Leading by Example--Ethical Decision Making at Penn State; Guiding Questions and High Level Decision Making at the University

 (Penn State Values; ethical decision making model)

The President of Penn State University has recently and quite publicly announced an embrace of a final version of what is called the Penn State Values. There is no doubt that the entire university community applauds the culmination of what this senior administrator has described as a complex four year progress producing a document, and its values, which, though merely "aspirational in nature" are meant to "guide our actions and decisions as members of the Penn State community".   

The university president encourages everyone "to use and incorporate the Penn State Values in their activities, planning and discussions" for which it has developed toolkits, an ethical decision making model, and a set of guiding questions. The Penn State community is promised examples of the application of these values gleaned from what were called Town Hall meetings and will recognize ethical model citizens from among the university community. 

Most important, perhaps, the university president noted that these Penn State Values now form part of the core of "the recently approved University strategic plan, which is currently being implemented." And plans are in the works to "further integrate" these aspirational values "more fully into University life at all levels." 

This post considers this valuable exercise and considers its application to the working lives of senior leadership.  In a university, like other leading American public universities, in which senior leadership ought to be committed to leading by example in a transparent way that enhances accountability, Penn State values culture might provide a useful mechanism for better decision making at the highest levels of administrative life. 

Benefits May Not Be Accessed!: Penn State and the Transformation of Benefits Policy in the Contemporary American Public University

(Pix © Larry Catá Backer 2016)

To protect systems of benefits, benefits may not be accessed! That forms the core of the operational policy of the contemporary American public university.  The most successful benefit systems are those in which employees do not make claims; the ideal system, is one in which medical costs are shifted from plan to employee. A principal object of contemporary American universities is to socialize its employees into the belief that this premise is necessary and inevitable and that the ideal benefits program is one in which the recipient of the benefit pays its costs. And it is necessary and inevitable as universities transform themselves into insurance companies--adopting both the characteristics and behaviors of the more  forward looking leaders of that field of economic activity.

Penn State  provides a useful example of this national trend  that requires, as a necessary element, "socializing the current state of . . .  medical benefits and setting future direction on plan design and cost sharing."  This Post examines the nature and effects of this trend toward the transformation of benefits--from conception to operation within the contemporary American university.  

Part 1 Penn State Law: The Public Face of Diversity--The Example of Penn State

(Pix © Larry Catá Backer 2016)

Diversity has become an important element of operations at the American University.  It has become a priority for governance at most research universities.

At Penn State diversity has been embedded at the core of the strategic planning of the university on both pragmatic (demographics) and normative (morals) grounds. Among the challenges identified by Penn State in its project of enhancing diversity touches on communication--both to stakeholders nd the wider community (see, e.g., here). is  This post and those that follow will consider the public face of Penn State's diversity efforts.  It will look at the way that Penn State's units have embedded diversity in their communications by looking at diversity on the web sites of Penn State's units.  The purpose is simple--the way a university projects itself provides a good means of understanding how the university sees itself.  In light of the President's commitment, it would be useful to examine the way that diversity appears throughout Penn State.  This post provides a short introduction to the character of that public face from the top of the administrative hierarchy.  In the posts that follow, we will consider how each of Penn State's units projects its own image of its engagement with diversity in light of official and public face of diversity at Penn State.

The object is not just to get a sense of the collective self projection of this important issue an an important an influential university.  It also serves to see the extent to which diversity can be administered in a coherent manner throughout a large and complex institution.  Do all units approach the issue the same way? Do all units share the same approaches to diversity as the central administration suggests they should?  What are the variations in approaches?  These and other related questions will be posed and considered.  Comments, suggestions, and additional insights are welcome as we work through the theory and practice of diversity at major institutions.

This post starts with Penn State Law.

The Table of Contents may be accessed HERE.

Introduction: The Public Face of Diversity--The Example of Penn State

(Pix © Larry Catá Backer 2016)

Diversity has become an important element of operations at the American University.  It has become a priority for governance at most research universities.

