CCRI Strategic Plan

by Joe Allen

The Community College of Rhode Island is currently preparing a strategic plan. To get things rolling, open forums are scheduled this week (3/21/2017-3/24/2017). This post provides input from a former faculty member. The format is based on the committee’s request:

Here are some questions to prompt your thinking:

• Strengths: What does CCRI do well? How do you know it is being done well?
• Weaknesses: In what areas does CCRI need to improve? How much improvement is needed?
• Opportunities: Are there circumstances in the marketplace where CCRI can benefit or that the college can take advantage of?
• Threats: What external factors are standing in the way or blocking CCRI from making forward progress?
• Challenges: What is the greatest single challenge facing CCRI moving forward?

Strengths: What does CCRI do well? How do you know it is being done well?

CCRI has always prided itself on affordability. Its low tuition rates are among the best among community colleges in New England.

Over the years, the college has developed an extensive accommodations program. Faculty support for this initiative is exemplary (ask the students)

Weaknesses: In what areas does CCRI need to improve? How much improvement is needed?

This is the major segment of this post. Based on this faculty member’s experience, the following problems significantly impaired the institution from being as great as many folks thought they were.

(1) A divided and disheartened faculty cannot build the collegial atmosphere necessary for a healthy professional environment. The most current politically driven wedge is retention and completion mandates. The obsession with management-driven metrics undermines the learning environment for both faculty and students.[A Corporate Model for Higher Education II]

Traditional wedges in the faculty ranks were well-stated by Rob Jenkins in A Song of Vice and Mire

For those reasons, the Soviet model, which may on the surface seem to embrace    shared governance, is, if anything, even more inimical to it than feudalism is.

It’s easy to tell, by the way, if your college has adopted one of those two models:

• The same people tend to be named to the most important committees, over and over.
• Those people, instead of more-qualified colleagues, are ultimately rewarded for their “service” with promotions or other key appointments.
• The committees always seem to reach conclusions or submit reports that are widely praised by the leader.
• Those who disagree find themselves released or disinvited from future committee service, while known dissidents are never invited to serve in the first place.
• Anyone who dissents too loudly or too publicly is punished, often in a highly visible way, in order to serve as an object lesson to others.

Does any of this sound familiar?

(2) Which brings us to the next problem, governance. Over the years, CCRI has experimented with governance structures. The problem is that the systems were defined but never really implemented. Why?

Competing “governance committees”!

The official committees provided the public documents to “define institutional policy”. However, a de facto committee, the Department Chairs, directly circumvented these policies when it interfered with their agenda. Direct communication between administrators and department chairs was sufficient to define the “exceptions to the rule”.

This problem is not unique to CCRI.

Because, truth be told, for all of their many fine points and all the good they do for society, community colleges have historically been rather bad at governance, to say the least. On many two-year campuses, if not most, corruption, cronyism, abuse of power, and fiefdom-building constitute business as usual.

Filling the Yawning Leadership Gap, Rob Jenkins

(3) A Vision and Mission that all constituents of the community college can support is essential, but nonexistent.

A simple mission statement focused on education is best.

Mission: CCRI is dedicated to providing quality education for the personal and professional growth of all students.

The vision statement should communicate confidence in CCRI as essential to Rhode Island’s future.

Vision: CCRI is the foundation on which Rhode Island’s Hope is built.

Opportunities: Are there circumstances in the marketplace where CCRI can benefit or that the college can take advantage of?

CCRI can benefit from the demand for both citizenship and entrepreneurial growth.

Focus on specific communities in Rhode Island. Engage community leaders in each city and town with one question: what does your community need to build its future? Then identify education needs that support the answers to that question. Review current programs and courses at CCRI to determine what is available to fill those needs. If special programs and/or courses are required, encourage faculty to develop them. If faculty are engaged in all phases of the education program, they will embrace their vocation as educators.

Threats: What external factors are standing in the way or blocking CCRI from making forward progress?

(1) Political intrusion from the state’s reigning political party. There are too many political agendas transmitted through the Board of Education. To appreciate the problems caused by political intrusion, look closely at the current Board of Education. Examine the number of Board policies that were established in response to legislation which was not vetted by faculty.

To their credit, a small group of legislators have introduced a bill to ensure board members are qualified to direct higher education operations. House Bill No. 5906 Requires each member of the board of education to have experience in a position of higher education. Although it’s been held for further study, it is a move in the right direction.

(2) The current exclusive bargaining representative was a major thorn in the side of faculty; it contributed to division in faculty. The fact that the union contract was established in the ‘70s by senior faculty (some of whom are still there) is the albatross around the necks of new faculty. They are forced to support a system they didn’t select. Of course, the fear of disaffiliation is a major source of distrust among faculty and between faculty and the administration.

