West - Why Democracy Demands Quality, Diversity, and Leadership in Universities

http://uc.princeton.edu/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=10

(Recorded Mar 23, 2005 at Rutgers) Length: 55:30

 

You know, the critical refutation of Dr. West's comments, in the spirit of the forum, is so compelling that I've [place what you want to hear, here].

x every post that smacks of absolute laziness of thought and idea. If you have a problem with what Dr. West actually said, post a segment, and break it down along lines representative of your thought.

Anything else doesn't indict West, but you. In any case, I find West's framing of the need for democratic institutions and sensibilities in university education and leadership compelling.

If you don't, let's hear some specifics on WHY you don't. Anything else seems pathetic to me.

 

Interesting; elucidate, particularly as it relates to universities/education.

This is an amazing statement. You're aware of even reflections of Dr. West's internal peace, or lack thereof? You know him well enough to break breath on what might be going on internally with him? Or is it that you find critical thinking so disconcerting that it manifests a lack of peace, an inability to rest replete in notions handed you by whomever, that you project this sensibility onto others?

I didn't know you knew Cornel so well. I'm slapping together a new FX-57 Alienware system, so I don't have time to go through the speech to ask you for the specifics to which you allude but will not list to suitably engage or actually refute...maybe later this weekend...

Indeed, more important than your post, and its crippled take on general assumptions about whatever, is a thorough engagement of the larger issues raised by the speech. If anyone is interested in doing that, I'd like to get into that as well (that's actually the reason for the OP - for others to take on the speech, and critically dissect it for content and intent).

Look forward to more of that, less of the above.

 

Nor have you; three posts and your cursory dimunition of a scholar puting his neck out there on the regular for all folks through an AA sensibility remains bereft of real criticism. That's not an economic use of your time, Matt.

And it's a waste of mine, and others who might have been interested in exploring the speech b4 you and others waded over to offer nothing but your disdain for someone doing something in a context you likely know little about, in ways you've likely never understood or experienced.

So, again, I'd ask that if all you've got are surface haterade gulpings, to keep them to yourself. I'll ask, but something tells me that you'll find some economic calclulus that somehow tells you this is a decent use of your time.

Hint and a half for ya: it ain't. Go moderate Politics, guy. Isn't that enough to manage without coming over here, into this thread, wasting time, and embarassing yourself?

 

What do you mean 'got busted in Politics?' What 'act,' Jacen? If noone wants to talk about the speech, why do they come to this thread? Might it be to do that which you'e directed me NOT to do, above?

 

dj43, I'm interested; have you read anything by Joseph Ofori-Dankwa and Scott D. Julian on "diversimilarity?" It might move your notions of diversity away from the etymology of the word (I mean, the root of "democracy," demos was used in the time the root was employed as "mob"...does that inform at all on the efficacy of democracy as a notion today?), and toward the actual nature of businesses and educaational environs that work toward reflecting a multiplicity of reasonable views and points of view.

There seems to always be, in this modern moment, tension between unanmity and plurality; each must ask of themselves and the other "toward what END?" Out of that approach, maybe, an improved way forward might emerge.

But in an assimilating society like France, or the US? Difficult, to be sure.

Hell, we could harken back to DeTocuqeville for our cues on US capability to wrestle with this issue, but that might be seen as reductionist...

 

In one school here where I am, I teach that with regard to age, the median age of America's workforce is expected to increase to 40.6 this year, that nearly one half of the United States' workforce is composed of women, that approx. 35% of new entries into the workforce are now people of color, that 3-10% of the current American workforce is of homosexual orientation, that one out of every six Americans had a physical or mental disability, andthat, dpending on how you calculate it, 25-31% of the American workforce is unemployed.

