Good leaders have a strong professional critic

 “Lieutenant, get in my f—-ing office, now!”  I can hear that voice as if it happened this morning, the day that Captain Chris Dessaso laid into me in one of the most memorable ass chewings of my lifetime.  It was my first unit assignments and I had really made a mistake.  Charlie 1-10 Infantry was a basic training company at Fort Leonard Wood, MO, that was arguably the best in the Battalion and certainly in the top tier of the Brigade.  And a big part of that was Chris’ drive for excellence and willingness to lay down the law as the commander to achieve it.  As a young, wet behind the ears, and eager second lieutenant, I was all about doing my best and driving hard in what equated to a 5 to 9 job, 7 days a week.  My mistake, however, was to open my mouth to his spouse about some inner murmurings that not everything was going as well as the commander thought they were, and that he needed to think about that some.  It was a classic case of “going around the boss” that proved to be a colossal failure.  But I learned more than that the next morning as I was in the front leaning rest before his desk as he raged for what seemed to be an interminable length of time.  It wasn’t just a lesson on why not going direct to your boss with concerns was a bad idea or don’t mistake cordiality of relationships with your boss’ spouse as a way to relay messages.  No, I learned a key lesson that I think every leader absolutely needs to learn:  you need to have a harsh, respected, professional, critic that can stab you in the eye when you need it.

One of my weaknesses as a leader is that I get what I call “sagely”.  It’s a mixture of both being a “know it all” and having way too much pride/confidence for my own good.  I am a type “A” personality.  Or as my wife puts it, I’m an over achiever.  Lots of folks around give me feedback that can absolutely stroke my ego and go to my head.  And sometimes it does just that.  But that is precisely when I need to be crushed back down to planet earth.  Jackie, in my personal life, is very adept at putting me in my place, and I deeply love her for that (even as sometimes I’d not like to admit it or appreciate it in the moment).  But in my professional life it’s been critical as well to have someone be my sounding board and to set me in my place periodically, less I travel down a road that hurts the mission and objectives of the work I’m trying to do, never mind myself and my career.  In my mind, as a result, I am beyond convinced, every good leader needs to have a mentor, peer, or other designated person in your professional life who’s job it is to knock you off your proverbial high horse, regularly.  And those who rise to high heights that don’t have this, not only fail as leaders, fail personally, but fail to actually be leaders in reality.

There are several historical examples of this reality, both in colossal failures and phenomenal success.  Napoleon is a classic example of where he did not have this critic, and it led him to exceptionally destructive behaviors, including the devastating March to Moscow.  But we can and should look at examples where the opposite occurred.  A pair of great examples were arguably our two best Presidents ever, Washington and Lincoln.   Both of these two leaders had such critics that served them well.  In Washington’s case he relied on Hamilton for this to a degree as well as ensuring he had a cast of rivals around him as advisors including Jefferson as well as Madison.  In Lincoln’s case, he had Seward and a similar team of rivals (to use a title of a famous biography of him) that he used to check himself.  Both of these leaders could not have risen to the heights they did without the required professional critic that they depended on to seek out and find the flaws in their leadership styles and approaches to issues.  While they were brilliant into themselves and had hearty egos to go with it, they knew that they had to dispatch with sycophants, surround themselves with capable persons who challenged them, and keep hubris in abeyance.

In my life, I have been a part of organizations where I’ve seen where the appointed or selected leader, both failed to have this kind of critic that was taken seriously and respected, and ones where they had one or two and thus the entire enterprise benefitted.  It was among the reasons for the clear differences between my two combat tours in Iraq.  Tour #1 went through two O-5 Battalion Commanders who didn’t remain grounded, despite the Battalion’s motto being “Down to Earth”.  The second had a full bird Colonel who had a Command Sergeant Major (CSM) who was unabashed in laying out his often forceful criticisms.  While not always going with the advice he got from his CSM, DeLuca listened and ensured he ameliorated the risks because of the criticisms he received.  Similarly, at two academic institutions, I have now witnessed the consequences of when the President has a person in his cabinet that holds significant sway and his respect that was a part of the loyal opposition, and one that has not.  The former thrived and the other is at a proverbial crossroads.

To me then, the sign of a great leader, is whom he or she or they surround themselves with. Do they have a distinct person or cadre thereof, professionally, that challenge them and tell them the harsh truth about themselves, such that the leader changes and grows and avoids their worst impulses?  Or are they unwilling to own that the failure in most organizations starts with them?  Leaders have to hold both those around them accountable as well as themselves.  The only way to do that is have someone that can confront them, who they respect and listen to, which will help them be the change they need to be in order for themselves and those they lead to be as successful as they can be.

“Erik you really have changed,” said Derrick Edmond, a peer during my second deployment to Iraq.  Going into what is probably one of my most successful military assignments, I was a very headstrong and direct leader within our small Facilities Engineer Detachment of 15 people.  Derrick, along with another officer whom I respected, along with the OIC, early on, pulled me aside and pointed out my flaw in my character.  I was not respecting some members of the team because I was so “high speed” and had expressed unrealistic expectations of the others to think, act, and function as I did.  Hearing this, I changed my approach and made choices to engage with the team.  It took conscious effort, I had to check some of my instincts, but in the end it made me and the whole team much more successful.  And this hasn’t been the only time.  Having someone that I check in with regularly that can give me honest feedback about my flaws and where I need to improve is among my most important colleagues and friends I can have.  If you too are a leader, make sure you have this professional guide in your midst; for your sake and that of those around you.

