Much of the content, and about half of the language, in this draft was contributed by Dan Kaiser, and it also reflects specific suggestions from Jean Ketter, Sam Rebelsky, Loretta Johnson, and another faculty member.
I have made some more adjustments in the language in response to suggestions from Sam Rebelsky, Jean Ketter, Shannon Anderson, and Dan Kaiser
Sam also suggested breaking the long first sentence of the second paragraph into two or more clauses or even two or more sentences. I couldn't think of a way to do this without appearing to limit the range of the introductory phrase (`In its residential life', &c).
Sam suggested that ``we should have a document that indicates why we have a mission statement,'' and proposed a couple of possible reasons. He has subsequently drafted two essays, ``Building a mission statement'' and ``Why have a mission statement?'', which are now available at this Web site (with a few revisions and elaborations).
Sam Rebelsky has suggested that we might ask students currently in the first-year tutorials to read and comment on this draft, partly to find out how much weight to give to the Executive Council's concern that the potential Grinnell students might find the style intimidating, heavy, or tedious. I'd also be curious to see what they have to say. The students who contributed to our deliberations by e-mail to mission@grinnell.edu, in the Blackboard discussion group, and by e-mail to our committee made some valuable suggestions.
Vince Eckhart writes:
I originally composed a lengthy commentary about why and how Version 1's second paragraph should be revised. I erased all those comments when an alternative approach began to seem superior. Delete paragraph two.
I think that paragraph two: (1) places excessive emphasis on humans and their creations, to the apparent exclusion of natural science (except under the umbrella of "all forms of human creativity"); (2) repeats unnecessarily several ideas contained in the other two paragraphs; and (3) does not distinguish Grinnell from similar schools. With respect to no. 1 above, it is impossible to include every discipline in a mission statement and to describe each discipline in terms that satisfy everyone. Why try? Suffice it to say, as paragraph one does, that at Grinnell College we study the liberal arts (and sciences).
So I recommend getting rid of paragraph two. Paragraphs one and three say enough, and they say it memorably.
At the faculty meeting of October 15, Elizabeth Dobbs opined that this version of the mission statement is too long, giving as an example the phrase `study, discussion, and practice of the liberal arts'. She says that this could be shortened to `practice of the liberal arts'. To mention study and discussion separately is superfluous, since they are simply ways of practicing the liberal arts.
The rationale for mentioning all three of these means to the development of intellectual and moral character is that they reflect three different circumstances of learning. Study is an individual and private activity; discussion takes place in groups and is interactive, yet still personal; practice is usually public and social.
Professor Dobbs declined to specify any other weaknesses in this version, on the grounds that it is so overwrought in style that she cannot accept it even as a starting point for further revision. I regret this, but since I don't share her repugnance, I'll try to develop another draft that is less oppressive.
However, I think that she is mistaken in thinking that everything that is said in the present version could be expressed more concisely in modern diction. We chose the style of the current version, with its old-fashioned enumerations and periods, partly because it gave us a way of saying a lot in a little space. Our experience in drafting alternatives indicates that breaking up the long sentences actually makes the entire statement longer.
In response, Janet Gibson writes:
I feel that Elizabeth commented that the quality of the statement read ``like a list,'' (``haughty'' I think was her word) not that it was too wordy/verbose/long. ... I believe the last sentence has the ``list-like'' quality Ellizabeth objected to. Her error was in giving as an example the first sentence, because that sentence is not as list-like as the last sentence. If you want to attack list-like quality, attack the list-like last sentence.
At the same meeting, Alan Schrift said that, if the current version had been submitted as a paper in a first-year tutorial, any of us would reach for a red pen and mark it up thoroughly. This comment astonished me. Although the style is not to everyone's taste, I am quite confident, at this stage, that no errors of syntax, mechanics, or usage remain in this draft.
