An Empirical Study on Follow-up Library Instruction Sessions in the Classroom

Xiaomei Gong and Mary Kay Loomis of Western Connecticut State University have written a nice article titled An Empirical Study on Follow-up Library Instruction Sessions in the Classroom. It was published in the Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship.

From the abstract:

This study with undergraduate students in the Ancell School of Business, Western Connecticut State University, evaluated the knowledge of students using library resources before and after one session of library instruction in the library, and after follow-up instruction in the classroom. Survey method was used before and after the initial session of library instruction in the library, and after follow-up instruction session in the classroom. Significant differences were found in the students’ knowledge of library resources between the pre- and post- surveys in the library session and in the library usage experience after the follow-up instruction session in the classroom. The study also enhanced librarians’ techniques for teaching the millennial generation to effectively use library resources.

Not Enough Time in the Library

Todd Gilman (librarian for literature in English at Yale University's Sterling Memorial Library) has written a good essay which speaks to higher education faculty about the need for library instruction. It is up at the Chronicle of Higher Education site and should be widely read as a result. The article is titled Not Enough Time in the Library.

From the article:

Academic librarians are eager to offer sessions for students on what we call "research education." But the mistaken assumption that students don't need it means that many professors don't ask us to meet with their students, or even respond to our enthusiastic offers to lead such sessions. Students don't need to be taught anything about working online, because they were practically born digital, right?

Research education is not tools education. Research education involves getting students to understand how information is organized physically in libraries, as well as electronically in library catalogs and in powerful, sometimes highly specialized commercial databases. It means teaching students to search effectively online to identify the most relevant and highest-quality books, articles, microform sets, databases, even free Web resources.

Students do not come to college armed with those skills, nor are they likely to be acquired without guidance. Yet students desperately need such skills if they hope to function effectively in our information-driven economy. As Wayne C. Booth, Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams opine in The Craft of Research: The "vast majority of students will have careers in which, if they do not do their own research, they will have to evaluate and depend on the research of others. We know of no way to prepare for that responsibility better than to do research of one's own."

Moving Content Here

Looking for an article from michaellorenzen.com? Try these links:

Examining the American Bill of Rights Using the Ethic of Justice

Education Schools and Library Schools: A Comparison of Their Perceptions by Academia

Battlestar Galactica and Mormonism

Marcus Aurelius: The Philosopher-Emperor of Rome

Management by Wandering Around: Reference Rovering and Quality Reference Service

Deconstructing the Philanthropic Library: The Sociological Reasons Behind Andrew Carnegie's Millions to Libraries

The Heart of Change: Julius Caesar and the End of the Roman Republic

Player Alignment in the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook as Examined through the Frame of the Ethic of Justice

The Ideal Academic Library as Envisioned through Nietzsche’s Vision of the Eternal Return

Applying Machiavellian Ideas on Leadership to Libraries

Vandals, Administrators, and Sockpuppets, Oh My! An Ethnographic Study of Wikipedia’s Handling of Problem Behavior

Collegiality and the Academic Library

CENTENNIAL CRISIS: THE DISPUTED ELECTION OF 1876 BY WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST

I have decided to take down michaellorenzen.com. I really don't need to pay to have that site hosted. I have moved the articles here to this blog. The old domain name will be kept registered and will redirect here to the appropriate posts so that links will not be broken.

Many of these articles are not library related (Roman history, Battlestar Galactica, etc.) so I hope their appearance here is not too jarring. I plan on continuing to post on library topics primarily here in the future.

Examining the American Bill of Rights Using the Ethic of Justice

Examining the American Bill of Rights Using the Ethic of Justice

Michael Lorenzen

The law can be a two edged sword. While it protects society as a whole, it can also be used to coerce and erode the rights of the individual. Sometimes, the only way for individual rights to be assured is to make changes to the law. This can be difficult and it may require a struggle. This is true of the American people in the 18th Century and an examination of the Bill of Rights can reveal what was believed about justice.

The American Revolution had many causes. Probably the biggest reason for the war was the desire of many British subjects in North America to be free of British law. In addition to taxation, many rights that the Americans felt they were entitled too were taken from them by British law. When the United States finally won independence and wrote a constitution, there was quick movement to enshrine certain rights into the document. The result was the Bill of Rights. Examining these rights helps to understand how Americans viewed the law.

This is also worth looking at by using the Ethic of Justice that was described by Starratt (1991). He wrote that community teaches individuals how to think about their own behavior in terms of the larger common good of the community. One of the ways that this can be expressed is through the law. In most of western culture, the law is a source of justice and social cohesion that helps to protect both the community and the individual.

This was true in America before the Revolutionary War as well. British law made efforts to protect the rights of the Crown as well as the rights of individual citizens. Following the law could be seen as an ethical choice that was just. However, as time went by, many of the colonists began to see the laws as unjust. The law appeared to be repressive and this led them to fight for independence. However, the end result of the rebellion was not an elimination of law. Instead, it was an effort to replace the laws with new laws that were seen as more just.

Looking at the ten amendments that make up the Bill of Rights, it is easy to see what the Americans valued enough to enshrine as central principles in the law of the land. Each demonstrates what the founders of the American nation believed each citizen was due under the law. Each of the ten will be examined below. All of these are expressing ethical concerns by expressing what is just.

Amendment One: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Freedom of religion and freedom of speech were so important to the founders that rights to both are placed first in the Bill of Rights. This is a direct result of religious persecution which resulted from having a state sponsored church in the British Empire. It also is a response to censorship that was used to silence dissent in during colonial times. These freedoms have remained to the present and even non-mainstream religions (like the Wiccans) and fringe political groups (like the communists) are protected under the law.

Amendment Two: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Although controversial today, the founders firmly believed that everyone was entitled to own a gun. Not only was this important for hunting and defense against
hostile natives, it assured that the people would have a means of offering resistance to the government if it became unjust. This is not surprising considering that the new nation had just used guns to overthrow British rule. The very idea that resistance to unjust laws is morally correct is demonstrated by the inclusion of gun ownership as a basic right.

Amendment Three: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The British had often required that colonists house soldiers. This reduced costs for the British army but placed a burden on locals who had to give up space and food to the soldiers. This was seen as unfair and wrong and this amendment was included to make sure this would never happen again.

Amendment Four: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In colonial times, the government did not always respect the privacy rights of the citizens. Soldiers often would throw people in jail and search private property without legal warrants. This amendment grants the government the right to imprison people and search their belongings but only if the due process of law is followed. This is an important legal point that requires the process of law to be followed ethically so that it is just and not oppressive.

Amendment Five: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Many important restraints on the law are embedded in this amendment. It assures citizens that they must be indicted before they are arrested. It protects them from being tried twice for the same offense. It also prevents a person from having to testify against themselves in court. It also means that a citizen can not be punished without proper legal authorization. This amendment is full of directions to the government on how the laws must be operated to maintain a just legal system.

Amendment Six: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

This amendment is similar to the fifth one in that it further places constrains on the government. It requires public trials with fair defense and the right to call in witnesses to help in defending a case. This was a direct response to the British practice of secretly arresting people and trying them in private with the defendant having no right to a fair defense. Even though this was legal, it seemed unethical to the Americans and this amendment addresses this.

