Blog Archives

29 Commencement Addresses

4/18/2015

The Ides of April (Income Tax Day) is now passed, so Commencement time is upon us for another year. That got me to thinking about the fact that it’s been over a year since I attended a Commencement/Graduation ceremony. I always looked forward to these, as they are an exciting time for both the faculty and the graduating students. It’s a time for “good byes” and to look forward to new beginnings, looking towards whatever is after what’s been before. I’ve been to a lot of these ceremonies. When I was Chair of the Faculty, I attended every such ceremony at Western for four years. That was three occasions a year and multiple ceremonies for Spring and Winter terms. Of course, I’ve always been to at least one each year during my career at Western, that was simply expected, plus it was always fun (at least sort of). That means that I’ve heard quite a few Commencement Addresses.

For a long time, I felt (as did others) that the traditional address on these occasions was (all too often) just a chance for identical, old guys to tell the about-to-be-graduated to “dare to be different.” Far too many were far too predictable and much too unexciting to be remembered. I confess that most graduates (including myself at my own graduations) don’t pay much attention to the speakers and that’s probably understandable as many aren’t very memorable. So I tried to think of any which I felt were at least somewhat worth recalling and/or had anything much of any real value. The best I could come up with were some of the one given by students during Winter Commencement, as responses (submitted in the form of a draft speech) to a thematic prompt. The one given by that graduating cancer survivor, with her assistance dog at her side, I remember as being inspirational, but I don’t remember what she said. As in this case, mostly I remember that they happened, but, I don’t really remember anything much of what was said. On the other hand, while I couldn’t come up with much in the way of specific memories about any that I had actually attended, I could think of a couple that I had heard about which were described as meaningful and memorable.

One of these was the speech which Steve Jobs gave to the graduating class at Stanford in June of 2005. In it, he suggested that he tried to live by a quote he had read at about seventeen which said something like “If you live each day as if it was your last, someday you'll most certainly be right.” That led him to look in the mirror in the morning every day and think: “If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?” I think that’s worth thinking about, as it’s almost certainly true that if you aren’t doing, essentially, what you want to do, you really can’t hope to be happy. To me, that suggests that you are the only one who can define what happiness means to you. Your parents can’t tell you, nor can your friends, nor the society around you. It’s really your choice.

I also discovered that J. K. Rowling had given what was described as a memorable speech to the graduating class at Harvard in 2008, which was recently published as a book under the title of Very Good Lives. I understand that this speech (as is the Jobs one referred to above) is available on You Tube, but I haven’t seen it there although I do remember watching Jobs’ probably shortly after it was given. As I remember it, it was posted on the Apple web site, which id probably where I saw it. In any event, I bought Rowling’s book and read her speech.

One of her major topics dealt with the benefits of failure. She suggests that her own, personal failure (out of work, an unhappy divorcee, a single parent striving just to survive, what most people would consider a form of failure) was important to her because it forced her to consider what was really important to her, and then to act on that to make the kind of life which she wanted. To be fair, Steve talked along much the same lines in considering his experiences when he was forced out of Apple, which he describes as bringing him to a low point and forcing him to think about what was really important to him.

So, here we have two people who we tend to think of as highly successful, wealthy and important both suggesting that what most would consider a significant failure was, ultimately, of real importance to their futures because it led them to stop and think about what really mattered to themselves, what made them happy?

During the couple of years I was able to serve as Faculty Fellow for Instructional Technology in what was then the Coulter Faculty Center at Western, I was able to attend a major educational technology conference known as EDUCOM. The keynote speaker at the ’93 conference I attended was a cultural anthropologist named Jennifer James. I found her keynote quite interesting, so I obtained a recording of it and have listened to it a number of times. That led me to obtain and read copies of several of her books, which are (largely) made up of collections of columns which she wrote for a Seattle newspaper and other essays. I think they are worth reading, but I think the title of one of them summarizes the point I’m trying to make pretty well. That title is Success Is The Quality of Your Journey. I think that just may say a good deal.