Challenges: What is the greatest single challenge facing CCRI moving forward?

Building a culture of trust among faculty, staff , and administrators. Tom Sepe once claimed he wanted folks to think outside the box. My challenge was less ambitious: get folks to step away from the corner of the box in which they’ve been hiding for years. Fear is the driving force that inhibits collegial dialogue. I doubt that much has changed since I left.

The reader is encouraged to visit Strategic Planning 2017 for updates. Don’t be afraid to share your views with the committee.

Joe Allen, Ph.D. was a faculty member at CCRI. He retired in December 2015 and currently resides in California.

CCRI: College, Workforce Development Center, or Political Pawn?

by Joe Allen

The Sunday edition of the Providence Journal, 2/19/2017, heralds the free college initiative of Governor Gina Raimondo. The one-sided presentation offers anecdotal evidence of the support this initiative has in Rhode Island.

Of particular interest is the following quote with respect to a shortfall in the Raimondo education agenda: Raimondo’s plan to make the Community College of Rhode Island a workforce center, however, has progressed more slowly.

Workforce Development

It isn’t clear what Governor Raimondo’s objective is in redefining CCRI as a workforce center. CCRI has always had a workforce development program. The current Center for Workforce and Community Education is a continuation and expansion of the workforce development programs which CCRI had in place when I was employed there. The division used to be known as the Center for Workforce Development.

When I first arrived at CCRI, I taught Precalculus and Calculus at Cherry Semiconductor in East Greenwich. The company had a specific educational objective: provide courses for technicians to enter engineering programs.

Later, I had the opportunity to teach Technical Mathematics in a program designed for Verizon employees interested in acquiring an Associate’s degree. The program was designed by Verizon, and their employee union, for technicians. The objective was to transform technicians into engineering-level problem solvers.

The current certificate programs in the Engineering & Technology Department provide a wide range of options for students enrolled at CCRI. These are designed to fulfill industry needs. For example, the Cisco CCNA program is designed to prepare students for Cisco CCNA certification. More importantly, “All courses in this certificate can be applied to the Computer and Networking Technology A.A.S. degree”[ About the Certificate] (The reader is encourage to review nursing, legal studies, computer studies, etc. at CCRI)

Each of these examples contain specific educational objectives satisfying clearly defined industry needs. The Governor’s current education agenda lacks similar specific focus:

• What is the economic development program that demands transforming CCRI into a  technical training center?
• Which businesses have identified specific needs that cannot be served through the Center for Workforce and Community Education under Business & Corporate Training?
• Besides building a small business loan customer base for Goldman-Sachs, what is the real purpose of the Goldman-Sachs 10,000 Small Businesses program?

Until dialogue on these issues begins, there is no justification for redefining CCRI as a “workforce center”.

The College

The current academic programs at CCRI support workforce certificate programs. But is that the primary mission of CCRI? No!

The primary mission of the college is to prepare students for academic work at the four year college/university. By providing a solid academic foundation for the first 2 years of a four-year program, CCRI supports the goals of students to complete the baccalaureate degree. Is the Baccalaureate simply a technical certificate to qualify for employment? No!

A student who earns a B.A. or a B.S. is prepared for more than technical work. To embrace their responsibilities as U.S. citizens and as Rhode Island residents, students should have a strong liberal arts background.

As they embrace their social and political responsibilities, they need more than technical knowledge for particular jobs. They need to understand their place in history. They need to be able to think deeply about the impact of their decisions on family and community, so they need philosophy. In the diverse communities in which they live, they need foreign language and social science. They need all of this to function as community leaders in service to their community’s common good.

Political Pawn

Community colleges in general continue to be used as political pawns by ambitious politicians. CCRI in particular has been used by Governors and the General Assembly as a scapegoat for ill-defined (or undefined) social and economic initiatives.

Over the years, the Governor’s Workforce Board has collected information from “connected” industry leaders who support whatever agenda emanates from the Governor’s office. Many of the reports identify “soft skills” as key skills which workers need. The irony is that a strong liberal arts background meets, and often exceeds, the “soft skills” requirement.

Current legislation introduced in the General Assembly points to the real deficiencies in the higher educational agenda. House Bill No. 5422 and House Bill No. 5471 are titled AN ACT RELATING TO EDUCATION – BOARD OF EDUCATION QUALIFICATIONS (Requires each member of the board of education to have experience in a position of higher education.). The fact that the governing board for higher education does not contain members with sufficient background raises the obvious question: What drives higher education policy decisions on the Board?

