Changes in Higher Education Accreditation - a 2019 Paper

 

This term paper was written in 2019 for a university course, so some of the issues noted in it may already be outdated, but it shows how the accreditation system worked at the time the paper was written.

-------------

Comparing The Higher Learning Commission and Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges and Recent Changes in Accreditation

  

 

by 

 

Ipatia K. Apostolides, B.A., M.F.A.

 

 

 

October 15, 2019

 

CHAPTER 1

 

 INTRODUCTION

 

 

The United States (U.S.) does not have a centralized governing body for higher education as do other nations, nor do higher education institutions' accrediting bodies (Eaton, 2005).  Since the early 1900s, the task of overseeing the quality of higher education has been given to private, nonprofit accrediting agencies.  Since 2005, these accrediting agencies have reviewed higher education institutions in 50 states and 95 other countries and carry out the following roles: Conduct external quality review, allow for access to federal and state funds by students, help engender private sector confidence, and help ensure transfers between higher education institutions (p. 3-4).  

Accrediting agencies are part of the regulatory "triad" that oversees higher education quality, and this includes state authorizing agencies, which ensure compliance with state educational requirements, and the U.S. Department of Education (USDE), which oversees observance to rules of participation in Title IV programs (Rethinking Higher Education).  However, during the Obama administration, more and more responsibilities have shifted over to the accrediting bodies, requiring more time and resources (Lederman, 2015). 

In addition, accreditors, like SACSCOC, have a say in how a president is chosen in a higher education institution.  An example of this is a 2019 letter from SACSCOC to the University of South Carolina, citing that politics may have influenced the choice of their new president Caslen from the governor and that there was "evidence of a significant accreditation-related issue" (Mallory, 2019); the evidence came from WIS 10 News obtaining emails and texts through the Freedom of Information Act (Mallory).  The author believes that this action by SACSCOC did not follow their mission statement.

The Obama administration gave rise to stricter adherence to regulations by USDE (Lederman, 2015), whereas the Trump administration is currently turning it around to less regulation.  Flores (2019) believes this will give the accrediting bodies less power, extend time frames, and allow higher education institutions more slack.  Kreighbaum (2019), on the other hand, offers another viewpoint, noting these changes will enable colleges to receive faster approval for changes to their programs, obtain quicker federal recognition of new accreditors, and allow more targeted and less comprehensive federal reviews of accreditors; in addition, it will give accreditors discretion over when to take action against a college that is not complying with standards.  Elisabeth DeVos, Secretary of USDE at the time of this writing, stated: "These changes will allow students to work at their own pace to earn a college degree, obtain credit for proving what they already know, and earn a credential aligned with employers' job requirements" (Kreighbaum, 2019).  

This paper will first do a literature review and an overview of accreditation. Then it will discuss in detail the following two regional accreditation agencies: Higher Learning Commission (HLC) and Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC), and compare and contrast them in the analysis and also look at some issues that have arisen with accreditation over the years. Finally, it will conclude with a summary. 

 

CHAPTER II

 LITERATURE REVIEW

 

The Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965 prohibits the USDE from overseeing the quality and academic competence of higher education institutions' instructional programs in the U.S. Instead, it has assigned this role to accreditors who are private, nongovernmental organizations (Rethinking Higher Education).  Yet higher education institutions can choose to be or not be accredited since this is a voluntary process. Still, their accreditation is a way to ensure a level of quality in higher educational institutions and, according to Pfinister (1959), has been around since 1913 (cited in Young et al., 1983, p. 3).  In addition, pressure to be accredited comes from Title IV of the HEA of 1965, which the USDE created to offer federal aid to students, and only higher education institutions that meet their requirements and are accredited are eligible for this aid; therefore, maintaining an accredited status is essential for the financial survival of many higher education institutions (Hegji, 2017).

Three types of accrediting agencies exist in the United States (U.S.): Regional, national, and programmatic; the regional accrediting agencies are responsible for operating in six regions of the U.S.; the national accrediting agencies, on the other hand, operate nationwide and review institutions with a common theme; and the programmatic accrediting agencies also operate nationwide and review programs and single-purpose institutions (Hegji, 2017).  

The accrediting agencies are accountable to the Council of Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), an organization of U.S. higher education institutions formed in 1996, which oversees and certifies the accreditation agencies by scrutinizing their "effectiveness in advancing academic quality and serving higher education, students and the public" ("Council for Higher Education Accreditation," 2015). 

Accreditors are also part of the regulatory "triad" that oversees higher education quality and includes state authorizing agencies, which ensure compliance with state educational requirements, and the U.S. Department of Education (USDE), which oversees adherence to rules of participation in Title IV programs (Rethinking Higher Education). 

Institutional accreditation has been defined by Head & Johnson (2011) as the "process by which institutions of higher education are evaluated as a whole with an eye toward their unity of purpose and the extent to which the sum of the parts complements the whole." Another definition of accreditation is given by Eaton (2005) as "a process of external quality review created and used by higher education to scrutinize colleges, universities, and programs for quality assurance and quality improvement" (p.3). 

Problems can arise when an accrediting agency accredits a higher educational institution that is going bankrupt; this was the case with the accrediting agency ACIS and Corinthian College.  As a result of allowing Corinthian College to maintain accreditation even during bankruptcy, in 2016, the USDE terminated ACICS as a nationally recognized accrediting agency ("Reauthorizing the Higher Education Act," 2015, p.16).  This is causing undue pressure on accrediting agencies to ensure that higher education institutions they are accrediting are financially solvent.  This threat of termination by the USDE on the accrediting agency results in undue pressure also on the higher education institution. More recently, the USDE, under the Trump administration, is looking to lessen the regulatory burden by having accreditors "look only at academic outcomes and not at issues of governance or financial stability" (Kelderman, 2018).

 

HIGHER LEARNING COMMISSION (HLC)

The Higher Learning Commission (HLC) is the regional accrediting agency for over 1,000 degree-granting higher education institutions in the following 19 states: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.  Its jurisdiction includes tribal institutions and distance education and correspondence education ("Accreditation in the United States," 2019).  According to the Higher Learning Commission website, prior to 2014, the HLC was part of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA).  However, as of 2014, the NCA was dissolved, and the HLC became the accrediting agency, having a Title IV federal recognition ("About the Higher Learning Commission," 2019).  

The HLC is governed by a Board of Trustees elected by the membership and administered by the president who is selected by that Board; currently, the president is Dr. Barbara Gellman-Danley.  The HLC relies on decision-making bodies comprised of institutional representatives and public members for its review process; it has a Peer Corps of about 1,600 faculty and administrators from its 19-state region of institutions ("Peer Corps Roster," 2019).  Its mission is "Serving the common good by assuring and advancing the quality of higher learning" ("About the Higher Learning Commission," 2019). 

The HLC also has a relationship with the federal government (USDE) and other organizations, such as the CHEA; the HLC was reaffirmed by CHEA in 2015 ("HLC Communication with Other Agencies," 2019).

When the higher education institution applies to HLC, it begins with an Eligibility Process which includes several steps, interviews, and reviews, and when it receives an Eligibility Letter, then it has up to 90 days to apply for Candidacy, and this includes the "self-study or documentation assembled in a self-evaluative process" ("HLC Policy," 2019).

When Candidacy and Initial Accreditation is granted, it is maintained between two to four years.  During this time, the HLC makes regular evaluations while the institution progresses toward accredited status through its assessment process ("HLC Policy," 2019).  Once a higher education institution receives accreditation, the reaffirmation of their accreditation by HLC is a 10-year cycle; they must decide which of two pathways to choose from Standard Pathway if it has been undergoing dynamic change, or Open Pathway ("HLC Policy," 2019).  There used to be a third pathway titled AQIP, but it has been phased out.  