If, as a number of people have suggested, life is a journey, it seems to me, as James indicates, what matters most is not the destination (that's, ultimately the same for all of us), but how you get there. That suggests that we are a product of our own experiences, both good and not so. As both Jobs and Rowling imply, what’s important is that one doesn’t let others decide what “success” means for them, that’s something we have to decide for ourselves. That means that “success” is personal, individual and variable and we are foolish to use some arbitrary social definition, like wealth, fame or power to define it for us, if that’s not what really matters to us. There ARE other possibilities; friends, family, the opportunity to help others, just the time to travel or just to sit and read, or think, there are lots of different kinds of “success.”

I won’t suggest that coming up with a personal definition of “success” is easy. In fact, for most people such a definition will probably change many times during a lifetime. The point here is that you decide what’s important to you for this day, this place, this relationship and that you strive to achieve it. In fact, you have to decide because that’s the only way that “success” can truly acquire any real meaning. It isn’t something that just happens, it can only be discovered along the way.

My journey has, of course already been longer than many. All things considered, I think it’s been a pretty “successful” one. I have a long-lasting marriage, a loving wife, two wonderful daughters, a great son-in-law, two bright, active grandchildren, friends, colleagues and relatives in considerable numbers and, not to be forgotten, thousands of students who I’d like to think I may have been of some assistance to along the way, whether that was through work in classes, productions, or by just being willing to listen. I may not be “rich and famous” by common social standards, but I think I’ve had some degree of success. It’s been a pretty good trip.

I hope that the quality of your journey is such that you achieve whatever success you decide you wish. The key to accomplishing that might be stated in a quote from Katherine Hepburn: “Be yourself, it’s a tough act to follow.”

LLAP

1 Comment

#28 A Liberal Education

4/12/2015

0 Comments

The other day I saw that Fareed Zakaria, the CNN host and columnist, had recently published a book entitled In Defense of a Liberal Education. So, I went by my local bookstore, bought a copy and read it. I confess that, while I found it interesting, I’m not sure that I agree with all of his conclusions and recommendations, but that’s not the point.

While reading, I was reminded of a number of discussions I had with John Bardo, former Chancellor of WCU, and Kyle Carter, who was WCU’s Provost, during the time I was Chair of the Faculty and President of the Faculty Senate. These conversations, as I remember them, focused on the idea that higher education in the US was experiencing a considerable amount of pressure to refocus on what might be referred to as “job training.” Of course, we didn’t (and don’t) refer to it as that, we call it “skills-based” education, but it does seem to be, essentially, job training.

Now, there’s nothing inherently wrong about learning a set of skills which apply to a specific occupation. The traditional Master/Apprentice situation, which has been around about as long as there have been humans was, in my opinion, this sort of training. In the arts, the major shift from a traditional Bachelor’s degree, with a major in some specific arts area and one, or more, minors in different areas, has largely moved towards the Bachelor of Fine Arts degree with considerably greater focus on the requisite skills of a particular form of art. Hence the great increase in theatre programs of BFAs in Acting, Musical Theatre, Playwriting or Design. Certainly, these degree tracks have become very popular in recent years.

I confess, however, that I’m not sure that this has, necessarily, done students a real favor by placing considerable emphasis on this skills-oriented approach as opposed to emphasizing the broader-based educational framework of the more traditional Liberal Arts degree, which allowed for some specific skills training, but also required something of a broader exposure to literature, history, other arts, psychology, other cultures, math, science, etc. Certainly BFA curricula generally, based on my own rather casual observations, have moved in the direction of minimizing the traditional Liberal Arts in favor of considerably greater emphasis on the specific skills which are viewed as important for a successful transition directly into the commercial ranks as a working actor, performer, playwright or designer. Hence, the BFA has become, for many, a terminal degree.

