Thu 13 Mar 2008

---

22 Responses to “ More Training ”

Comments:

1. frank uible says:
   March 13th, 2008 at 8:07 am

   If we’ve got time and resources to burn, shouldn’t we be devoting it to the 3Rs+F (reading and ‘riting and reasoning and fun)?

2. frank uible says:
   March 13th, 2008 at 8:54 am

   “Them” not “it”. I need a 5th grade proofreader - amongst my many other needs..

3. Rory says:
   March 13th, 2008 at 9:00 am

   David,

   It’s useful to note that of the 12 people on staff you list, two are from the faculty and it looks like only three are new positions to me compared to the makeup of the staff in 2003 (before the VP for strategic planning and institutional diversity existed). One is about spouse/partner support (not a trainer) one has the ambiguous title of “research analyst” (so that could be anything, but doesn’t sound like “facilitator/trainer”), and one is an assistant for special academic programs (maybe that position should do it? I don’t know). The assistant director of the MCC while I was there (before they got rid of that position…now its back as an interim position it seems) would have been able to do such trainings, and she was wonderful at it. Maybe if that became part of the duty of that position (and that position weren’t interim), it could do it.

   Part of me thinks outsiders would work best–hopefully by junior year, at least some of the students who were to become JAs would know the staff of the MCC or Vice President’s office somewhat well. Those types of previous relationships often can cloud or ruin (or seem like a con) a training/facilitation. I can tell you stories of wacked-out leftists and their friends in the audience saying some really crazy stuff about whiteness and me being the only person to challenge the leader of the group. Suffice to say, his having friends in the audience made it antagonistic–they got mad at me for challenging him and it only got worse.

   A good facilitator can get past those friendships, but it’s surprisingly tricky to do.

4. JG says:
   March 13th, 2008 at 9:54 am

   I heartily endorse the idea of making sure Williams has someone on staff in one of those offices mentioned who is capable of doing such trainings. As I’m not on campus now, I don’t know if any of those are qualified (or were expected to be when hired).

   I’ll also point out that sometimes outside facilitators/trainers can be useful - even to partner with on-staff folks - because they can provide a fresh perspective. Whether that means consultation or actually coming to campus is probably worth discussing.

   Oh - and David, I have to argue with your characterization of JA training as “suspect,” especially based on the article you linked. I read it as saying that much of the fall training was quite good, although more involvement of past JAs would have improved things. Nothing in that article calls the training “suspect” in any possible manner, and, having actually had the time to read the article this time, I will now be much less likely to accept any attributions you make with links to supposedly back them up. I know, I know, there are some commenters who will question that I ever took such things at face value…perhaps I should have known better.

   As I’ve noted before, I was a JA. But no amount of training IMO can ever fully prepare you for the experience of dealing with the trials and tribulations of a crowd of college frosh. The issues really do boggle the mind sometimes. Integrating more training on diversity and respect would surely be useful, although I would propose that doing it in the spring is probably much less useful than in the fall…some of those skills get rusty over the summer. The training gets reworked to some extent each year, and I don’t see any problem with incorporating this. Another possibility is to thing about how JA training can continue throughout the year a little bit instead of a few days right before the summer and a few days as you get ready for the deluge of frosh. Yes, JAs are busy, but come on David, not THAT busy. If you can plan ahead to go to a sporting event or concert to support your frosh or your friends or yourself, you can plan ahead for a 3 hour training. When you agree to be a JA you agree to find time for what is helpful to your entry. This certainly could be helpful.

   And before I end yet another long comment - any “mandatory” training for JAs should, at the very least, be strongly encouraged for the faculty/staff and open to students. And the strong encouragement should come both from Morty and from the Dean of the Faculty. Most faculty that I worked with would have been thrilled to take part in such things (and indeed participated enthusiastically and insightfully when I planned a one-day symposium on diversity at Williams back in 2001).

5. FROSH mom says:
   March 13th, 2008 at 10:02 am

   JAs are facilitators of a sort, right? So, probably any time they can spend witnessing a trained facilitator in action, could be helpful.

   However, I can’t help but think that those ‘facilitating’ skills have a lot to do with inherent personality traits. And making sure those JAs have those traits from the get-go might be the most important thing to focus on.

   I do feel for them. They have undoubtedly suffered a lot of ‘fallout’ from the incident.

6. dkane says:
   March 13th, 2008 at 10:21 am

   Here is what those JAs wrote:

   Nonetheless, in retrospect, we feel that the fall training segment did not take full advantage of the experiences and knowledge that the JA Advisory Board had to offer. Perhaps, in the future, several redundant sessions of training could be shortened or even removed to allow these important seniors to play a larger role.

