A few months ago, Grinnell College released a draft mission statement entitled ``Grinnell: A College with a Mission.'' A little while thereafter, the College Executive Council appointed a small committee of faculty to write an alternative mission statement. That committee consisted of Daniel Kaiser, Jean Ketter, Samuel A. Rebelsky, and John David Stone. The committee also welcomed and received comments from others during the development of the alternative proposal. Specifically, we took ideas and suggestions from e-mail sent to mission@grinnell.edu in response to the College's release, from the discussions on the College's Blackboard server, in the forum entitled ``Comments on the College Mission Statement,'' and from subsequent e-mail to us directly; these included contributions from eleven faculty members, ten students, two alumni, two administrators, and one parent of a current student. This document summarizes some of the guiding principles we used in writing the mission statement (expressed as advice that we directed to ourselves).
Reflect the College's fundamental values. Our first principle was that we should draw upon the hard work of Executive Council and the Grinnell College Council on Core Values and Institutional Excellence, particularly in their statement of core values. Aspects of those goals that we found lacking in the administration draft included a broad commitment to diversity and an emphasis on the joy of learning for the sake of learning. We also hoped to reemphasize the college's commitment to socially-responsible education. Finally, we wanted to focus on two key ambitions of any liberal education: to transform individuals and anchor humanistic values.
Be concise. Although some committee members wanted to see a long mission statement, the committee decided to write a concise one. We felt that a concise mission statement would be better able to guide, rather than to restrict, the college as it made decisions. This goal helped us to focus on essential values rather than external signs of those values; it also helped us avoid the ``kitchen sink'' approach.
However, we suggest that the college would also benefit from a longer thoughtful document, like that of Bowdoin College, that speaks to some of the external signs of the mission's guidance and then reflects on the history of the institution. For example, the college was founded on principles of social justice, and those principles are still at the heart of our mission. Similarly, as last year's first-generation college-student survey suggested, we do a very good job of supporting students with limited financial resources, not just through need-blind admissions, but also through a campus environment in which it costs little to socialize and in which money provides little social capital. We hope that a group can write this supplementary document, which may only need to extend that narrative statement of values.
Speak in prose, not points. Many of us objected to the bullet points of the administration draft. Bullet points often appear disconnected and simplistic. Hence, they counter the careful reasoning, relating, and rationality that characterize liberal education. We wanted our mission statement to reflect the care and consideration that goes into all that we do.
(Yes, we're aware that it's a little odd to make this particular point in this particular way.)
Avoid labels that limit. While there is a temptation to label different parts of the mission statement (e.g., with ``Core Values'', ``Vision'', and ``Purpose''), we worry that such labels limit the reading of the statement. For example, without the labels, a prospective student might read the three paragraphs as
A prospective faculty member might look instead at particular issues that distinguish Grinnell from other colleges and universities.
A related problem is that different people may read labels differently, which could lead to unenlightening arguments about whether a particular sentence or phrase belongs under one label or another. Even though the committee discussed a number of small points of emphasis and rhetorical force, we avoided debates about presentation.
Have a clear and consistent vision. We worried that the administration draft betrayed its creation by committee, particularly in its mixed style. We wanted a statement that reflected a clear vision, particularly through consistent style. In practice, this goal of clarity meant that one of us wrote most of the text while the rest of us provided suggestions as to ways to improve or update the text.
Meet asynchronously. Because the committee was appointed just before break, it was impossible for us to meet as a whole during the first few weeks in which we wanted to work. During that time, we began a process of ``meeting'' via email and the Web. Committee members would post drafts or comments and others would provide feedback at their convenience. While the process had some drawbacks (for example, there were a few times that messages crossed or there was some confusion as to the latest perspective of a committee member), it generally went quite smoothly and seemed more productive and less burdensome than the typical string of endless committee meetings.
This document is available on the World Wide Web as
http://www.cs.grinnell.edu/~stone/mission-statement/how.xhtml
created April 24, 2001
last revised September 23, 2001
Samuel A. Rebelsky
(rebelsky@grinnell.edu)
John David Stone
(stone@cs.grinnell.edu)