The Bubble Wrap

On March 8, 2021, President Biden announced his desire to allow people to gather in small groups by July 4, 2021, as long as people “continue wearing masks, social distancing, and practicing good hygiene.” On April 6, 2021, the LA Times reported Governor Newsome announced that on June 15, 2021, California will fully open its economy “if vaccine supply is sufficient for Californians 16 years and older who wish to be inoculated; and if hospitalization rates are stable and low.”  Governor Newsome sees a bright light at the end of the tunnel; President Biden believes that “finding light in the darkness is a very American thing to do.”  My concern is the light they both are referring to may be the Covid-19 train speeding toward us.  We are now being told by the CDC that if you are fully inoculated against Covid-19 you don’t have to wear a mask if you are with others who are fully inoculated. Assuming all are right and the State, counties and the Country are moving in the right direction, does this mean we will soon be able to exit our bubbles and satisfy our insatiable yearning for a “Return to Normal?”

Not long ago I wrote a piece on the meaning of normal and this obsession with returning to “normal.”  Despite the clamor for normalcy, what I reported is there really is no discrete definition for “normal.”  What is meant by normal varies by group, person, beliefs, time, place, culture and situation.    It is often defined by the way one acts and thinks relative to how the majority of other people acts or thinks. In other words, normal seen through the eye of the beholder is filtered through the lens of society. When it comes to evaluating our own behavior, we are greatly influenced by what society currently accepts as normal. What we perceived as normal pre-Covid-19 certainly changed for most of us because of Covid-19.  This is not an anomaly because what we know about the perception of normal is that it changes along with changing societal values, standards, experiences and events.

For example, there was a time in California when, if you were caught in possession of marijuana, you were a felon. It is no longer a felony to be in possession of marijuana and, in fact, cannabis can now be sold for both medicinal and recreational use. Men wore suits to work and now dress casually.  Women were barred from acts as simple as wearing pants or enjoying a vice like smoking in public. African Americans could not vote much less be elected President or Vice President of the United States and now we have both. Women were considered to be genetically ill suited for becoming physicians or pursuing STEM careers.  Today women do both.  In fact, women now constitute 50.5% of today’s medical students.  Catholics could not eat meat on Fridays and now they can.  You could not register to vote until you were 21 years old and now you can vote at 18.   Interracial marriage was illegal in most southern states until 1967 when the U.S. Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia deemed anti-miscegenation state laws unconstitutional in all U.S. states.  Females were not allowed to fly fighters or be Navy seals; now they can.  Prior to 2011, openly gay, lesbian and bisexual men and women could not serve in the military; now they can.  Acceptance for LGBTQ in the military expanded with the lifting of the transgender ban in 2021.

Over the last 18 months most of us have been forced to change our old normal lifestyles to new normal lifestyles.  For many of us, change has been dramatic.  We have stepped out of our comfort zones and moved right into isolated environs.   We now live in bubbles where we are required to wear masks and keep safe distances from family, friends and cohorts; work from home; online home school our children sans interaction with other children, classmates and extracurricular activities; limit outdoor activities and avoid recreational areas; and order take-out food and/or dine outdoors. Salons, barber shops, sporting events, bars, family gatherings, commencements, and even religious celebrations have been no-nos.  The ill and dying were isolated and left to recover or die without love ones by their sides; some personal doctor’s visits are now via telemedicine.  Personal, family and professional relationships were strained and life has become downright boring.  One would think that as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said “A mind that is stretched by a new experience can never go back to its old dimensions.”  In my opinion, what we have endured has certainly been a new and stressful experience, full of angst and uncertainty.  So if Mr. Holmes is correct, shouldn’t we be anticipating entering the “Next Normal” and not longing to return to the “Old Normal”?  The “Next Normal” should have a level playing field where everyone has an equal chance to fulfill their dreams.  A place where people are judged by what they know and do, and not by their age, gender, color, sexual preference, political affiliation, religion, caste, culture or income level.  Covid-19 should have taught us that we are all humans, interconnected in one global ecosystem.   No matter what bubble we choose to live in, we should have learned to value life, family and community, and to be more humble, compassionate, empathetic, civil and respectful toward one another. 

Do I really believe this is what the “Next Normal” will be?  The answer is no.  As a matter of fact, I believe despite all the suffering and sacrifice we as a nation have been through, the “Next Normal” will not be significantly different from the old normal.  Yes, there will be some change; however, the future will include plenty of skepticism and distrust and continued anguish and sacrificing by the middle class, the poor and the marginalized.  Why do I say this?  Because I believe we all live in bubbles where we are caught up in our daily lives and focused on our own security and survival.  We build rules, establish norms, formulate opinions, and agree on acceptable lifestyles that include living conditions, responsibilities, expectations, behaviors, habits and even prejudices.  We tend to surround ourselves with people in bubbles who are like thinkers, in similar income brackets, with comparable educational backgrounds, and have comparable social and political views and family values. We get so comfortable in our bubbles and feel so safe that we believe everyone else is securely wrapped up in their bubbles. We blind ourselves to the disparate social, economic, educational and political realities that exist in the outside world.  I know a person who was so comfortable in his bubble that he would consciously avoid driving through impoverished areas of the city out of fear that doing so would burst his bubble.  Anthony Geathers in his New York Times article, What I learned inside the NBA Bubble, wrote that “bubble” is a funny metaphor to use for a safe zone “because bubbles are famously fragile.  By definition, they are surrounded on all sides, vulnerable in every direction, wrapped in threat.  A bubble is always right on the verge of being popped.” 

