Friday, February 4, 2011

On Civility - It Gets Better Right?


We all remember the line that grew from the horrendous bullying of LGBTQIA teens around the country. Many campuses responded with videos, website and outreach to those in our communities to show that we care, and we are here to listen and to help.  It is those behaviors that I want to raise back to our consciousness as we look at consolidation.  We challenged our communities, colleagues and students to treat each other with civility and respect.  We didn’t try to force a perspective on them; we just encouraged them to respect and understand the diversity that makes up our communities, our campuses, and our profession.  We said this with a unified voice!  We said this knowing that many of our colleagues do not agree with homosexuality but do agree that people should be treated with respect.

With that unified voice, we called out for civility and for the future.  Why then is it so hard for us to do that with our peers?  It started when a group of former NASPA Presidents brought a resolution to the NASPA business meeting in Chicago asking for financial due diligence and further study of the concept for consolidation that passed by a majority of the voting delegates.  This group was quickly called “trouble makers,” “old guard,” and other things I choose to not post in this document.  Was this because what they were asking for was so wrong, or because we didn’t agree with what they were saying?

In the meantime, the Proposal for Consolidation was completed after a lot of hard work by members of both ACPA and NASPA, and the feedback came in.  The financial due diligence came back with significant differences in the financial situations of both groups, but it showed that the organization as proposed would work  and the Plan for Consolidation (the legal document which indicates we would become one organization) was approved by the NASPA Board to be sent forward to a vote.   Since that time, whenever the financial situation has been discussed, there are cries of foul from those who think it is elitist to consider the financial difference and utter dismay by those who think it is critical. Couldn’t it simply be considered as one factor in your rationale to vote?

On Civility…
The main challenge that I have seen with the time it has taken to get to a point of voting is what some of us have come to calling “consolidation fatigue” - the concept that we’ve known how we were going to vote all along, so why are we still talking about it?  I believe this has led to many of us exhibiting the same behaviors that we abhor in our students and colleagues.   Here are a couple of examples:

1)       Twitter – When the concept of consolidation came up in a Twitter stream, anyone who raised objections to consolidation were quickly shot down as not being forward thinking, and challenged to “prove” what they really know and why.  This ended up being not a good dialogue of asking questions and trying to learn and understand, but having people feel attacked and vilified for not agreeing with the majority.

2)      NASPA Yes e-mail – Last week there was an e-mail sent out in collaboration with the NASPA office (so no e-mail addresses were compromised) that provided a “con” view of consolidation.  Unfortunately, for some reason many of us – including myself – did not receive that initial e-mail, with the rationale being it must have gotten caught in our spam filters.  For those of you that didn’t receive it, it can be found here.  While I have concerns about the tone of the initial e-mail, I was surprised by the number of e-mails that I was copied on that demanded to be removed from whatever list was used.  Again, where is the civility of recognizing that others have different opinions and in a transparent process we should be sharing both sides of the issue?

3)      Privilege – One of the concerns that was raised related to the e-mail was that the majority of professionals that had signed on as supporting NASPA Yes! are VP’s or faculty at Tier 1 Carnegie Institutions, and many wondered where the mid-level and other colleagues were.  This is something that I have thought long and hard about.  If I publically support consolidation, how will I be viewed by those whose roles I aspire to achieve?  If I publicly support NASPA Yes!, how will I be viewed by those that don’t?  We talk frequently about our professional organizations being about networking and connections, so this has been a very hard personal decision, and one for which I may never truly know the ramifications.

4)      Finally, I will turn to Twitter one last time to illustrate this point.  When the e-mail was sent, there was lots of chatter about it, and one tweet called it a hateful e-mail.  When I challenged that individual by asking whether it was hateful or simply a different perspective, I received no response and still have not.
 
So…Will It Get Better?
I absolutely believe that it will get better.  Regardless of the outcome of the vote in March, I believe the right decision for the future will be made.  I believe that as professionals, we will be able to take the information that we have learned from this process and make either an incredibly strong unified organization or make some significant improvements to NASPA (the first of which for me will be voting rights).

So while I am currently a NO vote on consolidation, I am committed to hearing all sides of the conversation and embracing fully the decision of our members.  Now the final question I have is… ARE YOU?

