The Under-Realized Potential of Higher Education as a Field of Study Within and Beyond the U.S.

by Sydney Freeman, Jr., Associate Professor at the University of Idaho, Dept. of Leadership & Counseling 

Anna Mountford-Zimdars, Senior Lecturer in Higher Education at King’s College London, UK

The Great Recession that began in 2008 has had a profound influence on higher education sector, particularly in the western world. College and University tuition continues to rise as more students continue to seek access to the middle class through the attainment of higher education. Much of the US research that is influencing policy discussions centers around providing access to postsecondary education and students apart of historically marginalized groups. This is also happening at the same time that countries such as the United States is providing less financial support to the college and university sector. However, in other parts of the world, developing countries are increasing their investment in higher education.  For example, Jordan views higher education as the one strategic investment the country can make into ‘human capital’: surrounded by neighbors rich in natural resources like oil, education is the one resource this country can provide for its own citizens and also for those from neighboring countries.  Some of the non-western countries over the last 50 years have begun to develop higher education programs, centers, and institutes that prepare leaders for service in this sector (Rumbley, Altbach, Stanfield, Shimmi, de Gayardon, & Chan, 2014). Also these same entities develop research to inform higher education policy in their local context. What is interesting is that much of the growth of over the last five decades have been on the continents of Africa and South America, and in large countries such as China and Australia. Great growth in this sector is the product of these regions understanding that there are individual and societal benefits to developing a robust tertiary sector. As in North America, a strong higher education system is still seen as a stable route to upward mobility. China is expected to have more students in higher education than the United States by 2020. 

Higher education as a field of study was founded in the United States. Over the 120 years since its inception more than 200 higher education graduate degree programs, institutes, and research centers have been established. However, there is a concern that while the largest programs, which are characterized by having more than eight full-time faculty continue growing, smaller less supported programs are shrinking and disappearing. On many campuses, the sentiments exist that higher education graduate program faculty expertise does not inform the decisions happening on campus. Some academic leaders are critical and even hostile towards such programs. Questions related to the relevance of the field and programs have gained traction. 

A failure to communicate the value and relevance of our work to the current challenges facing our campuses has not been good for the field as a whole.  Higher education experts and researchers can ‘undersell’ their skills and expertise by not highlighting what they can contribute or engaging in research that is too removed from practice to be relevant to practitioners. There have been cases where universities have hired outside firms and experts to help solve problems that higher education faculty on that same campus have the expertise to address. With all the conversation that has been bantered about regarding “translation” of research from scholars to policymakers. Too little of our work effects institutional, state, or national education policy.  In many cases, expertise is sought from disciplinary experts in other fields. Although, we highly respect other disciplines and fields and believe they can provide a wealth of knowledge in solving higher education problems. We believe that it is important for higher education scholars to move from the margins of conversations that inform our work and take leadership in areas that intersect with our scholarship. Our teaching and scholarship should be practical, relevant and be able to be applied to challenges confronting the postsecondary sector. We should be viewed as social scientists who inform the study of the field of higher education. 

This issue does not only apply to how are scholarship is viewed. This also informs our preparation of the next generation of scholar-practitioners. Graduates of our programs should be highly sought after for positions in such areas as mid to senior level administration and education policy advisors. We should be preparing our students to communicate not only within our scholarly associations and periodicals, but with policymakers and general public. Although, we are proponents of generating knowledge for knowledge sake we also understand the necessity and the imperative that we provide our graduates with the knowledge, experiences and transferable skills that can help them secure employment beyond the professoriate and provide the skills for undertaking action research for the good of whatever graduates choose to do with their lives. Critical thinking and professional ethics should be at the center of our instruction. Teaching our students how to review and conduct academic research without undergirding it without modelling and displaying those traits will put our graduates at a disadvantage.   

