Tilting at windmills

Despite being championed/cynically exploited by three Governors and a whole host of political leaders, Vision Shared has not been very successful.  Why?

  • The first problem, I daresay, is with Vision Shared’s mission: “To bridge social, political and economic gaps by BRINGING PEOPLE TOGETHER to confront the issues and needs facing West Virginia.” I realize that bringing people together, which is better known as event planning or party planning to the uninitiated, can be quite an accomplishment, but it is hardly a “meaningful” accomplishment for an organization in existence for almost a decade. During my eight years working in government, I quickly learned that the problem with getting things done rarely is that key stakeholders don’t meet – the public policy world is filled with party planners.  Rather it was that no one ever does much of anything after being brought together.  An organization that makes bringing people together its primary mission is destined to fail at accomplishing much of anything else, regardless of whom it brings together.
  • The second problem, I daresay, is with Vision Shared’s goal: “To strengthen the economy, reshape communities, promote progressive government and improve the quality of life for all West Virginians.”  No organization can be all things to all people – and certainly not with a $600,000 annual budget.

Vision impaired?

Vision Shared, a group created in 2000 to make West Virginia more economically competitive, recently issued its 2009 annual report.

Like the organization itself, the report is a mile wide and an inch deep.  You have to skip to the top of page 12 (and can stop at the bottom of page 13) of the 18 page report to find a discussion of the group’s accomplishments during 2009.  The highlights listed:

  • Early Child Development. They issued a report with some recommendations. No discussion of accomplishments in improving early child development.
  • Creative Communities.  They held a conference. Again no discussion of accomplishments in creating or sustaining creative communities.
  • Technology Based Economic Development. They created yet another free-standing non-profit organization – TechConnectWV.  Again no discussion of accomplishments in bringing technology-based economic development to West Virginia.
  • Entrepreneurship.  They launched the Young Entrepreneurs Support (YES) Network.  Clever acronym, but what does it do?  And, yes, they created a business “plan” to focus on marketing West Virginia-made consumer goods.  How many new entrepreneurs do we have as a result of these efforts?  How many jobs have been created?
  • Building Bridges and Empowering Citizens.  They supported the growth of yet another group – Generation West Virginia – and yet another conference for group participants.
  • Results-Based Government.  They supported the creation of another state government agency, GO HELP, to coordinate governmental health care entities.  Much like the much-ballyhooed and failed Governor’s Cabinet on Children and Families?
  • Permitting.  They crowed about legislation, passed in 2008, to make it easier for new entrepreneurs to find the information they need to engage in business in West Virginia.  It’s called Business4WV, folks, and it’s been around for a while.  Although not perfect, it’s very good and facilitated quite easily my entry into the small business world this past year. Surely no one seriously thinks West Virginians with the talent, drive, and ideas to create going business enterprises don’t create them because it’s hard to comply with basic business filing, permitting, and tax requirements.

What did Vision Shared accomplish? More plans, reports with recommendations, and conferences?  Another notoriously-difficult-to-sustain 501(c)(3) organization, another state government “coordinating” agency with little real power, and another solution to a business problem that doesn’t exist?  These are not meaningful accomplishments for a group that has been in “business,” literally and figuratively, for more than a decade.

On 13 June I created my first blog post – a test post really to see if I could do it. Almost seven months and 150 posts later, we have come to the end of 2009.  The following are my most-viewed posts of 2009:

(10) HigherEdThink. 29 July. This was the first post in what ultimately would become a series called “Antidotes to GroupThink” in which I summarize the ideas of people whose thinking is outside the mainstream of conventional wisdom.  Our first GroupThink antidote was Anne Neal, president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, who dared suggest that higher education trustees need to take a more active role in higher education governance.

(9) “There’s a Sucker Born Every Minute.” 13 July. In this post, I poked a little fun at the Charleston Gazette for publishing an op-ed commentary opposing the minimum wage from someone who works for “Dr. Evil,” a not-so-fine gentleman who operates bogus business and industry “think-tanks.”

(8) Gambling with Students’ Futures: Part II. 30 September.  This post highlighted a report about risky investments made by 529 plans.

(7) Chemical Peel, Anyone? 28 July. This post, the second in a series of posts on research parks, described the challenge of revitalizing the Dow Tech Center in South Charleston.  Not surprisingly, the advice contained therein appears to have gone unheeded by the powers that be.

(6) The Game of Charades. 21 July. I suspect it was the combination of my discussion of the hiring of Marshall University’s athletic director and my candor about higher education hiring practices that made this post so viewable.

(5) Heartbreak of Psoriasis. 23 July. In this post, I poked a little fun at Huntington’s Kinetic Park research park.

(4) Antidotes to GroupThink: Creative Communities. 21 September. A salute to my good friend Troy Body, who seemed to be a little perturbed that I described him as a “half-bubble off plumb,” a compliment if ever there was one.

