Breakfast with Mauri

You can tell a lot about an organization or a person by what it is most quick to defend.  Often, we defend first that which we value most.

I was therefore gratified to see our students rise to defend the liberal arts in a recent article in the student newspaper. Our institutional passion has been passed to next generation and that means that the current generation is doing its job.

I must admit that initially I was surprised by the newspaper’s bold headline, “Taking ‘Liberal Arts’ Out of MC?”  In my view, Monmouth has never been more committed to the liberal arts than it is today.  Why would anyone suggest it is being removed from the college?  Then I thought about that intriguing question mark at the end of the headline.

Declarations of what has already happened don’t end with a question mark. The student paper was not reporting that the liberal arts had been removed from Monmouth College.  Instead, it seems to me that the question mark was there to remind us that an important question for today, tomorrow, and always is whether we are doing all we can to protect and promote the liberal arts at Monmouth College.

Why do our students rise so passionately in defense of a liberal arts education?  The answer is simple:  They understand the power of the liberal arts and are committed to the belief that the future of this country depends on the success of a handful of liberal arts colleges and their small band of graduates.  Private, residential, liberal arts colleges are often referred to as the distinctively American component of our higher education system.  Their focus on civil discourse, active citizenship, creative problem solving, and sympathetic imagination has been and will be crucial to our democratic society.  If we thrive, as a sector and as an individual College, so will America; if we fail, then it is hard to be optimistic.

My response to the question that our students posed is an unequivocal “no.”  Just the opposite: the liberal arts have a bright future at Monmouth College.

Allow me to provide some assurances beyond my own. In the College’s Vision Statement we pledge to become a national example for those who want to provide excellent liberal arts education.  The four guiding principles of our Strategic Plan could be used as an outline for the most important elements of a liberal arts education.  The College’s signature course is “Introduction to the Liberal Arts” and our capstone course is “Active Citizenship.”

When I ask our first-year students to describe what they are learning in the first semester, they talk about critical thinking, close reading, effective communicating, sympathetic imagining, integrating knowledge from all their courses, becoming open-minded, and discovering how to learn from those who disagree with them.   It is readily apparent that liberal arts education is thriving at Monmouth College and no one articulates that point better than our students.

Every time our faculty members are faced with an opportunity to choose, they come down on the side of liberal arts education.  The most recent example was a year ago when they opted for the arduous task of restructuring our curriculum to privilege deep learning over content exposure.  While both of these elements of learning are important, the very best liberal arts colleges privilege deep learning. So did our faculty.

Why then, did the question of the College’s commitment to the liberal arts recently come up?  What was it that made our students sufficiently nervous to write the story with the provocative headline? Perhaps the quotation marks around the term “liberal arts” provides a clue.  The question being posed, I think, is do we use the term “liberal arts” enough and, if not, does downplaying the term mean that we are not committed to the concept that it defines?

Clearly it is a term we use regularly.  I am told that it appears more than 700 times on our website!  But, our student reporters are accurate; we have made a conscious effort to replace the term with a description of the concept in some of our admission mailings.  Does the absence of the term in some of our materials indicate a secret desire to hide or even eliminate the liberal arts focus of our education?  Or is it an attempt at greater clarity and more effective promotion of the liberal arts?

I have on my desk a postcard that shows Professor Haq teaching in our outdoor classroom. Seated or stretched out on the ground, paying careful attention, are 18 of our students.  Across the top of the picture is the phrase “What the world needs now…”   On the back of the card, that thought is completed with the sentence:  “Now, more than ever, the world needs strong, creative, critical thinkers and problem solvers.”  The phrase “liberal arts” does not appear anywhere on the card. Clearly, that could easily have been done.  After all, what the world needs is liberal arts education. What we decided to do instead was list characteristics of those who have benefited from a liberal arts education rather than simply using the phrase itself.

From this example that is about a year old, one might argue that we were promoting liberal arts education as a concept rather than as a phrase.  Were we rejecting or hiding our liberal arts character?  I think not. We knew that some readers would read “liberal arts education” and think “strong, creative, critical thinkers and problem solvers” but we worried that others outside our community would not make that connection.

But, clearly, some of our students believe the issue is a bit more complex.  And, I am persuaded that they are right.  One can make a strong argument that the liberal arts are so important to our country’s future that we should take every opportunity to clarify and promote our commitment.  That might be true even, or especially, when our message is directed at those who have no perception or even a misperception of what it means to pursue a liberal arts education.  After all, words are important symbols and we use them even when we are not certain what they mean.  Many of us recited the pledge of allegiance to the flag in kindergarten before we knew the meaning of allegiance or indivisible.  Some of us recite various creeds on Sunday morning even if many around us do not know the meaning of some of the mysterious words we are using.