In the United Kingdom, a more positive story for higher education research is emerging.  There is a vibrant community of higher education researchers and there has been a rise in employment opportunities within higher education for scholars interested in teaching and learning. Some Higher Education Departments are located in traditional Departments of Education and often work along linguists and those supporting teacher training in primary and secondary schools. Others are located in the growing central Learning and Teaching units - the main remit of these units is to support academic faculty and graduate students who teach to professionalise their practice. There has been a shift in consciousness among academics from viewing such units as a necessary evil and a ‘conscript attitude’ to participating in teaching development because such programmes are often tied to probation requirements, to a more curious and enhancement focused culture in approaching opportunities to develop teaching practices.  Slowly, academics from a range of discipline appreciate that the idea of evidence-base and deep understanding are meaningful in learning and teaching and not only in their home disciplines, let it be physics, medicine, or modern languages. 

In the UK, the increasing importance of teaching, even in leading research institutions, and the introduction of teaching-based promotions across the sector have helped to increase the salience of the teaching agenda.  However, just as in the United States, the ability of these researchers to research, enhance and influence institutional practices can vary.  In the most constructive and positive collaborations, academics collaborate with professional service staff and students as partners in the academic development processes to enhance the evidence-base and sharing for best practice and interventions. Academics in central learning and teaching units might collaborate with academic faculty in specific disciplines to undertake particular action research projects - there are also some national evaluations, often funded by central national bodies such as the Higher Education Academy or the Higher Education Research Councils. 

Perhaps because of the smaller size of the United Kingdom, there are also ample opportunities for academics in the field to exchange and share their practices. Again, the best scenario here is a diffusion effect of academic practice that enhances the student experience and supports meaningful and inclusive higher education curricula. This ideal is not always met, but there are pockets of excellence and good practice that show that such constructive partnerships and collaborations between academics of different fields, professional service staff, and students are possible.  

International comparisons help those with a strong legacy of institutions of higher education look at challenges with a fresh pair of eyes. We will see that scholarship can be the interconnective issue that can help us advance leadership and policy development internationally.  However, a comparison with our European, or Australian neighbors is not where international work should stop. As our programs continue to grow around the world, we cannot afford for our scholarship to continue to Western-centric and need to engage with wider international discourses and developments.  

For example, in western scholarship certain subjects such as governance and leadership  may be close to saturation , but in developing countries there is a huge need for additional context specific knowledge developed in that area. Cross pollination in scholarship could help to shed light on ways to solve problems.  In turn, US scholars can learn from other models of higher education where education is free – this is the case for Germany and Denmark. And Scandinavian countries pay their students to go to college. Also fundamental questions around institutional stratification become stranger when looked at through the lens of an outsider – indeed, there is nothing inevitable about the Anglo-Saxon model of hierarchical university system divided by prestige and alternative models exist.   Furthermore, should we accept that prestige should be determined by how many students are excluded from participating in the higher education context, the competitiveness of entry and yield rates?  Or should prestige be based around inclusion, how many previously under-served students higher education succeeds in reaching, and the added value or learning gains in higher education?  Such alternative conceptualizations of prestige might turn some traditional university hierarchies upside down.  

We believe that the field of higher education and those associated with its’ programs are well positioned to advance leadership and policy development internationally. However, the research that we conduct must remain relevant and able to inform higher education policy and practice. We need to prepare students with the knowledge, skills, and competencies that will help them solve complex challenges that may have international implications. We need to engage with international agendas and share practices and experiences with a view to enhance the public benefits of higher education as a field of study.  Within our institutions and national contexts,  we must be fearless in asserting our expertise in our local campus context and to the broader public and collaborate with university management and higher education sector body to be part of initiatives that can meaningful change and enhance higher education.   

References 

Rumbley, L. E., Altbach, P. G., Stanfield, D. A., Shimmi, Y., de Gayardon, A., & Chan, R.Y. (Eds).(2014). Higher education: A worldwide inventory—Research centers, academic programs, and   journals and publications (3rd ed.). Science Management series. Boston and Bonn, Germany:   Center for International Higher Education, Boston College and Lemmens Media.