 

HLC's STANDARD PATHWAY

·       "It has been accredited for fewer than 10 years.

·       It is in the process of a change of control, structure or organization or it has undergone a change of control, structure or organization within the last two years.

·       It is under HLC Notice or related action or has been under HLC sanction or related action within the last five years.

·       It has pending recommendations for a focused visit or extensive other monitoring, or it has a history of extensive HLC monitoring, including accreditation cycles shortened to seven or fewer years, multiple monitoring reports, and multiple focused visits extending across more than one accrediting cycle.

·       It is or has been undergoing dynamic change (e.g., significant changes in enrollment or student body, opening or closing of multiple locations or campuses) or requiring frequent substantive change approvals since the last comprehensive evaluation.

·       It is raising or has raised significant HLC concerns about circumstances or developments at the institution (e.g., ongoing leadership turnover, extensive review by a governmental agency, patterns identified in financial and non-financial indicators).

·       It has failed to make a serious effort to conduct its Quality Initiative in the Open Pathway" ("Standard Pathway," 2019).

 

HLC's OPEN PATHWAY

 

"Regular Monitoring

Institutions submit an annual Institutional Update, which is reviewed by HLC to monitor organizational health, comply with certain federal requirements, and identify any changes that may require HLC follow up. HLC will also apply change processes as appropriate to planned institutional developments, and will monitor institutions through reports, visits and other means as it deems appropriate.

Year 4: Assurance Review

Institutions complete an Assurance Review to ensure they are continuing to meet HLC's Criteria for Accreditation. The institution provides documentation demonstrating how it fulfills each Criterion and Core Component. A peer review team evaluates these materials and recommends whether the institution should continue in the cycle or whether additional monitoring is required. HLC's Institutional Actions Council (IAC) reviews and takes official action on the recommendation.

 

See HLC's procedural document on the Open Pathway Year 4 Assurance Review for information on preparing the institutional narrative and evidence for this review. It also provides guidance for peer review teams on how to evaluate the institution's materials.

 

Years 5-9: Quality Initiative

Institutions design and undertake a Quality Initiative project. HLC peer reviewers approve an initial project proposal, as well as a report on the outcomes of the project.

Year 10: Comprehensive Evaluation for Reaffirmation

Institutions undergo a comprehensive evaluation to ensure they are meeting the Criteria for Accreditation, pursuing institutional improvement and complying with certain requirements set by the U.S. Department of Education. This review leads to an action regarding the reaffirmation of the institution's accreditation" ("HLC Policy," 2019).

 

 There are five criteria for accreditation that the HLC evaluates higher education institutions with:

"1) Mission: Clear and publicly articulated

2) Integrity: Ethical and responsible conduct in its financial, academic, personnel and auxiliary functions; establishes policies for fair and ethical behavior on the part of governing board, faculty, administration, and staff.

3) Teaching and Learning: Provides quality education and quality faculty who are evaluated regularly, and articulates intended learning outcomes; provides resources such as infrastructure to support effective teaching (laboratories, libraries, performance spaces, etc.), and support 

4) Teaching and Learning: Evaluation and assessment of student learning and achievement of learning outcomes; and education improvement through ongoing attention to retention and completion rates in its degree and certificate programs.

5) Resources, Planning, and Institutional Effectiveness: the institution has the fiscal and human resources and physical and technological infrastructure to support its operations wherever and however programs are delivered; the institution's governance and administrative structures promote effective leadership to enable institution to fulfill its mission" ("HLC Policy," 2019).  

 

The 2015 fees of HLC are listed on the CHEA website ("Accreditation Fees Directory," 2015) and include institutional dues, commission visits, fees for the Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP), substantive change fees, and appeal and board hearing fees.  The institutional dues are calculated by this formula: Base Dues ($2,600) + FTE Dues ($0.50 per FTE) + Additional Location Dues ($90 x W); where FTE = the number of full-time students + 1/3 part-time students and the W = number of locations (“Accreditation Fees Directory,” 2015).

For accredited institutions, HLC offers workshops in areas such as strategy, assessment, and student success ("HLC Workshops," 2019).

 

 

SOUTHERN ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND SCHOOLS COMMISSION ON COLLEGES (SACSCOC)

The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) is the regional accrediting agency for degree-granting higher education institutions in the Southern states (SACSCOC), and it is located in Georgia.  It was founded in 1895 and is comprised of the Council on Accreditation and School Improvement (CASI), which is the K-12 arm, and the Commission on Colleges (COC); the COC was founded in 1917 to develop standards and accreditation of higher education institutions in the Southern states ("Welcome from the President," 2019). Both commissions are autonomous ("Principles of Accreditation,").  

SACSCOC recognizes the following 11 states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia, including international institutions and programs offered via distance and correspondence.  

The mission of the SACSCOC is "to assure the educational quality and improve the effectiveness of its member institutions," and its six core values are accountability, continuous quality improvement, integrity, peer review/self-regulation, student learning, and transparency ("Southern Association of Colleges," 2019).  

The organizational structure of the SACSCOC includes the College Delegate Assembly (CDA), which has a voting representative from each accredited higher education institution with seventy-seven members elected to the Board of Trustees, and thirteen Executive Council members elected by the Board of Trustees; they are responsible for interpreting SACSCOC policy and procedure ("Commission Organization," 2019).  The current president of SACSCOC is Belle S. Wheelan.  There are also vice-presidents, directors, coordinators, specialists, and financial/administrative services ("Southern Association of Colleges," 2019).

Prior to a higher education institution applying for membership to SACSCOC, it must attend a mandatory two-day Pre-Applicant Workshop and Pre-Applicant Institutional Effectiveness Workshop at the SACSCOC offices in Georgia ("Southern Association of Colleges," 2019).

Once a higher education institution applies to SACSCOC, it will receive a Candidacy visit by the Candidacy Committee, which consists of five members who will affirm the compliance of the institution to the standards of SACSCOC and will provide a report to the institution in two weeks ("Southern Association of Colleges," 2019).  The Accreditation Committee then pays a visit to determine whether to award membership or continue Candidacy or discontinue Candidacy.  Once an institution is awarded Candidacy status, it will be authorized to receive an Accreditation Committee visit ("Southern Association of Colleges," 2019).  An institution can remain in Candidacy status for up to four years ("Southern Association of Colleges," 2019).  

The SACSCOC's Committee on Compliance and Reports would make recommendations concerning the institution's status to the Executive Council of SACSCOC, which, in turn, makes its recommendation to the SACSCOC Board of Trustees, which takes final action on the institution's status ("Southern Association of Colleges," 2019) and rewards its accreditation.  This review process could take twelve to eighteen months.  