In employing those facts in the workplace, it becomes clear from rigourous peer-reviewed work (such as Cox and Blake in 2002) that diversity composition is correlated to competitive effectiveness; that by instituting measures that account for the above in inclusive ways, organizations can and do attract better human resources who can provide a more substnative array of skills and experiences to serve a variety of organizational interests; that by effectively managing diversity in reflection of the above trends, organizations can increase their marketing effectiveness (by actually possessing the staffing and expertise to understand and satisfy the needs of diverse - and diffuse - target markets); that problem solving solutions drawing upon the broadest base of experiences can often produce better approaches and better solutions to such problems; that folks like Von Bergen, Barlow and Foster (2002) produced research that indicated that when diversity is increased in organizations, those organizations receive and respond to change much better than organizations lacking a diverse culture; that the toleration produced by a diverse environment lends itself to quicker, mroe meaningful conflict resolution; that there can also be costs to diversity, such as stereotyping and prejudicial management, resistance to change, reverse discrimination and devaluation of employee worth; that managing through diversimilarity is one overall strategy among many that might be explored by those looking to lead in organizations operating in the marketplace of physical product and of ideas; and that my own "diverse" experience with organizations such as SEGA, DreamWorksSKG, Disney/ABC/ESPN, WWFE, CONCACAF, and others have produced anecdotes that (anecdotally, not rigourously) bear this out, in all kinds of ways.


How is that wrong? We, where I am, have produced work already this semester that has led to awareness and plan initiation along the lines of disability access awareness, faculty diversity issues, and others. This is wrong? Because this is what, among other things, I'm teaching the youth...

 

What do you mean 'got busted in Politics?' What 'act,' Jacen? If noone wants to talk about the speech, why do they come to this thread? Might it be to do that which you'e directed me NOT to do, above?

I'd like a set of answers.

 

Incorrect and maliciously false. Since you seem to run with and propagate what you've been told, now I'll tell you; apparently this is about one post for which I posted the facts as a trusted website offered them, indeed without citation, in a dicsussion throughout which I was pressed for time/had to go teach. To take that post(s), and intimate publicly that I "often pulled cut-and-paste jobs and frequently passed the work off as your own" - emphasis/bold is mine - is in fact a lie, and I challenge you, or anyone else, to produce other posts like that one or two posts in that thread on that issue that are reflective of your claims. In fact, I have a CLEAR record of OVERWHELMING citation of where and whence data not my own comes from (just ask McGuirk about that with regard to my posts on the bombing of Hiroshima...I'm sure he remembers). So unless you and whomever else are prepared to offer some evidence to back up that statement, I hope that you'll either retract it, or you'll always preface it with "although I can't find it, I've made a decision to mouth off along the lines of what someone else has mistakenly promoted and offered." Because in this case, that's EXACTLY what you are doing. You are operating at the service of intentions, hopes and dreams of others in an effort to discredit through gossip and innuendo what could not be discredited on its face. Enjoy.

In addtion, if someone wanted to know why I no longer post in Politics, all they had to do was ask. In fact, I've posted exactly why I no longer post there. The reasons are simple, and knowable...if you, or anyone else, were actually interested in knowing. Instead, you seem to prefer to intimate, suggest or otherwise communicate some other notion, toward and end or ends that are other than the truth of the matter.

So to you, and whomever else is involved in that, do whatever you need to do to make yourselves feel better.

But the simple reality is that I've done my duty over there, and that revolution - the literal revolving aroudn and around of the same issues, with the same crippled flaws - as opposed to evolution is the rule over there, to the detriment of the forum. Or, maybe the forum is just that, and I and others are correct in taking our discussions elsewhere, tothe next level. In any case, the thinking that is promoted by neoconservatives (and status-quo ostensible "centrists") in that forum has been thoroughly discredited. Just because they continue to talk doesn't make what they're saying right, or even new. I'm done because the issues over there are done. That way of being in the world is failed, crippled and through. I was interested NOT in revolving, NOT in re-hashing the same ground, but enacting some evolution.

That's not going to happen there. So, with regard to fighting battles that have already been fought and won, I'm done. Are you REALLY walking around thinking that b/c I cut-and-pasted (and SAID I was cutting and pasting) in one discussion on what AQ is, and that georgeplmr and McGuirk, seemingly, got off on that (and why would they get off on that, pray tell? Why leap at that, in that way?), that I ran off or something in fear of anything at all going on in that forum? Please. How masturabatory. Tell whomever you get your flawed information from to grow up, when you see them (and spend time on me, apparently).