 

The Second Chance Pell: An Opportunity for Higher Education to Increase Access to Opportunity for Incarcerated Students

by Erin L. Castro, Assistant Professor, University of Utah & Instructor Affiliate, Education Justice Project: erin.castro@utah.edu

and Augie Torres, Undergraduate Student, Governors State University & Alumni, Education Justice Project: augie.m.torres@gmail.com

Last month there was a debate contest, and you have probably heard about it by now. A debate team comprised of students who are incarcerated at Eastern New York Correctional Facility (ENYC), a maximum security prison, beat Harvard’s undergraduate debate team. The students who are incarcerated attend classes through the Bard Prison Initiative, a postsecondary education program run by Bard College. Both teams have impressive records: the Harvard debate team earned national championship status in 2014 and the incarcerated debate team has victories against the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and the University of Vermont. NBC’s headline describing the win for students incarcerated at ENYC Facility – and the loss of students at Harvard – reflects a common tone among popular headlines after the event: Harvard’s Prestigious Debate Team Loses to a Group of Inmates. For the most part, the headlines were disappointing. There appears to be a certain sensationalism associated with “inmates” beating ivy-league students, but there shouldn’t be.

The win for imprisoned students at ENYC is not surprising for those of us who teach inside prisons and work with students who are incarcerated, have family members and friends who are incarcerated, have a keen understanding of how mass incarceration works, or have been incarcerated ourselves. To be surprised, one must rely upon dangerous raced and classed assumptions about both individuals who are incarcerated and those who attend Harvard. We don’t often hear about the educational, intellectual, and academic work being done inside prisons across the United States and so perhaps a bit of amazement is warranted. It is our hope, however, that for those of us involved in higher education, the feeling of astonishment at the ability of individuals who are incarcerated to intellectually outperform students at one of the most recognized institutions of higher education becomes less of a spectacle and more commonplace. The current emphasis on college-in-prison programming on behalf of the Department of Education makes us optimistic.

On Thursday, September 17, the Department of Education hosted an informational webinar open to anyone who was interested titled The Second Chance Pell: Pell for Students Who Are Incarcerated. The webinar follows up on the Federal Register notice released by the U.S. Department of Education on August 3, 2015 inviting higher educational institutions to apply to participate in the new initiative under the (ESI), which tests the effectiveness of statutory and regulatory flexibility for higher educational institutions that disburse Federal student aid. The webinar provided educators with information about the Second Chance Pell, a new institutionally-based initiative. The initiative provides an opportunity for participating institutions of higher education, in partnership with one or more Federal or State penal institutions, to provide Federal Pell Grant funding to otherwise eligible students who are incarcerated. As many readers of this blog know, the Higher Education Act stipulates that students who are incarcerated in Federal or State penal institutions are ineligible to receive funding through the Federal Pell Grant program. The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act eliminated Pell Grant eligibility for incarcerated individuals and as a direct result, the overwhelming majority of college-in-prison programs closed due to lack of funding. The steady withdrawal of higher education programs from U.S. prisons has effectively severed access to educational opportunity for incarcerated individuals and severely limited future educational access as formerly incarcerated individuals find themselves without the educational credentials to successfully pursue postsecondary opportunities upon release.

The initiative is good news. According to the webinar, it aims to do the following:

• Examine how weighting the restrictions on providing Pell grants to individuals in Federal or State penal institutions influences participation in educational opportunities, and academic and life outcomes;

• Examine whether the waiver creates any challenges or obstacles with an institution’s administration of the Title IV HEA programs. The DOE is interested in determining how disbursement of federal Pell grant funds affects incarcerated students and;

• Allow participating institutions to provide federal Pell grant funding to otherwise eligible students who are incarcerated in federal or state penal institutions and who are eligible for release into the community.

There are a number of requirements that schools must meet in order to be eligible for the program, including providing academic and career services as well as transition guidance to support successful reentry. Potential students must meet specific criteria, too. Preference is to be given to potential students who are eligible for release back into the community, with emphasis on individuals who are scheduled be released in the next five years. The initiative does not weight certain restriction criteria and it does not waive costs of attendance. It is worth reading the specifics and a transcript of the webinar is available here. 