The accreditation standards of SACSCOC include four categories of documents: Policies, guidelines, good practices, and position statements ("Southern Association of Colleges," 2019).  For an institution to obtain accreditation, they first complete the SACSCOC application documenting their compliance with the following Core Requirements and Standards ("Southern Association of Colleges," 2019):

Core Requirements	Standards
1.1 (Integrity)	4.2.c (CEO evaluation/selection)
2.1 (Institutional mission)	4.2.d (Conflict of interest)
3.1 a (Degree-granting authority)	5.4 (Qualified administrative/academic officers)
3.1.b (Coursework for degree	6.2.a (Faculty qualifications)
3.1.c (Continuous operation)	6.2.b (Program faculty)
4.1 (Governing board characteristics)	7.3 (Administrative effectiveness)
5.1 (Chief executive officer)	8.2.a (Student outcomes: educational programs)
6.1 (Full-time faculty)	8.2.b (Student outcomes: general education)
7.1 (Institutional planning)	8.2.c (Student outcomes: academic and student services)
8.1 (Student achievement)	10.2 (Public information)
9.1 (Program content)	10.5 (Admissions policies and practices)
9.2 (Program length)	10.6 (Distance and correspondence education)
9.3 (General education requirements)	10.7 (Policies for awarding credit)
11.1 (Library and learning/information resources)	11.2 (Library and learning/information staff)
12.1 (Student support services)	11.3 (Library and learning/information access)
13.1 (Financial resources)	12.4 (Student complaints)
13.2 (Financial documents)* (see note below)	13.6 (Federal and state responsibilities)
	13.7 (Physical resources)
	14.1 (Publication of accreditation status)
	14.3 (Comprehensive institutional reviews)
	14.4 (Representation to other agencies)
	14.5 (Policy compliance)

In addition to these core requirements, required Financial Information for Applicant and Candidate Institutions (Core Requirement 13.2) is listed below: 

"(1) separate institutional audits and management letters (audits opinioned on the institution) for its three most recent fiscal years, including the audit for the most recent fiscal year ending prior to the date of the application. Should the end of another fiscal year occur during initial review of the application by SACSCOC staff, that audit must be submitted before review of the application can be completed. In addition, the audit for the most recently completed fiscal year must be provided when seeking authorization by the SACSCOC Board of Trustees to receive a Candidacy Committee visit. 

(2) an annual budget that is preceded by sound planning, is subject to sound fiscal procedures, and is approved by the governing board. 

(3) a statement of financial position of unrestricted net assets, exclusive of plant assets and plant-related debt (short- and long-term debt attached to physical assets) which represents the change in unrestricted net assets attributable to operations for the most recent year. 

Further, throughout the remainder of the process, the institution must provide a separate audit and management letter for the most recently completed fiscal year ending prior to any committee visit or Board of Trustees review for Candidacy, Candidacy renewal, or initial Membership" ("Southern Association of Colleges," 2019). 

After being rewarded initial membership, the institution is reaffirmed in five years, which requires completion of the Compliance Certification, a Quality Enhancement Plan, and both Off-Site and On-Site Reaffirmation Committee reviews; thereafter, the institution is reaffirmed every ten years ("Southern Association of Colleges," 2019).  At the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA), for example, they recently submitted a self-study, called the Compliance Certification Report, to the SACSCOC for review completing a major milestone in the university's 10-year reaccreditation process (Neece-Fielder, 2019). The report took two years to compile, describing UTSA's programs, services, and processes, as well as documentation and data (Neece-Fielder).  

All expenses are paid by the institution, including site visits by SACSCOC.  The 2018 dues, fees, and expenses of SACSCOC are located on their website, and their formula for dues is the following:  Their Dues = Fixed Cost + FTE Equivalent Variable + Educational & General Expenditure Variable ("Dues, Fees, Expenses," 2018). 

SACSCOC's power is quite overreaching; it is even having a say on how a president is chosen in a higher education institution.  An example of this is a 2019 letter from SACSCOC to the University of South Carolina, citing that the choice of their new president Caslen may have been influenced by external political forces such as from Governor Henry McMaster and that there was "evidence of a significant accreditation-related issue" (Mallory, 2019); the evidence came from WIS 10 News obtaining emails and texts through the Freedom of Information Act (Mallory). 

 

CHAPTER III 

ANALYSIS

 

Both regional accreditation bodies (HLC, SACSCOC) are private, nongovernment organizations and are members of the CHEA who oversees them, along with 58 other accrediting agencies ("Council for Higher Education Accreditation," 2015).  The two agencies operate in different regions of the United States and appear to be transparent, as they both have websites with their mission statements and other important information on the accreditation process (SACSCOC; "HLC Policy," 2019).  HLC accredits higher education institutions in 19 states as compared to SACSCOC, which accredits 11 states.  They both have a Board of Trustees and a president; however, SACSCOC also has an Executive Council that is elected by their Board of Trustees.  Both of these accrediting agencies are also part of the triad, which includes the federal government and the state government. 

HLC requires several steps to accreditation, which may take up to five years, including the Eligibility Process, followed by the Candidacy Process and Initial Accreditation. Once an institution receives initial accreditation, then they choose either the Standard Pathway if they have dynamic change or the Open Pathway.  SACSCOC does not offer these pathways.  Once an institution has received accreditation status, it is reaffirmed no later than ten years ("HLC Policy" 2019; "Southern Association of Colleges," 2019).  

SACSCOC also has several steps to accreditation; first, they require that the higher education institution attend mandatory workshops ("Southern Association of Colleges," 2019) prior to their application for accreditation, at their headquarters in Georgia, whereas the workshops HLC offers are not mandatory ("HLC Policy," 2019).  Once the institution applies to SACSCOC, it will receive a Candidacy visit by the Candidacy Committee.  Then, the  Accreditation Committee pays a visit to the institution to determine whether to award membership or continue Candidacy or discontinue Candidacy.  Once an institution is awarded Candidacy status, it will be authorized to receive an Accreditation Committee visit ("Southern Association of Colleges," 2019).  An institution can remain in Candidacy status for up to four years ("Southern Association of Colleges," 2019).  Throughout this whole process, there is much that is being done behind the scenes at the institution to obtain documents and compliance.

The SACSCOC's Committee on Compliance and Reports would make recommendations concerning the institution's status to the Executive Council of SACSCOC, which, in turn, makes its recommendation to the SACSCOC Board of Trustees, which takes final action on the institution's status ("Southern Association of Colleges," 2019) and rewards its accreditation.  This review process could take twelve to eighteen months.  Like HLC, they run in a 10-year cycle for reaffirmation of accreditation ("Southern Association of Colleges," 2019). 

The role of accreditation has become more and more complex as distance learning is expanding, for-profit institutions are converting to nonprofit status, as well as institutions having classes in other states ("Rethinking Higher Education," 2018).  The Obama administration gave rise to stricter adherence to regulations by USDE (Lederman, 2015), whereas the Trump administration is currently turning it around to less regulation.  

Recent changes by the USDE under Trump's administration will affect both agencies on their accreditation process.  In April 2019, USDE Secretary Betsy DeVos proposed a new set of rules to deregulate higher education, and a committee was formed to reach a consensus (Flores, 2019).  A panel of 15 negotiators, assembled by USDE, participated in negotiated rulemaking that ended in consensus on the changes and included representatives from college groups, regional accreditors, national accreditors, financial aid administrators, and student representatives (Kreighbaum, 2019). 

These changes will allow colleges to receive faster approval for changes to their programs, obtain quicker federal recognition of new accreditors, and allow more targeted and less comprehensive federal reviews of accreditors; in addition, it will give accreditors discretion over when to take action against a college that is out of compliance with standards (Kreighbaum, 2019).  In addition, Secretary DeVos stated, "These changes will allow students to work at their own pace to earn a college degree, obtain credit for proving what they already know and earn a credential aligned with employers' job requirements" (Kreighbaum).  

However, some hidden dangers in these changes were spelled out by Flores (2019): The rules would offer a fast track to outsourcing programs by having them being reviewed by accreditation staff rather than the accreditor's commission; the rules would make it easier for companies to purchase closed campuses and revive failing colleges, and the USDE would extend taxpayer money to closing or failing institutions for up to 120 days after federal aid programs end; the rules would allow new sets of standards to judge new programs and may be less rigorous if the program is tailored to recommendations of employers, and new rules would allow higher education institutions to change their programs and add locations without approval from their accreditor. 

 

CHAPTER IV

 SUMMARY

 

Both the HLC and SACSCOC are regional accreditors of higher education institutions in the U.S.and are similar in many aspects of their accreditation process with a few differences.  They both have a Board of Trustees and a president, whereas the SACSCOC also has an Elective Council. They have missions and procedures for higher education institutions to follow in order to be accredited.  The SACSCOC has an added step in the accreditation process where they require institutions to attend mandatory workshops before applying for accreditation ("Southern Association of Colleges," 2019).

