For many years, it has been widely accepted that the “American Dream” is to find a good job, get married, raise a family and own a home. Even with some variation in recent years with more frequent career changes and fewer marriages, this “American Dream” continued to be the prevalent goal for most of our graduates. But according to John Zogby, this may be changing in a significant way for young people in their 20’s and early 30’s.
John Zogby is an internationally known political pollster who appears regularly on many cable news shows and publishes articles and newsletters on a variety of topics. He may be best known for his accurate predictions of recent presidential races and state gubernatorial contests.
Zogby contends that the “American Dream” has changed and that the current generation can best be described as the “first globals.” He summarized it this way, “Two out of three of them have passports. They are well-traveled; technologically they have networks that include people all over the world. They have a desire to be nimble, to go anywhere and to be anywhere. They also have a desire to change their world and feel like they're in a position to do that."
He points to several indicators of this evolution based on national data and his own opinion polls. For example, in the early 1990’s there were fewer than 100,000 American college students studying abroad. Just two years ago, the International Institute of Education reported that that number had tripled to just under 300,000. There is every indication that study abroad programs will continue to grow every year as more students seek international experiences for study, work opportunities and cultural awareness.
Zogby also cites the impact of technology and social media. The world has become more accessible and young people live in communities that are increasingly diverse and international.
Where the historic “American Dream” was tied to a smaller community of family and friends, the Internet and online resources now connect people around the world who share common interests regardless of geography or history.
But beyond this global reality, Zogby believes that there are also significant shifts in the values of younger Americans. More young people are less concerned about getting married and more comfortable in either a long-term relationship or delaying marriage and children until later in life. More young people are personally satisfied living the single life. In addition, Zogby contends that, “The permanence of owning things doesn't exist. The permanence of living somewhere doesn't exist. The permanence of getting a job and holding on to that job for the next 40 years doesn't exist."
According to Zogby, another characteristic of the “first globals” is an increased focus on public service and a greater commitment to making a difference in the world. This viewpoint is not simply about service and volunteerism. Based on Zogby’s research, it generates from a clearer understanding that what happens in other parts of the world may have an impact on all of us. We are all impacted by economic and social issues in parts of the world we may never visit and could barely locate on the map. Of course, we may have Facebook “friends” in these countries or be linked through technology because we share an interest or a value.
I am not convinced that Zogby is right … or at least that he describes a majority of young people. While I fully agree in the impact of technology and the evolution of values and practices related to marriage and children, there are still many young people who are focused on their careers and financial success.
Zogby’s assessment is interesting to consider in light of what I shared last week from David Brooks. Perhaps the real answer lies somewhere in the middle. Better said, this generation of young people may be more varied and diverse in their views and aspirations. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that there are many American dreams! What do you think?
(Your comments and ideas are always welcome.)
Several weeks ago, I read a column by David Brooks. In addition to his essays and books, Brooks writes a regular column for the NY Times in which he typically comments on politics culture, and society. While I often disagree with his analysis, he is a good writer and frequently provides thoughtful, provocative and interesting perspectives.
The column entitled “The Service Patch” focused on the false contrast between choosing a career in an area like investment banking vs. a career in a non-profit agency. Brooks contends that too many recent college graduates, especially those with the best credentials, see a point of tension between pursuing job opportunities in high paying and high prestige companies and working in less lucrative positions in areas that address global problems and human needs.
What was of most interest to me, however, was Brooks’ contention that for too many people, “… community service has become a patch for morality.” Brooks argues that the career path you choose is less important than the type of person you are. And in fact, good people work for hedge funds and immoral people work to save the world. As Brooks states, “…you can devote your life to community service and be a total schmuck. You can spend your life on Wall Street and be a hero.”
Brooks also makes the point that many young people do not understand the true meaning of virtue, character and excellence. They are not able to do a “moral evaluation” in their own lives and the lives of others. Therefore, community service is viewed as a synonym for being a good person. As he writes about this generation, “…if you are doing the sort of work that Bono celebrates then you must be a good person.”
At colleges like Anna Maria, community service is a major area of focus. We see our mission as centered on the balance between providing a quality educational experience (that leads to a fulfilling profession and career), and developing a commitment to serving the Common Good (that leads to a life of exemplary citizenship).
But Brooks’ column raises two interesting questions. Do students perform community service because they believe it demonstrates that they are good people? Are community service activities viewed as part of a check list to be added to a resume or simply as a person’s “resource allocation?" The answers to these questions are neither simple nor the same for every student.
Clearly, community service is viewed as a good thing. Students active in service initiatives are recognized and praised publicly for their efforts. And aside from the person performing the service, these efforts are inherently good for the community. Our students who work as tutors in schools, clean up parks, serve people in soup kitchens, and renovate homes in depressed neighborhoods are providing clear and meaningful value to the community. The recipients of community service (social service agencies and individuals in need) benefit greatly.
