Remarks to Members of the State Board of Higher Education

Gary Tiedeman, President Interinstitutional Faculty Senate
July 21, 2000
I had thought about deferring my remarks today for the sake of time, but I don't get many opportunities to tease you with provocative ideas, so I want to take advantage of every one of them. There has been no IFS meeting since my last report, so, once again, it is personal circumstances that have led me to a topic. During the past month, I have agreed to return to the chairmanship of my academic department, which means leaving a position that has involved a great deal of distance education activity, much of it in the Bend area. And, lately, I have been part of an OSU group examining the idea of a branch campus in Central Oregon. In that capacity, I have had occasion to inform others that our existing distance students in Central Oregon, notwithstanding the obvious advantages of access to Web courses, satellite-delivered courses, and videotaped courses, have generally always indicated a preference for the live, person-to-person courses we have traveled instructors over the mountains to deliver. It is this same sort of preference that has blossomed into the recent quest for a four-year branch campus.

All of this comes together in illustration of the central tenet of an exciting new book called Bowling Alone. If you have not yet been exposed to it, I can almost guarantee you that you will be. In this book, fellow social scientist Robert Putnam makes a compelling, fact-filled case for the argument that there has been a "collapse of community" in the United States. The book's title derives from the observation that we don't see as many bowling alleys around as we used to. The reason turns out to be that bowling alleys existed on the strength of league play (much as movie theaters exist on the strength of concession sales), and after-work bowling leagues have essentially gone the way of the dinosaur. Since 1980, the number of bowlers in America has increased by 10 percent while league bowling has decreased by over 40 percent. Hence, "bowling alone."

The book's central concept is "social capital," a conceptual cousin to the idea of community. Social capital "refers to connections among individuals - social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them," something very close to what we think of as "civic virtue."

Now computers obviously aren't entirely bad things. And social capital can have its sinister side, as where Putnam points out that it was a network of tightly bound friends that led Timothy McVeigh to bomb the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Nor do I wish to argue for a moment against high-tech delivery of educational opportunities to remote, place-bound students. But I expect you can see where I'm going here. Oftentimes faculty and board members alike lend their support to some endeavor for sound, honorable reasons without being aware of long-term implications. Taking a course via computer yields credit hours, but little in the way of social capital, even with chat rooms and the like incorporated. And it may well intensify social isolation, or what Putnam calls "cocooning," almost by definition. (As T. S. Eliot described television decades ago in its infancy, "It is a medium which permits millions of people to listen to the same joke at the same time, and yet remain lonesome.") In this context, a branch campus for Central Oregon, because it promises to better build social capital, is a very good idea.

I have a colleague who predicts that the residential campus will disappear within the next few decades, to be replaced entirely by electronic education. I have counter argued that the residential campus will always have a place and that we should strive to see that it does. Community, social ties, and social reciprocity are valuable commodities. Bowling alone has its place, but is far less enriching.

Thank you for listening politely to this little discourse. It may appear that my last several months away from the classroom have me yearning for a captive audience of students and that I have forced you to serve that selfish purpose. I suppose that may actually be the case, subconsciously, but my conscious goal has been the innocent, well-intentioned one of sharing what strikes me as an intriguing set of ideas as applied to our common purpose. As we continue to search for expanded and improved modes of higher education, I hope we can all think more multi dimensionally. The consideration of "social capital" is an overlay to my perpetual harangue about there being far more to college education than just skills-training in preparation for employment. In that connection, I appreciate the cautionary remarks by several board members today regarding the possible negative effects of a major engineering investment upon the remainder of the higher education system. I feel certain that many other OUS programs rank 70th or worse, and I would hate to see them drop still further for the sake of engineering's improvement - - even though I did begin college as an engineering major on a music scholarship before becoming a sociologist. In any case, I think what we should seek to educate is well-informed citizens who recognize one another respectfully as fellow citizens and who lead lives endowed with riches beyond the financial and possessions beyond the commercial. Now, let's go bowling - - together!

Gary H. Tiedeman Professor and Chair Department of Sociology Fairbanks 306 Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331-3703 541-737-5383 FAX: 737-5372 E-mail:GTiedeman@orst.edu

Web page spun on 25 October 2000 by Peter B Gilkey 202 Deady Hall, Department of Mathematics at the University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1222, U.S.A. Phone 1-541-346-4717 Email:peter.gilkey.cc.67@aya.yale.edu of Deady Spider Enterprises .