A companion post to “How to Honor Veterans and Military Personnel at Church – Appropriately, Compassionately”

 The Rev. Dr. Leah D. Schade posted via her Patheos blog “EcoPreacher” a very helpful guide entitled “How to Honor Veterans and Military Personnel at Church – Appropriately, Compassionately” (https://www.patheos.com/blogs/ecopreacher/2023/10/how-to-honor-veterans-and-military-personnel-at-church-appropriately-compassionately/).  The following is, what I hope to be, a companion to that effort, as I feel it missed a very critical voice in its discussion.  Before I do, however, I wish to note that Rev. Dr. Schade is among my favorite contemporary theologians, one whom I believe will go down as among the greatest in the early 21st century pantheon of theologians we know, especially within specifically Lutheran theological circles.  To that, I gave and continue to give her huge credit for weighing in on this in such a careful and thoughtful way.  I also acknowledge that in penning her post, she consulted with a number of other clergy, two of which were veterans.  This was good, for sure, and I certainly take that under advisement as I weigh in on this effort.

Let me begin this companion with the most obvious missing piece that I found in Rev. Dr. Schade’s discussion: the place of the soldier/warrior/veteran in the Kingdom of God.  To me, this is a critical and necessary precursor to any such discussion about how “we honor our veterans and current military personnel at church in a way that acknowledges their service without glorifying war or inserting patriotic displays in worship.”  Given that we are speaking in a specific Christian context, a first place to find such an answer is assuredly scripture.  To which, scripture is absolutely full of discussions of martial affairs.  Whether this be the centrality of Pharaoh’s military might in the Exodus story, or the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites, or the story of David from his slingshot of Goliath to his stealing of General Uriah’s wife (by the deliberate assassination of Uriah in battle), or dozens of other stories in the Old Testament alone, there is a lot one can and should consider about those who a part of any military effort as a warrior or however else they are named.  And we’d be very wise not to forget the prominence of military figures in the gospel itself, from the faith of the centurion to the soldiers casting lots at the foot of the cross, to the sentry who acknowledges that Jesus was truly the lord of all, to Pontius Pilate who condemned Christ to the cross as the means of his death (among other instances).  For that reason, I cannot commend strongly enough to your reading, comprehension, and understanding the treatise by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther entitled originally “Whether Soldiers Too Can Be Saved.” A copy of this can be found at this link: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/la64z9n2hyax76bzpn825/15260000-WhetherSoldiersTooCanBeSaved.  This treatise, written to address this very issue when asked by a soldier themselves, is built on a solid scriptural foundation, remains exceptionally relevant today, and is foremost in my mind as I pen this companion.  I also think it can and should be used as a reference point in how we in the church, address veterans and military related holidays and those that have served.

While Rev. Dr. Schade spends the majority of her post addressing the fact that there are many veterans that struggle with their service, prefer not to discuss it, were traumatized by it, or have misgivings, and so forth, I will assert that the vast majority of us (noting here I am a veteran myself) have no such issues and are comfortable, proud, and readily identify with our service.  Yes, there is a serious problem with a segment of veterans that have bought into acceptance, if not outright full throated embrace, of white conservative Christian nationalism (noting the importance of the prefixes of “white” and “conservative” to Rev. Dr. Schade’s use of the term).  This can and absolutely needs correction.  I am not talking about those veterans, albeit I will address that as well later.  I am talking about the vast majority that have integrated back into civilian society and have taken on various roles from being teachers in our schools, to business owners, to members of various community groups, and most likely are a recognizable part of your congregation.  One of the biggest mistakes that can be made when it comes to addressing veterans, especially around specific related holidays, is to assume we are all broken pots that you have to handle with proverbial “kid gloves” or that we have had experiences that are so devoid of anyone else’s in society that we cannot be empathized with, if not understood.  While a declining demographic, per the 2020 census, we as veterans, represent approximately 7% of the population in the US.[1] If you look deeper however, the vast majority of veterans are aged 65 or older.[2] And given that many churches are “greying” in the US, as a percentage of the overall population, there are a much higher percentage of us in those age brackets.

Point being that, do not assume we have a struggle that is not there, assume that it’s not appreciated that you acknowledge our service to our fellow citizens, nor assume it’s unimportant that we may have a disproportionate impact on our communities, inclusive of our faith communities.  This is especially true around specific holidays.

So, to borrow from Rev. Dr. Schade’s approach, what can you do to address these issues? Beyond her very good suggestions, let me offer a few key points of advice:

