentalize those things that, while different, can nevertheless be enjoyed and celebrated as different.”
Citing Tzvi Marx (rabbinic scholar) “The sign of a healthy absorption is when a society can take something from the outside, adopt it as its own, refit it into its own frame of reference and forget that it ever came from the outside. This happens when the external force being absorbed touches something latent iin your own culture, but maybe is not fully developed, and the encounter with the outside stimulus really enriches that latent thing and helps it flourish.”
Def. Systematic misunderstanding “Systematic misunderstanding arises when your framework and the other person’s framework are so fundamentally different that it cannot be corrected by providing more information.”
“America also must use this moment, when it has a few extra assets to deal with its still very real liabilities: crime-ridden inner cities, an insane lack of gun control, widening economic gaps, under-funded public schools, a culture of litigation that can be debilitating to everyone from small businessmen to large corporations, an under-funded social security system, a consumer credit card culture that encourages too many people to spend too far beyond their means and rack up a mountain of consumer debt that in the event of a recession could pose a real danger to the whole financial structure, and a political system increasingly perverted and corrupted by lax campaign finance laws.”
Def. “known unknown” “ a problem that is known to exist but has no known solution.”
Blogging
Rise up, ye women that are at ease!
Hear my voice, ye careless daughters!
Give ear unto my speech.
Isaiah
Some thoughts on Truth and Reconciliation
When people do not believe that they can change the future, they will continue to argue about the wrongs of the past. Edwin Dorn, Dean, LBJ School
How can people be jarred from conditions of clinging to the past and present to visioning a different (better future)? Read the last chapter of Robert Guest’s The Shackled Continent for more on this question.
I think Edwin Dorn, Dean, at the University of Texas Lyndon Johnson School of Public Affairs could advance the work on the notion of working toward a better future – he has expressed in a related meeting I attended his concern that too much time is spent on delineating the evils of the past or spinning wheels revising history.
From Maria Anne Pagnattaro’s In Defiance of the Law: From Anne Hutchinson to Toni Morrison:
“Dessa Rose’s epilogue reinforces her respect for Rufel and the intended power of her story, which seeks a more just future. She says, “Well this the childrens have heard from our own lips. I hope they never have to pay what it cost us to own ourselves. Mother, brother, sister, husband, friends . . . Oh, we have paid for our children’s place in the world again and again . . . “ (DR, 260). These final words, “invite readers of the novel to meditate on history, to consider the price that has repeatedly been paid to insure what freedoms her children enjoy.”77 Williams also seems to be saying that we should not only remember the past but also embrace the possibility of the future. * For Dessa Rose, as a twentieth-century text, that future is to recognize the value of interracial collaboration right now. Williams not only engraves the past “on the memory of the present” but also “on future generations that might otherwise succumb to the cultural amnesia that has begun to re-enslave us all in social and literary texts that impoverish our imagination.”78 The process of remembering is important to acknowledge the legal injustice of the past, and to use that knowledge to ensure that contemporary laws are administered fairly.”
“As Toni Morison [sic] acknowledges ‘The past, until you confront it, until you live through it, keeps coming back in other forms.’ 144 A key part of that future for modern readers is the consideration of the way that current laws are executed. Some legal scholars argue that the civil rights laws now in place are adequate to redress racial discrimination. The federal and state laws that drew a stark line between the treatment of white and African Americans, laws which deeply affect the characters in Dessa Rose and Beloved, are not longer on the books. Individuals who are discriminated against ostensibly have civil legal recourse to redress their grievances.* Much of the problem that exists today, however, is getting individual states, judges, and juries to take seriously claims based on racial discrimination. By analyzing the past and projecting the end of their novels into the future, Williams and Morrison offer contemporary audiences a deeper understanding about how unjust laws in the nineteenth century affected not merely enslaved African-American women, but the entire fabric of society. To combat the roots of racism that descend deeply into the history of the United States , the end of each work offers hope for the future. That hope, however, is contingent on understanding the injustice of the past, respecting people as individuals, and working together. Each of these elements is crucial for justice, which should ‘bear the mark of immersion in our culture and of a learned sensitivity toward the communities that have created a distinctive culture.’ 145 -- in short, a legal system that delegitimizes racism and promotes humanity.”
Message from Dan Mulhern, January 15, 2006 MLK Day
Great Leaders Move From Fault to Future
Friends,
Today's idea concerns good business practice, good life behavior, and one more thing I'll add at the end. The idea is this: move from fault to future! My wife asked a team of people to work on a critical policy document. One of the last drafts came to her, she shared it with me, I did a little work on it, then sent it to the project director who made copies for the team to read and discuss. We met for that discussion. Jennifer was going over it, but halfway through she realized that she was not reading the latest version; there were changes she had made that weren't reflected in the copy we all had in front of us.
Here's what went through my head: "Oh no, I really screwed this one up." Then, "What the heck happened?" I wondered if I could find it (on my laptop), fix it, print it, copy it, with any reasonable speed - certainly throwing the whole meeting off track. I quickly looked through my emails and files and draft versions, now wondering "Did the director print the wrong version? Did Jennifer not send me her last document? Did Outlook save the email in some other folder? Or, did I forget to save and send the right one?" Do you recognize this feeling at all?
It's like this: There's a problem, and everyone can see the problem, and the problem is generating tension in people, and tension in YOU. And . . . Here's the point I want you to focus on: your mind is racing to assign - and hopefully AVOID - fault! While I needed all the mental energy I could muster to see if I could patch together a quick solution, my mind was being dragged off in this crazy search for fault. I saw myself internally point the finger of blame at Microsoft, at the state server, at the rushed timeframe, at my wife, and in many painful instances at me and my stupidity. Doesn't it seem humanly ordained that we will necessarily look to blame others in large part when or because we don't feel we can handle the blame (from others and/or just from our own judging self)?
What a waste of time and energy ! ! ! By contrast, looking at the past to understand - to find where the missing pieces of the draft were in this case - makes total sense. But looking at the past to judge (unless you are a judge) darned near never helps. And how much energy do we waste on these attempts to fix fault - and thereby escape it?
How to change? First, accept that you and everyone make mistakes. Stuff happens. And we all contribute to make it happen. Second, try to shift from fault and past, to future and solution. Great organizations, great couples, great families, spend a little time asking, "what happened?" but for the purpose of making it work better next time. Shift the energy from fault, blame and guilt to collective improvement; let's do it better!
I promised "one more thing." This is it. Perhaps there is nowhere we could put this "future focus" to better use as a society than in the world of discrimination and opportunity. Michigan will have a ballot issue on affirmative action policies. I predict that when it gets wrapped up in "the fault debate," it will overflow with unhelpful intensity. Accusations will fly against those who seek affirmative action; e.g., "It's their fault for not working hard enough." (Notice that this "offensive" line is also a defense against blame, "I worked hard. I earned everything I got. (With voice rising:) Are you saying, I haven't worked for what I got?") Then there will be the intense finger-pointing about the fault white folks have for the enduring effect of slavery and the "sins of our fathers," e.g., "I didn't cause slavery. I come from dirt poor immigrants." Those debates quickly get ugly, offensive (though people feel like they're just defending themselves), and unhelpful.
I say, let's press forward and focus on the future. The fact is we all want to deliver on the American dream. And on Dr. King's birthday we recognize we are still not there. So, let's drive our energy forward. What can each of us do, individually, or through collective social or political action to move forward to give every child and adult the best chance they can possibly have to succeed in this great country. The question here is not: "What did I do?" The question is: "What will I do?"
When you don't deny the past, yet you use it to see how to move forward, you
Lead with your best self,
Dan
Dan
Some stuff that struck my fancy in the New York Review of Books, February 10, 2005 issue.
From the essay - "Kafka Up Close" by Frederick Crews
" 'The Kafkaesque,' a distinctive sense of helplessness before remote and absurdly arbitrary powers, spoke to the experience of many readers who have felt the dehumanizing effects of corporate, bureaucratic, and totalitarian structures of authority."
In speaking of the censoring of his writing, I liked this phrase: ". . . airbrushing him from the state's literary prehistory.
This sentence caught my attention because of the many conversations people have about attempting to define human rights: "And as Calasso himself recognizes, both novels evoke Jewish themes of persecution, unequal justice, denied recognition, and ostracism . . . "
In the essay "Ladies in Satan" Sanford Schwartz is describing the Gerard ter Borch exhibit at the National Gallery of Art, "They are rather serviceable, slightly dippy persons." Slight "dippy"?
There is a wonderful remembrance of Susan Sontag with a 1979 photo. Strong resemblance to Kate Holt.
In the essay "The Last Palestinian" , Abu Mazen is described in a way that I find pleasing, "Abu Mazen is also a profoundly pious Muslim. Inspired by Islam but allergic to its role in politics, he prays daily and fasts at Ramadan but publicizes neither, feeling as he does that religion is a matter of private belief, not public display." Also he is described to be "accumulating political capital more quickly than he spends it." This made me think that maybe we could say of Bush - He has spent more political capital more quickly than he has accumulated it.
Some books mentioned in this issue that looked intriguing:
The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Four Volumes J. Harold Ellens, Editor
A New World ________________ Anne-Marie Slaughter
Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing ("Challenging the widespread view that globalization invariably signifies a 'clash of cultures', anthropologist Anna Tsing here develops 'friction' in its place as a metaphor for the diverse and conflicting social interactions that make up our contemporary world."
Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education by Derek Bok ("Raises lots of big, disquieting questions . . . With the publication of this book, the nation's universities can't say they weren't warned.' - David M. Shribman,Chicago
The Rapture of Maturity: A Legacy of Lifelong Learning by Charles D. Hayes (Autodidactic Press).
In the Letters to the Editor
SUPPORT THE TROOPS
To the Editors:
Chris Hedges's eloquent article ["On War," NYR, December 16, 2004 )], together with other pieces in this issue, make it clear: the war in Iraq is now militarily unwinnable, economically unsustainable, diplomatically disastrous, and morally unsupportable. It never was a "just war" and is less one every day. It is now time to reactivate the powerful antiwar movement that appeared even before the war began. That protest was of unprecedented size and of global scope. We must now "support the troops" --really support them--by removing them from the disastrous cul de sac they are now in, one that erodes their moral sensibility and pushes them into situations bound to cause atrocities. It is time to set a reasonable date - say ninety days- and then withdraw, turning over Iraq to whatever government is elected. The "pottery barn rule" does NOT say that if you break it you have the destroy the whole store.
Harvey Cox
Hollis Professor of Divinity
Our country makes many claims about its prowess, and yet some would argue that there is much slippage and decline. The New York Review of Books recently had an essay that was based on three books on this topic. I made a PowerPoint using data from this article. When I learn to load PowerPoints on my webpage, I'll share it with you. Also the following article by Michael Lind which is on the Web is excellent on this topic:
Advice from Dan Mulhern, First Gentleman of Michigan :
Every definition of leadership contains some notion of mobilizing, motivating, or moving. Mid-February, at least in the northern climes, challenges those who wish to motivate or mobilize others. The resurgence that came with the year-end holidays and the energy of new goals in the New Year, now give way to some of the slog of February. It can feel like the 20-mile mark in a marathon, where your mind and body say, "I have to run another 10K?"
These are simply the conditions. To lead is to accept conditions and take charge, to lead the charge, to incite the charge. Here are a few quick hitters to fight the funk of a mid-February Monday:
1. Know that this too shall pass. 80% of winter is done and gone.
2. Know that the energy to endure when others are tired is one of the separators between good and great.
3. Know what brings YOU energy and go get it. For you it may be prayer or exercise, conversation or a new book, a weekend somewhere sunny, a short term goal or an occasional 20-minute nap. Leading others in February, is a bit like they say on the plane: If you are traveling with a small child or someone who needs assistance, put on your mask first, and then proceed to assist your fellow traveler. In leadership, it's important to ensure your own supply of oxygen is flowing.
4. Work a little harder to recognize others' successes and to acknowledge momentum. Praise is like sunlight, and people crave sunlight right about now.
5. Encourage people to take little breaks. A cup of tea. A walk around the building. We actually played a game of Old Maid before a meeting last week; it was a silly 10 minutes, but a good break from the thud-thud-thud of back-to-back meetings.
6. Talk in "we's," not "I's" and "they's." And talk in the language of possibility: e.g., "We can. . ." "Let's commit to. . ." "I know we . . ." "Let's surprise some people by . . ."
7. Keep asking yourself: Am I sucking energy out of the system (e.g., with complaints, criticisms, distraction), or am I putting energy into the system? Do people leave me feeling more up, more down, or just the February same-old, same-old? Don't settle for that!
Have some February fun!
Here's a picture of my first classroom. It is the area on the right side of this building, which is a corn crib. It was part of my Aunt Vi and Uncle Larry's Farm on Pickle Road in Akron , Ohio
Art and Viv Sturgill are friends of mine who because of an event coming up on March 26, told me that their first date a few years ago was on that day. I asked if they might reenact the date for friends. Here's what Art said, We were in Heidelberg at a restaurant in a side room. I knew it was late but didn't know how late. I saw people sitting at tables in the next room, so I guessed it wasn't too bad. When we got up to leave, the people in the other room were the owners, cooks and staff. They had been closed for 2 hours.......But you know Italians, they were happy to provide us a romantic place.
This is a note Dr. John Burkhardt mailed me earlier in the year. I've kept it in my email to read when I have the slightest hint of a bad day.
Dear Margaret,
I have been too long in thanking you for the wonderful role you have played in our work at the National Forum and more importantly the impact you have had on our doctoral students. Thank you for helping to influence the way in which they view themselves and the world. Thank you for filling in where I am not competent to lead them. And for the lucky few that have really come to know you well as a person, thank you for inspiring them with your own career and the way you have professed your work.
I start with the assumption that these students we have been entrusted are wickedly bright and appropriately ambitious, which indeed they are in almost every case. Some of them, in addition, have great hearts to go with their great minds. These are the ones I go after for the Forum. Nate is a good example, perhaps a leading example, but as you know, there are others that keep pace here at Michigan and elsewhere in his generation. I think it is our job as educators to inspire and challenge them. I haven't much to teach them that they don't come in knowing. My principle contribution is to give them some sense of their potential and responsibilities.
But you do have something to teach. Your grasp of the processes you profess goes beyond knowledge. You have internalized both the ability to "do" deliberation, but to "live" it as well. This quality---this set of qualities, as it is in fact a constellation of attitudes, experiences, a transformed heart and faith in the world---has lit up the abstraction of "higher education for the public good". You have made us real, grounded and meaningful; you connected us to something do-able, sustainable and (importantly forMichigan ) measurable. You have made honest people of us in this environment and around the nation.
I may not respond to every email that you send along, but I read it and I often discuss it with Nate and others around the shop. I watch your effects. Your visits are events of great celebration and focus for all of us. We think of you as our colleague, as well as a guide and goad.
Thank you for your friendship and generosity. I hope 2005 means peace and favor for you....and as long as our money holds out, and the world needs us, lots of new challenges for our shared work.
John
IF I HAD MY LIFE TO LIVE OVER - by Erma Bombeck
(written after she found out she was dying from cancer).
I would have gone to bed when I was sick instead of pretending the earth would go into a holding pattern if I weren't there for the day.
I would have burned the pink candle sculpted like a rose before it melted in storage.
I would have talked less and listened more.
I would have invited friends over to dinner even if the carpet was stained, or the sofa faded.
I would have eaten the popcorn in the 'good' living room and worried much less about the dirt when someone wanted to light a fire in the fireplace.
I would have taken the time to listen to my grandfather ramble about his youth.
I would have shared more of the responsibility carried by my husband.
I would never have insisted the car windows be rolled up on a summer day because my hair had just been teased and sprayed.
I would have sat on the lawn with my grass stains.
I would have cried and laughed less while watching television and more while watching life.
I would never have bought anything just because it was practical, wouldn't show soil, or was guaranteed to last a lifetime.
Instead of wishing away nine months of pregnancy, I'd have cherished every moment and realized that the wonderment growing inside me was the only chance in life to assist God in a miracle.
When my kids kissed me impetuously, I would never have said, "Later. Now go get washed up for dinner." There would have been more "I love you's." More "I'm sorry's."
But mostly, given another shot at life, I would seize every minute...look at it and really see it .. live it .and never give it back. Stop sweating the small stuff.
Don't worry about who doesn't like you, who has more, or who's doing what.
Instead, let's cherish the relationships we have with those who do love us.
Let's think about what God HAS blessed us with. And what we are doing each day to promote ourselves mentally, physically, emotionally. I hope you all have a blessed day.
Beautiful Women's Month
Age 3: She looks at herself and sees a Queen.
Age 8: She looks at herself and sees Cinderella.
Age 15: She looks at herself and sees an Ugly Sister
(Mom I can't go to school looking like this!)
(Mom I can't go to school looking like this!)
Age 20: She looks at herself and sees "too fat/too thin, too short/too tall, too straight/too curly"- but decides she's going out anyway.
Age 30: She looks at herself and sees "too fat/too thin, too short/too tall, too straight/too curly" - but decides she doesn't have time to fix it, so she's going out anyway.
Age 40: She looks at herself and sees "clean" and goes out anyway.
Age 50: She looks at herself and sees "I am" and goes wherever she wants to go.
Age 60: She looks at herself and reminds herself of all the people who can't even see themselves in the mirror anymore. Goes out and conquers the world.
Age 70: She looks at herself & sees wisdom, laughter and ability, goes out and enjoys life.
Age 80: Doesn't bother to look. Just puts on a purple hat and goes out to have fun with the world.
The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. Dante 1265-1321
"We will have to repent in this generation not merely
for the hateful words and actions of the bad people
but for the appalling silence of the good people."
for the hateful words and actions of the bad people
but for the appalling silence of the good people."
Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-�1968), U.S.
Why We Can't Wait,
“Letter fromBirmingham
Why We Can't Wait,
“Letter from
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
Edmond
If I were teaching multiple intelligences, I would have my students read this article to grasp a "sense" of the intelligence of Smell:
THE SCENT OF THE NILE
byCHANDLER BURR
Jean-Claude Ellena creates a new perfume.
Issue of 2005-03-14
Posted 2005-03-07
The New Yorker
by
Jean-Claude Ellena creates a new perfume.
Issue of 2005-03-14
Posted 2005-03-07
The New Yorker
The New Yorker: Fact
(http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact)
(http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact)
If I were teachng multiple intelligences, I would have my students read this article to grasp a sense of "natural intelligence"
All 96 Onge survived, even as residents of the nearby town of Hut Bay perished. The Onge (pronounced OHN-ghee)lived while so many others didn't because of their innate understanding of how nature works... The Onge knew they'd succeeded in warding off the evil spirits eight days after the tsunami, when an Onge woman gave birth to a baby girl. Not only had they survived, their number had grown to 97. from an article in the March 6, Atlanta Journal-Constitution titled Aborigines on alert as tsunami neared (Howard Gardner could use this as a terrific example of natural intelligence in his work on multiple intelligences.)
Reading for Leading
A Weekly Stimulant for those Who Lead
From Dan Mulhern
A Weekly Stimulant for those Who Lead
From Dan Mulhern
Friends,
A state employee wrote me out of the blue this week. His tone was one I have come to know. As a young employee, I employed that tone (and occasionally slip back into it). I have heard this tone from a slice of state workers; I hear it all the time in the stands at games; and, if you adjust your mental listening frequencies, you can pick up this tone in almost any environment. The tone intrigues, confuses and frustrates me. The message I'm referring to conveyed stinging judgments about others - particularly mid-level managers - in his former and current departments. It implied widespread unfairness. And most troubling of all, I inferred from his message that he had quit trying to change things. I think it helps to view such attitudes -- strong judgment, persistent feelings of unfairness, and withdrawal -- as the mark of adolescence.
Now, that word - adolescent - is loaded with negative connotations. I'll share some. But I also use it lovingly, like a parent or a teacher who at some level delights in their adolescents. Of course, when we have adolescents (at home, school or work), on some conscious or unconscious level, we can't wait until they age out of our direct care. And, of course, neither can they! If some such person -- in your house or shop comes to mind - I offer three thoughts. First, it is unconscionably costly to exist in a state of mutual toleration, waiting 'til it's over. Such tolerance costs you in lost productivity; it costs them in vast stretches of unhappiness; and, as with an adolescent at home, the atmosphere for everyone else can be soured by their negativity. So, what are we to do in this domain which is admittedly anything but simple? Two things.
Gain the value of what they have to offer. Sometimes their gift comes wrapped in needles and broken glass, but the critical adolescent is often bringing us what we do need to learn. Sometimes it's about our rules and systems. Sometimes it's about our very own style. Although they may exaggerate, and though they often over-simplify (and aren't great at seeing through others' eyes), they point to unfairness, inconsistency, and sometimes just the stupidity of habitual practices. If we can handle the tone, we can often hear valuable information.
Second, as the truly great adolescent teachers, parents, and managers know, you have to engage and out-persist them. Their tendency is to give up. Your tendency must be the opposite. This is hard. It is hard for you, because they may show so little sign of wanting to maturely work for improvement. You feel like one hand clapping. At least initially, they'll keep giving you the needles and broken glass, or the cold attitude of indifference. And it is hard for them, because their wounds are usually real. They have been punished unfairly, passed over for promotion, been the victims of favoritism, and they're not in a hurry to risk and care much more. The great adolescent teachers accept this. They listen without judgment -- which does not mean they listen and don't push back. They inquire. Inquire, that is, not counter-attack. They challenge the adolescent challenger, but they accept the challenge to themselves, too. They work not to discount the challenger's view, but to learn from it, and to communicate with the challenger the ways they are learning. And they persist to get these challengers to see other perspectives, too. The truly great adolescent teacher-managers slowly turn the adolescent-employee's energy back to the work, inviting and encouraging them to put their passion and sense of (in)justice and desire into play in the real world instead of withdrawing and sniping from afar. By modeling engagement themselves (with an unfair worker), they invite the work to engage (with an unfair system).
The real world is tough and unfair. And that's where leaders lead and invite others to do the same.
Happy leading,
Dan
If you have received this forwarded from a friend or coworker, and would prefer to receive it directly, you may sign up for your own copy by sending a note to FirstGentleman@Michigan.gov. RFL is distributed without charge. To unsubscribe, write unsubscribe in the subject line and send to the same address.
Daniel Granholm Mulhern
First Gentleman
Office of the Governor
State of Michigan
(517) 241-0534
FirstGentleman@Michigan.Gov
First Gentleman
Office of the Governor
State of Michigan
(517) 241-0534
FirstGentleman@Michigan.Gov
Friend, Champion, Citizen
Farewell to a champion
By GLENN ELLARD
Wednesday, 23 February 2005
By GLENN ELLARD
Ray Cleary OAM 1938-2005
THE Shoalhaven yesterday lost a man who left an indelible mark on the region and its young minds with the passing of former Wollongong University Shoalhaven Campus head Dr Ray Cleary.
He passed away at his Longreach home surrounded by wife Zita and other family members just after 3pm , succumbing to cancer.
One of the first tributes paid to Dr Cleary came from Shoalhaven Mayor Greg Watson, who said his passing was "a great loss to many people and organisations", and the region had lost "a champion".
"Ray Cleary was a fine man who was passionate about our city and about making the Shoalhaven a better place for everyone to live, work and study," Cr Watson said.
"Ray was a man of vision and ideas.
"His work in establishing the Shoalhaven Campus of the university of Wollongong Berry and later at West Nowra are permanent legacies of his entrepreneurial and educational enterprise," Cr Watson said.
"His work towards the end of his life on the linear accelerator fundraising committee also honours his memory and generosity and reminds everyone who lives in the Shoalhaven and comes here to work or holiday that he wanted only good things for this city."
A passionate educator, Dr Cleary taught at all levels, and was also heavily involved in sporting organisations.
However it was his commitment to assisting community organisations and any worthwhile cause that revealed Dr Cleary's true passion.
For many years he held the title as the region's trivia king, hosting a large number of trivia nights for many community organisations, in an effort that helped him earn an OAM and the title of Shoalhaven's Citizen of the Year - with both honours coming in 2000.
His passing came only a few weeks after Bomaderry RSL Club was packed for a tribute trivia night, which raised $15,000 for the linear accelerator fund - the latest cause to benefit from Dr Cleary's enthusiastic and unflinching support.
Dr Cleary was delighted with the amount raised, and despite his weakening body spoke about the issue with all the passion and enthusiasm for which he had gained renown in recent years.
Touching the lives of many
Dr Ray Cleary packed more than a lifetime of achievement into his 66 years.
In the year 2000 he was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia in the Queen's Birthday Honours for services to education, and in the same year was named Shoalhaven's Citizen of the Year.
The driving force behind the establishment of the Shoalhaven Linear Accelerator and Cancer Treatment Fundraising Committee, he was the recipient of the South Nowra Rotary Club's Vocational Excellence Award.
Ray compered over 100 trivia nights for local charities, schools and sporting organisations. He was renowned for his endearing personality, good humour, quick wit and laughter.
President of the Shoalhaven Teachers Federation from 1974 to 1983, Ray campaigned for school bus safety, for a third high school, for the establishment of special primary school classes for hearing impaired children.
He was the driving force behind the establishment of the Graham Park arm of Wollongong University
A passionate advocate of public education, he was well-known in the Shoalhaven District as a teacher from the 1970s.
He became a member of the board of Adult Education in NSW (1983-1991) and in 1988 earned his masters degree, followed by his doctorate in 1998.
In 1993 he was appointed head of the Graham Park - Berry Campus - as head of the campus he took every opportunity to speak of his aspirations and plans and quickly gained the support of the local community.
In the year 2000 the Shoalhaven Campus officially opened. He subsequently received the Vice-Chancellor's Award for Service to the University of Wollongong
In 2004 he established the Callala Pre School
His interests outside his career were many and varied.
The former president and life member of the Kiama Rotary Club also helped establish the Graham Park Jazz Club.
He has been a member of Hip Replacement Jazz Band, Shoalhaven Jazz and Shoalhaven Orchestra.
He has also been president of both the Berry Harvest Festival and the Shoalhaven Grapegrowers and Winegrowers' Association.
He was involved in a myriad of sports - including basketball, junior cricket and his great love - rugby union.
He coached Kiama in the Illawarra Rugby Union competition, and in the mid 80s Ray coached Shoalhaven Rugby, and was voted Clubman of the Year in 1984.
He was elected to the Board of the inaugural Bernie Regan Memorial Sporting Trust in 1984 and started Kiama 7's - a pre-season tournament held in February in Kiama each year.
Ray is survived by his wife Zita, daughter Belinda, her husband Gary and children, Alexander and Nicholas, his daughter Christine and her husband Andrew and children Melanie and Katie Scarlet, and his son Andrew and wife Kate and daughter Ashleigh.
Thislife@smh.com.au
RAYMOND PHILLIP CLEARY
OAM D.Ed
1938-2005
NOWRA, NSW
With the death of Ray Cleary, the Shoalhaven community has lost a favourite son, a remarkable and unique man whose influence on the community and district was extraordinary.
Ray attended Kogarah High School Alexandria . He soon realised he needed educational qualifications so studied at Hurstville Evening College
During these teaching years he completed a second Leaving Certificate in 1966 to gain entry into a Bachelor of Arts in Earth Sciences which he completed in 1978 by correspondence at Macquarie University University of New England University of Georgia United States in 1998.
During his teaching career he was elected President of the Shoalhaven Teachers Federation Branch from 1974-1983. In this position he campaigned for special classes for hearing impaired children in primary schools, safety on school buses and the establishment of a third high school in the Shoalhaven district. To create media attention for this project he had a brick a day delivered free of charge by a local courier to Parliament House in Sydney . This soon created an awareness of the urgent need for the third high school and Shoalhaven High School
Ray began lecturing at Wollongong University
Together with the then Vice Chancellor of Wollongong University, Dr Ken McKinnon, Ray was the driving force in the establishment of the Graham Park Campus of the Wollongong University Berry where he was Head of Campus. This culminated in the official opening of Shoalhaven Campus in 1998 at its current site west of Nowra. It has been said publicly that no one else could have managed the enormous task and overcome the difficulties associated with this. In 1999, in recognition of his contribution, he was awarded the Vice-Chancellors Award for Services to the University of Wollongong
On completion of his University contract commitments he purchased a local pre-school and enrolled in an Early Childhood Degree at Macquarie University
During his career Ray’s contribution to education and the community was recognised in a series of awards. The South Nowra Rotary Club presented him with a “Vocational Excellence Award” in 1999. In 2000, he was awarded the Medal of the Order ofAustralia in the Queen’s Birthday Honours for services to education and the community. In the same year he was also recognised as the “Shoalhaven Citizen of the Year”. The NSW Police Service presented him with a local area command award in 2001 in appreciation for the continued support and management to policing in the Shoalhaven.
After his diagnosis of cancer in September, 2004, Ray was awarded the Keys to the City of Shoalhaven for his contribution to education and the community. Shortly after that he received the Paul Harris Fellowship by the Combined Rotary Clubs in the Shoalhaven for his services to education and the community. This was especially significant because he had never been a member of Rotary. At both of these functions, despite being obviously weak and unwell, he made great speeches and told one or two of his famous jokes. He was immensely proud of the awards.
This man was multi-faceted. He had the remarkable ability to remember the face and name of everyone with whom he came into contact, including every student he taught. He made everyone feel so special. He had rapport with all people – academics, professionals, peers, our indigenous community, sportspeople, musicians, artists and the blokes at the pub - a friend to all. He himself assumed many roles – academic, businessman, educator, sportsman, coach, and trivia king. As the latter he conducted over 130 trivia nights raising thousands of dollars for local charities. Over the years many people facing personal problems and life changing decisions would use Ray as a sounding board – no problem was insurmountable!
Ray had a long association with sport, especially rugby. In the 1970s and 80s he coached Kiama Rugby to many titles, becoming a life member of the club. He was the push behind the setting up of the Kiama Rugby Sevens, now a selection series for picking Australian Representatives. At his funeral, team members, much older now, formed a choir singing Red Red Robin. In more recent years he was associated with Shoalhaven Rugby Club where once again he was coach and mentor.
As a young man he was a consistent middle distant runner with St George Athletics Club. From that he was selected to carry the Olympic torch in the lead up to the Melbourne Olympics in 1956, a very proud and treasured memory.
More recently he was associated with basketball. His interest in basketball was kindled in the Shoalhaven where he managed the men’s representative side for a number of years. At the time of his death he was a part owner of the Sydney Kings who just recently won their third consecutive title in the NBL. They are the first team to achieve this feat.
Ray was a man of contrasts- a passionate believer in education for all, at all levels, and a believer in discipline, both self and societal. He was a kind man who cared for sick and injured birds and animals passed on to him by a local vet, often feeding orphaned baby possums all through the night.
He loved Elvis and had his own Elvis suit and thought nothing of leading a street parade dressed in his Elvis suit. He loved being Santa to young ones and to the not so young. He also loved Geronimo. Once on a drive across America he visited Geronimo’s grave and upon seeing a man digging a grave for Geronimo’s grandniece, Ray asked for a shovel to help (the mark of the man!). This earned him an invitation to the wake which he regretfully had to refuse as his wife was waiting for him at Los Angeles airport.
He also played double bass with the Hip Replacements, a great band in the country but not so good in the city!
Recently the local Nowra press received a letter from his friends at Georgia University
He was a master raconteur and his home was the essence of hospitality for all. Ray championed so many causes and was passionate in his affection and respect for all the people who make up the Shoalhaven community. As a result of this work, he has made the Shoalhaven a better place to live. His latest vision was the setting up of a Linear Accelerator for Shoalhaven District Hospital Wollongong for radiation treatment in their treatment of cancer. He was a passionate promoter of services in the town where he lived. He recognised it was too late for him but that it would benefit others.
During his last months friends and associates from throughout the country and overseas came expressly to say farewell and to hear his “G’day, mate. Good to see you”, as if nothing was wrong. His sense of humour was there to the end.
During his last months friends and associates from throughout the country and overseas came expressly to say farewell and to hear his “G’day, mate. Good to see you”, as if nothing was wrong. His sense of humour was there to the end.
His funeral or rather a “celebration of his life” was held at the Shoalhaven Air Museum
He is survived by his loving and supportive wife, Zita, without whom he could not have achieved all he did and his children Christine, Belinda and Andrew and their families.
A friend sent this in an email today: The tulip bulbs I planted in the fall are just starting to show, which is a huge relief. I have this bad habit of planting the things upside down, so over the years many residents of China
I liked receiving this from Julie Bailey on the first day of Spring. Most people would say we think of "life" and not "death", but this quotation is like Malcolm Sumner's definition of dirt: Where life meets death in an exchange of energy.
from Harold Kushner's Living a Life that Matters:
"When we have loved someone and that person dies, what happens to all the love we invested in that person? The Israeli poet Yehuda Amichai offers a bold and arresting image to answer that question. He suggests that a person's body absorbs and stores all the love it receives in the course of a lifetime, from parents, from lovers, from husbands or wives, from children and friends. Then, when
the body dies, it pours out all that love 'like a broken slot machine disgorging the coins of all generations,' and all the people nearby, and all the world, are warmed by the love that has been returned to them. People die, but love does not die. It is recycled from one
heart to the next, from one life to another."
heart to the next, from one life to another."
My friend, Steve Tiger sent this poem to me that was written by one of his colleagues:
"Another winter yet is gone and valleys are covered with trees and vegetation standing taller than before, knowing the next winter coming soon.
Trees are taller, stronger and dressed in green, prettier than the year before. What is their secret? Where do they get their energy to dress up again after all that cold of snow and freezing temperature?
The circle of life has a lot to teach me.
Not even a day has gone by from the start of spring and I am already impressed by the magnitude of its power. The earth is looking greener, healthier and prettier than what it looked like couple months back. This is what I see on the surface. What is beneath you may ask?
Humans as a part of nature are not excluded from these changes. Knowing snow and cold will come soon, we must stand taller, we must stand stronger and we must stand prettier than before. We must renew our rituals amongst us with the same strength as of nature.
In last 24 hours, I have received many many calls from friends I did not expect or friends I lost contact; I have witnessed friends, who did not want to visit each other in the hospital bed in the winter, come together and help around a New Year Party.
These are not miracles happening. These are a part of nature's ritual, the same as leaves falling in the winter and reappearing in the spring. We should accept it and make it a part of our lives in hopes of living a happier and a healthier life in the New Year.
Morteza Tajally
March of 2005
The Answer
Then what is the answer?- Not to be deluded by dreams.
To know that great civilizations have broken down into violence,
and their tyrants come, many times before.
When open violence appears, to avoid it with honor or choose
the least ugly faction; these evils are essential.
To keep one's own integrity, be merciful and uncorrupted
and not wish for evil; and not be duped
By dreams of universal justice or happiness. These dreams will
not be fulfilled.
To know this, and know that however ugly the parts appear
the whole remains beautiful. A severed hand
Is an ugly thing and man dissevered from the earth and stars
and his history... for contemplation or in fact...
