Editorial Cartoon by Bob Englehart

PERSPECTIVE: An Intervention in History

by the Equity Task Force of Wesleyan University In recent years, due to the increasing corporatization of universities across the nation, and the pressures of the economy, campus cultures have become more fragmented as students negotiate learning, professionalization, and community engagement.

Wesleyan’s mission as a transformative liberal arts education begins with a “holistic review” of potential applicants who are, in many ways, already fragmenting under these pressures. Moreover, the well-being of students is increasingly affected. We need a sustainable and integrative educational approach that is mindful of the uneven impact of these pressures.

The overcommitted student does not have time for thinking. In Spanish there is a saying, “Hay que darle tiempo al tiempo,” we must give time the time. Learning is a process and contemplation is an integral component. Our institutional pedagogy should recognize and inspire a more present, civic-minded, and active learner. It may also serve to counteract the academic, personal, and social dissonance in students’ lives.

Considering this as we forge ahead, it is imperative that we reassess our scholastic values. Indeed, after a period of capitulation to the market, the University must reaffirm and recenter itself on our source of pride, our intellectual mission. Although it is a sign of our times, opting for digitization and screen culture has only encouraged students (and not only students) to view faculty as “resources,” reducible to delivery mechanisms; the result is no longer contemplative learning, but the passive quantifiable consumption of information without attentiveness to pedagogy.

This growing trend, doomed to become our Achilles’ heel, grossly undermines faculty-student relations and the creativeness and possibilities in the exchange of knowledge. An educational mission is not the provision of consumer-centered services. The consumer model that has allowed the institution to compete is leading us astray from our very educational standards.

Students are not partners in transactions, and faculty and staff also require work environments with boundaries, protection, and inspiration. We must work diligently together to reconcile the disjuncture between our branding and reality as we recommit to an integrative and non-instrumental style of learning, based on the twin strengths of Wesleyan’s scholar-teachers and its dynamic staff.

Moreover, it should not be taken for granted that Wesleyan’s known history of activism (especially during the 1960s-90s) continues to determine the campus climate or that it gives students the same sense of belonging as their non-activist peers.  Although students have demonstrated over the years and waged campaigns such as Diver$ity Univer$ity, AFAMIsWhy, Trans/Gender Group, and WesDive$t more recently, in the last decades, evident commitment to social justice on a global scale has been waning on this campus, just as it has nationally.

While recent events indicate a resurgence of some awareness, we must admit and confront the shifting generational tendency towards insularity and the interpersonal, which threatens to diminish cognizance and interest in international matters.

Global strife resonates at all levels, and as such is not unrelated to political struggles at home. And with the pervasiveness and persistent power of structural racism, Wesleyan needs the institutional will and commitment from members of its community to ongoing reflection and engagement.

Therefore, effective and sustainable solutions will not arrive from above. Students, staff, and faculty together must create a campus environment of mutual respect. That environment depends on shared and deliberately articulated community principles. In this regard, on the one hand, the Office of Equity and Inclusion needs to better define, articulate, and communicate the institutional commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. That office should also provide a clear policy framework. On the other hand, that environment will be shaped most powerfully by our collective community practices.

As we reel in the wake of the 2015, we must ask ourselves what we want our relationship to this historical moment of crisis to be. Our view is that we must seize this time as an opportunity to intentionally shape Wesleyan’s future narrative…we should consider which aspects of our history continue to serve our progress, and which condemn us to repeat the past.

_____________________________________

This excerpt is from the Final Report of the Equity Task Force of Wesleyan University in Middletown, issued this past week.  The Task Force was created by President Michael S. Roth, and seeks to “address persistent problems of inequality and structural racism that are endemic both in our society at large and at Wesleyan.” The report makes three major recommendations:

• develop a Center with an “intellectually grounded mission in Social Justice and a focus on intercultural development and literacy.”
• devote significant resources toward redressing long-term issues of discrimination and marginalization, especially as this affects the composition of faculty and staff as well as the development of the curriculum.
• establish a standing institutional committee to coordinate, communicate and support change in these areas.

President Roth said this week that Wesleyan “will move forward immediately on all three recommendations.”  Task Force members included Gina Athena Ulysse (Faculty and Tri-Chair), Elisa Cardona (Staff), Antonio Farias (Staff and Tri-Chair), Matthew Garrett (Faculty), William Johnston (Faculty), Makaela Kingsley (Staff), Caroline Liu (Student), Henry Martellier, Jr. (Student), and Shardonay Pagett (Student and Tri-Chair). 

PERSPECTIVE commentaries by contributing writers appear each Sunday on Connecticut by the Numbers.