That’s a change which I’m not sure we have thought about as clearly as we might have. Now, I’m old enough to remember when MFA degrees were first getting started. As I remember it, these degrees were created as a step beyond a traditional Liberal Arts degree for the specific purpose of providing specialized, professional training experiences to allow one to move directly into the arts professions, so the MFA was considered to be a terminal degree, but a professional one. This meant that the Master of Arts degree could retain its more scholarly focus and would not be considered a terminal degree. The terminal degree for the more scholarly approach would remain the Doctor of Philosophy. I thought that that made a good deal of sense, as it provided for a professional/commercial training track (BA & MFA), as well as the more scholarly, traditional one (BA, MA, PhD).

However, probably since MFA programs were immediately rather successful, someone, apparently, came up with the idea of using the same sort of approach at the undergraduate level. Hence, the BFA degree was created. My concern is that this degree creates false expectations, on the one hand, and doesn’t, in all too many cases I’m afraid, provide the sort of background which seems to me to be important to allow the student to know what to do with the skills she/he has acquired in this “professional” training. So, what’s going on here?

To discuss what I consider to be the false expectations of such programs, the fact seems to be (based on limited, personal observation) that many BFA graduates are surprised to find that they really aren’t very well equipped to become full-time, working “professionals” immediately upon graduation. Some find work, yes, but far from all. Some of the others realize that further training and experience would be of benefit and go on to enter MFA or other training programs. Quite a few, however, simply move on to other employment, in or outside of the entertainment industry, in a direction quite different from the one they had planned on during their undergraduate years. Unfortunately, they are, probably, not very well prepared for this new direction, either.

Now, I have always maintained that there IS a lot of work out there for those who are dedicated, talented and lucky. (I would not have stayed in theatre education if I didn’t believe that to be true.) But, unfortunately, that does not mean that there is work for everyone. No matter how hard some faculty members may work to try to prepare students for that fact, many of them do seem to have the expectation that obtaining a degree means that they will find work. While there IS work, not everyone is going to find it, especially when one considers that many ex-students cripple their chances by wanting their work when, where and how they want it. There’s really nothing new in that, but increases in the number of “professionally ready” students leads to increased expectations and it seems unlikely that the industry is capable of providing work for everyone who’d like to be in it.

As to background, most Theatre BFA programs (regardless of focus) that I have looked at have reduced the number of hours/credits required for such things as literature (especially dramatic literature) to a very clear minimum, sometimes even to no more than is required as a part of the “general education” requirements of all Bachelor’s degrees, and reduced the requirements for history of the art (theatre history, in this case, although it could include history of musical theatre) to a level which seems to be little more that what is sometimes covered in general education, “Intro. to Theatre” type courses. (Of course, anything resembling theatre history is often eliminated from such “gen. ed.” courses today, but that’s a different problem.)

So why should this matter? As I tried many times to explain to my students, probably not very well and often not very successfully, I have always felt that it’s hard to truly understand what’s going on in the theatre and drama of today, without at least some knowledge of where it came from. Where it came from is, mostly, from it’s past (history) and it’s previous literature. Yes, there are people doing “new and different” things today, but most of them, as has always been the case, are either building on the work of previous generations or responding to perceived inadequacies of what has been done before.

Realism (you know, Ibsen, Chekhov and those guys, as well as the productions of David Belasco, and the like) appeared largely because people in the middle Nineteenth Century became unhappy with the kinds of things that had developed out of the Romantic period of early Nineteenth Century. All of the “anti-Realist” stuff which started in the very late Nineteenth Century, (the “isms,” Appia, Craig, etc.) was a reaction to the perceived inadequacies of Realism. The work of the past (some of which may still be worth looking at) can help us to understand where and how it can still be relevant to the present, and can also suggest what may need different imaginations to make better art in the future. That seems to have always been the case, if one looks.