• Learn what the holidays actually are and are not.  Each of the national holidays have specific purposes that I find I have to habitually remind people about.  Memorial Day is a day for remembering and honoring those that have died in service of the county.  Yes, predominantly they are those that served in the military, but it also includes diplomats, astronauts, scientists, politicians, and many more.  So thinking that day is a day to especially thank a living veteran or service member for their service is a complete misnomer.  This is a day that often weighs heavily on those of us who have served in uniform as it is when we remember our brothers and sisters whom we witnessed die in combat or in other circumstances.  It can be greatly irritating to us to have you not understand the meaning of that day because, for me at least, it takes away from the importance on those whom should be recognized.  Similarly Armed Forces Day is a day for those currently serving in uniform, not for those who have served in the past (aka military veterans).  Veterans Day is for those who have served, whether that is a full career or a day, in uniform, so this is when you’re best to recognize all those living persons who are serving presently as well as in the past.  I’d also offer that September 11th (9/11) is an important date to note and consider, not for veterans alone, but for all those who were directly or indirectly effected by the events of that day in 2001.  Make it not just about military, but about he victims, the first responders, the traumatized, the families.  To that, on all of these celebrations pull in spouses and other family members associated with the day in question as there is strong acknowledgment that they too served, in an often unrecognized capacity.
• Ensure you do something on those days (yes in worship too).  While Rev. Dr. Schade does a lot to squash the bug of displacing God’s kingdom with Caesar’s through inappropriate patriotic displays and supplanting hymns with patriotic songs as a part of worship itself, be careful you don’t expunge the nature of the holiday occasion from what ought to be a fantastic moment to teach about our dual citizenship, the role of the church in the public square, and the nature of military and other kinds of service as a lived out vocation in the Kingdom of God.  In many Christian polities we already have provided elements such as inclusion of these themes in our weekly prayers of the church or as a deliberate liturgical options in our worship sources (again as she indicated in her post).  Carefully consider their use and work locally to implement those that fit best, without harming or otherwise going “overboard”.  If the lectionary that particular week has a lesson that contains one of the numerous instances that war or conflict or peacemaking are spoken to, preach on that lesson and use it as a vehicle to engage the congregation in a helpful dialogue about those themes today, especially in light of the holiday in question.  And while I’d too avoid John Philip Souza in the hymns for the day, there are some very good choices of hymns that speak to each of these holidays that are not “patriotic” at first blush, but might do well to sing (e.g.  “Eternal Father Strong to Save” or “Lord make me an instrument of peace”).  Further, don’t forget that preludes and postludes are good places for more varied songs to play, and might be precisely the place for a rendition of America the Beautiful, for instance.  Finally, I’ll depart a bit from her suggestion that you not put honoring veterans as a part of the liturgy by doing so before or after.  If you honor mothers on Mother's Day or all those faithfully departed on All Saints Day, as a part of your liturgical practice, do likewise for those others on their day.  It is important to put all of these honoring events in their proper place: as remembrances that we are all worthy of honor as children of God.  When you pull out any subgroup it ought to be to especially recognize them for their unique contributions or to bring attention to what is too often neglected about those unique gifts for the benefit of all.  This can be tricky and she’s right to emphasize that such events honoring x or y subgroup in worship is not ideal.  Again, there are wonderful resources available for making these integrations work without stumbling into problematic territory.
• Consider “temple talks” by veterans on these days.  These may require some coaching, and you’d want to make sure you have the first few occurrences set the tone, but this is a fantastic way for willing veterans (or any minority group for that matter), to share out their lived experience with their church family.  Rev. Dr. Schade rightly pointed out we ought to give consideration to celebrating labor on Labor Day or parenthood on the prescribed days, or other poignant reminders on various days.  That need not be done by the Pastor, especially if they do not identify or fit into the demographic in question.  For this particular discussion, if there is a willingness, set aside 5-10 min for a talk by a veteran about the holiday in question.  For Memorial Day, having them share about what it was like to lose a compatriot in combat might well set the tone for a powerful remembrance that can be preached to later in the service about both resurrection hope and about our call to be God’s witnesses in this world.
• Offer a Bible study series on war and peace from Memorial Day to Veterans Day.  As I said above, scripture is replete with these themes and it is a critical part of what many struggle with to place into their personal lives never mind the church.  Given that the liturgical calendar aligns nicely to often have this be the period of the Season after Pentecost (including Armed Forces Day and Independence Day, as well as Labor Day and Columbus/Indigenous Persons Day), this would be an excellent way to run a targeted but framed exploration of war, peace, and those that are in the midst of martial conflict.  I’d commend accompanying resources like the aforementioned treatise by Luther, but there are some others that could serve this effort well (I have not used this nor reviewed it myself, but this looks very intriguing and helpful:  War and Peace: From Genesis to Revelation https://a.co/d/afbyDOw).  Consider having parishioners who have been involved in armed conflict as well as veterans be co-leaders of this effort.  Make this a chance for small group ministry and growth in understanding of the challenges and opportunities within the community to support veterans, their families, and those affected by war in other ways.  It is also a great way to hone in on the place of national pride and patriotism within the context of the church and God’s kingdom in general.
• If not done already, make a habit of sharing specific resources for veterans that speak to their faith life.  To this one of the most important tasks of the church is to equip people on their faith journey with the necessary tools and equipment.  One of the most helpful things for me has been a specific resource given to me by my parish many years ago, that provided me with a place to go to find answers, seek ways to express my unique experiences, and have a readymade mechanism to carry along my way.  The Prayer Book for the Armed Services by Augsburg Fortress remains a part of my collection that I refer to, to this day (https://www.augsburgfortress.org/store/product/18570/Prayer-Book-for-the-Armed-Services).  While this certainly fits best in a Lutheran polity, it was designed to be ecumenical in nature and would be a great companion along the way.  There are other similar resources from other polities and groups, I am sure, but think about sharing something with these members of this kind.  Giving it on one of the particular holidays could be a rhythm that works, but it need not be on those days.  The simple act of giving something like this is honoring these members in a really important way, by valuing the journey they are on for its own sake, and putting something in their proverbial ruck sack that will make that journey better.

Finally, I think it critical that we address the very real problem of hyper-nationalism, especially the rise of white conservative Christian nationalism, that has become very apparent in the US today.  You are likely, if you wish to accept it or not, have members in your congregations that either accept or even promote this perversion of Christianity.  We cannot nor should not ignore this, but we need not make it a point of exclusion and repulsion from the church.  And we cannot ignore the disproportionate representation of veterans in the group that executed a failed insurrection of the government of the United States on January 6th, 2021.  This creates a problem for sure, in honoring veterans, especially as there resides strong feelings, by some, that the problem lies within military culture itself, even if that (false) perception cannot be borne out by facts.  Retired General Mark Milley, in his retirement speech, reminded all of us who have served or currently serve in uniform, that “We don’t take an oath to a king or a queen or to a tyrant or a dictator.  And we don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator.  We don’t take an oath to an individual.  We take an oath to the Constitution, and we take an oath to the idea that is America, and we’re willing to die to protect it.”[3]  Yet clearly some have gone against that very premise, and some continue to perpetuate a violation of their oath and this underlying core philosophy of the nature of military service.  As the church, we cannot get into the specific vagaries of civil military relations, but we do need to address how Christians who serve can and should comport themselves as God calls us all to do.

