Tag: Courage

  • Moral Decay, Dehumanization, and the Failure of Courage (Dahn Shaulis and Glen McGhee)

    Moral Decay, Dehumanization, and the Failure of Courage (Dahn Shaulis and Glen McGhee)

    At Higher Education Inquirer, our focus on the college meltdown has always pointed beyond collapsing enrollments, rising tuition, and institutional dysfunction. Higher education has served as a warning signal — a visible manifestation of a far deeper crisis: the moral decay and dehumanization of society, compounded by a profound failure of courage among those with the greatest power and resources.

    This concern predates the current moment. Through our earlier work at American Injustice, we chronicled how American institutions steadily abandoned ethical responsibility in favor of profit, prestige, and political convenience. What is happening in higher education today is not an anomaly. It is the predictable outcome of decades of moral retreat by elites who benefit from the system while refusing to challenge its injustices.

    Permanent War and the Moral Abdication of Leadership

    Wars in Gaza, Ukraine, and Venezuela reveal a world in which human suffering has been normalized and strategically managed rather than confronted. Civilian lives are reduced to abstractions, filtered through geopolitical narratives and sanitized media frames. What is most striking is not only the violence itself, but the ethical cowardice of leadership.

    University presidents, policymakers in Washington, and financial and technological elites rarely speak with moral clarity about war and its human costs. Institutions that claim to value human life and critical inquiry remain silent, hedging statements to avoid donor backlash or political scrutiny. The result is not neutrality, but complicity — a tacit acceptance that power matters more than people.

    Climate Collapse and the Silence of Those Who Know Better

    Climate change represents an existential moral challenge, yet it has been met with astonishing timidity by those most capable of leading. Universities produce the research, model the risks, and educate the future — yet many remain financially entangled with fossil fuel interests and unwilling to confront the implications of their own findings.

    Student demands for divestment and climate accountability are often treated as public-relations problems rather than ethical imperatives. University presidents issue vague commitments while continuing business as usual. In Washington, legislation stalls. On Wall Street, climate risk is managed as a portfolio concern rather than a human catastrophe. In Silicon Valley, technological “solutions” are offered in place of systemic change.

    This is not ignorance. It is cowardice disguised as pragmatism.

    The Suppression of Student Protest and the Fear of Moral Clarity

    The moral vacuum at the top becomes most visible when students attempt to fill it. Historically, student movements have pushed institutions toward justice — against segregation, apartheid, and unjust wars. Today, however, student protest is increasingly criminalized.

    Peaceful encampments are dismantled. Students are arrested or suspended. Faculty are intimidated. Surveillance tools track dissent. University leaders invoke “safety” and “order” while outsourcing enforcement to police and private security. The message is unmistakable: moral engagement is welcome only when it does not challenge power.

    This is not leadership. It is risk aversion elevated to institutional doctrine.

    Mass Surveillance and the Bureaucratization of Fear

    The expansion of mass surveillance further reflects elite moral failure. From campuses to corporations, human beings are monitored, quantified, and managed. Surveillance is justified as efficiency or security, but its deeper function is control — discouraging dissent, creativity, and ethical risk-taking.

    Leaders who claim to champion innovation quietly accept systems that undermine autonomy and erode trust. In higher education, surveillance replaces mentorship; compliance replaces curiosity. A culture of fear takes root where moral courage once should have flourished.

    Inequality and the Insulation of Elites from Consequence

    Extreme inequality enables this cowardice. Those at the top are shielded from the consequences of their decisions. University presidents collect compensation packages while adjuncts struggle to survive. Wall Street profits from instability it helps create. Silicon Valley builds tools that reshape society without accountability. Washington dithers while communities fracture.

    When elites are insulated, ethical standards erode. Moral responsibility becomes optional — something to be invoked rhetorically but avoided in practice.