                                                                                                                                              

The informational webinar was the first in a series sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education to encourage institutions of higher education to partner with State and Federal prisons to provide access to postsecondary education. The initiative is not perfect; for example, both of us would like to see greater emphasis on individuals who are not eligible for release in the next five years and we have a number of questions regarding what constitutes education in this context. Yet, reinstating Pell grant eligibility for incarcerated students is a necessary first step to increasing access and one that we hope invigorates conversations about what postsecondary educational opportunity in prisons should look like during our era of mass incarceration.

We urge the higher education community to learn more about postsecondary education efforts in prison contexts. There are a variety of ways to learn and we only touch upon a few here. Find out if your local or regional prison provides educational opportunities for incarcerated people by talking with the Department of Corrections. If they exist, see if you can support already established efforts by donating time, resources, and/or desperately needed funding. Ask if your own institution is involved in providing or supporting classes for incarcerated people. Listen to what directors of college-in-prison programs across the nation need and learn more about the long history of postsecondary education provision in prisons. Begin conversations with non-incarcerated individuals on your own respective campuses about the Prison Industrial Complex, mass imprisonment, and the contemporary carceral state. Find out if prior criminal history is considered in your institution’s admissions criteria. Importantly, if you have never been to a prison, go. Call and make an appointment and ask for a ‘tour’ (this, inappropriately, is the dominant language – at least in the state of Utah). For an institution so integral to the political and economic fabric of the U.S., we urge you to go see what you are paying for. Prisons are institutions in which we all invest and in at least 11 states, we spend more on imprisonment than higher education. It is outrageous.

The National Conference on Higher Education is Prison is held annually and this year it will take place in Pittsburgh, PA November 6-8 (an unfortunate date for many of us AHSE-goers, but there is no conflict next year!). The conference attracts educators, volunteers, activists, formerly incarcerated and felony disenfranchised individuals, and others interested in and committed to prison education. Last year’s conference was held at Danville Correctional Center in Danville, Illinois. Andra Slater, who was released late last year, presented a paper as part of a panel on critical approaches to education in prison titled, The Underestimation of Carceral Intellect: Problematizing the ‘Wow’ Factor Among Prison Educators. Andra later published his paper as part of a larger multi-author manuscript examining the purposes of higher education in prison during mass incarceration. You can read the manuscript here: http://ecommons.luc.edu/jcshesa/vol1/iss1/2/. We encourage all people to watch Andra discuss the seemingly innocent element of surprise at the intellectual capabilities of individuals who are incarcerated, particularly those who find it challenging to believe that ENYC’s debate team beat Harvard’s.

Providing access to high quality postsecondary education for incarcerated students through the reinstatement of Pell grant eligibility is one important element of much-needed criminal justice reform. The Second Chance Pell initiative is welcomed within a larger context that Marie Gottschalk makes so clear: individuals can’t be given a second chance if they were never afforded a first. The DOE’s initiative can partially help to bridge this gap and so too can institutions of higher education. All of us have a responsibility to ensure that incarcerated individuals have access to high quality postsecondary educational opportunities during and after incarceration. For those of us involved in higher education, we can do this by supporting already established efforts, learning more about the extensive history of prison education, beginning conversations on our respective campuses, and listening to and learning from students like Andra. We can only be surprised if we are not seeing incarcerated people as potential postsecondary students and degree completers. As David Register, Director of Debate for the Bard Prison Initiative, describes: “It is critically important to remember that our debaters are students first and debaters second – and prisoners a distant third.”

Let’s work to ensure that incarcerated individuals are given the opportunity to become college students.