They both have a 10-year reaffirmation of accreditation cycle, where once a higher education institution is accredited, it is reaffirmed every 10 years ("Southern Association of Colleges," 2019; "HLC Policy," 2019).  Their differences are in the number of states they accredit.  Even though they've been part of the 'triad' along with the state and federal government, over time, more and more responsibility has shifted to HLC, SACSCOC, and other regional accreditors, and this has forced them to devote their time and resources to issues outside their mission and expertise("Rethinking Higher Education," 2018).  For example, in 2019, SACSCOC sent a letter to the University of South Carolina showing concern about their new president Caslen being influenced by external forces (Mallory, 2019).  The author believes that SACSCOC had overreached its authority in this case because its mission is "to assure the educational quality and improve the effectiveness of its member institutions," and its six core values are accountability, continuous quality improvement, integrity, peer review/self-regulation, student learning, and transparency ("Southern Association of Colleges," 2019).  Therefore, the duty of choosing a new president at a higher education institution that they oversee should not be their responsibility.

Obama's administration added more responsibility to the accrediting bodies (Lederman, 2015), which utilized much of their time and resources.  In April 2019, recent accreditation changes were proposed by the USDE that will affect them (Flores, 2019).  Since they are part of the triad, which includes the state and federal government (USDE), their accreditation process is influenced by rules handed down by USDE.  According to Flores (2019), "Loosening these rules raises the risk that colleges will again abuse loopholes to quickly scale up or fundamentally change operations without meeting quality standards." Yet, Secretary of USDE, Elisabeth DeVos, believes that "These changes will allow students to work at their own pace to earn a college degree, obtain credit for proving what they already know and earn a credential aligned with employers' job requirements" (Kreighbaum, 2019). 

In addition to the complex nature of the accreditation bodies and the institutions they are accrediting (long-distance, for-profit institutions, closing institutions, etc.), the author believes that just like Flores (2019), the new deregulation rules by the Trump administration will offer opportunities for higher education institutions to abuse loopholes without concern for quality; thus the ultimate consumer, the student, is affected negatively.

 

REFERENCES

 

About the Higher Learning Commission. (2019). Retrieved from Higher Learning Commission website https://www.hlcommission.org/About-HLC/about-hlc.html

 

Accreditation Fees Directory. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.chea.org/sites/default/files/other-content/accreditation_fees_directory-final.pdf

 

Accreditation in the United States. (2019). Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education website http://www.ed.gov/accreditation?src=accred

 

Commission Organization. (2019). Retrieved from http://sacscoc.org/commorg1.asp

 

Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.chea.org/sites/default/files/other-content/accreditation_fees_directory-final.pdf

 

Dues, Fees, Expenses. (2018). Retrieved from SACSCOC website http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/081705/Dues.pdf

 

Eaton, J.S. (2005). Accreditation. The Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac. Issue 2005-2006. 52(1), 

 

Flores, A. (2019). How the Trump administration is undoing college accreditation.  Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-postsecondary/reports/2019/04/18/468840/trump-administration-undoing-college-accreditation/

 

Head, R.B., and Johnson, M.S. (2011). Accreditation and its influence on institutional effectiveness. New Directions for Community Colleges, 153, 37-52.

 

Hegji, A. (2017). An overview of accreditation of higher education in the United States. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43826.pdf

 

HLC Communication with Other Agencies. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.hlcommission.org/About-HLC/external-agencies.html

 

HLC Policy (2019). Policy title: Criteria for accreditation. Retrieved from https://www.hlcommission.org/Policies/criteria-and-requirements.html

 

HLC Workshops. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.hlcommission.org/Programs-Events/workshops.html

 

Kelderman, E. (2018). Issues of accreditation predominate in new rulemaking announced by education dept. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/Issues-of-Accreditation/244097

 

Kreighbaum, A. (2019). New rules for accreditors. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/04/04/trump-administration-gets-agreement-accreditation-agenda

 

Lederman, D. (2015).   No love, but no alternative. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/01/accreditation-will-change-survive

 

Mallory, L. (2019). Formal review of UofSC presidential search launched by accreditors. Retrieved from https://www.wistv.com/2019/10/07/formal-review-uofsc-presidential-search-launched-by-accreditors/

 

Neece-Fielder, K. (2019). First lap of the race to reaccreditation complete. Retrieved from http://www.utsa.edu/today/2019/09/story/RacetoReaccreditation.html

 

Peer Corps Roster. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.hlcommission.org/About-HLC/peer-review-rosters.html

 

Reauthorizing the Higher Education Act (2015). Retrieved from http://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-114shrg25885/pdf/CHRG-114shrg25885.pdf

 

Rethinking Higher Education: Accreditation Reform. (2018). U.S. Department of Education. P1-20. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/rethinking-higher-education-accreditation-reform.pdf

 

Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. (2019). Retrieved from http://sacscoc.org

 

Standard Pathway 10-year Cycle. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.hlcommission.org/Accreditation/standard-pathway-cycle.html

 

Welcome from the President. (2019). Retrieved from http://sacscoc.org/president.asp

 

Young, K.E., Chambers, C.M., Kells, H.R. & Associates. (1983). Understanding Accreditation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers

Short Paper on Franklin D. Roosevelt

 Here is a short paper I wrote for class in 2019. This one is on Franklin D. Roosevelt.

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT

By Ipatia K. Apostolides

Sept. 4, 2019

Franklin Delanor Roosevelt (FDR), a member of the Democratic party, was the 32^nd president of the United States from 1933-1945.  He was a transformational leader, and his presidency began as the US was left reeling from the Great Depression, and it continued into World War II.  In his inauguration address, Roosevelt’s mission to end the Great Depression was evident; he claimed: “First of all, let me assert my belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself” (p.10).  Then he acted swiftly on his mission; the next day, FDR declared a four-day bank holiday to keep people from withdrawing funds from banks, followed by Congress passing his Emergency Banking Act, which “reorganized the banks and closed the ones that were insolvent” (New Deal).  The New Deal, the Glass-Steagall Act, and Social Security, were all part of his legacy.

FDR also placed emphasis on the community and a few days after he took office, he began his “fireside chats” through the radio which brought him close to the American public (Day et al, 2007).  This connection with the public in their homes allowed for effective communication and transparency, and it helped build trust.

According to Stanford historian Kennedy (2003) FDR’s effective leadership was due to several characteristics: he was a quick study, and curious; he had charisma and could connect with large numbers of people; he possessed self-confidence; he was committed to public service; he possessed a strong character, as witnessed by his dealing with polio; he had a clear vision of America, especially during the Great Depression by offering the New Deal; he had political skills to get things done; and he had luck (Cited in Gleaves, 2006).  

In addition, FDR depended on his peers for advice and support, and he used a group process decision-making style for his administrative problems (Day et al, 2007).  When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the United States entered the war, and during this time, FDR helped form the United Nations, with its “agenda of world peace and cooperation”(Leuchtenberg, 2019).  

The fact that FDR served four terms is unprecedented in American history. Although he died during his fourth term, he had successfully brought back America from its depths of depression and made it a powerful, global strength.  His legacy continues; even now, millions of senior citizens are relying on Social Security to get by. This is one leader that I will definitely study further.

 

 

REFERENCES

 

Day, B., Davis, S., & Fitchett, P. (2007). Leadership: a foundation for “wisdom and passion.” The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 8-11.