But what motivates our students? Is it an inherent commitment to service and helping our neighbors? Or is it a more calculated strategy to build a reputation or develop a profile for future employment? At Anna Maria with so many students pursuing careers in nursing, social work, teaching, public safety, etc., it would seem safe to assume that helping others is a prime motivation. Helping others is what these students and graduates will do for their entire lives. Service is both their avocation and their vocation.
But Brooks’ deeper question is whether or not service correlates with morality? Does community service define virtue, morality and ethics? Warren Bennis, the noted scholar and researcher, made famous the statement, “Leaders are people who do the right thing; managers are people who do things right.” Are more of our students leaders or managers? Are more of our students heroes or schmucks?
(Your comments and ideas are always welcome.)
New Leadership Alliance for Student Learning and Accountability leads
A week ago on July 2, 2012, Fr. John E. Brooks, S.J. died at the age of 88. Fr. Brooks served as the President of Holy Cross from 1970 to 1994. Until the day he died, he continued to serve Holy Cross as President Emeritus and Loyola Professor of the Humanities in the Religious Studies Department. He was active as a professor, a fundraiser and a community leader. Recently, the publication of the book, Fraternity, documented his significant leadership role in the civil rights movement.
Fr. Brooks was a legend in Worcester and beyond. Everyone knew him. Everyone respected him. Everyone admired his intellect, his insight and his wit. Even though his health grew frail in the past years, we somehow believed that he would live forever. I guess this was because we so wanted him to always be there as a friend and as a guide. He was generous with his time, his experience and his knowledge. Words cannot describe how much I will miss him.
Fr. Brooks had a close association with Anna Maria College. He served as a Trustee from 1998 – 2010. After completing his fourth term, he agreed to continue to serve the College as a member of a Board Committee. Anna Maria College is fortunate to have many outstanding trustees. But Fr. Brooks was special.
First, his willingness to serve on the Board provided the College with a high degree of credibility. With Fr. Brooks as a Trustee, it was easier to recruit other community leaders to join him on the Board. But his service to the College was not gratuitous.
He came to every meeting fully prepared and ready to share his views. He understood that Anna Maria was like the Holy Cross he inherited when appointed President in 1970. He had led the transformation of Holy Cross into the nationally recognized college that we all know today. He wanted the same for Anna Maria.
It was always fascinating to watch his behavior at meetings. While no one else knew as much about higher education as Fr. Brooks, he would sit quietly, listening to other Trustees express their thoughts, ideas and opinions. After the discussion had gone on for a while, Fr. Brooks would speak …and everyone would listen. In almost every case, his ideas and recommendations were clear, compelling and readily accepted by the group. He was well respected and always trusted to do what was best for AMC.
I first met Fr. Brooks in the last years of his presidency when my son was a student at Holy Cross. Our conversation was brief and centered on the fact that we were both from West Roxbury. What I always remembered about him was his genuine friendliness, his wry sense of humor and his smile. Even though we only spoke for a few minutes, he made me feel important.
When I interviewed for the presidency at Anna Maria, Fr. Brooks and I had a long conversation. He was instrumental in convincing me that AMC was capable of great things and that I could be an effective leader. He promised to help me if I needed him. That meant a great deal to me. And I called on him for his help repeatedly.
Over the past five years, Fr. Brooks has done so much to support me and AMC. He helped me to get to know the Worcester community. He advised me how to move forward with challenging issues. He supported me when leadership was difficult. He was a great mentor and friend.
I have had the honor in my life to know many good people … people of faith … people of value … people of service. But Fr. Brooks was a great man. In the coming years he will continue to be memorialized for all that he was to Holy Cross. His passionate commitment to integration and justice will be lauded. For me, he will most be remembered as the quintessential role model of a Catholic college president. I will continue to learn from his life and his legacy. Fr. Brooks … pray for us!
(As always your comments and questions are welcome.)
Last week I read a report summarizing a recent survey entitled, “Confidence in Institutions.” Conducted by Gallup since 1973, the survey asks Americans to share their level of confidence in a number of institutions in the United States. This most recent survey was conducted in early June by telephone with over 1000 respondents from across the country. The headline of the article was, “Confidence … at a New Low.”
According to these data, confidence is at a record low for public schools (only 29% express a high degree of confidence), church or organized religion (44%), banks (21%), and television news (21%). But while these were new records, there was an overwhelming lack of confidence in most institutions.
Ranking last in confidence for the third year in a row was Congress (13%). It is interesting to note that in 2010, Congress measured only an 11% confidence rating and this was the lowest measure ever for any institution. More on this in a minute.
But low levels of confidence were expressed for many institutions:
- HMOs – 19%
- Big Business – 21%
- Banks – 21%
- Organized Labor – 21%
- Television news – 21%
- Newspapers – 25%
- The Criminal Justice System – 29%
- Public Schools – 29%
In fact, the only three institutions with high degrees of confidence greater than half of the respondents were:
- The Military – 75%
- Small Business – 63%
- The Police – 56%
No institution has seen any significant increase in its confidence rating. Those rated the highest, for example, have simply maintained their previous confidence levels. The most dramatic declines in confidence have related to banks, organized religion, public schools, Congress and television news.
