THE MISSION POSITION:

MEETING THE CHALLENGE TO BE OURSELVES

Michael R. Edelstein, Ph.d.

As with any maturing institution, Ramapo faces vital challenges within that often have been masked by mundane but serious challenges without. We were founded with a core mission of interdisciplinarity.

THE RELEVANCE OF THE CORE MISSION

In the zeitgiest which gave birth to Ramapo, interdisciplinary thought was seen as a way out of the loss of social wisdom found with the modern evolution of disciplinary education. It was recognized that generalist thinkers, not specialized mechanics, were needed to address major social and ecological challenges that blindsided a world lacking such wisdom. In fact, specialized and disciplinary thought were implicated as core causes of these problems.

By interdisicplinarity, I refer to the array of approaches to organizing knowledge that do not follow the internal logic of disciplinary paradigms but instead attempt to integrate and generate knowledge relevant to key social problems or themes. The educational goal of an interdisciplinary institution is to prepare students to meet emergent challenges by drawing on the collective resources of knowledge, being able to think outside boxes as well as within them, to choose context appropriate tools for knowing and learning, and to have developed wisdom. By moving outside narrow paradigmatic thought, the student also requires the ability to engage in meta learning or meta-cognitive thought. In sum, the student’s education fits what the Club of Rome described as Innovative Education, resting on anticipatory and participatory foundations. Innovative learning departs from the maintenance learning which characterizes the efforts of social paradigms to propagate mindlessly. As such, our mission tells us that we are not about training the next generation of technicians, but rather a generation capable of meeting the emergent challenges of what Huxley termed the Brave New World.

The interdisciplinary milieu was best captured in the 1969 U.S. National Environmental Policy Act, a broad national mandate for sustainable balance of people and the natural surround. NEPA elucidated a clear need for a new breed of interdisciplinary thinkers who could "utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decisionmaking which may have an impact on man's environment;" (http://www.ehso.com/Laws_NEPA.htm)

In our early days, Ramapo faculty discussed various permutations of interdisciplinarity, including multidisciplinarity and modes of thematically integrated discourse. Interdisciplinarity was viewed as our experimental role and, therefore, our key intellectual preoccupation.

Many early Schools reflected interdisciplinary themes: Environmental Studies, International Studies, American Studies, Social Relations, etc. As the college evolved, the School of Environmental Studies became the key exemplar of the mission, That School was closed in 1984 as the result of the downturn in environmental (indeed in liberal arts) majors occasioned by the turn to business (i.e. the market) as panacea and related egoism and careerism during the Reagan administration.

There is much reason to see our early institution-building around a core mission of interdisciplinarity as never finished. Some early faculty and many programs never embraced the mission. The institution never fully actualized it. And in recruiting students, it became common to downplay the fact that we were different. Pioneer academic VP Bob Cassidy even cautioned against using the word near the end of his term. It was our mission unmentionable. We neither educated students nor our own staff about who we were. Many students graduated and graduate today without ever hearing let alone understanding the word interdisciplinary.

Subsequently, we have evolved to hold three additional pillars, namely experiential, multi-cultural and global/international. These are being joined by a fifth emerging pillar, sustainability. The global/international pillar emerged from the work of a major Challenge Grant from the State of New Jersey issued around 1985 upon the arrival of Robert Scott as President. Sustainability emerged from a four-year FIPSE grant held in the mid-to late 1990s. In my view, this mission, in total, is our greatest asset and our goal must be to actualize its delivery.

While our evolving mission, combined with the right faculty, have given us the ability to position ourselves as a unique institution better able to address issues of the new millennium than old disciplinary structures, we have never yet successfully done that. More importantly, we have never fine tuned our internal structure to make it possible for us to actualize our mission promise.

This failure has resulted in the devolution of the institution in several important ways. First, the Schools were intended to reflect key problem areas or themes but now shadow the quasi-disciplinary divisions of conventional higher education: humanities, art, social science, science and professional school. This is a problem for several reasons:

because we now work in a context that thinks in a disciplinary fashion,

the structure supports disciplines by its nature, in terms of student recruitment, line development, hiring, resource expenditure, and emphasis in School work

the School are now headed by Deans (even leaning toward "strong" Deans) who control resources, personnel decisions, and the overall direction of the Schools. These Deans, by the nature of their jobs, are not likely to be interdisciplinary champions because both external and internal demands push them in divisional and disciplinary ways.

