The Student Affairs Collective "FIRE-ing" the Canon? Are the foundations of our profession being assaulted, or are we the "barbarians at the gate?" - The Student Affairs Collective
logo



“FIRE-ing” the Canon? Are the foundations of our profession being assaulted, or are we the “barbarians at the gate?”

16 Apr 2009
by Sean Cook
Pin It

Though there has been an evolution of thought and significant changes in approaches over the years, the guiding principles outlined for the Student Affairs profession have always leaned heavily on the idea that learning happens both inside and outside the classroom, and that learning and development are inseparable from each other. Student affairs practitioners, therefore, have a responsibility, as educators, to provide meaningful opportunities for learning and development.
 
Learning Reconsidered expands on this, and argues that "Every resource on every campus should be used to achieve transformative liberal education for all students, and all colleges and universities are accountable for establishing and assessing specific student outcomes that reflect this integrated view of learning."
 
Sounds great, doesn't it?
 
But just like the idea that "it takes a village to raise a child," an idea that might warm the heart of some sends chills down the spine of others. One person's "Kum By Ya," and hand-holding around the campfire, is to another the battle cry of barbarians at the gate, set on knocking down the pillars of the academy and toasting smores over the smoldering ashes of the library's special collections.
 
Figuring out what "specific outcomes" would be appropriate seems to be the main front in this war between traditionalists (who believe that learning is the exclusive realm of academic affairs) and those who feel that learning needs to be reconsidered (us). It's like putting two economists from different schools of thought in a room together and asking them to explain the state of the economy and its future direction. The conversation will be long, circular, at times acrimonious, and though full of points and counterpoints, likely resulting in nothing resembling consensus. Both sides will likely declare at least a moral victory in having made their points, and the onlookers will still be confused and dazed.
 
It's no surprise, then, that some institutional efforts to define particular learning outcomes have been criticized, even vilified, and held up to intense public scrutiny. If you haven't heard of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), chances are, you will.


FIRE's mission statement seems a clarion call to those who cling tightly to more traditionalist views of academia, against what they seem to perceive as mass indoctrination of students by politically motivated and left-leaning pseudo-academics. You can learn more about FIRE and some of their projects at their website. If you haven't read up on them, you really should.

As a profession, how should Student Affairs respond to these challenges? How can we develop outcomes that will be both generally accepted, and practical to implement? Is the "outcomes" movement tantamount to a warning shot against all the academy holds sacred, or just a loud declaration of relevance from those of us who have resided so long in the outer provinces? Are we destroying the academic canon, or are organizations like FIRE burning the library and blaming us for the smoke? Who are the barbarians? And who's really guarding the gates?


Get Our
STUDENT AFFAIRS
Weekly Newsletter

In Your Inbox

(join over 3,100 SAPros)

STUDENT AFFAIRS

COLLECTIVE

In Your Inbox

(Join over 3,100 SAPros)

Join Us Online

 

Facebook PageTwitter PageLinkedIn

Get Involved

Writing Team

“SAC

Popular Categories

Copyright © 2005-2016 Student Affairs Collective | Contact Us