Looking back over the last ten years and my eighth decade of life, I am sharing what stands out for me both in good ways and bad:

On the good side:

1. I had the pleasure of finishing ten years as Archivist of the United States and played a role in making sure we all understand that it is not just for history that we have records, but to protect citizens’ entitlements (Veterans, for example). And maybe, most importantly given the times we are in, conveying the importance of records as essential in holding the government accountable.
2. My engagement with the School of Leadership Studies at Kansas State University for the entire decade has grown my confidence in the potential of our younger population, giving me hope for the future.
3. Governor Kelly defeating Secretary of State Kris Kobach in the 2018 election.
4. Kansas City Royals won the World Series for the first time since 1985, K-State won Big 12 championships in both football and basketball. Yes, KU won the other nine in basketball, but offsetting that, K-State was 10-0 competing against KU in football. 
5. Kansas State University closed the decade by making really good decisions and hires that will, I believe, have significant positive impact for the coming decade. 

On the bad side: 

1. Having to endure eight Brownback years (and all the mistakes that will haunt Kansans for many years) really makes a much more difficult path to the future for both the Governor and Legislators.
2. The election of Donald Trump as President in 2016. A man with little or no respect for the law, little or no understanding of how our government functions, and little or no appreciation of the huge challenges (e.g., climate change) we face that, if not addressed, will do damage of unbelievable portions.
3. Having Moscow Mitch (Republican Senator from Kentucky) in a position to stop almost every important piece of legislation through the entire decade, even those that had overwhelming public support. In addition, his handling of the courts and judges has set several damaging precedents for the future.
4. Almost 100% of Scientists with a climate background have issued serious warnings throughout the decade and there has been little or no action in response.
5. The national failure to make any progress on immigration reform, funding of infrastructure needs, dealing with gun violence, addressing climate change, as well as the increasing National debt. This represents the utmost failure of our leadership in Washington D.C.

Here’s to a new year and decade with the hope that progress can and will be made.

As these years go by faster and faster, it is hard to believe that Thanksgiving is coming again so soon. Seems like just yesterday that I wrote and posted for Thanksgiving 2018. In these troubling times, being positive and thankful requires a focus on the upside to get beyond the serious challenges we face. In this blog, I am highlighting some of what stands out for me as a positive during the past 12 months.   

At the national level, I am thankful for the civil service men and women who are demonstrating their loyalty to the Constitution, for all the women and men serving in harm’s way protecting us from enemies seen and unseen, and for hopefully only one more year or less of the Trump Administration.

At the state level, I am thankful for the leadership of Governor Kelly and her administration, particularly for providing the direction and taking initial steps for Kansas to begin addressing our economic challenges and creating a strategy for future growth. Hopefully, that will include the successful engagement of the bi-partisan support necessary for short and long-term success.

Here at Kansas State University, I am thankful for Coach Klieman’s bringing more football success than one had any right to expect. There have been several key hires in Anderson Hall who give me high confidence that K-State’s enrollment and finance issues will be addressed. The Staley School of Leadership Studies continues to grow and do amazing things with students, who give me real hope that they are ready to step up and provide real leadership to tackle some of the seemingly impossible problems we face.

Family-wise, this year leaves much to be thankful for: Lynn and I had a 24-day cruise connecting with many countries in Europe that was great and next week my immediate family will be together in Washington D.C. My sister and brother-in-law are missed but certainly not forgotten and great memories appear quite frequently.

And to close, personally, I am thankful that heading towards 80 has been pretty good, that my five years with the blog has brought more attention to important issues and some very positive responses thanks to you all. And, maybe most important, that on a couple of very recent, very cold mornings at 5:30 a.m. that I was making coffee and not heading to the barn to milk the cows.

The good news is that college voter participation is growing significantly. In a recent New York Times article, they shared that college voter “turnout in the 2018 midterms—​40.3 percent of 10 million students tracked by Tufts University’s Institute for Democracy & Higher Education—​was more than double the rate in the 2014 midterms, easily exceeding an already robust increase in national turnout.”