But Art, in all of its forms, I think, has never existed in a vacuum. If the purpose of theatre is “…to hold as 'twere the mirror up to nature….” then it must be seen as a product of its time and place in history, as well as something which might be capable of shedding light on our own times. That suggests, at least to me, that if one is to understand an historical work (let alone a specific character in one of those works) it probably would be useful to have at least some idea how that work (character) relates to the political, social, philosophical, religious and scientific ideas of the time that work (character) was created. Now, not everyone needs a highly detailed knowledge of all of this, but some general background, some ability to find out more and to be able to communicate about it seems likely to be useful to make the work one does on a play (character) most productive. It’s not enough to just have a flexible voice, body, etc., (for a performer) unless one has the insight into the character’s psyche to be able to use that voice, body, etc., to more effectively communicate the thoughts, actions, motives, etc. of the character to an audience.

That’s what a “liberal education” was supposed to be all about: to expose one to a wide range of information; to help him/her learn how to assimilate that information into ideas which can be used; and to communicate them. I don’t see how having attained even the highest level of “skill” can be very useful without some understanding of how to use those skills for the benefit of the production. I’m afraid that all too often in “educational” settings it is common for the director to simply try to “spoon feed” what is deemed necessary of this background to the performers (although it applies to non-performing areas as well) and to let it go at that. I’m not sure that’s really useful, in the long run.

One of the most interesting things (at least in my opinion) in Richard L. Sterne’s 1967 book, John Gielgud Directs Richard Burton in Hamlet is the transcripts of the discussions between these two individuals (both of whom had, rather famously, played Hamlet before) about their not always identical ideas as to what was going on in the character’s mind, how to play certain moments most effectively, etc. Yes, Gielgud was the director and, as we always say, was responsible for the entire production. But, Burton had to be Hamlet for the audience and he brought his own ideas to the table for discussion, debate, modification and resolution with the rest of the production. It seems to me, that that is the best way to work, and not only between actors and directors.

In Designing for the Theatre, Jo Mielziner, by many accounts the most important American scenic designer of the Twentieth Century, describes his conversations with Arthur Miller, the playwright, and Elia Kazan, the director, relating to his ideas for the visual design scheme for the first production of Death of a Salesman. While his idea became famous, it required significant rewriting of the script by Miller, a lot of revision to Kazan’s thinking and the postponement of the originally planned opening date. Why? Because the designer made a careful analysis of the script, as it existed at the time, considered what he thought would allow this script to be most effectively, then to draw on his knowledge and skills to come up with an idea which seemed likely to be more effective than the playwright’s original conception, and to communicate it effectively enough to convince the others that it was worth the effort to use it. That’s the collaboration we often talk about in the theatre. That’s precisely what a “Liberal Education” is intended to help provide the ability to accomplish.

I could (but won’t) go on to discuss the rather well accepted idea that the best paying “skilled” jobs in much of general business and industry are, more and more, being taken over by machines and it is (or at least was) pretty accepted that many of the jobs which exist today won’t in a few years and that the majority of young people won’t just change jobs several times during their working lifetime, they will change careers. If that is the case, what is needed from education is permanent knowledge: how to acquire information; how to see the connections between different ideas; how to determine what we know from what we don’t (and to find out what we need to know); and, how to communicate the results of this thinking and investigation to others.

That’s what a Liberal Education is all about! I don’t think this is important only in the arts (although that’s the area I’m most familiar with), I think it’s likely to be true throughout society. Someone who can do the things discussed above would seem to have the skills necessary to survive in almost any situation. Even with a finely honed skill set, one becomes irrelevant when a machine is invented which can duplicate those skills.

Perhaps we (as a society) need to rethink what we should want from our educational system. Perhaps the specific skills needed for placement in a narrowly defined “job” isn’t the best road for the long haul. It may get you a job today, but that job may not exist five, or ten, years from now. John Bardo once told me a story about a conversation he had with the Grandfather of a student he was recruiting who expressed grave doubts about the idea that his grandchild might get a “liberal” education. This really isn’t a political idea, it could be the most important survival skill of our society.

