At midnight on Thursday, February 28, UMBC Giving Day will officially begin, kicking off the university’s second annual 24-hour marathon of giving. The goal: for as many UMBC alumni, friends, faculty, staff, and students as possible to make a gift, supporting UMBC students and projects. UMBC is relying on Retriever Nation to make the 1,000 donor goal a reality.

“Last year was our very first 24-hour giving day—Black and Gold Rush—and it was simply amazing,” says Joanne Meredith, director of annual giving. “The entire UMBC community came together to support scholarships, athletics, campus life, academics… They gave to what mattered most to them.”

Making an impact

For Giving Day 2019, UMBC will shine a spotlight on eighteen funds as key areas for support. The Stay Black and Gold Fund, for example, directly supports students who are facing financial hardship as they seek to finish their degrees. The Retriever Essentials fund supports work to tackle food insecurity in the UMBC community. Donors can also give to other UMBC funds that they choose, beyond the eighteen featured.

“This is a special time for UMBC,” said UMBC President Freeman Hrabowski. “We want you to give to whatever it is that you want to give to—whether it’s academics or athletics, scholarships or Student Affairs.”

President Hrabowski will once again be taking over UMBC’s Twitter account in the midst of the excitement on UMBC Giving Day 2019.

Joining the festivities

In the spirit of the #blackandgoldrush Giving Day theme, all Retrievers are encouraged to wear black and gold on Thursday, February 28. To help support the cause, the UMBC Bookstore is offering 50 percent off all clearance merchandise from February 25 through March 1.

Join in the festivities on Thursday, February 28 by dropping by Giving Day headquarters at Main Street in the Commons, 10 a.m. – 2 p.m. There will be games, live performances, prizes, snacks, and more.

The celebration will also be online, where ambassadors are competing to see who can raise the most donors and visibility for Giving Day. Since January, Retrievers have been signing up to serve as social media ambassadors and helping to boost awareness about Giving Day throughout Retriever Nation. On Giving Day, ambassadors will be able to track their progress on a leaderboard, to see who helped generate the most clicks and donations for their UMBC causes. The top individual, department, and student ambassadors will all receive special prizes.

“This is such caring community, full of energy and UMBC pride,” says Greg Simmons, M.P.P. ’04, public policy, and vice president of institutional advancement. “To be successful, Giving Day is definitely an all-hands-on deck effort. We are excited to see how support from UMBC alumni, students, parents, faculty, and staff on Giving Day can extend the reach and impact of the work we do together.”

Wherever you are on Thursday, February 28, you can follow all of the Giving Day 2019 festivities on UMBC’s Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat (@UMBCLife), and post your own thoughts on why supporting UMBC students is so important using #UMBC and #blackandgoldrush.

Featured Image: Thank-you notes from Giving Day 2018. All photos by Marlaynd Demond ’11 for UMBC.

After four days of intense competition, UMBC’s men’s and women’s swimming and diving teams have both been crowned 2019 America East champions. The men’s team successfully defended their title, giving them their 11th America East title win, and the women’s team collected their seventh conference win. This marks the first time both teams were named champions since the 2010-2011 season. The men also previously competed within the Coastal Collegiate Sports Association.

“At the beginning of the year, our captains chose the theme ‘enjoy it’ to help guide our season and that’s exactly what we did. We got to the championships and we added ‘live it’ and ‘love it,’ and we used that thinking to be the most relaxed and confident team,” says Coach Chad Cradock ’97, psychology. “From the minute the events started, we all rallied around each other to compete at our best.”

UMBC

In the decade since she graduated from UMBC, Bethany Meyer ‘08, information systems, has become a rising leader in the online learning field. Meyer, now chief technology officer and co-founder of CourseArc, is also dedicated to identifying and training emerging tech talent for her company. The Maryland Technology Internship Program (MTIP) is helping her move that work forward.

MTIP launched in fall 2018 to increase the number of paid technical internships in the state by providing financial assistance to businesses, as well as state and local agencies, to hire more interns. The goal of the UMBC-based, statewide program is particularly to enable smaller companies to support student interns and retain talent, while giving students a chance to gain experience in technical and creative roles that require science, technology, engineering, and math skills.

Through MTIP, Meyer brought onboard Jessica Hutchinson, a student at Towson University, for a CourseArc internship last fall. “It’s been great having someone on our team who is eager to take on a wide range of tasks,” says Meyer. She notes that Hutchinson has worked on projects ranging from market research and quality assurance, regularly sharing fresh ideas and insights with her team.

Strengthening the pipeline

MTIP made headlines this fall when Technical.ly Baltimore interviewed UMBC’s Christine Routzahn about the program. Routzahn is director of UMBC’s Career Center and the MTIP, which is funded by the State of Maryland and administered by UMBC. She explains that the program is especially beneficial for smaller companies that don’t yet have established internship programs or existing funding to support an intern.