Is this country any more in agreement about what needs to be done to improve the quality of life for all Americans?  Has Covid-19 taught us to be more compassionate and empathetic?  Does it really matter that someone’s bubble includes the elderly, unemployed, uneducated, homeless, addicted, incarcerated, mentally or terminally ill, disabled, and disenfranchised as long as they are not in your bubble?  Is it okay if someone’s bubble is full of skepticism, resentment, hate, prejudice, loathsomeness, jealously, and/or envy as long as you or your friends and loved ones don’t feel this way? I caution against returning to normal if we are merely to get more of what we already had.   

 Thomas Hobbes in the 17th century wrote in the Leviathan about a social contract “in which individuals mutually unite into political societies, agreeing to abide by common rules and accept resultant duties to protect themselves and one another from whatever might come otherwise.“  He believed that because “humanity’s natural condition is a state of perpetual war, fear and amorality…only government can hold a society together.”  As we evaluate how our nation is currently being governed, if Hobbes is correct, do you believe government can create a bubble strong, yet flexible enough, to ensure the safety and well-being of all Americans while holding the American society together?  We have the opportunity to work together to create a “Next Normal” that is better, fairer and more secure for All Americans than the “Old Normal.”

TRUE OR FALSE? IT ALL DEPENDS!

“To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true” - Aristotle

One of the biggest challenges for us in life is determining what is true or false.  Daily we are bombarded with information that we are told is true.  For most of us, what we perceive and then ultimately believe becomes our truth. Sophocles believed that “What people believe prevails over the truth.”   

Parents, relatives, friends, teachers, doctors, scientists, academicians, clergy, politicians, journalists, bureaucrats, bankers, advertisers, real estate agents, and social media, just to name a few, assert that what they say is true. Quite frankly, it is easier to accept what we are told than to question it.  At times, questioning the truth or expressing a different opinion can create ire and result in hostile partakers.  We certainly have seen a lot of this recently.   Sometimes just asking a question can evoke sudden anger and animosity.  This reminds me of a conversation I read about between a father and his four year old daughter at a McDonalds.  It went something like this:

• Daddy why can’t we go out and play?

• Because it’s raining?

• Why?

• Because the clouds in the sky are precipitating water

• Why?

• Because the cycle of water in the ocean when it’s hot it evaporates or something?

• Why?

• Well I don’t know that’s the extent of my knowledge!

• Why?

• Because I didn’t pay attention at school and I’m stupid!

• Why?

• And after some time it just gets really philosophical and abstract.

• Why?

• Because some things are and some are not.

• Why?

• Because things that aren’t cannot be!

• Why?

• Oh just shut up and eat your fries!

All she was seeking was the truth about why she couldn’t go out and play.

I find it fascinating that the literature points out that we see ourselves as open minded, willing to listen, clear thinkers, tolerant, and very capable of discerning truth from lies or falsity. I must be missing something because I haven’t found this to be true in the past and certainly not now.  Those who disagree with us are described as ill-informed, misguided and/or mistaken.  Lately, I have heard those who disagree with a purported truth are labeled as unpatriotic, racist, prevaricator, irrational, radical, left-wing, progressive, democrat, “Trumper”, criminal, profane, idiots, and even stupid.  Bob Woodward in his latest book, Rage, quotes Jared Kushner in talking about key Cabinet members who disagreed with the President and either were fired or resigned from Administration as “overconfident idiots.” Rather than calling out a person for expressing an opinion or focusing on where someone might be wrong in their thought process, wouldn’t it be better to just engage a person in a rational dialogue that leaves open the possibility that I might be wrong. I remember saying to a person that what they were saying was absolutely not true and irrational.  All the person heard was that I was calling him a liar and crazy. The net result was an unproductive and unconstructive dialogue. What I’ve learned from this is that truth should be constructive and flexible, while lies can be destructive and self-defeating. 

The Dictionary defines truth as the property of being in accord with fact or reality.  Truth is the opposite of falsity.   A fact is defined as something known or proven to be true. One must remember that facts can be manipulated. A straightforward answer to reality is everything that appears to our five senses; anything we can see, touch, taste, hear and smell.  What might be real to one person may be unreal to another person depending on the lenses they see through and their sense of touch and smell.  This might help explain why there truth and reality are constantly questioned and challenged by theologians, scientists, scholars, philosophers, lawyers and even politicians.   For example, an MIT professor/researcher is convinced she has discovered something that is indisputable and absolutely true.  The professor publishes a paper in a scientific journal explaining her research and why her findings are true.  Other scientists read her paper, run their own studies and are unable to invalidate her claims. So for the time being, her findings stand. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is another example of withstanding the test of time. However as Einstein, himself, is quoted as saying, “The truth of a theory can never be proven; for one never knows if future experience will contradict its conclusions.”  Then you have Rudy Giuliani, the President’s infamous personal lawyer, who is quoted in Psychology Today, August 2018, as claiming “truth isn’t truth.”  He doesn’t believe in waiting for the future.