The bad news is that many Republican lawmakers all across the country are doing everything possible to not just stop this trend but to turn it around and not with a persuasive argument but through voter suppression. Intentionally making voting more difficult should not be a surprise, as we have long experienced issues like limited voting places in key areas to create long lines and wait time that can discourage voters. These strategies are all designed to help elect Republicans who struggle to appeal to a broad cross section of the electorate. Apparently, for at least some Republican lawmakers, making it more difficult for some voters to practice their right, just makes common sense if it will help them get re-elected or pass special interest legislation that Republicans support.

In general, today’s state action driven by Republicans to reduce student voting focuses on reducing and in some cases eliminating early voting sites, adding various voter ID requirements and restrictions, making use of student ID cards as difficult as possible, and on election day, not having any voting opportunities on campus. Some would say that this behavior is just politics and everyone does it. Aside from this being untrue, it is certainly not the American way to limit voter participation after all the years of work to get the vote for women and eliminate many restrictions designed to limit certain folks from voting.

We’ve been through voter challenges in Kansas with the reign of Secretary of State Kris Kobach and his agenda of voter suppression. Hid under the guise of detecting election fraud, he did everything he could to limit certain populations from voting, voters that he concluded would vote the wrong way. This in particular included students. At the height of his voter ID law, during the 2014 elections, I recall visiting with students here in Manhattan who did not have the required documents with them at college, such as a birth certificate, which was required in order to fully register and participate in Kansas elections. Many of these restrictions have since been paused or struck down in court, which has allowed for the full registration process to be completed online. And, after years of Kobach’s efforts, there was very little if any evidence of election fraud found. Almost all of his examples were new residents of Kansas that were not always aware of our different policies. Now he is running as a candidate for the United States Senate, and given his track record, I would expect him to, if elected, continue his cause and at the same time show no concern about Russian interference or the serious election infrastructure and security issues that need to be addressed in our national elections. 

Kobach’s replacement as Secretary of State, also a Republican I must add, appears so far to want to increase voter participation, which I commend. Riley County, Kansas has a very professional County Clerk, who happens to be a Republican, running elections who is outstanding in his efforts toward encouraging voting. There are good examples at the local level of folks taking access to the vote seriously, and working to promote it among people no matter their background or political stripes. And, with the courts striking down many of Kobach's restrictions, access to the vote has improved in Kansas, and so has youth participation. All of this is cause for optimism, and I sincerely hope these trends can continue.

Surely this should transcend partisanship; more people involved in our electoral process is a very good thing for our system of government, especially at a time when the values and ideals of democracy are being tested at home and around the world.

If we give a damn about the future and the challenges we face like climate change, we will work hard to stop voter suppression policies and open up more access to the vote, not less. We desperately need young people’s participation in elections to bring a more balanced look at what needs to be done and policies to improve society and the environment for the long term. Making it difficult for young people to vote is just crazy and short-sighted.

Seldom if not almost never does a sixteen year old student grab the attention of a significant part of the world. But in her recent call to action on climate change, Greta Thunberg from Sweden certainly did. Her video went viral and set off a great deal of positive response. Just as the Parkland students did on gun violence, we adults are reminded that this younger generation just might be the folks who force the changes necessary in so many areas of real concern.

I want to feel good about these steps, and am very complimentary of these young leaders for stepping up and trying to lead older generations to action. I wish them the very best. But I also know from years of experience that major movement on issues like guns and climate change requires more than gaining publicity and attention. Their actions and leadership must result in younger generations becoming more heavily involved in the political process.

Every opportunity I have with students, I push voter registration and actually voting. I don’t give lessons on how to register or how to vote, but I make the point that it is at the ballot box where these students can have the most power. I try to get them to understand that if young people want to have their agenda get the attention of candidates and elected officials, they need to start deciding the results of elections rather than leaving that up to older generations. I know from experience how quickly politicians will change if their election or reelection is at risk.

At the Staley School of Leadership Studies, we put a great deal of emphasis on civic engagement. We want our students to appreciate that in these times we need citizens who will step up and help their government by truly understanding issues and building support for positive change. Often at the local level, whether it be a school board or a city/county commission issue, if elected officials know there are citizens who understand and will support change, action becomes politically easier.

