Opinion
The university's future presidents shouldn't bank on generalizations
By Carol Sanford
Co-Editor
Wanted: President for small school in quaint Central European town. Experience in
United States' (and/or UK) and Czech educational systems in a management role;
experience in fundraising in a management role; vision of education consistent with
AAU's standards; proven ability to lead people.
When I spoke with Kevin Capuder, the new interim president, on Nov. 14, he
said the above were his ideal requirements for the new AAU president, who he hopes will
be on board by September 2004. I would like to suggest that the candidate should also
have experience working in a multi-cultural setting.
"You are a typical American--narrow-minded," a British man, a Cambridge
graduate, once told me. I may have been guilty as charged, but is narrow-mindedness a
typical American trait? This man had never worked or lived with Americans.
Generalizations are a dangerous road to go down because they create the conditions that
divide us into"us" and "them."
In my many years abroad I have heard a lot of generalizations about Americans.
All of them robbed me of my individuality and missed the reality of who I am.
Generalizing makes people into objects and dehumanizes relationships.
In his article for The Chronicle of Higher Education, published in September 2003, President Joe Drew (now the chancellor), discussed his decision to resign as president
and mentioned his disappointment that "people in Prague don't seem to trust
others." Drew used one example to support this generalization -- the fact that Czechs do
not use bank checks. With all due respect to Drew, Europeans bank differently than
do Americans. In no European country are checks used the way Americans use them.
Therefore, do all Europeans not trust each other? To suggest Czech moral inferiority to
Americans because of different banking practices is not the clear sociological thinking
that Drew, as a sociologist, should have acquired. American banking developed its
peculiarities over 200 years of capitalism. European history in general and Czech history
in particular have brought different customs here.
Drew has shared his time between his family in the United States and his assignment at
AAU, so perhaps he did not have the opportunity to acquire an understanding of Czech
culture and Czechs on several levels -- as good friends as well as colleagues. There is no
question that AAU benefited under Drew's presidency despite the many difficulties he
must have encountered living a dual existence. During his tenure enrollment and the
budget increased, AAU became more visible to the public and the institution moved
toward validation of the legal-studies program through a Welsh university. These are all
commendable steps.
However, it is essential that the next AAU president have a better appreciation of the
complexity of Czech culture. Czechs are changing rapidly to catch up with the EU and
what you see today is not necessarily what you will see tomorrow. AAU's new president
should understand where the Czechs are coming from and where they are going and their
larger role as Europeans. This knowledge is basic if AAU is to move forward and grow
as an educational institution whose graduates will flourish in the new European
community they will enter on May 1, 2004.
-- Carol Sanford can be reached at Ridford@terminal.cz. Her husband, Peter Ridder, is a member of the School of Business Administration faculty.
|
Last issue date: Dec. 12, 2003