LAST WEEK: Every Generation Has Something to Teach

Editorial Cartoon by Bob Englehart

PERSPECTIVE: Every Generation Has Something to Teach - Why You Should Leverage All Levels of Knowledge in the Workplace

by Kim Sirois Pita Have you noticed the dynamics of your work environment changing right before your eyes? Our technology-connected youth are swooping in with their infinite wisdom and scooping up the jobs once occupied by our elders. We are in the midst of a true generational shift stemming from the reality of the graying of America.

This shift has brought five generations together into the workforce for the first time spanning from our aspiring teens to our active seniors. As these generations naturally converge, it becomes even more necessary to understand the vast differences among them, and how each can share essential knowledge.

Gloria Steinem, an 81-year-old pioneer of the feminist movement, said it best: “We need to remember across generations there is as much to learn as there is to teach.”

Take for example The Intern movie featuring Anne Hathaway and Robert DeNiro. The 2015 movie cleverly unveils work style differences between boomers and millennials by putting 20-something Hathaway in charge of 60-something DeNiro at her thriving Internet company.

While waiting for an assignment from the “boss lady,” he reads the morning paper from his brown leather attaché case. Hathaway barely notices him as she pedals her retro bicycle through the swanky open-space office, doing business from a blue tooth apparatus stuck to her ear.

Hathaway’s character is a smart, savvy young businesswoman, who doesn’t want to face overwhelming feelings of stress and unease. But she is being forced to recognize her lack of business management experience by her company’s Board of Directors. When Hathaway finally realizes DeNiro’s value, she opens herself up to learning from him, and even yields to his advice on major business decisions.

Learning, most definitely, is a two-way street. When you change your attitude and free your mind to take it all in and refrain from the “know it all” attitude, an amazing behavioral shift and transfer of knowledge begins to occur between people of all ages.

While teaching a generational marketing class at Capital Community College, I remember an adult student commenting about the younger generations who seemed to look down on the older generations in her office. She used the word “aloof” to describe how the young professionals felt about the baby boomers.

By the end of the class, this student realized that perhaps she and her coworkers never fully embraced the talents of the younger generation, and perhaps they were being a bit dismissive of what they could contribute. Thanking me for opening her eyes, she went back to the state office with a new outlook — one where learning across generations should be embraced rather than dismissed.

Younger generations are entering the workforce with far greater expectations than their older counterparts. They are highly educated, information hounds with 24-hours access to knowledge. An afternoon at the library has since been replaced with a 15-minute Google search from anywhere, at any time — and they have harnessed the power of this.

The term “paying your dues” is no longer relevant in our changing workforce. Instead it is more about the skills and talents you can bring to the job. Sure, this will cause resentment among many, but it is the new reality that, ultimately, needs to be accepted to maintain a happy and cohesive workplace environment.

And not only do employees need to play nice in the sandbox during the work day, company leaders needs to understand and address the communication and work style differences across generations. They need to encourage collaboration and knowledge swapping between generations.

Gen X (age 34 to 45) and Millennials (age 18 to 33) tend to communicate in sound bytes using email, social media and mobile, while the older generations (Silent and G.I.) prefer lengthy detailed explanations. Baby Boomers (age 46 to 64) fall somewhere in the middle — they want details, but they are often time-challenged to absorb too much, often balancing work, home, kids, volunteer commitments and elderly parents.

While companies are trying to adapt to varying preferences among the generations, immediate change is not always possible. Company leaders need to balance what will work best for the business and its evolving employee population.

_____________________________________

Kim Pita is founder of Pita Peaces and former managing principal of The Pita Group. She is a transformational brand leader who works with industry pioneers and family owned businesses in transition. She takes them from a place of chaos and uncertainty to harmony and prominence. Kim serves as chair of CBIA’s Small Business Advisory Council and vice chair of the Mental Health Connecticut Board of Directors.

PERSPECTIVE commentaries by contributing writers appear each Sunday on Connecticut by the Numbers.

LAST WEEK: Progress Made on Regional Cooperation

Editorial Cartoon by Bob Englehart

PERSPECTIVE: Progress Made on Regional Cooperation During 2016 Session

by Mary Glassman The stroke of midnight on May 4 will signal the official close of Connecticut’s 2016 legislative session. Regardless of what bills pass during the last few days at the Capitol, this session clearly marks the beginning of a bold approach to regional cooperation, and it paves the way for us to meet the state’s growing needs and demographic changes.