While many of our problems like climate change require action at the state, national, and international level, quality leadership at the local level is a good start. What is lacking at this point at the national level is the leadership for change by turning growing interest and collective knowledge into real action. We must have elected leaders committed to helping lead successfully on the issue of climate change. In practical terms this means much will ride on our Presidential election. However, it all starts with engagement and good leadership at the local level. We just held local elections here in Kansas, where there was an uptick in attention and turnout to local races. But this momentum must continue to grow for local elections and as we move into 2020.

How do you celebrate Constitution Day? I suspect that not only do you not celebrate, but you likely are unaware that there is a day dedicated to recognizing the adoption of the U.S. Constitution on September 17th. 

For ten years, I was the Archivist of the United States, and certainly one key responsibility I had was making sure the original Charters of Freedom—​the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights—​were protected, preserved, and as accessible as possible to the public. Early in my tenure, my staff and I concluded that we were not doing enough to adequately educate the public who came through the rotunda on the values of the Charters of Freedom. We made major changes to not only enhance the visit to the Rotunda but added educational space to further promote understanding of the Charters of Freedom, the importance of public records, and their many values to our democracy.

On September 11, 2001, the initial terrorist attacks on the Trade Center quickly led to concerns about attacks on Washington D.C. and the possibility of one target being the National Archives. That potential action could destroy the original documents that undergird our whole system of democracy. Fortunately, that did not happen, but the scenario certainly brought to me a reminder of the special value of the work of the Founders. They put together a system with three equal and powerful branches of government: the executive, legislative, and judicial. For over 200 years, this system has been the bedrock of modern democracy and has become a model for nations around the world.

In late July, as part of this year's Mandela Washington Fellowship six-week Civic Leadership Institute at K-State, I had a very good visit with a young woman from Zimbabwe who ran for public office there and plans to stay involved in public life. She made it clear that folks in her country who want a democracy like ours are now looking at us with real concern and potential doubt. For her and many others, America was the model that many developing nations used to move closer to a real democracy. Her message reminded me that our current crisis may have significant impacts far beyond our borders.

Today our system of governance is being tested daily by an administration that more and more acts if they, the executive branch and particularly the President, can dictate what will be done. Between Executive Orders and other actions that ignore the will of Congress, total disregard for the value of a quality civil service system, using the Presidency for his personal and financial gain, stoking the flames of hatred and racism toward immigrants and other minority groups, and appointing Judges whose ideology is extremely far to the right, the Trump Administration is the beginning of potentially demolishing our democracy. Ignoring legislative budget decisions as if President Trump were more like a King and looking to dictators to form close friendships causes not just me but lots of folks great concern. 

It is my hope that this September 17th, Constitution Day, many of you will raise these issues of concern. I hope that this year, it will not be just another day but a wake-up call for all Americans to understand just how much impact the 2020 elections will have on our future as a democracy. It can no longer be assumed that our system of government will survive if the current disregard for democratic norms and systems of checks and balances continues.

One of many lessons I teach students whenever the opportunity arises is the value of showing respect to anyone you seek to influence. This is particularly true in instances where you are trying to have an impact with someone who, you know in advance, vehemently disagrees with you. The reason of course is very simple. By being respectful, the conversation has potential to help get beyond your differences into learning more about your potential agreements and, ultimately, a compromise resolution to the conflict.

That is why the activism by the students of Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida (and the millions nationwide who joined them) is so impressive. I hope you had a chance to listen to some of the speakers at the D.C. rally and take note at how respectful they were of those who obviously disagree. They aren’t turning cars over or breaking laws to make their point. They are focused on the right way to truly have an impact and, so far, have put many of their adult counterparts to shame when it comes to engaging civilly without personal attacks or distractions. They are taking their case to the American people and pushing any and all who agree to make their message heard in policy-making and on election day. I hope to see their approach and their tone continue as they work to engage elected officials through town hall events and other advocacy efforts. This will have lasting implications, not only for the gun policy discussion but also for the future engagement of a generation that’s beginning to find its voice and take a more active role in shaping the world around it.