The answer has always been clear: Politics. A number of policy initiatives originated in the General Assembly including performance based funding and the metrics associated with that funding. This is not how a responsible independent governing board should function.

In addition, the political appointment of the current President of CCRI testifies to the need for the legislation above. The President’s limited background in higher education administration required CCRI to hire a consultant to support the development of a strategic plan(see CCRI President: College or Corporate President In Training?). If Development Institute is the contractor, the DI Associates L. Denton Crews and Katherine L. German, Philip A. Sbaratta, Charmian B. Sperling, and Anita S. Kaplan identify the extent of the experience gap at CCRI.

Closing Thoughts

If the professionals in higher education are going to provide the best education services to meet Rhode Island’s needs, politicians need to back off. These educators know more than just academics. They know the value of academics for the personal and professional growth of students in their charge. Let these professionals engage in collegial dialogue and communicate their insights for Rhode Island’s growth. It’s time to treat them as professionals.

When I first started at CCRI, I asked if there was a joint opening meeting of all three schools (URI, RIC, CCRI) at the beginning of the academic year. I recommended a joint opening at the Convention Center with breakout sessions among the academic departments. I still believe this is critical for higher education in Rhode Island and for the health of the state.

Joe Allen, Ph.D. was a faculty member at CCRI. He retired in December 2015 and currently resides in California.

FERC4 TRIAL DATE SET FOR JUNE 21st

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 13, 2017
Subject: FERC4 will conduct their own defense at June trial
Contact: Don Weightman, donald.weightman@gmail.com, (215) 292-4110

Washington, D.C.—At the status hearing today in Superior Court, the FERC4, Claude Guillemard, Peter Nightingale, Ellen Taylor, Donald Weightman, committed to represent themselves at their criminal trial, scheduled for June 21, 2017.

The FERC4 were arrested during a peaceful protest at the headquarters of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in May, 2016. The action was part of the Rubber Stamp Rebellion, a demonstration led by the activist group Beyond Extreme Energy. The FERC4 have been charged with “unlawful entry,”

Attorney Mark Goldstone will advise the FERC4 and represent Ellen Taylor, who stated: “We need to show the world that FERC is on trial.”

The FERC4 denounce FERC for approving fracked gas pipeline projects that poison water, pollute air, and overheat the planet. This federal agency has resisted every attempt to make it accountable to the public.

Nightingale, a professor of physics at the University of Rhode Island, said: “Thinking about the future, and my grandchildren in particular, I do not know how to explain the destruction we are visiting upon the Earth they shall inherit.”

To stay in touch with the FERC4 and to receive updates or to support their legal defense fund visit their web site: http://ferc4.org
###

New Techniques Enhance Student Apathy By Steven Forleo

Originally published in The Satirist 

22 December 2016

According to state patrician, Adrastia Aurelia Faustulus, a new approach to increase student apathy is about to roll over factory facilitators at the Corporate College of Rogue Isle.

Contacted at RI’s alabaster palazzo, the tony, ivy beleaguered refused to answer any questions but released the following edict:

There is no will in free choice. The state knows what’s best for job creation. We will give you the future we plan for you. Our aim is force-feeding radical conformism without delay.

This piqued the curiosity of The Baggy Pants Farcical Follies, so it sent its intrepid reporter to gather moss on a rolling stone.

In a hasty electronic interview with Dr. Persky C. Deltoid, Corporate College of Rogue Isle’s Chief Extinguishing Officer, he offered the following internal media response.

“All current and future state customers [formally known as student learners] upon fingerprinting, will immediately be administered a calculated dose of Corpova coffee milk-plus through sippy cups three times a day, which allows our Master Scheduler unilateral autonomy to comfortably infuse staja-block scheduling of one-size-fits-all demagogic laced instruction.”

“The college is looking to guide the right and only pathway for the incorrigible,” stated the oblique Deltoid.

When asked to elaborate on the use of the word incorrigible, Deltoid strained and winced but finally offered more nuanced prose.

“We need to implement swift, unopposed execution of certain educating principles for those who think dissent…those civil liberty types who want freedom to choose, speak, express, or assemble.”

With recent new course offerings like Insider Trading and Introduction to Buying Size, Corporate College of Rogue Isle plans to purge the pages of subversive critical thinking literature, replacing such filth with higher ethical standards straight from the strategic planning boardrooms of hedge fund venture capitalists.

Wiping out intellectual growth in higher education learning for more manufactured, state-funded class separation, and with heavy measures of upside/downside clowngrading, the former “people’s” college turned state corporation appears confident with this reclamation.