As the state wrestles with ways to close a $1.1 billion deficit that is projected for next fiscal year, it is clear that a strategic plan is needed to identify the state’s future goals and to ensure that the state is providing services and educating all of Connecticut’s children. The many bills introduced this session that focus on regional cooperation offer a glimmer of hope. Connecticut may be ready to do just that.

Even the titles of the bills introduced this session provide us with a clue that Connecticut is ready to move forward. Bills that made it out of committee and are waiting to be debated on the floors of the House of Representatives and the Senate include: “An Act Concerning Regional Education,” “An Act Concerning Regionalism,” “An Act Concerning Regional Technology,” and “An Act Concerning Regional Efficiencies.”

Ideas included in the various legislative proposals would allow for the expansion of cooperative purchasing for towns and school districts through existing regional organizations, such as the state’s six regional educational service centers and nine councils of governments. The bills would also provide incentive funds for towns and schools to combine non-educational, backroom functions like human resources, finance, or technology services, and they would encourage long-term technology planning, which would enhance efficiencies, reduce costs, foster collaboration, and increase transparency and access to information.

For example, a proposed education bill would provide town and school districts with startup costs when they combine non-educational, backroom functions. While some towns, such as Mansfield, West Hartford, and Waterford, already share those behind-the-scene functions, other towns could use a little extra help when evaluating whether local taxpayers would save money by having different entities working together.

Another bill would require future enrollment projections to be provided as part of a request for state funding for the construction of new schools. This would encourage neighboring communities to share enrollment needs and to examine ways the state can help municipalities work together.

As local officials face uncertainty about state funding in this year’s budget, and probably in subsequent budgets, doesn’t finding ways to reduce costs by working together make sense?

___________________

Mary Glassman is Manager of CREC’s Office for Regional Efficiencies.

PERSPECTIVE commentaries by contributing writers appear each Sunday on Connecticut by the Numbers.

LAST WEEK: Social Media Manipulation: Worse than Advertising?

Editorial Cartoon by Bob Englehart

PERSPECTIVE - Social Media Manipulation: Worse than Advertising?

by Carrie Titolo I want to preface this by saying I’m not that old, but I still clearly remember life before social media (I was in college just as Facebook was born). Social media came about because of a demand for a network and personal connections that defied physical location. Facebook originally started as an online networking site just for college students (you actually needed a .edu email address to register), but what it has morphed into is an entirely different beast.

What was once grassroots and organic now feels contrived, forced and flashy. With more paid content on your news feed than actual posts from your friends, and the rampant use of photo editing software rendering images of ourselves unrecognizable, I can’t help but think that we should be just as skeptical and wary of social media as we are of traditional advertising.

Consumers and celebrities alike have maligned the mainstream media and advertising industry for decades, criticizing them for photo manipulation and perpetuating false and unrealistic beauty standards, especially for women. A 2011 study conducted by Dove found that 80% of women surveyed felt insecure when seeing photos of celebrities in the media. Of the woman surveyed, 71% of them did not believe their own appearances were attractive or stylish in comparison to cover models. In spite of our rampant criticism of these practices, we’ve begun using social media and photo editing apps to create the same deception.

Consider the slew of apps dedicated to photo editing and the sheer number of users employing them on a daily basis to shape up their selfies. There’s PhotoWonder with the tagline “Shaping charming faces and slim bodies in the easiest way” which has over 100 million users in 218 countries. Then there’s Spring, which helps manipulate photos to make the object more model-esque: taller, thinner and with a sharper jawline. FaceTune and CreamCam remove wrinkles, zits, and skin imperfections while SkinnyCamera promises to make you look 10 to 20 pounds lighter. There are so many ways to tweak and change a photo, we might as well use computer generated caricatures or animation and save ourselves the hassle.

With such an abundance of DIY image-altering resources, the deeper, more philosophical issue comes in the eyes of the beholder. Knowing what we now know, we can’t help but look at all photos with a critical eye. Whether it’s a vacation selfie your cousin posted or that photo of Ronda Rousey on the Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon, we automatically assume what we’re seeing isn’t real and the image has been doctored (especially in the latter example). It is this skepticism that causes me to take pause. Didn’t we take to the Twitter-sphere because we wanted to avoid being misled and blatantly marketed to? That’s not what (Facebook) friends are for!

So what to do now that we’ve dug ourselves into a hole of disenchantment and cynicism? How do we reclaim the digital territory that once was ours? I wish I had the answer. I don’t think there’s a silver bullet that will fix everything, but perhaps we can start on an individual level by taking a vow of honesty when it comes to our social media accounts. Maybe if we all try to be genuine with the images we post and encourage our friends to do the same, we can turn this perfectly toned and blemish-free boat around. Maybe one day, we’ll even come to appreciate the imperfections that not only make us unique, but make us human. #nofilter.