That is also why I took notice of a piece written by David Brooks of the New York Times, entitled “Trust and respect first, then compromise on gun control,” published in a recent edition of the Manhattan Mercury. I have long liked Mr. Brooks, a sound, but sane conservative from the old school, someone who is always respectful of others. In this article, he shared about a process for bringing together a mixture of far right conservatives and clear liberals, with the goal of building respect among each other. Only after that is achieved can you have any chance of working out your differences and coming to some compromise that serves the greater good.

Clearly Washington D.C. could use some help, and this seems to flow down into other levels of government and into our international relations as well. You might have noticed in representing the United States at the winter Olympics, Vice President Pence chose to totally snub the sister of the President of North Korea. Now that might at first blush seem very logical. But when you think about their growing capacity to do us serious harm, maybe a step or two of respect might have been a good investment for future successful diplomacy. But enough from me. I really want you to take time to read the Brooks article. It is most timely on a variety of fronts and if applied could make a difference in resolving, or at least taking mini steps, on some of our major challenges where there are polar differences and little or no respect for each other.

Fortunately, the task of reviving civility has received more attention in recent years (with different organizations and resources coming together), and perhaps it can gain more traction as we continue the task of strengthening our democracy for the 21st century. Each of our daily exchanges will help write the story. But the true test will be our ability to come together and solve problems—​both big and small—​today and into the future.

This Saturday evening, the Mandela Washington Fellowship for Young African Leaders here at K-State’s Staley School of Leadership Studies will be wrapping up a six-week Civic Leadership Institute. The Young African Leaders Initiative is facilitated through the U.S. State Department with the goal of helping develop the next generation of leaders in Africa. In all, there are 1,000 leaders studying at colleges and universities around the U.S. this summer who will bring their learning and newly-established networks back to their countries and continue to make change in their communities upon their return home. For the second straight year, the Staley School has had the pleasure of hosting this Fellowship. Twenty-five young but experienced Sub-Saharan African leaders, representing twenty three countries, make up the group. The time has been filled with class work and training sessions, interactions with local public, private, and nonprofit sector leaders, participation in some local civic engagement efforts, and making the most of a variety of experiences from Kansas City to Wichita. Building off our experience from last year, this year's program has not only been well-received but has proven once again to be of significant value.

As alluded to in my welcoming remarks six weeks ago, I made it clear then that the learning would go both ways, that we—​here at K-State and in Kansas—​would benefit significantly as well. That has certainly played out in real time. I was particularly struck by the candid comments from our visitors at a forum for local elected officials to share and answer questions. Just one example made clear by a young woman, Folasade Bamisaye from Nigeria, who shared during the forum that she was amazed that this country taxed feminine hygiene products. Here in this country there is little or not even discussion about this issue, much less action. So there is much that can be gained from a dialogue and exchange of ideas on the future.

Each of the Mandela Fellows is engaged across a wide array of issues, including: youth development, public health, gender equity, grassroots organizing, agricultural sustainability, and disability rights. The benefit of having six weeks is having the time to work on specific challenges they had in their leadership experiences in Africa. Naturally they all, as we do, want better ideas in general on how to lead effectively and mobilize people to address challenges. But they also focused on a couple specifics. They wanted to learn more about developing partnerships to work towards systemic change. And one piece in particular, that we all need to focus on, is the importance of utilizing volunteers more successfully.  

One of the unique aspects of this program is the one-on-one mentoring that takes place. Last year, my partner was Abdoul Salam Diallo from Guinea (pictured to the left). Our natural link was his family’s tie to milk cows, so as would be expected that put us together, but from there, our relationship grew to include more areas of discussion around his work. My partner this year is Ahmed M. Afi from Somali. Our connection is his direct interest in public service, and he has made some progress in that regard. His ambitions include being a national leader for Somalia, and given his knowledge, passion, and political savvy, I’m not going to be surprised at all if he achieves his goals. I certainly look forward to staying in communication, continuing to share lessons from my experiences, and knowing just how his plans are going.