Despite Mr. Giuliani’s perspective, most of us want to believe that there are some truths and we understand there are many more falsities.  Just because one feels comfortable in a belief, hear it repeated over and over again, and trust that the person speaking the truth is reputable and appears credible, this should not be enough to convince a person that it is the truth even if it appeals to common sense.   The expression “A lie told once remains a lie but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth” is attributed to the Nazi propagandist, Joseph Goebbels.  This certainly works for those who continue to defend Third Reich “truths.” Are things true because someone said it’s true or because we have sufficient reliable facts to believe it’s true?  I had a colleague once say to me that she lived in constant fear of people finding out the real truth about her.  I never asked her what that was, but I certainly did wonder.  The last time I heard she was a very successful General Counsel at a major university.  I, personally, have known several people who were living lives based on falsities.   Some were caught in their lies and lost jobs, faculty positions, friends and even marriages; others were never caught, continued to lie, and eventually their lies became their reality.  Ryan Movsowitz, Radnorite, Nov. 2018, states that “truths and lies go hand in hand, so much so that they are often confused or manipulated. I was once advised to always accept compliments and/or accolades whether or not true. It is even more important when the source of the compliment or accolade is a well-respected and credible person or the media.

We find ourselves in an era of uncertainty about truth, falsity and reality. Movsowitz goes on to state that today perceptions are more and more reality.  “The truth is variable, and in many cases, tends to be different for everyone.” Although the perception may not be true, it does influence a person’s view of reality.  We are deluged with conflicting information about world affairs, politics, immigration, religion, COVID-19, health care, education, the environment, global warming, Black Lives Matter, White Supremacy, racial justice, crime, civil rights, poverty, homelessness, unemployment, and the economy just to name a few.  Movsowitz points out that “In religion, what is true for one group may be unaccepted by other groups.  In politics, alternative truths and fake news have become the order of the day.  In social media and advertising, the distortion of the truth manifests itself through retouched images…”

Organizations have to deal with perceptions about management, performance evaluations, workforce diversity, race, ethnicity, gender, religion, position classifications, compensation, substance abuse, merit, inequities, workforce diversity, labor relations, progressive discipline, flexible work schedules, furloughs, layoffs, employee morale, employee turnover, and even office romances.  Management, media (especially social media), politicians, labor unions, employee associations, “employee grapevines”, and customers and/or special interest groups work doggedly to either defend a perception or dispute a misperception. As the presidential debates have demonstrated, voters’ perceptions are nominally affected by a candidate’s performance in a debate. The best parties can hope for is that “fence sitters” will be swayed their way. Only time, personal experience and real life events reinforce or assuage perceptions. 

To dismiss a perception as untrue rather than to keep an open mind about why this is perceived as real is a mistake.  For whatever reason we tend to think we are obliged to point out where other people are wrong in their thinking, rather than engaging in rational dialogue open to the possibility that I might actually be wrong. Why is it so difficult to admit that I’m wrong and am grateful to you enlightening me? Reasonable people can agree to disagree. Unfortunately, intractable perceptions and disagreements can lead to name calling, a rush to judgment, incivility and, much worse, even violence.  None of which is productive and all of which is costly. 

These are truly tumultuous and stressful times for all of us - seniors, adults, Gen Xers and Yers, young adults, and children.  It strains the body, mind and soul to sort through the morass and assess truth from false, trustworthy news from fake news, fact from fiction, and the plausible from hyperbole.  How do we manage perceptions such as:

·         The earth is flat.

·         Eating meat on Friday and missing mass on Sunday are mortal sins.

·         The Pope is infallible.

·         Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

·         The risk of Covid-19 to Americans is low.

·         Americans do not need to wear a mask to stop the spread of Covid-19.

·         The virus (Covid-19) will miraculously go away when the climate warms up.

·         There will be a Covid-19 vaccine by the end of the year.

·         It is safe to play contact sports during the pandemic.

·         No sex before sports.

·         Global Warming is a myth.

·         The Merit System is truly merit based.

·         You must wait an hour after eating before going swimming.

·         All people are equal.

·         Women are not suited for science.

·         A marriage is forever.

·         There are only two absolute truths – Taxes and Death.

·         All religions believe that there is only one life.

·         Everyone needs a college degree.

·         Technology makes workers more productive.

·         Immigrants from Latin America are criminals, rapist, and murderers.

·         Building a wall along the US Mexican border will stop illegal immigration and drug smuggling.

·         Vaccines cause autism.

·         Media puts out fake news.

Need I cite more or do you agree with Mark Twain when he says – “Truth is mighty and will prevail. There is nothing the matter with this, except that it ain't so.” 

What does all this tell me?  It tells me that we have to be open-minded; tolerant of other’s beliefs; respectful of other’s opinions; unaccepting of things just because someone or something alleges it is true; and always willing to acknowledge that I was wrong.  We should never be afraid to ask questions, challenge response, think critically, be curious, and always seek the truth. 

I appreciate your taking the time to read my blog and welcome your reaction and insights into what is meant by “Truth.”

Online Learning - An Emerging Teaching Paradigm

“Education is the passport to the future, for tomorrow belongs to those who prepare for it today.”