“The manufacturing center will impose only what the customer needs to know,” wrote Corporate College’s uber spinmeister, Ms. Serena J. Samsa [Gregor related state hire].

“You see, Econo Education is giving the customer base what they need. State government through our Corporate College, supplies the proper conditioning appropriate to a mechanical creation not a critical thinker,” scrawled Samsa.

“No, no more of those creative types here. We’ve conducted studies producing toilet paper reams of useless data clearly articulating critical thinking is not a component of an educated person, by any definition we choose. Well, actually it’s just one study and we got no further than that. But we know it works, trust us.”

This novel approach is already taking shape. Certain hand-picked faculty have already begun indoctrinating the lemming learners toward the servant ideology where rebellion is not tolerated, but complete subservience is rewarded with hours of John Phillip Sousa’s searing rendition of Boola Boola yawping from the highest reverberating fourth floor chamber pot.

The Follies has also learned this new advance on tamping down activism is labeled, Tollmundo Technique.

As explained via online agitprop kiosks, the underlying effect of this state-run takeover is to ensure critical thinking is eviscerated through a behavioral model of aversion therapy called Short Term Education Management or STEM.

The student learner, as originally labeled many years ago, is given calculated heavy doses of humanities instruction while ingesting a fistful of bon-bons enriched with STEM. Doing so will gradually, but assuredly, make the newly state-created student-customer nauseous. The more philosophy, literature, and history prescribed the more STEM confections are given, ultimately causing the student-customer to actually reject all forms of intellectual curiosity, while feverishly craving Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley valet parking internships.

The systematic destruction of independent thought is to “enlighten the force-fed mechanical being, uh, state customer to become more enamored with the high honor of their low-level status in the great society,” says Dr. Voltimand Nunavit, one of a recent crop of Ancient Eight hires, who is the mastermind of Collect Automatic Virtual Education (CAVE) curriculum, and author of the national best seller, Shadow Puppets Make The Best Friends.

“Rogue Isle now has 10,000 market value opportunities for learning high, so we must ensure people achieve their dreams by changing their lives to fill the most menial of jobs serving the poison ivy class defined by Lords & Leeds of Hillsmith and Havenew of Saybrook Colony.”

Nunavit believes this new pressing reliance upon cookie-cutter blue collar aspirations will have customers no longer achieving a more palate-stimulating career.

He also blatantly promoted the recent billion dollar Barbarian at the Gates endowed bonuses saying, “Corporate College is repurposing toward business interests and producing compliant workforce drones, while also committing to eliminate any form of highfalutin mind enhancing humanities offerings.”

Rogue Isle’s Primo Minister of Propaganda, A.U. Inoaguy, recently announced a new drive-thru service at Corporate College aptly named the Certificate Center of Rogue Isle. This CC annex will eventually supply much needed customer service at less cost and higher rates of retention and persistence.

“This one–stop shop offered will cure any sudden onset of humanities symptoms with over the counter STEM remedies, immediately abating any liberal arts yearning, and we’ll be able to pump out certified automatons in two to three weeks ready to fetch phony crusadoes from the electrified magic carpet. And, get this, we simultaneously wipe out any future intellectual propensities forever,” bragged the connected Inoaguy.

When contacted at the state-run Den of Technological Iniquity, former Corporate College student-learners-now-heavily sedated-satisfied customers were saddened to learn appreciating Shakespeare, Dante, and Plato could have been pushed out of their lives forever.

Inoaguy capped it this way, “These manufactured state customers have complete assurance that accelerated share repurchases offered by Rogue Isle’s STEM technique will grant them accumulated value of stackable credentials in a few short weeks for a minimum wage job rather than the arduous task, guilt, and low rate of return through a lifetime of learning, which pushes them toward a rewarding career”.

“Any problems with that, pal?”

 

 

Steven F. Forleo is a professor of English at the Community College of Rhode Island, and adviser to the student newspaper, The Unfiltered Lens.

Critical Spending Requires Critical Thinking At CCRI By Michele Seyler

Originally published in GoLocalProv January 17, 2017

GoLocalProv has reported that Rhode Island has a projected deficit of one hundred twelve million dollars. Some legislators’ goals of continuing a commitment to education and to reducing waste and redundancy have also appeared in these pages. With those stated goals in mind, I am confounded by the fiscal choices I continually witness as a CCRI faculty member.