Often appears atrociously ugly. Integrity is wholeness,
the greatest beauty is
Organic wholeness, the wholeness of life and things, the divine beauty
of the universe. Love that, not man
Apart from that! , or else you will share man's pitiful confusions,
or drown in despair when his days darken.
Robinson Jeffers, American poet,1887 - 1962, the poet of BigSur.
To know that great civilizations have broken down into violence,
and their tyrants come, many times before.
When open violence appears, to avoid it with honor or choose
the least ugly faction; these evils are essential.
To keep one's own integrity, be merciful and uncorrupted
and not wish for evil; and not be duped
By dreams of universal justice or happiness. These dreams will
not be fulfilled.
To know this, and know that however ugly the parts appear
the whole remains beautiful. A severed hand
Is an ugly thing and man dissevered from the earth and stars
and his history... for contemplation or in fact...
Often appears atrociously ugly. Integrity is wholeness,
the greatest beauty is
Organic wholeness, the wholeness of life and things, the divine beauty
of the universe. Love that, not man
Apart from that! , or else you will share man's pitiful confusions,
or drown in despair when his days darken.
Robinson Jeffers, American poet,1887 - 1962, the poet of Big
April 20, 2005
This is an incredible report from China on the topic of human rights in the U.S.
http://english.people.com.cn/200503/03/eng20050303_175406.html
NY Times
March 27, 2005
WORD FOR WORD | REPORT CARD
China Gives America a D
By PETER EDIDIN
March 27, 2005
WORD FOR WORD | REPORT CARD
China Gives America a D
By PETER EDIDIN
May 10, 2005
Published on Friday, May 6, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
Is It Worth Eating an Australian - or Even a Canadian?
by Steven Laffoley
Is our addiction to super-sized consumption worth eating an Australian - or even a Canadian?
Well, maybe.
Is It Worth Eating an Australian - or Even a Canadian?
by Steven Laffoley
Is our addiction to super-sized consumption worth eating an Australian - or even a Canadian?
Well, maybe.
Listen:
Outside of Bangor, Maine - on a long road trip to Boston - I pulled into a coffee shop and ordered a large cup of my favorite addiction. I was expecting a generous cup - a sizable snort of get-up-and-go. But what arrived was not just a big cup of French Roast, nor even a giant mug of black java. No, what arrived was a bucket of coffee. I was incredulous.
Later, in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, I stopped at a family restaurant for dinner. And as with the coffee, what the waiter placed in front of me was an exaggerated indulgence: a plate piled impossibly high with food. Again, I was incredulous. But looking around, I was amazed to see that all the plates were similarly piled high. And stranger still, the food was being eaten - all of it, every bite.
Later still, as I neared my destination in Boston, I looked around with greater care. Not only were the cups of coffee oversized, and the plates of food oversized, but so were the cars, the trucks, even the houses.
And while staying at my friend's place, I read in Time magazine that designers were actually incorporating the growing girth of Americans into their work: the clothes were now oversized, door frames oversized, even furniture oversized - right down to the seats in the movie theatres. I felt I was suddenly a traveler in Gulliver's land of the giants.
When I gently broached the subject of wide-eyed-consumption-without-limits with my friend, suggesting that perhaps moderation might be in order, she suggested that moderation was un-American, an attack on freedom of choice.
I couldn't help thinking back to the words of that great modern-day defender of freedom, George W. Bush. When searching for the right words of comfort after September 11, he urged his fellow Americans to buy more.
Maybe my friend was right: moderation was un-American.
Back in Canada, high taxes - if nothing else - kept jumbo-consumption at bay. Or so I thought. When I returned home, I started looked around with greater care. To my horror, I watched people at the fancy new movie theatres sitting in new over-sized chairs with new buckets of Pepsi washing down new grocery bags of popcorn. And I surveyed the new jumbo-sized houses being built on the outside of town and realized that the age of the super-sized had arrived in Canada.
Long ago, I once started writing a science fiction story about a race of super-sized people. Rippling with fat, their mouths made wider by natural selection, these super-sized simian sorts aggressively consumed the Earth - until all the food was gone. Only the super-sized people were left orbiting the sun with nothing left to eat - except each other.
Of course, I abandoned the story as being too silly, too far fetched. But after my trip to the land of the super-sized, I got to thinking: maybe my story wasn't so silly, as much it was deadly serious.
Look: we are eating the planet, the whole damn thing, right down to the last blade of grass.
Our ecological footprint is one way to understand the degree of this consumption. If we measure the world's productive land - and graciously grant that a modest 12 percent is necessary for the biodiversity of other species - what remains is the productive land available for sustaining humanity.
When the math is done, and the productive land is parceled out - relative to our present population - every man, woman, and child is entitled to 1.8 hectares of productive land to sustain the Earth and its humans. And if the human population peaks at 10 billion - as is expected in the next 30 years - then the land per person shrinks to one hectare.
Our problem, of course, is that we consume far more than that. The ecological footprint of the average American is 10.3 hectares (first place, globally), of the average Australian, 9.0 (second place, globally), and of the average Canadian (globally in third place), 7.7. Comparatively, India's footprint per person is 0.8; China's, 1.2; and Bangladesh's, 0.5.
The world ecological footprint average is 2.8 hectares per person. That is, we presently need an additional world as a resource to happily continue on our rapacious ways.
Maybe that's why George Bush wanted to settle Mars.
Now before I prattle on about driving efficient cars or no cars at all (for most cities, cars are the single greatest source of pollution), about eating less meat or no meat at all (a meat-based diet requires seven times more land than a plant-based diet), or about using less fossil fuels or no fossil fuels at all (wind and solar are here and ready for use), we first need to acknowledge our problem:
We eat too much. We buy too much. We want too much.
We are the super-sized people in my science fiction story, busily eating our way through the Earth, busily expanding our jiggling girth and growing our wider mouths. And we do see moderation as an attack on our freedom.
And frankly, we just don't care.
In the climax of my story, the corpulent Canucks are left sharing the empty cosmos with the portly Aussies and the super-sized Yanks, all preparing to consume each other in the great Battle of the Wide-Bodies.
Given the gruesome prospect of having to eat a Canadian, an Australian, or an American, I hope my story remains fiction.
But somehow, I doubt it.
Steven Laffoley is an American writer living in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. You may e-mail him at stevenlaffoley@yahoo.ca or steven_laffoley@yahoo.com
###
Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Common Dreams NewsCenter
A non-profit news service providing breaking news & views for the progressive community.
Home | Newswire | About Us | Donate | Sign-Up | Archives
� Copyrighted 1997-2005
www.commondreams.org
Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Common Dreams NewsCenter
A non-profit news service providing breaking news & views for the progressive community.
Home | Newswire | About Us | Donate | Sign-Up | Archives
� Copyrighted 1997-2005
www.commondreams.org
What I don't do
May 22, 2005
1. I don't do windows because...
I love birds and don't want one to run into
a clean window and get hurt.
(I am compassionate)
2. I don't wax floors because...
I am terrified a guest will slip, hurt themselves,
I'll feel terrible and they may sue me.
(I am careful and poor)
3. I don't mind the dust bunnies because...
they are very good company,
I have named most of them, and they agree with everything I
say.
(I am imaginative)
4. I don't disturb cobwebs because I want every creature
to have a home! of their own and my family loves spiders.
(I am kind)
5. I don't Spring Clean because...
I love all the seasons and don't want the others to get jealous.
(I am fair minded)
6. I don't plant a garden because...
I don't want to get in God's way, he is an excellent designer.
(I am courteous)
7. I don't put things away because...
my family will never be able to find them again.
(I am considerate)
8. I don't do gourmet meals when I entertain because...
I don't want my guests to stress out over what to make
when they invite me over for dinner.
(I am thoughtful)
9. I don't iron because... I choose to believe them when
&! nbsp; they say "Permanent Press".
(I am trusting)
10. I don't stress much on anything because...
"A-Type" personalities die young and I want to stick
around and become a wrinkled up crusty ol' woman!!
(I am winning this battle!)
I love birds and don't want one to run into
a clean window and get hurt.
(I am compassionate)
2. I don't wax floors because...
I am terrified a guest will slip, hurt themselves,
I'll feel terrible and they may sue me.
(I am careful and poor)
3. I don't mind the dust bunnies because...
they are very good company,
I have named most of them, and they agree with everything I
say.
(I am imaginative)
4. I don't disturb cobwebs because I want every creature
to have a home! of their own and my family loves spiders.
(I am kind)
5. I don't Spring Clean because...
I love all the seasons and don't want the others to get jealous.
(I am fair minded)
6. I don't plant a garden because...
I don't want to get in God's way, he is an excellent designer.
(I am courteous)
7. I don't put things away because...
my family will never be able to find them again.
(I am considerate)
8. I don't do gourmet meals when I entertain because...
I don't want my guests to stress out over what to make
when they invite me over for dinner.
(I am thoughtful)
9. I don't iron because... I choose to believe them when
&! nbsp; they say "Permanent Press".
(I am trusting)
10. I don't stress much on anything because...
"A-Type" personalities die young and I want to stick
around and become a wrinkled up crusty ol' woman!!
(I am winning this battle!)
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
--President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1952
--President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1952
June 27, 2005
From Annette Simmons – The Story Factor: Secrets of influence from the art of storytelling – 2003 – Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.
“Facts don’t have the power to change someone’s story. Their story is more powerful than your facts. As a person of influence, your goal is to introduce a new story that will let your facts in.” (p. 54).
September 26, 2005
“Facts don’t have the power to change someone’s story. Their story is more powerful than your facts. As a person of influence, your goal is to introduce a new story that will let your facts in.” (p. 54).
September 26, 2005
Times Magazine (9/18/05 )
Awash in Inequity
Questions for John Hope Franklin
The pioneering African-American scholar talks about the continuing problem of segregation, the legacy of Katrina and writing, cooking and working at age 90.
As a renowned scholar of African-American history, a field that some say you virtually invented, how do you think Hurricane Katrina has altered our view of race in this country?� The tragedy is that Katrina changed our view at all.� We should have known the things that Katrina brought out.
Like the fact that blacks in New Orleans Hollywood .� It�s a fundamental problem of this country today, the lack of critical thinking and judgment on the part of American citizens.
How can you, as a man who was born in Oklahoma at a time when lynchings were common, and who later worked with Thurgood Marshall on Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark case that outlawed segregation in public schools, claim that we have made no progress in advancing the rights of African-Americans?� I�m not saying that!� I�d jump out the window if I thought we had made no progress.� What I am saying is that the changes have been superficial, and we are still a segregated society when it comes to schools and the neighborhoods where we live.
And of course, you are a teacher yourself.� In fact, you are said to be the most decorated professor in this country.� I hear you have so far earned 130 honorary degrees.� I think it�s up to 137.� But that�s not the way you measure anything.� Some of it is conscience pay.� I don�t want to belabor the point, but giving out awards makes the givers feel good.� It is easier to give me an honorary degree than to make certain that all blacks have a decent place to live.
You yourself live rather nicely in Durham , N.C. Duke University
How, exactly, does one act at 90 years old?� You go fly-fishing all day.
Or you write all day.� Your history of a slave family, �In Search of the Promised Land,� just came out, and next month you�re publishing your autobiography, Mirror to America Australia .� I thought I was going to die.
Now that you are a widower, who prepares your meals for you?� His name is John Hope Franklin
Yes, I�ve heard of him.� How�s his cooking?� Pretty good.� I had a big cookout on Labor Day. I had six people over for dinner.� I did Hawaiian chicken, and baby ribs, and we had corn on the cob, and potato salad, which I am ashamed to say that I did not make myself but bought at Harris Teeter supermarket.� Isn�t that awful?
Unforgivable.� Have you ever missed a day of work? No.� For what?
What do you think about before you fall asleep at night? I don�t think about the past much.� And I never think about whether I am going to wake up or not the next morning.� I�m too busy trying to read the last pages of the newspaper before it falls in my face.� DEBORAH SOLOMON
That time of year thou mayst in me behold
When yellow leaves, or none, or few, do hang
Upon those boughs which shake against the cold,
Bare ruined choirs, where late the sweet birds sang.
In me thou see'st the twilight of such day
As after sunset fadeth in the west;
Which by and by black night doth take away,
Death's second self, that seals up all in rest.
In me thou see'st the glowing of such fire,
That on the ashes of his youth doth lie,
As the death-bed whereon it must expire
Consumed with that which it was nourish'd by.
This thou perceivest, which makes thy love more strong,
To love that well which thou must leave ere
long.
When yellow leaves, or none, or few, do hang
Upon those boughs which shake against the cold,
Bare ruined choirs, where late the sweet birds sang.
In me thou see'st the twilight of such day
As after sunset fadeth in the west;
Which by and by black night doth take away,
Death's second self, that seals up all in rest.
In me thou see'st the glowing of such fire,
That on the ashes of his youth doth lie,
As the death-bed whereon it must expire
Consumed with that which it was nourish'd by.
This thou perceivest, which makes thy love more strong,
To love that well which thou must leave ere
long.
November 28, 2005
A conference is an occasion for people who are individually powerless to come together to decide that collectively they can do nothing. I usually attribute this to Ambrose Bierce although it's not to be found in his Devil's Dictionary, which is where one would expect it to be. For variety I used to sometimes attribute it to Mark Twain. I think it could appropriately be attributed to Tip O'Neil, Anastasio Somoza Debayle, Oscar Wilde, Jean Kirkpatrick, or the chairman of the Department of Adult Education at the University of Georgia.
Someone said the definition comes from Woody Allen, but I don't find this source quite literary enough for my taste. I suspect, however, that he's the one.
Sincerely,
Richard Kinch
Program Associate
The Johnson Foundation
http://www.uga.edu/columns/current/news-rankin.html
UNC gets $100,000 Ford grant
December 11, 2005
BY JENNIFER FERRIS, The Herald-Sun
Difficult conversations on UNC's campus may soon be a little easier thanks to a $100,000 grant from the Ford Foundation.
Difficult conversations on UNC's campus may soon be a little easier thanks to a $100,000 grant from the Ford Foundation.
UNC was one of 26 institutions chosen for the grant, which aims to encourage difficult dialogues in academic settings.
Judith Wegner, the chair of the university's faculty council who was a
driving force behind the grant application said the school has had
experience in recent years dealing with controversy, and she thought the grant would allow faculty and students to take the next step in open communication.
driving force behind the grant application said the school has had
experience in recent years dealing with controversy, and she thought the grant would allow faculty and students to take the next step in open communication.
"The part I'm going to work most intensely on is creating a model for
framing what we want to talk about," Wegner said Friday. "Which is the
intersection of religious beliefs and academic discourse."
framing what we want to talk about," Wegner said Friday. "Which is the
intersection of religious beliefs and academic discourse."
When a topic is deemed controversial, Wegner said some professors were wary of discussing it in class. She added that students also avoided these difficult conversations for fear of reprisals -- outside or inside the classroom.
The grant will kick off a two-year effort in which students and faculty
participate in workshops in forums designed to turn issues some see as
black-and-white into topics with three or more viewpoints, Wegner said.
participate in workshops in forums designed to turn issues some see as
black-and-white into topics with three or more viewpoints, Wegner said.
The university will contract with the National Issues Forum, a nonprofit group, to help create discussion guides and hold focus groups, Wegner said.
University Chancellor, James Moeser said he thought the school already did an excellent job of handling controversial topics, and he saw the grant as a way to share the school's strengths with universities around the country.
As part of the program, the Ford Foundation will hold yearly conferences in which the awarded institutions meet and discuss dialogue strategy, implementation and results.
"We can bring out perspective nationally," Moeser said. "If we can help the national conversation, we can show other institutions how to handle these issues as well."
Senior Program Officer for Higher Education for the Ford Foundation Jorge Balan said competition for the grant was fierce, and one of the reasons UNC was chosen out of the 675 submitted proposals was that administrators from the school had already shown a commitment to addressing communication issues.
"The university has had difficulties and has dealt with them well," Balan said, referring to a national debate over the school's summer reading
program in 2002, which required freshmen to read a book about the Quran.
program in 2002, which required freshmen to read a book about the Quran.
Balan said another deciding factor was the university's financial commitment to keeping the difficult dialogue going. The school set aside a small amount of funds to keep the program going in the future.
In order to stay relevant, Wegner said it was vitally important that the school focus on removing barriers to communication and presenting both staff and students with an environment in which they felt comfortable talking about even the most contentious subjects.
"Often there are conflicts and uncertainty all around us," Wegner said.
"People don't know how to deal with conflicts. We have to ensure respect and learning go on in the face of this."
"People don't know how to deal with conflicts. We have to ensure respect and learning go on in the face of this."
COPYRIGHT 2005 by The Durham Herald Company. All rights reserved.
Hi, folks. I’m writing to share some good news.
The Ford Foundation announced its grantees today for the “Difficult Dialogues” initiative—and UNC is among those who are recipients. Only 26 institutions were selected for $100,000 grants (compared to 685 who submitted preliminary proposals and 136 who submitted final proposals); an additional 16 institutions received $10,000 grants to allow them to participate in the initiative.
All of you contributed in important ways to making this effort come to fruition and I know will be happy to hear this news. Bill Andrews and I are principal investigators and will need to clear our heads and get ready to pull key campus partners together.
In the meantime, I thought you’d enjoy knowing that we made it…I’m attaching background documents as well as recent press materials in case you get inquiries.