 

To that, some suggestions:

• Don’t fall into the trap of blaming the warrior for the war, or all veterans for the wrongful acts of those few who are clearly outside their commitment to serve the constitution.  It is too  easy and too fraught with error to descend into the tropes of the past which have been proven by history to not only unhelpful but exceptionally damaging.  It’s also too easy to give into rage and simply blame the whole for the errors of a part of any group (hence where stereotypes come from).  Among America’s greatest tragedies was blaming drafted members of the US armed forces for their all too often undesired participation in the Vietnam conflict, as if they were the ones that drove the policies that made that conflict the travesty that it was.  Likewise, calling into question the honorable and courageous service of those hundreds of thousands who have served since on account of the clearly egregious violations of the law and the oath that was sworn to upon enlistment or commissioning by those few who took part in one of our darkest days, is a mistake.  Rather, like John the Baptist and Christ himself did, respect and honor military service[4].  Those of us who have rendered that service, in the United States at least, do so with respect to the Constitution that begins with “We the People”.  Yes, we can and should be reminded of our oaths to support and defend the constitution, as General Milley makes clear.  We need to, however, remember how we address sin in our midst, and that is to love our God and our neighbor, including those that serve in uniform.
• Do ask the why question.  Many of those that are finding themselves on the other side of the chasm with regards to their duty to the Constitution, and Christian love, are really struggling.  Rev Dr.  Schade articulates well that many engage in hyper-nationalism as a coping or response mechanism because of their service.  What is often lacking is an appreciation and self-introspection of why they are in a position of standing against the very things that they swore to defend or have received in their redemption in baptism.  Arguing against their strongly held beliefs, often subject to bound conscious, more often not only hardens the heart.  Akin to the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in the Exodus story, it leads to self-destructive behavior or worse.  What is better, is to ask the “why” questions.  Why do they believe as they do?  Why are they so focused on hyper-nationalism?  Why are they fearful?  Why are they engaged in these activities?  Why are they in pain or anger or rage?  Similarly, for those that would demonize or dehumanize veterans and military members, ask the same kinds of questions.  Science and politics focus often on the how, what, where, and who questions.  But the church is the one place that can best address “why” questions.  Christ makes it clear that why we are is because he loves us, unconditionally, without wavering, and without preconditions.  Engaging with the why questions for those veterans that are a part of your congregations enables us to reconnect and reenergize with the power of the Spirit of all understanding.  That is critical in these contexts and discussions.  Ask the “why” questions.
• Seek out their pain and work to salve it.  Following from above, one of the things that is commonly known at this point is that war wounds may or may not be visible.  While not all veterans and military members suffer from post-traumatic stress or other behavioral maladies, we all have our pains and issues that we have had to contend with.  Mine happens to have been very strong anger coming out of my first tour in Iraq, which was really only salved by and through another tour later in my life along with continual reflection on my place as a child of God.  I could have, however, turned my anger towards my family, my neighbors, or society at large.  To a great degree, that is precisely what those that are engaging in hyper-nationalist or white conservative Christian nationalism are doing.  Medical and behavioral specialists ought to be a ready resource for veterans in general, but the Church has a huge role in bringing healing to the soul.  Among the many things I believe we ought to do for veterans is provide them with a chance to engage in individual confession and forgiveness.  Further, providing prayers and small group discussion circles can be exceptionally helpful.  Point being, use these holidays and commemorations as times to consider finding ways to address those that are standing aside from their duties and responsibilities to offer places and times to bring healing for them and those around them.

To conclude, I again want to thank Rev. Dr. Schade for her earnest-while post on this topic.  I also appreciate her willingness to allow for me to provide a companion post from my perspective.  I hope I have done justice to this topic, and provided some more helpful ways to address the commemoration of veteran, military, and related holidays in our congregations.

 

---

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/250366/percentage-of-us-population-who-are-veterans/

[2] https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/demo/acs-43.pdf

[3] https://apnews.com/article/milley-trump-biden-democracy-military-d2abb76858291c87ae856f91e9556d8e

[4] https://www.1517.org/articles/concerning-centurions-and-the-salvation-of-a-soldiers-soul

The High Risk in Risk Aversion

One of the things that I have learned by being a construction professional and US Army officer, is that risk is a thing that needs to be managed. I learned early on, and have had it reinforced through practice, that all risks should be managed by the party, in any construction project/mission, that has the best tools and control of that risk in the effort. To that, I want to be clear, to manage risk is to not avoid risk or be averse to risk, because doing so only shifts the risk away from your control or awareness, and is almost always the riskier proposition.

What do I mean by this? Let’s start with my experience on the contractor/construction manager/executor side of things. One of the pesky things that happens in any construction project/military mission is the need to maintain physical safety protocols and conduct cleanup/housekeeping. Safety is a paramount focus on any construction or military training site. There are oodles of training sessions given and ongoing emphasis to make sure jobs are “safe”. The reality is that construction has numerous and varied ongoing risks to personal life and limb throughout the process. It’s just a risky business in that way. And it requires diligence and an “all hands on deck” approach to mitigating those risks from becoming a hazard that could hurt someone. So when it comes to making sure we have all of the safety measures in place, who holds responsibility is a matter of a “both everyone and no one” quandary. By that, I mean technically everyone from the worker to the employer to the owner has the responsibility to take ownership of job site safety, but that also means no one individual has ultimate responsibility for all, each and every, of the job site safety measures.