    Social Media, AI, and the Automation of Moral Evasion

    Social media and Artificial Intelligence accelerate dehumanization while providing cover for inaction. Platforms reward outrage without responsibility. Algorithms make decisions without accountability. Leaders defer to “systems” and “processes” rather than exercising judgment.

    In higher education, AI threatens to further distance leaders from the human consequences of their choices — allowing automation to replace care, metrics to replace wisdom, and efficiency to replace ethics.

    The Crisis Beneath the Crisis

    The college meltdown is not simply a failure of policy or finance. It is a failure of moral leadership. Those with the most power — university presidents, elected officials, financiers, and technologists — have repeatedly chosen caution over conscience, reputation over responsibility, and silence over truth.

    War without moral reckoning. Climate collapse without leadership. Protest without protection. Surveillance without consent. Inequality without accountability.

    These are not accidents. They are the results of decisions made — and avoided — by people who know better.

    Toward Moral Courage and Rehumanization

    Rehumanization begins with courage. It requires leaders willing to risk prestige, funding, and influence in defense of human dignity. Higher education should be a site of ethical leadership, not an echo of elite fear.

    This means defending student protest, confronting climate responsibility honestly, rejecting dehumanizing technologies, and placing human well-being above institutional self-preservation. It means leaders speaking plainly about injustice — even when it is inconvenient.

    Our concern at Higher Education Inquirer — and long before that, at American Injustice — has always been this: What happens to a society when those with the greatest power lack the courage to use it ethically?

    Until that question is confronted, the college meltdown will remain only one visible fracture in a far deeper moral collapse.

    Source link

  • The Courage to Be Soft (Jennifer Reed)

    The Courage to Be Soft (Jennifer Reed)

    As the semester is coming to a close (and my office building is closed and locked with no heat during finals week), I am reflecting on teaching in person again. I have only taught online since the Covid pandemic.

    Working with undergraduate students in person has given me better insight into what’s going on for young adults at this time. While they are struggling more with reading and writing overall, which we hear about often, there is another part I don’t really see written about.

    As another instructor put into words while we were discussing it, these students are generally “softer” but not in a way that is weak. Sure, there are more mental health struggles (I mean, look at the world they’ve grown up in), but this is separate and different.

    What I’ve witnessed and other instructors echoed in their recent experiences is what Brené Brown refers to as vulnerability. Vulnerability that is courageous, and proposed solutions to today’s social problems that are “both/and” rather than “either/or.”

    As a trend, they’re tired of the division. And they’re bringing their hearts, not just their minds to finding a way forward. I have come to see this as a strength. We don’t need more clever ideas. We need more people who care.

    So, the stick figure on the chalkboard was drawn by a young man right after class ended. We were having a class discussion about heavy topics, capitalism & the economy and authority & the state. Students engaged as small groups in a Power Council Meeting activity. Each group had to decide on one policy proposal to respond to an economic crisis. They did an amazing job.

    You can see the erased chalk all around the stick person. Remnants of a bunch of words I had written on the board pertaining to the lesson and students’ responses. This young man drew the stick person underneath in the middle of all that. It struck me.

    “What is he doing there?” I asked. “He’s just hanging out,” he replied. It was cold that day, so I asked if the guy in his drawing was at least warm. “No, but he’s trying to stay warm,” he said and looked down.

    We said our goodbyes. Then I started erasing the board. And I thought about the metaphor of this little person trying to just stay warm beneath all these big words and ideas. So, I erased all around him. Then snapped a picture to remember the moment.

    There was something so pure and poignant about it. That’s what I see in a lot of these young people. They understand that life doesn’t have to be this hard if you, we simply go back to the basics.

    Jennifer J. Reed, Ph.D. is an assistant lecturer of sociology at The University of Akron. She was a teen mom in Appalachian Ohio, completed her doctorate at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and is a gramma of 10.