Amendment Seven: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

This gives people the right to have a jury decide their legal cases. This includes both civil and criminal cases. This was done to assure that citizens would have an impartial panel hearing their cases. This would prevent biased or corrupt judges from arbitrarily damaging a party in court.

Amendment Eight: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Since the law can imprison you, it would be easy for this to be abused. Under the British, people often were arrested for minor offenses and kept in jail until an inordinately large amount of money was paid. People were also given draconian penalties (like long prison sentences or huge fines) for these same minor offenses. If the government has the right to imprison you and punish you, it must do so justly.

Amendment Nine: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This is an important amendment that says that citizens have other rights too. Just because they are not listed in the Bill of Rights does not mean they do not exist. As a government could use this list to curtail other rights unjustly, this amendment keeps other rights as possibilities under the law.

Amendment Ten: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

This amendment gives states powers which are not given to the federal government by the Constitution. This in essence protects the rights of citizens to have local meaningful governments separate from the national one. It was seen as just that people could rule themselves at all levels of government.

The law was important to the new American government in the late 18th Century. Yet, the experience of the Americans under British rule had shown them that the law could be unjust. As such, they wrote very detailed ethically driven rights into the Constitution via the Bill of Rights. As such, it is an excellent example of the Ethic of Justice being used.

References

Starratt, R. J. (1991). Building an ethical school: A Theory for practice in educational leadership. Educational administration quarterly, 27(2), 185-202.

Education Schools and Library Schools: A Comparison of Their Perceptions by Academia

Education Schools and Library Schools: A Comparison of Their Perceptions by Academia

Michael Lorenzen

(This article originally appeared in Illinois Libraries 82(3), (2000), 154-159.)

Introduction

The library profession has long been concerned by the lack of esteem that higher education has regarded library education. The closing of more than a dozen graduate programs in library science from the late 70s to the early 90s raised this concern to an even higher level. Many librarians assumed that higher education as a whole had no respect for librarianship when the most prestigious and well-regarded library schools at Columbia and Chicago were closed. Librarians are not alone in being taken lightly by the academy. Teacher educators also have had to struggle with the low opinions of their fellow faculty on campus. Examining education schools and library schools reveals many similarities between them in regards to status in higher education and may shed new light on the issue for interested members of each profession.

The issues involved in low status on campus for education and library schools are many and varied. No paper can hope to embrace the full scale of this problem. The issues include such matters as gender and class bias, low pay, the nature of the knowledge studied, and factors inherent to schools and libraries such as their public nature and the easy look of the professions. This paper is not an attempt to thoroughly examine all angles and suggest solutions. This paper is an attempt to compare the similarities of education and library schools in regards to status. To the knowledge of this author, this has not been attempted before.

The Image Problem of Education and Library Schools

The bulk of this article will deal with exploring why education and library schools are so poorly received on campus and what has been written in response to this problem. However, a brief review of the problem is in order before starting on the whys. Both education and library educators are viewed poorly on most higher education campuses. This has led to faculty in these schools being looked down on by other faculty on campus, being paid far less than comparable faculty in other fields, and it has led to in the case of library schools closings.

It is easiest to discuss the low esteem is in the case of library schools. Universities are making a real effort to eliminate library schools. If universities valued library schools, they would not close them. Wrote White, "A serious threat to library education comes from our academic colleagues, who do not know us, do not appreciate us, and do not understand us."¹ This statement seems hard to dispute as library schools continue to close.

The lack of academic prestige has hurt library schools in a major way. There have never been an abundance of library schools in the United States. Now there are less than sixty. Library schools have closed at Alabama A&M, Ball State, California State at Fullerton, Case Western Reserve, Columbia, Chicago, the University of Denver, Emory University, the University of Minnesota, the University of Mississippi, the State University of New York at Geneseo, Oregon, Southern California, Vanderbilt, and Western Michigan in the last twenty years. The programs at Chicago and Columbia were considered the best in the field. Their closure meant that the quality of the programs was not the problem. The problem was that they were library schools and the university did not want them.

Many library writers believe that library schools have been closed because administrators needed to show that they were financially responsible to trustees and state legislators. White and Paris both take this view.² Library schools were small, lacked prestige, and had few allies in the state legislature to defend them. Closing the schools saved little money. Yet, it allowed the administration to show that they were belt tightening. The administrators could not close other programs that perhaps could have saved money. These programs were too prestigious and too powerful. The library school thus became the sacrificial victim. The fact that this has happened repeatedly across higher education is a pretty clear indication that library schools (and by extension librarians) are not valued highly by the academy.

The case for the low status of education schools is harder to make. Few education schools have been closed. It is unlikely that many education schools will be closed in the future. Yet, education school faculties are constantly under attack not only on campus but also by society as a whole. No other discipline on campus draws the criticism that education schools do. Something (or multiple something’s as the bulk of this paper will cover) makes society and academia dislike education schools.

The Gourman Report on Graduate Programs (1996) is a book that evaluates and ranks programs in every academic discipline.³ The report has been criticized heavily by librarians because it refuses to reveal how it evaluates programs. Of interest is that education is one of only two fields (the other is criminal justice) that the report writes is worthless. The book goes on in great detail to describe all programs of education as being without any redeeming academic value. It concludes that all education programs at all institutions of higher education should be abolished. It then lists every program of education in the United States and page by page gives each one a 0 evaluation. (It is interesting to note that library science is considered "Real" by Mr. Gourman. However, his book lists the Columbia University program as being number 1 in the United States even though the program closed several years before the latest edition of his book was published.) This book is popular and used by many in higher education to compare programs. It is particularly popular with students. Yet, every edition of the book completely trashes all education schools. It is hard to imagine medicine, philosophy, law, biology, or most other fields getting this kind of treatment from a well-known reference book. There is something different about the general view of education schools that is being reflected here.

On campus, even associating with education schools can get a faculty member in trouble. Wrote Lanier and Little, "It is common knowledge that professors in the arts and sciences risk a loss of academic respect, including promotion and tenure, if they assume clear interest in or responsibility for teacher education."⁴ It is hard to imagine faculty getting in serious trouble for associating with other fields. Cross-disciplinary collaborations are usually welcome on most campuses. Again, the question arises, why is education getting such different treatment?

Perhaps the best way that education schools are viewed on campus is summed up by David Labaree. He wrote, "The university views colleges of education as nothing but trade schools, which provides vocational training but no academic curriculum."⁵ The university wants the money that the education school brings in. Yet, it does not respect the expertise that the education school has. It is tolerated because it is necessary but few respect it. And, like library schools, they are constantly under attack. Why does the academy have such low esteem for education and library schools?

Reasons for Low Esteem in Higher Education

It is difficult if not impossible to give a single reason as to why faculty in education and library schools are not viewed as the equals of other faculty on campus. This is due to the fact that many different factors are influencing this belief. No one may consciously recognize any of the factors when considering education and library faculty but these factors have almost certainly shaped the beliefs and views of those in higher education. Gender bias towards women appears to be a factor as both education and library science are fields dominated by women. The low to moderate pay that most teachers and librarians receive is also a factor as education and library school alumni have less incomes to donate to the higher education institutions that they graduated from. Social bias may play a part as many teacher and library educators come from working class backgrounds in contrast to more privileged backgrounds for many other faculty. The tendency for education and librarianship to focus on practical rather than theoretical matters also does not sit well with faculty in more theoretical disciplines. Finally, the public nature of schools and libraries leads many to believe that education and library faculties have no special knowledge that any one could not learn independently.