Malcolm X

For over twenty-five years, I taught on campus Human Resources Management graduate courses at the University.  Each course included a syllabus, class schedule, periodic guest speakers, and grading rubrics.  As time went on and there were technological advancement both in the classroom and online, I was able to integrate YouTube videos.  With the advent of cell phones and email, students could contact me to ask questions or schedule on campus meetings.  Likewise, I had their email addresses and could share with them current and important HR trends, respond to questions, revise schedules, and inquire about the status of assignments and projects.   At the end of a semester, students were given the opportunity to anonymously evaluate peers on their contribution to learning and teamwork.  I shared the peer evaluation results with each student; answered any questions they might have about ratings; if asked about things they could do to improve, I made suggestions;  and I reminded the students that peer evaluations are considered good management practice and were not factored into the final grade. Of course the students were asked by the University to evaluate my performance, something they willingly complied with.  I don’t know what students did with the feedback they received but I do know the feedback I received helped me revise the syllabus, focus more on relevant HR issues students thought were important, and introduce new topics or teaching techniques.  I assume students completed their graduate studies, and I continued to teach graduate courses for many years.

Then, unexpectedly, I was asked by the Dean to teach the course online.  This was prior to Covid-19 and strategic initiative of the schools long-term strategic plan.  Online graduate students could only take online courses, were never required to attend sessions on campus, had full-time jobs, and lived some place in this world.  Since I had never taught online and barely could keep up with technological advancements, I decided that I had nothing to lose by teaching online and a lot I could learn.  The University provided me with external expert consultants to assist me in developing an online course syllabus; preparing lectures; producing introductory videos for each session; creating podcasts; coaching me on the use of online technology and class facilitation; and explaining the difference between synchronous and asynchronous learning and how and when they should be utilized.  In addition, the University provided a highly intelligent, competent and energetic Teaching Assistant.  My TA had never taken an online course but was far more comfortable with and knowledgeable about technology than me.  She turned out to be a Godsend.  (I should note that she is now teaching online courses at another university.) All the lecturing, student communication, and class administration was done online.  One would think that with all this help and support, online teaching would be a slam dunk.  Unfortunately, this was not the case.

Whereas my on campus class enrollment averaged 15 students a semester, my online classes averaged 60 students. Class size was no longer limited by room size.  There never seemed to be enough time for my TA or me to prepare for and teach a class, grade work, and be readily available and responsive to students.  What I learned is that online teaching is a 24/7 commitment.  There are no scheduled office hours or limits on access to a professor.  This is especially true for professors like me that jumped into the boat “without a paddle.”  My TA ended up towing me to the other shore and successfully teaching the course. 

So when I hear and read that, thanks to the coronavirus, online learning is the future of education, I ask myself are they serious?  There is so much more than just classrooms.  Can students who only take online courses truly experience college life without making human connections, personally interacting with others, intellectual conversations, and the back and forth exchanges with students, professors and university administrators on a myriad of subjects?  What about the feeling you get from just walking around a universities campus?  I’ll never forget how it felt to walk around Yale University’s campus, sit in a Yale classroom, listen to a lecture by a renowned professor, meet and interact with students from all over the world, and explore the surrounding New Haven community that was the first “Model City” in the nation.  I have to confess, I didn’t get a sense of interconnectedness with the students teaching online from my home office but there was a sense of personal satisfaction for having conquered the technological challenges of teaching online. 

Things changed when classes went live. The focused changed from the student to technology; from looking into the student’s eyes to staring at a monitor; from reading body language to reading chat notes; and from real time exchange of knowledge to communicating by email or university blackboard postings.  I never got the feeling I was able to engage in a dialectic about important and controversial HR issues or even call upon students for reactions to or opinions about what was being discussed.  Why – for one thing, I really never got to know the 60 or so online students and found myself engaging with the same handful of students that took the subject seriously.  One might say this is not any different than teaching a course in the classroom except that in the classroom, I had visual contact with the 15 students and could arrange the seating so that I can roam around, ask questions, and engage students.  It is much easier for an online student to hide when they want to be left alone.  Furthermore, I found that online students came up with more reasons not to meet deadlines, participate in team projects, or even participate in synchronous classes or take advantage of asynchronous class recordings.  The “Community of Inquiry” teaching model is built on the simple principle that the more engaged learners are with their learning, the more likely they are to be successful.  I once asked a learned faculty member if where you went to a school or university made a difference about how much you learn.  His response was that it really didn’t matter what school you went to.  What matters is how much effort you put into learning.  One could make the same argument for in class versus online classes.  Albert Einstein believed that education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school.  What does that say about paying for a formal education?

Donna J. Abernathy, Former Editor of Training and Development Magazine, states that “Online learning is not the next big thing; it is the now big thing.”  The literature is replete with articles in support of Ms. Abernathy’s statement.  The majority of her supporters are teachers and professors who successfully transitioned to online teaching, colleges and universities that offer online degrees, and companies marketing online teaching consulting services and technology.  Everyone acknowledges that online teaching is the preferred teaching paradigm until there is a cure or vaccine for Covid-19.   

UNESCO estimates that one and a half billion students worldwide were engaged in remote learning at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic.  On June 6, 2020, educations.com reported that over 30 percent of higher education students in the United States are taking at least one distance learning course.  In 2019, Doug Lederman reported in “Professors’ Slow, Steady Acceptance of Online Learning: A Survey” that there is “a continuing uptick in the proportion of faculty members who have taught an online course, to 46% from 44 % last year.  That figure stood at 30% in 2013, meaning that the number has increased by half in six years.”  Mr. Lederman cautions us about misinterpreting the data.  His survey indicated that professors are divided about whether online learning produce student learning outcomes comparable to face-to-face teaching. 

