Remarks delivered at the College's Founders Day celebration on February 8
As we celebrate our 202nd birthday, we should all take to heart words which our speaker today once wrote. In an article, Catharine Stimpson made reference to an “appetite for change.” Nothing could be more important for us-institutionally or individually.
Change does not come easily. When one is part of an historic institution, there is,
in addition, an obligation not to change for the sake of change or to be frivolous when dealing with the past. Instead, one must embrace the past with all the passion and pride that it deserves, while at the same time recognizing that nothing-nothing-should be left unchallenged or unchanged.
Among historians, it is commonplace to say that those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it. Whether historian or political scientist, humanist or scientist, administrator or student, parent or child, the tendency is to leave things alone when they appear to be in good working order. Or, stated in the vernacular, “If it isn't broken, don't fix it.”
For me, though, it is time to rethink that expression, and that approach. A better way-a far better way, in my view-is to improve that which is not broken, to tinker with that which appears to be working well. Why? Because when things are going well, institutionally or individually, one has the opportunity to make change in a planned, thoughtful fashion. Otherwise, one finds oneself reacting to events and being forced to act in a hasty, unstructured, unimaginative manner.
Socrates is reputed to have said that “the unexamined life is not worth living.” Whether in an institutional or individual sense, that way of focusing on life is essential. How do we improve, how do we grow, how do we make things better without taking a look at whatever options are available to us?
To some, merely suggesting change and looking at options leads to discomfort. Yet, as Catharine Stimpson has rightly argued, we need to encourage people to stretch their comfort zone.
Nothing is more contrary to Union's principle than an unwillingness to ascertain the pros and cons, the costs and benefits, of that which is available to us. While we need not do that which we pursue, the examination of options must always be explored. Indeed, the failure to do so is the ultimate failure, for it means that we will have obviated the opportunities-institutionally or
individually available to us.
We can all remember corporations that once were on top but that no longer exist, or have been merged. As for individuals, one can cite the rich or those in political power or the famous who once believed what others said of them or who felt that they need no longer strive, lost their edge and, in the process, their wealth, their power, their fame.
We need to keep the reasons for such failures in mind. We have incredible strengths, but if those strengths are to be made stronger, we must continue to ask uncomfortable questions.
A perfect example for us at Union is the use of technology in teaching. While we take justifiable pride at the College in the close personal relationships that are formed between student and teacher, we need to look thoughtfully at how we can use the astonishing new technology, and, at the same time, preserve those relationships that make us so special. Along those lines, we need more of what happened a few days ago, when four faculty members led a noontime discussion on the uses and misuses of computers in classroom teaching.
Personally, I can remember when all lawyers used yellow legal pads; you can recall when you typed away on Smith Coronas (which no longer exist). Lawyers today have Lexis and Nexis, and you, undoubtedly, relish the convenience of word processing on a computer.
Yes, an appetite for change is essential. No organization and no individual has ever been able to remain the best without constantly reexamining that which is being done. As we begin our 203rd year at this historic and marvelous college, we would do well to remember to stretch our comfort zone and not feel satiated.