    Source link

  • It will take patience and courage to fix K-12 education without the Department of Education

    It will take patience and courage to fix K-12 education without the Department of Education

    by John Katzman, The Hechinger Report
    November 19, 2025

    The Trump administration’s dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education this week provides a rare opportunity to rethink our current top-down approach to school governance.

    We should jump on it. It’s not sexy to talk about governance, but we can’t fix K-12 education until we do so, no matter how we feel about the latest changes.

    Since the Department of Education opened in 1980, we’ve doubled per-pupil spending, and now spend about twice as much per student as does the average country in the European Union. Yet despite that funding — and the reforms, reports and technologies introduced over the past 45 years — U.S. students consistently underperform on international benchmarks. And people are opting out: 22 percent of U.S. district students are now chronically absent, while record numbers of families are opting out of those schools, choosing charters, private schools and homeschooling.

    Most federal and state reform approaches have been focused on curricular standards and have accomplished little. The many billions spent on the Common Core standards coincided with — or triggered — a 13-year decline in academic performance. The underlying principles of the standards movement — that every student should learn the same things at the same time, that we know what those things are and that they don’t change over time — have made our schools even less compelling while narrowing instruction to what gets tested.

    Related: A lot goes on in classrooms from kindergarten to high school. Keep up with our free weekly newsletter on K-12 education.

    We need to address the real problem: how federal, state and district rules combine to create a dense fog of regulations and directives that often conflict or constrain one another. Educators are losing a rigged game: It’s not that they’re doing the wrong things, it’s that governance makes them unresponsive, bureaucratic, ineffective and paralyzed — can you name an industry that spends less on research and development?

    Fixing governance won’t be simple, but it shouldn’t take more than 13 years to do it: three years to design a better system of state governance and 10 more to thoroughly test and debug it.

    I would start by bringing together experts from a variety of disciplines, ideally at a new “Center for K-12 Governance” at a university’s school of education or school of public policy, and give them three years to think through a comprehensive set of state laws and regulations to manage schools.

    The center would convene experts from inside and outside of education, in small groups focused on topics including labor, funding, data, evaluation, transportation, construction, athletics, counseling, technology, curricula and connections to higher education and the workforce. Its frameworks would address various educational and funding alternatives currently in use, including independent, charter and parochial schools, home schooling and Education Savings Accounts, all of which speak to the role of parents in making choices about their children’s education.

    Each group would start with the questions and not the answers, and there are hundreds of really interesting questions to be considered: What are the various goals of our K-12 schools and how do we authentically measure schools against them? What choices do we give parents, and what information might help them make the right decisions for their kids? How do we allow for new approaches to attract, support and pay great teachers and administrators? How does money follow each student? What data do we collect and how do we use it?

    After careful consideration, the center would hand its proposed statutes to a governor committed to running a long-term pilot to fully test the model. He or she would create a small alternative department of education, which would oversee a few hundred volunteer schools matched to a control group of similar schools running under the state’s legacy regime; both groups would include schools with a range of demographic and performance profiles. The two systems could run side by side for up to a decade.

    Related: Schools confront a new reality: They can’t count on federal money

    Each year, the state would assess the two departments’ performance against metrics like graduation and college-completion rates, teacher retention, income trajectories, civic participation, student and parent satisfaction, and, yes, NAEP scores. Under intense scrutiny by interested parties, both groups would be free to tweak their playbooks and evaluate solutions against a range of real-world outcomes. Once definitive longitudinal data comes in, the state would shutter one department and move the governance of its schools over to the other, perhaps launching a new test with an even better system.

    This all may seem like a lot of work, but it’s a patient approach to a root problem. Schools remain the nation’s most local public square; they determine income mobility, civic health and democratic resilience. If we fail to rewire the system now to support them properly, we guarantee their continued decline, to the detriment of students and society. Instead of celebrating students, teachers and principals who succeed despite the odds, we should address why we made those odds so steep.

    That’s why we should use this moment to draft and test something audacious, and give the next Supreme Court a happier education case to decide: how to retire a legacy system that finally lost a fair fight.

