citizenship

Last month Karlo and Colin wrote a post following Netroots Nation that called for some reconciliation in the name of progress.

Millennials carry the spirit of the founding fathers, perhaps more closely than generations in recent times. We understand that quality interactions with our counterparts advocating in good faith are more important than building huge e-mail lists based upon tactics of fear and hate. We talk to others, on this blog, on Facebook, on Twitter, and we do it with civility - or at least we try. We interact this way because we know others are watching and that everything we do and say is on-the-record. This does not mean that we don't stick to our principles and our values and voice our opinions. What it does mean is that we know that we are having conversations with people, other than those that just agree with everything we say. We're not about burning bridges; we're about mending them and building them out into the future.

I agree with their vision as expressed here. I think the two predominant political camps in this country do spend too much time trying to find the most vulnerable aspects in the opposition's activities for their own short-term political advantage. While I would point out that not all Millennials carry the spirit Karlo and Colin describe, the prevailing view among youth today is that compromise is important. "Pragmatic idealism" is a descriptor I have seen used for the way we view politics. To engage in this approach, though, I believe we need to take a step back and rethink the way we view politics.

Obama was elected on a platform that had at its core the notion that we could disagree without being disagreeable. And I still believe that's one of the more redeeming qualities our president possesses, to be able to espouse that and enact it day to day. However, to our detriment, he does this while viewing politics as an episodic adventure, as a negative thing. I can't tell you how many times I have heard him accusing someone of "playing politics."

First, politics isn't something to be played. It's a reality. It happens all around us. My writing this blog is political. You reading it is political. You daring to think about it later today and telling someone about it (crossing fingers) is political. What I'm trying to convey is that politics is not a battle that can be joined and not joined.

In addition, politics is not inherently negative. Interestingly, in its original Greek form, the definition of politics is less loaded; with polis meaning "city state," politikos roughly translates to “of the citizen,” signaling a citizen-centered view of politics with a focus on those things concerning city or state affairs. Aristotle argues that politics consists of the interplay between people from different backgrounds and interests, holding different views, while aiming to complete a task. In other words, politics is a constant that citizens cannot ignore; in fact, acknowledging and embracing one's constant participation forms the heart of democracy.

Viewing politics this way, we can see why E.J. Dionne's column is so discerning in today's Post.

Obama's mistake is captured by that disdainful reference to "politicking." In a democracy, separating governing from "politicking" is impossible. "Politicking" is nothing less than the ongoing effort to convince free citizens of the merits of a set of ideas, policies and decisions. Voters feel better about politicians who put what they are doing in a compelling context. Citizens can endure setbacks as long as they believe the overall direction of the government's approach is right.

I suppose this is another take on the whole "Obama needs a narrative" meme that has been playing out. But I like this because I think the critique is more accurate. His attacking politics undercuts himself and what he is trying to do. This damage is then made worse by not giving any foundational rationale for what he is trying to do in the first place. Talk about giving special interests and "anything goes" politics a free pass...

Colin and Karlo were right: as long as we're fighting about character issues and other small-minded topics, we have already lost. When we are not talking about a set of ideas, policies, and decisions to be made in an honest way, we let special interests wreck everything (at which point Millennials may as well turn on some John Mayer).

It behooves all of us, including our president, to view politics as a constant, something we cannot ignore. The mixing of various views, backgrounds, and interests is always at work, and, especially now, there will always be a task to pursue. If the 2008 enthusiasm was genuine, if it meant something -- if Obama was serious about his call for citizens to step it up -- our president and all of us need to re-calibrate our views on politics. Pragmatic idealism just might have a shot then.

Matt Bai wrote an interesting piece in the Times last week, noting how far we've come in our various debates since the 1960s, while acknowledging that, in some ways, we have not come far at all. Bai used the controversies surrounding Rand Paul and Richard Blumenthal to make his case.

Why then, to quote the ubiquitous Bono, is our political debate so stuck in a moment it cannot get out of? In part, it is probably because so many of the Americans most engaged in politics — as well as those who run campaigns and comment endlessly on them — are old enough to remember Altamont. It is your classic self-fulfilling prophecy: the more the ’60s generation dominates the political discourse, the less that discourse engages younger voters, and the longer the boomers hold sway over our politics.

On a deeper level, though, this all probably has as much to do with our basic human tendency toward moral clarity. As much as conservatives may view the decade as the crucible of moral relativism and the beginning of a breakdown in established social order, there remains something powerfully attractive about the binary, simplistic nature of it all, the idea that one could easily distinguish whether he was for war or against, in favor of equality or opposed.

By contrast, war today seems more a question of degrees and limits, while equality seems less about the laws of the land than about disparities in economic and educational opportunities that are subtler and harder to address. The choices of our moment are not nearly so neat or so satisfying as they were a generation ago, which makes them less useful as a basis for one’s political identity, and harder to encapsulate in some 30-second spot or prime-time rant.

