Proctor's Too, a unique theater experience, is back with the Yulman Theater as its new home.
Begun nine years ago by Proctor's Theater in Schenectady as a way to cultivate younger audiences interested in performance art, Proctor's Too has been on hiatus while its previous home-the Nott
Memorial was undergoing restoration.
The fall season brought the Canadian “clowns of horror” known as Mump & Smoot. Of e.e. i sing, a musical work based on the works of poet e.e. cummings and directed by Yulman Theater Director Bill Finlay, was scheduled for January, and The Idiot Variations, an exploration by Rinde Eckert of the fine line between genius and lunacy, is set for April 12 and 13.
For information, call the Yulman Box Office at 388-6545.
The College's year of anniversaries concluded last fall with activities noting twenty-five years of coeducation and 150 years of engineering. Here are brief reports on some of what went on:
Coeducation…
Minerva's Daughters
Through dance, narrated movement, dialogue, and song, a small troupe of actors, dancers, musicians, singers, and narrators brought to life the many women of Union's first 175 years-Mrs. Perkins, Eliphalet Nott's mother, housekeepers, cooks, students' sweethearts, secretaries, and faculty wives.
Written by Gail George, the performance-called Minerva's Daughters: A Work in
Progress – eloquently began the celebration of coeducation at the College.
A time of relevance
“What were you doing in 1969?” was the question posed by Barbara Burek '75 at a panel discussion called “The Transition to Coeducation.” Her list of events that surrounded the decision to admit women as fulltime students-the Vietnam War, the Sexual Revolution, protests-was referred to as a “time of relevance.”
Professor of Political Science Byron Nichols, who voted on coeducation at his first faculty meeting, spoke of the issues surrounding the decision on coeducation, such as women “adding to the aesthetics of the campus.” He noted that no sports program was put in place for women, and it was widely believed that women would not be interested in studying science and engineering.
In the classroom, students were addressed by their last names, which many women quickly took a disliking to. “For a young faculty member learning how to teach, it was a hell of time,” Nichols said.
Misconceptions
Kay Stout Van Woert '72, the first woman accepted at Union, described those early days as a “rude awakening.
“There was very much an institutional misconception,” she said. On one of her first visits to campus, to have her photograph taken for the magazine, she says she was treated very much like an object.
“The administration was just not prepared for women,” she said, commenting on the hiring of a dean of women who “to teach and protect the morals of female students.”
Eventually, sports
Five years after women were admitted, a sports program appeared. Varsity programs in field hockey, volleyball, tennis, basketball, lacrosse, and softball got started in 1975.
(Of the College's twenty-two
varsity sports programs today, eleven are for men, eleven are for women.) During Homecoming weekend, women athletes were honored at a reception and at halftime of the football game.
Then and now
Three students and their alumni fathers gathered during Parents Weekend to discuss then and now.
Chris Gelston '96 saw one major difference between what he experiences and what his father, Alexander Gelston '68, experienced-“There are girls now,” the younger Gelston said. “They don't have to bus them in like they did when my dad was here.”
Also on hand to share experiences were Julie Newton '96 and her father, James '71, and Diane Lieb '97 and her father, James '72.
The changing life cycle
The keynote speaker of the two-weekend celebration was Mary Catherine Bateson, the Clarence J. Robinson Professor in Anthropology and English at George Mason University and the daughter of Margaret Mead.
Speaking to a large crowd of faculty, staff, parents, students, and community members, she talked about how people-and especially women-adapt to changes in the life cycle and the way they tell their own life stories. Women, she said, were
the “pioneers in the new understanding of the life cycle.”
…and engineering
The celebration of 150 years of engineering also combined looks at the past and the future.
In the former category, former Dean of Engineering Ed Craig '48 regaled a luncheon audience with tales from his book, A History of Engineering at Union College-1845-1995.
In the latter category, panelists discussed the College's new engineering curriculum, now under development, and where engineering might be in the twenty-first century.
Raymond List '66, former president of ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc., and the chairman and co-founder of American Venture Investments, noted:
Technology development is so rapid that students must understand that they will relearn many times during their careers or end up technologically obsolete;
An important part of engineering is cost control, and students not prepared to deal with this issue might want to rethink their career goals;
If engineers are to become leaders in society, they must have communications and business skills to accompany their technical knowledge;
A symposium to discuss the liberal arts and leadership is apt to generate wide-ranging
conversation and that's exactly what happened this fall when the presidents of thirty-three liberal arts colleges joined several guests at Union.
During the day-and-a-half symposium, the speakers came at leadership from many directions:
Tom Brokaw
To Tom Brokaw, the anchor of “The NBC Nightly News,” there is a sense of foreboding in our society: “We have allowed, indeed encouraged, the idea of leadership that divides rather than unites, exploits rather than repairs the fractures in our political and cultural landscape.”
