Disucussion for September 5 session - click "Edit" to add your notes/questions, then "Save":

Questions from Tom:

• Donald Kennedy writes (p. 278), "an important role will be reserved for the university and its faculty if, and only if, they can reconnect to the society that nurtures them". In what ways is the university disconnected from the society? Higher, on the same page, he writes, "it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the role of universities has been diminished in part by their own failure to exercise intellectual leadership in the areas that thoughtful public believes to be important." Do you agree? Consider the many academics who have taken on major government jobs (e.g. Condoleezza Rice, Donna Shalala, Lawrence Summers, Robert Reich, Antonin Scalia, Paul Wellstone,...). In short, is academia too much of an "ivory tower"? If so, what concrete steps should be taken to rectify that?

• On p. 280, Kennedy suggests that colleges should admit "those students for whom the institution is likely to make the greatest difference". A similar idea was put forward by Lani Guinier in her Presidential Lecture at Stanford last year. Such an admissions policy would be a radical break with the tradition of admitting the students with the best records of accomplishment and evidence of potential. Do you think it makes sense? Would it be fair?

• On pp. 282-283, Kennedy discusses when it is appropriate for "academic leaders" to take public stands on controversial issues. He says it is clearly appropriate when higher education will be directly affected, but is more equivocal about other types of issues. Should university presidents, provosts, and deans be more circumspect than other citizens in taking public political stands? How about professors? If so, what criteria determine when it is appropriate and when it is not?

Reactions and questions from Todd:

• A few themes for the course as a whole...

• Is Stanford / are universities merely limited in the good they do, or do we/they have harmful effects? How can we answer this?

• Personal versus social responsibility - What responsibilities come from being part of an advantaged group?

• The psychological dimension - What are our biases and how can we correct for them?

• Donald Kenndy's Academic Duty: Some underlying assumptions?

• Choice facing universities (with respect to the public) is seen as being between
  • an internal focus that has no effect on society (except by helping its students be more effective after they leave)
  • and.. a more external focus that makes public service a part of what the university itself does.
  • But.. what if it turns out the university is helping some people at the expense of others?

• Focus of the faculty is and ought to be on research and students, and of the university on advancing academic knowledge, with public service being promoted as a value for students after they leave - an indirect benefit of education.

• Service is about educated people applying and sharing what they know with the public outside of the university - not about educating students and faculty through broadening encounters with the real world

• Angela Schmiede's and Len Ortolano's "Evolution of the Haas Center for Public Service":

• What do these terms mean to you? How do Schmiede and Ortolano use them?
  • "Service learning"
  • "Experiential learning"
  • "Public service"
  • "Civic engagement"

• Effects of geographic proximity of east palo alto: Is it "easily reached by car or bicycle" from Stanford? (p. 2) What about the communities that are closer (i.e. palo alto, menlo park)?

• What were the effects of the gradual replacement of the Extradepartmental Programs (EDPs) by the Haas Center (pp. 5-6)?
  • Broader focus -> narrower focus (no replacement for Stanford Workshops on Political and Social Issues (SWOPSI), diminished role for locally-focused activism)
  • Were the "legitimacy" concerns legitimat? Why was faculty oversight deemed so important? Is Haas an improvement over the EDPs?
  • Advantages of Haas: stable funding, a nice building, more coordination; but...
    • faculty are hard to involve (e.g. failures of OEPA-CBRI and the Public Scholars Initiative),
    • more reliance on well-off donors and institutional control may stifle confrontational/"activist" initiatives
    • reduced role of community; less freedom/university support for students, staff, and faculty to teach and learn informally
    • a quieting of the campus - sense that problems exist outside, not within; loss of prominence as a site of campus activism

• The failure to engage faculty in the One East Palo Alto initiative - was it really because "Stanford does not have professional programs in transportation, land use, and city planning" (p. 9), or does it show deeper institutional disincentives?

• How does Haas steer student service energy - locally, nationally, globally? What is a good balance?

• Is Haas mostly for students?

• Read and discuss the Principles of Ethical and Effective Service Learning (pp. 16-17)

• Thaal Walker and Kim Vo's "Stanford, East P.A. Uneasy Partners":

• What group is the primary client of service learning?

• Is the relationship between Stanford and east palo alto primarily one of "benefactor and beneficiary"?

• Why is community input important and how can it happen?

• Why do students "sometimes start but don't finish projects"?

Questions from Ashley

*The readings argue that universities should prepare students to become socially responsible and engaged citizens. With this in mind, do you think that universities could foster social responsibility and convey the importance of public service by instituting some type of service requirement that students must fulfill in order to graduate (i.e. requiring students to take at least one service-learning course during their time in college OR do a certain # of required service hours)? What could be the potential positive outcomes of such a requirement? What are the potential pitfalls?