0 Comments

#27 For What It's Worth

4/6/2015

0 Comments

I realized that there was a song which had become rather imbedded in my head the other day. I found this interesting because I really wasn’t all that fond of this song in the mid-60s when it was written, but it has been pretty popular for a long time. I don’t know exactly what brought it to mind, although it probably had something to do with this past week’s controversy over “Religious Freedom Restoration” laws, at least some of which were rather obviously intended to provide safe cover for discrimination against the LGBT community.

Now, in spite of what some folks might think, I have no problem with religious freedom. I think that people should be free to worship in any way they see fit, provided that their worship doesn’t interfere with the rights of others or violate laws. (Ritual human sacrifice seems like it’s probably not acceptable.) I do have some serious questions as to whether religious institutions should be able to claim a “religious exemption” from the obligation of paying taxes and performing the other responsibilities of citizenship, which are required by the rest of us and other sorts of institutions. I find it hard to understand how a business, or real estate, which is owned by a religious institution, should not be subject to taxation, when they have the right to the same protections (police, fire, etc.) as the rest of us. I can accept the idea that a “house of worship” might be eligible for such an exemption, but that raises a variety of questions as to what defines a “real” “house of worship?” Must such a place be used exclusively for something called “worship? How in the world can you define “worship” to be fairly inclusive to all spiritual traditions? The list of complicated questions can go on at some length.

Anyway, the lyrics which have been stuck in my head are from “For What It’s Worth” by Stephen Stills. Those lyrics read:

There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware

I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind

It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side

It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away

We better stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, now, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Source: http://www.metrolyrics.com/for-what-its-worth-lyrics-buffalo-springfield.html

I think this lyric has come to mind recently for many of the same sorts of reasons that it was popular in the late 1960s during the “Vietnam time” which was an important part of my growing up. To me, in any case, it also brings to mind some of the issues of the so-called Civil Rights Movement, which was focused on the rights of African Americans, although it did (I think) contribute to the Women’s Movement and, a bit later, to the “Gay Pride” movement which became the current LGBT one. Of course, as an old “folkie,” I hasten to point out that all of these movements seem to owe a lot to the Labor (union) movements of the first half of the 20th Century and, in fact, many of the songs of the union movement were repurposed for use in these later ones. And many of those songs were “borrowed” from various religious movements. However, I digress.

Each verse of the song to which I’ve been referring seems to me to resonate with the current times. In verse one: “There's something happening here / What it is ain't exactly clear.” It seems to me that the contemporary political scene is almost anything BUT “transparent” and the recent actions to “protect and restore religious freedom” rank high in this area. In their strongest form they seem to be saying that it should be impossible (because this law says so) to sue anyone for discriminatory action if they claim that their religion disapproves of the person being discriminated against, their “lifestyle.” Beliefs, actions, etc. That would appear to reverse all civil rights decisions and regulations as far back as one could go. I can remember (back in the day) some folks arguing that; “since the Bible speaks of slavery, then, obviously, God approves of it.” The blatant racial discrimination of having separate restrooms and water fountains for “Colored” was often justified on the grounds that God didn’t want different races to intermix. Is THAT what we mean by “religious freedom?” I hope not.

The second verse begins: “There's battle lines being drawn / Nobody's right if everybody's wrong.” Certainly there are battle lines being drawn. We seem to be moving in a direction of greater and greater insistence on the part of many that compromise is a “dirty” word and it’s always a case of “my way or the highway.” That’s doesn’t seem to be in the tradition of the United States’ founding, in spite of those revisionist historians who want to make our history “…clean, neat and supportive of what THEY want to define as the only acceptable ‘American values’.” The fact is that American history really isn’t as neat as one might wish. That’s really true of all history, but I won’t get into that. I guess my question is “Why must we insist on drawing “battle lines” when our entire history is based on the idea of compromise and tolerance?” It doesn’t seem that we should feel any need to try to make everything overly simplistic (right vs. wrong, black vs. white). That’s especially true since that would force a major recreation of facts.