Emphasis is mine. I find myself agreeing with Bai's explanation, especially given my work with college students. Our students today are getting their bachelor's degree and I would wager that, the way we construct our educational system in this country, a significant number get out of it without having to think critically about issues. If I'm a student and I have followed external formulas guiding my behavior, never having this behavior challenged, I am not even aware that there is anything other than my cozy dualistic system from which I can choose (Harvard developmental psychologist Robert Kegan would say I am subject in my meaning-making capabilities). Of course a simplistic, yet disingenuous politics is going to thrive.

In order for us to challenge this lack of preparation we are offering our students, we must challenge the hegemonic structure dictating that campaigns or discussions on public affairs must run this way. Simultaneously, we must purge ourselves of the assumption that we must go to college to have a chance to learn this. These are big tasks; these notions unobtrusively penetrate our lives everyday, seducing us to believe that, because its the way things work, we must follow it. You go to college, get a four degree, and then work somewhere because you are deemed to be bright enough to do so and be a citizen. There's a code for it: it's "tradition." It's romanticized. The degree is money, we're taught. Yes, our realities are much more contextual than they used to be; our technology, while improving our lives and making them more efficient, gives us a tangential responsibility of learning supplemental skills to be able to cope with the effects of the improvements.

Yet, how many of these college degree-holding, former students come home from work and sit in front of their TVs, allowing the sonorous voices of Bill O'Reilly, Wolf Blitzer, and/(but most likely) or Keith Olbermann to fill their living rooms? Many, I'd be willing to bet. And it's because "we're tired." We've been thinking all day. We need someone to explain things to us, not help us understand anything better. And so when Blitzer's voice gets pitchy with excitement, indelicately discussing stories as complex as the history of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the opportunity to parse what he is saying, to explore it, to uncover it, comes and goes. "Why is this garbage on TV?," someone might ask. But given the way we tackle education in this country, we are all too often incapable of answering our own questions.

So when I read Matt Bai's piece last week, I couldn't help but get excited. A writer for one of the main cogs in this hegemonic structure takes notice of the primary problem -- it's a welcome event. Yet, until we have younger people willing to challenge the status quo of journalism and education in this country (and older ones courageous enough to assist), our external formulas will triumph.

If you have followed Future Majority over the last couple years, you will recognize that Thomas Friedman's hit piece on Millennials, labeling them "Generation Q" for being too quiet, serves as the foundation for many a post. His Boomer paradigm interferes with his ability to understand how Millennial activism differs.

Friedman argues that Millennials may be "too quiet, too online, for its own good, and for the country's own good." The problem most of us had with Friedman's writing was that he was unable to see that one could be mad, could be online, and could be productive all at once. Another issue was the power Friedman ascribed to symbolic and yet meaningless acts. What good is chaining one's self to a bulldozer actually going to accomplish long-term? Very little.

With that in mind, we now have some more information regarding college students' heavy use of social media, and it is easy to see how our activism has changed course. The International Center for Media and the Public Agenda (ICMPA) at the University of Maryland released a study revealing the considerable depth of students' connections to social media.

200 University of Maryland (College Park) students, as part of a class assignment, were asked to abstain from all media for 24 hours straight. Following this time window, they were then asked to describe their experiences in private blogs. Perhaps the most interesting nugget of information this study yielded was just how interwoven social media has become in 18-21 year olds' lives.

"The students did complain about how boring it was go anywhere and do anything without being plugged into music on their MP3 players," said Moeller. "And many commented that it was almost impossible to avoid the TVs on in the background at all times in their friends' rooms. But what they spoke about in the strongest terms was how their lack of access to text messaging, phone calling, instant messaging, email and Facebook, meant that they couldn't connect with friends who lived close by, much less those far away."

"Texting and IM-ing my friends gives me a constant feeling of comfort," wrote one student. "When I did not have those two luxuries, I felt quite alone and secluded from my life. Although I go to a school with thousands of students, the fact that I was not able to communicate with anyone via technology was almost unbearable."

The student responses to the assignment showed not just that 18-21 year old college students are constantly texting and on Facebook -- with calling and email distant seconds as ways of staying in touch, especially with friends -- but that students' lives are wired together in such ways that opting out of that communication pattern would be tantamount to renouncing a social life.

Bringing this back to the Friedman contention that students should cut out the online crap and do something meaningful with their lives, this survey points to how misguided Friedman actually was in his writing. Social media is so pervasive and such a large part of our world that it is rewiring our brains. As the piece argues above, there is no exiting the social media world to "act" in the real world. To the wide majority of young people, social media is reality. If one had to renounce his or her social life in order to please Friedman, the activism would not mean anything.

Another enlightening conclusion was the impact the abstention from media had on these students' information-gathering capabilities. Participants in the study reported that they normally do not read the newspaper, watch mainstream television news, or listen to radio news, yet they were informed enough to discuss specific news stories. During the study, though, participants remarked on how uninformed they felt.

..."To be entirely honest I am glad I failed the assignment," wrote one student, "because if I hadn't opened my computer when I did I would not have known about the violent earthquake in Chile from an informal blog post on Tumblr."

"Students expressed tremendous anxiety about being cut-off from information," observed Ph.D. student Raymond McCaffrey, a former writer and editor at The Washington Post, and a current researcher on the study. "One student said he realized that he suddenly 'had less information than everyone else, whether it be news, class information, scores, or what happened on Family Guy."