To Raymond V. Gilmartin '63, the president, chairman, and chief executive officer of Merck & Co., Inc., higher education today has many of the same challenges that faced the health care industry, including cost. “Perhaps the experience of the health care industry-both our mistakes and what hopefully will be our successes-can produce some insights into resolving this dilemma of higher education.”
To Mel Elfin, executive editor of “America's Best Colleges,” produced by U.S. News & World Report, the academic world would like to believe that it is immune from the pressures of competition that affect the world beyond the campus. “My first suggestion is to use the language of your students-get real.”
To Steven Koblik, the president of Reed College, Americans seem to want first-class education at bargain basement prices. “It cannot be clone: not in health and not in education, either. The likely result in both sectors will be a differentiated, competitive marketplace.”
To Shirley Peterson, the president of Hood College, “survival instinct” may lead liberal arts colleges to make changes that move away from their tradition. “It is more important to save the best of the liberal arts core-while entertaining new approaches to maintain fiscal integrity-than to stand on pure principle while the ship goes down.”
And to John J. Curley, the chairman, president, and chief executive officer of the Gannett Company, selling the benefits of a liberal arts education should be a cinch-but isn't.
Following are excerpts from some of the speakers; each, as would be expected, elicited lively give-and-take from the college presidents.
Tom Brokaw opened the symposium with personal-and at times, emotional-remarks about the nature of leadership.
“We meet at a time of great anxiety and great promise, politically, economically, culturally,” he said. “This remarkable nation of deeply held democratic values, unsurpassed material wealth, and breathtaking cultural variety approaches the millennium with at once a sense of pride and foreboding.
“All the symbols of greatness are in place: a stable and responsive government; a rich and broadly based economy; a productive and generous population. No wonder the pride.
“Why, then, the foreboding?”
The foreboding, he said, exists because “we have devalued the place of common welfare in our society….
“Let's face it: we want leaders but we're curiously unwilling to help create the climate in which they may flourish. In fact, leadership in any environment requires a constituency of followers who are prepared to subsume some of their own, most selfish interests for the greater good.”
Brokaw said that condition is shown in many ways, such as the willingness to gamble billions of dollars daily on gaming chances while refusing to make an investment in our education system. “We're beginning to resemble the world's largest dysfunctional family,” he said.
How to nurture leadership in this environment?
He offered several primary requirements:
The institutions of mass communication should be encouraged to chronicle success as well as failure, and they must avoid the feeding frenzy syndrome that too often accompanies any perceived flaw or weakness in anyone who steps forward to assume leadership.
Political institutions must make a more vigorous effort to separate themselves from the big money of well-organized and narrowly-focused special interest groups.
Individuals must be prepared to find common ground with other citizens.
“We have in this society created our own demons and they can be removed only by us,” Brokaw said. “Our longing for leadership is understandable. But the admonition to Brutus stands. We'll not find it in the stars. It is within each of us and the influence we have in the place we occupy.”
Ray Gilmartin '63
Ray Gilmartin '63 (who serves on Union's Board of Trustees), discussing the challenge of change for liberal arts colleges, turned to his own field-the health care industry-for parallels.
The most momentous driver of change in the health care business, he said, is a competitive marketplace, which has pushed aside a 200-year-old tradition of fee-for-service payment for health care and embraced managed care-a
system dedicated to containing costs.
“What strikes me is that higher education faces the same challenge: our society cannot sustain a continued upward spiral in tuition costs,” he said.
The experience of the health care industry, he said, might offer some insights for those in higher education. He pointed to what he called three major mistakes the health care industry made when initially countering the demand for cost containment.
First, he said, the health care industry procrastinated in the face of change by defending its value. For too long, the industry pushed against the inevitable by arguing that “people should be willing to pay more for the value we provide.”
Second, the industry continued to focus on revenues when containing costs also was the issue.
Third, the industry allowed the specter of rationing-fewer services or restricting access to services-to enter the debate.
To approach each of these areas with a new awareness, Gilmartin said, the health care industry:
acknowledged that it had to reestablish value based on new market definitions and demands;
recognized the need to find ways to contain costs, not just enhance revenues; and
took the issue of rationing off the table by recognizing that it is possible to contain costs without reducing service or compromising excellence.
The change has not been an easy one for executives in the health care business, Gilmartin said, and it won't be easy for those in higher education.
“What both enterprises must do is continue to improve our performance by transforming the way we deliver health care and education,” he said, “and to recognize that we cannot depend on price or tuition increases to maintain the financial basis required to stimulate excellence through innovation.”
Mel Elfin
Mel Elfin acknowledged that the role he plays at U. S. News & World Report “annoys, irritates, bothers, or deeply troubles” many people in the academic community.