I am reminded of the central issue of the musical 1776. Jefferson (so the plot goes) wanted to use the Declaration of Independence to make a statement against slavery. The Southern colonies (who required slavery for economic survival) were opposed. In order to pass the Declaration, those opposed to slavery had to give up including it. The decision was that independence and a new nation were more important than this issue, which would make those goals impossible. One can argue that the seeds of the Civil War were planted in this action, but it was the best possible compromise to achieve the most important end. That’s the point! In most cases NO side is ever likely to get exactly what it wants all the time. Reasonable people CAN accept this and work to accomplish something. All that’s required is that ALL parties are willing to work together.

Verse three suggests that “A thousand people in the street / Singing songs and carrying signs /
Mostly say, hooray for our side.” The American tradition does allow for people to express their ideas (read the First Amendment – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”) That grants us the right to PEACEFULLY petition for a redress of grievances, but not to insist that those grievances MUST satisfy us in all details. The job of the government is to LISTEN to legitimate grievances and act according to serving the general good of the republic. Just because Christianity is the largest single category of religion in the US doesn’t mean that it has the right to suppress the religious beliefs of other groups (which do form a significant minority). It should also be noted that not even all “Christians” have monolithically identical beliefs, there’s a considerable diversity of thought on many issues (especially social ones) even among self-identified “Christians.” That still doesn’t mean, however, that even a majority opinion is the only acceptable one.

The last verse says (in part): “Paranoia strikes deep / Into your life it will creep / It starts when you're always afraid.” I think that this may be one of the most telling lines in the entire song and one of the hardest to understand. If we’re “…always afraid,” something’s very wrong. Why are we “always afraid?” Are we so fearful that we can only react to those with whom we disagree with anger and violence? Have we become so competitive that we find it possible to insist that our beliefs are the only acceptable ones? Is there no room for compromise when the issues relate to civil law (and behavior)? That seems to suggest that we (as a people) are so insecure as to be unwilling to allow others to have any beliefs which disagree with ours. It would seem to me that this is a dangerous road for the US to go down, and one which is contrary to our history, despite what some folks would like us to believe.

Fortunately, at least in my opinion, there IS hope buried in the second verse: “Young people speaking their minds / Getting so much resistance from behind.” Polling would suggest that younger people have somewhat fewer difficulties accepting the notion of such things as same sex marriage than older folks (although most of the so-called “religious right” and those who cater to that group politically) seem unwilling to accept that fact. It seems that, overall, younger people are less anxious about forcing some sort of narrow religious conformity on civil laws than many older folks. Does that mean that younger folks are more tolerant than their elders? It would seem that way. The Governor of Arkansas required that that state’s Legislature revise its “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” before he would sign it because (he said) his son wanted him to veto it in its original form. That sort of thing (if true) suggests there is hope in the young. I’d like to believe that that is true.

Of course, given the backlash from the business community over the Indiana version and the pressure brought to bear on Arkansas by Wal-Mart and others, one does wonder if the Governor’s son’s displeasure was really the deciding factor. Still, I’d like to think that as younger people start to have a greater influence on our political system that it’s possible that we might move to a more “middle of the road” position on a lot of the “social agenda” which has become a major part of the American political scene. The difficulty in believing in this is the historically low turnout of young voters in most states and the fact that much of the pressure against such discriminatory moves has really come from the business community.

Still, I’m not sure that I care where the pressure comes from as long as we are moving in the direction of tolerance and acceptance of all under the American umbrella. There does seem to be some hope that younger voters will start to take action and stand up for their beliefs. Of course, that could explain why there have been so many efforts (some [few] overturned) to make it harder for younger people to exercise this right. Could it be that “old” thinking (or non-thinking) politicians are feeling the threat from our more reasonable youth? I hope so….

LLAP

0 Comments

29 Commencement Addresses

#28 A Liberal Education

#27 For What It's Worth

Archives

Categories