7 comments:

  1. Well said, sir. Excellent points made throughout, especially regarding privilege.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree that a bit more civility can only help us. However, I fear that some may confuse civility with ductility. I think it would be worse if people were to stifle their passions to avoid possibly offending people than if people were to feel free to (constructively and respectfully!) express their opinions.

    Further, there are definitely some outcomes that I would not fully embrace. I'm certainly not going to live or die on this particular hill and this won't be something that will haunt me or anything; I can certainly move on whatever the outcome. But this isn't an issue on which I can easily accept either outcome and I won't apologize for that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Absolutely Kevin, I don't expect that everyone is going to embrace the results and I don't think that needs an apology. What I do think is that people should be willing to listen and hear what others say, and not make them feel like they are being attacked if they don't feel the way someone feels that they should.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you for your thoughts, Eric. The comment on privilege hits home with me.

    With regards to the email, I was a bit shocked that NASPA agreed to use their email distribution lists. It's not that I don't believe the opinion can't be shared, but rather I want to know where in the TOS NASPA says they will allow third party folks to communicate via their list-servs.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks Julie. I think the question is whether they are a third party as they are members of NASPA. I am not sure honestly why they didn't send it in the same manner as they did the "pro" e-mail which would have been good from a consistency standpoint.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think you provide some really good reminders here, Eric. But I also feel the need to say that some of the comments and tactics used by the NASPA Yes Consolidation No group have crossed the line. As student affairs professionals, we should certainly welcome the free exchange of ideas and perspectives, but we would also confront students who try to advance their organization by smearing another one. There clearly are individuals who plan to vote "no" on consolidation and who are making their points with integrity. Unfortunately, some members of the NYCN group have acted unethically through unfair insinuations and bullying tactics. I'm speaking specifically of allegations made against ACPA that it is hiding key financial information, that ACPA wishes to consolidate with NASPA because it is "weak" compared to NASPA's "strength", or that those who have helped lead this conversation have manipulated processes to ensure a particular outcome.

    Surely, there have been unfair things said and done by folks on both sides of this issue. If that's your point, I agree with you. If you're trying to state that members of the NYCN committee are all innocent victims of those who don't appreciate differing views, I think that portrayal is inaccurate and glosses over some behavior I and others would consider outside of the bounds of our professional values. I'm with you on your point that we must be careful that we don't demonize those who hold a differing perspective. But I'm not with you if you are suggesting that those who decided the way to "win" this vote is to tear-down the other organization or people, or to raise lots of suspicion about good people's intentions. In my book, folks shouldn't get a pass on that behavior.

    Since we're going on record...I'm a long-standing member of both NASPA and ACPA. I've found value in both, but strongly believe that a consolidated comprehensive organization is the best way to move into our future as a profession. Neither association is perfect in its current form, and a new consolidated association won't be perfect either. Anyone who is waiting for the "perfect organizational proposal" before voting on a consolidation will never see it, although I do believe that the vision for the new association is compelling and is the right structure (with some important tweaks to it) to support our profession into its future. In the end, I believe this consolidation conversation really shouldn't be about ACPA or NASPA as existing organizations...they are each very good at some things and not very good at other things. This is about what the future holds for student affairs and the best way for the profession to be ready to meet its challenges and opportunities.

    I hope as we move toward the voting period, we will all engage in this conversation with integrity, avoiding efforts to diminish people or either organization in order to advocate for our perspective.

    Dwayne Todd

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dwayne - I think I can agree with you on absolutely every point. I did not mean, and don't mean that I have been overly impressed with either approach.

    I think that is what I am trying to get at. We need to look at the topic just exactly for what it is. What is the best for the future of our profession, and while we may comet different conclusions, it needs to be on facts about the proposals and not on rhetoric, or as you stated taking swipes at either group. Both have wonderful things and wonderful people involved, and as you stated things that can be improved.

    One of my main concerns is that in approximately 10 weeks this vote is going to be over and all of us are going to have to work together for our profession and for our students. How do we do that if we don't treat each other with respect.

    I have spoken with colleagues in the NYCN group and have echoed your sentiments asking that we talk about the future, not about the past. It will be interesting how the next few weeks play out, but I hope it plays out without rhetoric but with honest questions and conversations about where we are going and why.

    ReplyDelete