Seasick, Yet Still Docked

A while back I was bemoaning the status of Freshman Orientation at 901 South National. I was particularly appalled with the lack of worthy faculty members interested in teaching IDS 110 as it still exists. For all of the sound and fury and memos and committee meetings, nothing important seems to have changed. The newly launched program is seasick, yet still docked. A look at the IDS schedule for Fall 2008 explains why.

Most of the sections with a listed instructor are taught either by staff or by Instructors. I don't mean this to disparage the staff or the Instructors. In fact, their willingness to take on one or more sections of IDS 110 demonstrates an admirable commitment to the University's stated goal of "producing educated persons." I know from personal experience that some University staff have quite a bit to offer in such a setting. The same is true for those Instructors whose names I see listed. Their contributions are just one reason why I support the institution of a "Senior Instructor" rank. I would also like to commend those full-time administrators, including the Provost herself, who have signed up. They're obviously not doing it for the money.

I am not at all enthused by the prospect of graduate students and per-course faculty teaching IDS 110, but apparently such will be the case. Not good. And even then, roughly one third of next fall's 150-od sections of IDS 110 remain uncovered. That's nothing short of appalling. More members of the tenured faculty need to be involved, for the students' sake and for their own sake. Much as they have to learn about our peculiar academic community, we have a great deal to learn about their lives and plans and ways of thinking. "Been there, done that" just doesn't cut it. Some of the faculty - too many of the faculty, still - are asshats. Some already have their dance cards pretty well punched. Why aren't more worthy members of the tenured faculty willing to get involved?

One problem is the bad will engendered by the Church Lady's turn at the helm, which may well take even more years to wear away. Another problem is that the current director of IDS 110, while apparently a pleasant and earnest young man, is not himself an academic. His ability to cajole and/or browbeat faculty into teaching the course is therefore compromised. The job calls for an faculty evangelist, not a manager. And finally, there is the matter of inadequate compensation. The staff and the Instructors are usually so sadly underpaid that they will literally work for food. In the case of the worthy tenured faculty, it's usually wiser to focus on enhancing one's merit pay (which rolls over from year to year) than it is to go all out for a mere 600 bucks after taxes.

Supposedly, we should be doing this because we are passionate teachers, devoted to our crucial role at 901 South National. But let me offer an example. Michael T. Nietzel obviously aspired to become a college president. Now that he is a college president, he is doing a good job at it. It's also pretty clear that he enjoys being a college president. The MSU Board of Governors doesn't presume on this last fact. It wants him to enjoy being the president at 901 South National, not somewhere else. Accordingly, the Board pays him a salary consonant with the importance and the quality of his work. Likewise, the Central Administration should not presume that faculty ought to teach IDS 110 because they enjoy being teachers. If IDS 110 is a priority, the administration will have to pay accordingly.

Break Up The Family

The annual Public Affairs Conference is once more in session at 901 South National. This year's theme is "Conflict, Violence, and the Will to Change." I am sure this year's conference will accomplish its purposes just as well as last year's conference did. The annual appointment of a Provost Fellow charged with designing and setting up the conference was a good idea. It has brought a much needed breath of fresh air to the University's most prominent Public Affairs initiative: new leadership every year, new energy and a new focus every year, and so on. But it also brings up - yet again - the question of where the Public Affairs mission is headed. In fact, even the Standard commented on it this week.

The current Public Affairs Mission website isn't much help. The definition to be found there will become a teenager this coming November.

On June 15, 1995, Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan signed into law Senate Bill 340 which gave Missouri State University a statewide mission in Public Affairs. This mission defines a primary way in which a Missouri State education is different from that of other universities and one way by which we educate our students to imagine the future.

As a public, comprehensive university system with a mission in Public Affairs, Missouri State University’s purpose is to develop educated persons while achieving five goals: democratizing society, incubating new ideas, imagining Missouri’s future, making Missouri’s future, and modeling ethical and effective behavior.

Much of the uncertainty is due to the lack of faculty buy-in which pervaded just about all of the previous University administration's initiatives. President Keiser was clear on why he saw the Public Affairs Mission as important, and on what he thought it should include. He just as clearly wanted individual academic units and individual faculty members to find and develop their own roles within the Public Affairs Mission. But the overall faculty morale on campus was not, shall we say, one of feeling empowered.

The first Assistant to the President for Public Affairs was Dr. Donald Landon. His track record as a well-respected department head gained the Public Affairs Mission instant credibility; his strenuous efforts to get faculty involved were largely responsible for whatever traction the Public Affairs Mission gained on campus. The second Assistant for Public Affairs was Dr. David Dixon. Not a well-known campus figure like his predecessor, his well developed relations with the local not-for-profits helped the University build bridges to the community at large. The third Assistant for Public Affairs was Dr. John Strong. Scion of a prominent donor family, he was a very junior associate professor when appointed. His charge was to serve as the "catalyst" which would make the Public Affairs Mission permeate the entire campus. Very little catalysis took place. The position was abolished and its holder returned to the ranks.

It was indeed time to break up the family. Unfortunately, there remains little or no active direction for the Public Affairs Mission. The Provost's recent tripartite reformulation of Public Affairs as "Community Engagement," "Cultural Competence," and "Ethical Leadership" is an appropriate starting point. Even so, much remains to be spelled out under each of the three rubrics. And that will require leadership. Neither the President nor the Provost should be expected to steer the Public Affairs Mission: they have more than enough to keep them busy with their day jobs. I'm not sure that the task requires an full-time administrator with a full-time administrator's salary. I am positive that the task is too much for a succession of annually appointed Public Affairs Fellows. Somebody at 901 South National is going to have to step up.

Unless the Public Affairs Mission is not provided with appropriate leadership, and soon, it will wither insensibly into a chain of conferences and photo ops and bilge. Old and comparatively jaded as I am, I would consider that a shame.