In this two part blog series, I am exploring a spate of recent reports that indicate academic misconduct  is more prevalent among international students.  Part I focuses on the definition of misconduct and summarizes the main points presented in these recent publications.  Part II more directly addresses the implications of these claims and examines what, if any, role the IAU might play in mediating these concerns.  

Earlier this week I became engaged in a conversation with two of my peers about academic ego.  Our chat was brief, but it stuck with me as I moved through the rest of my day.  This idea of an academic ego quickly became intertwined with my personal views on ego.  Without going into great detail concerning the Buddhist teachings on ego, I hope it will suffice to say that ego is tied to desire and these two concepts feed off each other to create unhappiness.  My greatest challenge everyday is the attempt to let go of the habits of desire that only serve to make the ego stronger.  My life path has led me to believe that letting go of ego is a fundamental step in the journey to finding peace.  

That makes the idea of the academic ego, and the potential need for one, even more difficult for me to process.  I struggle with the belief that building an academic ego will take me further away from my personal happiness and the fear that not developing one will hinder my career prospects.  Reputation is everything in academics - it is what opens the door to opportunities - and reputation is built through the way you are viewed by your peers.  

What is the connection between reputation and ego?  

"From a Buddhist point of view, the ego is something made up by the mind. It’s the sense of self — a flash of “I” or “me” that we believe in and cling to. It’s the basis of our feeling of self-importance. It’s a story, a myth of self that we keep telling ourselves." (elephant journal)

In essence, our academic ego is a story that we tell others about ourselves and that they, in turn, repeat back to us; elaborating on it over time.  Certainly we can put ourselves out there as the true individuals we are, but will that elicit the "respect" needed to build a reputation?  Teresa Amibile conducted some research that indicates people assign qualities of intelligence, competence, and intellectual prowess to those who use a negative tone when critiquing the word of others.  Certainly this leads them to be viewed as less favorable individuals, but the same attitude or tone has the power to elevate their reputation as experts in their field.  
We have all seen that professor at a conference who tears apart a student's (or colleague's) work to showcase their own, perhaps more thorough, knowledge of the material.  It's almost a form of peacocking where they attempt to put themselves at the center of attention.  Sure, we all privately comment about how rude or cruel they were, but there is evidence indicating we may assign more power to the individual who conducts themselves in this manner.  When no one calls them out on this this type of behavior, it becomes normalized, begins to appear in other venues, and eventually is transmitted to students as part of the package of academia.  

Are they doing it on purpose?  Likely not.  It's a learned behavior.  If we want attention, we become highly aware of the language we use.  If we want to make a strong statement about who we are or what we believe, we tend to use stronger words.  A desire to avoid confrontation, especially publicly, prevents people from calling others out on their use of aggressive (or micro-aggressive) actions.  This lack of action serves as a reinforcement.  

Are all academics like this?  Of course not.  Many have found a way to circumnavigate this profession and interact with others in a positive manner.  Yet - it would be difficult for any of them to claim that they have no academic ego.  It is a part of this profession.  We are encouraged to self-promote.  "Show them who you are."  "Put your best foot forward."  "Tell them why you are the ideal candidate."  We must find a way to make ourselves stand out for that job opening, that grant application, that committee.  We must be our own advocates.  All wonderful and necessary advice for the culture in which we exist.  

I'm sure for many people the balance comes easily.  It is perfectly reasonable to take pride in our accomplishments and to have confidence in our abilities.  For others, such as myself, the struggle can be very real.  I love the feelings that come with success, with making progress, with receiving recognition.  Yet there remains this conscious concern about my personal commitment to not becoming attached to the desire to repeatedly experience those emotions.  Until I can find a way to merge who I am as an individual with who I am as a professional, I am choosing to side-step the issue of developing my academic ego.  

What is the priority of a higher education institution?  To deliver on its mission and promise to students or to improve its credit rating?  Certainly an institutions ability to make good on its debts is incredibly important, but not by taking money from students, cutting jobs, alienating staff, and economically threatening faculty.  

University presidents are certainly faced with tough decisions and each of them walk in facing a plethora of existing problems.  LIU's president, Kimberly Cline, was faced with the challenge of handling a credit rating that was close to reaching junk status.  Her reaction, however, is largely viewed as an attempt to "corporatize and monetize the university."  Just after her appointment, hundreds of administrative support positions were vacated or laid-off.  Now her focus is on faculty.  Negotiations with the Long island University Faculty Federation and four other Unions, including secretarial, carpenters, engineers and maintenance, as well as janitorial are all going downhill.  When the administration presented its last offer - before the membership even had an opportunity to vote on it - they also informed them that the faculty would be locked out in anticipation of a strike.  The school immediately "cut healthcare, salary, and access to email and students."  

Where qualified faculty once stood, students will now find administrators in some of those positions.  The school's chief legal counsel will be instructing Hatha Yoga and one of the deans, in his late 70s, may be taking over ballet classes.  Students are rightfully up in arms about forking over huge tuition prices for what amounts to an absurd facsimile of the education they were promised.  Their concerns and complaints are more than valid.  I have the deepest sympathies for those graduate students who are no longer allowed to work with the advisers they have come to know and trust.  I can only imagine the impact this might have on their scholarly career paths.  

More importantly, what does this say about the future of higher education?  This reeks of an abuse of power by an administrator(s) who believe the bottom line rests in a financial statement rather than with the quality of education provided.  This lockout is most likely a move to push tenured faculty out and eventually replace them with newer professors working on the lower end of the pay scale and with less bargaining power.  We need the AAUP and AFT to take stronger action towards supporting collective bargaining. The real test will be to see how this affects accreditation - it probably won't in the long run, but withholding that stamp of approval until the school is staffed with fully qualified faculty could go a long way towards making a statement about what standards higher education is most meant to promote.  

Mission statements are meant to clearly and concisely declare the core values of an institution, along with projecting its aims for success.  Look at a cross section of statements and you are bound to find overlap in buzz words such as innovation, technology, diversity, growth, and life long learning.  While a multitude of resources exist to assist the powers that be in constructing these statement, the more imperative question should be "are these institutions going beyond writing mission statements and actually using them as a litmus test for decision making?"  These statements, whether brief or detailed, should serve as a guide for making decisions about programs, activities, and the use of resources.  Ultimately, a mission statement should be a constant reminder to administrators, faculty, students, parents, and community members about the purpose of the institution.  It is one thing to say you stand for something - it is another to show you stand for it.  

I want to see institutions write mission statements that are honest, heartfelt, and not filled with meaningless jargon.  I want to read a mission statement and be inspired to become a member of that community, to live my life in a way that honors it, and use is as a guide for my own academic decisions.  Now that right there might just be Mission Impossible.