As a contractor/executor side of this, I’m probably the best person to manage safety focused risks on the job site. But how does it get done? In working for several organizations, I can tell you there’s a range of responses. On one extreme, one approach by the CM/GC was to assign this entirely to the trade contractors (primarily through the various trade contracts), without any real mechanism to ensure that there was consistency across how said trade contractors approached or executed their safety measures. This risk averse approach, took all liability away from the firm I worked for at the cost of creating varied and in some cases inherently more risky conditions.  One such example was as it related to how labeling protocols resulted in floor hole coverings that had one person mistake it for a work platform before they were told it wasn’t safe location to work. Or another example was where a trade contractor would orally promise to use chain link fencing to barricade a part of the site, to only opt to later install orange plastic construction barrier (a significant downgrade), to which there was not any real recourse. This “hands off” because “we don’t own it” approach was problematic at best and (based on the random/perhaps not random OSHA inspection we went through) was lucky not to cause serious injury.

This was as opposed to another firm I worked for that literally had prescribed safety boards for each site, with mandated first aid and other PPE kits, a required safety manual (that subs had to sign off on), regular and educational safety inspections, and a “we want to control our sites” approach to job site safety. It was night and day. Yes, we took on, because of our direct involvement as the GC, liability as a result of having trade contractors comply to our standards. But, by doing so we actually reduced the risks on the job and resulted in no recorded injuries across numerous job sites over many years (reducing actual liability exposure, with a corresponding decreased premium rate). It was clear then, as much as it is clear now, taking the risk averse approach only heightens and actually creates more risk. I had similar experiences working on the owners side, where in one case “it’s all the contractor’s responsibility” risk averse approach was the mantra as opposed to “this is our installation, and we have to take case of everyone on it, even the workers of the contractors on site” approach. The latter was a clear example of an underlying philosophy that one should own/embrace the risk so you can manage it effectively.

And this applies beyond construction. It can be in financial matters, political decision making, and even operational approaches.  Recently, I was discussing the need to update the computer purchase recommendations for our academic department for incoming students. Some years ago, prior to and upon my assumption of the role of Department Executive Officer (XO), it was abundantly clear that the general university computer recommendations were just not sufficient for upper division courses in our area, because the university base model was based on functionality at the least common denominator level for all programs (resulting in a lack of disk space, memory, etc. for various applications in engineering). The previous leadership took the risk averse approach, in that they didn’t want to be held responsible for recommending something different than the IT department had given as they’d have to answer if those recommendations were insufficient or more expensive (eg they’d get blamed not the department leadership). I, on the other hand, was much more concerned with the complaints that were regularly being voiced, and corresponded to, about how we should have told them they needed X or Y capacity and how they couldn’t use their laptop to do course work because they were seriously deficient (thus relying on campus computer labs, which became an acute problem during the COVID pandemic). The question was which risk are you dealing with? Being held to account for telling people what they need or being held to account for failing to do so?

My approach was not the risk averse one, it was the risk management one. I drafted a memo, laying out open ended but specific specs, making clear the pros and cons of what was needed and giving two levels. Knowing well that most families only buy a laptop only once for their loved one’s collegiate experience, they were written to enable the computer purchased upon arrival to, more likely than not, function all the way to the end of that experience and still keep up with software updates 4 to 5 years hence. You know how many complaints we received? Zero, none, nada, not even a one. There were some concerns raised once or twice about cost, but once they were aware of the intent (laid out up front of the recommendations as a clear rationale for them), in every case they were thankful. And more often than not, when parents, students, and others would ask about similar recommendations for other majors, the refrain was “I wish others did this too so we’d know what to buy that would last the duration”. Yes, there’s a risk in putting out something that went above and beyond what IT put out, but what was the down side? Appreciation and an exhibition of better performance for the students with an ending of the constant litany of complaints on why they didn’t know answer couldn’t function the way they wanted to?  Was that really a problem? The bigger risk? Answer, no.  They’re really weren’t any downsides at all, other than having to periodically update the recommendations. Managing the risk, in other words, was less risky than avoiding or being averse to it. WE have the responsibility to make OUR students be in the best position possible to succeed in OUR curricula in OUR department based on what WE know. We can and should manage this risk and not leave it up to others who know less, are less likely to receive the complaints, and are less equipped to resolve the problem ahead of it becoming a problem.

Risk management is about knowingly and carefully assuming risks while putting in place mechanisms and tools to mitigate the potential downsides of those risks should they occur (as well as building in capacity to deal with the unknowns).  Life is risky, period. Everything we do has risks. Some are greater and others smaller. And, yes, there is absolutely such a thing as taking on too much risk. But here is the thing, avoiding risk, being risk averse, is actually doing just that, assuming too much risk. It’s an attempt to push out of the way that thing that you have a very important part of the pie in addressing. The mere fact you’ve chosen to avoid or be averse to it doesn’t make the risk go away. No you’ve made a deliberate choice (a bad one I’d surmise). It just means others (or no one) is going to manage it, and they may or may not do it well or be equipped to address it so as to not have the downsides actually occur. That is inherently the more risky proposition. While I fully get that it’s prudent to insulate yourself from financial and other legal liability, especially in a litigious environment like the United States, that doesn’t mean you avoid risk. There are tools for those things, like insurance, peer review, checks and balances, and so forth. But none of those are avoiding or being averse, they are part of a comprehensive risk management process that enables you to better address the risks. And they also help you avoid the trap of perceiving risks that aren’t really there (or if they are they were just ones you’ve been blind or adverse to recognizing and managing properly).

In conclusion, manage risk don’t be averse to it.  And in that, risk, if you’re going to choose to avoid it and do a stiff arm against actively managing it, it either a) needs to not be a risk at all (and not an opportunity either, meaning it’s a waste of time), b) you have 100% confidence in whomever or whatever will be in place to manage it outside your control, OR c) you’re fully willing to accept the consequences when your aversion ends up biting you in the proverbial forth point of contact.  Any of these should be a last resort to working to managing the risk appropriately and by the best parties to do so effectively.

When the Going gets Tough (in education), the Tough (educators) get Going?