Best wishes—Judith Wegner
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
Institutionalizing Difficult Dialogues: Freedom of Conscience in the Public University
PI: Judith Welch Wegner, Professor of Law and Chair of the Faculty. Project to be housed in the College of Arts and Sciences
Institutionalizing Difficult Dialogues: Freedom of Conscience in the Public University
PI: Judith Welch Wegner, Professor of Law and Chair of the Faculty. Project to be housed in the College of Arts and Sciences
UNC-Chapel Hill is a highly selective public university with a blend of intellectual achievement and spiritual grounding among many of its students, making Carolina a unique “laboratory” to investigate the sources and symptoms of what many think are inevitable conflicts between religious faith and free inquiry. In the summer of 2002, a national controversy erupted over the University’s decision to assign Approaching the Qur’an to its incoming first-year class as part of a required summer reading program. A valuable dialogue ensued, but it did not lead to a sustained dialogue that focused on the relationship between academic freedom and religious conviction. UNC-Chapel Hill’s proposal will move from authorizing the principle of diversity to the more difficult task of institutionalizing the practice of dialogue on the campus.
Associates of the highly-regarded National Issues Forums Network will be contracted in Year 1 to conduct focus groups and gather baseline data on campus and in the larger community; frame the campus’s key issues; coordinate identification of multiple options for interventions; conduct workshops and other hands-on opportunities for faculty and instructors to refine their skills in leading difficult dialogues; develop moderator and discussion guides, facilitation techniques, and other materials; and test and refine activities and materials as needed to meet program objectives. The four objectives are to ground the Difficult Dialogues Initiative (DDI) through development of baseline information describing current understanding of the relationship of religious belief and intellectual inquiry among Chapel Hill students, faculty, and staff; provide faculty development and training to help faculty facilitate constructive discussions of controversial issues in the classroom; renovate and enrich the UNC-Chapel Hill curriculum to incorporate more opportunities for faculty and students to discuss diverse opinions, scientific inquiries, religious and spiritual beliefs, and ethics in a respectful environment; and develop extra-curricular student life activities that stimulate informed discussions of controversial subjects and encourage the exchange of ideas and beliefs in a mutually respectful atmosphere.
**EMBARGOED UNTIL 12:01 A.M. DECEMBER 12, 2005
Contacts:
Joe Voeller, Ford Foundation
(212) 573-5128
Joe Voeller, Ford Foundation
(212) 573-5128
FORD FOUNDATION SELECTS THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA-CHAPEL HILL FOR $100,000 GRANT
University participates in national initiative to promote academic freedom and constructive dialogue
University participates in national initiative to promote academic freedom and constructive dialogue
New York, NY – December 12, 2005. After a national competition in undergraduate education that drew more than 675 proposals, the Ford Foundation has selected the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill as one of 27 higher education institutions to receive $100,000 grants for projects that promote academic freedom and constructive dialogue on campus.
The grants are part of Ford’s Difficult Dialogues initiative, created in response to reports of growing intolerance and efforts to curb academic freedom at colleges and universities. The goal is to help institutions address this challenge through academic and campus programs that enrich learning, encourage new scholarship and engage students and faculty in constructive dialogue about contentious political, religious, racial and cultural issues.
“UNC-Chapel Hill has proposed an innovative mix of faculty development, curriculum enrichment and student life programs to build knowledge and promote constructive dialogue about controversial issues on campus,” said Jorge Bal�n, a Senior Program Officer at the Ford Foundation.
UNC will contract with associates of the highly-regarded National Issues Forums Network in the first year of the project to conduct focus groups and gather baseline data on campus and in the larger community; frame the campus’s key issues; conduct workshops and other hands-on opportunities for faculty and instructors to refine their skills in leading difficult dialogues; develop moderator and discussion guides, and test and refine activities and materials as needed to meet program objectives. (See attachment for more information on the project.)
Over the course of the two year initiative, the Difficult Dialogues grantees will be invited to share their experiences and ideas at regional conferences coordinated by the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression in Charlottesville, Virginia. The Center will also host a Web-based forum for project directors to share ideas online.
Examples of other projects that will receive funding include: at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, new courses, faculty seminars and campus roundtables on religion and religious conflict; at Queens College in New York, the development of a new curriculum for promoting understanding and informed discussion about the conflict in the Middle East; at Mars Hill College in North Carolina, training for faculty and student leaders to foster productive discussions of race, sexual orientaiton and religion; and a project at Yale University that will examine whether courses about controversial issues increase tolerance and respect for different viewpoints among students.
“Colleges and universities are uniquely suited to expand knowledge, understanding and discussion of controversial issues that affect us all,” said Susan V. Berresford, president of the Ford Foundation. “The selected projects illustrate the thoughtful and creative ways institutions are promoting intellectually rigorous scholarship and open debate that is essential to higher education.”
The Ford Foundation launched Difficult Dialogues in April 2005 by inviting proposals from all accredited, degree granting, non-profit institutions with general undergraduate programs. A panel of external higher education experts reviewed the preliminary proposals and selected 136 institutions to submit final proposals.
Difficult Dialogues is part of a broader, $12 million effort by the Ford Foundation to understand and combat anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and other forms of bigotry in the United States and Europe. It builds on the foundation’s history of supporting efforts by colleges and universities to foster more inclusive campus environments and to engage effectively with the growing racial, religious and ethnic diversity of their student bodies.
For more information on the Difficult Dialogues initiative and a complete list of awardees, visit: http://www.fordfound.org/news/more/dialogues/index.cfm
The Ford Foundation is an independent, nonprofit grant-making organization. For more than half a century it has been a resource for innovative people and institutions worldwide, guided by its goals of strengthening democratic values, reducing poverty and injustice, promoting international cooperation and advancing human achievement. With headquarters in New York, the foundation has offices in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Latin America, and Russia.
The Ford Foundation is an independent, nonprofit grant-making organization. For more than half a century it has been a resource for innovative people and institutions worldwide, guided by its goals of strengthening democratic values, reducing poverty and injustice, promoting international cooperation and advancing human achievement. With headquarters in New York, the foundation has offices in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Latin America, and Russia.
Institutionalizing Difficult Dialogues: Freedom of Conscience in the Public University
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Proposal to the Difficult Dialogues Program
The Problem
Since September 11, 2001, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has been the site of multiple controversies that have drawn national as well as local attention to this question: can academic freedom and religious conviction co-exist on a public university campus? This proposal to the Ford Foundation requests support to assist UNC-Chapel Hill in its plans to move beyond authorizing the principle of diversity to the more difficult task of institutionalizing the practice of dialogue on our campus through programs that center on faculty training, curricular renovation, and student engagement.
On September 15, 2005, UNC-Chapel Hill Chancellor James Moeser underlined his dedication to the goals of this Difficult Dialogues Initiative (DDI) in his State of the University address. “This University,” he stated, “was created at the beginning of the American republic to be a laboratory for democracy. We can show America how to have civil discourse about difficult topics.”
As the nation’s oldest public university, UNC-Chapel Hill is committed to maintaining its state-wide and national identity as a place where diversity of opinion is protected and encouraged. As the flagship campus of the University of North Carolina system, UNC-Chapel Hill is a highly selective public university. Incoming first-year students usually represent the top 10% of their graduating high school classes. UNC students are well-traveled: more Carolina undergraduates study abroad than from any other public institution in the United States. The UNC-Chapel Hill campus also differs from many campuses in the area of religious and spiritual beliefs. Student surveys indicate that a very high proportion of Carolina students hold religious belief as fundamentally important in their lives. In this respect, many UNC undergraduates reflect the cultural environment of their upbringing in the “Bible Belt” of the southern United States. The blend of intellectual achievement and spiritual grounding among many of our students makes Carolina a unique “laboratory” where we can investigate the sources and symptoms of what many think are inevitable conflicts between religious faith and free inquiry. Our campus has witnessed a number of controversies in this area, especially in recent years.
In the 1960s UNC-Chapel Hill was on the front lines of national debate when the University opposed North Carolina’s notorious “Speaker Ban Law” that barred suspected Communists from speaking on campus. In the summer of 2002, when a national controversy erupted over the University’s decision to assign Approaching the Qur’an to its incoming first-year class as part of a required summer reading program, we realized that academic freedom in the post-9/11 world faced a new challenge on the religious front. In partial response to critics of the Approaching the Qur’an assignment, the University made discussion of this book an occasion for additional dialogue among our first-year students on the controversy that had arisen as a result of the assignment itself. While this dialogue proved a valuable exercise, it did not lead to a sustained dialogue that focused on the relationship between academic freedom and religious conviction.
In 2003 another serious constitutional issue involving freedom and faith emerged on our campus. A three-member Christian fraternity lost its status as an officially recognized student organization when it refused to sign the University's standard non-discrimination policy. The fraternity brought suit in federal court alleging that the University had unlawfully abridged the students' First Amendment rights to freedom of association, freedom of speech, and free exercise of religion. The issue has not yet been resolved.
In the spring of 2004 a third round of debate over religious faith and freedom of expression took place on our campus. In this instance, an instructor was disciplined by her department for publicly accusing a student of hate speech after he expressed in her class his objection to homosexuality based on his religious beliefs. To some in the University, the censure this instructor received from her department and from the University administration has had a chilling effect on academic freedom. To others in our community, the instructor was not justified in attacking a student for expressing a viewpoint based on personal ethical and religious belief. The University’s Faculty Council responded to the controversy by sponsoring a forum for faculty discussion of the issue. A useful and productive exchange ensued, but, again, it did not generate sustained, systematic campus dialogue on the issues arising from the matter emerged.
The political and legal repercussions of these widely-reported incidents have identified UNC-Chapel Hill a test site for those who seek to exploit real or perceived conflicts between freedom of religious expression and association on the one hand and, on the other, freedom of inquiry, freedom of speech, and freedom from discrimination. The impetus of our proposal to the Ford Foundation is to counter efforts to polarize our community and to promote civil, informed, and productive discourse.
The Process to Date
When the Ford Foundation issued its call for proposals for Difficult Dialogues Initiatives, UNC-Chapel Hill recognized an important opportunity to build on new programs and undertakings on the campus that are bringing matters of religious faith into the realm of academic inquiry. Recently established campus programs include:
1) In 2002-2003 the University’s Society of Fellows, a select group of doctoral graduate students in a variety of disciplines, organized a forum on “Faith and Public Life: An Exploration of the Relationship between Private Religious Belief and Public Policy.” This initiative brought together students, faculty, and professionals from the private sector (including pastors, attorneys, and administrators of foundations) to explore issues relating to secularism, religious faith, and the separation of church and state.
2) Campus workshops and subsequent web publications by the UNC-Chapel Hill Center for Teaching and Learning, supported by the Academy of Distinguished Teaching Scholars and the Faculty Council, in Summer 2004 continuing through Fall 2005, on "Teaching
Controversial Subjects," and "Managing Classroom Conflict," assist faculty in addressing issues of freedom of speech and academic inquiry in the classroom.
3) Sociology Professor Christian Smith conducted a National Study of Youth and Religion (2005), a project funded by the Lilly Endowment that examines the shape and influence of religion and spirituality in the lives of U.S. adolescents.
4) In 2005, UNC-Chapel Hill became one of the first public colleges or universities in the United States to establish a minor in the “Study of Christian Cultures.”
5) The Parr Center for Ethics, recently founded to encourage attention to ethics on campus and in the broader University community, sponsors workshops hosted by more than 50 Fellows from UNC-Chapel, invites speakers to campus, and in a variety of other ways supports inquiry and discussion of topics such as teaching applied ethics.
6) A cross-disciplinary symposium on “Is there a Tomorrow? – Rapture, Extinction, and Democracy” hosted by the Johnston Center for Undergraduate Excellent in Spring 2005.
7) A weekend seminar on “The Book of Genesis, Evolution, and Social Conflict” is planned for Spring 2006 and sponsored by the Program in the Humanities and Human Values - Adventures in Ideas continuing education program for UNC alumni and friends.
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Proposal to the Difficult Dialogues Program
The Problem
Since September 11, 2001, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has been the site of multiple controversies that have drawn national as well as local attention to this question: can academic freedom and religious conviction co-exist on a public university campus? This proposal to the Ford Foundation requests support to assist UNC-Chapel Hill in its plans to move beyond authorizing the principle of diversity to the more difficult task of institutionalizing the practice of dialogue on our campus through programs that center on faculty training, curricular renovation, and student engagement.
On September 15, 2005, UNC-Chapel Hill Chancellor James Moeser underlined his dedication to the goals of this Difficult Dialogues Initiative (DDI) in his State of the University address. “This University,” he stated, “was created at the beginning of the American republic to be a laboratory for democracy. We can show America how to have civil discourse about difficult topics.”
As the nation’s oldest public university, UNC-Chapel Hill is committed to maintaining its state-wide and national identity as a place where diversity of opinion is protected and encouraged. As the flagship campus of the University of North Carolina system, UNC-Chapel Hill is a highly selective public university. Incoming first-year students usually represent the top 10% of their graduating high school classes. UNC students are well-traveled: more Carolina undergraduates study abroad than from any other public institution in the United States. The UNC-Chapel Hill campus also differs from many campuses in the area of religious and spiritual beliefs. Student surveys indicate that a very high proportion of Carolina students hold religious belief as fundamentally important in their lives. In this respect, many UNC undergraduates reflect the cultural environment of their upbringing in the “Bible Belt” of the southern United States. The blend of intellectual achievement and spiritual grounding among many of our students makes Carolina a unique “laboratory” where we can investigate the sources and symptoms of what many think are inevitable conflicts between religious faith and free inquiry. Our campus has witnessed a number of controversies in this area, especially in recent years.
In the 1960s UNC-Chapel Hill was on the front lines of national debate when the University opposed North Carolina’s notorious “Speaker Ban Law” that barred suspected Communists from speaking on campus. In the summer of 2002, when a national controversy erupted over the University’s decision to assign Approaching the Qur’an to its incoming first-year class as part of a required summer reading program, we realized that academic freedom in the post-9/11 world faced a new challenge on the religious front. In partial response to critics of the Approaching the Qur’an assignment, the University made discussion of this book an occasion for additional dialogue among our first-year students on the controversy that had arisen as a result of the assignment itself. While this dialogue proved a valuable exercise, it did not lead to a sustained dialogue that focused on the relationship between academic freedom and religious conviction.
In 2003 another serious constitutional issue involving freedom and faith emerged on our campus. A three-member Christian fraternity lost its status as an officially recognized student organization when it refused to sign the University's standard non-discrimination policy. The fraternity brought suit in federal court alleging that the University had unlawfully abridged the students' First Amendment rights to freedom of association, freedom of speech, and free exercise of religion. The issue has not yet been resolved.
In the spring of 2004 a third round of debate over religious faith and freedom of expression took place on our campus. In this instance, an instructor was disciplined by her department for publicly accusing a student of hate speech after he expressed in her class his objection to homosexuality based on his religious beliefs. To some in the University, the censure this instructor received from her department and from the University administration has had a chilling effect on academic freedom. To others in our community, the instructor was not justified in attacking a student for expressing a viewpoint based on personal ethical and religious belief. The University’s Faculty Council responded to the controversy by sponsoring a forum for faculty discussion of the issue. A useful and productive exchange ensued, but, again, it did not generate sustained, systematic campus dialogue on the issues arising from the matter emerged.
The political and legal repercussions of these widely-reported incidents have identified UNC-Chapel Hill a test site for those who seek to exploit real or perceived conflicts between freedom of religious expression and association on the one hand and, on the other, freedom of inquiry, freedom of speech, and freedom from discrimination. The impetus of our proposal to the Ford Foundation is to counter efforts to polarize our community and to promote civil, informed, and productive discourse.
The Process to Date
When the Ford Foundation issued its call for proposals for Difficult Dialogues Initiatives, UNC-Chapel Hill recognized an important opportunity to build on new programs and undertakings on the campus that are bringing matters of religious faith into the realm of academic inquiry. Recently established campus programs include:
1) In 2002-2003 the University’s Society of Fellows, a select group of doctoral graduate students in a variety of disciplines, organized a forum on “Faith and Public Life: An Exploration of the Relationship between Private Religious Belief and Public Policy.” This initiative brought together students, faculty, and professionals from the private sector (including pastors, attorneys, and administrators of foundations) to explore issues relating to secularism, religious faith, and the separation of church and state.
2) Campus workshops and subsequent web publications by the UNC-Chapel Hill Center for Teaching and Learning, supported by the Academy of Distinguished Teaching Scholars and the Faculty Council, in Summer 2004 continuing through Fall 2005, on "Teaching
Controversial Subjects," and "Managing Classroom Conflict," assist faculty in addressing issues of freedom of speech and academic inquiry in the classroom.
3) Sociology Professor Christian Smith conducted a National Study of Youth and Religion (2005), a project funded by the Lilly Endowment that examines the shape and influence of religion and spirituality in the lives of U.S. adolescents.
4) In 2005, UNC-Chapel Hill became one of the first public colleges or universities in the United States to establish a minor in the “Study of Christian Cultures.”
5) The Parr Center for Ethics, recently founded to encourage attention to ethics on campus and in the broader University community, sponsors workshops hosted by more than 50 Fellows from UNC-Chapel, invites speakers to campus, and in a variety of other ways supports inquiry and discussion of topics such as teaching applied ethics.
6) A cross-disciplinary symposium on “Is there a Tomorrow? – Rapture, Extinction, and Democracy” hosted by the Johnston Center for Undergraduate Excellent in Spring 2005.
7) A weekend seminar on “The Book of Genesis, Evolution, and Social Conflict” is planned for Spring 2006 and sponsored by the Program in the Humanities and Human Values - Adventures in Ideas continuing education program for UNC alumni and friends.
UNC-Chapel Hill is ready to mobilize its considerable resources to implement a structure to institutionalize dialogue on matters of religious faith and intellectual inquiry. With the support of the Ford Foundation, we plan substantive improvements to the way in which “difficult dialogues” are conducted on campus and in the greater University community.