Chris Drew, PhD, published in Helpful Professor.com “33+ Pros and Cons of Online School.”  He acknowledges that online learning isn’t for everyone.  He encourages faculty to consider the pros and cons of online learning before embracing online education.  Some of the Pros he cites include:

·         Flexible learning means you can still live your life.

·         Gamified learning.

·         You have more time to think.

·         You can make friendships with people like you.

·         You will learn in comfort.

·         You will save a lot of time.

·         You can hide when you need to be left alone.

·         You can learn at your own pace.

·         You can be anonymous. 

·         You can gain even more confidence to post your thoughts on forums. 

·         You can be as vocal or quiet as you like in online classes. 

·         You can take advantage of new learning technologies.

·         You will develop a digital skillset.

His list of Cons includes:

• You’re statistically more likely to drop out.

• You need self-discipline as online courses are less structured.

• Your study time and personal time clash (all the time).

• There can be regular communication breakdowns.

• You won’t get many social interactions.

• You will have regular tech issues.

• The ‘College Experience’ is missing when you study online.

• You’ll go through ruts.

• Online group work can be a drag.

• You’ll feel isolated.

• There is a lack of practical training and experiences.

• There may be limited course options.

• You’ll be glued to your email.

• Be prepared to read and watch a lot of videos.

Dr. Drew acknowledges that he is an online learning convert.  “Personally, the pros of online education outweigh the cons.  I can live where I want, wake up when I want, and won’t have to waste my time messing around with face-to-face activities.  I feel like my time is my own and I’m in control of how to manage it.”  I find this to be a little condescending. 

In a recent New York Times op ed piece, Hans Taparia writes that “online education, previously considered a ‘hobby,’ could be the silver bullet that rescues higher education from financial ravages of the coronavirus pandemic.”  However, Mr. Lederman’s survey also reported that neither faculty nor digital learning administrators believe online learning is less expensive to offer than the on-campus alternative.   I can certainly attest to my University having invested a lot of money in helping me prepare to teach online.  This was certainly appropriate since my learning curve was much steeper than other online teaching faculty who had prior experience teaching online courses.  They were much more knowledgeable about online nomenclature and more experienced and comfortable with technology.  I and my Teaching Assistant certainly had to work much harder and longer teaching online than teaching in class.  I doubt that the students really care about effort expended or how much I was paid.  The real questions for the student are did they learn and get what they paid for?

Mr. Taparia in his op ed piece goes on to write “But for all their differences in age, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, citizenship and intellectual preparedness, students universally agreed on their evaluation of online learning: they hated it.” He quoted one student wrote they watched the lectures posted, but didn’t learn the material.  Another student wrote “the major benefit of in-class learning is that the classroom leaves out distractions but now I have the biggest source of gaming, shopping and socializing right in my face.”  Finally a professor wrote that what students disliked the most is they basically had to teach themselves.  “It’s like paying tuition to watch YouTube videos.”  He found that online students felt an inability to engage in dialogue.  Socrates would be rolling in his grave if he had been told this.  Socrates believed that “it’s in dialogue, the teasing out of ideas, challenging them, argument and counterargument, than genuine education happens.”

Do I miss teaching online?  No, but I am grateful for the opportunity.  I did miss my inability to build personal relationships with the students.  Whereas many of my in class students have continued to maintain contact, even join me on LinkedIn, and/or ask for letters of recommendation, this is not the case with my online students.  I believe online teaching can play an important role in academia.  Do I believe teaching online is the “New Pedagogical Normal?”  No, I do not.  In my opinion, online teaching works best for most college students when it is a blend of in class and online courses.  Similarly, online courses utilize both synchronous and asynchronous technology.  Synchronous technology affords the students to meet regularly as a class and with the professor to dialogue and exchange ideas.  Asynchronous technology allows the students to not only have access to lectures but also other internet sources.    There are many reasons why online learning is not for everyone just like in class learning is not for everyone.  However, both options are now available to students.  Both are means to end – Education.  Let me share with you what Mark Twain said about formal education - “Never let formal education get in the way of you learning.” 

Do you think students should pay the same amount for an online degree as they do for a live on campus education?

Return to Normal?

“A mind that is stretched by a new experience can never go back to its old dimensions.”
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

How much more stress and uncertainty can people handle? Do we really need to wear a mask? Is there a light at the end of the tunnel or is it a train racing toward us?  Will life ever return to normal? These are some of the trillion dollar questions people keep asking.

Unquestionably, Covid-19 has disrupted our lives, lifestyles, relationships, and behaviors. We’re sheltering at home with only immediate family and “zooming” with other loved ones and friends; schools, places of worship, barber shops, beauty and nail salons, gyms, Disneyland, Hollywood Bowl and Greek Theater are closed; courses are being taught online; workers work remotely and patients telemedicine with their doctors; offices, non-essential work locations, hospitals and clinics are shuttered; customers stand in line to shop; and purchasing take-out food rather than dining-in and watching Netflex instead of going to a movie theater are the norm.  Businesses are struggling to survive and either filing for bankruptcy or going out of business; employees are furloughed, laid-off or terminated; live sporting events are a no-no; and “OMG”, we have to wear masks and gloves, social distance, bump knuckles or elbows, frequently wash our hands, and self-quarantine.  Everyone longs to be unfettered; free to choose where and when to go; socialize with family and friends; and just resume a normal life.

