Editor’s Note: Dr. George L. Mehaffy, vice president for academic leadership and change at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), visited the campus on Oct. 6, 2005, to learn about the ways Fresno State is engaged with the community.  AASCU, housed in Washington, D.C., represents 430 public colleges and universities and their 3.6 million students. Mehaffy’s division is responsible for developing and managing programs for member institutions in areas such as leadership development, undergraduate education, technology, international education and teacher education. He organizes two national conferences annually for chief academic officers and directs a variety of projects, including the newly launched American Democracy Project, a national civic engagement initiative.  After his visit, Mehaffy shared his thoughts about Fresno State’s engagement activities and the general field of civic engagement.  Here is the letter he wrote.

I had a wonderful visit to Fresno State.  I was particularly impressed by the degree of commitment to engagement, and particularly civic engagement, in the presentations I heard, beginning with the breakfast discussion with Robin Tricoli and the visit with Kathy Garabed at Stone Soup.  Then there was a the terrific group of presentations at lunch by Amy Lukianov, Will Lee, Skip Sherwood, Sally Tannenbaum, Debbie Young, Susan Geringer, Wade Gilbert, Mark Keppler, Curt Madden, Paul Oliaro and Melissa Dittmar and the discussion with the chair and vice chair of the Academic Senate.

I made a comment about the incredible impact of Fresno State on the community and region but nothing could have been more eloquent that Don Romsa’s report as a community member. I was deeply honored that so many would take time out of their busy days to help me understand the many contributions that Fresno is making to students and the community.

In the paragraphs below, I’ll offer some reflections of what I saw and heard. You’ll note that most of it isn’t actually comments about Fresno State but instead, comments that were prompted by my visit. I always learn a great deal when I visit a campus but this visit to Fresno State was especially rich. My thanks to all who contributed to make this trip such a successful experience.

The new concept (and I would argue emerging paradigm for the country) is the engaged university. But I think the phrase “engaged university” is always in danger of becoming an empty slogan unless it is accompanied by some more precise language that begins to provide flesh and bones for the concept.  Faculty, students, and the community need to understand exactly what is meant by the term.  How is it manifested?  I observed, for example, that civic engagement is only part (albeit a crucial part) of a larger vision of engagement of the campus with the community. What does engagement mean to faculty?  What are examples of engagement … and equally important, perhaps, what are not examples? How do faculty and staff situate their work in the broader framework of the institution’s vision and commitment?

I was very excited to learn of the Provost’s academic plan. That is a key place that engagement, and particularly civic engagement, can be spelled out. For me, the idea of civic engagement is really about a comprehensive plan that includes a focus on civic knowledge (about the history of our country and democratic principles), civic skills (taking a position, listening, organizing, critical thinking, etc.), civic experiences (service learning, internships, community and campus work, etc.), reflection (guided efforts to understand civic roles and responsibilities), and assessment (measuring civic outcomes in undergraduates).

Assessment continues to be a weak link in all of our work in the American Democracy Project. If we are committed to civic outcomes in our graduates, what would those outcomes look like? What would we measure?  How would we know if we are making progress? A carefully defined and conceptualized civic engagement assessment program might drive or shape activities. The Institutional Research office on campus might play an important role in assessment.

I was delighted to learn of the expanded focus on new faculty orientation (which took place this last August). The idea of a bus tour of the community, with explicit details about programs and opportunities for community engagement, is a powerful first message for new faculty. Given the fact that many doctoral programs do little more than offer certificates of research competence, one major way to change the institution is to focus on socialization of new faculty. That means detailed and explicit job descriptions, careful hiring, and prolonged efforts at socialization once the candidate gets to campus.  It also means well-crafted RPT policies and procedures, appropriate rewards and recognition, and attention to workloads.

Of course, if the culture continues to have a commitment to conventional research as the real way of being retained, tenured and promoted, then all of the socialization efforts will be in vain. That’s why I was so interested in the work of the Civic Mission of Education Working Group that John Shields described, especially the policy audit. That discussion was renewed when I met with Mike Botwin and Kathie Reid later in the day to talk about the Academic Senate work.

The crucial questions are how to give equal weight to traditional and new forms of scholarship, how to create policies that honor different kinds of contributions from different members of the faculty, and that acknowledge different roles and responsibilities during a career? Some universities are starting to make some progress on expanded and differentiated roles, focusing on a Boyer vision of research and on civic engagement, but the traditions of honoring scholarship more than teaching or service, and a narrow definition of scholarship, are still deeply held values of the academy. One example of that is the comment of one faculty member who said that to make an impact on the community of practice, an article would best be placed in a journal of practice.  But such a non-refereed publication would not receive the same support and weight, even at a place like Fresno State that is committed to engagement.  The hardest thing for faculty, this person said, was that in the absence of clear rules, faculty feel the pressure to do everything well, for fear that missing something will prove fatal. The recent approval of the independent doctorate for the CSU, and Fresno State’s embrace of that mission, may confuse faculty about the real, as distinguished from the articulated, mission and ambition of the university.

One of the most important issues in this work is communication … telling the story.  We talked in the final meeting about the idea of the Communications Office providing great stories, but always with comments that explain how this fits into the vision of Fresno State as an engaged campus. Otherwise, great stories are simply unconnected anecdotes.  I think the reason that communications is so important is that you are trying to do things differently, and thus have to challenge the implicit assumptions that faculty, students, and the larger community carry around in their heads about what a university is, and what it does.  The prevailing model is deeply rooted in the minds of everyone, so constantly reminding, explaining, and showing what engagement means is helpful for everyone.

The Academic Senate leadership expressed strong support for the new paradigm but worried about whether this culture change could be accomplished. They also worry about expanding the concept of service, given the relatively small number of senior professors, and the amount of governance work on campus, especially for RPT.

I’m struck by how much of the work of civic engagement is swimming upstream against culture and traditions of higher education. This work really is about culture change.  My visual image is of those salmon you see leaping to overcome the barrier of a waterfall, only to land in the mouth of a waiting Alaskan brown bear. I sometimes feel like those of us trying to change the academy are confronting heavy currents, waterfalls, and bears.

That’s why it must be an all-university responsibility.  Communications, Development, Academic Affairs, Student Affairs…and a host of others, must all be involved and committed to this work. Culture change requires attention to symbols, statements, policies and procedures, reward systems, workload issues, recognition, assessment… indeed virtually every aspect of the university. I’m particularly struck by the power of the research university model, and its influence throughout the academy in our aspirational culture.

My thanks again to all who made this campus visit so informative and inspirational.  There are great things going on at Fresno State, and I look forward to hearing about your successes in the months ahead.