   It is true that I summarized all of this in one word: “suspect.” But one would summary would you suggest? There were “several redundant sessions.” Or how about:

   Many of the other training sessions, however, were mainly didactic, with minimal room for interactive discussion. These discussions were also much less effective when they followed a lengthy speech.

   Isn’t “suspect” a reasonable one word summary? Obviously, I think that we need JA training and I 100% agree with these JAs that the best training is discussion with past JAs. There should be more of that and less/no didactic speechifying.

   You claim:

   Nothing in that article calls the training “suspect” in any possible manner, and, having actually had the time to read the article this time, I will now be much less likely to accept any attributions you make with links to supposedly back them up.

   So, “didactic”, “less effective”, “redundant sessions” are what? Good things? Again, what one word summary of the bad aspects of JA training would you recommend in place of “suspect?”

   But I am happy to defer to the expertise of the JA Advisory Board. There are currently many (3? 5?) days of training. How much should there be? 7? 10? Perhaps JAs should take a year off in intensive training!

   My larger point is that more and more and more diversity training reaches, eventually, a point of diminishing, even negative, returns. The JAs that I have talked to — not in a couple of years and not a random sample — were unanimous in saying that much of JA training was boring PC nonsense. If you disagree, then please provide details on just what that training was and why you found it so useful. Please explain why these JAs are so upset that they wrote a letter to the Record to complain.

   We can all agree that JAs need training. But I believe that the current number of hours they got is enough. If most JAs disagree, then fine! I am wrong. Schedule in more training! More, in the absence of testimony from JAs, then my guess is that, like all other bureaucracies, the Williams diversity nomenclature will keep forcing more “training” down their throats until someone calls them on it.

   And I am here to do the calling.

7. Rory says:
   March 13th, 2008 at 11:21 am

   David,

   the term “suspect” was used for the entire training. Other quotes from the article include:

   -To best prepare the JA Class for their unique experience, the Dean’s Office and the JA Advisory Board made a significant effort to address the potential effects of the campus changes on students. Their effort was largely effective, as our JA Class demonstrated their preparedness throughout the notoriously turbulent First Days.
   -Our JA Class left the three-day spring training with time to digest the training atmosphere and prepare for the notorious intensity of fall training.
   -Many of these meetings, most noticeably those that were interactive, were effective and informative.
   -Our main suggestion for the improvement of future fall JA training is thus based on the success of this session with the JA Advisory Board. Simply adding in sections of dialogue between future and former JAs following administrative advice would greatly enhance the training and preparation.

   that doesn’t sound “suspect” it just sounds, perhaps, disappointing. maybe too institutional. suspect makes it sound like they thought it was ineffective and a waste. They didn’t-they just wanted it changed to focus more on former JA/new JA interactions. Perhaps the diversity training would be one of the valuable sessions? Perhaps it would replace one of the irritating sessions? you don’t know if it is actually additional or just an attempt to do a better job on one of the sessions that wasn’t good (oh, and 2 JAs complaining isn’t much of a groundswell).

   Oh, and your last paragraph? Jesus…you’re here to rant against and applaud about your alma mater (like the rest of us)–you have no great duty to protect the JAs. No offense, but you’re a blogger. You’re here to post your ideas, not to save the JAs from the dreaded Williams bureaucrac.

8. & says:
   March 13th, 2008 at 12:09 pm

   “Suspect” was too loaded a word. Referencing “redundant” training and training that some JAs had found ineffective in the past might have better captured the flavor of what the word “suspect” purported to summarize. “Suspect” is like “sketchy” - it carries a lot of freight.

   The best training model may well be a combination of inside and outside facilitators. The failed training that I’ve experienced has always been by outsiders (some of whom were actually inside outsiders - meaning that they were on staff but were not, for various reasons, really a part of the institution that was providing the facilitation). They just didn’t know their audiences well enough (and sometimes they weren’t very smart and sometimes they were just cheerleading or baiting or entertaining rather than training, etc.). I’m sure that there are some good outside facilitators available and I can see Rory’s points about bringing in new ideas and about having meta-vision/power outside the box of established relationships. Finding the right outside facilitator and increasing the effectiveness of that person’s work at Williams could be greatly enhanced by having a trained person on staff (/training a person on staff) and would also have the advantage of ensuring that there was someone available for day-to-day needs and sudden emergencies. The insider should be a genuine insider, however, not an outsider who doesn’t know Williams but is hired for the task .