When the Going gets Tough (in education), the Tough (educators) Get Going?

I’ll admit it, I live in academia.  My full time job is to educate the engineers of tomorrow.  I really like this job, and I think I do it well (although, I will be candid, I continue to be amazed at many of my colleagues who are better than I).  This said, after 5 years in academia full time, I still don’t fully fit in, and probably never will.  There are things like the constant need to relate to academic year vice summer in discussions around salary and research grants or the idea that you give someone up to 6 years to prove themselves, investing millions into them, and then you summarily fire them when they don’t get tenure (instead of converting them over to teaching faculty; recognizing that research isn’t the end-all, be-all for what makes a good educator at post-secondary institutions).  The whole business model and metrics around academic research continues to drive me nuts (like it just doesn’t make sense to me that you count success as high research expenditures, vice any kind of measurement of research outcomes; and to me those outcomes don’t have to always be monetary returns, but why isn’t that a part of the picture).  I also get driven nuts over how many of us live in a bit of la la land when it comes to entitlement, especially as it has come into stark relief amidst planning for return to classes this fall.

 

Now, let me be clear, we have to take COVID-19 seriously and we have to make preparations.  We have to account for individual risk factors and do what we can to mitigate those enhanced risks that exist over the pre-COVID “normal” levels of risk in everyday life.  I am not talking about that.  What I am talking about, however, is how quickly, when we look to put mitigation measures in place, words like “untenable” or “unrealistic” come out, in response to the inconveniences that come with them.  There are things that are indeed untenable, unrealistic, and so forth (for instance the ability to control the behavior of collegiate students at 2 am on Sunday morning of any given weekend such that a surge spread of COVID might be controlled, not likely), but the reactions actually aren’t to those things.  The reactions are too often in response to what amounts to rather trivial inconveniences when you step back and look at them, thus making them poster children for ridicule.

 

Before I cite some examples of this, let me fully disclose my role in our (Clarkson University’s) fall semester in-person teaching planning.[i]  Given my background in college and university facilities,[ii] and that the Director of Facilities and Services parted company early in the outset of the effects of the COVID outbreak at Clarkson, I have voluntarily stepped in to help the facilities response team in several aspects of the plan.  Namely I have been figuring out the occupancy limits in campus buildings, first as it relates to code occupancy, then as is relates to the state guidelines for social distancing.  I also have a team of students, working with a colleague of mine, that are doing socially distanced classroom layouts for both fixed seat classrooms as well as temporary classrooms, in places like the campus field house, as well as determining campus path routing to minimize the chance of spread during pedestrian movements on campus, inside our interlinked academic core.  So on top of my other roles, I have stepped in to help where my expertise can be of some hoped for value and been working in concert with many team members to do as best we can within the guidance provided.

 

So that being disclosed, let me cite some examples of what I am talking about as it relates to the level of privilege in academia in the midst of our ongoing response.  This first example comes from an email I received about the draft plan for one-way hallways in a major academic building on campus.  The author writes, “One way traffic makes sense in main circulating corridors.  However, on branch hallways, it results in some flow patterns that aren't tenable.  In XX building, the faculty office halls require faculty to go out into a stairwell, go downstairs and outside, then come back in the front entrance.  Even if the stairs could be two-way, it would mean going up or down stairs every time a faculty member needs to get somewhere.”  “Two principles have to be that people who need to use elevators can access them without stairs, and outdoor walking is minimized (as much as I prefer outdoor walking!).”

 

So let’s break this down, because you have to walk outside or being required to use a stairwell for able bodied persons (the plan has a blanket exemption for traffic plans for all those that have a mobility impairment), the plan is not “tenable”?  Further, while I am getting numerous questions about the adequacy of fresh air ventilation generally in buildings, the rubric should be that we give preference for indoor mobility over outdoor?  The email brought up good points that allowed us to make some better modifications to the traffic flow for this building, but as I also said in my reply, “what is tenable vice desirable, from an objective point of view, are perhaps different.”  As someone who literally slept under a vehicle for 2 months in Baghdad in the summer of 2003, I am sorry, but really?  The imposition of you, an able-bodied person, having to alter your route and being inconvenienced with having to go up or down a flight of stairs or routing outside for less than a minute or two (even if it’s raining, snowing or sleeting), is really a fairly small sacrifice in the big picture.

 

The second example I will cite is about a classroom set-up situation.  It comes from a fellow faulty member that has been vociferous in their concerns about face-to-face instruction in the fall, especially as it relates to ventilation, contact, and so forth.  This person contacted me about a particular classroom set-up.  My colleague writes, “I am surprised  that there are three seats in a row at one table, but what really horrifies me is that there is one seat right on the first seat at the table before the podium.  That forces me to be behind the monitor for 90 mins, which is unrealistic.”  So to break this down, what is really “horrific” is that the faculty member will have to stand in a particular location during their lectures for an hour an half class in order to maintain social distancing.  Not to be too flippant, but apparently students have now become the enemy?  Their conclusion was that the occupancy for the room was too high, and should be lowered.[iii]  So, in essence, I don’t want to have to modify my delivery to be static, so we need to change the room to accommodate me.

 

I have cited these two examples because they really get at the point I am trying to make.  Look, all of this sucks.  It really does.  I agree we should have made a much more concerted evaluation of whether we should have even tried in-person instruction in the fall, with all of its economic, social, and reputational aspects.  That said, candidly, I think I would have probably come up on the side of “giving it a try” for in-person education this fall.[iv]  Without question one of the things I learned, and learned well, from my service in the US Army, is that when you are in the “suck” you need to make the best of it.  Wallowing and complaining about the fact that things suck, doesn’t help you get out of it; rather it makes it “suck” more.  Instead, get over yourself, stop being selfish, and figure out how to mitigate the worst of it driving yourself out of it as fast as possible.  Afterwards, sure, figure out how not to get stuck in the same “suck” again, but don’t fixate on it when you are in the midst of it.[v]  COVID-19 sucks; teaching in-person in the midst of this pandemic has up-ticked the risk for sure.  But we have to step back a bit and get a grip, this isn’t the black plague nor is it going to be if we stay level headed.