Now, here is the not so good news. This program, along with many others, falls under the banner of “Foreign Aid” or investments in diplomacy. As you may know, these types of investments are currently under attack by the President, and it will be up to the Congress to—​as our country has historically done—​appreciate the value of investing in programs like this and other aid efforts. Stronger, well-prepared leaders for the future of Africa will help empower and mobilize citizens to address a range of issues that exist throughout the continent. Meanwhile, the ability to address community needs such as food insecurity not only helps these countries build for the future, but it’s also absolutely in our national security interest. Hungry people can easily be the target of self-serving leaders who prey on the needy to the benefit of themselves and, in the process, create an environment that is ripe for terrorist activity.
​​
It has been an absolute joy to spend time with the Mandela Fellows during these past six weeks, and most importantly, I look forward to the impacts that their leadership will make in the effort to build a healthier, happier, and more peaceful world for all.

Learn about each of the Mandela Fellows on the Staley School's blog or see more pictures on Facebook.

​One thing I’ve emphasized throughout my time teaching is the concept of learning as a “two-way street.” While I do my best to pull together interesting readings and examples to share with students, often times some of the most powerful learning comes from them to me. One such lesson, which I’ve been reflecting on a lot throughout this particular election season, happened several years ago when I had a student from Lithuania in my Practical Politics class (which I taught every spring semester for ten years). In one of the final papers assigned to the class, she shared her thinking on political candidates here in the United States. Her question for the voters was this: do you want to elect resume builders or problem solvers?

​In other words, do you want to vote for someone just angling for a higher office or someone who wants to be a part of solving the problems that exist? We need the latter, but I fear all too often we elect the former. Now, that doesn’t necessarily mean we should expect our candidates to disavow any interest in a higher office. But what it does mean is that we expect them to deal directly with the problems at hand knowing there will be political risk involved.

Along the same vein, from Steven Sample’s book The Contrarian’s Guide to Leadership, is a chapter on "to be President" or "to do President." His focus is on leaders in higher education, but the point has general merit. Like my Lithuanian student raised, is the goal in seeking office to be a state legislator in order to build a resume that could lead to higher office? Or is it to do the job, to help legislate progress, and to actually help bring the change that is obviously needed?

I’ve thought a lot about this and, for me, both my student and Steven Sample have hit on a really important point. As we look for folks to fill key positions, whether in the political arena or elsewhere, we should be clearer about who it is we are looking for and really need. Do we want someone who will be likable, play it safe, appear to be leading, and willing to "just go along" in order to set him or herself up for the next job on the way to the top? Or do we want someone who has the talent, critical thinking, and will to own up to and take on the clear challenges we have, knowing that this direction often leads to less popularity (particularly over time)?

Come November the 8th, the entire Kansas Legislature is up for election. It is our opportunity to decide whether we want resume builders, someone to just be a legislator, or do we want problem solvers, folks to do the job and do what is best for the public? I don’t think it is too hard to decide who we need. The challenges we face are real, and they're beginning to be more fully understood by the public at large. Incumbent Legislators locked in to the Governor’s agenda and endorsed by the State Chamber of Commerce, versus talented challengers ready to take on issues, make difficult decisions, build consensus, and lead—these are the choices we have. Now is the time that we identify who we want to support and help financially and by volunteering. In each race, I think you will find out who the real leaders are: they are the ones who are running for office to solve problems. Our future—the future of Kansas—come January, will be tied to whether problem solvers or resume builders control the majority in the Kansas Legislature. Each and every one of us can make a difference, and there are many problem solvers who will need your active support.

​It’s no secret that the past few years have been a trying time for education in Kansas. Though many of the recent discussions have related to the funding for education and the unwillingness from today’s Kansas Legislature to comply with the Kansas Constitution by funding our public schools fairly and adequately, the legislature has also made a targeted effort to strip educators of their employment rights. In my opinion, one of the biggest tragedies ever produced by the legislature and signed into law by the Governor was taking due process away from our teachers. Procedurally, to have done it without public hearings and time for the legislative process to have any chance to work effectively, just added salt to the wound. What makes this particularly offensive for me is that I was in the legislature and a part of the leadership that got due process passed into law in the first place. So, with a critical election approaching on November 8th, I think now is an important time to spread facts and make sure every voter enters the ballot box with an understanding of just what’s at stake if we continue on the destructive path we’ve been heading down.