    John Katzman has founded and run three large ed tech companies: The Princeton Review, 2U and Noodle. He has worked closely with many large school districts and has served on the boards of NAPCS and NAIS.

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected].

    This story about fixing K-12 education was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter.

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-it-will-take-patience-and-courage-to-fix-k-12-education-without-the-department-of-education/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=113457&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-it-will-take-patience-and-courage-to-fix-k-12-education-without-the-department-of-education/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • What is Civic Courage? A Conversation for Faculty and Educators with Dr. Brielle Harbin

    What is Civic Courage? A Conversation for Faculty and Educators with Dr. Brielle Harbin

    Dr. Brielle Harbin helps educators prepare to practice civic courage. She supports faculty and leaders that it’s okay to feel discomfort. Learn why it’s necessary to practice ‘civic courage,’ a term she coined.

    Discomfort and difference is a natural part of the learning process. Dr. Brielle Harbin found ‘civic courage’ better emphasizes the importance of embracing that discomfort instead of minimizing or avoiding it.

    Yes, it feels safer to retreat from discomfort, feelings like:

    • Racing heartbeat
    • Your body tensing up
    • A feeling in your stomach
    • Rolling your eyes
    • A tinge of irritation

    Dr. Brielle Harbin says, “You have to acknowledge the idea that it actually feels safer to retreat, but decide to not do it anyway.”

    When people embrace the power of connection, when we share our ideas and engage in conversations, we can help more people. I’m delighted to share this conversation about civic courage with you. This is The Social Academic podcast with Jennifer van Alstyne. Thank you!

    0:00 Dr. Brielle Harbin on Civic Courage for Educators
    1:37 Dr. Harbin’s Path to Empowering Educators and Recognizing Burnout
    6:04 Coining Civic Courage: Leaning into Discomfort for Growth
    10:02 Building Community Through Substack (Notes From A Work Friend)
    15:57 The Power of One: Amplifying Voices and Serving Others Online
    26:32 Developing Civic Courage: A Journey of Worthiness and Unlearning
    30:42 Embracing Authenticity and Engaging with Dr. Brielle Harbin

    Subscribe to The Social Academic blog.

    The form above subscribes you to new posts published on The Social Academic blog.
    Want emails from Jennifer on building your online presence? Subscribe to her email list.
    Looking for the podcast? Subscribe on Spotify.
    Prefer to watch videos? Subscribe on YouTube.

    A full text version of this episode will be added here in the next 1-2 weeks.

    Bio

    Photo by Stacy Godfrey

    Dr. Brielle Harbin is a political scientist, award-winning educator, and keynote strategist who helps colleges and faculty cultivate civic courage and sustainable academic systems. As the founder of Your Cooperative Colleague LLC, Brielle partners with higher education leaders to move their institutions from compliance and burnout toward belonging, creativity, and care. Her work centers nervous-system-aligned writing, ethical leadership, and faculty well-being as catalysts for innovation.

    Through her flagship programs—Faculty Writing Rituals Unlocked, Steady Strides, and Steady in the Storm—she helps educators build restorative, purpose-driven writing practices that last beyond the semester.

    A former tenured associate professor and public scholar, Brielle’s research and consulting focus on civic courage as a framework for leading change inside systems not built for everyone’s thriving. Her weekly newsletter, Notes From a Work Friend, offers practical and soulful reflections for faculty navigating the realities of academic life.

    You can learn more about her work at YourCooperativeColleague.com

    Or, on Substack at NotesFromAWorkFriend.substack.com

    Source link

  • Living Our Values: Courage, Care and Calling at CUPA-HR’s Spring Conference – CUPA-HR

    Living Our Values: Courage, Care and Calling at CUPA-HR’s Spring Conference – CUPA-HR

    by Julie Burrell | May 2, 2024

    “Wherever we go, we are CUPA-HR.” That’s what CUPA-HR President Andy Brantley reminded members at the recent Spring Conference in Minneapolis. Though institutions differ in mission and scope and despite daily crises that threaten to divert attention from long-term goals, CUPA-HR members live their values every day.