 

Gleaves, W. (2006). Franklin Roosevelt as a leader. Ask Gleaves. 27. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/ask_gleaves/27

 

Leuchtenberg, W.E. (2019). Franklin D. Roosevelt: foreign affairs. Retrieved from https://millercenter.org/president/fdroosevelt/foreign-affairs

 

New Deal. Retrieved from https://www.history.com/topics/great-depression/new-deal

A Paper on Martin Luther King's Legacy

 

A paper I wrote for a class on Martin Luther King's Leadership style and legacy.

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR'S LEGACY

By Ipatia K. Apostolides

September 10, 2019

I want to begin my discussion by stating my limited perception of Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK).  I was a young child when he was leading the civil rights movement, and just like John F. Kennedy, he was a blur in my mind. We had arrived in the US in the early sixties, and I grew up in a poor, predominately black neighborhood of Cleveland. I remember attending classes with black children, and I often shared half of my peanut butter sandwich with some of them because often they did not have food to eat. During this experience in a Cleveland elementary school, I didn’t feel segregated. We were all equal, black and white, at that young age. Segregation was one of the issues in the civil rights movement that MLK was involved with, but I did not witness it.  It might have happened in other states, though. 

According to Wikipedia: MLK’s father was a Baptist minister, and Martin Luther King followed his father’s footsteps and became a Baptist minister; he also attained a Ph.D. in systematic theology from Boston University. He was known for advancing the civil rights movement from 1955 until his death in 1968.  He led the 1955 Montgomery bus boycott after the Rosa Parks incident, became the first president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLS), and helped organize the March on Washington in 1963, where he gave his famous “I Have a Dream” speech (Martin Luther King Jr).  In 1964, MLK won the Nobel Peace Prize (Martin Luther King Jr.).  His legacy has continued: after his death, buildings, streets, and highways have his name; there is an annual holiday named after him; and more importantly, a few years ago, America voted for Obama, a black president.

I believe that his Baptist upbringing and university education strongly influenced MLK’s leadership style; he came through as a transformative, brave, and charismatic leader.  Martin Luther King’s Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery story reveals three theological ideas that inspired his activism and leadership: spiritual motivation for his leadership, the ethical basis for nonviolent direct action, and the theological understanding of human nature (Cited in Neumann, D., 2018). From his theological training, MLK believed that the value of individuals was found in their personality and linked to the care of God (p. 47). The color of a person’s skin did not matter; their character mattered, and MLK hammered that message several times during his speeches.

                      Here is an example from one of his speeches that emphasizes the value and equality of individuals:

“First, we’re challenged to develop a world perspective. No individual can live alone. No nation can live alone. And anyone who feels that he can live alone is sleeping through a revolution. The world in which we live is geographically one. The challenge that we face today is to make it one in terms of brotherhood” (Remaining Awake).

 

As I listened to several of MLK’s eloquent and dignified speeches for this class, I felt a solid connection to his principles and ideals. Tears flowed from my eyes because I could picture what he was trying to achieve in his persistent messages, and I was moved by both his march toward equality for the negroes, and his untimely death.  

In addition, two things stood out for me in MLK’s speeches: how he would address his listeners as friends, just like Franklin D. Roosevelt did in his fireside chats, giving him a trustworthy character; and how he would often refer to death (maybe because he had been stabbed, his home bombed twice, and he received threatening letters).  According to Cummings and Niles (2001), MLK viewed death as the price for freedom, yet he was careful not to speak of death too often so as not to cause fear in the people joining the movement (p. 50), but I heard it enough times in his speeches to notice it.  So, I would say courage was one of MLK’s strong traits as a leader. 

Charisma was another strong trait that MLK had.  According to Carson (1987), “King used charisma as a tool for mobilizing black communities, but he always used it in the context of other forms of intellectual and political leadership suited to a movement containing many strong leaders.” 

It took about one hundred years for MLK and other strong leaders to follow up on what Abraham Lincoln had started (freedom of slaves in 1863-65).  We’ve come a long way since then. 

 

 

 

References

 

Carson, C. (1987). Charismatic leadership in a mass struggle. Journal of American History, 74(2), 448-454. Retrieved from https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/sites/mlk/files/martin_luther_king_jr_-_charismatic_leadership_in_a_mass_struggle.pdf

 

Cummings, M.S., Niles, L.A. (1991). King as persuader: Facing the ultimate sacrifice. Journal of Religious Thought. 48(2), 49-55.

 

Martin Luther King, Jr. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.

 

Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution. Video file retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFbt7cO30jQ

 

The Three Evils of Society. Video file retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sT9Hjh0cHM

 

What is your Blueprint? Video file retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmtOGXreTOU

 

 

Winston Churchill - Situational Leadership Style

 This short paper was written for a class in 2019. It discusses Winston Churchill's leadership style.

WINSTON CHURCHILL - SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP STYLE

by Ipatia K. Apostolides

September 10, 2019

Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, a British politician, military officer, and writer (1874 -1965), was the prime minister of Great Britain during World War II (Winston Churchill Biography, 2017).  His father was a British statesman, and his mother a New York socialite.  Winston Churchill began his career in the military; this was later followed by becoming a member of the British Parliament and later a First Lord of the Admiralty (Winston Churchill Biography, 2017). These experiences helped prepare him for World War II.  

Winston Churchill was a fighter and a hard power military leader (aggressive) during WWII, but he was also a persuader with a “soft power underbelly” (Donaldson, 2015).  According to the Oxford Dictionary, hard power has been defined as a coercive approach to international political relations, especially one that involves the use of military power.”  Hard power uses an aggressive and coercive force, whereas soft power relies on persuasion and takes longer.  In addition to being a leader, Churchill was a writer and wrote nonfiction historical and biographical books, which won him the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1953. According to Donaldson (2015), “These soft power skills helped Churchill persuade Britain to fight on and America to help Britain at a time when UK hard power was fully stretched.” 

 

In his “Iron Curtain” speech (Sinews of Peace, 1946), Churchill emphasizes freedom and human rights:

 

“We cannot be blind to the fact that the freedom enjoyed by citizens in the US and Great Britain are not valid in other powerful countries….It is not our duty at this time with difficulties so numerous to interfere forcibly into internal affairs of countries which we have not conquered in war. But we must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man.”

 

I would consider Churchill a situational leader because his leadership style changed depending on what was required of him. Churchill was a complex man who could change depending on the need and time, where he fought in WWII when it was necessary, wrote biographies and historical books in between, and expounded peace when it was time to do so.

 

 

References

 

 

Donaldson, A. (2015). Churchill, culture and soft power. Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/research-policy-insight/insight-articles/churchill-culture-and-soft-power

 

Oxford Dictionary. Hard power. Retrieved from https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/hard_power

 

Sinews of Peace (1946). Churchill “Iron Curtain” speech at Westminster College. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZBqqzxXQg4

 

Winston Churchill Biography (2017). Retrieved from https://www.biography.com/political-figure/winston-churchill

A Paper on Barack Obama's Leadership Style

 

I wrote this paper about Barack Obama's leadership during a 2019 class on historical leaders. I discovered it recently and decided to add it to my collection of leadership articles in this blog. (The APA style is from the 6th edition of the manual.)

Barack Obama’s Presidential Election: A Matter of Race and Charisma

by Ipatia K. Apostolides

Oct. 19, 2019

CHAPTER 1

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

 

In 2009, Barack Hussein Obama II became the first African American to be elected as the 44^th president of the United States of America (USA).  Several factors contributed to Obama achieving this momentous, historical election: being born in 1961, during the Civil Rights movement where several Black leaders such as Martin Luther King paved the way for the rights of the Blacks; his mixed-race – his white mother married an African from Kenya; he worked as a community organizer in the black neighborhoods of the South Side of Chicago; he studied law at Harvard; he wrote Dreams of My Father, a memoir, which brought him national attention; he became a Senator; he utilized the Internet to help his campaign; and he used his charisma (Green & Roberts, 2015).  This paper will briefly review these factors listed here and then narrow the focus to his race and charisma in helping him win the presidential election.  His race played an essential role in his career path. By the time his presidential campaign rolled around in 2007, he was not only reaching out to Blacks for votes, but to the millennials who consisted not only of Whites and Blacks, but also Asians, and college students, with the help of the Internet and social media, and they were open to him.  His charisma also played a significant factor in his success.  According to Takala, Tunttu, Lamsa, and Virtanen (2013), Obama’s charismatic leadership style varied according to the context and environment to encompass all four archetypes of charismatic leadership: father, hero, savior, and king.  This allowed him to succeed in influencing a significant number of followers.