First, let’s discuss the use of the term “tenure,” which deserves much of the credit, or the blame (depending on your position on the issue), for bringing us to our current circumstances. In lay language, tenure is often misunderstood to mean that if you are tenured, you can’t be fired unless you commit some egregious crime. Given that understanding, labeling something as tenure certainly paints a strong negative picture for the public to, understandably, react in outrage. Consequently, this makes it quite a handy tool in the political arena. This explains why those who would like to make sure that teachers can be fired on the spot and without cause love using the word tenure as a weapon for manipulation—one that has, unfortunately, worked to convince many legislators and voters to believe a statement that is simply not accurate.

What we passed many years ago, and what was recently repealed, was due process. In practice, we gave the hiring authority three years to evaluate their new hire (two years for a transferring teacher). Hopefully they would make a serious effort to help develop and mature the talent, but if not satisfied, they could release the teacher from his or her contract without a hearing or explanation of cause. The administration would be in total control within that time-span. But if a teacher is retained after that period, they were granted the right to a fair hearing process in the event of an employment dispute. So if, from the administration's point of view, problems evolved, there would be a process in place to decide the teacher’s fate. The hearing would be conducted by a person appointed by the teacher, a person appointed by the administration, and a third—selected by the representatives from each side—to chair. Having been that appointed third person, I speak from experience in saying that in no way is this process “tenure.”

I understand there are situations where many sane and reasonable folks get frustrated because, in their eyes, the system protected a teacher that wasn’t of the quality they expected and deserved. In most cases, I believe the explanation is quite simple. Too many school administrators, principals for example, do not want nor have the time to do the hard and responsible work of actually evaluating their teachers. This includes keeping detailed records and documenting efforts to help assist the teacher to improve. When that is not done and a teacher appeal goes to a hearing, without proper evidence, very frequently the teacher wins. For the system to work, good practices must prevail. But, rather than working with educators and administrators to improve the existing process, state lawmakers decided—without any input from the people directly involved—to throw out the system entirely and make it so that teachers can now be fired at any time, for any reason, without a hearing.

Fortunately, since the due process law was repealed, there have been several school districts that have restored this employment right for their teachers by including it in their contracts. However, for teachers in the other districts and for the greater good, there is an election in November for citizens to make their point. Our educators do some of the most important work there is, and it’s time that our state end the assault on the teaching profession and renew its commitment to educating our future.

My last post discussed a recent example of citizens using their voices to raise issues, influence public officials, and bring about change. While the methods and avenues for civic engagement are new and evolving, grassroots efforts led by citizen leaders have been an essential part of our history and will play an increasingly important role in our future.

For instance, Women’s Suffrage was not brought about because men decided in their own circles to do what was right. Strong female leaders and much hard work over many years finally led to the change. The movements for Prohibition in our history were successful because of the ground game, not elected officials rationally discussing the change.

In fact, one of my best examples came out of a class discussion a couple of years ago in my spring Practical Politics class. The movie “Lincoln” had just been released, and I was using it as an example where the strong, creative leadership of the President had made it possible for the successful passage of the Emancipation Proclamation. An African American student respectfully, but with strong feeling, begged to differ. Without taking away any credit from Lincoln, this very bright student made it clear that without civic engagement in the strongest terms, there would have been no way the President could have been successful. It was another example that reinforced what I tell my students every semester: they won’t be the only ones in the classroom who are learning.

And then, in more contemporary times, the whole Civil Rights Movement was a citizen-led success story. Dr. Martin Luther King has his own holiday because of the progress he led, but it was the masses--the large number of women and men, of color and not--who persistently took action year after year that brought about the beginning of dramatic change that continues to this day.

