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.