When I post a link, most humans get that I'm looking for folks interested in that link/speech to read/hear/watch, and respond. I know what I think; most here in this NSR areas know what I think; I'm interested in what others think, and why. take dj43, above, for example; I'm interested in how s/he conceives of diversity, and a robust discussion has emerged. Don't like my style, don't like the link? Move on. That's a helluva lot easier than spending time defecating on a link, or a posting proces, that won't really change, regardless of whether you, personally, like it or not. Hell, Jacen, if we're going by what people say they like on this board, through the various ways and means of offering affirmation or rejection of certain approaches (rep, PM's etc.), I'd definitely not change a thing, b/c your above cahracterization is in the definitive minority in terms of the overall feedback I've gottenon this board.

But even if it weren't, all you have to do is move on if you don't like it. Easy. Simple. Straightforward.

Unlike the intimations, above. Don't worry though; I'm not really worried about any character assassination or the like. You, and those offering what you've offered, above, don't have that kind of power or influence.

If your argument is limited to the assertion that diversity, in talking about ethnicity, is racism, I'm afraid that I simply don't understand that. There's no doubt that ethnic groups exist, and persist in the historical light of regressive factors that range in their radicalism from inferential harm to outright taking of life. To acknowledge the institutional and longer-term truth of those various forms of exclusion, and how they in fact LIMIT effecitveness in business, and il;lumination in education, is one arguemtn for diversity. Are you arguing that the very effort to acknowledge these truths in our history and in our reality is in fact racist?

Help me understand.

 

I'm in the midst of a discussion with dj43 at the moment, and on my way to shape some youth; I'll be back tonight to certainly offer my $.02 on the frames on reality Dr. West offers, if doing so will somehow enable others to do so.

Personal feelings? When you can point to where I tell people I'm intellectually superior, then maybe you'd have a point. Until then, Jacen's comments are certainly personal, because they both assert things that have never happened, and submit that I've posted/said things I've never said. How would you take that, if you got it from a moderator in a tone rebuking and negative?

I took that personally. It certainly wasn't a general comment. It was in fact a personal one. One rife with error, I might add.

Later.

 

NO, what I'm saying is that when you - or anyone else - can point to where I've stated that I'm superior in ANY way, then my "personal" response to a Jacen when HE states that is unwarranted. I don't want to pick a fight with anyone, and certainly not with you. My disappointment is vented really at Jacen's framing of the entire thread. The thread was what it was until this characterization and maligning of myself.

IOW, if, for example, noone was interested in hearing Dr. West out on the issues he engages in the speech, then that's fine too. Right now, depsite the rain, I'm going to assistant coach the soccer team my son is on.

Tonight, I'll parse the speech and offer a substantive opinion.

 

After demostrating an intimate awareness of Rutgers' past and present, West lays out one pillar of his speech in one sentence about Rutgers (around the 11 min. mark): that it "refuses to sever from diversity from quality and diversity from citizenship, and diversity from high-quality leadership."

So we'll be interrogating all of these things in this speech: diversity, quality, citizenship, leadership. Indeed, West's speech title then submits that he's going to forward to tie all of these things into why "democracy" demands (or needs, in order to function at the levels both necessary and expected) the above notions, definitively, in order to not only survive (but that's true enough), but thrive.

West, as usual begins "on a Socratic note," which has particular currency with me because whether I'm teaching here, or in Britain/Europe, I run Socratic classrooms without exception. West submits that Socrates focus on questioning and queries can oft be distilled down to 38a of Plato's Apology, where Socrates is often translated as submitting:

the unexamined life is not worth living for men.

West goes on to clarify that indeed, the translation should actually read (and many tranlsations now DO read) "the unexamined life is not a life of the human," human coming from the Latin humando - burying; that we are a people ("a featherless, linguistically-conscious, two legged" creature "born betwen urine in feces" in the pain of the birth cry from the womb), and that we are on our way one day very soon to becoming the "culinary delight of terrestrial worms." That this is who we are, that our decisions are GROUNDED in this mortal, life/death reality and that to acknowledge that leads one TO socratic questioning, i.e., the type of questioning that is shot through with the notion "Why does it have to be this way at all?" Certainly forhistorically marginalised/hated groups, dealing with this notion is not an academic exercise. Indeed, the course of the discourse, open and subtext, of many minority/marginalised groups at many levels can be understood to be cnetered around the question "well, given all of this, and the frameworks, assumptions, screens and lenses by which we SEE and engage all of this, what does it acutally mean to be human? Is my humanity that reduced thing which this particular society currently says it is not in theory, still says it is in practice, and historically said it was in both?"

