A New Model In Old Places

(10 minute read)

“Each of us confront the exacting terms of our own existence, and, like Sisyphus, accepts our rock and finds our happiness by dealing with it.“

– Robert Greenleaf on philosopher and artist, Albert Camus (emphasis mine)

“One may long, as I do, for a gentler flame, a respite, a pause for musing. But perhaps there is no other peace for the artist than what he finds in the heat of combat. ‘Every wall is a door,’ Emerson correctly said. Let us not look for the door, and the way out, anywhere but in the wall against which we are living. Instead, let us seek the respite where it is–in the very thick of battle. For in my opinion …it is there.”

– Albert Camus, Create Dangerously (emphasis mine)

Academia is under enormous pressure from coordinated external sources. Collectively, we’ve never faced pressures like this in our lifetime. I think I can confidently say that.

We aren’t the first majority of Americans to have dealt with the feeling that the world is imploding. We also aren’t the first to live with an American government that practices cruelty on her own citizens.We don’t feel better because previous generations had to deal with like issues. We feel better because they were able to right the ship and get America back on track. Studying how they dug themselves out can only help us do the same.

Now is not the time to shrink away. As noted above, we may desire quieter times. However, these are not quiet times. Maybe some day. But from where we stand, right now, there is no exit out. With our backs against the wall the only way out is by marching forward and working our way through it.

I believe that there is a way to stand up for what we know is right. I believe that there is a new way to provide leadership through service. I think that the majority of American people are hungry for it.

For now, let us settle the questions before us. Can teaching and servant-leadership co-exist? Is it possible to overcome our own prejudices about what we think a leader is and isn’t? How can a personal ownership in education transcend the intolerant factions demanding what and how we should teach? Finally, how do we resolve our own doubts about promising a brighter future for our students?

This may seem like an odd place to start in this essay, but stay with me just one more time.

Since the dawn of man, human beings have had a propensity to look for meaning through something greater than themselves. Especially when it comes to solving the “bigger problems” of life. What does it all mean? Why are we here? How did we get here? Why do bad things happen to good people? And the mother of all questions, what happens to us and our loved ones once we are no longer alive?

Maybe not ALL people think about these things. But certainly we have a written record of those who have. The majority of topics ever written in the history of mankind have been attempts at answering them.

At one time I looked at the servant-leader model through the eyes of a theologian. I can no longer do that and remain authentic to myself. However, the servant–leader model is without religious ties and is rich in relevance. In fact, the servant–leader model, as envisioned by Robert Greenleaf, transcends any religious affiliation. For me it remains even richer in relevance.

There is a trend in America to move away from a “one-size-fits-all” practice of faith. In fact, religious affiliation is down in the States. Trust in religious institutions are at historic lows. For a variety of reasons, an “a la carte spirituality” seems to be the modus operandi for seekers. In fact, today there are more people that consider themselves spiritual but not religious. They don’t belong to an organized religion but still want to believe that there is “something” out there. The drive and need to find meaning and truth still resides deep within our core.

“The very nature of humanizing education makes it possible for every educator to engage and nurture people …[T]eachers, in any educational context, can help take care of other human beings by how they teach. All educators are wise to place a [purpose] at the foundation of their teaching.”

– Thomas Groome, Educating for Life, 1998

Despite Groome’s devout adherence to the Catholic faith, I find his argument compelling. I have enjoyed success teaching in faith and academic communities. If you are new to my essays this can catch you up.

It may seem odd, but I have always been aware of education as a way of caring for people. I think I came to that conclusion through my own transformation. Education transcended me out of the projects, in every way. As a form of caring for my own well-being it has profoundly influenced the way I teach.

My early experience teaching at the church level, I suspect, is common to those who also have. I was expected to teach and foster spiritual growth within my students. That was often driven by content first and the process of learning last. You know, indoctrination of the “rules of faith” and then expect transformation to come later.

Over the years I learned that the process of learning, the internalizing of knowledge, is just as important as content. By the time I transitioned from religious education to academia the teaching process was basically the same. Only the topics and expected outcomes had changed.

My approach to the servant–leader model was not to treat students as a means to an end. Rather, these were individuals thrown together for a specific period of time. I knew that most of the them didn’t want to be there because it was required.

There was an ethos to each of the classes and no two were alike. Not only that, but so was every student in that class. They couldn’t be massed together as a homogeneous blob and generalized as though they were “one in thought.” Each of them came with different experiences.