"They care about what is going on among their friends and families and even in the world at large," said McCaffrey. " But most of all they care about being cut off from that instantaneous flow of information that comes from all sides and does not seemed tied to any single device or application or news outlet."

Students clearly rely on social media for information. Given our knowledge -- going clear back to Thomas Jefferson -- that information is vital in managing our country's affairs, dispensing with internet-based activism would be foolish and regressive, breeding even more disengagement and misinformation.

Friedman's Boomer lens assumes that we still have a critical mass of institutions that need tearing down, and that it needs to happen quickly. These Millennial college students, as Morley Winograd and Michael Hais point out, understand how decentralized our lives are, and, in role-modeling their "civic" archetype, they must rely on these anything-but-linear connections and the decentralized flow of information to reconstruct society.

Because idealist generations are unwilling to compromise on moral issues, they've always failed to solve the major social and economic problems of their eras. In the decades after the 1828 election, the country was pulled apart over slavery, ultimately leading to the Civil War. After the 1896 campaign, the United States couldn't find a way to help blue-collar workers and farmers to share fully in the wealth generated by the Industrial Revolution. It took the Great Depression to usher in the sense of urgency that led to Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. Today, issues such as affordable health care or quality education or climate change are endlessly debated but never resolved by two sides unwilling to set aside their ideological agendas for the common good.

But now, with another civic generation emerging, the times, as boomer troubadour Bob Dylan sang, they are a-changin'. Civic generations react against the idealist generations' efforts to use politics to advance their own moral causes and focus instead on reenergizing social, political and government institutions to solve pressing national issues. Previous civic realignments occurred in 1860, with the election of Abraham Lincoln, and in 1932, when the GI generation put Roosevelt in office. It's no coincidence that these "civic" presidents, along with George Washington, top all lists of our greatest presidents. All three led the country in resolving great crises by inspiring and guiding new generations and revitalizing and expanding the federal government.

In their book Millennial Makeover, Winograd and Hais describe technology as "[enabling] these changes by creating powerful new ways to reach new generations of voters with messages that relate directly to their concerns" (p. 24). Yes, face-to-face interaction continues to have its place in our society. However, if we were to scrap our reliance on social media, we would be willfully ignoring the new generations of voters Winograd and Hais mention. This study's results underscore how vital social media is to our generation's civic health. If we were to purge ourselves of our internet activism, only then could we legitimately be considered "quiet."

Crossposted at Politics for the Common Good.

Rarely do I intentionally blend my graduate school lessons learned with the material discussed in this blog. I'm starting to realize that's a mistake.

As a graduate student in a Student Affairs in Higher Education program, I endeavor to eventually work on a college campus, encouraging students to mind their civic habits and responsibilities, while simultaneously teaching them about life throughout that journey. In order to fulfill graduation requirements for my masters program, I must work in an office on campus for twelve hours a week; such an experience usually involves creating some form of original work. In working with a leadership institute on campus, I have managed to perform my own bricolage, mixing two seemingly disparate elements together: politics and education. I have organized a series of discussions in which students having no knowledge of politics can contribute to a conversation, along with the political elite on campus, on what politics means to them. I guess one could metaphorically associate this effort with the training wheels needed for what is hopefully a life-long career marrying civic responsibility with education.

My motivation for pursuing what can be an all-too-frustrating task was initially selfish. I was a political science major. I didn't have the guts to denigrate characters in political attack ads or the logical skills needed to practice the law. I liked living and working on a college campus as an undergraduate. Voila. Student affairs allows me to straddle the line between politics and education.

But, as many a graduate student has come to know, this line I speak of is fictional. That's the lesson I have learned this year, perhaps nowhere better than these dialogues. Navigating a curriculum rooted in social constructivism, understanding that there is never a "right" answer, but merely socially-constructed knowledge, has sharpened my realization that politics is in everything we do. Yes, it's in presidential elections every four years. It is in the partisan bickering and strategizing that goes on in Washington. But it is also in fraternity and sorority elections. It is in where you get your coffee in the morning. It is in the choice of news you wish to consume. Politics is everywhere.

My experience with undergraduates at my former place of employment and my current institution reveals to me that I was not alone in seeing the line. Politics can be compartmentalized into a convenient box. Students associate politics with Washington DC, voting, Congress, and the like. In one of our political dialogues this month, one of the students expressed boredom with politics. "Whenever I see politics on TV I change the channel," they explained. "It's just not fun. I don't really want to get involved." Yet, the act of channelsurfing itself is political. They did get involved in their decision to forego public affairs programming.

Unfortunately that involvement was unseen, and small in magnitude. I am recognizing that while student affairs practitioners and scholars spend quite a bit of time on social justice education, we tend to spend less time on civic education, developing the set of tools needed to engage in one's community. While service-learning and voter registration drives have been trendy on college campuses over the last two presidential elections, engagement in local and state politics continues to suffer. It's no wonder students associate politics with dysfunctional Washington.

If we were to take a problem-solving approach in our student affairs practice, we might make some headway.

