Inclusivity Changes Lives (Including Mine)

“I came to a roadblock in my life where I had to make a decision whether I wanted to live or not. I come from the streets. I had to learn the streets. I had to survive on the streets. I have been incarcerated before and every time that I have done time I have told myself, ‘This is it. This is the last time.’ While I was doing time, I earned my GED in 1999. That was a turning point in my life. Education came to the forefront of my thoughts.”

I first met Ivory as his advisor in TRIO Student Support Services at Community College of Denver. We were different from one another in many ways: age, race, socioeconomic background, academic preparation, physical ability, vernacular, and life history. I told him that I was glad to see him. I asked him to tell me a little bit about himself. He explained his desire to earn a Bachelor’s degree and work in Human Services.

“Where I was fifteen years ago, there was no love. There was chaos. A person feels trapped with no way to advance, just trying to survive in the jungle. There was danger all around me. But once I came to college it was like my eyes were opened, the shackles were taken off of me. I was able to feel free.”

Over the course of the next four years, I met with Ivory a handful of times each semester in order to answer questions and provide advising. Our relationship unfolded tentatively at first, our conversations focused largely on formal academic matters. However, as I continued to ask open ended questions and listen attentively, Ivory’s responses slowly became longer, more open with the complexities of his life. I felt and communicated an immense respect for the many obstacles he overcame to make it to my door. Each conversation taught me something more about Ivory and about myself.

“Higher education has put me in a bracket that allows me to speak to people that I feel are important. These people have helped me really soar past the doubts that I had in myself. Now I do not feel alienated. I no longer feel like I am unequal to others. It has opened up my eyes to be who I am and have more integrity and respect for myself as well as others.”

Sixteen years after earning his GED while in prison, Ivory prepared to graduate with an Associate’s degree and transfer to a four-year institution. To mark the occasion, we sat down together for one more conversation, the interview cited in this essay. I continue to be amazed by the power of an inclusive educational environment to unleash the dynamism and potential of students facing immense odds.     

“I want to leave a message to my children and others that are still out there in the jungle that anything is possible if you put your heart and mind to it even though it is not going to be easy. I have changed my whole life. I want to be proud of myself. I want others to know that if I can do that then they can do it. Don’t stress on where you were but prepare yourself for where you are going. Appreciate that you are here and have the opportunity. Every day is an opportunity to change your life.”

To be inclusive is to ensure that each individual possesses the freedom to become who he or she is. Awareness of self, culture and socioeconomic systems serves as the foundation upon which such inclusivity is built. From here, we can move forward to implement strategies that liberate us from the binds of unrealized potential, both of individuals and of communities, both of self and of other.

I have been privileged to work in an educational opportunity program, provided the medium to participate in the forging of inclusivity. I have learned immensely from Ivory and many others like him, translating the theories I learned as a student into the experiential practice of a professional.The wisdom I have gained from these experiences informs my everyday professional work - from communication strategies to ethical standards to program development to advocacy. But even more so, these experiences shape the way in which I am present to the world. Inclusivity is a radical hospitality. We uncenter ourselves and open our hearts and minds to hearing all voices and believing in all dreams.

A Meta-Culture of Engagement for an Emerging Future

In his book The End of College: Creating the Future of Learning and the University of Everywhere, author Kevin Carey, Director of the Education Policy Institute at the New America Foundation, confidently expresses a rosy view about technology-driven, unbundled education:

“[B]illions of dollars available to create digital learning environments and matching credentials designed to teach relatively small number of courses and subjects to billions of people...The weight of these large numbers will eventually grow so heavy that it will overwhelm even the formidable barriers of regulatory protection, public subsidy, and cultural habit that protects cathedrals of learning...[T]his is neither an avoidable or a distant scenario. The University of Everywhere is on the horizon.”

Meanwhile, in the blog post “Public Matters: A Response to Kevin Carey,” Matt Reed, the Vice-President of Academic Affairs at Holyoke Community College, forcefully counterpoints that such a vision is out of touch with the learning needs of most students and the mission of higher education:

“If we want a society of ever-increasing economic and epistemic polarization, we can replace colleges with apps.  But to the extent that we believe that average people matter, we need institutions that make it possible for them to succeed...To the extent that the new tools enable educators to serve the entire public better, bring ‘em on.  But if we’re just looking to liberate needles from haystacks, well, I’ve got some brutal unmasking to do.” Matt Reed,

Interesting as it may be to analyze the merits of these competing views of the future of higher education, I find it even more fascinating to compare the cultural milieus from which they emerge.