“But I also know that on occasion friendly critics outside the academy may have useful suggestions,” he said.
He then rattled off a number of them:
college-organized health care groups;
“outsourcing” such functions as dining services, security, buildings and grounds, accounting, and computing;
trimming “Wal-Mart sized superstores of course listings;”
examining tenure, “an idea whose time has come and gone;”
setting priorities for research “to distinguish the ideas that are unoriginal from those that bear promise of truly advancing scholarship.”
Elfin's most impassioned remarks came when he talked about teaching.
“The true revolution of higher education will come through the
amalgam of the best of American high technology and the tradition of the Oxford tutorial,” he said. “In my vision, the computer is an interactive, multimedia instructional tool that can redefine learning the way the printing press once redefined reading.”
Furthermore, he said, the computer can allow faculty members to do what they do best tutoring individual students or small groups of students. “I ask you here to stop nibbling at the edges of true reform and start thinking in terms of a profound, comprehensive change,” he said. “Surely this is not an easy task, but the alternative is the slow descent of higher education into unaffordability and irrelevance.”
To Steven Koblik, the president of Reed College in Portland, Ore., one of the main concerns for college presidents is to preserve the teaching faculty.
The curriculum, buildings, admissions, and other aspects of college are important, he said, but without an effective faculty, liberal arts colleges will flounder and eventually die.
“We need highly intelligent, broadly as well as deeply educated, dedicated teacher-scholars,” he said. “Yet we recruit our faculty from graduate schools that have defined their missions to train scholars primarily in narrowly-defined disciplinary research.
“We have been lucky historically. The question is, will we be so lucky in the future. I don't think so.”
He said that the “terms of the trade,” with an emphasis on scholarship and publication, do not favor the liberal arts college's teaching traditions.
“Yes, we reward success at our institutions with tenure and good compensation,” he said. “But these successful teachers have no mobility. They are, in effect, reasonably paid, respected, indentured servants rather than able-bodied professionals whose highly skilled services are transferrable.
“How are they and their families going to prosper in the economy of today and tomorrow, whose primary characteristics are increasing change and demand for mobility?” he said. “I believe we will shortly face the same problem that now confronts K-12 institutions-a shortage of the best teachers.”
He urged his colleagues to think about creating greater flexibility for “our most important resource: the teaching faculty.”
Shirley Peterson
Shirley Peterson, the president of Hood College and the former commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, said the main issue is how to preserve the “national treasure” of the liberal arts in the face of challenges that threaten to overwhelm small, independent colleges.
“After years of battling the forces propelling more and more students toward `professional' or `technical' education, we now face the even greater challenges of adjusting to diminishing resources at a time when technological advances appear likely to transform the educational experience,” she said.
For a start, she said, those at liberal arts colleges need to speak up for the advantages of their institutions.
“The fact is that a liberal arts education is something clear and precise, and it includes among its chief virtues clarity and precision,” she said.
“Although it embodies the repository of wisdom across the ages, it is specific, rigorous, focused, and particular,” she continued. “It is a coherent program of study whose sole and defining purpose is
the creation of a strong, subtle, supple, resourceful, and capacious human mind. In its long history, our species has not found a better way to produce such minds.”
Given all that, she said, liberal arts colleges cannot take the risk of being unable or unwilling to change.
As one example, she discussed the major-the expression in the undergraduate curriculum of the powerful impulse toward specialization.
“One of the first questions we need to address is what level of specialization is appropriate for a scholar and teacher whose principal role is to liberate the mind of her student,” she said.
It is likely, she said, that fifty percent of liberal arts college graduates will earn a living in — — I
ways for which they had no specific academic training, and twenty-five percent of them will work at jobs that do not now exist.
“While these are good arguments for the kind of resourcefulness and flexibility developed by a liberal education, they may portend a reduced emphasis on specialization,” she said.
Alternatively, if specialization is essential, then liberal arts colleges should consider sharing specialists, since none can afford to be “all things to all people.”
John J. Curley, the Gannett Company president and a member of Dickinson College's Board of Trustees, asked, “How often do you see a story or opinion article about the value of liberal education?
“The answer is rarely,” he said. “But even if you saw it often it would not necessarily have the desired impact of enhancing your marketing.
“For the people who believe it, the message reinforces their view. For those who have little understanding of it, the message probably won't be read. And for those editors and producers who have to decide whether to carry the philosophy without some specific news, the answer is that they probably won't run it.”
He told the presidents that the best approach is direct marketing-targeting each constituency with specific messages.
“By its very nature news is something that's different or unique,” he said. To reach the people you must reach, he continued, “analyze your strengths and micro market.”