Ah, but the devil is in the details! What really is normal?  Christine B.L. Adams, MD and Psychiatrist wrote in Psychology Today, May 2019, that in her years of psychiatric experience she has concluded that “there’s no such thing as normal.”  The definition for normal varies by person, time, place, situation and what is socially understood.  What might be considered normal by one society, culture or community may be considered abnormal or deviant by another. 

For example, California Penal Codes consider public urination and defecation to be disorderly conduct and a public nuisance. A person can be charged with a misdemeanor for indecent exposure and “lewd” behavior and  fined $1,000.  Despite the fact that there is no specific statewide “public peeing” or “pooping” laws, most Californians would not consider such acts as normal.  “Public peeing” maybe, but “public pooping”, never! However, if you ask a backpacker, she would say this is quite normal when trudging up or down a mountain.  Michael Phelps has said “I think everybody pees in the pool.  It’s kind of a normal thing to do for swimmers.”  My wife would certainly disagree with Michael about this being normal and require him to use the toilet to pee if he ever swam in our pool. This is something she requires of all guests, including grandkids.  

Anushray Sing reports “In India: Everything is Sunhine and Rainbows!”, 2018, that “in India, public urination is prevalent to rural as well as urban spheres and open defecation is a problem more relevant and centric to rural areas.  There might be toilets constructed in accordance to some government scheme, but still somehow choosing to defecate outdoors takes precedent.” He goes on to say that peeing in public occurs from swanky metropolis to the most disorganized rural areas. Of course, this is a different country and difficult culture.

In “How do we define normal?”, Tom Scheve writes that “When we ponder what’s normal, it’s often in the sense of determining whether the way we think and act is the same, or at least similar to, the majority of other people.”  American sociologist, Allan Horwitz, believes that statistically normal is whatever trait most people in a group display. He uses as an example the fact that the majority of Nazi Germanys citizens supported policies of racism and genocide in the 1930s and 1940s.  “Was Nazism, then, a normal philosophy for humans to hold?”

If 95% of your community is Christian and you are Muslim, are you abnormal?  If 90% your community are heterosexuals and you are a Lesbian, are you abnormal?  If 93% of your student body is White and you are Asian, are you abnormal?  If you are a libertarian and not a registered democrat or republican, are you abnormal?  If the majority of the people drive their automobiles to and from work and you take public transportation, are you abnormal? If you have never owned a brand new automobile, are you abnormal? If the majority in your community does not use marijuana and you do, are you abnormal? If you are unemployed, on welfare and homeless, are you abnormal? If you collect plastic bottles and cans in a shopping cart for recycling, are you abnormal?  If you do not have a college degree, own a computer, have an IPhone or subscribe to cable TV, are you abnormal?  If you don’t have or use a debit card, are you abnormal?  If you live in Boyle Heights and not in the Pacific Palisades, are you abnormal?  If you have never vacationed in Europe, been on a cruise, visited Disneyland or swam in the ocean, are you abnormal?  According to clinical psychologist Avram Holmes of Yale University, “abnormal behavior isn’t necessarily weird or bad or indicative of mental illness, because there is no absolute definition of normal and no single best way to behave.”  Furthermore, for many normal is defined as famine, poverty, discrimination, abuse, suffering, depression, hardship, loneliness, no healthcare, human trafficking, incarceration, and just plain survival.  Do you think these individuals worry about be being considered abnormal?  I doubt they are not thinking about getting back to the office, relaxing at Starbucks, wearing a mask, or shopping at Trader Joes, Nordstrom’s, Home Goods or even Marshalls.

At one time or another, most of us were taught to believe that a large percentage of the population is normal. Eventually we were shown a bell curve and explained that most of us fell under the middle of the bell (i.e. 68.3% of the total distribution).  Statistically, this is considered to be a normal or average distribution.  

As one moves to the right or left of normal, you are moving toward what could be referred to as abnormal. This means that 31.4% of the distribution has a chance to be abnormal.  If given the choice, my preference is to move to the right of normal rather than to the left of normal. This begs the question, if normal is just average, what’s so great about normal?  Why are so many clamoring to return to normal?  Maya Angelou believed “If you are always trying to be normal you will never know how amazing you can be”. 

While many understand and support the need to deviate from what has been considered normal and are willing to make personal sacrifices for the health and well-being of all, some question the need for the disruption and such draconian actions that deprive us of our civil liberties and the right to choose what’s best.  The battle against Covid-19 has politicized and polarized our society.  The wearing of a mask and maintaining social distancing are considered fear mongering, a sign of weakness and a lack of patriotism and contrary to American values.    They are eager to return to normal and restart the economy regardless of the risk.

This pandemic is giving us an opportunity to stretch our minds and ponder how to minimize the risk of endangering lives while changing society for the better?  C.S. Lewis said “You can’t go back and change the beginning, but you can start where you are and change the ending.”  Rather than focusing on how things were in the past, shouldn’t we be focusing on how things could be different?  Do we really want more traffic congestion, smog, homelessness, crime, hate, social injustices, divisiveness, prejudice, and the marginalization of people?  Or, do we want the “Next Normal” to encompass a return to a germ-free office, better educational and training opportunities, safer schools, peaceful communities, world peace, more jobs, a robust and sustainable economy, less poverty, a larger middle-class, equal employment opportunities, affordable housing and healthcare, less costly education, less traffic congestion, clean air, a better quality of life, social justice, greater appreciation for and understanding of diversity, lesser  dependency on government assistance, a more responsive government, and an electorate that is more concerned with the good of the whole rather than personal political agendas.