Lest anyone think that higher education is immune from this confidence gap, other surveys show overall confidence in higher education to be at about 50%, although significantly higher for those with a college degree (closer to 80%).
This report is not a surprise and reflects the general degree of dissatisfaction in this country. Every day we read reports about declining degrees of optimism about the economy and world events. With so much controversy and scandal with many of these institutions, it is understandable that confidence levels are low.
But the question for me is … what do we do about this? And apparently, the answer is … very little! While I have yet to find anything other than anecdotal evidence about many of these institutions, it seems clear that lack of confidence does not lead to change. And the best example of this that is irrefutable may be Congress.
Despite the extraordinary low levels of confidence in Congress, we continue to re-elect members to the House and the Senate. Since 1964, the lowest percentage of re-elected House members was 85%. In most elections, the percentage is at or above 90%. Senate re-elections have been more volatile (as low as 55% in 1980), but typically 80% or more.
If our confidence is so low, why do we re-elect the same people? The research says it is based on familiarity (name recognition) and money (advertising). But do we change our bank or financial services? Do we read a different newspaper or just stop paying attention to the news (in print and on TV)? Do we choose a different school or a private school?
Vince Lombardi once said, “Confidence is contagious. So is lack of confidence.” We have the ability to change our institutions. But it will take more than rhetoric. Maybe it’s just easier to complain.
(Your comments and ideas are always welcome.)
Most historians agree that the Second Vatican Council marked an important time in world history. The Council provided a new direction in the Catholic Church, connecting the Church to the world and contemporary issues of society. Whether Catholic or not, religious or not, Vatican II helped define the social responsibility we all share in service to the Common Good. And fifty years later, the Council provides important lessons at a time when mutual respect, understanding and civility are less evident in all walks of life.
Last week I shared the first important lesson that can be drawn from Vatican II … the value of dialogue. While I am a great believer in the usefulness of most technology, the impersonal nature of e-mail and texting has replaced conversation. And I am not sure why we think there is a value in limiting ideas to 140 characters on a Twitter account. Dialogue typically requires face to face interaction, the sharing of thoughts, ideas, feelings and perspectives. Dialogue leads to relationships. Dialogue leads to understanding. Dialogue is open and welcoming. How did 2500 bishops reach the conclusions that led to the Vatican II documents? They talked to each other. They listened to each other. They agreed and they agreed to disagree in a spirit of mutual respect. They welcomed and embraced dialogue.
In his essay entitled, “Conversation Starters: Dialogue and Deliberation During Vatican II” (America, February 13, 2012), Richard Gaillardetz, the Joseph McCarthy Professor of Catholic Systematic Theology at Boston College, suggests that there are two additional important “dynamics” that are instructive. One he defines as “humble learning.” This lesson teaches us that no one has a monopoly on truth and knowledge. A bishop doesn’t become an expert upon ordination; a politician doesn’t become an expert upon election; and a CEO doesn’t become an expert upon appointment (not even a college president!).
According to Gaillardetz, and I fully agree, we must all become students and be open to lifelong learning. One of the most surprising and remarkable things that occurred in Vatican II was the willingness of so many world leaders to listen to others and understand that they needed to learn from colleagues who were more knowledgeable and more experienced. But even more, the bishops at Vatican II demonstrated an openness to learning not only from each other, but also from both the theologians and observers who were in attendance.
And this openness to learning required a demonstration of humility. Gaillardetz states it clearly when he writes about Christianity, “Christ, our teacher, showed impatience only toward those who were arrogant in their certitude.” Humility is neither a sign of weakness nor a lack of confidence. Rather it is a recognition of the value of others, an openness to learning and a respect for the opinions and ideas of others. This sentiment can be found in the Hebrew Scriptures (Micah 6:8: “…what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?”) and in the writings of every religious tradition and ethical text. Justice, kindness and humility … wouldn’t that be an interesting paradigm for leadership.
The final lesson we can learn from Vatican II is inclusivity. In his essay, Gaillardetz discusses the value of “openness to the world.” He argues that Vatican II in general, and Pope John XXIII who oversaw the Council in specific, understood the value of “respectful yet critical engagement with the world.” While I think this is a critical lesson for the various religious organizations of the current times, it may be too limiting a perspective as we consider business, industry, government, etc.
To me the best way to translate this concept for broader applicability is to describe it in terms of the value of an inclusive approach. It seems to me that the dialogue is richer, more learning takes place, and the decisions are better with more voices not fewer. The lessons from Vatican II are more dialogue not less, a humble awareness that we can all learn more, and that divergent and varied views and perspectives can only help.
Too often when we look at political campaigns, Wall Street and our religious and civic leaders, we wonder why they act the way they do. We wonder why respectful disagreement looks more like disagreeable behavior. We wonder why difference of opinion seems to include ad hominem attacks. History can teach us important lessons. If we look back 50 years, we can learn a great deal from the process of the Second Vatican Council. And, you know, it wouldn’t hurt to re-read the documents, too!
(Your comments and ideas are always welcome.)