A Look Back at Federal Support for the For-Profit Sector

by Nidia Banuelos, Doctoral Candidate at University of Chicago, Dept. of Sociology

The “Corinthian 100’s” recent debt strike has brought much-needed attention to the level of support for-profit colleges and universities (FPCUs) receive from the Federal Government.  Although they enrolled only 9 percent of all degree-seeking students, FPCUs received 25 percent of all Department of Education student aid funds in 2009-10.  That’s about $32 billion (U.S. Senate, 2012).  This kind of unqualified support makes it easy to forget that, not long ago, students were barred from using most kinds of federal aid at FPCUs.  What changed?  Why does our current system make it easy for some schools to profit from federal money?  It’s worth turning, for a moment, to history for some insight. 

Often called “proprietary” schools, FPCUs have been operating in the United States since the late-1800s.  Early proprietary schools were a far cry from Corinthian Colleges, Inc.  Into the 1960s, they had modest goals—most enrolled between 100 and 300 students at a single campus location and conferred certificates (not degrees) in business, secretarial skills, cosmetology, or electronics.  Yet, as early as 1922, there were documented cases of proprietary schools cutting costs by eliminating basic instructional necessities—like desks and textbooks (Marvin, 1922).  These practices became more common after the passage of the GI Bill in 1944, when soldiers used their federal aid at for-profit schools that cashed their checks and offered them little to nothing in return.  (The term “degree-mill” comes from this era.)  In response to these abuses, Congress created the accreditation system we still have in place today.  Nevertheless, this early experience of funding the for-profit sector was so harrowing that, even as college enrollment ballooned in the 1960s, Congress limited proprietary schools’ access to aid. 

In the 1970s, lawmakers faced unprecedented pressure to increase access to college for diverse groups of students while also keeping costs down for taxpayers.  Proprietary schools offered a solution: they promised to “democratize” higher education by giving students who had neither the time nor money to attend a traditional university the opportunity to learn skills that would help them make a living.  And because proprietary schools focused on occupational training alone, they would not waste taxpayers’ money on esoteric research projects, grandiose architecture, or theoretical instruction.  Compared to the free-loving, flag-burning hippies protesting the Vietnam War at elite institutions across the country, the hard-working, low-income students attending proprietary schools looked like saints.  This image—of the beleaguered for-profit student, unable to pay her tuition bills because the federal government refused to consider her school a viable “institution of higher education”—was a powerful tool and supporters of the for-profit sector employed it often.  Words like “discriminatory” and “minority group” were used to argue against the unfair practice of denying for-profit students access to grants and loans (Statement of Richard A. Fulton, 1970, p. 1034).  If a student wants to attend a proprietary school to learn a useful trade, who is the Federal Government to deny her the right to do so?   

Most importantly, education was not immune from the free market ideology that was so rampant in the 1970s.  Supporters of the for-profit sector (Congress included) believed that proprietary schools that were providing a subpar education would lose their students to higher quality competitors.  A representative of the National Association of Trade and Technical Schools put it this way:  “The cost of education in a proprietary school has an even greater safeguard by the fact that if their tuition rates are too high, there is a great tendency on the part of the students not to come to the institution” (Statement of Leo Kogan, 1970, p. 1784).  In other words, if the free market works as it should, for-profit schools will have an incentive to regulate themselves.  Students will notice if the education they’re getting is inadequate and will choose to attend a different school if they are unsatisfied.  Indeed, a little competition from the for-profit sector might even encourage non-profits to better serve the public. 

The Department of Education (then “Office of Education”) initially opposed this plan.  They worried that giving proprietary schools access to aid (and grants, especially) would encourage them to cut spending per student.  But curiously, the DOE was the proprietary sector’s most vocal opponent.  Even community colleges—proprietary schools’ closest competitors—testified before Congress in support of for-profit students (Statement of Joseph Cosand, 1971).    

So, in 1972, Congress passed legislation making proprietary schools “institutions of higher education” under federal law (Education Amendments of 1972, p. 260).  In doing so, it gave them access to nearly all forms of federal aid for which non-profits are eligible.  Congress hadn’t forgotten about the for-profit sector’s sordid past when it made this decision—it just had many reasons to be optimistic about the industry’s future.  It’s also important to remember that the for-profit sector was not nearly as notorious then as it is now.  The DOE simply did not know how big the proprietary sector was, how big it would get, or how well it was doing with the few federal programs to which it already had access.  In other words, Congress made this decision blind.