9. dkane says:
   March 13th, 2008 at 12:12 pm

   So, you really believe that when I described JA training as “suspect” I meant to imply that every single solitary aspect of it was suspect? That I meant that the entire exercise, all three days, was identically suspect, that none of it was good?

   Give me a break. If my writing is that opaque to you, then you should just stop reading.

   I, obviously, meant that some aspects of JA training were suspect, in particular the multiple hours spent on diversity gibberish.

   suspect makes it sound like they thought it was ineffective and a waste.

   Exactly!

   Did you miss the part where they used words like: “didactic”, “less effective”, “redundant sessions?”

   oh, and 2 JAs complaining isn’t much of a groundswell)

   Really? When was the last time that JAs wrote to the Record and complained about something when their opinions were not shared by many/most other JAs? Also, I think that these JAs might have been in a leadership position, (co-presidents? Heads of the JA advisory board?) when they wrote that letter.

10. Jeff Z. says:
    March 13th, 2008 at 12:35 pm

    By the way, in case this was news to y’all, Amherst is dealing with similar issues this school year:

    http://media.www.dailycollegian.com/media/storage/paper874/news/2007/11/15/News/Alleged.Harassment.Causes.Student.Rally.At.Amherst.College-3103761.shtml

    Might make sense to coordinate and share ideas.

11. Larry George says:
    March 13th, 2008 at 12:37 pm

    And Trinity is, too. They had a horrible occurrence last year.

12. Jeff Z. says:
    March 13th, 2008 at 12:49 pm

    What happened there?

13. Rory says:
    March 13th, 2008 at 1:16 pm

    Jeff-

    David- it isn’t opaque. Instead, it’s often filled with overgeneralizations (in this case, the term “suspect”) that 9 times out of 10 take the opposite stance I would have taken. And I wasn’t the one who first objected–a former JA was the first to object. And Ronit agreed. It was a poor word choice.

14. Rory says:
    March 13th, 2008 at 1:23 pm

    sorry, the Jeff link got messed up. Here’s a NY Times piece on Trinity http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/nyregion/18trinity.html

15. JG says:
    March 13th, 2008 at 1:46 pm

    Color me confused on this one. At what point did “didactic” become a synonym for suspect? Ineffective? I interepreted the piece to be seeking more of an interactive environment in some of the sessions rather than the typical teacher-student environment of being talked at or lectured to (on my last check actually the meaning of didactic). Words have power - suspect implies that the entire training system is flawed or should be viewed with suspicion. The article was well-reasoned and articulate, and “suspect” doesn’t do justice to its construction, even if it serves your argument.

    I’ll be honest, my overwhelming feeling from the article was not that the JAs felt the need to write in and complain. Given that the archived articles from the Record make it hard to tell what inspired their inclusion, I can’t tell if he wrote this because he was upset and decided to write a letter or because someone at the Record asked someone to write a piece on how the “new demands” were addressed at JA training. That certainly matters given your characterization of its motivation.

    Here are examples of why I have a different opinion of it. Near the close of the article Christopher says:

    Our main suggestion for the improvement of future fall JA training is thus based on the success of this session with the JA Advisory Board. Simply adding in sections of dialogue between future and former JAs following administrative advice would greatly enhance the training and preparation.

    And his final thought:
    

    Though some changes in the driving forces behind fall training would be beneficial, our JA Class left fall training far more prepared to assume the role of JA than they had been only a few days before.

    Those are not the statements of anyone so upset or annoyed about the training process that writing to the Record was “necessary” in some way. Those are positive statements with reasonable suggestions. And as for whether one or two JAs ever write to the Record without the support of others, I wish I could say things were that organized. This might have been a consensus document…or it might not. JAs are a diverse group and even if Christopher were the co-president (I have no idea or any basis for an assumption that he was or wasn’t), that doesn’t necessarily imply that anyone other than his co-president read it beforehand, if anyone. Nor does him being a co-president imply that there was unified support for this position.

    My thought is actually that if Christopher were the co-president or on the Advisory Board, he would have simply made those changes or advocated for them from the inside. The JA Advisory Board plans the spring training if I remember right (I helped train as an outgoing JA and we definitely put it together, albeit with support from the Administration as needed), and at least has a strong voice to ask for additions or changes to the fall training.

16. Jeff Z. says:
    March 13th, 2008 at 2:19 pm

    Thanks Rory.

17. Larry George says:
    March 13th, 2008 at 4:08 pm

    Rory -
    Thank you for the link about Trinity.

    Jeff-
    The Trinity blackface incident was much worse than the bland NYT reference makes it out to be. I saw the piece that was on uTube, after being directed to it by a (recruited Caucasian female) student who decided against Trinity because the incident had happened, because it shocked her, because somebody thought nothing of posting it on uTube, and because the Trinity people with whom she was in touch weren’t fazed by it.