The Steering Committee to address the Difficult Dialogues Initiative opportunity was convened in Spring 2005, in response to the Ford Foundation’s initial call for proposals. When UNC-Chapel Hill was chosen as one of the finalists, the Steering Committee increased the frequency of meetings to once a week or more, with discussions continuing outside meetings to develop this proposal. The Steering Committee is comprised of UNC-Chapel Hill faculty and staff representing key components of the University. Co-Principal Investigator is William L. Andrews, E. Maynard Adams Professor of English and Senior Associate Dean for the Arts and Humanities in the College of Arts and Sciences. Judith Welch Wegner, Professor of Law and Chair of the Faculty, is also Co-Principal Investigator. Other members of the Steering Committee are: Julia Wood, Associate Director of the Institute for the Arts and Humanities, representing faculty continuing education; Jay Smith, Associate Dean for Undergraduate Curricula and Professor of History in the College of Arts and Sciences, representing curricular renovation; Virginia Carson, Director of the Campus Y, representing extra-curricular student life; and Ed Neal, Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning, representing faculty development and program evaluation.
The Process Going Forward
Although University-wide in its scope and impact, the primary focus of the UNC-Chapel Hill Difficult Dialogues Initiative (DDI) will be the College of Arts and Sciences, where 87% of the undergraduate credit hours are taught and 75% of UNC-Chapel Hill students choose their majors.
The Initiative will be led by co-Principal Investigators William L. Andrews and Judith Wegner. All other members of the Steering Committee have specific roles in implementing the goals, objectives, and activities of the Difficult Dialogues Initiative. Their involvement assures the collaboration of the following UNC-Chapel Hill units and more:
The College of Arts and Sciences; the Institute for the Arts and Humanities; the University Center for Teaching and Learning; The Parr Center for Ethics; the University Writing Program; the Academy of Distinguished Teaching Scholars; the Faculty Council; the First-Year Seminar Program in the College of Arts and Sciences; the Office of Student Affairs; the Office of the Vice-Chancellor for Research and Economic Development; and the Office of the Provost.
A DDI Program Coordinator will be created to serve as executive director of the program, responsible for coordinating communication and collaboration among program principals, departments, and units; helping to plan and implement all activities; creating and maintaining an overall schedule for the two-year project; and assuring financial management, budgetary reconciliations, and grants management. A part-time Graduate Assistant will assist in administering the project.
The highly-regarded National Issues Forum will be contracted in Year 1 to conduct focus groups and gather baseline data on campus and in the larger community; frame the campus’s key issues; coordinate identification of multiple options for interventions; conduct workshops and other hands-on opportunities for faculty and instructors to refine their skills in leading difficult dialogues; develop moderator and discussion guides, facilitation techniques, and other materials; and test and refine activities and materials as needed to meet program objectives.
Goals and Objectives for the Difficult Dialogues Initiative (DDI)
The overall goal of the Initiative is to enhance the intellectual atmosphere and augment the institutional opportunities for “difficult dialogues” throughout our campus. Our purpose is not to change people’s beliefs. Rather, we intend to create and institutionalize models of dialogue based on mutual respect, tolerance, and an informed exchange of ideas and beliefs. We believe that this outcome will enhance both the likelihood and the quality of thoughtful discussions, inside and outside our classrooms, that allow questions of faith and personal moral conviction a respectful and responsible hearing within an academic community dedicated to free inquiry.
Too often, matters of religious belief and academic inquiry seem to fall prey to the “clash of cultures” binaries that spur students and faculty to debate with the goal of trouncing one another in verbal sparring matches. While UNC-Chapel Hill in no way opposes healthy debate on issues, the prevalent notion of debate as yielding a winner and a loser is not a productive way to engage questions about the compatibility of academic freedom and religious conviction on our campus. Instead of debate, therefore, Carolina’s Difficult Dialogues Initiative seeks the following outcomes:
1. Freedom of expression for a wide range of viewpoints;
2. Respectful attention to a wide range of viewpoints;
3. Intellectually serious analysis and defense of multiple viewpoints; and
4. A search for common ground, without ignoring genuine differences, among diverse viewpoints.
The DDI will seek common ground, however tentative or provisional, among differing viewpoints and, through appropriate forums and media, share findings throughout the campus community and with audiences in the wider academic and public spheres. We have learned from the controversies we have encountered in Carolina’s history that a university cannot be content simply to espouse principles of free inquiry, open discussion, and support of diversity. Nor should we wait for fresh controversies to inflame passions to the point that genuine dialogue has an even harder time obtaining a hearing. UNC-Chapel Hill believes that, as the nation’s oldest public institution, we have a historic obligation and opportunity to be proactive rather than reactive. With the support of the Ford Foundation we will create models by which productive dialogue and inquiry can co-exist on our campus. Consistent with our responsibility to our many publics, we will also make available to the widest possible audience the outcomes and best practices of the programs that we create under the auspices of the Difficult Dialogues Initiative (DDI).
The UNC-Chapel Hill Difficult Dialogues Initiative will pursue four separate objectives in order to achieve our goal of productive and informed dialogue on campus:
Objective 1: Ground the DDI through development of baseline information describing current understanding of the relationship of religious belief and intellectual inquiry among Chapel Hill students, faculty, and staff.
Objective 2: Provide faculty development and training to help faculty facilitate constructive discussions of controversial issues in the classroom.
Objective 3. Renovate and enrich the UNC-Chapel Hill curriculum to incorporate more opportunities for faculty and students to discuss diverse opinions, scientific inquiries, religious and spiritual beliefs, and ethics in a respectful environment.
Objective 4. Develop extra-curricular student life activities that stimulate informed discussions of controversial subjects and encourage the exchange of ideas and beliefs in a mutually respectful atmosphere.
The activities, timeline, responsible coordinators, expected outcomes, and pre- and post-test evaluative measures for each of the Objectives are detailed below.
Objective 1
Ground the DDI through development of baseline information describing current understanding of the relationship of religious belief and intellectual inquiry among Chapel Hill students, faculty, and staff.
It is expected that the outcome of Objective 1 will be to root DDI activities in an informed understanding of tensions between religious belief and intellectual inquiry as those tensions are currently perceived by faculty and students at UNC-Chapel Hill. Grounding the Initiative by conducting surveys and documenting baseline assumptions will avoid the use of stereotypes and misperceptions regarding the sources of such tension on campus. Objective 1 activities will be coordinated by Judith Welch Wegner, Professor of Law and Chair of the Faculty with the assistance of the National Issues Forum, in the Spring and Summer of 2006.
Activities for Objective 1
(1) Gather benchmark data on faculty and student beliefs about the role of religious and spiritual beliefs in college contexts, through incorporation of relevant questions into surveys developed by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA as part of surveys of entering first-year students and faculty.
(2) Compile baseline data regarding student and faculty viewpoints that will illuminate the extent to which assumptions, experiences, concerns of students (largely drawn from the majority Christian population of North Carolina) and faculty (drawn from diverse backgrounds across the world) are similar or different.
(3) Create a standard set of data that will provide a benchmark for measuring longitudinal changes in students over their college career, and permit assessment of possible changes in viewpoints based on participation in DDI programs.
(4) Develop and test a “Dialogue Starter Kit” embodying the model of “issues” and “moderator” materials created by the “National Issues Forum” (http://www.nifi.org ) and the Kellogg Foundation. This will create a means of convening groups to discuss contested issues. Carolina’s focus will be on the interplay of religious belief and intellectual inquiry so that the campus community can engage with each other about the fundamental underlying assumptions, and appreciate why there may be several contrasting core “approaches” to the intersection of religious belief and intellectual inquiry.
(5) Evaluate the extent to which models used to generate dialogue on other contested issues can be adapted for use in dealing with volatile tensions concerning the intersection of religious belief and intellectual inquiry
(6) Provide a set of core materials and strategies that can be piloted and deployed relatively quickly in order to engage members of the campus community in important dialogue, and to spur their interest in participating in more in-depth activities and training to be launched as part of the more extensive faculty training, curriculum development, and student activities initiatives central to the DDI
(7) Provide a set of core materials and strategies that can be shared with other campuses that are funded through the Ford Foundation’s “Difficult Dialogues” program, as well as with other interested campuses around the country. In particular, UNC-Chapel Hill will share information about DDI with sister institutions in North Carolina that are finalists for Ford Foundation DDI funding. The other finalists in North Carolina are: UNC-Greensboro, North Carolina Central University, and Winston-Salem State University.
Evaluation for Objective 1
(1) Use baseline survey data to compare responses to surveys conducted at later dates (outcome data) to determine if there are changes in student and faculty approaches to dialogues as a result of DDI activities.
(2) Evaluate and perfect “starter kit” materials for participants and moderators using existing approaches developed by the National Issues Forum.
(3) Evaluate effectiveness of “workshop starter kit” by using simple pre-workshop survey and post-workshop evaluations by participants.
Objective 2
Promote the University’s mission, as stated in its charter, of preparing the rising generation for the “honourable discharge of the social duties of life, by paying strictest attention to their education" through encouraging faculty to engage with students in honest and informed discussions of difficult topics.
The expected outcome of Objective 2 will be faculty with increased abilities to facilitate open, constructive, and informed dialogues with and among students about matters of religious faith and freedom of inquiry. Faculty will also have greater confidence in their abilities to initiate and manage difficult discussions in their classrooms. Activities will be organized and coordinated by Julia Wood, Associate Director of the Institute for the Arts and Humanities, and Ed Neal, Director of Faculty Development in the Center for Teaching and Learning. The Parr Center for Ethics will be closely involved in Objective 2 activities as part of their mission to support and encourage attention to ethics on campus and the broader community, through funding of Faculty Fellows, organizing workshops, and coordinating with other campus units. Programming to develop faculty commitment to and skill in engaging difficult dialogues will begin in Summer 2006 and be ongoing.
Activities for Objective 2
(1) Provide development and training to help instructors and faculty facilitate constructive discussions of controversial issues in their classrooms, and increase faculty’s understanding and appreciation of the wide and diverse range of views and opinions held by members of the University community.
(2) Prepare faculty to model (to one another and to students) effective participation in difficult dialogues about religious and cultural issues, so that respect for others is promoted and safeguarded.
(3) Provide to faculty workshops and one-on-one coaching in best practices of facilitating constructive discussion of difficult topics in classrooms and throughout the University community.
(4) Hold campus-wide forums in which highly-respected faculty publicly assert the value of faculty openness to understanding and appreciating religious and ethical beliefs that differ from their own, advocate greater inclusion of dialogues about controversial issues on campus, and explicitly demonstrate application of the principles of academic inquiry to matters of religious faith and ethical belief. These forums will be recorded so that current faculty and future faculty have access to the models.
(5) Publish articles about the Difficult Dialogues Initiative, including examples of productive classroom dialogues, in campus and community publications.
The Steering Committee to address the Difficult Dialogues Initiative opportunity was convened in Spring 2005, in response to the Ford Foundation’s initial call for proposals. When UNC-Chapel Hill was chosen as one of the finalists, the Steering Committee increased the frequency of meetings to once a week or more, with discussions continuing outside meetings to develop this proposal. The Steering Committee is comprised of UNC-Chapel Hill faculty and staff representing key components of the University. Co-Principal Investigator is William L. Andrews, E. Maynard Adams Professor of English and Senior Associate Dean for the Arts and Humanities in the College of Arts and Sciences. Judith Welch Wegner, Professor of Law and Chair of the Faculty, is also Co-Principal Investigator. Other members of the Steering Committee are: Julia Wood, Associate Director of the Institute for the Arts and Humanities, representing faculty continuing education; Jay Smith, Associate Dean for Undergraduate Curricula and Professor of History in the College of Arts and Sciences, representing curricular renovation; Virginia Carson, Director of the Campus Y, representing extra-curricular student life; and Ed Neal, Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning, representing faculty development and program evaluation.
The Process Going Forward
Although University-wide in its scope and impact, the primary focus of the UNC-Chapel Hill Difficult Dialogues Initiative (DDI) will be the College of Arts and Sciences, where 87% of the undergraduate credit hours are taught and 75% of UNC-Chapel Hill students choose their majors.
The Initiative will be led by co-Principal Investigators William L. Andrews and Judith Wegner. All other members of the Steering Committee have specific roles in implementing the goals, objectives, and activities of the Difficult Dialogues Initiative. Their involvement assures the collaboration of the following UNC-Chapel Hill units and more:
The College of Arts and Sciences; the Institute for the Arts and Humanities; the University Center for Teaching and Learning; The Parr Center for Ethics; the University Writing Program; the Academy of Distinguished Teaching Scholars; the Faculty Council; the First-Year Seminar Program in the College of Arts and Sciences; the Office of Student Affairs; the Office of the Vice-Chancellor for Research and Economic Development; and the Office of the Provost.
A DDI Program Coordinator will be created to serve as executive director of the program, responsible for coordinating communication and collaboration among program principals, departments, and units; helping to plan and implement all activities; creating and maintaining an overall schedule for the two-year project; and assuring financial management, budgetary reconciliations, and grants management. A part-time Graduate Assistant will assist in administering the project.
The highly-regarded National Issues Forum will be contracted in Year 1 to conduct focus groups and gather baseline data on campus and in the larger community; frame the campus’s key issues; coordinate identification of multiple options for interventions; conduct workshops and other hands-on opportunities for faculty and instructors to refine their skills in leading difficult dialogues; develop moderator and discussion guides, facilitation techniques, and other materials; and test and refine activities and materials as needed to meet program objectives.
Goals and Objectives for the Difficult Dialogues Initiative (DDI)
The overall goal of the Initiative is to enhance the intellectual atmosphere and augment the institutional opportunities for “difficult dialogues” throughout our campus. Our purpose is not to change people’s beliefs. Rather, we intend to create and institutionalize models of dialogue based on mutual respect, tolerance, and an informed exchange of ideas and beliefs. We believe that this outcome will enhance both the likelihood and the quality of thoughtful discussions, inside and outside our classrooms, that allow questions of faith and personal moral conviction a respectful and responsible hearing within an academic community dedicated to free inquiry.
Too often, matters of religious belief and academic inquiry seem to fall prey to the “clash of cultures” binaries that spur students and faculty to debate with the goal of trouncing one another in verbal sparring matches. While UNC-Chapel Hill in no way opposes healthy debate on issues, the prevalent notion of debate as yielding a winner and a loser is not a productive way to engage questions about the compatibility of academic freedom and religious conviction on our campus. Instead of debate, therefore, Carolina’s Difficult Dialogues Initiative seeks the following outcomes:
1. Freedom of expression for a wide range of viewpoints;
2. Respectful attention to a wide range of viewpoints;
3. Intellectually serious analysis and defense of multiple viewpoints; and
4. A search for common ground, without ignoring genuine differences, among diverse viewpoints.
The DDI will seek common ground, however tentative or provisional, among differing viewpoints and, through appropriate forums and media, share findings throughout the campus community and with audiences in the wider academic and public spheres. We have learned from the controversies we have encountered in Carolina’s history that a university cannot be content simply to espouse principles of free inquiry, open discussion, and support of diversity. Nor should we wait for fresh controversies to inflame passions to the point that genuine dialogue has an even harder time obtaining a hearing. UNC-Chapel Hill believes that, as the nation’s oldest public institution, we have a historic obligation and opportunity to be proactive rather than reactive. With the support of the Ford Foundation we will create models by which productive dialogue and inquiry can co-exist on our campus. Consistent with our responsibility to our many publics, we will also make available to the widest possible audience the outcomes and best practices of the programs that we create under the auspices of the Difficult Dialogues Initiative (DDI).
The UNC-Chapel Hill Difficult Dialogues Initiative will pursue four separate objectives in order to achieve our goal of productive and informed dialogue on campus:
Objective 1: Ground the DDI through development of baseline information describing current understanding of the relationship of religious belief and intellectual inquiry among Chapel Hill students, faculty, and staff.
Objective 2: Provide faculty development and training to help faculty facilitate constructive discussions of controversial issues in the classroom.
Objective 3. Renovate and enrich the UNC-Chapel Hill curriculum to incorporate more opportunities for faculty and students to discuss diverse opinions, scientific inquiries, religious and spiritual beliefs, and ethics in a respectful environment.
Objective 4. Develop extra-curricular student life activities that stimulate informed discussions of controversial subjects and encourage the exchange of ideas and beliefs in a mutually respectful atmosphere.
The activities, timeline, responsible coordinators, expected outcomes, and pre- and post-test evaluative measures for each of the Objectives are detailed below.
Objective 1
Ground the DDI through development of baseline information describing current understanding of the relationship of religious belief and intellectual inquiry among Chapel Hill students, faculty, and staff.
It is expected that the outcome of Objective 1 will be to root DDI activities in an informed understanding of tensions between religious belief and intellectual inquiry as those tensions are currently perceived by faculty and students at UNC-Chapel Hill. Grounding the Initiative by conducting surveys and documenting baseline assumptions will avoid the use of stereotypes and misperceptions regarding the sources of such tension on campus. Objective 1 activities will be coordinated by Judith Welch Wegner, Professor of Law and Chair of the Faculty with the assistance of the National Issues Forum, in the Spring and Summer of 2006.
Activities for Objective 1
(1) Gather benchmark data on faculty and student beliefs about the role of religious and spiritual beliefs in college contexts, through incorporation of relevant questions into surveys developed by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA as part of surveys of entering first-year students and faculty.
(2) Compile baseline data regarding student and faculty viewpoints that will illuminate the extent to which assumptions, experiences, concerns of students (largely drawn from the majority Christian population of North Carolina) and faculty (drawn from diverse backgrounds across the world) are similar or different.
(3) Create a standard set of data that will provide a benchmark for measuring longitudinal changes in students over their college career, and permit assessment of possible changes in viewpoints based on participation in DDI programs.