Last March I wrote to legislators to express concern at the performance-based funding approach to improving CCRI retention and graduation rates. Concisely, my concerns centered on the fact that we are an open enrollment institution – meaning we have some students reading and writing at third grade levels sitting in classes designed for college ready students – we have approximately twenty full-time advisors for a student population of typically fifteen thousand students, we have no mandatory orientation, too few tutors – all of whom are part time, and Student Disability offices on some campuses staffed at only nineteen hours a week with test proctoring available for as little as five hours a week. My argument then was to give CCRI funding to rectify these deficiencies before holding us accountable for specific performance standards.

It’s slightly less than a year later, and as far as I know, no money has been spent on this kind of student support. Instead, we have experienced a top-down approach of creating and filling an unprecedented number of new and highly paid administrative positions. Especially upsetting is the redundancy of these positions easily seen and documented by some astute faculty.

These previously existing and new administrative positions have job descriptions that include strategic planning responsibilities, yet it has come to the attention of faculty that contrary to our tradition, the administration is in the process of hiring an outside firm for a six-month contract to create and facilitate a strategic plan for CCRI. How many times are we going to pay for strategic planning? We are clearly staffed with administrators and faculty possessing the credentials to do that.

This situation is especially dismaying when our college president tells us we cannot expect the full amount of funds we need from the state in the next few years and we “…need to operate in an increasingly lean fashion…” It is dismaying when a tuition hike has recently been deemed necessary, and this is how the money gets spent, while the need for the hike is publicly attributed to the cost of hiring faculty.

Who oversees CCRI’s budget? The legislature? The Council of Postsecondary Education? Where does the buck stop?
As a taxpayer, I am upset by the ill-conceived approach to spending my tax dollars. As a CCRI faculty member, I am upset by the disregard for the dire need for expenditures in the area of student support that would contribute to improving student success. As a state employee who was told I had to forgo a raise for 2013 and 2014 due to lack of money, I am upset by the prospect of being told that once again at the next contract negotiation because of the current choices creating redundancy and bloat here at CCRI.

This is the one area where budget money is allocated with which I am personally familiar – I believe a series of pieces from people like me –inside an institution or agency – elucidating the approach to expenditures within, would be eye opening for taxpayers. Any takers?

Michele Seyler moved to Rhode Island fifteen years ago. She is an Assistant Professor of English at CCRI, where she has taught for twelve years.

Restructuring CCRI: What If…?

by Joe Allen

Recent activities at the Community College of Rhode Island (CCRI) portend major changes in the not too distant future.

The latest action involves a retirement offer to all personnel 65 years of age and older.

Based on APRA (Access to Public Records Act) data acquired a few years ago, it appears that 85 faculty may be eligible for this retirement offer. The combined annual salary for these 85 faculty is $6,761,933.88 (see RI Governor’s Transparency 2017 for salary data). Of these 85 faculty, 29 are at or over 70 years old. Their combined salary is $2,690,937.86.

Before anyone complains about these salary levels, let me place them in perspective with respect to administration salaries. The administration’s $100K+ club contains 18 administrators who’s combined salary is $2,366,786.24. Although there are some senior members in this club (more than 30 years of service), there are a number with less than 5 years of service. In fact, the highest paid member of this club is one of its newest members, the CCRI President, at $249,999.88.

And how many years of service do the 29 faculty have? Combined years of service equals 1319, an average of 45 years per member. In fact, there are four faculty members with 50 or more years at CCRI. How long has CCRI been around?

A review of the terminations listed with the salary data at the Governor’s Transparency site indicates 35 people left CCRI from September to December 2016. In fact the list contains the names of three employees who departed in January of this year. (Just a note: the availability of the FY2017 salary data seems early. Before I left CCRI, annual salary data was posted at the end of the fiscal year, June 30)

So what’s going on at CCRI?

If you remember the What if…? commercials of Hewlett Packard from the 1980’s, let’s play what if.

What if…?

What if the President of CCRI, the Chair of the Council on Postsecondary Education, the Chair of the Board of Education, the House Speaker, the Senate President and the Governor decided to write legislation that redefines CCRI’s state charter? Would that justify restructuring?

What if the contractor hired to assist CCRI develop its strategic plan provided guidance on including the new charter statement in CCRI’s mission statement? Would that justify restructuring?

What if CCRI restructured its divisions and redefined job requirements? Would current employees need retraining? Would they even be retained?

What if CCRI redefined its governance in order to align governance with a new state charter and mission? Would faculty labor agreements be null and void? A corporate technique for redefining labor relations in a takeover is to start labor relations from the beginning. (Actually, that sounds good to me. Many years ago, when Frank Maher was State Senator, I requested legislation to remove “exclusive bargaining representative” from state laws. I learned about union opposition to “right to work” legislation; never heard of it before that. When I served in the Air Force and worked in the defense sector, there were no unions involved. This could be a move in the right direction.)

