Compassion in Politics

Elsewhere, similar projects are taking root. Whitman College in Washington and Philander Smith College in Arkansas both have new programs on social justice. Brandeis University offers a minor in social justice and social policy. Grinnell College offers an award to young social justice leaders. Lake Forest College in Illinois also offers a minor. Saint Mary’s College of California just announced a new master’s degree concentration in social justice leadership. And the movement isn’t limited to private institutions: Arizona State University introduced a master’s degree in social justice and human rights last fall.

You can read more at Inside Higher Ed (link)

This option exists along with others:

Service Learning
Non-profit Administration
Public Administration
Social Entrepreneurship
International Relations
International Development
Health Care Administration
Public Health

My guess is most students will want to find a university in this area with a big service offering.

Katie Davis visited Uganda in high school, worked one year, and then started Amazania in 2008 at 19 years of age. Here is her talk at Lipscomb University:

You can learn more about Amazina here. She is also the author of Kisses from Katie, which is #268 on Amazon at the moment. Here is her talk at Catalyst. Here are some inspiring quotes from her talk:

“God doesn’t tell us to care for the less fortunate, He demands it.”
– Katie Davis

“Adoption is a redemptive response to tragedy.”
– Katie Davis

“Courage isn’t about knowing the path, it’s about taking the first step.”

– Katie Davis

Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and the moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days, my friends, will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow men.
President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, March 4, 1933

(link)

As one critic put it; to capture our humanity Dennett must account for more freedom than that of a chemically switched cell, a photographically responsive flower, or a clever rat. Even more freedom than possessed by smart dogs or chimps is involved in moral freedom—in ethical praising and blaming. Dennett’s evolutionary psychology is not enough to account for moral freedom.

Behaviorism and neuroscience do not really eat away at the philosophical estate, as Dennett claims, because they do not take seriously Kant’s arguments that to treat oneself as a rational agent (not just as a cognitive creature) one must assume that one’s reason has a practical application or, equivalently, that one has a will. But one cannot assume a rational will in oneself without already presupposing “the idea of freedom,” the free endorsement of warranted beliefs, including beliefs about one’s own nature. So, to regard oneself as acting (not merely behaving) requires the actor to presume his or her freely chosen rational endorsement of beliefs, values, and actions. Morally accountable freedom is the form of the thought of oneself as a practically rational agent. If one were not practically rational, what would be the point of Dennett’s worry—his book?
…
The capacity to avoid fate has been evolving for billions of years, Dennett reminds us. Through the operation of natural selection organisms evolve greater degrees of fate-avoiding freedom. A crude kind of fate-avoiding is already programmed into primitive organisms as a chemical switch that responds to danger. Sophisticated fate-avoiders operate with internal “hypothesis-considering” strategies; they take up an “intentional stance” toward themselves and others.

Primitive fate-avoiders are programmed with a single, direct way to avoid harmful effects of causes. Sophisticated choosers, on the other hand, can invent novel ways to avoid the usual effects of causes. There is no conflict, Dennett points out, between being an inventor of fate-avoiding strategies and the existence of determined causes of effects (which may or may not be avoided). Primitive “situation-action machines” have genetically memetically learned hypothetical design strategies: “Would X, Y or Z best avoid an otherwise bad fate in this situation?” Such a reflective selection of a response to determined causes assumes a value posited for “best” and a prediction of the consequences of X, Y, and Z, among other things. programmed simple rules: “When P happens, do Y in order to avoid its usual consequences.” Sophisticated “choice-machines,” however have memetically learned hypothetical design strategies: “Would X, Y or Z best avoid an otherwise bad fate in this situation?” Such a reflective selection of a response to determined causes assumes a value posited for “best” and a prediction of the consequences of X, Y, and Z, among other things.

Roger William Gilman (full article in free PDF download)

What method would you use to evaluate the business model if you don’t want to rely on your gut feeling alone?