Although many in the academic community cringe when marketing terminology like “branding” is applied to colleges, the student newspaper reporter and editor appreciate the importance of establishing a brand.  They remind us that using the term “liberal arts” will cause some to associate us with an impressive group of colleges. Even if those individuals don’t know the meaning of the term they know that it describes a good brand.

As always, we show wisdom when we listen to what our students are saying. In this case, our students are telling us that there is value in taking every opportunity to highlight both the liberal arts education we provide and the terms we use to describe it. Being able to accurately describe what makes a Monmouth College education special is important.  Equally important is promoting the ancient term that will help others verbalize what they see happening at Monmouth College.

As we look forward to achieving our Vision, we can imagine a day in which the general public will value a liberal arts education because they associate “liberal arts” with the achievements of our graduates.  Indeed, there is value in knowing both what we do and what to call it.

Several decades ago, when I was teaching analytical chemistry, I received a sample of road dust with a request that I determine whether it contained toxic substances. It came from the neighborhood where I had lived during high school.  As one might expect, there was a story behind the sample.

Months earlier the major highway in the region had closed for repairs to a railroad overpass.  The detour added many miles for north-south traffic through the county.  Eventually, regular commuters and long-distance truckers got word of a small local road that bypassed the construction.  It didn’t take long for heavy traffic to destroy the road’s thin layer of asphalt.  The local authorities responded by plowing up what remained of the paved road, returning it temporarily to a gravel surface.  The expectation, I presume, was that the rough surface and the clouds of dust would force traffic back to the official detour.  It didn’t.  And throughout a long, dry and very hot summer, the local residents lived in a haze of road dust.  Those in poor health struggled and families worried about long-term harm to their children.

As one might expect, the dust settling in the houses was rich in chemical composition. It wasn’t difficult to trace the organic compounds to the pulverized asphalt and road oils. These were mixed with a strong dose of the inorganic compound that had been sprayed in a futile attempt to settle the dust. I decided to return to my old neighborhood to personally explain the results of my analysis.

The community meeting called to discuss the issue went as expected. Local TV reporters showed up with cameras. Voices were raised and people yelled at the county official who had the courage to show up.  There was talk of petitions and protests. All of it was justified after weeks of frustrating inattention.  About the time things reached a fevered pitch, two farmers joined the meeting, standing quietly at the back of the room. They had been cultivating fields under the hot sun all day and it showed.  After about five minutes the two farmers whispered to each other, shrugged their shoulders, and walked out of the room.  I could scarcely contain my anger. There was a community problem, children were at danger, and these two neighbors didn’t seem to care.

As it turned out, I was much too quick in my condemning judgment.  Soon I heard the roar of diesel farm tractors on the road. Behind those tractors, which were large enough to cover both lanes, were large tanks of water and a fine mist of water being applied to the gravel road. The water settled the dust and the slow-moving, wide tractors, which appeared regularly in the coming days, made the narrow road a very inconvenient if not impossible detour. Soon word was out and through-traffic returned to the officially sanctioned route.

While some of us demanded action, others took action. The experience reminded me that on some days we can win an argument and on other days we can solve a problem.  But rarely can we do both at the same time.

I applied this life lesson in my response to the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  My in-box was filled with notes endorsing a letter by a colleague demanding that President Obama take immediate action to limit the availability of assault weapons.  Almost lost among the endorsements for this strong note was a second letter that urged college presidents to mobilize their campuses to find solutions to the many and complex issues that contribute to gun violence.  Signatories of the first letter demanded action by the President of the United States.  Signatories of the second letter pledged personal action.  Both are good letters.  I am glad that so many of my colleagues are offering their support.  I am sure that President Obama will read carefully the request from so many of my good colleagues who are urging him to action.  Personally, I have opted for the second letter that pledges personal responsibility for engaging the Monmouth College community in finding ways to make our children safer.

The letter I signed was drafted by President Lee Pelton of Emerson College.  In it he wrote:  “Our nation looks to colleges and universities to solve its most pressing problems and these are issues on which we stand ready to provide a way forward.  We, therefore, pledge to do that which we do best in our communities:  engage thought leaders, faculty, students, staff, trustees and friends in meaningful debate and dialogue, which in turn, might lead to positive action.”  This pledge has been transmitted to President Obama.  As important as it is that he knows we plan to take action, it is even more important that all members of the Monmouth community know that I have pledged our action.

Like the residents of Newtown, Connecticut, we live in a small town that seems isolated from the day-to-day impact of gun violence.  Yet we have once again been reminded that none of us, wherever we live, can or should ignore the potential for unexpected and devastating impact.  We must also not forget that many of our students are spending their Christmas break in areas where homicide is a regular—if not daily—concern.   There have been more than 500 homicides in Chicago this year, the majority of which involved firearms and, in far too many cases, children as victims.  As a national liberal arts college we should contribute to the resolution of gun violence because it is an issue of vital, national concern.  As a community that cares deeply for all who study here, we have a special responsibility to address this issue that is close to home for students we love.