What if…? (your turn)

These “what if…’s about Rhode Island remind me of a passage from The Anti-Federalist Papers.

As for Rhode Island, I do not mean to justify her – She deserves to be condemned – if there were in the world but one example of political depravity, it would be hers: And no nation ever merited or suffered a more genuine infamy, than a wicked administration has attached to her character.         Melancton Smith, 27 June 1787

Enough said.

Joe Allen, Ph.D. was a faculty member at CCRI. He retired in December 2015 and currently resides in California.

I’m sorry, it’s you not me

A Love Letter to the Right

By Steven Forleo

Dear Conservatives,

I’ve been meaning to write you for awhile now, but with all this political craziness, I just couldn’t get a moment to breathe. I’m sure you understand, considering how excited you must be!

So, if you allow me a chance to throw out politically correct speech, maybe we could gain some common ground?

Now, now, don’t roll your eyes, or quietly say *#%& YOU!

Look, my mind has been swimming with grandiose thoughts and sugarplum wishes, but I really need to get this off my chest, so please bear with me. Our relationship appears to have lost its luster, so can we give it a chance, again, please? Let’s not allow alternative facts ruin our time together.

Okay here goes (deep breath).

Our Problem Together

Political correctness is necessary in a multi-cultural society like ours!

Sorry, to have said that, but nagging pangs of conscience lead me to point out that this last election may have ushered in wholesale hatred and bigotry into our home, and quite frankly, we can’t have this split us apart. We’ve endured worse than this, right?

Wait, don’t tear this up. I’m attempting to get the right words on paper so you won’t think I’m not being sincere. Heck, some of my best friends are strongly conservative. Don’t I get points for that?

You and I can readily understand certain words hurt. They do. No, I’m not infringing on your free speech, I promise. However, you must admit the candidate who just won did exhibit a tolerance for bigotry, xenophobia, and misogyny. Yes, now, be honest.

It’s the truth. And I know you would want me to be as blunt as the remarks thrown around for a year or so since this PC assault began. How did we become so estranged? How did we get so angry? I thought our relationship was stronger than that.

Relationship Blues

I know you get very upset at these liberals (like me) who want to take away your right to say whatever comes to mind. I get that. But, laughing at the misfortune of others, tolerating bigoted comments, applauding racially insensitive remarks, and looking the other way on hate speech isn’t very becoming of you. Not the most attractive traits, especially since I know how you always prize appearance over reality.

I know and have known for quite some time that nostalgia played a part in our break-up. I know you’d like America to be great again. But don’t you think that’s just code speak for regressing back to an all white America? I’m afraid those days are in the rear view mirror of pop’s  ’63 Corvair. The country is now richly diverse. Isn’t that the beauty of our relationship? After all, we elected our very first African-American president in 2008, when our relationship was just evolving. What happened to you? To us?

Mental Blocks

If we could ever reconcile, we really would need to know how to use just the right words of commonality, respect, and dare I say decency.

Your free speech does give you the ability to say some people are fat, disgusting pigs, and mine to call others racists, bigots, and misogynists. But is this really about offending each other, or more of creating a political partition between us? I sure hope not, because our relationship never allowed silly, petty words to come between us, right?

Shouldn’t we work harder to break down those barriers of bias and assumptions which only cause us to sit apart and pout? I truly believe you can foster a more tolerant home so we can enjoy more stimulating conversations about equity and equality. I’m willing if you are.

Well, at least we could seek counseling to keep us together.

Tough Choices

You can read where I am struggling to find just the right words for fear of not offending you. I simply don’t want you to make me feel invisible, marginalized, or even a stereotype. I care about you. I care about your feelings. I can’t continue if you constantly tell me, **** your feelings!

I’ve really tried very hard to avoid how you’ve labeled me in the past. Oh, yes, it hurt then as it does now. Calling someone a PC cop can stigmatize anyone. Mocking me for wanting civil debate was very hurtful. How would you like to be admonished for obliterating any form of decency, severing any ties to what resembles reasonable discourse, you troglodyte!

Yeah, it stings, doesn’t it?

Campus Speech

Don’t think I’ve forgotten how you told me countless times that at colleges’ free speech is not free at all. Have I jogged your memory?

Yeah, you screamed, sorry, emphatically stated, professors are all left-leaning communists! And how students are so easily offended. I remember, you telling me that only one side of the issue is presented on college campuses. I thought you were joking, remember? When I couldn’t stop laughing, you got really mad, threatening to censor any divisive course offerings.