There's also no doubt - no doubt - that West proposes AS GIVEN the vicious legacy of white supremacy, of patriarchy, of homophobia. ONe of my bachelors' degrees is in History, and, like many who post in this particular forum, I took my degrees very seriously. That's why, in part, I agree with West that those legacies (along with, missing from his analysis in speeches like these as well as in personal conversation and his CW Reader, frames on information, particularly in the formative years, and frames on religion, which West tackles but not the same way I do) certainly provide the context against which those stnading fast against the vicious forms of that set of legacies operate. No doubt. Now, if you don't accept the legacy of those vicious forms of bigotry, and/or if you see them as having an enitrely different/positive effect, or some other take on their relevancy/currency at all, then you'll struggle with what West has to say. Indeed, if you do bring some historical chops to the table, and have conducted any studies (I, for example, excuted a robust study of capital punishment in the county in MD in which I went to school; that study then truned into a series of articles about the remaining links - the clear legacy - in that country between that capital punishment history and various groups, phenomena and stimuli today, right now, in that place) or have wrestled with anyone else's studies on those vicious forms, by all means, I look forward to your challenging of West. In any case, I hope to move beyond the citation and employment of the Hannitys and Frankens of the world, as I lament the dismantling by Reagan of the Fairness Doctrine, which at least framed (undeniably scarce, undeniably concentrated and controlled) mass media information in ways that approached notions of thinking critically about something.

Now, for me, spending some time here on the frames, the pillars, of the speech is especially relevant. Why? I see students, here and abroad, who are not doing that at all. They have no questions. Oh, there's the normal distribution of students (a few smart ones, a lot of everyday/regular/average, and a few committed to not succeeding), but that trend itself gets challenged with any given student's decision (resulting from any and all kinds of processes) to critically examine her or his world (academy-wrold included). I spend alot of time - too much in my time - getting students to think critically about - anything. Almost across the board, they believe that thinking critically is either offering their (usually uninformed, usually less than rigourous, somtimes brilliant, usually ignorant) opinion, or that thinking critically is subversive and anti-American. I tell my students all the time. "I'm not really interested/don't care what you think. I care HOW you think; I care THAT you think ABOUT the influences on your thinking. I care about how you can critique the work of others."

All of that toward the above ends; I mean, I've asked my students directly: if this, the academic life, where, often, we are dealing with foundations and not always applications...if THIS place and space for the play of the intellect is NOT the place and space where you - the student - are willing to critically think about anything...where is that space in your life? ANd what does that mean for the tacit affirmation of those institutions we come acrossas adults in our daily lives that, among other things, guide and regulate those lives? If you have not practiced critical examination of much of anything, how does that just kick in?

To me, producing the critical thinking that leads to relative mastery of the coursework THROUGH such critique, in the context of its application not only by scholars, not only by the specializeds, by generally by the citizen, is the masterwork of any institute of higher learning.

That's not always a shared mission. Very often, and always without expressly submitting it, many institutions promote NOT the critically thinking, Socratic student (who can then choose their place and space in the cogs and wheels of society), but rather the tuition-forking automoton who is eminently trainable, but who will offer no authentic questioning of anything much at all. To me, democracy suffers, public life suffers, when institutions of higher learning fail to even apporach students and OFFER this as a way froward not only in their hoped-for occupation (and what's the percentage of graduates at the BS/BA level that actually work in the field of their major?), but in terms of their citizenship, public life, and contribution to the daily drumbeat of a democracy (or at least of a representative republic with ostensibly democratic features), for which voting cannot be the primary activity if democracy is to survive, of which voting MUST be the culmination of a daily citizen activity that is more about going down to the town hall than it can be about reading some distillation of that town hall meeting the next morning in the paper.

That being said, let's return to Cornel, b/c we've only engaged one of the two pillars he offers.

After I go get a haircut, and teach a class. Probably tonight. We'll now go ahead an take our time with this thing...