The trend to increase the top-down hierarchical structure of the institution, understandable as a management necessity, merely strangles the emergent tendencies of the faculty and "disciplines" them.

Finally, the Schools have grown too large to function as communities of learners. They deal with institutional business rather than intellectual development of a learning community.

Second, the convening group has been left hanging as an unfulfilled mechanism for program management. Because the college has recruited students using a market strategy rather than a marketing strategy, the numbers of students in professional and disciplinary areas vastly outweighs the numbers in interdisciplinary programs. There are a number of issues here:

at the all-college level, minimal time is allocated for interdisciplinary convening groups, twice the time for disciplinary convening groups, and at least twice the time yet for divisional (School) meetings.

convening resources are likely to go to the programs with numbers, i.e. disciplines.

most conveners (except those heading large–i.e. discipliary/professional---majors) are about to lose their release time under the UNIT process, inevitably eroding the leadership capability of interdisciplinary major and minor programs,

faculty inevitably are drawn into conflicts between the demands of convening groups. These conflicts are often resolved in the favor of disciplinary commitments and demands.

and there is continuing pressure to move to departments and department chairs, able to handle the business of the institution. The problem with this concept is that implicit in the structure is the isolation of faculty within programmatic niches that tend to be highly disciplinary.

Third, faculty face an uphill battle to play a primary mission-oriented role.

A substantial sub-set of the faculty exist only in disciplinary niches. They are hired to disciplinary programs, have responsibility for disciplinary students, and interact largely in disciplinary and divisional groups. Many are sheltered from the mission entirely.

Other faculty face multiple demands, but given the numbers, the disciplinary demands may be strongest.

Faculty hired to serve a disciplinary program know that their institutional future lies in their disciplinary work.

Faculty wishing to associate along interdisciplinary lines face uphill battles in terms of scheduling.

Likewise, faculty increasingly have taught in conventional lecture format, allowing experiential education to occur through the Cahill Center as an adjunct to classroom activity.

It is no wonder that a gap of young and old faculty would evolve when there has been little opportunity to interact on mission-relevant ground.

Fourth, many of the unique Ramapo structures have disappeared. At crucial points when survival as a unique institution and/or cost cutting were in rage, we jettisoned some of our core elements:

Schools stopped being whole communities, in which students were citizens;

the tutorial was dropped and with it the primary advisement mode;

the Scope and Methods course disappeared;

the Senior Seminar is now endangered. In practice, too few are offered and increasingly the course is being waved. Deans recommended merging it into divisional and major capstones.

Offices dedicated to making the senior seminar work and to promoting discussion of interdisciplinarity and intellectual ideas disappeared. We stopped managing our mission implementation.

Grades were issued.

etc.

These changes collectively represent a challenge for Ramapo as an institution. Instead of actualizing our mission, they result in a college which gives lip service to innovation but acts conventionally. Given major changes, including institution of the Provost’s office, stronger Deans, the UNIT plan, etc, we are at a major turning point. In no way do I see us abandoning our mission pillars. But our chances to become an innovative and innovating institution around the mission is quickly evaporating. We can remain a hint of what might be, or we can engage fully in leadership toward the kinds of new learning needed to address the problems inherited by our graduates.

One of the major assets of the new UNIT plan is that is embodies a role and a time/space for mission-relevant activities. As developed by CLAW, the plan is illustrative of the kind of institutional innovations we can make collectively that can actualize the mission. Our challenge is to build upon this opening to reinstitutionalize Ramapo as an innovative mission-driven college.

A Matrix Institution

At its best, Ramapo has worked as a matrix institution. Rather than having linear relationships, defined by one major or minor program, many if not most faculty simultaneously contribute to multiple programs, often of a very different orientation. Thus, as a psychologist, I might contribute to the wellbeing of a psychology major while devoting my principle energies to Environmental Studies and Environmental Science. Balanced properly, such a system would allow a series of strong interdisciplinary majors and minors to exist while allowing students to still access disciplinary programs.