And how about when you said that all college students are sheep, following professors into anti-American attitudes.

How critical thinking is a farce, disguised as socialist propaganda. Oh yeah, those words remain in my heart, and any deity of your choosing knows, I’ve always respected your attempts at sincerity, whether you meant it or not, for I never wanted to embarrass you, or make you more angry by saying academic freedom serves the public good. See, I knew those two words increase your ire almost as much as fake news.

How could I tell you that all you ever wanted was to keep me in the corner, quiet, so you could say outrageous, hateful things on campuses using free speech as your own means of pushing your own agenda.

The Break-Up

That’s when I knew our time together was waning. We couldn’t even have a quiet dinner during this campaign season because you were so upset with me when I told you Trump was a racist, pandering to the dark reaches of xenophobia.

You flipped, telling me I am also calling you a racist! Then you told me how stupid I was for not seeing what Trump has done.

And I asked you what he did?

What you said next stunned me, and forced me to see how our relationship had so badly deteriorated.

You told, no, instructed me, he is killing political correctness! And we should all thank him for not having to worry about other people’s feelings. How you’d now be able to openly spout hateful words against any race, creed and color without having to feel bad or face societal ostracism.

You continued to berate me because I was part of this liberal conspiracy trying to  delegitimize the new president. You told me free speech doesn’t mean making up things that never happened or exaggerating the “facts” to sensationalize stories nobody cares about.

I attempted to quiet things down by saying political correctness actually shows how far we’ve come as a society. How understanding of cultures, sexual orientation, sexism, and racism alows us to become stronger, loving, and respectful.

You wanted none of that, remember? All you kept repeating was how you have to monitor and sometimes censor what you truly feel and wish to express. How just because you have different views, and you may offend someone , you are held accountable, held up for ridicule as a racist, bigot, homophobe.

You continued on how you may joke around using ethnic slurs or insults, and how that shouldn’t be hurtful to anyone. After all people make fun of white folks all the time. That’s reality! Get over it! That’s the First Amendment!

Then, as we parted forever on that November evening, as you were about to walk away, you turned around, looked at me with that ridiculous red cap on and told me to put on my ‘big boy pants, stop whining, and shut the **** up, you ignorant loser!

I miss you already.

XOXO

 

Steven F. Forleo is a faculty member at CCRI, and also a proud member of the Underground Scholar Association. 

 

A Corporate Model for Higher Education II

by Joe Allen

In the post A Corporate Model for Higher Education I, some of the principles of TQM (Total Quality Management) were considered. It was noted that the need to eliminate fear and generate dialogue across the organization is essential for organizational growth.

However, major obstacles to these objectives are slogans, quotas, and numerical goals. The tenth management point of TQM states

10. Eliminate slogans, exhortations, and targets for the work force asking for zero defects and new levels of productivity. Such exhortations only create adversarial relationships, as the bulk of the causes of low quality and low productivity belong to the system and thus lie beyond the power of the work force.

            Eliminate work standards (quotas) on the factory floor. Substitute leadership.

            Eliminate management by objective. Eliminate management by numbers, numerical goals. Substitute leadership.

[14 Points for Management]

Unfortunately, higher education is currently at the mercy of metric-mania. Retention and completion quotas are current administrative buzzwords. And, as usual, inappropriate government intrusions related to federal funds are the driving force behind these quotas.

The College Scorecard tracks two-and four-year colleges across the country.  The numbers that “inform” consumers of education services include cost, graduation rate, students who return after the first year, and salary after attending.  Institutions are required to submit this data annually. But how does this affect students and faculty?

Let’s look at public higher education in Rhode Island.

Data for the University of Rhode Island (URI), Rhode Island College (RIC), and the Community College of Rhode Island (CCRI) is posted at College Scorecard: Rhode Island. Graduation rates [URI 61%, RIC 41%, CCRI 12% ] and retention rates [URI 82%, RIC 79%, CCRI 65%] indicate URI is above average in retention and graduation. RIC is above average in retention and about average in graduation. However, CCRI is about average in retention and below average in graduation.

Are these numbers meaningful? Not really!

Checking the public colleges in Massachusetts and Connecticut [College Scorecard: MA/CT Public ] the graduation rate for community colleges is about 12%. The best graduation rate, 27% at Asnuntuck Community College in CT, is still below average. Clearly, graduation rate is a meaningless metric (for this and many other reasons).