 

Folks, let’s get real.  Is having to walk another 300 yards before or after going to the bathroom really make life unbearable?  Is it really that bad that you will have to modify your pedagogical approach for the coming semester to give the most students the best chance to learn?  What we need to get past, as academics, is that we are not the privileged children we think we are.  Look Socrates went to trial and was put to death.  There has been and always will be risk to our profession; one we need to accept, even, especially, when we are called to be inconvenienced.  This fall, we need to expect and live into the undesirable (in all its forms, including online education and more), it’ll make us better for it.  And if you are so concerned, there are outs:  instruct 100% virtually or look to pre-record you lectures and “flip” the classroom so that your face to face engagement isn’t you talking at your students but you dialoging with them through such mediums as Zoom, discussion boards, or what not.  All of this is more work, but frankly, if we’ve been paying attention (and I have), this is what we have been warned we will need to adjust to sooner rather than later, not just as individual instructors but all of academia.  So, words of wisdom from a soldier, live into the “suck”, get past it, and in the end, you’ll be amazed at how much we benefit from it, both individually as well as collectively.

 

---

[i] For more, see the university response website:  https://www.clarkson.edu/future-ready

[ii] Among those this:  https://www.appa.org/standards-codes-landing-page/informatics-work-group/

[iii] With its secondary and tertiary effects of needing to move the class to another room or similar, creating a domino effect.

[iv] A slight counterfactual, in so much as I am absent the full analysis, and believe data should drive decision making more than it does at the institution at the present time; we are too often relying in on an intuitive instead of a deliberate decision making process.

[v] And, as my good battle buddy friend Sam Chisolm says, there is no need to train at living in the “suck”.

“Mr. Cheney, you’re dead wrong!”

Originally written on 22 April 2009, Edited for posting 14 March 2018

I have continued to watch, with great disgust and mirth, the bantering that is occurring on the question of what to do about torture in our republic.  To me there is no question:  a government of “we the people,”[i] should not, cannot, and will not ever approve or condone a policy that makes torture, in even its most simplistic and relatively innocuous form, legal and permissible in the main.  And with all due respect to the former Vice President of these United States, I don’t give a damn how much valuable information you collect in the execution of “enhanced interrogation techniques,”[ii] such a policy, one he seems to endorse (and frankly should know better not to), puts this nation, and those that defend it, in grave danger.

Now you ask, how can I make such a strong condemnation of a past administration and even more so the opinion of a former senior leader therein?  Well let me start with the fact that I was a Soldier, an American Soldier.  I served in uniform 20 plus years, of that 7 was on active duty, and more importantly, 2 plus years of it have been in Iraq.  I have voluntarily said that if it came to it, I would lay down my life to defend this country and the constitution that defines it.  And with an ever smaller minority of people in our population, I have backed this up with action.  Actions that include the award of a Combat Action Badge; an award I hope you can understand, is not something I was looking to receive.  Beyond my personal imposition, I was a leader of Soldiers, a Commissioned Officer and a Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army.  This means I had the weighty responsibility of not only being ready to answer my country’s call personally, but I have led Soldiers and have led them in combat.  I have been responsible for sending soldiers home without significant portions of their bodies intact and I have had to pull together those that remain after such a loss to fight on for another 9 months, or more, of the same.  I have done all this in the very den of savagery that the former administrations have sought and this present one seeks to defeat.  I have met, first-hand, the insurgent, the terrorist, and the one that would tear down the foundations of what we call dear.  I know from personal experience what can happen when I, or any person who seeks to represent these United States around the world, fails to live up to the highest ideals that our Founding Father’s intended us to uphold.  And I know, because I am a student of history, what has happened to nations, who hold such ideals that start to toboggan down the slippery slope in arrogance, thinking they are above common morals, the laws they have endorsed fully, and even themselves.

We have stated clearly from the beginning that we hold certain truths self evident, certain inalienable rights, among them and chiefly, “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”[iii]  We specifically provided protections against such things as “unreasonable searches and seizures”[iv] and “cruel and unusual punishment.”[v]  These are not negotiable founding principles, these cannot get in our way when we find them inconvenient, because if and when they do, my dear citizens, we are then saying that we are redefining what it is to be American, and in a very real sense saying, that what we formerly said was true is utterly false.  When we do this, and we do it as if we were not changing a thing (as if one could not see plain through it that we are moving the Gibraltar’s of our founding faith) it is as if we think we don’t have to be held accountable.  There is a word for this: Hypocrisy.  And my fellow Americans, any endorsement of torture in the policy of this nation, in the laws we pass, in the excuses we make for it, is just that, a Great Hypocrisy.  And unlike any other nation on earth that commits hypocrisy, and every group of peoples on this planet does this (especially our enemies), our role as the “leader of the free world”[vi] and a nation “conceived in liberty”[vii] sets us center stage and magnifies this hypocrisy to a degree that history can never match.  Precisely because we have elevated ourselves and our ideals to such a high podium that the world is jealous and jaded that we could ever live up to them, our hypocrisies, our sins, only prove that we are false, liars, and frankly cannot be trusted to keep our word.  And because we have a mass media venue that permeates the world around, we can’t hide it, we can’t deny it, and we certainly cannot think the world won’t see it in the naked public square.