Founders Day is the day when we look back to our roots. Established as a Union of all faiths, we recognized from 1795 that exposure to peoples of different beliefs was important in an academic setting. Hence, the establishment of Union as America's first nondenominational college.
We also recognized from the start that exposure to different languages was important. An obvious form of this exposure-a form to which we pay tribute today-is through our exchanges and terms abroad. We have had a long tradition of sending students to study in other
lands and that tradition is growing annually.
Twenty years ago, twenty percent of Union students studied abroad; five years ago, forty percent did so; today, the percentage is fifty-five. Given the fact that less than one-half of one percent of the twelve million students in America study abroad, our numbers-which I expect to continue to grow-are truly impressive.
Equally important, we have broadened the range of opportunities available to our students. In 1975, students could study in ten countries; in 1990, they did so in seventeen lands; today, they have twenty-six programs to choose from. And, whereas the overwhelming number of programs were in western European countries until 1990, we have added Barbados, Brazil, Costa Rica, Kenya, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Poland, and Korea and are examining a range of additional possibilities.
We believe in international education, and we are doing what we can to make it possible for all of our students to have an international experience. Until this year, engineering students were largely stymied in their efforts to go abroad; now, thanks to the dean and the faculty in the engineering division, the opportunity that all should have will be readily available to all.
We can even create innovative alternatives for students to be directly involved with their peers at foreign universities without having to travel farther than their personal computer. One such idea has been suggested by Professor Bruce Reynolds of the Economics Department, who proposed the creation of a “virtual term abroad” during which Union students could, in the context of an interdisciplinary course, interact via e-mail with peers at partner institutions overseas, exploring different cultures and critiquing papers and research projects.
As a nation, the United States has been a world leader almost from its inception. From arts to arms, from education to exploration, from industry to inquiry, Americans have taken the lead. Imagination and innovation are clearly not indigenous to American soil, but they have been part and parcel of the American character. And that character, blended together in a melting pot/mixing bowl with ingredients from throughout the world, has forged a strength that has been made the United States a remarkable force.
Yet, ironically, one element of the American character may have the potential of undermining the U.S. role on the world stage-our unwillingness to learn to speak languages other then English and to make an effort to understand other people. Perhaps it is because
we have tried for so long to blend various nationalities that we have
assumed that English should be spoken by all; perhaps it is because, having dealt with people from around the world on our own shores, we have believed that everyone would always want to speak English and to be an American.
Whatever the reason, our unwillingness to learn other languages and understand other cultures can seriously affect the U.S. role on the world stage. Take, for instance, the cases of the lands from which those we honor today come-China, Japan, and the United Kingdom.
For China, its position in the world is, in part, attributable to the ability of its people to understand others and, increasingly, to speak other languages, including, of course, English-and our disagreements with China are partially attributable to our failure to understand Chinese culture and history.
As for Japan, although we are quick to place the blame for our trade imbalances on barriers erected by the Japanese (and there are barriers), we are kidding ourselves when we conclude that barriers are the only reason for a constantly-growing deficit between out two countries. A far more logical explanation is the fact that, while there are tens of thousands of Japanese in the United States speaking English, we have tens of thousands of Americans in Japan speaking English almost exclusively.
As for the United Kingdom, long the dominant world power, its decline can be attributed in part to the same linguistic and cultural chauvinism that the United States is displaying today.
If we are to find success in a wide variety of areas against competitors from around the world, we have to understand other people better, and we have to begin to speak their languages. And we in the academic world must assume the lead in attacking this difficult problem.
In the past, colleges like Union used to require a year or two of a language, but they gave up the useless exercise during the 1960s and 1970s when students were saying “no” to all requirements; today, many colleges are once again bringing back the same foolish requirements. Why “foolish?” Because telling an eighteen- to twenty-two-year-old that he or she
must take a year or two of a language often results in nothing more than the grudging memorization of a few nouns and the conjugation of a few more verbs. If we cannot get children to start learning language as toddlers-the way people around the world do-we should develop fresh approaches and new programs in college. New programs-not the discarded programs of the past.
Experimental language techniques, intensive language efforts, and the use of technology are some of the things that we might well look into. Perhaps more important, though, we continuously need to expose students to other cultures and people, knowing full well that by sending students abroad we will be exposing them to the joy of speaking other languages and encouraging them to become more linguistically adept.
It is up to us to insure that our students are truly at home in the world, through, for example, programs such
as our five-year BA/MBA, which requires our
students to select a double major in a modern language and social science and to participate in a term abroad and an international internship.
We have much to feel proud of today as we celebrate our 201 st birthday. At the same time, we all recognize that there is still so very much to do. In this particular area, as we honor the heads of three institutions from around the globe with whom we have had long-standing relationships, we should strive to make our students citizens of the world in every sense of the word.