On the one hand, you have the Kevin Careys of the world. The End of College reads like a love story with the people of Silicon Valley and Cambridge. In Silicon Valley, we are introduced to one technologist after another and their clan of venture capitalists, remaking the world by disrupting it as "thunder lizards" would. Meanwhile, in Cambridge we meet the "smartest people" that are capitalizing on new technologies to reshape traditional institutions to create higher ed x. Running slightly beneath the surface of these two scenes is the shadowy but seductive character only known as AI. An immense confidence in if not a borderline infatuation with these characters makes for a compelling read of a determined future - the University of Everywhere.

On the other hand, you have the Matt Reeds of the world. You will often find them digging away in the trenches, fighting inch by inch for student success within the bounds of the norms and institutions of higher education. The story that these individuals tell is one of evidence based practice, budgets, and on-the-ground realities; arguably, this is far less gripping if more prosaic narrative. An immense confidence in if not a slight distaste for the glacial and contingent pace of institutional changes leads these individuals to seek sustaining innovations while brushing aside the “unsubstantiated rhetoric” of “trendy” ideas.

Once again, I will withhold an analysis of the relative merits of these different cultural lenses, as relevant and interesting as that would be. My scope here - what really captures my imagination - is to reflect on how the dynamism of cultural clashes can potentially be harnessed to create vibrant pathways to better ways of doing things.

The short answer is: I have no idea.

I suspect, however, that we may find our way to some possibilities by crafting a meta-culture of engagement. One norm of this meta-culture states that a diversity of culture should flourish in any epistemic space. Thus, it is imperative to step back from the analytical edge of distinguishing correct from incorrect logic, and instead dwell in the places of disorientation and dispute. Perhaps our time spent here will liberate us from our thought-tribalism and hence enlighten us to see anew. A second norm of this meta-culture states that we must be present to how culture conditions the emergence of perception, most notably our own. If we go further with this understanding, we find ourselves in a space of groundlessness. Here too we must abide - at least for a time - in order to free up creative space for engaging cultural dynamism.

None of this is to downgrade rational analysis and implementation. Rather, a meta-culture of engagement cultivates the foundation for open inquiry and creativity, upon which rational analysis and implementation can then proceed within a space of full possibility. The complexity in which higher education operates requires such an approach in order to diversify and thrive into an ever emerging and transforming future.

My Love-Hate Relationship with the Procedures Manual

Measuring in at 165 single-spaced pages and 50,000 words, the procedures manual that we developed for our department is a true administrative tome or tomb, depending on your perspective.

The past year has included both an system audit and a formal self-assessment for our department. Among many positive findings, these experiences have also exposed the occasional inconsistency in procedure, gap in documentation, or unwritten understanding. In response, we shored up our procedures, which doubled the heft of our manual.

I will admit that part of my personality relishes the crispness and clarity of a thorough procedures manual. Following rules can produce a certain beauty, like a well-mown lawn. Following rules can also keep one out of of trouble, which - generally speaking - is a good thing for a department to do. Add to the equation that I (the department director) am preparing to leave the institution. There is both efficiency and comfort in the institutional memory created in the page upon page of the procedures manual. Structure can be empowering.

  Of course, structure can also be imprisoning. As a department director, I could easily spend all of my time and then some simply documenting whether or not we are in compliance with our procedures manual. I would like to think that I have something greater to contribute to the grand mission of higher education than simply ensuring that all of our receipts are in order. The zeitgeist of auditors can quickly mistake the forest for the trees.

  So how can we strike the right chord to harmonize procedures and performance?

Procedures should be driven by the end user. As department director, I set the parameters while engaging the end users to operationalize the structure. Not only does this engender ownership and hence implementation, but it also incorporates the best ideas of the most informed.

Procedures should be clearly demarcated as a means to an end. The purpose of my department is to improve student outcomes, not to follow procedures. It is imperative to structure procedures accordingly. A procedure should support achievement of your goals. This is a simple litmus test.

  A procedure should be reflective instead of additive. It can be easy to simply pile one procedure on top of another as new situations or understandings arise. Soon your department will make a Byzantine labyrinth look like a stroll through the park. Reflect on your procedures manual as an interconnected system and mindfully create, refine or eliminate procedures accordingly.

  Should I print bounded copies of my procedures manual...or should burn it? I have experienced both ends of the emotional spectrum. Approaching the procedures manual as a strategic tool to support the effective and appropriate achievement of outcomes, as opposed to a sacred text for proselytizing and condemnation, is a step toward a healthy relationship.