Unfortunately, society does not regard work done by women as important as work done by men. This gender bias has lead to wage gap between men and women that has women making considerably less than men in the United States. Those professional fields dominated by women (librarianship, teaching, and nursing for example) make less money than those professional fields dominated by men. Because education and library school faculties teach primarily women, they are subject to this bias. Perhaps unwittingly, other faculty do not value those who labor to teach women about subject matter which is seen as feminine. Attacks on teacher education and the closings of library schools could well be manifestations of continued gender bias in higher education.

Related to gender bias, the low pay of teachers and librarians hurts education and library schools. Most beginning teachers and librarians make less than thirty thousand dollars a year. Few librarians or teachers ever make more than fifty thousand dollars a year unless they move into administration. Even teacher and librarian administrators make less than administrators do in other fields. This has a very real effect on education and library schools. Alumni of these programs have less income that they can devote to donating to their alma mater. This then gives education and library schools less political power on campus in relation to other academic departments who have graduates making more money and donating more of it to the higher education institution. Of course, teachers and librarians make less because each is a field dominated by women, so this skewing of academic power in favor of departments with higher income graduates is yet another manifestation of gender bias in higher education.

The role of social bias can not be overlooked either. Wrote Prichard et al, "A much larger number of incumbents enter the field of college teaching of education from homes of skilled and unskilled laborers than have been found for incumbents in other areas of academic work."⁶ While this study is over 25 years old, the conclusions still are true today. Teaching and librarianship are much easier for the children of the working class to break into than most other professional fields. Becoming a teacher or librarians takes less time and costs less than becoming a doctor or lawyer for example. Most education and library school faculty started as teachers and librarians before moving into higher education faculty roles. They share this blue-collar background in most cases. Faculty in other fields tend to come from more privileged backgrounds. This sets faculty in education and librarianship apart from their peers.

Education schools and library schools are also scorned by other higher education faculty for their focus on practical rather than theoretical knowledge. Education and library literature are full of examples of "how I teach good" and "how I run my library good" articles. Even more research-oriented articles tend to have a practical component to them as well they should. Yet, these types of articles do not garner respect from the vast majority of faculty who focus on theoretical knowledge and let others draw the practicality from this knowledge. Wrote Labaree, "In the commodified setting of U.S. education, usable knowledge is low-status knowledge. The more knowledge is removed from ordinary concerns and the more closely associated it is with high culture, the more prestige it carries."⁷ Yet, education and library knowledge needs to be usable. No one wants teachers and librarians who are unprepared to do their jobs. This has not helped the image of education and library school faculty despite this need.

There is also some resistance to doing research in education school faculty and it is probably safe to write in library school faculty as well. Ducharme and Agne wrote that education faculty "have difficulty in adjusting to and accepting the norms and expectations of academe."⁸ This usually takes the form of resistance to doing research and publishing in peer-reviewed journals. The two researchers traced this back to the working class origin of education school faculty. Failing to emulate the academic lifestyle properly is a hindrance to education and library school faculty. Of course, it begs the larger question of how much these faculty should emulate the academic model.

All of the previous reasons are part of why librarianship and education have image problems in higher education. However, the root of the problem may come down to two reasons. The public ultimately controls both schools and libraries and most everyone feels entitled to venture their opinion on how to run them. Faculty in the majority of other disciplines are considered the authorities in their fields and the public does not expect to question them. In addition, most faculty in higher education learned to teach by teaching. They never went through a formal education on how to teach. These faculty can then imagine that education is a simple field if they could master it without having attended an education school. Although the average faculty member does not acquire considerable library experience, it is easy to imagine that most higher education faculty believe they are qualified to run a library.

The accessibility and public ownership of education is one of its biggest assets and perhaps largest liability in higher education. Wrote Cusick, "Individual freedom runs all the way through the system. Parents may or may not support the school board; superintendents may support or oppose the state department, state department staff may alter the intent of federal policy makers. People make and exercise personal decisions, enter and take part on their own terms, and regards those as their rights. Students mix their classes, cultures, and friendships with school requirements; teachers adjust their curriculums to their predilections, create their student relations, and support or oppose principals as they choose. Reformers decide schools need accountability, or principals decide their teachers have too much or too little power. Teachers decide students need more freedom. Each member of the system is free to make his or her own decision and set a course of action."⁹

It is precisely for this reason that education schools and library schools are not considered intellectually rigorous. Everyone in society including the student, the politician, and the local businessman are allowed to have opinions on how schools and libraries ought to be ran and expect to voice these opinions whenever they feel like it. Since everyone is allowed to be involved in running schools and libraries, the process of running them appears to be simple to other university faculty. This is in contrast to their own fields in most instances. Most individuals do not feel that they can give opinions to the math or physics professor on how to function in their disciplines. The faculty member can rightly feel they are the authority. But, like other members of society, these same authorities in math and physics feel fully qualified to lecture teacher and library educators on their subjects. This creates a definite inferiority view in higher education for library and education schools.

Adding to this problem is that most faculty in higher education learned to teach on their own. They never attended a college of education. They may have never read a book on teaching. Yet, most faculty believe they are good and effective teachers. Hence, they believe that the process of teaching must be easy. After all, even their international teaching assistants with poor English can teach. The knowledge that teacher educators have must not be that important if this reasoning is followed fully. Labaree wrote, "Compounding this resistance to the notion that teachers have special pedagogical skills is the student’s general experience that learning is not that hard—and therefore, by extension, that teaching is not hard either."¹⁰

Librarianship is slightly different. Most faculty have had to use a library. Most have not had to function in library roles. Yet, the perception in higher education is that librarianship is easy academic work. Wrote White, "What faculty members see, or at least what they think they see, does not require a graduate degree in librarianship, although a graduate degree in a ‘discipline’ might help make the librarians more collegial."¹¹ Most faculty probably imagine they could be librarians if they wanted to be and that their PHD’s ought to qualify them for these roles if they wanted them.

Responses to Academia’s Scorn

Not surprisingly, even if attempts at gaining equal recognition on college campuses is futile, teacher and library school faculty have responded to the low status they have on campus. In many cases, this response has manifested itself as an attack on higher education itself. In other instances, it has led library schools to disguise what they do by dropping the word library from their titles. Regardless, few faculty in education or librarianship have acknowledged the validity of the prevailing view in higher education.

There have been some suggestions to respond to this criticism by strengthening the scholarly output of both education and librarianship. There is merit in these arguments. However, even an attempt to increase the amount of high quality theoretical research will not convince most that education or librarianship are valuable academic fields due to other considerations already detailed in this paper. No one in education or librarianship is seriously suggesting that either field should limit the number of women who become practitioners in their field to deal with gender bias in academia. Many do call for better pay in each field but few expect that this will result in either field being drawn even with other professional fields with better pay. No one can expect that the public will lose its control on schooling or libraries either. Finally, there is no way that higher education faculty can conceivably be made to achieve teacher certification. Hence, the main responses to the low status of education and librarianship in higher education have been reluctant acceptance, an attack on the values of higher education itself, and in the case of library schools an attempt to "disguise" the nature of the programs by dropping the word "library" from their department names.