Here’s what I’ve found so far:

1) Business Model Generation (2010):
Two-fold evaluation: SWOT for Canvas as big picture and SWOT for each single component.

2) Morris, Schindehutte, Richardson, Allen (2006):
7 performance indicators: uniqueness, profit potential, internal consistency, imitability, robustness, adaptability, sustainability.
That’s great so far, however unclear how to operationalise this. There seems to be no method how to actually measure this.

3) Amit, Zott (2001):
4 performance indicators in their NICE-framework: novelty, lock-in, complementarity, efficiency.

4) Hamel (2000):
4 performance indicators: efficiency, uniqueness, fit, profit boosters.

Which ones do you find useful and have you come across other approaches that can be operationalised and are therefore useful for practitioners?

Other include:
One page business plan
10 step evaluation from Seth

Keller here both answers to question of “Is Homosexuality a Sin” as well as “How should Christians approach the issue of homosexuality and those in the LGBT community?” in an interview entitled “Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism” (link to Vimeo video):

EISENBACH: ……I wrote a book about the gay rights movement because I was appalled by the oppression and the discrimination against homosexuals in my America [KELLER: uhhmm..]. And this questioner asks, ‘What do so many of the churches have against homosexuals? And what about your church’s approach to homosexuality, is it a sin? Are they going to Hell?

KELLER: uhhh…let’s talk about my church first which will be a little easier than trying to answer for all the other churches of the world….but I’ll try [AUDIENCE LAUGHTER]. I’m representing all the churches of the world alright, you know? [EISENBACH: but Christianity I mean….you, you…] Yeah, I know but let’s start with mine.

EISENBACH:…. You go to the Bible quite often and there are many evangelicals who would say it is listed as a sin in the Bible [KELLER: sin in the Bible, right.]…and these people are going to Hell.

KELLER: Right. Now…What you..first…ughhhh…Let’s talk about my church again [nervous laughter]. Let’s go back here. What we would say is…I think it’s unavoidable. I think most Protestant and Catholic and Orthodox Christians over the years have said, you read the Bible and the Bible has reservations. The Bible says homosexuality is not God’s original design for sexuality. Ok? There we are…you have it. The Bible also says, ‘Love your neighbor’. The Bible…in fact, The Good Samaritan parable which is how Jesus tells us to love our neighbor…you put a Jew and a Samaritan there. So, what Jesus is trying to say is everybody is your neighbor. Gay people are your neighbors. Uhhh…people who are of other faiths are your neighbors. People of other….. other…uhhhh….uhhh…races are your neighbors. And it’s the job of a Christian to do what Jesus did on the cross which was to give himself for people who were opposing Him and people who were diff….believe….didn’t believe in Him even. And so, a Christian is supposed to say, ‘I serve the needs and interests of all of my neighbors in the city, whether gay or straight, whether Hindu or Muslim. I mean Hindus, for example, don’t believe in the Trinity. It’s a different view than what the Bible says. Gay people have a different view of sexuality than generally what you see in the NT. I’m supposed to love my neighbors. So, what I don’t see is…at this point, I see some churches that are…basically, ignoring the places in the Bible that talk about homosexuality in order to love their gay neighbor. And I see other Christian churches taking very seriously what the Bible says about homosexuality but in a very self-righteous way. So, they actually do single out gay people. I mean, there are a number of conservative churches that will love their Hindu neighbors and will love their Muslim neighbors, and not their gay neighbors. And I really don’t think there is any excuse for that. So…that’s what [EISENBACH: Is…is] I mean, I…I….Therefore, I have to take some responsibility for being a member of the Christian Church for the oppression of homosexuals.

EISENBACH: Are committing homosexual acts sin….against God?

KELLER: uhhhh….What do you mean by ‘sin’? The answer is ‘yes’.

This is certainly a sensitive issue. I think Keller is largely correct. I think his comment, however raises some fundamental question for those who favor bridge-building with gays:

What does it mean to love gay people?
How can Christians & churches better love gay people?
Does loving gay people mean preaching against a homosexual or alternative lifestyle in church?
How can mainline protestant churches re-establish a relationship (and trust) with gay people and gay communities?