(4) Develop and test a “Dialogue Starter Kit” embodying the model of “issues” and “moderator” materials created by the “National Issues Forum” (http://www.nifi.org ) and the Kellogg Foundation. This will create a means of convening groups to discuss contested issues. Carolina’s focus will be on the interplay of religious belief and intellectual inquiry so that the campus community can engage with each other about the fundamental underlying assumptions, and appreciate why there may be several contrasting core “approaches” to the intersection of religious belief and intellectual inquiry.
(5) Evaluate the extent to which models used to generate dialogue on other contested issues can be adapted for use in dealing with volatile tensions concerning the intersection of religious belief and intellectual inquiry
(6) Provide a set of core materials and strategies that can be piloted and deployed relatively quickly in order to engage members of the campus community in important dialogue, and to spur their interest in participating in more in-depth activities and training to be launched as part of the more extensive faculty training, curriculum development, and student activities initiatives central to the DDI
(7) Provide a set of core materials and strategies that can be shared with other campuses that are funded through the Ford Foundation’s “Difficult Dialogues” program, as well as with other interested campuses around the country. In particular, UNC-Chapel Hill will share information about DDI with sister institutions in North Carolina that are finalists for Ford Foundation DDI funding. The other finalists in North Carolina are: UNC-Greensboro, North Carolina Central University, and Winston-Salem State University.
Evaluation for Objective 1
(1) Use baseline survey data to compare responses to surveys conducted at later dates (outcome data) to determine if there are changes in student and faculty approaches to dialogues as a result of DDI activities.
(2) Evaluate and perfect “starter kit” materials for participants and moderators using existing approaches developed by the National Issues Forum.
(3) Evaluate effectiveness of “workshop starter kit” by using simple pre-workshop survey and post-workshop evaluations by participants.
Objective 2
Promote the University’s mission, as stated in its charter, of preparing the rising generation for the “honourable discharge of the social duties of life, by paying strictest attention to their education" through encouraging faculty to engage with students in honest and informed discussions of difficult topics.
The expected outcome of Objective 2 will be faculty with increased abilities to facilitate open, constructive, and informed dialogues with and among students about matters of religious faith and freedom of inquiry. Faculty will also have greater confidence in their abilities to initiate and manage difficult discussions in their classrooms. Activities will be organized and coordinated by Julia Wood, Associate Director of the Institute for the Arts and Humanities, and Ed Neal, Director of Faculty Development in the Center for Teaching and Learning. The Parr Center for Ethics will be closely involved in Objective 2 activities as part of their mission to support and encourage attention to ethics on campus and the broader community, through funding of Faculty Fellows, organizing workshops, and coordinating with other campus units. Programming to develop faculty commitment to and skill in engaging difficult dialogues will begin in Summer 2006 and be ongoing.
Activities for Objective 2
(1) Provide development and training to help instructors and faculty facilitate constructive discussions of controversial issues in their classrooms, and increase faculty’s understanding and appreciation of the wide and diverse range of views and opinions held by members of the University community.
(2) Prepare faculty to model (to one another and to students) effective participation in difficult dialogues about religious and cultural issues, so that respect for others is promoted and safeguarded.
(3) Provide to faculty workshops and one-on-one coaching in best practices of facilitating constructive discussion of difficult topics in classrooms and throughout the University community.
(4) Hold campus-wide forums in which highly-respected faculty publicly assert the value of faculty openness to understanding and appreciating religious and ethical beliefs that differ from their own, advocate greater inclusion of dialogues about controversial issues on campus, and explicitly demonstrate application of the principles of academic inquiry to matters of religious faith and ethical belief. These forums will be recorded so that current faculty and future faculty have access to the models.
(5) Publish articles about the Difficult Dialogues Initiative, including examples of productive classroom dialogues, in campus and community publications.
Evaluation for Objective 2
(1) Numbers and departments of faculty attending workshops, forums, and other DDI events.
(2) End-of-course student evaluations asking whether there were any discussions of controversial issues during classes.
(3) End-of-course student evaluation questions asking what students learned from any classroom “difficult dialogues” and student assessments of such discussions.
(4) Survey of faculty asking if they encourage discussion of controversial issues in classes, their assessments of any such discussions, and their personal comfort level with leading such discussions.
Objective 3
Renovate and enrich the UNC-Chapel Hill curriculum to incorporate more opportunities for faculty and students to discuss diverse opinions, scientific inquiries, religious and spiritual beliefs, and ethics in a respectful environment.
This objective will focus on University classrooms so that freedom of inquiry and respect for diversity can be maintained and enhanced in the intellectual life of the campus. Students and faculty will become better informed about sensitive issues involving religious faith and freedom of inquiry on the University’s campus and in our globalized world. While learning the historical tensions and conflicts that have marked the relationship between religion and intellectual life in world history, students will recognize that conflict and silence are not the only ways that religious faith and free intellectual inquiry can interact. Students will develop expressive skills, both oral and written, that they can use to articulate their religious and/or ethical views while recognizing the conscientious claims of those who may differ.
The outcome will be to augment understanding and mutual respect among faculty and students whose views of religion or spirituality may differ markedly. Jay Smith, the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Curricula, will oversee the curricular innovations forecast by the DDI, which will begin in the Spring term, 2006, when course development grants are made available to teams of faculty interested in developing interrelated courses on these themes.
Activities for Objective 3
(1) Use Course Development Grants to increase UNC-Chapel Hill course offerings that highlight themes of religious pluralism and freedom of conscience. To ensure widespread student participation, the new courses will meet various requirements (e.g., Diversity, Global Issues, Moral Reasoning, Literary Analysis) in the University’s revised general education curriculum to be implemented in 2006.
(2) Use Course Development Grants to revise and expand the reach of existing courses, such as “Catholicism in America” or “The Liberal Tradition in American Religion.”
(3) Conduct workshops for students, faculty, and interested members of the University community that, by building on ideas generated within the classroom, will provide a forum for more intensive exploration of subjects and themes treated in courses.
(4) Create new Course Clusters that (a) stress the many ways in which religious impulses have led to progressive and widely hailed changes in politics, intellectual life, and social policy, and (b) relate the historical (and ongoing) struggles of scientists/intellectuals and broad intellectual movements that have been constrained or persecuted by religious authorities. Reflecting the expertise and interests of UNC faculty from a broad range of departments and schools, the clusters will vary widely in subject content, but will likely include the following:
Religion and Social Change: A course cluster that would include a Women’s Studies course on “Women and Islam,” a History course on “Evangelicals and Social Reform in 19th century America,” and a Music course on “Gospel Music in the African-American Community.”
Scientific Discovery: A course cluster that would include a Religious Studies course on “Arabic Science in the Middle Ages,” a Geology course on “The Earth through Time,” and a History course on “Galileo and the Scientific Revolution.”
Evolution: A course cluster that would include a Biology course on “The Evolution of Vertebrates,” a History course on “Historical Time,” a Psychology course on “Mind and Body,” and a Philosophy course on “Selfhood, Mortality, and Identity.”
(6) Incorporate into the University Writing Program (a two-semester composition sequence taken by 85% of UNC-Chapel Hill students) a training program for teaching assistants and faculty that will demonstrate how issues of religious belief and freedom of inquiry can be integrated into classroom discussions and writing assignments.
Evaluation for Objective 3
(1) Number and types of new courses developed through Course Development Grants.
(2) Written course evaluation questions asking students to rate the effectiveness of course topics and themes, as well as the effectiveness of discussion techniques used in class.
(3) Exit polls after workshops and forums measuring student opinions about effectiveness and relevance of DDI activities.
(4) Evaluation questions asking students and faculty to rate the effectiveness of Course Clusters.
(5) Evaluation questions asking teaching assistants and faculty to rate the effectiveness of revisions to the University Writing Program.
Objective 4
Develop extra-curricular student life activities that stimulate informed discussions of controversial subjects and encourage the exchange of ideas and beliefs in a mutually respectful atmosphere.
This objective will enable students and student leaders to become citizens capable of productive dialogue when confronted with fundamental differences in a pluralistic society. The objective will also institutionalize a structure ensuring that student leaders develop skills and model productive dialogue and dispute resolution techniques when difficult issues on campus arise. It is expected that students will report numerous opportunities to learn the skills of respectful and productive dialogue and facilitation of discussions; students will report a stronger confidence in their own ability to conduct respectful discussions of difficult topics; and student organizations representing different faith or ethnic traditions will interact more productively than in the past. Emerging leaders in these organizations will expect to build bridges with other organizations through the Campus InterFaith Alliance and similar efforts. We also expect that students in the residence halls will report an atmosphere of respectful discussion of faith issues and become aware of the ability of resident advisors and other staff to provide productive assistance when difficult issues arise. Objective 4 activities will be organized and coordinated by Virginia Carson, Director of the Campus Y, with the support of Margaret Jablonski, the Vice-Chancellor for Student Affairs, and Melissa Exum, Dean of Students, beginning in Summer 2006 and continuing.
Activities for Objective 4
(1) Establish recurring opportunities for student leaders to build relationships among and between various campus organizations, ethnic, and cultural groups that will provide a foundation for dialogue on difficult issues.
(2) Student affairs personnel will support and help to plan workshops for student leaders that focus on the skills of respectful discussion and facilitation of dialogue on difficult issues. Examples are the STRETCH Conference (Students Reaching Toward Change) held in October by Campus Y, Carolina Leadership Development and UNC Student Government; the leadership training for Campus Y officers, co-chairs and various committees (more than 200 students over an academic year); and the organizational training work of the Carolina Union student organization staff.
(3) Student affairs personnel will support and encourage student efforts to build ties among faith organizations, such as the InterFaith Alliance. This new student venture engages all faith-based student organizations in outreach activities and campus discussions of faith issues designed to foster trust and build relationships between and among students of different faiths.
(4) The Department of Housing and Residential Education will expand its training of student and graduate student Resident Advisors in respectful dialogue about faith issues and other difficult topics. The Resident Advisors will then design programming for the students in the residence halls that allows for discussion and debate in a productive manner.
(5) The Dean of Students Office and Student Affairs personnel will institute the Student Organization Council to bring together the elected and emerging leaders of major student organizations on campus for a recurring series of programs. These students will be encouraged a) to build relationships among their organizations that promote productive dialogue on campus around difficult topics and b) to set the expectation that student leaders and organizations encourage and model respectful dialogue.
(6) Campus Y and other major student organizations will design and implement programs open to all students to examine issues of faith in public life, conflicts between faith concerns and the pursuit of research or academic inquiry, and similar topics. Student leaders will model and help the audience practice respectful dialogue about difficult topics.
(1) Numbers and departments of faculty attending workshops, forums, and other DDI events.
(2) End-of-course student evaluations asking whether there were any discussions of controversial issues during classes.
(3) End-of-course student evaluation questions asking what students learned from any classroom “difficult dialogues” and student assessments of such discussions.
(4) Survey of faculty asking if they encourage discussion of controversial issues in classes, their assessments of any such discussions, and their personal comfort level with leading such discussions.
Objective 3
Renovate and enrich the UNC-Chapel Hill curriculum to incorporate more opportunities for faculty and students to discuss diverse opinions, scientific inquiries, religious and spiritual beliefs, and ethics in a respectful environment.
This objective will focus on University classrooms so that freedom of inquiry and respect for diversity can be maintained and enhanced in the intellectual life of the campus. Students and faculty will become better informed about sensitive issues involving religious faith and freedom of inquiry on the University’s campus and in our globalized world. While learning the historical tensions and conflicts that have marked the relationship between religion and intellectual life in world history, students will recognize that conflict and silence are not the only ways that religious faith and free intellectual inquiry can interact. Students will develop expressive skills, both oral and written, that they can use to articulate their religious and/or ethical views while recognizing the conscientious claims of those who may differ.
The outcome will be to augment understanding and mutual respect among faculty and students whose views of religion or spirituality may differ markedly. Jay Smith, the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Curricula, will oversee the curricular innovations forecast by the DDI, which will begin in the Spring term, 2006, when course development grants are made available to teams of faculty interested in developing interrelated courses on these themes.
Activities for Objective 3
(1) Use Course Development Grants to increase UNC-Chapel Hill course offerings that highlight themes of religious pluralism and freedom of conscience. To ensure widespread student participation, the new courses will meet various requirements (e.g., Diversity, Global Issues, Moral Reasoning, Literary Analysis) in the University’s revised general education curriculum to be implemented in 2006.
(2) Use Course Development Grants to revise and expand the reach of existing courses, such as “Catholicism in America” or “The Liberal Tradition in American Religion.”
(3) Conduct workshops for students, faculty, and interested members of the University community that, by building on ideas generated within the classroom, will provide a forum for more intensive exploration of subjects and themes treated in courses.
(4) Create new Course Clusters that (a) stress the many ways in which religious impulses have led to progressive and widely hailed changes in politics, intellectual life, and social policy, and (b) relate the historical (and ongoing) struggles of scientists/intellectuals and broad intellectual movements that have been constrained or persecuted by religious authorities. Reflecting the expertise and interests of UNC faculty from a broad range of departments and schools, the clusters will vary widely in subject content, but will likely include the following:
Religion and Social Change: A course cluster that would include a Women’s Studies course on “Women and Islam,” a History course on “Evangelicals and Social Reform in 19th century America,” and a Music course on “Gospel Music in the African-American Community.”
Scientific Discovery: A course cluster that would include a Religious Studies course on “Arabic Science in the Middle Ages,” a Geology course on “The Earth through Time,” and a History course on “Galileo and the Scientific Revolution.”
Evolution: A course cluster that would include a Biology course on “The Evolution of Vertebrates,” a History course on “Historical Time,” a Psychology course on “Mind and Body,” and a Philosophy course on “Selfhood, Mortality, and Identity.”
(6) Incorporate into the University Writing Program (a two-semester composition sequence taken by 85% of UNC-Chapel Hill students) a training program for teaching assistants and faculty that will demonstrate how issues of religious belief and freedom of inquiry can be integrated into classroom discussions and writing assignments.
Evaluation for Objective 3
(1) Number and types of new courses developed through Course Development Grants.
(2) Written course evaluation questions asking students to rate the effectiveness of course topics and themes, as well as the effectiveness of discussion techniques used in class.
(3) Exit polls after workshops and forums measuring student opinions about effectiveness and relevance of DDI activities.
(4) Evaluation questions asking students and faculty to rate the effectiveness of Course Clusters.
(5) Evaluation questions asking teaching assistants and faculty to rate the effectiveness of revisions to the University Writing Program.
Objective 4
Develop extra-curricular student life activities that stimulate informed discussions of controversial subjects and encourage the exchange of ideas and beliefs in a mutually respectful atmosphere.
This objective will enable students and student leaders to become citizens capable of productive dialogue when confronted with fundamental differences in a pluralistic society. The objective will also institutionalize a structure ensuring that student leaders develop skills and model productive dialogue and dispute resolution techniques when difficult issues on campus arise. It is expected that students will report numerous opportunities to learn the skills of respectful and productive dialogue and facilitation of discussions; students will report a stronger confidence in their own ability to conduct respectful discussions of difficult topics; and student organizations representing different faith or ethnic traditions will interact more productively than in the past. Emerging leaders in these organizations will expect to build bridges with other organizations through the Campus InterFaith Alliance and similar efforts. We also expect that students in the residence halls will report an atmosphere of respectful discussion of faith issues and become aware of the ability of resident advisors and other staff to provide productive assistance when difficult issues arise. Objective 4 activities will be organized and coordinated by Virginia Carson, Director of the Campus Y, with the support of Margaret Jablonski, the Vice-Chancellor for Student Affairs, and Melissa Exum, Dean of Students, beginning in Summer 2006 and continuing.
Activities for Objective 4
(1) Establish recurring opportunities for student leaders to build relationships among and between various campus organizations, ethnic, and cultural groups that will provide a foundation for dialogue on difficult issues.
(2) Student affairs personnel will support and help to plan workshops for student leaders that focus on the skills of respectful discussion and facilitation of dialogue on difficult issues. Examples are the STRETCH Conference (Students Reaching Toward Change) held in October by Campus Y, Carolina Leadership Development and UNC Student Government; the leadership training for Campus Y officers, co-chairs and various committees (more than 200 students over an academic year); and the organizational training work of the Carolina Union student organization staff.
(3) Student affairs personnel will support and encourage student efforts to build ties among faith organizations, such as the InterFaith Alliance. This new student venture engages all faith-based student organizations in outreach activities and campus discussions of faith issues designed to foster trust and build relationships between and among students of different faiths.
(4) The Department of Housing and Residential Education will expand its training of student and graduate student Resident Advisors in respectful dialogue about faith issues and other difficult topics. The Resident Advisors will then design programming for the students in the residence halls that allows for discussion and debate in a productive manner.
(5) The Dean of Students Office and Student Affairs personnel will institute the Student Organization Council to bring together the elected and emerging leaders of major student organizations on campus for a recurring series of programs. These students will be encouraged a) to build relationships among their organizations that promote productive dialogue on campus around difficult topics and b) to set the expectation that student leaders and organizations encourage and model respectful dialogue.
(6) Campus Y and other major student organizations will design and implement programs open to all students to examine issues of faith in public life, conflicts between faith concerns and the pursuit of research or academic inquiry, and similar topics. Student leaders will model and help the audience practice respectful dialogue about difficult topics.
Evaluation for Objective 4
(1) Participants in the various leadership training efforts such as the STRETCH Conference, student organization training and similar opportunities will assess the increase in their skill levels and confidence in handling difficult issues.
(2) Quantitative measures will assess the number of joint efforts and programs by student organizations of differing faiths, cultural traditions, and/or ethnic composition.