Wrote Berry, "Maybe it is time to remind the state that it has a responsibility to educate people for public service, and that libraries are a fundamental public service. If the university administrators won’t hear that message, maybe it is time to take it to the legislatures and governments that support them. By fighting these pernicious academic values we might save our library schools. We might even return our universities to teaching, service, and real research."¹² Berry and many library educators see it, the problem is not that librarianship is a low paying profession dominated by women that is engaged in practical matters serving the community. The problem is that higher education does not value public service in low paying, less "prestigious" fields. The solution is to alter the values of higher education and realign the university to its original public service mission.

Stieg shared a similar sentiment. She wrote, "Signs of dissatisfaction with the priorities of the research universities are beginning to appear…If the concept of social responsibilities of universities can be extended to the educational realm, disciplines and programs less advantaged than law, medicine, and business will be helped."¹³ This approach by Berry and Stieg not only rebuffs the university for not valuing librarianship (and by extension education) but also holds that the values that these schools hold actually should be emulated by everyone else in the university. This is a bold approach. Recognizing that the values of academia are hopelessly out of line with education and library schools, Berry and Stieg have suggested changing these higher education values because they do not really benefit higher education or the communities that higher education serves.

The Holmes Group, an organization comprising the deans of education of many top ranked education schools, responded to this issue by attacking higher education and those in education schools that emphasized research to the detriment of training new teachers in an attempt to emulate corrupt higher education values. The Holmes Group wrote that "the generally negative attitude in higher education towards matters relating to elementary and secondary education" was corrosive to faculty in education schools.¹⁴ The Holmes Group wants education schools to abandon what it sees as the bad values of higher education such as an emphasis on research. Instead, the Holmes Group wants education schools to dedicate themselves entirely to preparing teachers. In this way, the education school can still function as it was meant to as a professional school without losing itself to what is wrong in higher education.

While Labaree does not agree with much of the Holmes Group report of 1995, he like others echoes the attack on higher education values. Wrote Labaree, "In some ways, ed schools have been doing things right. They have wrestled vigorously with the problems of public education, an area that is of deep concern to most citizens. This has meant tackling social problems of great complexity and practical importance, even though the university does not place much value on the production of this kind of messy, indeterminate, and applied knowledge. Oddly enough, the rest of the university could learn a lot from the example of the ed school."¹⁵ Many in education and librarianship agree, the problem is not in education and library schools. The problem is a higher education that does not properly value public service. It is higher education that should change. In reality, faced with scorn and budget/program cuts, this may be a hard sell in academia. But it may ultimately prove to be the correct response.

Some library schools have tried to fit into the current values of higher education better. They have done this by attempting to hide what they do. Surprisingly, may library schools are dropping the word "library" from their titles. Several schools, including the University of California/Berkley and the University of Michigan have done this. They have replaced their titles with phrases like the School of Information Sciences or the School of Information Science and Technology. The word library does not confer status on campus. However, "information" and "technology" do. Obviously, library schools are schools of information and technology as well. Some library schools hope that by eliminating the word library and replacing it with something more respectable, they will garner more prestige on campus.

This strategy has problems. To begin with, most practicing librarians have responded in anger to the perceived shame that these non-library "library" programs seem to have in educating librarians. It is not a good idea for a professional school to alienate the members of the profession it serves. And the academy is not fooled by the word change either. Wrote Crowley, "Unfortunately, the march of information loyalists to drive the word ‘library’ from graduate education will continue. Equally likely, historians and physicists -- if they care, and they may not-- will note which department still produces people who work in libraries. The existing views of status will remain, and those trying to seize new prestige will be ignored."¹⁶

However, as bad as the idea may sound, there may be some benefit in changing the names of library schools. Information and technology are part of the library curriculum. Librarians are information managers and web page masters. Asserting the right of the library school to teach these subjects is important. It is time academia realized librarians and libraries are not just about books. Changing the name clearly asserts this. Information management is powerful in higher education now. Therefore, other academic departments such as business and computer science do not want library schools into what they see as their turf. However, why do the library schools feel they have to abandon library from their department name and degree titles? It does not benefit the image of the library profession and it does not really enhance academic status. Everyone still knows that the school is a library school.

Conclusions

Education and library schools have a perception problem on college campuses. The reasons for this are many and varied as has been shown in this paper. No paper can hope to embrace the full scale of this problem. As has been demonstrated, the issues include such matters as gender and class bias, low pay, the nature of the knowledge studied, and factors inherent to schools and libraries such as their public nature and that the professions look easy. This paper could not hope to attempt to thoroughly examine all angles and suggest solutions. This paper instead was an attempt to compare the similarities of education and library schools in regards to status. To the knowledge of this author, this has not been attempted before. Hopefully, this comparison may prove useful to others and some solutions to what seems an unsolvable problem may begin to emerge.

Endnotes

1 White, H. (1991). "Politics, the World We Live In." Library Quarterly 61(3), pp. 264.

2 Paris, M. (1990). "Why Library Schools Fail." Library Journal 115(4), pp. 38-42.

3 Gourman, J. (1996). The Gourman Report. Los Angeles: National Education Standards.

4 Lanier, J. E. and Little, J. W. (1986). "Research on Teacher Education." In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3^rd ed., pp. 527-569). New York: Macmillan, pp. 530.

5 Labaree, D. F. (1999). "Too Easy a Target: The Trouble with Ed Schools and the Implications for the University." Academe 85(1), pp. 39.

6 Prichard, K. W., Fen, S. W., and Buxton, T. H. (1971). "Social Class Origins of College Teachers of Education." Journal of Teacher Education 22(2), pp. 227.

7 Labaree, D. F. (1997). "The Lowly Status of Education Schools." In How to Succeed in School Without Really Learning: The Credentials Race in American Education (pp. 223-249). New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 240.

8 Ducharme, E. R. and Agne, R. M. (1982). "The Educational Professorate: A Research-based Perspective. Journal of Teacher Education 33(6), pp. 33.

9 Cusick, P. (1992). The Educational System: Its Nature and Logic. New York: Addison-Wesley, pp. iv.

10 Labaree, "Too Easy a Target: The Trouble with Ed Schools and the Implications for the University." pp. 38.

11 White, "Politics, the World We Live In." pp. 264.

12 Berry, J. N. (1991). "Fighting Academe’s Corrupted Values." Library Journal 116(4), pp. 108.

13 Stieg, M. F. (1991). "The Closing of Library Schools: Darwinism at the University. Library Quarterly 61(3), pp. 271..

14 Holmes Group. (1995). Tomorrow’s schools of education. Racine, Wisconsin : The Johnson Foundation, pp. 169.

15 Labaree, D. F. (1995). "A Disabling Vision: Rhetoric and Reality in Tomorrow’s Schools of Education. Teacher’s College Record 97(2), pp. 39.