The program is open to current students and recent graduates, who have completed their degree within the past year. To participate, companies must be located in Maryland and must be technology-focused. Through the MTIP, employers can be reimbursed for up to half of an intern’s wages, with a maximum reimbursement of $3000 each year for each intern. Companies also designate a supervisor for each intern, to mentor them throughout the semester.

Career pathways

UMBC’s Sheldon Broedel explains, though his experience, that MTIP is not just a useful tool for companies, but has quickly become “part of our hiring strategy.” Broedel is assistant graduate program director of UMBC’s master’s in biotechnology program, as well as founder and CEO of biotech company Athena. Through MTIP, he was able to hire Stevenson University chemistry major Gavin Burton as an intern at Athena Environmental Sciences, Inc.

Hiring new talent and bringing them up to speed is “an iterative process of training that can be expensive and time-consuming,” says Broedel. He sees MTIP as “a way to offset the risk and lower the risk barrier” of bringing on potential new team members. The program helps students expand their knowledge and strengthen their resumes while reducing the expense to the companies who are doing that training, says Broedel.

During his time at Athena, Burton has developed a stronger understanding of the manufacturing process for specialty pharmaceuticals. He explains that having professional experience outside of a university lab has been incredibly valuable, sharing, “It reassured me that I’m on the right path with what I want to do with my life.”

UMBC students also participate in MTIP, and are regularly recognized through MTIP’s intern of the month.

Banner image: Lauren Mazzoli ’15, computer science, M.S. ‘17, computer science, and Priyanka Ranade ’18, information systems, working together during Ranade’s summer internship at Northrop Grumman, prior to the creation of the MTIP. Photo by Marlayna Demond ’11 for UMBC.

by F. Chris Curran, Assistant Professor of Public Policy, UMBC

When parents and educators discuss school discipline, one of the things that comes up most are “zero tolerance” policies. This term is often misused and misunderstood, according to new research I published recently.

Zero tolerance policies are also thought to be widespread. But, my work and a recent report show they are actually less common than frequently thought.

Zero tolerance policies are likely to get more attention now that education secretary Betsy DeVos has repealed Obama-era guidance that sought to reduce suspensions, particularly among children of color. Some claimed that the guidance may have made things worse – and even contributed to school shootings – by discouraging schools from reporting problem behavior.

A better understanding of zero tolerance is important, then, as schools nationwide once again grapple with the proper approach to discipline. Below, I explain some basic facts about zero tolerance policies and how prevalent they are in America’s schools.

Just what is a zero tolerance policy?

Zero tolerance policies require specific and generally serious responses – such as suspension or expulsion – for certain types of student misconduct. The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights defines a zero tolerance policy as one that “results in mandatory expulsion of any student who commits one or more specified offenses.”

As early as the late 1980s, a handful of states had already adopted such laws for offenses like drugs or assaults. The 1994 passage of the federal Gun-Free Schools Act resulted in the expansion of mandatory expulsion policies for firearm offenses to all states. Wider use of zero tolerance approaches by schools for other offenses, such as tobacco and alcohol, soon followed.

In recent years, however, the term “zero tolerance” has frequently been used by advocates and the media to describe a wider range of disciplinary approaches. For example, the Advancement Project, an advocacy organization, has used the term “zero tolerance” as “shorthand for all punitive school discipline policies and practices.”

These kinds of broad definitions might rally people to join the cause of school discipline reform. However, they also muddy the water when it comes to understanding the scope of actual zero tolerance policies and efforts to reform specific practices of schools.

For example, research I have conducted with education policy expert Maida Finch of Salisbury University shows that exclusionary forms of discipline, like suspension, are an option for infractions at many schools but usually are not required. Instead, exclusionary forms of discipline are often part of a tiered system in which other interventions are tried first. A tiered system might be viewed as “zero tolerance” based on a broad definition like that used by the Advancement Project. However, it is a far stretch from being zero tolerance in actual practice.

How common are zero tolerance policies?

In a recent study, I found that, as of 2013, only seven states and 12 percent of school districts had discipline policies that used the term “zero tolerance.” While almost all states and about two-thirds of districts had a policy that required expulsion for certain infractions, these state laws and district policies overwhelmingly applied to serious infractions, like bringing a gun to school.

A recent report by the Education Commission of the States shows that only 15 states require suspension or expulsion for physical harm or assault. And only 11 do for drug use or possession. Only two states’ statutes require suspension or expulsion for less serious infractions, like defiance or disruptive behavior.

This focus on serious infractions in laws and policies contrasts with many media portrayals of zero tolerance. Based on my research, media portrayals of zero tolerance are more likely to focus on minor offenses. For example, the term “zero tolerance” has been used by the media to refer to situations where students were suspended for minor offenses, such as failing to wear a student ID badge, but only after multiple violations of the rule.