_________________________________________

Carrie Titolo is a graduate of the Boston University College of Communication, and has a background in public relations, marketing and nonprofit communications. She loves to cook and bake, is an avid runner and enjoys spending time with her husband and two rescue dogs.

PERSPECTIVE commentaries by contributing writers appear each Sunday on Connecticut by the Numbers.

LAST WEEK: Survey Data: Not What It Used to Be

Editorial Cartoon by Bob Englehart

PERSPECTIVE: Survey Data; Not What It Used to Be

by Michelle Riordan-Nold In public debate, I increasingly hear the phrase: data-driven decision making. At CTData part of our core mission includes advocating for the public availability of data to inform policymaking. But what does it really mean and what data are we talking about?

As people increasingly use data to inform business or policy decisions, the quality of that data becomes even more important. Using data responsibly is something creators and users need to take seriously. Part of this includes understanding the drawbacks of data collection methodologies.

I recently attended the Association of Public Data Users conference where several of the speakers discussed the increasing unreliability of survey data.

As it turns out, most of what we know in social science comes from surveys of households. For example, the unemployment rate, poverty rate, rate of inflation are all collected through household surveys. Federal household surveys are used to make macroeconomic policy, they are used in indexing government benefits, and in determining tax brackets.

Surveys tell us a host of factors about people's lives, including: what people are doing in response to government programs, their level of education and employment, and how they spend their money, just to name a few. They tell us how the economy is operating and how government programs are working or not working. However, rarely do we talk about the challenges and deficiencies of survey data, yet we rely very heavily on this data for decision making.

Surveys as an instrument for collecting reliable data are deteriorating. Over time, as Bruce Meyer, the McCormick Foundation Professor at Chicago Harris, notes, people are "less willing to participate in surveys, less willing to answer the questions, and when providing answers people are less likely to give accurate answers than they did in past. People are over surveyed." Frankly, the allure of being surveyed and giving your opinion is no longer a thrill.

As the saying goes, ‘a picture is worth a thousand words.' The chart below, taken from a recent paper by Meyer, shows that the non-response rate for five key national household surveys has been creeping up over the years. People are not responding that they receive government services even when they actually are the recipients of government programs.

But it's not just a problem of people not responding, it is also an issue that the information they provide is also quite poor. Meyer's research revealed that

"in our most used survey, that's the source of official income and poverty statistics, only about half of people receiving food stamps report it, under 40% of those receiving cash assistance report it. If you want to know who is poor you get a very bad picture from just surveys alone."

How did he figure this out? Professor Meyer linked the main household survey data to government program data (also known as administrative data). In a secure research data center, using anonymized data, he was able to look at what a recipient says in a survey to what the recipient is actually receiving.

"In surveys, the poverty rate looks much higher than what it really is; second these programs look less effective than what they are because much of the receipt is missing; in addition it looks like people who you think should be receiving these programs aren't."

What does this mean for policy?

On the one hand, it makes it look like the poor are doing much worse than they are. It also makes government programs look less effective than they are.

Meyer was involved in federal legislation that called for the establishment of a commission to look into ways that administrative data could be made more widely available to administrative agencies to determine whether programs should be expanded or contracted and to provide access to researchers both inside and outside government. The commission would be staffed by program or data experts, experts on data confidentiality and security, and with equal appointments from the House, Senate, and White House.

If these statistics were found to be so unreliable at the national level; what does it mean for Connecticut?

Relying on survey data is no longer a reliable measurement tool. It is time to look at the administrative data and examine the effectiveness of state government programs. This can be done. It should be easier with the passage last year of Public Act 15-142 that gives the Office of Policy and Management authority to link agency data and provide it to public researchers, as well as with the continued development of the P20-WIN data sharing initiative.

In order for policymakers to make 'data-driven decisions' we need to:

1. define the outcomes desired by government programs;
2. ensure the data are being collected to measure efficacy;
3. analyze the data to measure the programs; and
4. take action on the research results to ensure efficient allocation of resources.

However, this requires good administrative data that must come from those administering the programs. Let's get a commission together to ask the questions, determine the needs, and analyze the data.

With the fiscal challenges the State is facing, it's important that policymakers ensure that dollars are well spent and government programs are working. Access to better data can only lead to better government decisions.

______________________________

Michelle Riordan-Nold is Executive Director of the Connecticut Data Collaborative

PERSPECTIVE commentaries by contributing writers appear each Sunday on Connecticut by the Numbers.

LAST WEEK:  The State Budget:  What Do Demographics Have to Do With It?