"Let the games begin!" as some may believe the final bullet point on ACPA President Heidi Levine's Consolidation vote blog post may mean. She wrote, "Collaborate with NASPA when appropriate, and compete with NASPA when appropriate." While the tone of the overall post was a little on the self-righteous side, it was the latter half of that statement which elicited great response on the #NASPACPA Twitter conversation, especially the word "compete."
In student affairs, we know collaboration. We collaborate with our colleagues, we collaborate with faculty, and we collaborate with students. Student affairs as a profession adheres to the maxim, "Two heads (or more) are better than one." Our graduate preparation programs particularly promote this doctrine, claiming it sets us apart from other programs which are (as we see it) more competitive and foster less trust. And with that context, it was a huge surprise to see the word "compete" in a post by one of our association presidents.
To me, it was refreshing. While it feels countercultural to say it, deep down we already know that our associations compete. But someone finally acknowledged that fact publicly. And that's okay. I think it's even more healthy that this "bad word" has been brought out into the light. I think it's a concept to bring more openly and more often into our student affairs lexicon. One great outcome from the result of this consolidation vote could be a broader discussion of the role competition plays--and could play--in student affairs.
Another "bad word" which emerged from the conversation which ensued following the announcement of the results was "confrontation." This one was not expressed as openly, but it definitely happened through the #NASPACPA Twitter feed. Many people expressed exactly how they felt about the vote--often in uncensored, unrestrained, and uncompromising ways. To some, particularly Stacy Oliver, this was seen as unprofessional and antithetical to the values of our profession. To me, it was another rare--and refreshing--moment where we abandoned restraint and spoke our minds exactly the way we were feeling.
In student affairs, we know collaboration. We collaborate with our colleagues, we collaborate with faculty, and we collaborate with students. Student affairs as a profession adheres to the maxim, "Two heads (or more) are better than one." Our graduate preparation programs particularly promote this doctrine, claiming it sets us apart from other programs which are (as we see it) more competitive and foster less trust. And with that context, it was a huge surprise to see the word "compete" in a post by one of our association presidents.
To me, it was refreshing. While it feels countercultural to say it, deep down we already know that our associations compete. But someone finally acknowledged that fact publicly. And that's okay. I think it's even more healthy that this "bad word" has been brought out into the light. I think it's a concept to bring more openly and more often into our student affairs lexicon. One great outcome from the result of this consolidation vote could be a broader discussion of the role competition plays--and could play--in student affairs.
Another "bad word" which emerged from the conversation which ensued following the announcement of the results was "confrontation." This one was not expressed as openly, but it definitely happened through the #NASPACPA Twitter feed. Many people expressed exactly how they felt about the vote--often in uncensored, unrestrained, and uncompromising ways. To some, particularly Stacy Oliver, this was seen as unprofessional and antithetical to the values of our profession. To me, it was another rare--and refreshing--moment where we abandoned restraint and spoke our minds exactly the way we were feeling.
Our profession could use a huge, healthy dose of confrontation. Of raw, unadulterated, even uncensored emotion. Sometimes I think we work too hard to be people pleasers, to make everyone happy, often to our own (and our students') detriment. I can agree with Stacy that using insults (like "stupid" or "selfish") is not productive in discussion and can damage relationships. But I don't agree with her that voices were "marginalized" in this discussion.
Now that I've had a little time to reflect on this matter, I think I can articulate myself a little better than I attempted via Twitter in 140 characters or fewer. The main reason I don't agree with her that people were "marginalized" is that everyone did speak their minds through the vote. (Frankly, the only marginalized voices were those of graduate students in NASPA, but that's for another time.) What happened on Twitter was not a marginalization but rather an outnumbering. I can see how it might have been intimidating to jump into the conversation when your viewpoint is the distinct minority of your community. But, in this instance, it was that minority that was able to speak the loudest--38% of NASPA was all it took to block consolidation--those voices were hardly marginalized.
(Side note: I will state that I agreed with the process. I think for such a major change to take place we should have been expected to reach a higher hurdle than a simple majority. I was disappointed with the outcome, but that's separate.)
Competition and confrontation happen in our field all the time, and most often we try to mask that fact for the sake of the comfort of our colleagues. The job search is competitive, but we try to cover that up by talking about "best fit." Student conduct is confrontational, but we try to hide that behind "opportunity for growth." Maybe every now and then we could name these for what they are--and learn and grow from those moments!
As someone who works in multicultural affairs, it reminds of the "safe space" problem: are we trying to create a space where it's safe to speak your mind, or an emotionally safe space that's concerned more about participants' comfort? To me, a safe space is a space where you can speak your truth, even if it's a difficult truth to hear. One of the major problems with diversity trainings and workshops is that we get too concerned about "safety" for the sake of "going there" and having a truly transformative learning experience. Maybe we ought to be open as professionals to being uncomfortable and being called out more often in our training and development. It may look and feel ugly to begin with, but letting it out could lead to far more productive dialogues in our field than "safety" and "politeness" ever have.
Competition and confrontation happen in our field all the time, and most often we try to mask that fact for the sake of the comfort of our colleagues. The job search is competitive, but we try to cover that up by talking about "best fit." Student conduct is confrontational, but we try to hide that behind "opportunity for growth." Maybe every now and then we could name these for what they are--and learn and grow from those moments!
As someone who works in multicultural affairs, it reminds of the "safe space" problem: are we trying to create a space where it's safe to speak your mind, or an emotionally safe space that's concerned more about participants' comfort? To me, a safe space is a space where you can speak your truth, even if it's a difficult truth to hear. One of the major problems with diversity trainings and workshops is that we get too concerned about "safety" for the sake of "going there" and having a truly transformative learning experience. Maybe we ought to be open as professionals to being uncomfortable and being called out more often in our training and development. It may look and feel ugly to begin with, but letting it out could lead to far more productive dialogues in our field than "safety" and "politeness" ever have.
To me, the major lesson from this vote is that we as a profession have a problem with conflict. Perhaps if we could invite more (healthy) competition and confrontation into our professional development (either structured or unstructured), and into our work, we will reap the benefits that come from the tremendous growth that follows conflict.
And as for #NASPACPA, it's coming. If 81% of ACPA and 62% of NASPA in 2011 believe in consolidation, those percentages are sure to increase. And the next time it comes to a vote, we will unite. Perhaps the lessons from this consolidation vote will make the actual consolidation that much greater.
Bryce
Bryce
Bryce,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the insightful post. I think you hit it righ on the mark with comfort v. Safw space. I need to be called out more as do my colleagues, for the sake of our students. Stepping up our game, being healthily competitive is good. It all leads to improving our profession as a whole, but the services on our campuses as well.
Let's not also forget those on the outside looking in who are members of neither but "represented" by both. I am one of those and have many opinions, but you are ring those who paid dues and didn't get a vote are the only ones marginalized here.
Thanks for challenging us to have more discourse.