As noted, the current reality is to compress the matrix. The hierarchical control structure limits the decentralization of the system. Increasingly, faculty need to belong in one place only. And a substantial group of faculty currently have only a disciplinary address and role.

I argue that the matrix structure is necessary to Ramapo’s success and needs to be vitalized. Even as our disciplines need us to play some role in their work, we all need to step into the interdisciplinary life of the institution, at least in one program. Space and time are needed to allow this to happen. And the incentives of the institution need to be devoted to allowing this to occur.

Democracy and the Danger of Hierarchy

The complexity of the institution creates demands for stronger Deans with authority to solve problems and make decisions. At the same time, the history of the institution tends toward the democratic involvement of faculty and relatively decentralized control. Work load, teaching schedule, meeting schedule and other demands boggle us and interfere with our participation. Either the right mix of authority and involvement must be found, or we must create parallel structures which divide areas of decision between the world of the Provost/Deans and the world of the faculty.

Integrative Study

Historically, once the Schools failed to offer an integrative breadth in their core programs, the all college general education program sought to reintroduce liberal arts into the college. Following CLAW, we now recognize that gen ed must become a tighter program of integrative study and that the Schools must play a major role, acting to link broad integration to major programs. As we review the CLAW II proposal on curricular change, keep in mind the opportunity to revitalize Schools and the mission through a program of integrative studies.

ReSchooling

However, to implement CLAW and other discussed changes in the current School climate threatens to reify the existing structure, even though it is dysfunctional for our mission. I like the School concept and resist any urge to departmentalize.

Instead, I advocate a process of organic ReSchooling. By this, I suggest that we literally throw all our names in a hat, as though we had no program affiliations except perhaps existing interdisciplinary ones. Symbolically, this act will free us to be open to new possibilities. Through a process of discussion and sharing during an intensive in-service workshop followed up by opportunities for continued exploration, faculty will find others with common interests and approach to define new Schools, to sharpen the interdisciplinary focus of existing schools, and possibly to define new major and minor programs. I would see Schools as being of limited size (say 15 faculty) and organized by problems or themes around a limited number of interdisciplinary majors and minors. Disciplinary programs would not serve as a basis for School building and would receive staff support from across Schools. Directors (or another title) would be faculty directing the Schools for release time, as per original practice. Conveners might not be necessary where a School was entirely focused around only one or a few convergent programs. Other programs (i.e. disciplinary and professional) might be convened as currently. There would be fewer Deans and they would address administrative demands associated with a number of Schools.

Faculty might decide to keep an existing School, but to strengthen it by sharpening its thematic focus and interdisciplinary orientation.

As a further possible step, the goal of these Schools would allow Ramapo to be a Sustainability Shoppe. By this, I mean that the college and its programs would serve the local and global community with the goal of enhancing the capacity for achieving sustainable communities and sustainable society. This focus would bring the Cahill Center into School partnerships. Schools would also have external partnerships. Classes would be devoted as appropriate to real world field problems that fit the theme of the School. Students would be given substantial field experience that contextualized their education. Faculty research could jive with course work. And the college would act to improve the functioning of local and global-partner communities.

Examples might range from assisting local farmers to thrive through local marketing, strengthening of central business districts as community anchors, assisting school districts to address the pressures of testing to homogenize the curriculum, growth pressures, maximize the benefits of diversity and multi-culturalism, and to introduce sustainable management practices, and promoting community-based art, webpages, and equity-directed social and political action.

As a faculty, our middle-states study identified that we already engage in an extraordinary array of community-based activities that will serve as entry points for such experiential and sustainable activities.

The criticality for ReSchooling is evidenced by the pending breakoff of educational faculty into a Institute structure and talk of splitting American and International Studies. These trends suggest that changes will occur. They will occur better if they are part of a context of creative ReSchooling that is institutionwide, rather than piecemeal.

Actualizing Interdisciplinarity

To facilitate these steps, I have recently applied for an Integrative Study grant from the Carnegie Foundation and submitted a preliminary FIPSE proposal. A small number of faculty from diverse programs have indicated interest in assisting. Copies of these grant requests are appended. In this light, I am actively seeking to have the next in-service period devoted to a ReSchooling exercise.