(3) Students in the residence halls will be surveyed regarding their training and participation in discussions of difficult issues and their awareness of resources to assist in such discussions.
(4) Emerging leaders in student life will be surveyed as to knowledge of and expectations about opportunities available to develop and practice skills of productive dialogue and facilitation.
Broad Outcomes Expected from DDI
1. Faculty and students will develop motivation and skills necessary to engage in a free, informed, and respectful exchange of beliefs and ideas in multiple settings on a university campus.
2. Classes and student activities will reflect the University’s commitment to open and respectful dialogue on all issues, including those that engage diverse religious beliefs and ethical decisions and values.
VI: Institutional Support
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is contributing a total of $162,491 to support implementation of the proposed Difficult Dialogues Initiative (DDI). The University’s contribution represents 62% of the total program budget of $260,407. UNC-Chapel Hill will contribute $30,000 from the Vice-Chancellor for Research and Economic Development to support the new position of DDI Program Coordinator, and $30,000 from the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences to support Faculty Development Grants for new and revised courses. The University is contributing $132,491 in salaries and fringe benefits for faculty and staff time dedicated to the project. With this proposal we request $97,916, representing 38% of the total budget, from the Ford Foundation.
VII: Evaluation
The evaluation plan for the DDI will address two levels of outcomes, pedagogical (teaching and learning) and programmatic (short- and long-term impact). Teaching and learning outcomes are more easily measured than the overall institutional impact of the program, but tools are available to provide both baseline data and progress toward these broad goals. The evaluation activities will be planned and coordinated by the Office of Institutional Research, the Center for Teaching and Learning, and the College of Arts and Sciences.
(1) Surveys developed by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA (“Spirituality in Higher Education”) will be used to provide baseline data regarding the beliefs and attitudes of faculty and students. The same surveys will also be used to assess changes in beliefs and attitudes over time.
(2) UNC will conduct a Longitudinal Cohort Study to track students’ intellectual development and academic performance through their work products and other indicators of their educational experiences from their first day of classes until graduation. This project is part of the overall evaluation of the new General Education Curriculum and is being designed and overseen by a group of faculty members who have expertise and experience in the use of this methodology. The first group to be followed over their undergraduate years will be a random sample of incoming first-year students in fall 2006. Students will:
• Submit selected work products to their own electronic portfolio located on a dedicated, secure server maintained by the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment. The electronic portfolio will be assessed by independent faculty judges who will measure performance against expected outcomes and rubrics.
• Complete periodic surveys on their opinions, academic performance, learning experiences, course-taking patterns, perceptions of courses, and the interplay of academics with research and extracurricular activities performed during college.
• Participate in focus groups and individual interviews to discuss their experiences in courses, perceptions about skills acquired during regular and experiential learning courses, and the extent to which they are making connections between various types of knowledge.
(3) All workshops, seminars, training sessions, and conferences will include participant evaluations of the training materials and activities. This information will help improve the delivery of these programs and will allow the DDI project leaders to monitor the effectiveness of different activities and make mid-program changes, if necessary.
(4) Outcomes related to undergraduate courses (e.g., inclusion of discussions of difficult topics) will be assessed using a new online evaluation system that provides maximum flexibility for adding questions relevant to the projects goals. UNC regularly administers the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), which includes several items that will be useful for assessing students’ educational experiences related to the project goals.
VIII: Budget
COSTS Request
PERSONNEL Jan 1 2006 Jan 1 2007 UNC-CH Ford
Faculty/Staff Contributed Time YEAR 1 YEAR 2 Contribute Found. TOTAL
Co-Principal Investigator - Wegner (11% & 11%) $15,000 $15,000 $30,000 $0 $30,000
Co-Principal Investigator - Andrews (3% time) $5,400 $5,400 $10,800 $0 $10,800
Faculty Development - Julia Wood (5% time) $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000
Course Renovation - Jay Smith (5% time) $4,100 $4,100 $8,200 $0 $8,200
Student Affairs - Virginia Carson (10% time) $5,500 $5,500 $11,000 $0 $11,000
Program Evaluation - Ed Neal (5% time) $5,240 $5,240 $10,480 $0 $10,480
Subtotal Faculty/Staff Contributed Time $40,240 $40,240 $80,480 $0 $80,480
New Positions Funded for this Project
DDI Program Coordinator (2006-2008) $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $60,000
Student Assistant (24 months) $6,000 $6,000 $0 $12,000 $12,000
Subtotal New Positions $36,000 $36,000 $30,000 $42,000 $72,000
SUBTOTAL SALARIES $76,240 $76,240 $110,480 $42,000 $152,480
FRINGE BENEFITS
SSI/Medicare/Retirement/Other (19% and 14%) $12,686 $12,686 $19,491 $5,880 $25,371
Health Insurance ($4,000 annual cost per FTE) $5,360 $5,360 $2,520 $8,200 $10,720
Subtotal Fringe Benefits $18,046 $18,046 $22,011 $14,080 $36,091
TOTAL PERSONNEL SALARIES AND BENEFITS $94,286 $94,286 $132,491 $56,080 $188,571
COURSE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS TO FACULTY
10 Course Development grants @ $3k / grant $30,000 $0 $30,000 $0 $30,000
HONORARIA AND CONSULTANTS
National Issues Forum Consultant $20,000 $0 $20,000 $20,000
SUPPLIES
Supplies for Student and Faculty Workshops $3,000 $3,000
Printing, Copying, Telephone, Office Supplies $4,514 $2,420
TOTAL SUPPLIES $7,514 $5,420 $0 $12,934 $12,934
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $151,800 $99,706 $162,491 $89,014 $251,505
Indirect Costs (10%) $8,901 $8,901
TOTAL COSTS $260,407
INCOME
Financial Support from UNC-CH $60,000
In-Kind Support from UNC-CH $102,491
Request to The Ford Foundation $97,915
TOTAL INCOME $162,491 $97,915 $260,407
VIII. CURRICULUM VITAE
William L. Andrews
E. Maynard Adams Professor of English
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
(1) Participants in the various leadership training efforts such as the STRETCH Conference, student organization training and similar opportunities will assess the increase in their skill levels and confidence in handling difficult issues.
(2) Quantitative measures will assess the number of joint efforts and programs by student organizations of differing faiths, cultural traditions, and/or ethnic composition.
(3) Students in the residence halls will be surveyed regarding their training and participation in discussions of difficult issues and their awareness of resources to assist in such discussions.
(4) Emerging leaders in student life will be surveyed as to knowledge of and expectations about opportunities available to develop and practice skills of productive dialogue and facilitation.
Broad Outcomes Expected from DDI
1. Faculty and students will develop motivation and skills necessary to engage in a free, informed, and respectful exchange of beliefs and ideas in multiple settings on a university campus.
2. Classes and student activities will reflect the University’s commitment to open and respectful dialogue on all issues, including those that engage diverse religious beliefs and ethical decisions and values.
VI: Institutional Support
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is contributing a total of $162,491 to support implementation of the proposed Difficult Dialogues Initiative (DDI). The University’s contribution represents 62% of the total program budget of $260,407. UNC-Chapel Hill will contribute $30,000 from the Vice-Chancellor for Research and Economic Development to support the new position of DDI Program Coordinator, and $30,000 from the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences to support Faculty Development Grants for new and revised courses. The University is contributing $132,491 in salaries and fringe benefits for faculty and staff time dedicated to the project. With this proposal we request $97,916, representing 38% of the total budget, from the Ford Foundation.
VII: Evaluation
The evaluation plan for the DDI will address two levels of outcomes, pedagogical (teaching and learning) and programmatic (short- and long-term impact). Teaching and learning outcomes are more easily measured than the overall institutional impact of the program, but tools are available to provide both baseline data and progress toward these broad goals. The evaluation activities will be planned and coordinated by the Office of Institutional Research, the Center for Teaching and Learning, and the College of Arts and Sciences.
(1) Surveys developed by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA (“Spirituality in Higher Education”) will be used to provide baseline data regarding the beliefs and attitudes of faculty and students. The same surveys will also be used to assess changes in beliefs and attitudes over time.
(2) UNC will conduct a Longitudinal Cohort Study to track students’ intellectual development and academic performance through their work products and other indicators of their educational experiences from their first day of classes until graduation. This project is part of the overall evaluation of the new General Education Curriculum and is being designed and overseen by a group of faculty members who have expertise and experience in the use of this methodology. The first group to be followed over their undergraduate years will be a random sample of incoming first-year students in fall 2006. Students will:
• Submit selected work products to their own electronic portfolio located on a dedicated, secure server maintained by the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment. The electronic portfolio will be assessed by independent faculty judges who will measure performance against expected outcomes and rubrics.
• Complete periodic surveys on their opinions, academic performance, learning experiences, course-taking patterns, perceptions of courses, and the interplay of academics with research and extracurricular activities performed during college.
• Participate in focus groups and individual interviews to discuss their experiences in courses, perceptions about skills acquired during regular and experiential learning courses, and the extent to which they are making connections between various types of knowledge.
(3) All workshops, seminars, training sessions, and conferences will include participant evaluations of the training materials and activities. This information will help improve the delivery of these programs and will allow the DDI project leaders to monitor the effectiveness of different activities and make mid-program changes, if necessary.
(4) Outcomes related to undergraduate courses (e.g., inclusion of discussions of difficult topics) will be assessed using a new online evaluation system that provides maximum flexibility for adding questions relevant to the projects goals. UNC regularly administers the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), which includes several items that will be useful for assessing students’ educational experiences related to the project goals.
VIII: Budget
COSTS Request
PERSONNEL Jan 1 2006 Jan 1 2007 UNC-CH Ford
Faculty/Staff Contributed Time YEAR 1 YEAR 2 Contribute Found. TOTAL
Co-Principal Investigator - Wegner (11% & 11%) $15,000 $15,000 $30,000 $0 $30,000
Co-Principal Investigator - Andrews (3% time) $5,400 $5,400 $10,800 $0 $10,800
Faculty Development - Julia Wood (5% time) $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000
Course Renovation - Jay Smith (5% time) $4,100 $4,100 $8,200 $0 $8,200
Student Affairs - Virginia Carson (10% time) $5,500 $5,500 $11,000 $0 $11,000
Program Evaluation - Ed Neal (5% time) $5,240 $5,240 $10,480 $0 $10,480
Subtotal Faculty/Staff Contributed Time $40,240 $40,240 $80,480 $0 $80,480
New Positions Funded for this Project
DDI Program Coordinator (2006-2008) $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $60,000
Student Assistant (24 months) $6,000 $6,000 $0 $12,000 $12,000
Subtotal New Positions $36,000 $36,000 $30,000 $42,000 $72,000
SUBTOTAL SALARIES $76,240 $76,240 $110,480 $42,000 $152,480
FRINGE BENEFITS
SSI/Medicare/Retirement/Other (19% and 14%) $12,686 $12,686 $19,491 $5,880 $25,371
Health Insurance ($4,000 annual cost per FTE) $5,360 $5,360 $2,520 $8,200 $10,720
Subtotal Fringe Benefits $18,046 $18,046 $22,011 $14,080 $36,091
TOTAL PERSONNEL SALARIES AND BENEFITS $94,286 $94,286 $132,491 $56,080 $188,571
COURSE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS TO FACULTY
10 Course Development grants @ $3k / grant $30,000 $0 $30,000 $0 $30,000
HONORARIA AND CONSULTANTS
National Issues Forum Consultant $20,000 $0 $20,000 $20,000
SUPPLIES
Supplies for Student and Faculty Workshops $3,000 $3,000
Printing, Copying, Telephone, Office Supplies $4,514 $2,420
TOTAL SUPPLIES $7,514 $5,420 $0 $12,934 $12,934
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $151,800 $99,706 $162,491 $89,014 $251,505
Indirect Costs (10%) $8,901 $8,901
TOTAL COSTS $260,407
INCOME
Financial Support from UNC-CH $60,000
In-Kind Support from UNC-CH $102,491
Request to The Ford Foundation $97,915
TOTAL INCOME $162,491 $97,915 $260,407
VIII. CURRICULUM VITAE
William L. Andrews
E. Maynard Adams Professor of English
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
Education
Ph.D., 1973, M.A., 1970, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill
B.A., 1968, Davidson College
Ph.D., 1973, M.A., 1970, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill
B.A., 1968, Davidson College
Professorial Positions
E. Maynard Adams Professor of English, UNC-Chapel Hill, 1996-
Joyce and Elizabeth Hall Professor of American Literature, U of Kansas, 1989-1996
Assistant Professor-Professor, University of Wisconsin Madison, 1977 1988
Assistant Professor, Texas Tech University, 1973 77
E. Maynard Adams Professor of English, UNC-Chapel Hill, 1996-
Joyce and Elizabeth Hall Professor of American Literature, U of Kansas, 1989-1996
Assistant Professor-Professor, University of Wisconsin Madison, 1977 1988
Assistant Professor, Texas Tech University, 1973 77
Selected Grants, Awards, and Honors
Co-PI, $111,000 NEH grant for electronic edition, North American Slave Narratives (with UNC-CH Library), 1998
American Library Association Outstanding Reference Source, 1997, for The Oxford Companion to African American Literature
Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, 1994-95
William Riley Parker Prize, 1990, for outstanding article of the year in PMLA
Senior Fellow, U of Wisconsin Institute for Research in the Humanities, 1988
University of Wisconsin Chancellor's Award for Distinguished Teaching, 1988 Norman Choice Outstanding Academic Book, 1986, for To Tell a Free Story
American Council of Learned Societies Research Fellowship, 1984 85 Foerster Prize, 1976, for best article of the year in American Literature
NEH Research Fellowship, 1980-81
Co-PI, $111,000 NEH grant for electronic edition, North American Slave Narratives (with UNC-CH Library), 1998
American Library Association Outstanding Reference Source, 1997, for The Oxford Companion to African American Literature
Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, 1994-95
William Riley Parker Prize, 1990, for outstanding article of the year in PMLA
Senior Fellow, U of Wisconsin Institute for Research in the Humanities, 1988
University of Wisconsin Chancellor's Award for Distinguished Teaching, 1988 Norman Choice Outstanding Academic Book, 1986, for To Tell a Free Story
American Council of Learned Societies Research Fellowship, 1984 85 Foerster Prize, 1976, for best article of the year in American Literature
NEH Research Fellowship, 1980-81
Selected UNC-Chapel Hill Service
Senior Associate Dean for Fine Arts and Humanities, 2005-
Chair, University Assessment Policy Committee, 2005-
University Priorities and Budget Policy Committee, 2005-
Chair of English Department, 1997-2001
Dean’s Council of Chairs, College of Arts and Sciences, 2000-2001
Faculty Grievance Committee, 2001-2004
Provost’s Search Committee for Associate Provosts, 2001
Faculty Committee on Research, 1997-2000
Senior Associate Dean for Fine Arts and Humanities, 2005-
Chair, University Assessment Policy Committee, 2005-
University Priorities and Budget Policy Committee, 2005-
Chair of English Department, 1997-2001
Dean’s Council of Chairs, College of Arts and Sciences, 2000-2001
Faculty Grievance Committee, 2001-2004
Provost’s Search Committee for Associate Provosts, 2001
Faculty Committee on Research, 1997-2000
Selected Professional Service
President, Society for the Study of Southern Literature, 2003-2004
Committee on Diversity and Tolerance, Modern Language Association (MLA), 2001-2003
Co-Director, NEH Institute for High School Teachers, National Humanities Center, summer 1999
National Council, American Studies Association (ASA), 1993-96
Steering Committee, Consortium of Humanities Centers and Institutes, 1993-96
Chair, American Literature Section, MLA, 1995
Committee on Scholarly Editions, MLA, 1992-97
Director, NEH Seminars for College Teachers, U of Kansas, summer 1991, 1993
President, Society for the Study of Southern Literature, 2003-2004
Committee on Diversity and Tolerance, Modern Language Association (MLA), 2001-2003
Co-Director, NEH Institute for High School Teachers, National Humanities Center, summer 1999
National Council, American Studies Association (ASA), 1993-96
Steering Committee, Consortium of Humanities Centers and Institutes, 1993-96
Chair, American Literature Section, MLA, 1995
Committee on Scholarly Editions, MLA, 1992-97
Director, NEH Seminars for College Teachers, U of Kansas, summer 1991, 1993
Selected Editorial Positions
General Editor, Casebooks in Criticism, Oxford University Press, 1999-2004 (18 volumes published)
Editorial Board, African American National Biography, 2002
Series Editor, North American Slave Narratives, in “Documenting the American South,” Database and Electronic Text Project with UNC-CH Library (http://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/neh.html), 1998
Editorial Board, American Literature, 1990-1992
General Editor, Wisconsin Studies in Autobiography, University of Wisconsin Press, 1988 (40 volumes published)
Editorial Board, African American Review (formerly Black American Literature Forum), 1976
General Editor, Casebooks in Criticism, Oxford University Press, 1999-2004 (18 volumes published)
Editorial Board, African American National Biography, 2002
Series Editor, North American Slave Narratives, in “Documenting the American South,” Database and Electronic Text Project with UNC-CH Library (http://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/neh.html), 1998
Editorial Board, American Literature, 1990-1992
General Editor, Wisconsin Studies in Autobiography, University of Wisconsin Press, 1988 (40 volumes published)
Editorial Board, African American Review (formerly Black American Literature Forum), 1976
Selected Publications (selected from more than 40 authored, edited, or co-edited books)
James Weldon Johnson. Ed. New York: Library of America, 2004.
The Norton Anthology of African American Literature, Co Ed. New York: W. W. Norton, 2003,1997.