Embracing a problem-solving approach to learning would be appropriate if we seek to rid higher education of the “mind/body split” that compartmentalizes intellectual discussion from one’s public actions (hooks, 1994, p. 16). A problem-solving approach would require the construction of deep and sustainable relationships between student affairs educators and the rest of the faculty, staff, and administration; a problem-solving-based model would necessitate an emphasis on the common good, meaning that students would see departments and offices role model this approach by collectivizing agendas as much as possible and placing the institution’s mission (which would ideally emphasize problem-solving) above their own. In addition to the construction of strong relationships, a problem-solving approach would encourage student affairs educators to create Freirian relationships with students; with an emphasis on community problem-solving, student/teacher and teacher/student “learn from and teach each other” – “doing ‘with’ rather than ‘for’” (as cited in Manning 1994, p. 95).

In this model, collaboration is the name of the game. The common good is at the heart of this effort, with problems uniting academic disciplines, student affairs staff, and students as opposed to egos, departments that are siloed off from each other, and disengaged students. To get here, we do need to re-examine our social justice efforts.

In order to face society’s problems today, our students must first begin the process of understanding and exploring their identity, their values, and how they view difference. In addition, the educational nature of problem-solving demands from students the ability to see an issue from another’s perspective. Following these tough lessons, students also need to learn about power and privilege, the source of many of the problems our students will be trying to solve.

Politics does not have to be perceived as a bad thing. The derivation of the word -- “polis” is the Greek word for a city or state, thus “politikos,” or politics, means affairs/issues of the city/state -- is hardly negative. However, college students unfortunately associate the broken system currently in Washington with politics; consequently, "politics" gets a bad name and other, more positive opportunities for political engagement become invisible. With just a bit more effort, student affairs practitioners can reveal the other side of politics -- civil conversations, learning from others, changing their realities to help themselves and others -- and align programs with our institutions' "citizenship"-laden mission statements.

Given the high levels of partisanship and dysfunctionality in our Congress, perhaps Thomas Friedman is right to suggest a new way of drawing Congressional district lines, thanks to inspiration from a leader in the field of democracy studies, Stanford scholar Larry Diamond.

Diamond suggests two innovations. First, let every state emulate California’s recent grass-roots initiative that took away the power to design state electoral districts from the state legislature and put it in the hands of an independent, politically neutral, Citizens Redistricting Commission. It will go to work after the 2010 census and reshape California’s state legislative districts for the coming elections. Henceforth, districts in California will not be designed to be automatically Democratic or Republican — so more of them will be competitive, so more candidates will only be electable if they appeal to the center, not just cater to one party. (There is a movement pressing for the same independent commission to be given the power to redraw Congressional districts.)

As I see it, this has two benefits.

1.) This puts one of the republic's responsibilities (defining constituencies for representatives) back into the people's hands. Thus, ordinary folks not only get to choose their representatives, but they also exercise more power in reconstructing that process.

2.) It leads to more honest electoral races. With the elections constructed by the people themselves, campaigns have more incentive to focus on the common good as opposed to the interests of elite insiders (notice I didn't say they will be exclusively focused on the common good -- more needs to be done).

It's not often I agree with Friedman, but I concur with his endorsement of Diamond's proposal. The people need to reassert their will on our governing processes. Taking over redistricting is one way of doing so.

Peter Levine asks this question in tracing the evaporation of the active citizenship theme from the campaign to the White House.

Service and transparency are not nearly "edgy" enough; there is no fight in them. People are angry - from the Tea Partiers to MoveOn. When citizens try to solve serious social problems, they identify enemies. They do not just hold hands and serve together; they strike back at those whom they perceive as threats. "Active citizenship" reduced to non-controversial "service" or downloading government data completely loses touch with the legitimate anger of the American people.

The White House chose to make health care its major focus and included no aspects of civic engagement in the deliberations about the bill, in its advocacy for the legislation, or in the design of the statute. There could have been real public discussions, instead of sham "Town Meetings" that were really speeches by politicians with time for Q&A. Progressive volunteers could have been encouraged to conduct face-to-face dialogues in their communities and to form relationships with one another (instead of merely finding themselves on the receiving end of an email list). The legislation could have included health co-ops as an experiment in engaging citizens in policy.

As Levine notes to close out his piece, the climate legislation, currently "stuck in the Senate," makes for a good starter kit for this new, authentic political dialogue, in which the grassroots is mobilized and the American people are asked to participate. It's audacious in that it could shift the debate away from special interests (or at least make their involvement more transparent), and it could restore more faith in our government. An addendum might be asking C-SPAN to cover these dialogues across America and any administrative meetings in Washington. Obama has already admitted he messed up by not involving C-SPAN in health care discussions.

Last weekend, our friend Thomas Friedman argued that while things are looking up for China these days, America still holds on to the title of "World's Greatest Dream Machine." Unfortunately, Friedman writes, imagination does not translate into good governance. Friedman argues that the increased fragmentation of American society has rendered it incapable of producing optimal solutions to its problems. Friedman's answer?

The standard answer is that we need better leaders. The real answer is that we need better citizens. We need citizens who will convey to their leaders that they are ready to sacrifice, even pay, yes, higher taxes, and will not punish politicians who ask them to do the hard things. Otherwise, folks, we’re in trouble. A great power that can only produce suboptimal responses to its biggest challenges will, in time, fade from being a great power — no matter how much imagination it generates.

