How to Fail

Statement regarding the devastating fires in Los Angeles 

First: Thank you to those who are just feeling empathy and trying to help. 

This January, after a year of climate driven disasters all over the world, we watched Los Angeles burn. Out-of-season Santa Ana winds blew at hurricane force through a region parched from lack of rain. The normal year starts with a rainy season beginning in November. The rain has not arrived. The winds, as of this writing, continue to blow from the interior and the fire danger is not over. 

However:

There have been some really terrible things said on social media and by politicians who really should just keep their mouths shut. 

The area around Los Angeles may have celebrities living in it, but Los Angeles and neighboring Altadena are big cities with people of all walks of life and socio-economic classes. It is the third largest city on this continent after Mexico City and New York. Hollywood film business is only a part of the picture. 

Media chases fame, so yes, the mics are in the faces of the famous residents of Pacific Palisades. However! Everyone is equally affected. These are famous places because you see them in film. You may think you even know Topanga Canyon or Malibu State Beach or the Pacific Highway communities because they are such famous places. It’s easy to point fingers and make fun of people you think are “rich” (you would be amazed at the tiny number that actually fulfills that fantasy). And, yes, some of them are wealthy, successful people, but that’s just not the whole story. We here in Northern California are horrified and saddened by the irretrievable losses by our southern neighbors, including one of the few sanctuary places for the remaining wild puma and lynx populations. We are even more horrified by the statements being made by the people we thought were compassionate fellow country men, women and other genders. Especially considering that is all of us here … including those celebrities … who are usually among the very first to jump up with open check books whenever disaster strikes somewhere else in this country. California bashing seems to be a national pastime, but real people live here. We love our home and are heartbroken beyond measure by the unprecedented environmental conditions that create these wildfires. 

The world is burning, not only western N. America, but Australia, the Mediterranean countries, Siberia and the boreal forests of Canada and the Arctic. The Los Angeles fires should be a clarion wake up call to everyone.

The need for design thinking in small “at a distance” programs …

(written in 2013 for the Saybrook Alumni Newsletter- revised for this issue) 

I wrote this editorial several years ago and find that it is still relevant to potential faculty in the field of teaching in spiritually oriented programs. I am, therefore, revising it for this issue with modifications and re-editing. 

Over the past two decades, I have been asked to teach basic psychology and systems design courses at four different “start-up” at-a-distance graduate programs. I have been asked to do this through professional contacts either through my graduate school or through other organizations that I have affiliations for. Each time, the referral came through a trusted colleague, and that trust became the final portion of the agreement to accept the offer. (Save one in 2012, which I turned down flat out, and has no bearing on this conversation as it was a for-profit program.)  

In the spiritual “higher-ed” world, particularly as it attempts to cater to the needs of minority faith and indigenous peoples for training in pastoral needs, this issue remains relevant.  In the past two decades various independent, small graduate programs have appeared at the Master’s degree level looking to fill a perceived need within this population of scholars to staff, and to enroll as students, in programs offering “Goddess-oriented” and “Earth-centered” spirituality programs. Often attached to liberal seminaries and the smaller private, nonprofit, graduate programs that specialize in transpersonal psychology, these programs are also – very often – underfunded and understaffed. It will reward the potential student or faculty seeking these programs to undertake – first and foremost – a program of research about both the program in question, and the current models of successful at-a-distance learning in higher ed. before approaching these programs as anything like serious attempts at collegiate learning.

All these programs suffered – categorically – from a model of distance learning that is both incomplete, and, in the long run, self-defeating. While many of these conditions also exist for campus-based “brick & mortar” programs, they seem particularly relevant to discuss as the popularity of distance-learning models are adopted by small start-up programs and smaller departments in large universities as a means to cut costs. In brief, each program:

• offered payment to faculty that is so far below the accepted standard (even for adjunct teaching) that it is under the category of “volunteer work” for most qualified faculty.
• so few students are enrolled in the program that no guarantee of enrollment in the course is offered, nor is the payment equal to the hours of prep work or actual student-faculty interactions. Save for a tiny portion of professionals, this is neither cost nor time-effective.
• non-accreditation.  This may be problematic for start-up programs attached to a larger research-oriented institution or for those who have developed a good reputation, for others it becomes a “minus” on the CV regarding future positions and research granting bodies. (It is certainly trouble for students enrolled who hope to continue in higher ed as a career or in doctoral and post-doc programs.)
• little or no faculty support (no development or “in suit” training offered, no clerical support, no coverage of copyrighted material usage fees, etc.)
• the program offered no ombudsman nor any other method of resolving conflicts or disputes.
• a non-collegial – and, in one instance, hostile – working environment.
• and, finally, (and most importantly) an incomplete model of distance learning that is – increasingly – reliant on unproven or cumbersome technological solutions as a substitution for face-to-face class time.

This last item, coupled with technical personnel who display that certain “techie arrogance” which creates failure within programs in all sectors of business and education in both visible and invisible ways. 

In one psychology program I agreed to teach a course in (reluctantly, it must be admitted here: a “once burned twice shy” situation) the model had very little visible basis in design thinking, and resulting in a mid-term resignation because the “classroom time” solution provided by the institute did little more than get in the way of the actual teaching and left myself as well as at least one student nearly to tears in frustration in attempting to find “work a rounds” with no actual assistance from the program’s developers or technical staff. When I found myself asked to find and pay for a solution on my own – and, did so, out of pocket – the final decision was to cancel the course without further discussion. This situation became so badly addressed on every level, that seeing no recourse, and no alternatives with positive outcomes on any level, I immediately resigned.

This was not the worst of the programs, the first institution who contacted me then asked me to “fill in” with a needed psychology class sent a syllabus that had no freedom for interpretation whatever, did not provide any prep time, and when the contract was sent finally, (after months of waiting) assigned no students to the course: faculty are, apparently, part of the “recruiting” mechanism for obtaining student enrollment in the program! This method of recruitment is – although questionable at best – not unheard of and one that all potential faculty should thoroughly research before agreeing to anything. (Needless to say, I did not sign the contract.)

From a Human Systems perspective, all of these issues can (and should) be addressed from a design perspective. The people creating these programs are, very often, well-meaning, educated, and – to a fault – passionately working, even sacrificing personal life and professional goals, to create programs that are both academically interesting and meeting a perceived need.  The failure point, in each case, has been in the distance-learning and recruitment model used by the program. Until that is addressed, each of these programs will continue to struggle for acceptance. They will also continue to fail to find an adequate financial foundation to work from and loosely qualified faculty. All of this compromises student success in the world-beyond-graduate-school.

March, 2025.