What is so interesting about the yearning to get back to normal is, as Brandon Ambrosino points out, “…we kind of want to go back to where we were, but we also kind of don’t.  We want things to be the same, but we also want them to be different.”  Talk about cognitive dissonance!  This may account for why so many are in denial about the threat of the virus and refuse to wear masks or practice social distancing.  It is somewhat analogous to the unwillingness Americans had to getting involved in World War II.  The war was not perceived by the majority of Americans as a problem for the United States but rather a European problem.  It took President Franklin Roosevelt at the urging of Winston Churchill to conjure up a scheme for heightening the awareness of Americans to the real threat Adolph Hitler posed.  It took his leadership and vision to unite Americans to stem a worldwide threat.  Once done, others followed.

The lesson learned from researching the meaning of normal is it all depends on who you ask. Scheve goes on to state “Normal seen through the eye of the beholder is filtered through the lens of society.”  In fact, as in the case of Hitler and other so-called past and present leaders, normal can be used to divide people rather than unite them.  Normal, abnormal, and deviant are merely subjective labels used to categorize individuals and behaviors.  Are we really sure we want to “return to normal”?  This pandemic has given us an opportunity to better understand what really matters in life and how things can change for the better.  It would be a shame to miss this opportunity.  The “Next Normal” has to be better than the old one.  Civility, respect and compassion must trump hate, envy and greed.  The Next Normal should emphasize curiosity, courage, calmness, love and fun rather than fear. Hopefully, together the world will be better prepared to anticipate and manage future pandemics and crisis.   

“What is normal? Normal is only ordinary, mediocre.  Life belongs to the rare, exceptional individual who dares to be different.”  Virginia C. Andrews

Wishing You a Happy, Safe and Normal 4th of July!!!

Private Sector or Public Sector Career

He’ll sit here… and he’ll say “Do this! Do that! And nothing will happen.  Poor Ike – it won’t be a bit like the Army.  He’ll find it very frustrating.  Harry S. Truman.  Quoted in R. Neustadt, “Presidential Power: The Politics of Leadership” (1960)

Have you ever wondered if choosing to work in the private sector is better than working in the public sector?  Do people knowingly choose one over the other or is the decision merely a function of happenstance?  Once a choice is made, do employees wonder if they would be better off in the other sector?  The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that in June 2020, 108 million people were employed in US private sector (non-farm) jobs and 20.2 million people were employed in all US public sector (Federal, state, municipal government) jobs.  Both sectors have their pros and cons and most people, for whatever reason, may be a better fit in one or the other.  This is probably truer today for Millennials than for past generations.

The primary objective of the private sector is to make a profit.  The motivation for working in the private sector is generally described as a desire to make money.  Some benefits of working in the private sector include impressive compensation packages; faster promotions and salary increases; performance bonuses; additional perks like tickets to sporting events, concerts, and private suites; greater opportunities to be on the cutting edge and innovation; less rules, regulations and protocols; faster decision making; more opportunities for staff development and professional growth; and safeguard against media inquiries into employee salaries and benefits.  This is all good if you are willing to work long hours in a competitive, fast-paced environment; always meeting challenging deadlines; and your value to and job security with the organizations is only as good as your contribution to the bottom line.  The private sector is very susceptible to economic downturns, the inability to obtain contracts or project financing, acquisitions, market trends, technological advances, and low business performance.  Although equal opportunity and workforce diversity are considered important as a marketing and customer services strategy, of greater importance is efficiency, effectiveness and productivity.  It is very unusual for a person to spend 25 to 30 years with a single private company.  Older workers who move up the management ladders and pay schedules become expendable as younger workers at lower pay schedules are willing to step up and take on greater responsibilities.

On the other hand the primary objective of the public sector is to establish laws, maintain order, provide security, and protect and serve citizens.   The motivation for working in the public sector is broadly described as a desire to make a difference in the lives of people.  Some benefits of working in government include long term job security upon completion of a probationary period; 14th Amendment due process protection against adverse job action; selection and promotions in accordance with merit system principles based on what you know rather than who you know; transparent personnel policies, practices, and procedures; market based salaries and benefits; good pension plans; planned salary step increases; flexible work schedules; and equal opportunity for protected groups.  In most cases, the work tends to be less demanding and cut-throat than the private sector; there is less emphasis on long hours and paid overtime; and an emphasis on balancing the budget rather than profit.  To promote regardless of how well you perform, employees are required to take competitive examinations and rank high enough to be selected for vacant positions.  Although paid well, to hit the big paydays top management jumps to the private sector. 

The public sector is considered to be very bureaucratic.  Patty Mulder (2017) describes a bureaucracy as “an organizational structure that is characterized by many rules, standardized processes, procedures and requirements, number of desks, meticulous division of labor and responsibility, clear hierarchies and professional, almost impersonal interactions between employees”.  I was once told by a large city CEO that he never feared city employees would do the wrong thing or put the city in jeopardy because all they did was follow the adopted bureaucratic rules and regulations. 