16 Crowley, B. (1998). "Dumping the ‘Library’." Library Journal 123(12), pp. 49.

Battlestar Galactica and Mormonism

Michael Lorenzen

(This paper was written in the late 90s and is only based on the original BSG series.)

Religion and television directly influence one another. This often is made obvious when television programs openly talk about or are based on religious themes. The same is true when religious figures decry the influence of television on American culture from the pulpit. However, sometimes this connection is not always so obvious. This is made clear by the influence of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints (popularly known as the Mormon Church) on the 1970s science fiction television series Battlestar Galactica. The show was heavily based on similarities in plot with the Mormon Church and several of the church's doctrines were incorporated into the series.

The topic of Mormonism and Battlestar Galactica has been previously written about (Ford 83-87). This paper will explore some of the issues raised in that article more closely and examine some other issues that were not written about. Ford's examination of the Battlestar Galactica series appears to have been based solely on the key episode "War of the Gods." His lack of knowledge of the series is evidenced by his misspellings of Galactica (as Gallactica) and the character Baltar (as Boltar). Ford also mistakenly places the events in the series in the far future when the series clearly places the story as being contemporary. (See episodes "The Hand of God" and "Galactica Discovers the Earth.") However, Ford's article is worth reading, in particular for his plot synopsis of the episode "War of the Gods." Ford's article also appears to be the only published scholarship on the Battlestar Galactica series.

Battlestar Galactica aired on ABC beginning on Sept. 17, 1978 and it ran for eight months until it was cancelled after seventeen episodes. The show was revived briefly as Galactica 1980 in January 1980 but it was again cancelled this time after only six episodes. The series had been popular (according to The World Almanac and Book of Facts 1980 it ranked 20th out of 100 series in the Nielsen ratings) but its expensive production costs dictated a higher rating than it received and ABC cancelled it.

At Battlestar Galactica's peak in 1979, the show had generated a comic book series and a line of novels. Battlestar Galactica continues to have fans and it remains a mainstay at science fiction conventions. Battlestar Galactica continues to air in primetime in the form of reruns on the cable Sci-Fi Channel and most of the episodes of the series are still available for purchase on videocassette. Maximum Press began issuing new stories in a Battlestar Galactica comic book series in 1995. Richard Hatch, the actor who played Apollo in the series, released a novel in 1997 continuing the storyline of the show. The SCI-FI Channel remade the show as a TV mini-series in 2003.

The plot of Battlestar Galactica centers around the search for the lost colony of Earth by the survivors of the original twelve colonies of man. The original twelve colonies had been destroyed by the mechanical Cylon Empire which had waged a thousand year genocidal war against all humanity. The Cylons had won the war by resorting to treachery and destroying the war fleet of the colonies during peace talks. Only the Battlestar Galactica, a huge spaceship that functioned much as an aircraft carrier does, survived the attack and it led what was left of humanity in a desperate race to find Earth before pursuing Cylon fleets destroyed them.

The creator of Battlestar Galactica is television writer and producer Glen Larson. According to the 42nd edition of Who's Who in America, Larson has an impressive array of credits as a writer, editor, or producer of a long list of television shows including McCloud, The Virginian, Six Million Dollar Man, Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, and Magnum P.I. Also according to Who's Who in America, Glen Larson is a member of the Mormon Church. This makes the appearance of Mormon theology in Battlestar Galactica as a coincidence highly unlikely.

Similarities in the Plot of Battlestar Galactica and Mormonism

There are many parallels between the story of Battlestar Galactica and Mormon teachings. The Book of Mormon tells the story of how the Prophet Lehi took the remnant of the Tribe of Joseph to ancient America around the year 600 BC. In Battlestar Galactica, mankind founded twelve different colonies. In addition, mankind also founded a thirteenth colony on Earth that was lost from the other twelve. In the same way that The Book of Mormon has a Tribe of Israel lost on another continent beyond the knowledge of the other tribes, Battlestar Galactica has a lost colony of man separate from the main body of humanity. The lost Tribe of Israel is central to The Book of Mormon in the same way that the lost colony of Earth is central to Battlestar Galactica.

In the Battlestar Galactica episode originally aired on the 24th of September and 1st of October 1978 titled "Lost Planet of the Gods", the home world of all humanity is revealed to be the planet Kobol. This name is strikingly similar to the star Kolob which is discussed in Mormon theology. In The Pearl of Great Price, The Book of Abraham Chapter Three, Kolob is described as the star "nearest onto the Throne of God." Interestingly, the ship on which armistice talks between the colonies and the Cylons took place was the "Star Kobol" as revealed in the premier episode which aired on 17th September 1978.

Another similarity between Mormonism and Battlestar Galactica is in the political structure of the ruling bodies of each. The Mormon Church is run by a Quorum of the Twelve which is headed by a president. In Battlestar Galactica, the colonies are ruled by a Council of Twelve which is also headed by a president (Ford 84).

Similarities in Mormon Doctrine and Battlestar Galactica

One of the central tenants of Mormonism is the doctrine of free agency. Basically, this doctrine holds that the existence of evil is necessary for righteous choices to have meaning. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism defines free agency:

Agency refers both to the capacity of beings "to act for themselves" and their accountability for those actions. Exercising agency is a spiritual matter; it consists in either receiving the enlightment and commandments that come from God or resisting and ejecting them by yielding to the devil's temptations. Without awareness of alternatives an individual could not choose, and that is why being tempted by evil is as essential to agency as being enticed by the Spirit of God. Furthermore, no one is forced either to act virtuously or to sin. (Warner 26)

Free agency is a theme that is played out in the ongoing Battlestar Galactica plot. The crew is forced to choose between a charismatic newcomer named Count Iblis and the leader of the Battlestar Galactica Commander Adama in the episode "War of the Gods" which aired on 14th of January and 21st of January 1979. Count Iblis promised to complete several tasks including plotting the course to Earth in exchange for the leadership of humanity. Count Iblis is revealed in the course of the episode to be Mephistopheles, the devil.

The crew is forced to make a fundamental decision between deliverance from the Cylons by Count Iblis or to follow their righteous leader, Commander Adama. The choice is between accepting the temptation of evil and giving the devil dominion over the Battlestar Galactica and humanity or remaining true to Adama and goodness but facing an uncertain and possibly deadly future. The crew chooses to reject Count Iblis and remains loyal to Commander Adama. This is Mormon free agency in action. The choice to follow righteousness is meaningless to the crew of the Battlestar Galactica until they have the choice to follow evil. Only after the crew has had the opportunity to be tempted by evil is the crew following a righteous path.

The revelation that Count Iblis is the devil follows Mormon teachings on free agency as well. Mormon theology teaches that Satan never wanted mankind to have free agency in the first place. It was because Satan sought to destroy the agency of man that the war was fought in the heavens before life on Earth and this is why Satan was cast out of the heavens (Warner 26). Count Iblis allowed the crew of the Battlestar Galactica the choice that allowed for free agency. However, if he had been accepted as leader by the crew the choice of free agency would have been lost as the devil would never have voluntary given up his hold on humanity. The right to choose would have been difficult if not impossible for the crew to exercise again. "Satan can control only those who give themselves to his power" (Ford 85).

