William McBroom
Sociology
University of Montana [Missoula]
When Commissioner Baker addressed the Senate in October he spoke of "mission drift" in the Montana University system--the tendency for organizations to deviate from the purposes for which they were established. In the organizational literature this is known as goals displacement.
The most recent example is UM's own war on drugs, complete with red ribbons and the request to devote class time to the topic. This is admittedly a worthy cause. But, why this? Why not:
These are all worthy causes and are but a few listed in the Missoulian feature, "Around Missoula," during the first week of November.
But, I really don't want causes in my classroom--not my own causes and certainly not someone else's. And, if you have a cause, please be good enough not to insist that I embrace it with the same passion you do or be judged less worthy for failing to show some requisite level of enthusiasm.
There is, to be sure, considerable interest in causes of various sorts at UM. We have a reputation among some as a "Rent-A-Cause U" or "Causes-R-Us College."
Those who argue that the University of Montana should be a therapeutic community and/or an instrument of social change have not evidently consulted, let alone contributed to, the knowledge bases in these areas.
Please spare me arguments about living in times of change. I do not care to turn the university over to well-intentioned amateurs. Would you want your physician to repair your car or your auto mechanic to operate on your brain tumor? Following Kaplan, I suspect that for every misunderstood pioneer there are 1,000 crackpots.
The current trend toward intruding in the class room is disruptive and without demonstrated effectiveness. In this latter regard, please do not make claims you do not wish to have examined.
Being well-intentioned is not the issue. Or, has it come to the point where exhibiting zeal is not only a criterion for judging revolutionary cadres, but also for evaluating university faculty and administrators?
How might these impulses be handled? We might borrow from the character played by Gregory Peck in the original Twelve O'clock High. We could put all faculty with similar interests and abilities in a new academic unit, assign like-minded administrators to serve as overseers, and give university credit for its programs.
Since this might not reach the desired audience, a public address system could be installed on the perimeter of the oval to bring heart-felt messages to all during change of classes.
I find the throwing of faculty and administrative weight behind causes at least curious. Imagine what the Berkeley Free Speech Movement would have been like were it to have taken place at UM under the current climate.
The Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures would have produced such multi-culturalisms as Heilege Merde and Sacre Scheisse.
Our Chaucer scholar would have located interesting four-letter Anglo-Saxon words.
The print shop would produce signs such as "These dirty words are paid for by the Dean's discretionary fund" or "This sign is a gift of the President and his family."
The least of the problems with the current trend is that it takes causes away from the students--denying them both the opportunity to be creative and the sense of accomplishment. The lunch counter sit-ins and the Peace Movement were not led by faculty or supported by university administrative resources.
Are students too passive and too ill-prepared to prosecute their own interests? An affirmative answer suggests a general failure of our education system.
Do we empower students with such efforts? I think not. Rather, we merely give them slogans and show them how to bash others. A curious intolerance is developing amidst calls for diversity. An effective liberal arts program empowers students; it trains them to think critically--to be liberated from the easy solutions some recent initiatives seem to extol.
The core problem is that the trend bringing causes to the classroom is increasingly intrusive. Administrators want content included in courses while activist faculty display an impulse to censor. Both are unwelcome and both are harmful to the academy.
There are clear danger signs:
Over-worked and underpaid senior faculty are presented with one more temptation to join the ranks of--if not become the standard bearer for--the orthodoxy of the moment as a way to spend what is left of their careers. Instead, their experience is needed to train students to be critical thinkers.
There is a growing climate of fear among the young faculty. They feel that ideas are under assault and that they cannot speak out for fear of risking a negative tenure decision. Are these the things we want for our colleagues? I think not.
Administrators have come to view faculty and their classes as instruments for the latest initiative. This suggests both a profound misunderstanding of the nature of academy and the existence of a group of administrators without enough to do.
My advice to administrators is to follow the example of Vice-President Murray. He understands that his mission is to support the work of the faculty and he has been highly effective. In the last ten years the external funding for faculty projects has increased four-fold. He doesn't make work for faculty, but works for faculty--and he has done so without increasing his staff or chasing the latest fad in management circles.
This mission drift or goals displacement is harmful to the University of Montana and its liberal arts mission. I have blunt words for those who would persist in bringing causes to the classroom. I do not claim to speak for other faculty, but as for me...