Slave Narratives, Co-Ed. New York: Library of America., 2000.
The Literature of the American South: A Norton Anthology, Gen. Ed., with Introduction. New York: W. W. Norton, 1997.
The Oxford Companion to African American Literature, Co-Ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
The Oxford Frederick Douglass Reader, Ed., with Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Six Women's Slave Narratives. Ed., with Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Sisters of the Spirit: Three Black Women's Autobiographies of the Nineteenth Century. Ed., with Introduction. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986.
To Tell a Free Story: The First Century of Afro American Autobiography, 1760-1865. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1986.
The Literary Career of Charles W. Chesnutt. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1980.
James Weldon Johnson. Ed. New York: Library of America, 2004.
The Norton Anthology of African American Literature, Co Ed. New York: W. W. Norton, 2003,1997.
Slave Narratives, Co-Ed. New York: Library of America., 2000.
The Literature of the American South: A Norton Anthology, Gen. Ed., with Introduction. New York: W. W. Norton, 1997.
The Oxford Companion to African American Literature, Co-Ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
The Oxford Frederick Douglass Reader, Ed., with Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Six Women's Slave Narratives. Ed., with Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Sisters of the Spirit: Three Black Women's Autobiographies of the Nineteenth Century. Ed., with Introduction. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986.
To Tell a Free Story: The First Century of Afro American Autobiography, 1760-1865. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1986.
The Literary Career of Charles W. Chesnutt. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1980.
60 refereed articles, notes, and book reviews; 30 essays and chapters in books; more than 70 professional papers and invited lectures.
CURRICULUM VITAE
Judith Welch Wegner
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Chair of the Faculty, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (2003- ) (elected position as leader of 3000 member faculty spanning full range of arts and sciences, professional schools, and health-related disciplines). Responsible for addressing campus issues relevant to faculty, fostering collaboration, working with and advising university leaders on full range of topics affecting world-class public research university including such matters as academic freedom, tuition levels, relationships between academics and athletics, student life, diversity, conflict management, faculty retention, intellectual life, public service, mentoring, senior appointments, student and faculty relations, legislative relations, scholarly communication, and more
CURRICULUM VITAE
Judith Welch Wegner
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Chair of the Faculty, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (2003- ) (elected position as leader of 3000 member faculty spanning full range of arts and sciences, professional schools, and health-related disciplines). Responsible for addressing campus issues relevant to faculty, fostering collaboration, working with and advising university leaders on full range of topics affecting world-class public research university including such matters as academic freedom, tuition levels, relationships between academics and athletics, student life, diversity, conflict management, faculty retention, intellectual life, public service, mentoring, senior appointments, student and faculty relations, legislative relations, scholarly communication, and more
University Leadership. Chaired university committees including those responsible for revision of campus Honor Code, status of women, and community and diversity. Working with colleagues, designed and implemented leadership development program aimed at female faculty members and administrators across the state. Led Public Service Roundtable, a grassroots initiative that involved more than 100 faculty members, as means of enhancing effective integration of service and engagement as key aspect of University mission
Senior Scholar, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Menlo Park, California
Principal Investigator, Study of Legal Education, Program on Preparation for the Professions. (1999-2001, on leave from University of North Carolina) Responsible for design and execution of multi-year empirical study of legal education focusing on teaching and learning in American and Canadian law schools. Working with multi-disciplinary research team, assisted in planning and executing multi-faceted comparative study on preparation for law, engineering, ministry and K-12 teaching.
Dean, School of Law, University of North Carolina (1989-1999). Provided leadership and oversight with regard to full range of duties generally associated with a major college or university, including academic program, student recruitment, faculty and staff recruitment and retention, library oversight, improvement of physical facilities, fundraising, external relations, financial oversight, alumni and governmental relations.
Worked with faculty and students to design and implement innovative courses that featured active learning, professional ethics curriculum with associated programs in “professionalism” and mentoring. Expanded interdisciplinary offerings, and co-curricular programs including student pro bono initiative and related programs that received award for best program in the nation in 2000.
Senior Scholar, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Menlo Park, California
Principal Investigator, Study of Legal Education, Program on Preparation for the Professions. (1999-2001, on leave from University of North Carolina) Responsible for design and execution of multi-year empirical study of legal education focusing on teaching and learning in American and Canadian law schools. Working with multi-disciplinary research team, assisted in planning and executing multi-faceted comparative study on preparation for law, engineering, ministry and K-12 teaching.
Dean, School of Law, University of North Carolina (1989-1999). Provided leadership and oversight with regard to full range of duties generally associated with a major college or university, including academic program, student recruitment, faculty and staff recruitment and retention, library oversight, improvement of physical facilities, fundraising, external relations, financial oversight, alumni and governmental relations.
Worked with faculty and students to design and implement innovative courses that featured active learning, professional ethics curriculum with associated programs in “professionalism” and mentoring. Expanded interdisciplinary offerings, and co-curricular programs including student pro bono initiative and related programs that received award for best program in the nation in 2000.
Law Professor (1981- ). Taught courses in first year legal method, property law, land use law, state and local government law, rights of individuals with disabilities. Designed strategies for effective instruction in courses that include both law students and graduate students from other disciplines. Developed expertise in public administration, organizational behavior, the professions, and dispute resolution in preparation for future teaching. Published scholarly works in the areas of state and local government law, public-private partnerships, rights of individuals with disabilities, legal education, the legal profession, and organizational behavior.
President, Association of American Law Schools (and related service) (1986-1996): Led legal education’s learned society, an organization of 160 member schools with more than 5000 affiliated faculty in the United States and Canada; founded “Resource Corps” (group of trained faculty facilitators for member schools)
Adviser and Attorney. (1976-1980). Served as Special Assistant to U.S. Secretary of Education Shirley M. Hufstedler during creation of Education Department from earlier Department of Health, Education and Welfare; attorney-adviser in United States Department of Justice; judicial law clerk to federal district judge.
EDUCATION
J. D., 1976, UCLA School of Law (Los Angeles, California); Member, Order of the Coif
B. A., with honors, 1972, University of Wisconsin (Madison, Wisconsin); Member, Phi Beta Kappa
J. D., 1976, UCLA School of Law (Los Angeles, California); Member, Order of the Coif
B. A., with honors, 1972, University of Wisconsin (Madison, Wisconsin); Member, Phi Beta Kappa
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
Wegner, RETHINKING “THINKING LIKE A LAWYER”: AMERICAN LEGAL EDUCATION FOR A NEW CENTURY (in progress)
Mandelker, Netsch, Salsich, Wegner, Griffith & Stevenson, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN A FEDERAL SYSTEM (6TH ED.) (Lexis Publishing, forthcoming 2006) (and earlier editions) (chapters on public employees and federalism)
Wegner, Partnering with the Old North State, chapter 7 of Higher Education Collaboratives for Community Engagement and Improvement, National Forum for Higher Education for the Public Good, 2005 (available at http://www.thenationalforum.org/Wingspread_05_Final_Monograph.pdf )
Wegner, Faculty Retention: A Preliminary Report (empirical study issued in October 2004) available at http://www.unc.edu/faculty/faccoun/reports/R04Retention1.htm
Wegner, Rethinking Assessment: Lessons for the Bar Examination, National Conference on Legal Education and the Bar Examination, Joint Working Group Conference, October 2004 (sponsored by National Conference of Bar Examiners, Association of American Law Schools, and American Bar Association)
Wegner, Moderator and Presenter, Plenary Session, The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Association of American Law Schools, 2002 Annual Meeting
SELECTED PROFESSIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AFFILIATIONS
Member, National Advisory Board, LexisNexis Law School Advisory Board (2005 - )
Faculty Fellow, Parr Center on Ethics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (2005- )
Distinguished Service Award, North Carolina Municipal Attorneys Association, 2004
Order of the Long Leaf Pine (conferred by Governor Hunt, 1999)
Cornelia Phillips Spencer Award, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1999
Honorary Degree, Dickinson College, 1994
Who’s Who (Who’s Who in America, in American Education, in American Law, of American Women)
Member of the Bar: California, District of Columbia, North Carolina, United States Supreme Court
Wegner, RETHINKING “THINKING LIKE A LAWYER”: AMERICAN LEGAL EDUCATION FOR A NEW CENTURY (in progress)
Mandelker, Netsch, Salsich, Wegner, Griffith & Stevenson, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN A FEDERAL SYSTEM (6TH ED.) (Lexis Publishing, forthcoming 2006) (and earlier editions) (chapters on public employees and federalism)
Wegner, Partnering with the Old North State, chapter 7 of Higher Education Collaboratives for Community Engagement and Improvement, National Forum for Higher Education for the Public Good, 2005 (available at http://www.thenationalforum.org/Wingspread_05_Final_Monograph.pdf )
Wegner, Faculty Retention: A Preliminary Report (empirical study issued in October 2004) available at http://www.unc.edu/faculty/faccoun/reports/R04Retention1.htm
Wegner, Rethinking Assessment: Lessons for the Bar Examination, National Conference on Legal Education and the Bar Examination, Joint Working Group Conference, October 2004 (sponsored by National Conference of Bar Examiners, Association of American Law Schools, and American Bar Association)
Wegner, Moderator and Presenter, Plenary Session, The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Association of American Law Schools, 2002 Annual Meeting
SELECTED PROFESSIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AFFILIATIONS
Member, National Advisory Board, LexisNexis Law School Advisory Board (2005 - )
Faculty Fellow, Parr Center on Ethics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (2005- )
Distinguished Service Award, North Carolina Municipal Attorneys Association, 2004
Order of the Long Leaf Pine (conferred by Governor Hunt, 1999)
Cornelia Phillips Spencer Award, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1999
Honorary Degree, Dickinson College, 1994
Who’s Who (Who’s Who in America, in American Education, in American Law, of American Women)
Member of the Bar: California, District of Columbia, North Carolina, United States Supreme Court
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Office of Faculty Governance, CB 9170, 201 Carr Bldg., University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-9170; phone (919-962-1671); FAX (919-962-5479); e-mail: Judith_wegner@unc.edu
School of Law, CB 3380, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3380
Phone: (919-962-4113); Judith_wegner@unc.edu
http://www.unc.edu/~jwegner/
Office of Faculty Governance, CB 9170, 201 Carr Bldg., University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-9170; phone (919-962-1671); FAX (919-962-5479); e-mail: Judith_wegner@unc.edu
School of Law, CB 3380, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3380
Phone: (919-962-4113); Judith_wegner@unc.edu
http://www.unc.edu/~jwegner/
December 30, 2005
Dear Folks in Ohio,
As the year quickly winds down, I thought I’d take a few minutes and talk about what we’ve been doing here on Mars Hill. Our Christmas was wonderfully serene. Nic was with us on Christmas Eve, and brought us a new Eddie Izzard DVD. Izzard is a genius.
Addie’s fruitcake is just about gone, and Heather was picking at some of the last crumbs at dinner. George Lopos really thought it was the best he’d ever had. Heather wanted to know what the trick was to getting on the list. Jay Bauer, Kate Holt, and Mary Agnes Larson were with us for Christmas. Stell fixed a turkey and Mary Larson smashed enough potatoes for the Greek army. Jay had to cut the bread, because Rafe is in Singapore with his new bride, Dyan. Kate gave us a lovely bottle of single malt scotch, and Jay and Kate brought the “good” candy from Indiana.
Addie’s fruitcake is just about gone, and Heather was picking at some of the last crumbs at dinner. George Lopos really thought it was the best he’d ever had. Heather wanted to know what the trick was to getting on the list. Jay Bauer, Kate Holt, and Mary Agnes Larson were with us for Christmas. Stell fixed a turkey and Mary Larson smashed enough potatoes for the Greek army. Jay had to cut the bread, because Rafe is in Singapore with his new bride, Dyan. Kate gave us a lovely bottle of single malt scotch, and Jay and Kate brought the “good” candy from Indiana.
The cheese and sausage box sent by Mom and Dad, we had to share with Nic. What is really funny is the box this comes in came open slightly, and the day after it was delivered we found a small package with a little sausage and a note from our mailman, Mark, explaining how the sausage had rolled out in his truck and he had retrieved it for us! We and Nic also got Christmas cookies, and Stell hides his so Nic won’t get any that don’t come to his address. Nic was a little testy because Grandpa didn’t put in any raisin cookies, but he may bake some for us to bring back in February.
Last night Curtis and Irene, and Heather, Scott, and Cathy came for dinner. I pulled up my “Addie-cooking-courage” and fixed fish. I rarely prepare fish for guests, because I’m not as confident with fish recipes. Now I must brag and say that this turned out to be what Stell calls a “keeper”. I fixed tilapia prepared in a tomato, garlic and onion base. The side dishes were some braised Greek potatoes and a salad made of broccoli, cauliflower, crumbled bacon and diced hardboiled eggs. The salad sauce was a sweet mayonnaise with white wine vinegar. I should say that four tablespoons of retsina and lemons flavored the baking fish. I also made two loaves of bread.
Tonight we are supposed to go to John Olive’s for dinner. He and his wife, Deb, were with us in Greece last summer and they have some movies of our place that we want to see. They are actually traveling back tonight from Fripp Island
Doug and Pam want us to “babysit” with them on New Year’s Eve. They now have four grandchildren. The oldest is four, the next is three, and the twin boys aren’t even one. I think we are going to pass on the invitation, however, because we both have finally gotten over the holiday colds from hell, and just don’t want to find similar germs again. My work with the medics in the Army has taught me that the number one carrier of viruses are little rug rats.
Today we took this darling little twelve-year old boy, Niko, to the movies to see Fun with Dick and Jane. Perfect for Stell. Rich Rusk has called about getting Kate Holt to go fly fishing. Stell is fidgeting with his printer that isn’t working. The birds around the house sound like they think it is spring, but I think mother nature is going to zap them all with a big snow or ice storm soon.
I’m going to try and catch up on all my notes to people like David and Estella Adams, friends in Germany , and John Dedrick and Kim Downing in Lebanon , Ohio Germany , the Pappayannis’ family sent a nativity scene with candles, and a little nutcracker that “smokes”. People who smoke are nutcrackers, so that seems appropriate. John and Kim are my friends who adopted two little Chinese girls, and they again sent a wonderful photograph of Abby and Ellie.
I’m concentrating on my three 2006 projects. I’m evaluating a National Science Foundation grant for Pam Kleiber in the Honor’s Program. That’s a great assignment, because it will involve going to a two or three day seminar here in Athens – no other travel, so basically I can do the job from my basement. A trip to Chapel Hill , NC Law School Kettering at the end of March, and my friend Alana Cleary and I will drive down and spend a day or two with Addie. Stell and I will fly to Akron at the very end of January to visit the Tritt Clan and Paris and Stacy. Other than a regular dental appointment and a new hair do, that’s the plans for January. I have three home projects for 2006. Converting my stove top from electricity to gas, new French doors onto the deck, and the removal of the piano (which will give me a chance to do something new in the dining room.) Nic thought he wanted the piano, but has changed his mind. However, my former student Lesli Terrell-Payne has announced that she will take it off my hands.
I’ve finished reading Ella Minnow Pea (quite clever for English majors), and now at the insistence of Mary Hepburn I’m reading the book Coal. I read Kurlansky’s two books, Cod and Salt, and Coal is in the same vein (get it?)
Democracy is not the natural condition of society.� It is produced by values learned from historical experience or philosophical speculation.� It is difficult to achieve and hard to maintain.� It depends not on free elections but on a series of developments in civil society.� These include general acceptance in society of the principles of majority government and alternation of power, and that political differences must be settled or accommodated non-lethally.� It means agreement that civil law must prevail in disputes involving even the powerful, that the distinction between public and private property must be defended, and that speech and the press must be free.� This democratic culture is the consequence of historical experience and education.� It is not a political program easily imported.� William Pfaff��
From Liberal Opinion, January 4, 2006 (p. 21).� Article titled “G.W. Bush and the Myth of Natural Democracy.”
Oh I just couldn't, heck she's only sixteen.
I'll take Shakespeare for 1000, Alex.
Duct tape won't fix that.
I think I'll have a Heineken.
We don't have firearms in this house.
You can't feed that to the dog.
No kids in the back of the pickup it's not safe.
Wrasslin's fake.
Honey did you mail that donation to Greenpeace.
Do you think my guts too big.
Honey we don't need another dog.
Who's Dale Earnhardt?
Too many deer heads detract from the decor.
I just couldn't find a thing at Walmart today.
Trim the fat off that steak.
Cappuccino tastes better than Expresso.
The tires on that truck are too big.
My fiance Bobbie Jo is registered at Tiffanys.
Little Debbie's have too many fat grams.
She's too young to be wearing a bikini.
Hey here's an episode of "Hee Haw" we haven't seen.
Those shorts ought to be a little longer Darla.
Nope, no more for me, I'm driving tonight.
I'll take Shakespeare for 1000, Alex.
Duct tape won't fix that.
I think I'll have a Heineken.
We don't have firearms in this house.
You can't feed that to the dog.
No kids in the back of the pickup it's not safe.
Wrasslin's fake.
Honey did you mail that donation to Greenpeace.
Do you think my guts too big.
Honey we don't need another dog.
Who's Dale Earnhardt?
Too many deer heads detract from the decor.
I just couldn't find a thing at Walmart today.
Trim the fat off that steak.
Cappuccino tastes better than Expresso.
The tires on that truck are too big.
My fiance Bobbie Jo is registered at Tiffanys.
Little Debbie's have too many fat grams.
She's too young to be wearing a bikini.
Hey here's an episode of "Hee Haw" we haven't seen.
Those shorts ought to be a little longer Darla.
Nope, no more for me, I'm driving tonight.
posted by Margaret Holt | 2:24 PM
|
0 comments