The "War of the Gods" episode of Battlestar Galactica also introduced the key Mormon teaching of eternal progression. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism defines eternal progression:

Eternal progression refers to anything that people learn and experience by their choices as they progress from premortal life, to mortality, to postmortal spirit life, and to a resurrected state in the presence of God...Progression apparently occurred in the premortal life, for most spirits there chose to follow Christ...while others chose to follow Lucifer. Entering mortality affords opportunities for further progression. (Adams 465-66)

After choices are made in the premortal life and bodies are assigned, further choices are made that result in the fate of the person when he is returned to the spirit world. Ultimately,those who are righteous will become gods and have the opportunity to have their own spirit children who also will become mortals and make their own choices and follow their own eternal progression (Martin 178-79).

This doctrine of eternal progression is introduced through angels in ships of light who also make their appearance in the "War of the Gods" episode. The angelic beings appear to warn the Battlestar Galactica crew about Count Iblis although they refuse to interfere in the crew's exercise of free agency. The angels also make it clear that they are simply an advanced form of humanity that all humans can aspire to. One of the angels said, "As you are now, we once were; as we are now, you may become." This is a rewording of a quote from former Mormon President Lorenzo Snow who said, "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become" (Martin 178).

Another Mormon doctrine introduced in the Battlestar Galactica series is the concept of marriage for eternity. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism defines marriage for eternity:

Latter-day Saints believe that life is more secure and more joyous when it is experienced in the sacred relationships of the eternal family. Those who maintain such worthy relationships on earth will live as families in the celestial kingdom following the resurrection. Thus, a person who lives a righteous life in mortality and who has entered into an eternal marriage may look forward to an association in the postmortal world with a worthy spouse, and with those who were earthly children, fathers, mothers, brothers, and sisters. (Duke 858)

Mormons believe that a marriage should be for eternity. Those who live righteous lives and are married in a temple for eternity will always be married to their spouses and can look forward to having the right to beget children after the resurrection (Ricks 465).

The eternal marriage is introduced as an aspect of colonial culture in the premier episode of Battlestar Galactica. Captain Apollo and Serina are married by Commander Adama with the words, "A union between this man and this woman not only for now but for all eternities." As eternal marriage is a prerequisite for spiritual children after the resurrection and eternal progression towards godhood (Rick 465), this also fits into the eternal progression concept that was introduced in Battlestar Galactica.

Finally, a phrase from Doctrine and Covenants (which is considered an inspired text by the Mormon Church equal to The Book of Mormon and The Bible), is referred to twice in the Battlestar Galactica series. Doctrine and Covenants #93 has the phrase, "the glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth" in it. This is paraphrased in the Galactica 1980 episode "The Super Scouts" which aired on the 16th and 23rd of March 1980 by a character as "the glory of the universe is intelligence." This phrase is also referred to in a conversation between the character Apollo and an angelic being in the "War of the Gods" episode. The angel tells Apollo that he has no physical body but that the body that Apollo perceives is "a reflection of intelligence. My spirit, if you will."

Ford wrote about the Mormon influences on Battlestar Galactica that, "these doctrines are generalized and 'philosophied' enough to lose any direct identification with Mormon theology" (Ford 87). However, this does not appear to be the case. No other Christian denomination teaches the doctrines of eternal progression or marriage for eternity. The Mormon belief in man having the potential to advance to godhood in the afterlife is a polytheistic belief that no other mainstream Christian denomination teaches. The elements of Mormonism in Battlestar Galactica are directly identifiable as Mormon.

Conclusion

Religion and television do influence each other. The influence of the Mormon Church on the plot of Battlestar Galactica is a clear example. Mormon themes and doctrines can be found in the plot of the series. Several of these doctrines are key elements in the resolution of at least one episode and are recurring themes throughout the series. Battlestar Galactica was a pivotal series in the development of science fiction and further studies on it would certainly be beneficial in understanding future developments in science fiction.

Works Cited

Adams, Lisa Ramsey. "Eternal Progression." Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Ludlow, Daniel, ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992. 465,66.

Delury, George, ed. The World Almanac and Book of Facts 1980. New York: Newspapers Enterprise Association, 1979.

Duke, James. "Eternal Marriage." Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Ludlow, Daniel, ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992. 857-59.

Ford, James E. "Battlestar Gallactica and Mormon Theology." Journal of Popular Culture 17 (1983):83-87.

Martin, Walter R. The Kingdom of the Cults. Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, Inc., Publishers, 1965.

Ricks, Shirley S. "Eternal Lives, Eternal Increase." Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Ludlow, Daniel, ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992. 465.

Smith, Joseph. The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981.

Smith, Joseph and Orson Pratt. Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Containing the Revelations Given to Joseph Smith, Jun., the Prophet, for the Building Up of the Kingdom of God in the Last Days. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1971.

Smith, Joseph. The Pearl of Great Price: Being a Choice Selection from the Revelations, Translations and Narrations. Salt Lake City, Deseret News Company, 1888.

Warner, C. Terry. "Agency." Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Ludlow, Daniel, ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992. 26,27.

Who's Who in America, 42nd Edition, 1982-1983. Chicago: Marquis Who's Who, 1982.

Marcus Aurelius: The Philosopher-Emperor of Rome

Marcus Aurelius: The Philosopher-Emperor of Rome

Michael Lorenzen

Abstract

Marcus Aurelius was the Emperor of the Roman Empire from 161 AD to 180 AD. He was also a noted philosopher. Historians generally consider him to have been one of the greatest Roman Emperors. It is easy to see why. There are many aspects of his leadership which demonstrate his management skills. These include his ability to navigate ethics, his understanding of the culture of the Roman Empire, his ability to manage the organization of the Roman bureaucracies, his success in introducing change, his capability to set policy, and his cleverness in problem solving. This paper will look at examples from all of these areas as well as provide an overview of his life and his philosophical beliefs. The book Marcus Aurelius: A Biography (2000) by Anthony R. Birley will be used to illustrate some points.

Marcus Aurelius: The Philosopher-Emperor of Rome

Imperator Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus (April 26, 121 – March 17, 180) was Roman Emperor in the second century AD. He is considered to be the last of the so called Five Good Emperors who ruled Rome at the height of Roman power. He was also a major Stoic philosopher who wrote Meditations in the last decade of his life.

The Emperor Antoninus Pius adopted Marcus Aurelius as his heir when Marcus was only 17. Under the long and generally peaceful reign of Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius held a variety of titles in the Roman bureaucracy including the title of Consul. He also studied philosophy extensively. When Antonius Pius died in 161, Marcus Aurelius became the Roman Emperor at the age of 40. There was no opposition to his succession.

Marcus Aurelius immediately chose his brother Verus as co-emperor. This was a new idea as the Roman Empire had never had two Emperors before. However, it would become more common as the Roman Empire began a long decline.

The legendary Pax Romana (Peace of the Romans) ended early in the reign of Marcus Aurelius. No sooner had he assumed the throne, the Picts commenced to threaten in Britannia and German tribes attempted to cross the Rhine and the upper reaches of the Danube. These attacks were repelled. In Asia, the Parthian Empire attacked and destroyed an entire Roman legion. The resulting war lasted five years. The Romans were led to victory by Marcus Aurelius’s co-Emperor Verus.