As a result of President Garfield’s assassination by a disgruntled political supporter who was denied a job under the then Spoils System, Congress adopted the Pendleton Act in 1883.  The Act shifted the hiring and firing practices away from a Spoils System toward a merit system.  The merit system was to be an open and fair merit system for selecting and retaining employees based on a person’s knowledge, skills and personal connections.  Jobs were classified; hiring practices codified; promotional opportunities created; and like-pay for like-work established.  Public employees were given job security and protections against capricious political actions.  This formed the foundation for what we now call either a merit or civil service system.  Over time, the merit system became very bureaucratic and has been criticized for being inflexible, slow, cumbersome, unfair and discriminatory.  The rules and restrictions designed to ensure fairness and equity and limit the discretion of government officials in the hiring and firing process appeared to have made government less efficient and very contentious.  Despite varied attempts to reform the merit system to ensure equitable treatment of employees, little has been done to streamline the system, eliminate unnecessary rules and regulations, and mitigate criticisms and improve employee morale.    

Donald Kettl in “The Merit Principle in Crisis” (2015) comments that “common differences in opportunity among groups in society and how people are perceived more broadly tend to be reflected (and indeed reproduced) in the workplace. This means it can be challenging to ensure there is a genuine ‘level playing field’ where merit can be applied in any reliable way. Stereotypical expectations and assumptions, together with common human biases, can operate to undermine even well-designed merit based systems.”

So what is really the difference and advantages of working in the private sector or public sector?  Believe it or not, both are described in the literature as merit based. The private sector rewards employees who merit a salary increase or promotion based on performance and productivity; the public sector rewards people on the basis of how well they perform on competitive examinations. Unfortunately, we know there are certain individuals who are better test takers, may have access to information than others do not have, and/or are coached on how to look for and compete on examination. We also know that there are people who do not test well but who possess exceptional knowledge and skills to succeed on the job. The private sector has less rules and regulations and thus is capable of expediting the hiring and promotion of employees.  To ensure compliance with merit system laws, regulations and procedures, the public sector hiring and promoting of employees can take anywhere from six months to a year. Private sector employees are “at-will” and “can be terminated any time for any cause, with or without notice.”    As previously noted “due process” employees to be informed of any unsatisfactory performance, have a chance to defend themselves, and be given the opportunity to improve performance before an adverse employment action is taken.  I think it is important to note that the number of ”at-will” employees in the public sector has steadily increased to circumvent bureaucratic red-tape and afford employers greater latitude in the selection process. Of course, these employees also give up protections afforded employees hired under a merit system.  Private sector employees are rewarded for performance that exceeds expectations while public sector employees are rewarded with job security and guaranteed pension plans for satisfactory performance.  I have found that people who work in the private sector tend to be risk takers and those in the public sector tend to be more risk averse. Teamwork and loyalty are demanded of private sector employees while teamwork and loyalty are expected of public sector employees. Finally, the public sector provides equal opportunity protection to those the Federal government designates as members of a protected group in accordance with Federal equal opportunity and non-discrimination laws and private sector employers may or may not provide such protection.

I can say that neither is perfect. Competition, backbiting, office politics, favoritism, cronyism and chauvinism exist in both sectors. I can honestly say that when I left the private sector, I truly believed there were six merit principles that guided public sector:

·         Recruitment and Selection of employees based on their ability, knowledge and skills.

·         Equitable and adequate compensation.

·         High quality training.

·         Retention on the basis of adequate performance.

·         Fair treatment in all aspects of personnel administration.

·         Protection against coercion for partisan political purposes.

I was disappointed to learn that, despite the rhetoric, these principles were not applied equally and everyone was not treated fairly. Personal biases and stereotypes were pervasive.  The Personnel Department I worked for had taken a leadership role and worked diligently to practice and protect these six merit principles, with an emphasis on guarding against discrimination in its hiring and promotion practices.  Unfortunately, many of the unfair personnel practices that were occurring could be attributed to an “underground merit system.”  This underground system sought ways to circumvent laws and policies intended to stop unfair and discriminatory practices. 

The enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that was enacted by Congress to level the playing field for potential job applicants and employees sent a strong message to both private and public employers.  It is somewhat ironic that money became a driving force. Public sector compliance with the laws ultimately occurred when the Federal government threatened to cut off the Federal funding of projects to government if discriminatory practices continued. 

In addition, on-going merit system reforms have been instituted and employees now have remedies through their employer, employee unions, and the courts.  Workforces are more diverse, people have more career options available, and employer and employee values are changing.  For that matter, long term job security, tolerance of non-performance, due process protection, guaranteed pension plans, and union contracts for public employees are vulnerable to change.  Since we will never eliminate disparate treatment or prejudice, the best we can hope for is civility, respect, engagement, open mindedness, candid communication, tolerance, and fairness and justice for all.

Both the private and public sectors have key roles to play in the US economy.  The private sector creates and provides jobs, delivers critical goods and services, and contributes to tax revenues and efficient flow of capital.  On the other hand, the public sector provides a range of governmental services such as public works, public safety, public transportation, public education, public housing, health care, land use planning, environmental protection, community and economic development, and recreation and social programs.  The public sector serves as a regulatory agency protecting the health and welfare of citizens, creates job training opportunities, and ensures citizens have access to needed water and power services that might not be affordable if provided by the private sector. Regardless of which sector a person enters, we need well trained, competent, and dedicated people whose focus is on quality and responsive customer service.  The goal is to create employment opportunities that enhance and sustain the quality of life for all.

Knowing what you know, which sector would you feel most comfortable making a career?  Like Millennials, would you be open giving up certain benefits for the sake of work-life balance and quality of life?