To ensure schools are in compliance with the metrics, governing bodies, like Rhode Island’s Board of Education, mandate institutional accountability. On November 9, 2016, the Council on Postsecondary Education (the Board’s oversight committee for higher education) approved institutional metrics for URI, RIC, and CCRI [Approval of
Institutional Performance Metrics for CCRI, RIC and URI] Measure 1, Graduation and Retention, is addressed by all three schools. Measure 2 quantifies the number of certificates and degrees in high wage fields. This measure would impact the College Scorecard metric Salary after Attending.

The final set of metrics falls under the heading Measure 3: Mission Specific. These numbers directly impact students and faculty via course completion percentages. At CCRI, the Mathematics Department responded to the following requirement:

		Baseline (Most recent 5-year average)	5-Year Target (2020-2021)
3b.	% of entering first-time cohort completing math 1200 or 1430 in first year, including both summers (C or better)	10.4	15%

On December 22, 2016, CCRI posted the following announcement

• New math options available for spring

Among the new options are course pairings Math 1420/Math 1430 and Math 0600/Math 1200. Each course listed is a 15 week course. Under the new course offerings for Spring 2017, each 15-week course will be condensed into 7.5 weeks. These pairs directly address metric 3b. The other options, Math 0500/Math 0600 and Math 0500/Math 1420, position students to complete Math 1200 or Math 1430 in the second semester of their first year.

Unfortunately, these accelerated course paths require students that are highly motivated, extremely self-disciplined, and who have an academic maturity which is uncommon within the general community college population. In addition, the time requirements for these courses demand a commitment that very few students can afford.

This type of response betrays a put-out-the-fire mentality that TQM was designed to eliminate. Corporate-style administrators would do well to gain a better understanding of sound business principles. The uniqueness of the education industry demands innovation that preserves quality education. Regardless of what business opportunists try to sell, there is no such thing as just-in-time education.

Real learning demands time commitments that are best communicated by education professionals on the shop floor, the faculty in the classroom. Political and institutional policies that undermine their work continue to undermine real education.

[Note: this article was originally posted on December 22, 2016. It was published by GoLocalProv on January 5, 2017, Guest MINDSETTER™Joe Allen: The Metric-Mania of Higher Education]

Joe Allen, Ph.D. was a faculty member at CCRI. He retired in December 2015 and currently resides in California.

Rex Tillerson: ‘The era of any pretense is over’ By Peter Nightingale

 

Apart from the optics, Rex Tilllerson would have been a perfect fit in the Obama administration: both are deeply invested in fracking. Tillerson loves it, as long as it’s not in his backyard.

Here, for historical perspective, is Obama’s 2012 State of the Union address:

“We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years. (Applause.) And my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. […] America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.”

Compare Obama’s optimism with what Chris Mooney writes in The Washington Post, in Rex Tillerson’s view of climate change: It’s just an ‘engineering problem’:

Most prominent of all, perhaps, was Tillerson’s technological optimism about humans finding a way to solve the problem:

“And as human beings as a — as a — as a species, that’s why we’re all still here. We have spent our entire existence adapting, OK? So we will adapt to this. Changes to weather patterns that move crop production areas around — we’ll adapt to that. It’s an engineering problem, and it has engineering solutions. And so I don’t — the fear factor that people want to throw out there to say we just have to stop this, I do not accept.”

In 2011, before Obama’s 2012 State of the Union, Propublica listed Exxon Mobil as the number one American fracked-gas drillers. That same year, Time honored Cornell University professors Anthony Ingraffea and Robert Howarth as “People Who Mattered.” They:

“produced one of the most controversial scientific studies of the year: a paper arguing that natural gas produced by fracking may actually have a bigger greenhouse gas footprint than coal.”

Time also mentioned Mark Ruffalo because of his tireless activism against fracking. Controversial as the research might once have been, more and more studies confirm the work.

President Obama’s optimism, as expressed in his promise “to safely develop this energy” is up there with Tillerson’s view that climate change is nothing but an engineering problem. The president forgot to mention that nobody knows how to stop fracked gas wells from leaking.

The Obama White House did Exxon Mobil’s bidding, but nobody seemed to notice. The Trump administration will do the same, and as Bill McKibben said on Democracy Now:

What I think we need to say, over and over and over again, is: “The era of any pretense is over!”

Phew, got that off my chest. Now it’s time to heed Senator Reed’s advice and focus on the Russians.

Peter Nightingale is a theoretical physicist and teaches at the University of Rhode Island. He strives to leave behind a more just and peaceful, sustainable post-capitalist world for future generations, and his children and grandchildren in particular.
http://www.phys.uri.edu/nigh/
@Peter_Night
https://www.facebook.com/nighster