The victory over the Parthians was costly. The drain on resources weakened Roman power along the German frontier. Emboldened, the Marcomanni and Quadi
crossed the Danube in 169, marched across several provinces, and invaded Italy. The end result of their onslaught was the siege of Aquileia. This was the first invasion of Italy since the late second century B.C. Compounding problems further, the victorious Roman legions returning from Asia had brought back the plague. This devastated the Roman population and made it difficult to field an army. Marcus Aurelius had to conscript slaves to have a sufficient fighting force.

The German Wars would dominate the rest of Marcus Aurelius’s reign. He was almost constantly engaged in campaigning against the northern tribes. The first campaigns were notable by the death of Verus in 169, leaving Marcus as sole emperor. Marcus Aurelius was successful in driving the tribes out of Roman territory but he was not able to end their threat. The German tribes would remain a threat for centuries to come and they ultimately brought about the end of the Western Roman Empire.

Aurelius wedded Faustina the Younger in 145. During their thirty year marriage, Faustina bore thirteen children. This included his son Commodus who would become Emperor, and his daughter Lucilla, who was married to Verus to solidify his alliance with Marcus Aurelius.

In early 180, while Marcus and his son Commodus were fighting in the north, Marcus became ill. Which disease killed him is unknown but it very well could have been the plague. Commodus succeeded his father as Emperor. Commodus was a psychotic individual with delusions of grandeur. He was an unsuccessful ruler who was eventually murdered by his own guards. His rule is considered by many historians as the beginning of decline of the Roman Empire. The biggest complaint that many historians have with Marcus Aurelius is that he had the poor judgment of allowing Commodus to follow him on the throne.

The Philosophy of Marcus Aurelius

While on campaign between 170 and 180, Marcus Aurelius wrote his Meditations. He wrote this for his own reflection and there is no evidence that he ever intended for his writing to be published. The work takes the form of quotations varying in length from one sentence to long paragraphs. It was written in Greek and not widely distributed until it was first published in 1558 in Zurich.

His stoic philosophy revolves around the denial of emotion. He believed that freedom from emotion would free a man from the pain of the material world. He thought that the only way a man can be harmed by others is to allow his reaction to overpower him. Marcus Aurelius was a pagan. This was reflected in his writing as he believed that some sort of logical good force organized the universe and that even bad events happened for the greater good.

Marcus Aurelius believed that the good force that organized the universe was present in every living thing. He believed that individuals did not survive death but were reabsorbed by the universe. As all people were a reflection of the universal spirit, he believed that rulers had an obligation to be just and to treat all (including slaves) fairly.

Ethics

Understanding the philosophy of Marcus Aurelius is important to understanding how he used ethics in his leadership. He really believed that he was morally obligated to look out for the welfare of all the people in the Roman Empire including slaves. This can be best demonstrated by examining how he reformed the laws to provide for the more ethical treatment of certain classes of people in Roman society.

Birley (2000) wrote of Marcus Aurelius, “His attention to the theory and practice of legislation and the administration of justice were intensive, and it is notable that he was described by professional lawyers as ‘an emperor most skilled in the law,’ and by the great Papinian as a ‘most prudent and conscientiously just emperor.’ The badly-informed and muddled chronicler Aurelius Victor, writing in the fourth century, expressed the opinion that under Marcus the ambiguities of the law were wonderfully clarified” (p. 133).

Marcus Aurelius focused his legislation in three areas. This included the liberation of slaves, the protection of minors and orphans, and the selection of councilors to run and administer local communities all over the Roman Empire. Marcus Aurelius made it easier for slaves to win their freedom and to be able to prove this later if questioned. He endeavored to have guardians appointed for orphans so that the minors would be protected and that their property rights would be looked after. The appointment of local councilors also helped to assure that Roman laws were being applied fairly all over the empire.

Another area that Marcus Aurelius acted ethically was in the area of sex Birley (2000) noted that Marcus Aurelius claimed in his Meditations, “I preserved the flower of my manhood and did not make proof of my virility before the right time, but even deferred the time” (p. 53). He married at 24 and then remained married to the same women for 30 years and had 13 children with her. Although it is impossible to know if he ever cheated on his wife or had pre-martial sex, it is probable due to his philosophical beliefs that he exercised a great deal of ethical action with his sexuality. At a time when Roman men had access to slaves and adultery was socially tolerated, this would appear to be remarkable and an indicator of his high ethical character.

Organizational Theory

Marcus Aurelius was responsible for many organizations in his lifetime. This included the different priestly orders he belonged to as a younger man, the bureaucracy of the Roman Empire, and armies in the field when he lead them into battle. At various times, he invariably exhibited leadership skills that would fit all of the eras of organizational theory. However, I think the two he demonstrated the most were classical theory (scientific management) and systems theory.

The Roman Empire was normally governed in a classical theory style. It operated as a large machine. It was managed top down with a clear line of authority going down from the Emperor in Rome to the various legions and provinces. There was a great deal of emphasis on the rights and responsibilities of the members of different social classes. Although the Roman Senate maintained an important symbol with some powers granted by the Emperor, the Emperor had absolute power. Due to the size of the Roman Empire, it was dominated by a large impersonal bureaucracy.

As such, it was very common for Marcus Aurelius to rule in a classical theory style. When he gave orders to his legions, he expected them to be carried out immediately. The chain of command was important and soldiers who disobeyed an order could face execution. His firmness in running the legions was shown over and over again as he fought the German Wars. For example, after he won his first victory in the German Wars, he refused his soldiers additional pay. Birley (2000) wrote, “After the first victory he had won in person, although he accepted the salutation of Imperator, he refused the troops’ request for a donative, saying that whatever they got from him over and above their regular pay would be wrung from the blood of their parents and families…So temperately and firmly did he rule that even when engaged in so many and so great wars, he never did anything unworthy by way of flattery or as a result of fear” (p. 169).

It is also apt to look at Marcus Aurelius’s management from the perspective of systems theory. The Roman Empire was a large state that functioned in many ways like a large organism. Crop failures and war in one province could cause famine in other provinces. Plague, death and a loss of tax revenue in the eastern provinces directly impacted the western provinces and the Imperial treasury. As systems theory focuses on organization and the interdependence of relationships, and the Roman Empire acted like one large interconnected system, it is not surprising that Marcus Aurelius managed it accordingly.

As such, systems theory is one way to understand why Marcus Aurelius agreed to allow some German tribes to settle in the Roman Empire in peace. Some historians criticize this move as it lead to the later “barbarization” of the Roman Empire. However, due to plague, the Roman Empire had become severely depopulated. There were few to grow crops and to provide soldiers for future legions. Birley (2000) wrote, “It could even be argued that depopulation of the countryside, especially Italy, had been beginning before the plague, to an alarming extent. Beside this, if the settlers were from peoples which Marcus intended to incorporate within the empire, the criticism has less points in any case. They were to be romanized sooner or later, by one means or another” (p. 170).

