This year, I was the principal force in coordinating Schoolcraft College’s Dialogues Honoring Martin Luther King, Jr. Not only were the dialogues based on a lesson plan I developed for my history courses, but more than 500 students participated in one of the 20 dialogues; dialogues which were facilitated by nine members of the faculty. Because of the success of the event, I have been complimented by the college president, the dean, and others around campus. As a result, colleagues might argue that it would be ideal if I organized next year’s dialogues. They would be wrong.

It would not be healthy for the dialogues or any other event to be “owned” by just one faculty member. Especially at a small college where there are fewer people to do the work, it is too easy to just let one person keep doing a particular job or teaching a particular course. If I were to coordinate the event year after year after year after year, the campus community would soon begin referring to “Steve Berg’s dialogues;” not the dialogues honoring Dr. King.

When a faculty member owns an event, it prevents the event from becoming fully institutionalized. For example, who wants to fund Steve’s pet project when we have so many institutional needs? The fact that the dialogues honoring Dr. King are important and fulfill institutional goals can too easily be lost in a discussion about Steve’s event.

Finally, when an event is owned by one faculty member, it becomes harder for other faculty members to be involved. I have often seen individuals complain about colleagues who do not step forward when, in fact, the complainer does not really welcome the involvement of others. Even if they were not overtly excluded, they might exclude themselves. For example, if the dialogues had been associated with only one person, I would not have stepped forward this year with my idea.

Four of the faculty members who helped facilitate this year’s dialogues were only in their second semester as full time faculty at the college. While they might have had difficulty getting the event organized this year, all of them are now experienced and could easily take the leadership role next year. Not only is it our obligation to welcome newly hired faculty into the ranks, it makes our jobs easier if we do. Adjunct faculty members can also make valuable contributions—if we only show a willingness to include them.

Burn out is another potential problem. I am not suggesting that my dean needs to worry that coordinating this particular event will become overwhelming for me. While I did put in two very long days on campus, the overall preparation time was fairly minimal. Instead, I am concerned about a burnout of ideas.

This year’s dialogues were based on one of those inspired lessons that we all have in our teaching arsenals. Therefore, it was easy for me to modify and then share it with the campus community. But how many inspired lessons do I have at my fingertips that could serve as an appropriate basis for a dialogue honoring Dr. King? If I am honest, I must admit that there is just one—the one we used this year. Even if I were to come up with a quality idea for next year’s dialogue, eventually I would burn out on an intellectual level and my ideas would go from the inspired to the mundane.

Even if I were to come up with brilliant ideas year after year, the dialogues would continue to reflect my ideological and pedagogical approach. If we are to maintain a robust event, we need to make sure that a variety of approaches are taken.

As a faculty, we had a spirited discussion about what films or film clips would or would not be appropriate to show students. One of my colleagues is not as comfortable as I am in showing a film clip that makes students uncomfortable. And while we went with the film I had proposed—a Shirley Temple one-reeler called Kid ‘in’ Africa (1933)—my colleague brought her class to participate.

The approach another colleague wanted to take to the dialogues bothered me a great deal. The issues he wanted to raise about King’s legacy were legitimate. However, I was not sure if using the material he proposed was an appropriate way to honor Dr. King on his birthday. Yet, if this colleague organizes next year’s dialogues, I will be there with my classes.

Not only is an event harmed if a variety of faculty viewpoints are not part of it, but the faculty member who owns the event is also harmed. Last year, the colleague who likes safer material organized excellent dialogues in which she showed an excerpt from Jim Crow’s Museum (2004); a documentary I now use in some of my classes. Had she not stepped forward, it is unlikely that I would have been exposed to this documentary. And my classes would be poorer because of it.

Furthermore, the materials that I did not think were appropriate to use as part of the dialogues honoring Dr. King will be incorporated into one of the courses I am teaching this semester. And if the timing works out, I hope to have my colleague who proposed that approach visit the class as a guest speaker. Ironically, the unit in which I plan to use this material is one in which my students will be designing their own dialogues. Although I do not agree with my colleague’s approach, my students should be exposed to his ideas as they consider their options for honoring Dr. King.

Although I believe it would be a mistake for me to be the lead faculty member for the 2008 Dialogues Honoring Martin Luther King, Jr., I need not be excluded. For example, last year’s lead faculty member ordered the books we distributed at this year’s event. Next year, I might be able to take on the role of reserving the room, helping with publicity, or facilitating one of the dialogues. But, for my own sanity and the viability of the Dialogues Honoring Martin Luther King, Jr., I should not be the principle person designing the program.

–Steven L. Berg, PhD

---

---