 

 

HISTORY

 

Several books have been written about Obama and his family (Mendell, 2007; Maraniss, 2012; Obama, 1995). Due to the page limitations of this paper, the author will briefly touch upon his familial history before moving on.  Barack Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was white and from Kansas. She loved to read and was academically gifted; while still in high school, she was offered early admission to the University of Chicago (Mendell, 2007, p. 25), but her father forbade her.  Ann was an idealist and a dreamer and ignored the flaws in humankind (p. 26).  Later, when the family moved to Honolulu, she enrolled at the University of Hawaii, where she met Barack Hussein Obama Sr. in a Russian language class (p. 27).  Barack’s father was born in Kenya to a prominent elder and farmer. He was also academically gifted - he became the first African exchange student in 1959 at the University of Hawaii (p. 29).  The couple eloped, and Barack Obama Jr. was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.  His father accepted a scholarship to study at Harvard but did not have the money to take his family with him (Mendell, 2007, p. 28).  His parents divorced in 1964 (Barack Obama), and he never really knew his father.  Then his mother married an Indonesian, Lolo Soetoro, and had a daughter, Maya, by him.  As a result, Barack moved to Indonesia with his mother, where he lived, learned the language, and was exposed to the Muslim religion.  She also homeschooled him during a part of this time (Barack Obama).  Obama said this about his mother: “…she was just a very sweet person…and would be your biggest cheerleader and your best friend and had sort of complete confidence in the fact that you were special in some fashion” (Mendell, 2007, p. 24).  He also told a grassroots women’s group this about his mother: “Everything that is good about me, I think I got from her” (p.24). 

After living in Indonesia for four years, Obama returned to Hawaii and lived with his maternal grandparents Madelyn and Stanley Dunham, while his mother visited back and forth; with the help of his grandparents, he spent eight years at Punahou, a private, prestigious college preparatory school in Hawaii, from fifth grade to graduation (Barack Obama).  His father visited him once, in 1971, and in 1982, he was killed in a car accident (Barack Obama).

Coming from a mixed-race family, with absent parents, and having an unusual name were issues that Obama faced growing up.  According to Maraniss (2007), “Leaving and being left were repeating themes of Barry Obama’s young life” (p. 278), and it taught him to adjust, as well as to search for order and home (p. 279).  

Upon graduating from Punahou, Obama attended Occidental College, a small liberal arts college in California, from 1979 to 1981.  In 1981, Obama gave his first public political speech in a protest on campus about the imprisonment of Nelson Mandela (Maraniss, 2012, p. 377).  Then he applied to Columbia University, NY, and was accepted. When his friends asked him why he wanted to leave, he said, “I just need a bigger pond to swim in” (p.386).  Columbia was still an all-male campus, and there was not enough housing, so Obama took an apartment near the campus. He studied political science, specializing in international relations and English literature, and graduated in 1983. 

After graduating from Columbia, Obama was intent on helping the Black communities; he worked in the South Side of Chicago as a community organizer with the Developing Communities Project (DCP).  The South Side was the “intellectual center of black nationalism” (Lizza, 2007).  Obama’s work focused on helping the unemployed, poor blacks fight the city for jobs and asbestos removal.  His teachers were schooled by the radical social scientist Saul Alinksy who studied at the University of Chicago and condoned the use of agitation or making someone angry enough to take action to change their terrible plight; Alinsky was influenced by the idea that “people could change their lives by changing their surroundings” which led him to turn “community organization” into something controversial (Lizza, 2007).  

Obama’s employer, Marty Kaufmann, insisted that he “move toward the centers of people’s lives (Obama, 1995, p.188); so Obama interviewed people in the South Side, listening to their stories and sharing his own; he worked with community leaders and the black churches, but it wasn’t easy.  For example, they tried to start a job bank with the help of a state university in the suburbs, but the computers didn’t work right, and it was plagued with many errors and essentially failed (p. 167).  There were many such setbacks, such as having difficulty uniting the independent black churches that competed for followers (Mendell, 2007, p. 68). Yet, Obama considered the four years he worked as a community organizer as being the “best education” he ever received (Lizza, 2007) and he went on to explain “because it reminded me that you could look at a map but that’s not the actual territory” (Mendell, 2007, p.68).  

In 1988, Obama enrolled in Harvard Law School.  During his first year, he won the position as the editor of the Harvard Law Review through his grades and a writing competition (Kantor, 2007), and this gained him national attention; consequently, he received a contract and advancement by Random House, and in 1995, published his memoir, Dreams of my Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance (Obama, 1995).  Obama’s message has always been about change, and in his memoir, he stated, “Change won’t come from the top, I would say. Change will come from a mobilized grass roots. That’s what I’ll do. I’ll organize black folks. At the grass roots. For change” (Lizza, 2007).  

Meanwhile, during these years at Harvard, Obama joined the Black Law Students Association, where he delivered speeches in the manner of a Baptist Minister, which were “more memorable for style than substance,” said Mr. Mack, a black Harvard student who knew him (Kantor, 2007). Obama met his wife, Michelle Robinson, a Harvard Law graduate during this time. Also, during this time, Obama’s mother attended graduate school at the University of Hawaii on a full scholarship and received her Ph.D. in 1992, but died three years later, in 1995, from cancer at the age of 52.  

From 1992 to 2004, Obama worked as a civil rights attorney and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, where he had an opportunity to teach a diverse group of students. It gave him experience in speaking in front of groups of people (Maraniss, 2012). From 1997 to 2004, Obama served in the Illinois Senate (Barack Obama). 

 

POLITICAL CAREER

The opportunity to run for Senator was the next challenge.  David Axelrod, a highly regarded political consultant, helped Obama turn from a little-known state senator into a serious competitor for the US Senate (Mendell, 2007, p. 163).  Axelrod’s excellent experience in selecting personal life stories of candidates and composing campaign scripts for the public (p. 165) helped propel Obama’s political career forward.  

Obama received national attention once more in 2004 when he gave the Democratic National Convention keynote address (Barack Obama).  Obama had a knack for associating with the little guy.  That day, just before his keynote speech, he turned around and spoke to his photographer, Katz, who was also a golfer and told him, “I’m gonna go out there and sink this putt,” which impressed Katz that Obama could relate to him in such a personal way at that particular moment (Mendell, 2007, 284).  Stewart (2011) posits that part of Barack Obama’s influence came from his background in law and community work, and he’d often refer to the “authentic voices of the people themselves” (p. 273).  This was apparently the case for the keynote speech that helped him get into the Senate (Barack Obama).

Obama’s keynote speech at the Democratic Convention had taken him a year to prepare, and it had a significantly positive impact on his political career.  Even though he was Black, he could have used this opportunity to speak to the Blacks in the country – his powerful message was focused on uniting America.  Although he had to get used to using the teleprompter, he overcame that challenge. He gave a successful speech, saying, “There’s not a liberal American and a conservative America - there’s the United States of America. There’s not a black America and white America and Latin America and Asian America, there’s the United States of America…We are one people” (p. 284).  Obama’s deliberate choice of words helped seek interdependence and interconnectivity (Stewart, 2011).  