Okay, we can work with that. The generic call for more citizenship is a good step for Friedman. But as Peter Levine notes, Friedman stops at generalities when we need something more.

I agree with [the notion that we need better citizens] and have staked my whole career on this premise. But how do you get 'better citizens'? ... I welcome Friedman's conclusion but wish he would get behind concrete solutions.

Levine asserts that any plan to reform the nation's media to encourage better citizenship skills is ill-fated; the increased fragmentation of interests, opinions, and messages prevents even our most charismatic of messengers (Barack Obama) from clearly communicating to the rest of society. Instead, Levine suggests that the development of better citizens can be found in two strategies.

1. Get them while they're young, receptive, and a captive audience. Build really engaging, unbiased, motivating, and informative civic education into the school curriculum. My blog posts categorized as advocating civic education and a high school civic curriculum are about that.

2. Reform institutions so that hands-on participation by ordinary adults is welcomed and rewarding. The theory is that people who see tangible impact from their own civic engagement (mainly at the local level) will want to be informed and to exchange ideas and perspectives with people different from themselves. My blog posts about deliberation and civic reform are about that.

I wholeheartedly agree with Levine's approach and felt it was important to echo this here. We should be doing everything possible, working with organizations like the National Center for Learning and Citizenship (NCLC), to infuse civics education into K-12 education as much as possible. Levine's second strategy is particularly apt in discussions regarding youth involvement in political parties. In 2008, for example, youth were still struggling for representation near the top of the Democratic Party. To create better citizens, targeting education to the young and increasing access to opportunities are far and away better solutions than simply restating the problem.

Many educational scholars and practitioners argue the importance of civic responsibility in higher education. With the outcome of students learning how to be good citizens in focus, colleges and universities talk a great deal about fostering an appreciation of social responsibility and civic engagement on their campuses, with some institutions doing more than others.

A survey released this week by the Assocation of American Colleges and Universities as a part of its Core Commitments initiative reflects the importance with which civic responsibility is viewed among students, faculty, and staff, but points to a large split between what students perceive to be happening in the way of civic education on campus versus the faculty, staff, and administration's view.

Here are some of the survey's findings:

There is a Gap Between Campus Aspirations and Campus Realities.

While 58 percent of students surveyed strongly agreed that contributing to a larger community should be a major focus of their institutions, only 41.5 percent strongly agreed that contributing to a larger community currently is a major focus at their college or university.

Campuses are Perceived as Promoting the Value of Community Involvement but Fewer Agree that Their Campus Actually Advances Students’ Knowledge and Awareness of Public Issues.

About half of all faculty and 45 percent of students strongly agree that their campus promotes the value of contributing to the community. Only 37.7 percent of faculty and 40.4 percent of students strongly agree that their campus actively promotes awareness of U.S. social, political, and economic issues.

Student Skepticism About Campus Focus on Civic Engagement Grows From First to Final Years.

The percentage of students who strongly agreed that contributing to a larger community is a responsibility that their campus values and promotes declines markedly from first to senior year. The number of seniors who “strongly agree” that their campus actively promotes awareness of social, political, and economic issues is roughly one-half of first-year students who “strongly agree” with that statement.

Campuses Offer Opportunities to Become Civically Engaged, but Few Students Take Advantage of Them.

About half of all students strongly agreed that their institutions offer opportunities for contributing to the larger community, but only one out of five (18.9 percent) students report frequent participation in community-based projects as part of their coursework. One in four (25.6 percent) report frequent participation in community-based projects that are unconnected to their courses.

The main message here is that saying and doing are two different things.

Yes, institutions like to use language like "civic engagement," "civic responsibility," "social responsibility," "engagement," and the like, and while some actually do put into practice these values, the reality is that the higher ed system doesn't reward it. Faculty actually lack the necessary incentives to incorporate civic education into their classrooms given the weight of published work in the tenure process. Student affairs educators are bound by time and the legitimate fear untenured faculty have of engaging in this style of learning. And as a result, students don't believe colleges and universities are providing them with the civic responsibility they are expecting. Unless we have a culture of intentionality and a structure encouraging authentic, collaborative learning among students, I believe those of us working/studying in higher education are always going to be stuck in this divide.

Students acknowledge there are opportunities present to connect to a "larger community" in their current experience, but their concept of a "larger community" apparently does not match the institution's. Perhaps the structure of the academy is holding itself and students back from properly teaching the importance of civic education to college students.

As Millennials move through American college campuses, many colleges and universities are taking advantage of "the organization kid," as David Brooks labeled the average Millennial, increasingly creating opportunities for students to "engage" themselves in their education.

An InsideHigherEd.com article this week reported yet another milestone in this process, as Robert Morris University created the position "Dean of Engaged Learning," and started a mandatory program for incoming first year students that will require them to demonstrate fulfillment of two categories of engagement in order to graduate (in addition to the traditional requirements).

Activities must fall in one of seven areas: arts, culture and creativity; "transcultural/global" experiences, which include studying abroad; research; community service; leadership; professional experience; and independent study projects. Starting in the fall, the university will require incoming freshmen to demonstrate participation in at least two of the seven categories to graduate, on top of completing traditional requirements based on majors.