At Penn State diversity has been embedded at the core of the strategic planning of the university on both pragmatic (demographics) and normative (morals) grounds:

Building diversity at Penn State isn’t just good for business and environmental richness -- it’s a moral imperative, said President Eric Barron today (March 20) during an in-depth review of the demographics and 2020 census projections for Pennsylvania and the United States.

“It’s our obligation as a public institution of higher education to teach the people in our communities, in our state, in the nation, and increasingly at Penn State, students from around the world,” Barron said in his address to the Board of Trustees.

Diversity/demographics is one of six topics declared by Barron as major talking points of his presidency. Barron presented numerous slides worth of data describing demographic projections for 2020, University-wide demographics for students and faculty/staff as of fall 2014, and snapshots of the demographics in 20 statewide recruitment areas.

 Barron said he sees three imperatives: moral, educational and business. The University has a duty to teach all people, a diverse campus is a richer learning environment, and a welcoming and inclusive campus responding to changing demographics is crucial in attracting students.

“At many universities, diversity is an assigned responsibility,” he said, “when in fact, we won’t be successful unless it is everybody’s job.”

Penn State’s diversity will need to grow if the University is to mirror the racial makeup of Pennsylvania and beyond, according to Barron. (Barron stresses demographics', diversity’s importance in future of Penn State, Penn State News, March 20, 2015)

Among the challenges identified by Penn State in its project of enhancing diversity touches on communication--both to stakeholders and the wider community (see, e.g., here). is  This post and those that follow will consider the public face of Penn State's diversity efforts.  It will look at the way that Penn State's units have embedded diversity in their communications by looking at diversity on the web sites of Penn State's units.  The purpose is simple--the way a university projects itself provides a good means of understanding how the university sees itself.  In light of the President's commitment, it would be useful to examine the way that diversity appears throughout Penn State.  This post provides a short introduction to the character of that public face from the top of the administrative hierarchy.  In the posts that follow, we will consider how each of Penn State's units projects its own image of its engagement with diversity in light of official and public face of diversity at Penn State. 

The object is not just to get a sense of the collective self projection of this important issue an an important an influential university.  It also serves to see the extent to which diversity can be administered in a coherent manner throughout a large and complex institution.  Do all units approach the issue the same way? Do all units share the same approaches to diversity as the central administration suggests they should?  What are the variations in approaches?  These and other related questions will be posed and considered.  Comments, suggestions, and additional insights are welcome as we work through the theory and practice of diversity at major institutions.

Contents

Introduction
Penn State Law 

Breaking New Ground: Emotional Support Animals in American Universities; Is it Time for a Change in Policy at Penn State?

(Pix © Larry Catá Backer 2016)

It would have been quite unremarkable for universities to ban all but a limited number of service dogs from campus only a few years ago. It would have been quite extraordinary for the university to permit animals otherwise. There was a constant tension between students who sought to sneak small pets into dorms, faculty who would bring pets to their offices, and bureaucrats waving policies grounded in their sense of risk assessment and safety (and more likely an easy sense of the limits of propriety).

It is with some interest, then, that these anti-animal policies have come face to face with an increasing sensitivity to the needs of accommodation of people--and to the growing understanding of the critical role of animals in human health and social functioning. But even in the face of these changes, universities have been reluctant to change their own policies, now deeply ingrained. And thus it is only through the threat of litigation--and by the government--that universities now appear to be bending their stubborn unwillingness to embrace new knowledge and apply it to their own operations.

The initial battleground was Kent State University. The object of interdiction were “emotional support dogs.” The field of battle was a courthouse where the issue of university intransigence would be tested against the constraints of federal civil rights law; a civil rights lawsuit was brought by the U.S. Justice Department alleging discrimination against students with psychological disabilities. The result was a settlement through which the university will agree to allow these service animals in student housing at Kent State University, which has settled a civil rights lawsuit brought by the U.S. Justice Department claiming the school discriminated against students with psychological disabilities.

This post includes a recent news account of the action. It then suggests how the Kent State settlement might be a useful basis for reconsidering  university rules on service animals, considering in this context the example of Penn State.