Culture

The Roman Empire was vast ruling the entire Mediterranean world including most of Europe and parts of Asia and Africa. It was made of the peoples of hundreds of nations, cities, and tribes. Hence, Roman culture was diverse by nature. However, the Romans were tradition bound and much of their accepted high culture originated in Italy and Greece. As such, Marcus Aurelius was expected as ruler to understand culture as practiced by the aristocracy of Rome but at the same time have some understanding of other cultural norms in the Roman Empire.

Marcus Aurelius was inducted into the culture of the ruling class of the Roman Empire early. The Emperor Hadrian bestowed on him the honor of the equestrian order when he was only six years old and then made him a member of the Salian priesthood at eight. He was entrusted to the best professors of literature, rhetoric and philosophy of the time and in his early twenties began to study Stoicism as his primary interest. He was raised to the consularship in 140, and in 147 received the tribunician power. All of these actions would have thoroughly engrained the culture of Rome into the future ruler.

Peterson and Deal (1999) classified organizational culture four main parts. These included 1. vision, purpose and values, 2. ritual and ceremony, 3. history and stories, and 4. architecture and artifacts. A look at Marcus Aurelius’s rule shows that he understand all four of these parts of culture as it related to Roman culture. He knew the values of the ruling class. He understood and actively participated in the rituals and ceremonies of Rome including both religious and secular, he knew Roman history well, and he lived comfortably in probably the greatest architecturally rich city of the ancient world.

One way Marcus Aurelius demonstrated and used his knowledge of Roman culture in governing was to have his predecessor as Emperor (Antoninus Pius) deified. It was traditional to have all but the worst or transitory Emperors declared gods by the Roman Senate. Birley (2000) wrote, “The next public act was to arrange for the funeral and deification of Antoninus Pius…A flamen was appointed to minister to the new deity, and a college of priests was chosen from among the closest friends of the Imperial family, whose duty it would be to meet on appointed days to sacrifice and feats in honor of Antoninus” (p. 118).

Marcus Aurelius also paid homage to the culture of the Roman military. He and his co-emperor Verus gave the soldiers a huge bonus to mark their joint ascension. Birley (2000) wrote, “They promised a bounty, or donative, to the troops of 20,000 sesterces (5,000 denarii) per man, more to officers. This expensive ceremony was now a necessary opening to every reign, as it had been since the stormy and opposed accession of Claudius in 41” (p. 117).

Change Management

Before examining some of the changes that Marcus Aurelius introduced to the Roman Empire, it is important to understand the mindset of the Roman people. They did not like change. In fact, they were quite resistant to the idea. Wrote Holland (2003), “Novelty, to the Citizen’s of the Republic, had sinister connotations. Pragmatics as they were, they might accept innovation if it was dressed up as the will of the gods or an ancient costume, but never for its own sake” (p. 4).

That is not to say the Romans rejected all change. However, they were very conservative about it. Holland (2003) further wrote, “Conservative and flexible in equal measures, the Romans kept what worked, adapted what had failed, and preserved as sacred lumber what had become redundant. The Republic was both a building site and a junkyard” (p. 4). Although the Republic was long gone by the time of Marcus Aurelius, the resistance to change was still evident in the second century Roman Empire.

Probably the largest change that Marcus Aurelius introduced to the Roman Empire was the idea of having two Emperors when he had his brother Verus made co-Emperor. This was done frequently later in Roman history but this was the first time it was actually done. Marcus Aurelius believed that the burden of running the Roman Empire was so great that it needed at least two men to do it properly.

Birley (2000) wrote, “Two emperors thus ruled Roman world for the first time, an innovation, but like most Roman innovations one for which there was ample precedent. It set an example which followed with increasing frequency. The continuing existence of the ancient twin magistracy of the consulate was one precedent” (p. 117).

Policy

A policy analysis of the Roman Empire would require several volumes of a book to compile. Even limiting to the reign of Marcus Aurelius would provide a vast amount of material. With multiple frontiers, client states, social classes, and government
functions, there is a lot to analyze. In the case of Marcus Aurelius, one well known policy was his treatment of Christians in the Roman Empire. Christianity had been spreading throughout the Roman Empire in the second century. Earlier Emperors had decided to leave the Christians alone. A “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was instituted and Christians who did not openly claim to be Christians had no need to fear the lions. Marcus Aurelius continued this policy but was more willing to aggressively prosecute Christians if he felt that was for the greater good.

The 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia noted, “In his dealings with the Christians Marcus Aurelius went a step farther than any of his predecessors. Throughout the reigns of Trajan, Hadrian, and Antoninus Pius, the procedure followed by Roman authorities in their treatment of the Christians has that outlined in Trajan's rescript to Pliny, by which it was ordered that the Christians should not be sought out; if brought before the courts, legal proof of their guilt should be forthcoming. It is clear that during the reign of Aurelius the comparative leniency of the legislation of Trajan gave way to a more severe temper.”

Some historians believe that the extent of any Christian persecution under Marcus Aurelius was overstated. He was a pagan and he was tolerant of different religious faiths. He believed that Christianity was immoral but basically harmless. However, he also would not intervene and stop a Christian persecution unless the Christian recanted. As the Roman Empire was a pagan entity at this time of history, it is not an unreasonable policy for Marcus Aurelius to have pursued.

Problem Solving

In his nineteen year reign, Marcus Aurelius had to solve problems a great deal. Dealing with the plague and multiple wars, on top of the normal affairs of state, presented him with many opportunities to make tough decisions. Of those, two are of particular note. In the first, Marcus Aurelius made the decision to conscript slaves to serve in the military. In the second, he auctioned off Imperial property to raise funds for the cash strapped Roman Empire.

Several German tribes invaded Italy in 169. This is the first actual invasion of Italy by foreign forces in several centuries. It shocked the Romans into action. However, the plague that was brought back by victorious Roman legions from the Parthian War caused serious problems. There were not enough Roman freedmen to fill out the legions. Faced with this recruitment problem, Marcus Aurelius conscripted gladiators, bandits, slaves, and Germanic tribesmen. This was an unorthodox move by Marcus Aurelius but it probably was a necessity. It certainly was an instance of decisive problem solving.

Another problem solving event was Marcus Aurelius’s decision to auction off Imperial property to raise funds. The Germanic invasion of Italy coupled with the plague put a strain on the revenue that the Roman Empire had as funds needed spent for war at the same time large number of taxpayers perished. Birley (2000) wrote, “Marcus must have realized that new taxation would be extremely unpopular and not very productive. A gesture like the palace auction had more than a practical benefit – it demonstrated that the emperor was willing to make sacrifices” (p. 160).

Conclusion

Marcus Aurelius may have made some mistake (like allowing Commodus to follow him on the throne) but his good decisions appear to far out weigh this. There are many aspects of his leadership which demonstrate his management skills. These include his ability to navigate ethics, his understanding of the culture of the Roman Empire, his ability to manage the organization of the Roman bureaucracies, his success in introducing change, his capability to set policy, and his cleverness in problem solving. He clearly was a good Emperor and a decent role model for modern leaders and managers to study.

References

Birley, A. R. (2000). Marcus Aurelius: A biography. New York: Routledge.

Holland, T. (2003). Rubicon: The last years of the Roman Republic. Chicago: IL, Doubleday.

Deal, T. E. & Peterson, K. D. (1999). Shaping school culture: The school leader's role. San Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.