Surveys conducted by the university found that the majority of students would easily meet the requirement, based on their ongoing or previous participation in activities, said David Jamison, senior vice president for academic affairs. The program is intended to be flexible. For example, adult learners majoring in information systems can fulfill the professional experience requirement by doing internships, Jamison said.

As dean of engaged learning, Payne said her main duty is to make the now-mandatory program as efficient as possible by coordinating between all the de-centralized offices involved and approving new activities that fulfill the requirements. Whereas the dean of student life focuses primarily on student clubs, she will take a broader focus, including academic departments. The document is partly geared toward future employers, serving as proof of a student's involvement in campus life and complementing his or her academic transcript.

"The other thing it also does is, by definition, encourage students to participate in some of these activities," Payne said. "Students like to have well-rounded backgrounds and be involved. The engagement transcript encourages them to look at the broad spectrum of categories."

As the article points out, the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) has picked up an increase in "engagement techniques" being used in classrooms. Students are learning how to apply information learned in the classroom outside of the classroom, either on the campus itself, or in surrounding communities.

There are those non-believers who will protest the addition of another staff member to the payroll, for what appears to be nonsense. But the creation of such a position is an opportunity to strengthen students' skills at a time when they're going to need them. In our current economic climate, the ability to translate knowledge into practical skills is more important than ever.

Furthermore, the creation of this position sends a powerful message to those in the Robert Morris community, the Pittsburgh community, and beyond, exemplifying the school's ability to put its money where its mouth is.

Kudos to Robert Morris University.

(7:05) "We have a provision in the energy bill to estabalish a green bank to priovide low cost finnacing opportunitities for companies that are engaged in developing the [green sector]" - Rep Van Hollen

(7:00) "For those of you who support the President's agenda for change.. please remember that midterm elections are a point of great danger, especially for newly elected democrats.. They will be seen as a midterm report card on the President's agenda" - Rep. Van Hollen

(6:58) Representative Van Hollen is the last speaker of the day - "keep it up in elections to come"

(6:50) "technological innnovation is going to lead us out of our economic doldrums" - Representative Lofgren

(6:47) Representative Lofgren to speak next! Has been a champion for young people and our power as a generation

(6:41) Congressman Nadler highlights green jobs and healthcare jobs as areas for growth

(6:37) Tuition is rising as a percentage of middle class income - Rep Nadler

(6:33) Congressman Nadler to address our summit now

(6:24) Rep Hinojosa compares Chinese and American education. Chinese envy the U.S. ability to go to college

(6:22) Representatives Hinojosa and Nadler walked in together. Rep. Hinojosa to speak first

(6:15) "What we believe in should be what we are executing in our daily lives" Rep. Ryan

(6:13) "If you are committed and with a group that is committed, then something will happen" Rep Ryan

(6:10) Just as we were about to vote on healthcare Congressman Ryan from Ohio has walked in to address the 80 Million Strong Summit

(6:00) There is a discussion ensuing about including specific groups rather than talking about a broad topic of at-risk groups. A lot of interesting points are being brought up.

(5:47) Healthcare policy team is beginning to report ideas and pumped in the room. When I say health, you say care! Health - Care!

(5:40) Voting on Public Service policies show these top ideas: 1) establishing a public service academy, 2) Segal Education tax free 3) increasing access to AmeriCorps by raising wages

(5:32) New Idea in Public Policy includes congressional call to action program.

(5:23) Ideas from the Public Service policy table include, providing loan forgiveness programs & establish a public service academy

(5:15) Voting results from internship policy discussions: Top idea is "Propose legislation that establishes the rule that grants or loans for summer internships should no count agains a student's total"

(5:11) New ideas being presented from the table discussion on internship programs: include ideas ranging from mentorship programs to working to tax incentives for programs that pay their interns

(5:09) Top national security idas are 1) diplomatic service program, 2) foreign language opportunities, 3) repeal DADT

(5:07) Back to voting on National Security policy proposals

(5:01) Leader Hoyer speaks about healthcare after demonstration about who of the 80 Million Strong summit lacks health insurance

(4:57) Q: What are you going to do to make sure that youth have authentic voice with our public officials? Hoyer: I think that you have had impact. You were an important part of the Obama election... You're going to be in positions of responsibility within the next few years.

(4:52) Q: What is Congress going to do to pay down the national debt? Hoyer answer: First, we need to stop the red ink, and then pay down the red ink that we have incurred.

(4:48) Leader Hoyer: "Young People, you are the best we have"

(4:40) Leader Hoyer calls the 80 million strong coalition to action - "one of you can make a difference, and imagine all the change you can bring when you multiply that by 80 million"

(4:35) Leader Hoyer characterized the energy bill as both a jobs bill (creates between 1.5-2.5 million) and a national security bill

(4:30) Majority Leader Hoyer starts speaking: He wonders were the other 79,999,900 of the millennial generation are

(4:26) Votes about to start.. oh wait Majority Leader Hoyer just stepped in!

