Peabloggy

I just went to hear the founder of the “Not for Sale Campaign” speak.  He wants to end slavery in our lifetime.  You might think, “what?  slavery ended a long time ago with President Lincoln” but slavery still exists.  It is weird, isn’t it?  People don’t talk about it.  I didn’t learn about modern day slavery in grade school or high school.  I would think it should be part of the materials that should be taught today in school and talked about at the coffee station at work. 

Today, 27 million people are enslaved.  It is incredibly widespread.  It ranges from people working in sweatshops all day with no pay making nice jewelry for Americans to buy to young women and girls being kidnapped to be whores against their will at under cover brothels all over the United States.  I just mentioned two examples that are directly connected to the US.  Slavery is in every country! 

I think people need to know.  I think something needs to be done. To learn more about modern slavery and what you can do about it visit the website: www.notforsalecampaign.org

-Anna

I was front-row center (literally in the first seat to the right of the aisle - no political implication intended) for Newt Gingrich’s IMPACT lecture on March 20 in the Student Life Center. The Tennessean covered the event here (why did they choose such an uptight photo? He was so relaxed in person!)

I have a number of thoughts on Mr. Gingrich’s speech and on the experience in general, but since I am no student of politics, I primarily want to relate the portions of his comments that relate to my studies at Peabody.

Mr. Gingrich’s recurring theme seemed to relate to the backwards nature of government spending, particularly in terms of how projects are funded. His characterization of NASA in its current form, for instance, was that of a bloated beast that can’t go anywhere very fast. NASA claims to need such-and-such billions of dollars for a manned mission to Mars to be completed 10 years from now; by the time the project actually gets underway, Gingrich said the estimates will have ballooned and timelines will have been extended many times over. Instead, he says, the government should offer what he called “prizes” for targeted goals. The first person (or team) who meets the goal gets the prize. He suggested that if the government offered $20 billion tax-free to whomever can get to Mars and back, you’ll have 20 teams competing, all of which would put bases on the Moon (because, according to Gingrich, it’s the only feasible launch point for a trip to the red planet) and it will be exciting.

“People will become engineers again,” Gingrich said.

In terms of scientific research, Gingrich proposed a complete overhaul of the current system of grant-disbursement, by which researchers (many of which reside at degree-granting institutions such as Vanderbilt) propose projects based on what they think will get funded. Under the current system, researchers receive a certain amount of money for a certain project based on anticipated costs, and they may spend that money only on said project; Gingrich referred to these as “process-oriented” prizes. Gingrich’s reversal would go something like this: the government funding agencies would propose a goal (e.g., find a cure for cancer) and offer up an enormous prize for the project that reaches the goal. By funding what we need to accomplish, Gingrich believes the competition would spur much more efficient work, in terms of both time and money. Along the same lines, Gingrich proposed a $1 billion tax-free prize for the first private citizen or team who can design a mass-producable vehicle that runs on hydrogen fuel.

Admittedly, I was too shy to ask the question (even though microphones were available) but I wondered whether Gingrich would propose a similar overhaul for the Special Education system, in research and in practice. Would he favor the current disability-diagnosis-before-funding system, or would he suggest more money be placed into other kinds of preventive interventions?

Would Gingrich be so bold as to propose a prize for the researcher who can find a “cure” for learning disabilities, emotional disturbance, autism, or ADHD? For non-biologically-based disabilities (and I’m making no claims about those I’ve mentioned) it seems research is incremental and based on prevention and intervention, not whole-hog cures. If my assessment is correct, I can’t see how Gingrich’s goal-based prize system would work. Some lines of research take years to develop, and progress may be practically measurable only when analyzed across a series of studies, research teams, and findings over a period of years. After all, researchers are expected to ground at least some of their hypotheses in prior research, and with the current peer-review process, research may take months or years to see the light of day in publication.

(Now I really wish I’d asked my question!)

I enjoyed Mr. Gingrich’s speech and appreciated the ease with which he addressed audience questions. Thanks to the student IMPACT organizers for setting up the event.

- Peter Beddow

I’ve been absent from the Peabloggy scene for longer than I wanted as I have been involved in a client engagement for LPO3372 - Consultation Skills, which has taken up a lot of time. Unfortunately, I can’t blame my absence on Spring Break (oh, how I miss those days…).

This is a great class, and I was just thinking to myself during Saturday’s session that it really is worth both the work load and the tuition. For what I could pay to go to a 3- or 4-day conference, this class offers practical experience and face-to-face, focused feedback from a professor who is well respected and very knowledgeable about what is quite an undefined career plan. (Doesn’t everyone call themselves a consultant these days? Including the folks behind the desk at Kinko’s, as pointed out by this professor.) I plan to write in the next few weeks about a few things I have learned from the books we’ve read — things that are so practical in nature that they cause me to really assess where I am as a professional and not just whether or not I am completing the right steps to being a good consultant. But you’ll have to wait for that.

In the meantime, know that, if you take this class, you’re in for a lot of work but, I think, a great payoff in the end.

~Kristen Hayner

Yesterday afternoon the Peabody community celebrated the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. This annual event never fails to move me with its evocation of the struggles of prior generations to achieve justice and equality. It also reminds me of how far we still have to go as a society.

Peabody’s commemoration has two components; the first is the presentation of our annual Changing Lives award. The award is given to a member of the local community “whose work uses an understanding of psychological and educational processes to promote positive human change.” This year’s recipient was Elaine Brown, the outreach and admissions director of the Tennessee School for the Blind. As it happens, Elaine has three degrees from Peabody–all earned in the early 70s. In accepting the award, Elaine spoke movingly about her childhood in Baton Rouge, La., of the segregation that prevailed at the time, and of the challenges she faced and overcame–ultimately studying here and then going on to a career of service to children who are blind, deaf, or struggling with other disabilities.

The keynote address was given by the Reverend James Lawson, Vanderbilt’s 2006-2007 Distinguished University Professor. Lawson’s civil rights journey shares much of the history associated with Dr. King. In fact, it was King who asked Lawson to come to the South to coordinate the nonviolent actions that led to the integration of Nashville’s lunch counters. While here, he enrolled at the Vanderbilt Divinity School, an event that precipitated a crisis in the university’s governance and that ultimately signalled the opening of Vanderbilt to students of all races.

Lawson recalled these events and many others in his storied career yesterday, to the fascination of a class of sixth graders from KIPP Academy Nashville who were in the audience. (The News Service has posted a podcast of his remarks here.) But he took care to point out the many injustices that continue to plague our society. He condemned the war in Iraq, the imprisonment of a large percentage of the black male population of our country, economic inequality, and the tide of violence that has continued to rise in the decades since the civil rights movement.

Most appealing was that for Lawson, justice, fairness and goodness are not a zero-sum game. His vision of America is not only inclusive, it is expansive. As he said, “If what you wish for yourself you are not willing for everyone of the 300 million people of this country also to have, then what you wish for yourself is a contradiction to what you think you want out of life.”

Yesterday, two powerful voices reminded us of how dangerously constricted our vision can sometimes be. King’s “beloved community” was not just his own ideal; it remains an ideal for all of us to aspire to and work toward together–as a nation and beyond.

–Kurt Brobeck