Another influence that helped Obama succeed was the use of the Internet.  According to McGirt (2008), tapping into the Internet and using social media like Facebook helped Obama move forward in marketing his campaign, which focused on the millennials (18 - 29 years old).  The millennials held a postmodern worldview; that is how Obama connected with them; they challenged authority, attacked conventional wisdom, tolerated ambiguity, accepted diversity, and built constructive reality (Green & Roberts, 2015).  The “Yes We Can” message created by others, which cost the campaign nothing, became viral on the Internet (p. 3).  Keith Reinhard (DDB Worldwide) states that “Barack Obama is three things you want in a brand: New, different, and attractive.  That’s as good as it gets” (cited in McGirt, 2008).  On the website of mybarackobama.com, “Obamiacs can create their own blogs around platform issues, send policy recommendations directly to the campaign, set up their own mini-fundraising site, organize an event…” (p.3).

 

RACE

When he defeated Senator John McCain to become the 44^th president of the United States in 2009, Obama became the first Black to hold such a high position of power.  Much had been done by his Black predecessors - Martin Luther King, John Lewis, Rosa Parks, Hosea Williams, and other Black leaders - who had entered the political arena (McIlwain, 2010, p. 159) and paved the way for Obama through the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of the 1960s.  According to Smith (1996) and Walters and Smith (1999), the civil rights model of leadership emphasizes charisma, collective participation, and racial group interests (cited in McIlwain, p. 159) and utilizes the persuasive power of speech.  Yet, Obama did not settle for only the civil rights model but straddled the classical model of leadership, which emphasized experience, and the civil rights model of Black leadership. 

A similar viewpoint came from journalist Michael Headerle (2008), who described the presidential contest as a “race about race” (cited in Block, 2011, p. 424).  A line of reasoning that Block (2011) proposes is that guilt among White voters or prejudicial attitudes among Blacks were the primary motives for Obama's support.  The reason behind this was studied by Steele (1988, 2006, 2007b), who purported that Whites who backed Obama desired absolution for the sin of slavery while Black Obama supporters wanted some form of retribution (cited in Block, pp. 438-439). 

Influenced by his connection to the African American community, Obama utilized devices in his speech that were central to African American discourse, such as narratives, imagery, and alliteration (Stewart, 2011, p.272).  Another connection to the African American community occurred when Obama was sworn in as a Senator and became the only Senator member to join the Congressional Black Caucus (Barack Obama). This caucus was made up of African American members of the United States Congress whose goals were pertinent to African Americans and those in a similar situation: “closing the achievement and opportunity gaps in education, assuring quality health care for every American, focusing on employment and economic security, ensuring justice for all, retirement security for all Americans, increasing welfare funds, and increasing equity in foreign policy” (Barack Obama).

 

CHARISMA

 

Another critical factor that influenced the outcome of Obama’s political career was his charisma. His charisma influenced and attracted many followers, who helped him along the way. According to Green (2009), Obama’s Republican opponent, Senator John McCain, was known for his ‘take charge’ style and decisiveness. In contrast, Obama was labeled a charismatic leader who strived to build bridges and not burn them (cited in Green & Roberts, 2015), and it appears that this was what the people of the USA wanted to hear.  

Researchers Takala, Tanttu, Lamsa, and Virtanen (2013) also labeled Obama as a charismatic leader, and they defined charisma as a personality trait (Brown, 2011) from the great man leadership theory (cited in Takala et al., p. 151). In charismatic leadership, personal attributes such as physical appearance, energy, trustworthiness, perseverance, voice, and rhetorical skills are essential (p. 151). Obama had all these characteristics.  

According to Steyrer (1998), there are four archetypes of charismatic leadership: father, hero, savior, and king. The archetype of the father or paternalistic charisma embodies strength, dependability, demandingness, protectiveness, and even moralism. The hero or heroic charisma archetype relates to a combination of strength and superiority, with “good and evil juxtaposed as in heroic tales” (cited in Takala et al., 2013, p. 152). The archetype of the savior or missionary charisma in leadership is innovative and able to make changes which is called for in times of major crisis or change (p.153). Finally, the archetype of the king or majestic charisma is wise, self-confident, peaceful, reliable, and beyond all reproach, and nurtures the people (p. 153).  

Given the four archetypes of charismatic leadership: father, hero, savior, and king, Takala et al. (2013) purport that different social contexts gave rise to various archetypes of charisma in Obama’s leadership style. In other words, Takala et al. (2013) suggest that Obama had a little bit of all the archetypes of charismatic leadership: the father (contexts of poverty and famine), the hero (contexts of international politics and economic and health care reform), the savior (context of giving hope to the world’s political and economic crisis), and king (context of past injustices and fights for human rights) (p. 163).  

According to Edwards (2012), Barack Obama was about change, which was the center of his campaign strategy. The economic crisis then was an opportunity and a catalyst for action rather than a constraint (p.10). “Public support is a critical political resource” (Edwards III, 2012), yet moving the public to respond to a president’s appeals is challenging (p. 6).

In the first months of his presidential campaign, Obama brought up suggestions for change. He challenged audiences to work for a greater good and not spend their lives pursuing material possessions (p. 203). In addition, he emphasized bipartisanship from the beginning, and in the process, was labeled as a ‘centrist’, which means having moderate political views (Barack Obama). He reiterated his push for change on the night of his election, when he stated: “Republicans and Democrats are going to have to work together” (Edwards, 2012, p.137).  

During Obama’s campaign, the USA entered a recession; a global financial crisis had arisen from low-quality mortgage-backed securities backed by subprime mortgages in the US. The prior administrations of Clinton and Bush had “embraced the so-called Washington Consensus, a policy agenda of fiscal austerity, central-bank autonomy, deregulated markets, liberalized capital flows, free trade and privatization (Peschek, 2011, p. 431). There was a dissatisfaction in the country, and the public was ready for change (p. 433). The recession that started in December 2007 lasted two years (The Recession, 2012). 

In 2008, Obama, a member of the Democratic Party, won the presidential election with Joe Biden as his vice president. However, much needed to be done after Obama was elected president: the unemployment rate was 7.3%, Lehman Brothers filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, and the US government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Obama). Thus, due to the scope of this paper, these and other challenges during Obama’s (2009-2017) presidency need to be reserved for another discussion. 

 

CONCLUSION

 

Several factors influenced Obama’s path to becoming the president of the United States: the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s that paved the way; his mother and his mixed-race (Mendell, 2007; Obama, 1995; Maraniss, 2012); his community organizing work (Lizza, 2007; Mendell, 2007; Maraniss, 2012); his Harvard law education and teaching (Barack Obama); his memoir Dreams from My Father (Obama, 1995) that helped him get national recognition; becoming a Senator (Barack Obama); using the Internet for his campaign (Green & Roberts 2015); and his charisma (Takala et al, 2013).  

The difficult economic crisis of that time also helped Obama win because his focus was on “change,” which seemed to be precisely what the people wanted to hear.  This feeds into the idea that Obama’s savior archetype of charismatic leadership (Takala et al, 2013), where he could call for change during the economic crisis that the USA was experiencing, was an essential factor in his political success. In addition, his use of different archetypical charismatic leadership styles: father, hero, savior, and king (Takala et al) allowed him to match his style contextually to the environment. By promising change, his messages were not only for Blacks, but also for Whites, Asians, and others, because he gave hope to those who were out of jobs, unable to pay their bills, and struggling with poverty, regardless of their race.

In addition, a recurring theme in Obama’s public rhetoric was to masterfully attach himself to a larger ideal. According to Mendell (2007), during Obama’s campaign, his policy positions were to the left, but he offered them in a way that made him sound almost conservative.  In other words, his message was for both liberals and conservatives, and he has been labeled as a “centrist” (Barack Obama).  For example, he would tell stories of committed parents and communities raising children, and depending on his audience, might include the higher role and responsibility of the government to assist parents in their struggles (p. 248).  

