|
Is Fletcher Losing the "Global Prespective?" In his course on Leadership and Management, Dean Galvin tells an intriguing story: Some of the fiercest battles during World War II took place during the Allied liberation of Italy during 1943-44. One evening, a group of journalists were watching as young officers with no battle experience were sent to the front lines. The newspaper writers understood that nothing the young soldiers had seen or heard before could possibly prepare them for the horrors ahead. Capturing the prevailing sense of sympathy and expressing profound optimism, one reporter said: "I hope they are well-read!" Dean Galvin tells this story to illustrate the point that there is no substitute for good thinking. Specialized professional training, while useful, will only get you so far. What's needed for the long haul is a real understanding of the world based on study, reflection and experience. This breadth of knowledge, this appreciation of the complexity of the international arena, this ability to integrate different fields of thought into a coherent approach is "the global perspective" that the Fletcher School purports to embody. In light of this, the administration's unfathomable decision not to retain Professor Lord is but one disturbing indication of the wholesale gutting of the school's greatest strength: its distinguished liberal-arts tradition. There is wide variety of specialized classes at Fletcher. New classes and faculty are being added regularly, particularly in business, the environment and now humanitarian studies. The value of these areas of study is not in dispute. However, while branching into new areas, Fletcher is quietly dropping course offerings that take a broader view of international affairs and the philosophies behind them. With Professor Lord's departure, the Political Systems and Theories field will be left in tatters. It seems the school doesn't really intend to teach a coherent global perspective--only a fragmented view of the world through the narrow lens of the technician. This is at odds with what the school says about itself. On the Fletcher home page, Dean Galvin states the school's mission: "Our challenge is to prepare students for surprises, to understand the volatility of the international arena and what is necessary in that environment to bring about the kind of future we all want." We're behind this mission wholeheartedly; that's why we chose Fletcher. Yet the administration seems surprisingly unconcerned about the loss of the faculty member whose students stand the best chance of emerging from Fletcher "well-read." In addition to losing Professor Lord's classes on statecraft, Dean Galvin's departure will leave a gaping hole in Fletcher's previously formidable curriculum on leadership and statecraft. While the administration insists it is looking into addressing this problem, we have yet to receive any clear indication as to when this gap will be fixed, only that the school currently has other priorities. Apparently the irony of announcing recruitment efforts for three new professors--an expensive and laborious process--while losing a highly respected faculty member who's already at Fletcher is lost on the Cabot tower. It seems worthwhile to remind the administration that, when the strategic plan was unveiled last year, the student body was promised that Fletcher would, first and foremost, remain strong in its current areas of strength while seeking opportunities to expand into new areas. It is rather difficult to square this solemn pledge with the school's indifference to the loss of this area of study. We therefore urge Deans Galvin and Trachtman to explain to the student body what these higher priorities are and why they are worth permitting current strengths to atrophy. Comments? Write us at letter@fletcherledger.com |