Finally, lawmakers grew more comfortable with expanding access to federal student aid because they believed accreditation would weed out predatory schools.  Then, as now, in order to receive access to federal student aid, colleges and universities had to be accredited by an independent, non-governmental agency approved by the Department of Education.  Again, the government created this system after WWII, when millions of federal dollars went to degree-mills that took advantage of tuition assistance for veterans.  Before 1970, regional accrediting agencies—those that also accredit respected non-profit institutions—refused to even consider proprietary schools for accreditation.  But, in the 1970s, the growing demand for diversity in higher education also forced their priorities to shift.  At this time the North Central Association (which, in addition to venerated institutions like University of Michigan, also accredits more FPCUs than any other regional agency) made it their mission to craft a “diverse educational system needed for our diverse peoples” (North Central Association, 1977, p. 8; Kinser, 2006).  In 1978, this new philosophy led them to accredit the University of Phoenix, which offered, “so far as our evaluators can determine, programs of a quality comparable with those of traditional institutions” (North Central Association, 1977, p. 15). 

All this goes to show that the for-profit sector benefited greatly from a general move toward democratizing higher education by supporting new kinds of schools.  For both Congress and regional accreditors, betting on these schools seemed a responsible, and perhaps even, patriotic thing to do.  Although the for-profit sector has changed in size and scope, the arguments used to support it remain remarkably unchanged.  FPCUs still describe their project as a democratizing one.  They still cast themselves as opposing the elitist educational establishment. (Consider, for example, DeVry University’s new advertising campaign, which claims that the school is “Different. On purpose.”)  These themes are compelling—not only to students, but to accreditors and lawmakers as well. 

Now that students are refusing to pay back the debt they incurred from attending Corinthian Colleges, Inc. the Department of Education will be financially responsible for the actions of predatory institutions.  As awareness of this issue increases, we may see the Federal Government getting more involved in oversight of the for-profit sector than ever before.  Debates will ensue, accusations will be made, and defenses will be mounted.  Through it all, we should carefully evaluate the validity of the arguments presented.  Are these new ideas or merely old ones repackaged?

Works Cited

Education Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. 92-318, codified as amended at 318 U.S.C. § 417B.

Kinser, K. (2006). From Main Street to Wall Street: The transformation of for-profit higher education (ASHE higher education report). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Marvin, C.H. (1922). Commercial education in secondary schools. New York, NY: H. Holt and company.

North Central Association. 1977. Emerging Issues in Postsecondary Education: Standards and Accreditation. Box 12. Records relating to the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools/Higher Learning Commission.  Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Archives. 5 September 2014. 

Statement of Leo Kogan: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Education of the House of Representatives. 91^st Cong. 2 (1970).

Statement of Joseph Cosand: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Education of the House of Representatives. 92^nd Cong. 1 (1971).    

Statement of Richard Fulton: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Education of the U.S. Senate. 91^st Cong. 2 (1970).

U.S. Senate. Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. (2012). For profit higher education: The failure to safeguard the federal investment and ensure student success. (S. Prt. 112-37, Volumes 1-4). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Academics as Transformational Community Leaders

by DeWitt Scott, Doctoral Candidate at Chicago State University

In this current era of increased accountability and scrutiny surrounding higher education, there has been a great deal of questioning of the usefulness of higher education, particularly the liberal arts.  Governor Scott Walker’s attack on higher education in Wisconsin, and an increased push by businesspeople and politicians for colleges and universities to display a return on investment, has placed increased pressure on academia to prove its value to society.  While some of these arguments are illogical, it is safe to say that academics have found themselves in a battle that more than likely will not subside anytime soon.