Change is very difficult under any and almost all situations. My upcoming post will discuss some of the challenges faced by elected officials that make citizen involvement even more important today than in past decades. Whether it be the public support necessary to pass a local ballot initiative or a nationwide movement to bring comprehensive change, the role of the citizen is going to heavily determine our future.

For ten years, I taught an undergraduate class at K-State on what I called Practical Politics. I based it upon my understanding that politics was in every aspect of life from the church, to higher education, to community activity. Therefore, everyone would benefit from knowing some basic political skills. In teaching the class, we naturally talked a lot about elective politics. A common frustration of young folks would be how unlikely they see it for any public official to change their minds, regardless of what they as individuals thought. My response was always to let them know that public officials would change, but it would take a clear and unwavering message from the people to indicate that change was wanted and that their position would be reinforced come election day.

This year, in late June in South Carolina, we saw historically one of the most dramatic examples of this take place. Following the tragic murder of nine African Americans in church at a regular Wednesday evening prayer meeting, truly amazing things took place. First, all nine families of the slain publicly forgave the killer. And almost simultaneously, the public overwhelmingly reacted in an opposition to the Confederate flag continuing to be displayed on the Capitol grounds. The link tying these two events together was the killer’s use of the flag as a symbol motivating his action. Long a divisive issue, the flag had maintained significant public support. But now, almost overnight, huge numbers signed on to the online petition for removal. Numerous businesses, including national chain stores, announced they would no longer sell the flag, and public officials who were long defenders of the flag, were calling for its removal. South Carolina Republican Governor Haley led a bipartisan group of elected officials in announcing that the flag should come down. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, now a Presidential candidate, said publicly that knowing the nine families had forgiven the killer made it impossible for him to continue his support of the flag.

It was a dramatic example of citizens individually and collectively bringing dramatic change that no one could have predicted in advance. Obviously, in this case it took an unbelievable tragedy to spark the fire that swept the state and led to public officials quickly getting in line. Other changes needed can’t and shouldn’t wait for human tragedy to ignite action. We need citizens engaging in public dialogue on issues of importance, sharing changes for consideration, and building public support for change. Done in the public interest, it can help create an environment that influences public officials’ opinions as well as making it more politically attractive for them to be supportive.

One thing I push in my teaching is the huge importance of actually learning and retaining key lessons.  I tell students that the credits they will earn completing my class, as well as all their other credits and the degree they will earn, are of absolutely little or no value—it is what one has learned that is important. And, probably even more important, is whether they understand the necessity of continuing to learn. Even decent grades as a result of cramming for tests will be of limited value if real learning is absent.

Now I do admit that their degree might check off at least one box on their first job application, and for some, that might be enough to get them hired. But I make it clear that, from then on, they’d better be able to do the job and continue learning in order to keep the job and advance in their chosen profession. The reality is, the world keeps getting smaller and more competitive each passing year. That means they had better be learners.

In my teaching, I work hard to do my small part to help get that point across with the hope that they actually take away usable lessons from class. To increase that possibility, I push oral participation, written understanding in weekly writing assignments, insertion of previous lessons in later assignments when it fits, and application of those lessons in answers to essay questions on tests. I know this doesn't guarantee the learning I’m hoping for, but I believe it has a much better chance than solely lecturing and using multiple choice tests.  

As I post this, I’m now starting my third week of the spring semester teaching my Practical Politics class in the Staley School of Leadership Studies at Kansas State University. In fact, upon completion of this semester, I will have finished ten years of teaching that followed ten years in Washington D.C. as Archivist of the United States. I share that because, for me, the value of those twenty years has been a very productive post-graduate program with no degree. What I got, and continue to get, are endless learning experiences.

Starting in D.C. working with many really bright and experienced folks, I was introduced to things like formal strategic planning, systems thinking, and change management. I had been blessed prior to then to work with some incredible talent, many very young, that gave us opportunities to successfully lead and bring about significant changes that I believe had very positive impacts on the state we served.

But it was with the opportunity to teach that it all sort of came together. In focusing on what to teach, how to teach, and making sure the students actually were learning, I learned a ton—including much directly from the students. For me, teaching is more learning than anything else and then finding the best ways to share that learning with the students that really makes the difference.