Overall, everything fell into place like a jigsaw puzzle in Obama’s rise to the presidential campaign, one piece at a time, and he wasn’t alone; his charisma influenced and attracted countless followers that helped him along the way (Green & Roberts, 2015). However, once Obama gained his presidency, the author questions if his race and charisma were enough to maintain both a strong leadership role and bipartisanship in the coming difficult years that would pose challenges requiring shifting to a more situational leadership style, which is a topic for another paper.

 

 

REFERENCES

 

Barack Obama. Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

 

Block, Jr., R. (2011). Backing Barack because he’s black: Racially motivated voting in the 2009 election. Social Science Quarterly, 92(2), 423-446. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2011.00776.x

 

Edwards III, G.C. (2012). Overreach. Leadership in the Obama Presidency. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

 

McIlwain, C. (2010). Leadership, legitimacy, and public perceptions of Barack Obama. Gillespie, A. (Ed.). Whose Black Politics: Cases in Post-racial Black Leadership. New York, NY: Routledge, p. 155-172. 

 

Green, D.D., & Roberts, G.E. (2015). Transformational leadership in a postmodern world: The presidential election of Barack Obama. Electronic Business Journal, 14 (11), 497-507.

 

Kantor, J. (2007). In law school, Obama found political voice. The New York Times. Retrieved from nytimes.com

 

Lizza, R. (2007). The agitator: Barack Obama’s unlikely political education. New Republic. Retrieved from https://newrepublic.com/article/61068/the-agitator-barack-obamas-unlikely-political-education

 

Maraniss, D. (2012). Barack Obama: The Story. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

 

McGirt, E. (2008). The Brand Called Obama.  Retrieved from http://www.fastcompany.com/node/754505/print

 

Mendell, D. (2007). Obama From Promise to Power. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

 

Obama, B. (1995). Dreams from My Father.  New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.

 

Peschek, J. G. (2011). The Obama presidency and the great recession: Political economy, ideology, and public policy. New Political Science, 33(4), 429-444. Retrieved from eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer?vid=11&sid=c4024f6c-d2fd-4369-91e4-123d1e6c2f71%40pdc-v-sessmgr03

 

Stewart, F. Exploring Afrocentricity: An analysis of the discourse of Barack Obama. Journal of African American Studies. 15, 269-278. doi: 10.1007/s12111-011-9161-6

 

Takala, T., Tanttu, S., Lamsa, A., & Virtanen, A. (2013). Discourses of charisma: Barack Obama’s first 6 months as the president of the USA. J Bus Ethics, 115, 149-166. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1389-0

 

The Recession of 2007-2009. (2012). Retrieved from BLS website: https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2012/recession/pdf/recession_bls_spotlight.pdf

 

 

 

Stroll in the Park

 Recently, my son and I went to Hagerstown City Park for a stroll. It was mid-June and the sun was shining brightly on this slightly cool day. This park is one of my favorite parks because its lush landscape surrounds a beautiful lake that has a fountain, ducks, swans, and scenic views. The lake glimmered as the ducks, geese, and swans glided upon it with abandon. It was a fairy tale waiting to be explored.

In addition, Hagerstown City Park recently celebrated its 100th year anniversary, and efforts had been made to beautify the park even more by adding more bushes and flowers. Therefore, color abounded that day we visited the park. In addition to the sizeable perimeter of the lake which takes a good 40 minutes to stroll, there are at least two children's swing sets, a classy Art Museum, an eatery, and a picnic area. The peaceful and calm setting was captured through the photos I took. 

I was able to compose and play a harp tune to accompany the scenic stroll. 

Here it is on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSjwmft610Q&t=3s

My PhD Studies - Abstract of my dissertation on Edmund Keeley's leadership

If you've been following my blog, you'll notice that I have been adding more and more articles about poets and authors, as well as other articles. These articles and essays were not written out of thin air. I had to write them for my PhD classes and am sharing them with you.

In early 2019, I was accepted into the PhD Leadership Program with specialty content in English at the University of the Cumberlands, KY. This totally online program worked well for me as I did not want to have to move to Kentucky to take classes. Also, I was thrilled because I had wanted to get a PhD ever since I was a teenager.  

My dream of attaining this degree didn't come to fruition until now, because Life took over and demanded my time. I had to be a career woman, a wife, a homeschooling mother, a novelist, poet, and a widow first. Yet the dream did not disappear.

I had to get my MFA in Creative Writing at the National University, California, first (in order to get accepted, I had to have a portfolio of writing).  And the dream was still there.

I had to direct the Hellenic Writers' Group first (in order to be accepted into this program, I needed to have had at least 5 years in a leadership role). The dream kept pushing me to do something about the PhD. Up until now, I had not really known what I wanted to study because I had so many interests. A PhD is a 3-year commitment (at least), and it takes time, commitment, and money. I needed to know for sure that the field of study was the one I was interested in. Leadership was something that appealed to me, and so was writing. 

So I applied to the University of the Cumberlands in 2018, to their online Leadership Program. For the application, I had to write an essay on what my dissertation topic would be. In the Spring of 2019, I received the acceptance letter. I was overjoyed yet cautious. I had recently passed my 60th year of life. Could I do it at this late stage? Yet I wanted to do it. It had been a dream of mine ever since I was thirteen. 

I attended my online graduate classes faithfully and did very well in them. I learned so much about leadership, adult learning, higher education leadership, the organizational change process and even the teaching of content. I learned about qualitative and quantitative research. I learned about Irish Poetry, African-American novels, Immigration Narrative, Creative Writing, and much more. During these classes, I met students who were CEO's of companies, principals of schools, and other students who were going for their second or third PhD. I met students with two Master's degrees, and in our discussions, I read classmates' posts with interest because of the high caliber of writing.  I was impressed. I wasn't sure if online classes were as good as brick-and-mortar classes, and I found out the value of my education during 2020 when the COVID-19 pandemic hit and everyone had to go online. We were ahead of everyone!

It's been two glorious years, and now, in the Spring of 2021, I entered my dissertation phase. I had to find a topic, and out of five choices, I am happy to announce that my topic has been approved. I have been diligently working on my literature search/review for my qualitative dissertation. We've been told that this is a marathon and not a sprint. For each day that I am alive and breathing and able to do this, I thank God.

Here is an abstract of my topic:

Abstract

 

This qualitative research case study aimed to determine Edmund Keeley’s leadership style in leading and causing change through his works as an author, Greek translator, educator, and president of two nonprofit organizations and helping form a movement that shared Greek literature with the world. A noticeable gap in modern Greek literature and modern Greek literary canon provided the impetus to investigate further why this was the case. The study aligns itself with learning and leadership theories and built credibility through the triangulation process (Bass, 2008; Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The research questions posed in this dissertation were: What is Edmund Keeley’s leadership style as translator, novelist, educator, and president of the Modern Greek Studies Association and PEN America; how was Edmund Keeley’s leadership style developed; what or who helped shape Edmund Keeley’s choice to work with Greek poets, write Greek-themed literature, and lead in Greek organizations; how did Edmund Keeley use the change process in the organizations he led? Data derived from references, books, publications, documents, Internet sources, and interviews to form the triangulation process helped answer the questions (Noble & Heale, 2019; Yin, 2009). The study results showed that Keeley switched his leadership style from democratic to servant to transformational, depending on the situation. Therefore, this dissertation proposes that Keeley was a situational or flexible leader who adapted to change. Implications for the future include a need for more research on literature and leadership, and the future of Greek literature and Modern Greek studies in the United States.