As academics (and, in my case, aspiring academics), we find ourselves in a very unique position in terms of ability and change that we can affect.  After years and years of studying pertinent issues and concepts, through rigorous research methods that require us to validate, substantiate, and triangulate our findings, we approach the brink of expertise in our respective fields.  We have become the philosophical authority on a number of topics.  It is standard in academia to use this hard earned knowledge and status to advance our agenda and employment status within the ivory tower.  The desire for tenure, job security, peer recognition, promotion, and increased income is unmistakable.  While there is no knock on these desires, it is evident that the seriousness of today’s times requires us as experts to use our professional expertise in useful ways outside of our towers.

Many of the issues we face today in education, the economy, leadership, race relations, etc., could benefit tremendously from tangible, grassroots assistance that we could provide.  For example, there are a number of K-12 school districts that struggle yearly with devising adequate and relevant curriculum for its students.  At the same time, there are numerous curriculum and instruction scholars at nearby schools of education who have studied and done work around this issue for years.  Imagine the benefit to a community if these university professors would open community Saturday schools for K-12 teachers and administrators who need insight and improvement on curriculum development.  The theory of university professors can meet the practice of K-12 teachers to help produce a more valuable educational experience students.

Another example is the unavoidable issues in recent months surrounding police and communities of color.  Sociologists who have covered related issues for decades can facilitate community projects that allow scholars to convene with citizens and explain actions that can be taken, if any, to avoid negative encounters with the police.  Putting the entire burden on the citizens certainly isn’t the answer, but I honestly feel academics would be more successful in reaching community residents than they would police.  We could explore the idea of political scientists advising politicians, business professors working with small business owners in their neighborhoods, African American Studies professors holding evening seminars in the Black community on issues relevant to African American life, leadership scholars conducting leadership training for community organizations.  The possibilities are endless.

Through these activities we can provide leadership in our communities that is transformational.  Defined as the process of encouraging constituents to achieve more than what is expected of them, transformational community leadership provided by academics can influence communities to address their most significant challenges in ways in which community members had not previously conceived (Northouse, 2013).  By being professors and higher education professionals who do not hesitate to step outside of the elite institutions in which they work, and lend their expertise in ways that are meaningful to the community, citizens can become inspired by this work.  Evening seminars on African American issues can not only provide adequate and sufficient ways of addressing issues but it may also stimulate thinking and inspiration in a child or young adult and possibly produce a future Ph.D. recipient.  Communities that were once filled with hopelessness can begin to look to their educated, established comrades for leadership that can inspire change that at one time was unimaginable.  Our knowledge, expertise, and commitment can be a precursor to transforming our communities in discernable ways.

Essentially, what I am advocating is for more academics to seek to be public intellectuals.  The 21^st century connotation of that term usually implies an articulate scholar from a noted institution that is featured on the standard Sunday morning talk shows or who gives paid lectures to large audiences around the country.  We tend to equate public intellectual with someone who is famous.  Fame is not what I mean when I use this term.  A public intellectual who is a transformational community leader is someone who uses his/her proficiency in a given field to engage the public and improve the day-to-day lives of the people in the community.  These are scholars who are willing to give devote their energies and talent to those who may never enter the halls of academia.  From their work and thinking, these scholars can push the people in their communities to begin the path achieving more than they ever thought possible.

It is understood that this sort of work falls under the “service” category of academic institutional responsibility, and it is no secret that it is the least desired of the evaluated triad (publications, teaching, and service).  But I believe that we are living in a time where creative approaches are necessary to meet the challenges we as a nation face.  Academics are needed in our communities for leadership and direction.  This is especially true in communities of color where doctorate holders are few and far between.  In many Black and Brown communities, our scholars have become content with studying and writing about the problems rather than finding tangible ways to address these issues and affect change.  There are many scholars, of all colors, who have incomparable national recognition for their work but who are unknown to the people on the block of which they live.  The societal value of what we do as scholars can be amplified simply by using what we know and study to become visible leaders in our community.  By providing our expertise within the ivory tower and expert leadership in our neighboring communities, our value and worth as professionals will be indisputable.

References:

Northouse, P. G.  (2013).  Leadership: Theory and practice.  Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

            Publications, Inc.