    The keynote speakers struck a similar theme, encouraging attendees to align their internal values with work, tapping into courage, care and a sense of calling.

    The Courage to Embrace Failure

    In her opening keynote, Kris McGuigan, an author, executive coach and corporate trainer, emphasized the power of authenticity in helping to overcome fear. At some point in our lives, we have all allowed our fears — including of failure, inadequacy and uncertainty — to dictate our future. “How often do we identify that a path is not serving us, but we stay the course, we cling to the status quo?” But clinging to the status quo out of fear can lead to apathy and disengagement. This lack of motivation and confidence can be tied to the engagement crisis at work.

    Facing Down Fear of Failure

    McGuigan believes courageously embracing failure can help move employees past apathy and disengagement. One way to start embracing failure is by taking a cue from tech. In their relentless testing and pushing out new releases, tech adopts a model of “perpetual beta.” This allows for constant innovation, with failure built into the model. If something doesn’t work, it’s scrapped and fixed — think of your smart phone’s frequent software updates. McGuigan asked, how can higher ed leaders bring this model of embracing failure to their teams?

    Takeaway: Having the courage to embrace failure can increase engagement and satisfaction and decrease apathy and disengagement.

    Creating a Caring Campus

    In his keynote, Dr. Kevin R. McClure, Murphy distinguished scholar of education and associate professor of higher education at the University of North Carolina Wilmington, drew from his forthcoming book, The Caring University, for which he interviewed staff, faculty and administrators. What he found will likely sound familiar. Higher ed employees were working tirelessly and generously, and frequently sacrificed their physical and mental health for their jobs. Consistent with CUPA-HR’s findings, McClure cited higher ed employees’ primary concerns as overwork, inadequate compensation, lack of recognition for their contributions, and lack of career pathways, among others.

    The Work “Just Kept Coming”

    McClure interviewed one higher ed staff member who said the work “just kept coming.” Her campus leaders talked about care, but there was no structural change to her workload, so she started looking for a new job. Many of his interviewees felt they were required to be superhuman — a worker without a body or personal life — who “exists only for the job.”

    Structural changes are needed in policies and procedures, he emphasized. What happens when practices like service awards and merit pay reward only ideal workers and not real people, or when leave policies don’t account for people’s caregiving or health needs? Employees will disengage and look for jobs elsewhere. HR has a crucial role to play in transforming the workforce, he says, and institutions need to empower HR as experts.

    Takeaway: Structural change is urgently needed to transform higher education into a workplace that values the well-being of its employees.

    Living your Calling Through Job Crafting

    In the closing keynote, Dr. Amy Wrzesniewski shared insights into what makes work meaningful for the individual. In her research, Wrzesniewski, who is William and Jacalyn Egan professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, identifies three main ways people understand their work: as a job, career or calling.

    Out of these, it is people who see their work as a calling who are more satisfied with the work and with their lives, tending to be absent less and engaged more. So how do people come to treat their work as a calling? That’s where “job crafting” comes in.

    Finding Purpose in Work

    Wrzesniewski interviewed members of a cleaning crew in a university hospital. This work is often stigmatized as non-meaningful, but employees who found a calling in the work were engaged in job crafting, often doing a different job than their job description, while still completing their required duties. For example, one cleaning crew member said that she tailored the cleaning schedule around patients who might be sensitive to the smell of cleaning chemicals. She made a tangible difference in the lives of others, even though she risked getting written up for doing so.

    Wrzesniewski argues job crafting has several benefits. It can increase satisfaction and commitment to the job, intensify happiness at work, boost job mobility, and even maintain or increase performance.

    Takeaway: Job crafting — the practice of living out your values by making work your own — can help make a work a calling, not just a job.



    Source link