Like Professor Dobbs, Professor Schrift offered only one instance: He asserted that the last sentence of the draft is a run-on sentence. This claim is incorrect, although the sentence is a long one by contemporary standards. To understand its structure, the reader must be attentive enough to recognize that the bulk of the sentence comprises a series of six adjectival phrases, each modifying `men and women'. In order to make this apparent to the postmodern/late-capitalist literary sensibility, let me fragment the structure, replacing those forbiddingly elitist semicolons with their contemporary analogues, bullet points:
The College aims to graduate men and women
- of intellectual accomplishment, character, and autonomy
- knowledgeable, curious, and open-minded
- clear, fluent, logical, and persuasive in their speech and writing
- proportioning their beliefs to the quality of the supporting evidence and reasoning
- trying always to act wisely and humanely, with
- sound judgement
- sympathetic understanding of the values and perspectives of others
- [and] close attention to relevant facts and principles
- [and,] particularly when in positions of authority, applying their understanding and ability for the common good
Once one grasps this structure, the pieces fall naturally into place. In particular, adjacent items in a series are always correctly separated, never spliced. Since some of the items in this series contain commas internally, the items are traditionally separated by semicolons, as prescribed in section 32b of The college writer's reference (page 262 of the second edition).
Gerry Lalonde and Jonathan Brand have both suggested that in the phrase `the bonds of ignorance, habit, prejudice, and apathy', the word `habit' is unnecessary filler. Professor Lalonde reminded us that Aristotle considers virtue to consist in good habits formed deliberately.
Perhaps it is not entirely obvious from the context that the bonds from which liberal education frees a person are the unconsidered and unreflective habits of dullards, not the voluntarily chosen habits of the virtuous, which of course are not bonds at all. Since I don't wish to irritate Aristotelian colleagues who see habit as the very stuff of virtue, I propose in the next draft to replace the offending word with one that denotes yet another kind of bondage, thus:
... the College helps its members to free themselves from the bonds of ignorance, prejudice, apathy, and superstition.
The word `superstition' was deleted from an earlier draft, for concision, but I now think that the committee decided against it too hastily.
Kent McClelland and Russell Osgood have suggested that the statement of purpose should mention, as a distinctive attribute of education at Grinnell College, the small and personal scale of most of the teaching and learning that we do here.
I have now prepared a new version of this mission statement, taking account of the comments and suggestions made at the meeting of October 15. I welcome additional comments and suggestions from any members of the Grinnell College community who may be inclined to help out.
I have been asked to explicate some of the phrases in this draft, to help readers judge whether we all mean similar things by them. Without trying to speak for anyone but myself, I'm willing to say how I understand them:
justice and charity in human relations: I understand `human relations' to mean each person's interactions with others, including those of her decisions and actions that affect others. I understand `justice' to mean treating others fairly, equitably, and without prejudice. I understand `charity' to mean being kind and having intentions that are good, both by one's own standards and by those of other people who are affected by one's actions.
moral character: I understand `character' to mean the traits that mark and individualize a person, and `moral character' to refer specifically to the values and principles that a person accepts and uses as guides in human relations -- his personal judgements about what is right.
bonds of ignorance, habit, prejudice, and apathy: Some persons perceive themselves as acting under a kind of compulsion, as having no alternatives, no opportunities to make meaningful or free choices, and no control over the outcome of their actions. While recognizing that social injustices and abuses of power are often causes of this compulsion, I hold that sometimes it is caused by a person's own ignorance, reliance on habit, prejudice, apathy, failure of imagination, or superstition, and that liberal education should be directed to removing these causes, so that those who partake of it have the ability, the confidence, and the wisdom to make autonomous decisions and to take responsible actions.
sympathetic understanding of others: I understand `sympathetic understanding' to mean a degree of feeling what others feel, and knowing what they know, great enough to serve as a basis for communication. I understand `others' to refer to everyone except oneself, and not merely persons outside one's own party, denomination, ethnic affiliation, nation, or class.
Notes on the draft of April 11, 2001
Notes on the draft of March 21, 2001
To comment on the proposed statement of purpose or to contribute to these notes, send e-mail to stone@cs.grinnell.edu.
This document is available on the World Wide Web as
http://www.cs.grinnell.edu/~stone/mission-statement/hibiscus-notes.html
created March 21, 2001
last revised October 30, 2001