Starting The Model

We can start to model servant–leadership by openly discussing the learning process and offering discussions and writings that foster introspection. I also set aside time to discuss how the learning process works. Usually early in the semester. You would be amazed at the number of college students that were hearing that information for the first time.

With care and respect we can encourage self-knowledge, the knowing of self, and how education affects that. In short, we are simply engaging the student in the educational process, how it works and what to expect. At the same time the students start to take on the burden and responsibility of their own education. And that’s the point.

Kick-starting this process is easy. We simply ask questions about the material and how the students internalize it. For example, in a mass media class we will be discussing the history of electronic broadcasting. I’ll then ask, “When engaging with modern media how does learning about its history change your attitude or experience?”

The answers may not be stupendously thought provoking. However, in trying to answer there is an opportunity for internalizing and contemplation. Asked enough times for any number of topics, and with very little intrusion, students start to pick up the habit.

It is important to be intentional about integrating the servant–leader model into the classroom. Groome never mentions the servant–leader model, but there are two distinctions about the educators’ style that will help us.

First, honoring students as individuals means introducing a teaching style that draws thoughtful individual responses. No doubt, measuring rote knowledge is important. However, allowing contemplation about the learning process bridges the gap of applying that knowledge. Again, there are a myriad of examples of how this works.

Putting aside his fondness for Plato’s doctrine of recollection, the 4th century philosopher, Augustine, based his teaching method on the belief that “truth lives within.” Augustine’s son, Adeodatus, sought advice from his dad about teaching. Augustine wrote to his son, “the primary role of a teacher is to question students in a way that allows them to hear the teacher within.” After all, “Who would be so absurdly foolish as to send their child to school to learn what the teacher thinks?” (emphasis mine)

In the post-truth era we seem to be living in this may sound dangerous to some. After all, isn’t this how we got the myriad of conspiracy theories roiling about? Flat–earthers, Holocaust deniers, fake moon landings, micro-chips in vaccines, climate change hoax, chem-trails, yada, yada, yada. I think what I am outlining here is a way to battle that.

There is very little we can do for the one that doesn’t accept historical facts. If one is so hell-bent on denying that Christopher Columbus “sailed the ocean blue in 1492” and, instead, believes aliens landed, well…?

But I think that outliers like this have always existed. The modern problem is the megaphone social media provides and distrust in institutions. That distrust means that the chance to teach critical thinking skills is diminished in a small segment of the population. Give them a big enough platform and the cycle continues.

Certainly, if such a student existed I would make every effort to persuade them to use critical thinking. But not at the risk losing the rest of the class. There are some things that are beyond our influence and control. That shouldn’t stop us from reaching the rest of the class.

A Personal Crisis?

This series of essays has attempted to ask and answer three questions.

• Is a personal ownership in forming “identity and integrity” relevant to academia?
• Is a personal ownership in forming “character and inner life” relevant to academia?
• Is a personal ownership in forming “crises in the university” relevant to academia?

The answer to those questions raised is implied throughout. I argue that if we, educator and administrator alike, don’t take ownership the future of education will be bleak.

I respectfully submit to my colleagues the following.

Despite the current autocratic assault on academia, is it possible that the crisis is one of our own doing? Are we being tested now because we’ve been short-sighted, unwilling to adapt to a changing society? Are we still using old and tired methods that no longer relate to a student-body? Have we neglected the nurturing of individuals because we, ourselves, are bruised, broken, burnout, or jaded? Have we lost the fire we had when first teaching? Have we failed to renew our mission as educators? 

If this is so, then there is indeed a crisis in the University and it starts with you. 

As all of us are very much aware that the University is not a faceless organization. It is not just the brick and mortar of buildings. The University is you and I. If there is a state of crisis it is because we are in a state of personal and professional crisis.

Our mission is to liberate, empower, and transcend ourselves, students, and community. The hope is that they would go out and do the same, helping others find, meet, and fulfill theirs. 

And this all begins in the classroom, regardless of the discipline.

If we are willing to become servant–leaders then I think we can affect change in our institutions. By providing leadership through service we can revitalize our academies. By doing so we can become liberated, empowered, transcending our circumstances. Standing stalwart we can take on any assault from any side. Only then can we teach with authority, encouraging and humbly challenging others to do the same.

End of series. New to the series. Read Part 1 here.