(link)

1. Mapping the Process (Customer Touchpoint Map, System Map)
2. Observation (Ethnography)
3. Roleplaying & Games
4. Interviews with Stakeholders (Customers & other stakeholders)
5. Prototyping & Testing
6. Cognitive Walk through
7. Envisioning
8. Personas & Storytelling
9. Facilitation & Brainstorming (mindmapping)

Here is the full repository which include a fuller range of experiential and emotional responses with a product, service, or brand.

1) Yale University’s School of Management
2) University of California-Berkeley (Haas School)
3) Stanford Graduate School of Business
4) Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management
5) Harvard Business School
6) University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business
7) Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business
8) University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School
9) Columbia University’s School of Business.
10) New York University’s Stern School of Business.
11) Case Western Reserve University’s Weatherhead School of Business

This is a pretty impressive list. I think the focus is on top academic schools (or top MBA schools which happen to have a robust social entrepreneurship course offering). I don’t think this distinguishes between types of social entrepreneurship (which is both difficult and par for the course) but important to think about for budding social entrepreneurs:
1. social business which serves the US (or developed countries like the US). For instance, those signified as a B-Corporation.
2. impact investing (and high impact philanthropy)
3. bottom of the pyramid (serving the poorest of the poor that live on $2 to $4 a day)
4. corporate social responsibility
5. green business/sustainability (either as a business or for the Fortune 1000)
6. education entrepreneurship
7. non profit sector (high impact non-profit sector and/or non-profit organizations with earned income revenue)
8. public administration/government.
9. public health

Also, at this point I should admit–ranking systems are imperfect (each person needs to bring their own needs & personality as a filter, as well as outside information about the schools for their research process–particularly given the time and money invested in graduate school). However, ranking systems are an ok indicator of faculty, mission, programs in a particular area. Note: the author of Poets and Quants doesn’t seem to have a system for ranking from what I can tell–but a general read on quality programs.
Other Heuristics to Slice and dice with:
1. Competitiveness/rank in another area as well (ie marketing, supply chain, entrepreneurship, health care management, etc..)
2. City of Choice (Boston, NYC, Austin, almost anything in California–but mostly Berkeley and Palo Alto)
3. State School or perhaps Price (Berkeley & Michigan are the only ones listed–but UT-Austin, UNC-Chapel Hill, and the University of Indiana all have decent programs–combined with specialties in multiple disciplines.)

John A Bryne does a more extensive job of investigating–qualitatively–than others might do and has interesting comparisons included. (It would be nice to know if he has connections to any of these schools–ie his alma matre for undergrad and/or B-school). The full article can be read here.

21st Century Skills & the University:

“They need to be agile, creative problem solvers who draw their knowledge from multiple perspectives both domestic and global, who approach the world with empathy, and who are ready to act with others to improve the quality of life for all.

“Another name for these graduates is democratic citizens.”
A National Call for Action: A Crucible Moment

National Association of Colleges and Employers: Ranked List of Important Candidate Skills and Qualities

1. Ability to work in a team structure
2. Ability to verbally communicate with persons inside and outside the organization
3. Ability to make decisions and solve problems
4. Ability to obtain and process information
5. Ability to plan, organize, and prioritize work
6. Ability to analyze quantitative data
7. Technical knowledge related to the job
8. Proficiency with computer software programs
9. Ability to create and/or edit written reports
10. Ability to sell or influence others

Job Outlook 2012 Survey from the National Association of Colleges and Employers (the full report, unfortunately is almost $50 for non-members)

“I look to the diffusion of light and education as the resource most to be relied on for ameliorating the conditions, promoting the virtue and advancing the happiness of man.”
Thomas Jefferson to Cornelius Camden Blatchly 1822

I have to credit Ken O’Donnell for assembling the above quotes (the cited material from the talk is available on Google docs if you click the link on his About page.