(4:23) Small groups brought a young diplomatic service program fostering deep relationships between citizens, cultures, and governments. Focus on developing realtionships with community colleges

(4:17) Back from break. National Security policies are being presented from our small groups now.

(4:02) Education votes are in. The top education vote getters are: 1) Community Scholars Program 2) develop curriculum to implement in high schools that includes aspects of financial literacy 3)Solutions to the student debt loan issue 4) pass the DREAM act

(3:54) Voting on education policy commences - awaiting results

(3:27) Education ideas are being reported from the small groups. After this, the vote.

(3:07) Vote is over on entrepreneurship priorities. The top vote getter is the Youth Innovation Fund idea.

(3:01) OK, back to the entrepreneurship vote.

(2:55) Thanks Rep Clyburn for coming to speak to the #80MS young leaders!

(2:49) Q: Tell us about young people and healthcare. JC - 1) Increase the age limit (now it's 25) that people in school can stay on their parents' insurance. 2) If you are a small business (less than 10 employees) that we will be able to respond to your special needs with an exemption. If as a small business owner you want to offer health insurance to your employees, then you can get a tax credit.

(2:38) Q: What is one issue of importance do you feel needs to be pushed out in today's time? JC - "It's not even close - health care."

(2:36) Question to JC, what's it been like politically with the Dems in majority? - "I learned early that you are much better off pursuing bi-partisanship, then you are if you never make the attempt."

(2:31) JC quotes a langston poem- "Hold fast to dreams, for dreams die, life is a broken wing bird that cannot fly." He tells us he lost his first three elections! And since he didn't listen to baseball rules (3 strikes and you're out), he was still able to succeed. "For as long as their is life, there is hope. You always hold fast to your dreams."

(2:23) Wait a minute! Rep James Clyburn is here to speak! (We'll finish voting after his talk).

(2:22) 14 entrepreneurship ideas on the docket...what will be the top priorities in this area? Voting on this now...

(2:16) ...teaching entrepreneurship skills in public education environment.

(2:12) More additions from the entrepreneurship groups: 1) Tax incentives going to the youth ventures receiving loans. 2) Crowd-source microloan porgram; incentive is tax deduction for lender. We can use the resources of our own generation. Perhaps tax incentives to those who do contribute to youth ventures. 3) Public-private sponsorship of national contest/matching grant.

(2:08). One small group wants to include community give-back programs as part of a SBA loan to young entrepreneurs.

(2:06) We're back from lunch. Each small group is reporting back from their discussion. Entrepreneurship is up first.

(1:35) Lunch is about done and we are ready to delve into the policy discussions from the small groups. (We're still streaming the event from here: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/80-million-strong-summit). And check out our Twitter for additional commentary: @80MS.

(12:40) Policy priorities: 1) Education 2) Health Care 3) Green Jobs 4) Public Service. (Education, Entrepreneurship, Green Jobs and Public Service are top issue areas that people want to spend time discussing in their small groups.)

(12:20) Policy Focus Areas: Core Content (general areas) - Education, Entrepreneurship, Green Jobs, Health Care, Internship, National Security and Public Service. In small groups, summiteers now choose what issue that want to focus on.

(12:13) Break time is up and we are set to move into our first policy discussion.

(11:52) KS - Question about rural development. A. There is a huge disparity between rural and urban areas. The people that live in rural counties and communities are in a reality facing a different life. Per capita income is $10K less than your city cousins and your healthcare and food costs are higher. We want to bring broadband to rural America. We are looking at how energy and climate change legislation will provide opportunities to rural America.

(11:49) KS - Question: Do you consider off-shore drilling an appropriate stop-gap? We are in the process of how to move forward on the inter-continental shelf. We oversee the development of the natural resources of our country . OVer 50% of the electricity produced comes from coal. 25% of oil and natural gas comes from public lands. Our view is that development should occur where necessary, but some areas are too sensitive for development. We are not in a position yet that we can stop oil and gas development. We will pursue a balanced approached to development.

(11:46) KS - Question, how is dept of interior using new media to get young people to get out to the parks? We are developing a project on this and a re-do of our current systems (very old systems!). He says he can't even send an email to all his employees.

(11:37) KS - Question about civilian service academy (he supports it). Question about mountaintop removal (he says we need to stop the ones that degrade our streams; creating a rule to protect the streams from degradation that may occur from mining activities).

(11:35) KS - "young people have not been participating in the outdoors and they should!" Q&A time!

(11:33) KS - "40 percent of the workforce in the dept of the interior will turnover. As scientists, as park rangers, so I would encourage you all to think about a service career in government. Same thing is true w/r/t to other agencies that will see that same kind of high turnover (baby boomers) in the years ahead."

(11:32) KS - "we know that when we talk about climate change, there is a huge opportunity for young people...harnessing the power of the wind, geothermal. In my office, we created an office specifically to engage youth...15,000 young people employed at our facilities across the country."

(11:31) KS - "was raised in a house without electricity, without a phone, speaking spanish in our household. people never thought i'd have the opportunities that i've had, but this country offers everyone an opportunity"

(11:28) KS - "when i think about my own history, it's just like yesterday i was your age. i think about your future when you're 30, 40, 50...you are an inspiration to me. I see the possibilities of tomorrow and what things human beings can do on this earth."