(3) Making (Up?) the Grade. 28 September. This post compared and contrasted (mostly the latter) the WVU-Heather Bresch and MU-Emily Perdue academic controversies. I suspect lots of people were curious about whether I thought we were going to have a big scandal.  An alternative theory for this post’s popularity: The FBI, which I later accused of overreacting, has been monitoring me closely.  I do not dismiss the latter possibility lightly.

(2) Me Talk Football. 25 September.  At the prodding of a friend, I poked a little fun at a WVU press release promoting an article about a professor’s research on football brain injuries in Gentlemen’s Quarterly.  When HippieKiller referenced my post on his blog, the number of views rose dramatically.

Until one week ago, I would have told you that Me Talk Football was destined to be my most popular post of 2009, but another post slowly-but-surely sneaked up to take the top spot ….

(1) The Libelous World of Higher Education Blogging. 11 November. I don’t know if it was my disclosure that I knew someone had made a lot of false accusations about me behind my back, which produced numerous private emails but not a single public comment, or the story of the poor student sued by an overly sensitive Butler University administration that could not take a little criticism, that made this my most popular post.  My guess: it was both.

 

The thinker

The news recently has been filled with stories about educators making poor decisions: a Riverside High School cheerleading coach in hot water for allowing pictures of topless cheerleaders in a hot tub to be taken and a choir director at Paradise High School in Phoenix, Arizona facing the music for taking her students to Hooter’s for lunch.  (Bad puns, of course, intended.)

While titillating, the poor decisions highlighted in these stories pale in comparison to a poor decision made by the administration of Swanson Middle School in Arlington, Virginia, last week.  As part of a model United Nations debate, some students were assigned to argue in support of Afghanistan’s Taliban before administrators stepped in to stop the assignment after a few parents became angry.

Is the purpose of education to indoctrinate students or to teach them to think?  While I believe in providing students with a common cultural foundation as part of their education a la E.D. Hirsch, Jr., I do not believe that should be taken as an excuse not to teach students to think critically and to attempt to understand others’ points of view, especially given that our country is at war in two countries in which a lot of people think quite differently than we.

Is there no valid argument to support the Taliban position?  Only a non-thinking person would say so.

  • Argument No. 1: Afghanistan is a sovereign nation, and the United States should respect its sovereignty absent a serious and immediate threat from the government of that country.  At the time of its invasion, Afghanistan did not pose a serious threat to the United States, and thus its sovereignty should have been respected.
  • Argument No. 2: The Taliban should not be held any more responsible for the actions of Osama Bin Laden than should the United States government’s puppet Karzai regime, which has not been able to reign in Osama Bin Laden or his network.
  • Argument No. 3: The Taliban could be no worse than the current Karzai regime, which does everything from steal elections to kill family members with which it is feuding.
  • Argument No. 4: The Taliban may engage in religious practices that we find repugnant and repressive, but their religious preferences should be respected in the same way that American Episcopalians respect the religious practices of American Catholics and American Jews.

While I could provide a strong response to each argument, it does not make the arguments unworthy of making or considering.  I want students to reach reasoned conclusions after considering many sides of an issue, not after being told what to think by one of our nation’s leaders.

Is it somehow wrong to expect eighth graders to think?  According to Linda Erdos, spokeswoman for the Arlington Public Schools, “There is a sensitivity that eighth grade kids don’t have the maturity level to do this at this point.”  I could not disagree more.  It’s never too early to teach a student how to think.

I, for one, worry far more about the students at Swanson Middle School than I do about the students at Paradise High School.

H/T The Answer Sheet

Tagged with:  

While I regularly pretend to know nothing about football with comments like “is that the sport with the oblong ball?,” I occasionally give myself away as a football fan, even as I deplore its undue importance to higher education.

Today I want to go on record as being a Marshall University football fan who is pleased with the hiring of “Doc” Holliday as the new head coach, even as I note the absurdity of a $600,000 per year salary for teaching young men how to hang on to an oblong ball.  (Having said that, hanging on to an oblong ball can be quite a feat.  Just ask any Mountaineer fan who watched the Auburn game.)

Besides having a cool nickname, Doc Holliday seems to have made favorable impressions virtually everywhere.  Yet despite this, I’m reading vitriolic comments from both the Marshall University and West Virginia University faithful attacking the choice because of this local boy’s toils for West Virginia University or his new-found allegiance.

Unless they are playing Marshall University, I cheer for the Mountaineers.  Unless they are playing West Virginia University, most of my Mountaineer friends cheer for the Herd.  I really don’t understand the ill will of some fans toward the other school.

This is one MU and WVU fan who wishes Doc Holliday the best.

PS: For those of you wondering from whence the title of this post comes, those words are reputed to have been the last ever uttered by the other, only slightly-more-infamous “Doc” Holliday.

CONTACT

© 2010 DCT Advisors LLC
27 Wynfield Trace
Winfield, West Virginia 25213
Phone: 304.541.0332
Fax: 866.783.0511
Email: dct@dctadvisors.com

text

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

THIS IS A LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT. The materials on this website have been prepared for informational purposes and are not legal advice, nor do they create a lawyer-client relationship. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.