18. Justin Thyme says:
    March 13th, 2008 at 9:03 pm

    One often reads about the numerous incidents that are found to be created by those desiring change. This can be found in acts under the heading of discriminatory practices. We have yet to discover who is responsible, but now we find ourselves taking responsibility at the group level.

    Differences in the views expressed are the natural byproducts of a vibrant thinking society. Requiring re-education of our students is about rehabilitation whose goals of these programs are to uproot “internalized oppression”. This began with Lenin’s notion of “false consciousness” where we break the barrier to “progressive” change where the victims of oppression have internalized the very values and ways of thinking by which society oppresses them.

    We hear about the need to rid ourselves of our own social and personal beliefs that foster inequality. Of course, without training, how can we do this? Our change agents believe that white students need help to understand what it means to be white in a non-white world. Since they believe we are disconnected from the real world, they believe that the white heterosexual community is disconnected and marginalized by multiculturalism and they are convinced we require treatment.

    These agents want to probe our most private experiences to test for difference and discomfort; for racial, ethnic and class experiences; for sexual orientation; for religious beliefs.

    They want to break us of the “cycle of oppression”, to achieve “new meaning”, and become “change agents” in return, so as to proliferate these “collective action plans” in “breaking free” of our preconceived and harmful notions.

    Re-education is nothing other than “thought reform” similar to our great Mao’s China, where children readily denounced the lives and political morals of their parents and emerged as “progressives” within their “great society”.

    I am coming out of the closet. I love being white. I am proud of my western white heritage. I love my green eyes, my fair hair, and my ability to be creative and productive for all my fellow men and women. But I will not give up the divine power God gave me for that power resides within me, and neither you nor anyone else will capture it.

    So are we to see our College enlisting the aide of an outside organization so that it can become a therapeutic and political agent for progressive change?

    Change agents as facilitators have written about the different types of students out there: believers (cooperative, excited, participative, contributive), fence straddlers(suspicious, observers, cautious, potentially open-minded), and skeptics (cricital, passive appgressive, isolated, traditional).

    These people want to facilitate learning by having their classroom abandon sincere inner beliefs and replacing them with “the best that we can be”. They want to address the emotional as well as the cognitive content of the course material; to break down the fears that prohibit communication.

    The change agents key concepts for whites are: “allies in change”. This means that whites, being from a “dominant group”, are being asked to articulate about our unmerited and unwarranted privileges and intervene on behalf of perceived mistreated groups. Some even go so far as claim that being white automatically means hatred unless whites assume complete guilt for being privileged, for being white. This is fraudulent reasoning and totalitarian.

    The grand goal of these schemers is to graduate individuals committed to educational and social justice, not just for tolerance, but more importantly, for validating differences. Thus they have you commit yourself to complete predation.

    So are they suggesting that the school hire a “cultural” auditing firm for workshop training for our JA’s?

    Let me put it this way: I am not your “ally” in support of this training. I believe in individual identity and individual responsibility. I do not believe in group victimization and group rights. It takes great planning and structure to facilitate blame, ridicule, judgements, guilt, and shame upon whites. The intention of these facilitators is atavistic, intrusive, and irrational.

    We need to study, discuss, and debate race, ethnicity, religion and ask profound questions. Is aversion to any or all of the above acquired from our culture or evolution? Should we favor legal equality with differential outcomes or equality of outcomes even if illegal?

    Totalitarian in their desire for total inner control, many of these facilitators are indeed ignorant and irrational revolutionaries.

    Thank our lucky stars there’s spring break!

19. Larry George says:
    March 14th, 2008 at 6:55 am

    “Thank our lucky stars there’s spring break!”

    Enjoy it, one and all.

    Current students - we’d like to hear about your adventures. Please post spring training pictures and photos alternative break projects.
    Is the Poli-Ec group going to D.C.? Are the singing groups traveling to perform?

20. Will Slack '11 says:
    March 14th, 2008 at 12:30 pm

    Some are going to build homes in New Orleans - the only other trip I know of.

21. JG says:
    March 14th, 2008 at 1:11 pm

    There are Poli-Ec students coming to DC, we got an email about it on the alumni email list. If I still have it, I will post the info later.

Leave a Reply

Name(required)

Mail (will not be published)(required)

Website

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

Trackbacks & Pingbacks:

1. Pingback from CC 2008-03-11 » EphBlog
   April 3rd, 2008 at 7:43 am

   [...] feel that the JAs need more “in-depth and issue-specific training” on these topics. I bet they get [...]