(11:25) KS - thanks us for our energy! (we got it, for sure!) "one of the young people i'm very proud of is a 23-year old working with me, making a big difference."

(11:23) Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, is here to speak.

(11:22) Core principle voting - top priorities: ideas and opinions of young americans should carry weight in public policy decisions; youth should have access to affordable higher ed; federal investments need to be dramatically increased to enable all youth access to quality secondary and post-secondary education...

(11:13) And we're voting on each of the core principles...

(11:07) A vote on streamlining language from young Americans to "all youth." (Voted down.) A vote on "we believe that citizens have a role in developing and working twoard solutions: government isn't the only solution." (Accepted.)

(11:01) Pictures from the first day of the summit so far - Check them out on our facebook page

(10:53) Adding "immigration status" to one of the factors that should never determine where you can attend school, work or how you are able to move up the career ladder.

(10:51) Adding new items to core principles document before voting...1) We believe the federal govt should improve access and provide incentives to young Americans to pursue opportunities in public sevice.

(10:35) Voting commences on core principles.

(10:30) JB just wrapped up and is headed to his daily economic policy meeting. We're transitioning into our core principles document, which we will refine with the summiteers.

(10:26) JB - "help suppliers who were formerly supplying auto manufactures to try to figure out what's the next move, so we want to help those suppliers make that transition. check out The National Innovation Marketplace."

(10:22) JB - "energy, healthcare and education will be long-lasting career opportunities."

(10:20) JB responds to a question about careers for the future. Healthcare is one area wherein long-term careers are possible and highly probable. Almost every industry has been shedding jobs, expect healthcare...

the livestream is finally up!!! http://www.ustream.tv/channel/80-million-strong-summit

(10:17) JB responds to a question about the daily economic briefing...says he can't share much since some thing could be market moving.

(10:16) JB - "we aspire, and our policies aim to reconnect the middle class, an economy that's delivering prosperity for all." Now some questions!

(10:13) JB - "if we're losing jobs, is the recovery act now working? false. it's a misunderstanding of keynesian economics or stimulus in general. there is no plan that could fully outset a $2 trillion output gap, that could fully outset the 2 million jobs lost in the 1st quarter of this year. What you do is shave some of that pain off...provide nutrition through food stamps, help folks get health insurance who lost their jobs, you start to provide employment opportunities. We are putting people back to work with this plan."

(10:11) JB - "there are aspects of financial markets that are stabilized, but we are far from out of the woods. 9.5 percent unemployment rate, a lot higher for younger people."

(10:10) JB - "in the short term, Keynesian stimulus was staring us right in the face...there is a role to play by the public sector to inject something into the economy...help with recovery and reinvestment, especially healthcare, green jobs and education."

(10:08) JB - has his daily economic meeting, but has some time with us today. Wants to give us "a brief overview of the economy and the role of some of our policies to stave off the deepest recession since the great depression." He's going to do Q&A after his remarks.

(10:03) Jared Bernstein just walked in the room.

(9:50) Folks are suggesting more groundrules to help keep the discussion focused and civil.

(9:30) Summiteers are in their small groups discussing what they think the most important framework and guideline for the summit. This is the base of the discussion.

(9:18) Results of the survey show a good mix of age ranges and gender, but the ethnicity results show a small majority of white participants at 53%.

(9:14) After a summit-wide meet and greet session, Chris Bui demonstrates the interactive voting system with participant survey questions.

(8:57) Chris Bui, our resident expert on the interactive voting during the summit, explains how to use the voting keypads. The participants are the only ones eligible to vote on the issues and policies discussed today.

(8:54) JR - social entrepreneurs are changemakers. They tend to be results oriented. It combines the best of liberal and conservative ideologies. Our goals, those of 80MS, need to be ambitious, and change the "fishing industry", instead of just teaching others to fish. We're on twitter, too! @80MS.

(8:51) JR - Talks about the beginning of GenerationEngage...to address the civic opportunity gap between college grads and those who never went to college.

(8:49) JR - "I genuinely love this...I love that there are so many civic leaders here."

(8:47) Enista introduces Justin Rockefeller, the chair of GenerationEngage, 8,500 members across the country.

(8:46) Maya Enista - "...how lucky i am to have this job to fight for and with my generation every morning...it's your duty to take what we do here back to your communities to start the 80MS national movement."

(8:41) Caitlin Howarth steps up. "each of you [summiteers] are more than just individuals, you bring the dreams of families and friends..."

(8:37) Matt Segal of S.A.V.E opens up this morning with a greeting. "We have a diverse group of young leaders from across America...Unemployment is nearly double the national average. We represent of 15 percent of the labor force but a third of the unemployed."

(8:31) Coalition staff members starting to roll-in. Justin Rockefeller will be the first to speak today.

(8:25 AM) Good morning FM readers! We got off to a bit of a slow start here at the Capitol Hill Visitor Center. Tech problems, you know. Summiteers are starting to arrive, get coffee and chat.

Follow the livestream from here (starting a little after 8:30 AM).

We'll uploading videos and pictures about the summiteers throughout the day, so look out for that content, too.