So Mr. Obama stated a fact that should never been in question, “America does not torture.”[viii]  We now know that since the seminal moment in our time, 9-11, we have taken a road of fear, a road of challenges, a road of hard choices in the face of hard realities.  But I want to let you know, from first-hand experience, what the impact of the revelation that America has tortured our detainees, even in isolated cases, when it mattered most.  During the winter of 2003-2004, it was my job as an Engineer Officer as a part of 1^st Armored Division in support of the 2^nd Calvary Regiment was to improve and develop a base called Camp War Eagle (now called Camp Hope) on the northeastern edge of Sadr City in Baghdad, to protect our soldiers an provide their basic needs.  To this end, I oversaw numerous construction contracts, primarily with local Iraqi firms.  These firms and their employees took some measured risk to work with the coalition to begin with, given that in their history benevolent dictatorship is the best they could really ever hope for.  But all of that changed one Sunday evening; the evening that 60 Minutes broke the Abu Ghraib prison scandal; the evening that the Great Hypocrisy of torture by American Soldiers was revealed to the world.  Now I never saw the original airing, but I did see what it did on the ground.  Muqtada al-Sadr and the Sadr Bureau immediately took action to make sure everyone in the 9 Nissan and Sadr City area knew that we could not be trusted.  Workers were harder and harder to come by as construction continued, IED placements skyrocketed, and those that did come to work had to hide their cars or path of travel to avoid being seen (as a number of Iraqis were found dead at home the day after they made the mistake of being recognized as working with us).  Never minding the horrible facts for the average Iraqi, by April 2004, in short order what had been one of the most tranquil parts of Baghdad had turned into a danger zone that saw a rapid rise in American and coalition force casualties, especially when 1^st Calvary Division started to arrive to replace 1^st Armor Division in these areas.  I distinctly lived through two major events that Easter: 1) a phone call to my Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge at Camp War Eagle in the midst of a mortar attack determining how to get him back to Camp Victory for our planned unit roll out in a number of weeks, and 2) our entire Engineer Battalion and those elements on the southwest corner of the Baghdad International Airport engaging in a direct fire attack with militia elements that tried to assault our position.  And I have now made a second year long venture to the former Babylonia, this time in conjunction with the now famous surge, trying to “win” this war.  In the totality of it all, why did all of these things happen; why?  The answer I can only resolve is that we let our guard down, not as Soldiers, but as a nation and showed we could not be trusted, we could not stand up to the standards we expected of ourselves and what is worse yet, the standards we expected the world to uphold, but we felt somehow we didn’t have to.  We were hypocrites.

The reality is if we are going to choose to fail to defend this nation against the ones that want to destroy us, all we have to do is continue in hypocrisy.  All we have to do is continue to chew away at the fundamental liberties we cherish.  All we have to do is make excuses as to the pragmatism and the expediency of methods we use to defend our freedoms using otherwise reprehensible behavior.  All we have to do is prove to the world that we no longer are the beacon of freedom that we have told them we are, and they win.  I can remember distinctly the former Vice President standing with the, then, Chairman of the Joint Chief’s Colin Powell telling us after the liberation of Kuwait, that significant droves of the republican guard (so much so that we were overwhelmed) surrendered because they knew that we would treat them well.  This enabled us to quickly secure Kuwait and the southern regions of Iraq, enabling mission success and, pen-ultimately, the nation to be well defended again.  This saved lives, this proved America could be trusted.  Let me say that again, this saved lives, this proved America could be trusted.  Doing this is what we were supposed to do.  Torture is not ever what we are supposed to do.

This is not an issue up for debate, it is not an issue that can be made partisan; just ask the man in the Senate that can no longer lift his arms above his shoulders because of his stay at the Hanoi Hilton what he thinks of torture.  This is, however, a matter of our national defense.  Because our failure to not simply stop torture from ever entering our policy-making and law-making approval process again will put America and our homeland in danger by creating more of the disaffection in the rest of the world that brought 4 jet liners to a tragic end on a cold fall morning in an infamous September past.  To truly defend our nation, we have to recognize that those leaders who recklessly endorsed, nay, promulgated such a policy are held to task.  Great men and women in our history have recognized this.  Truman recognized he had unleashed a terrible scourge on the earth at Hiroshima and then Nagasaki, one that lasted well beyond his years or the generations he then present was responsible for; the “buck” stopped with him.  Eisenhower wrote two letters to the President prior to D-Day:  one humbly thanking the President for the privilege of command and announcing our victory on the beaches of Normandy, the other resigning his post as Supreme Allied Commander and taking full responsibility for the failure and loss of life that had occurred as Hitler’s Atlantic Wall had destroyed America’s best and brightest.  I, like Grant and Lincoln after the civil war[ix], believe we cannot give a free pass to those that have endorsed a policy of supporting torture or have actually been found to have committed acts of torture, should not hold public trust for the nation again.  If we hold our ground in this regard, then we can prove to the world that we are not lesser than we are when we extend our “bonds of affection”[x] as the preeminent “shining ‘city on a hill.’”[xi]  The world’s people, and I hope we as Americans, are surely going to remember this hypocrisy for a long time, and we need to ask over time, can we be trusted?  If we do this, we do it right, the world will know that we made a mistake, we have made our repentance, and indeed we can be the people we profess to be; and that will win this struggle for all times.

---

[i] Preamble of the Constitution of the United Stated of America

[ii] A euphemism for torture used by the George W. Bush Administration

[iii] Declaration of Independence

[iv] Constitution of the United Stated of America

[v] Ibid

[vi] A common euphemism for the President of the United States and the nation itself, especially in the late 20^th Century

[vii] Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln

[viii] Obama, Barak Hussein, Speech to Joint Session of Congress, 24 February 2009

[ix] Wherein, confederate officers and leaders could never hold federal office again.

[x] Lincoln, Abraham, Second Inaugural Address

[xi] Regan, Ronald, Vision for America speech, 3 November 1980