The lack of broad presence of zero tolerance policies is, in part, a result of states adopting more laws that scale back exclusionary discipline and fewer laws that call for exclusionary approaches.

Many school districts have also limited the use of suspensions. For example, Philadelphia banned the use of suspensions for minor infractions. Other districts, such as New York City and Austin, Texas, have adopted changes that make it more difficult to suspend students in the earliest grades.

Are zero tolerance policies the enemy?

During the 1990s, proponents of zero tolerance discipline saw it as a solution for school violence. They also saw it as a way to ensure unbiased discipline by removing discretion from school staff. For example, in 1995 Albert Shanker, then-president of the American Federation of Teachers, stated: “The way to make sure that this is done fairly and is not done in a prejudiced way is to say, look, we don’t care if you’re white or Hispanic or African-American or whether you’re a recent immigrant or this or that, for this infraction, this is what happens.”

To the contrary, however, studies have found that zero tolerance policies can increase suspensions and exacerbate racial disparities in discipline. They may also yield little benefit in terms of improved school climate.

Addressing zero tolerance policies is important. However, in my view, it’s important to look beyond zero tolerance. In general, almost half of suspensions occur for less serious infractions, like defiance or disruption. Students are being suspended for these infractions even when there isn’t a zero tolerance requirement in place.

Perhaps if everyone were more clear about what is and what isn’t zero tolerance, it would lead to more productive discussions about how to reform school discipline and improve outcomes for students.
* * * * *

F. Chris Curran, Assistant Professor of Public Policy, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Header photo by Joshua Hoehne on Unsplash

In a recent interview at the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Bob and Elizabeth Dole Series on Leadership, UMBC President Freeman Hrabowski shared his perspective on leading diverse and inclusive communities in today’s political environment.

Hrabowski grounded his talk in his own experience with the civil rights movement. He also drew listeners back to the founding of UMBC, noting, “It’s only been since the 1960s that we have said in the most clear manner that we need to bring more people into the mainstream.” He pointed out, “When the university was founded in the 1960s, we really were the only university in the state where kids of all races could come.”

More than 50 years later, UMBC still takes pride in its diverse community, which Hrabowski noted includes new immigrants and first-generation Americans with families from more than 100 countries, and first-generation college students, as well as students from military and intelligence families in the Washington, D.C. region. Hrabowski also pointed to UMBC’s socioeconomic diversity and the brain power of public research universities, saying, “You don’t have to be wealthy to succeed intellectually.”

How does this diverse group feel about the current heated political rhetoric? “People are angry, as you might imagine…people [at UMBC] believe in our country and they know we can be better than this,” said Hrabowski.

Reflecting on his conversations with students, Hrabowski told the audience, “young people will ask those of us of other generations ‘why haven’t you made it better than this?’…this is where the role of a teacher or mentor becomes most important.” He wants students to understand that “democracy is messy,” but change is possible, and we are empowered to make our communities and our country what we want them to become.

Hrabowski said he is “very proud” of how the UMBC community handles difficult conversations about policy and political issues, working across differences in perspective and opinion. He noted that “sometimes students need a chance to be upset with each other and have those conversations to find common ground.”

The key, Hrabowski suggested, is finding constructive ways to “help people not to give in to the anger of the moment.” He explained that educators have an important role in helping students learn how to effectively analyze complex issues, including ideas they disagree with, and to “understand the need to agree to disagree agreeably, with some civility.” By doing these things, Hrabowski said, students learn how to engage in respectful, productive public discourse.

Just as he views UMBC as a model for inclusive excellence in public higher education, Hrabowski sees Maryland as a model for bipartisanship and civility in state government. “[O]ur state is one of the few I see where you have more bipartisan agreement. We have a Republican governor who is supporting education, and a Democratic legislature, and they are working to make things happen… They are working together in a way that America needs to look at.”

The full interview is available through the Bipartisan Policy Center on SoundCloud.

This story was written by Mary Ann Richmond ’93, history. Featured image: President Hrabowski and UMBC students in a group discussion in the Dresher Center for the Humanities.

Preminda Jacob, Associate Professor of Art History and Museum Studies, UMBC

For two hours each evening, an Ivanka Trump lookalike has been vacuuming a hot pink carpet at the Flashpoint Gallery in Washington, D.C.

As she appears to be on the cusp of completing the task, spectators soil the carpet with bread crumbs. She vacuums them up. The audience tosses more crumbs onto the carpet. The pattern repeats itself.

Jennifer Rubell’s installation, titled “Ivanka Vacuuming,” has already elicited a response from the subject.

Following the Feb. 1 opening, Ivanka Trump tweeted, “Women can choose to knock each other down or build each other up. I choose the latter,” to which Rubell parried, “I would encourage you to see the piece and form your own direct response. … Not knocking anyone down. Exploring complicated subjects we all care about.”

As a historian of contemporary art, I wanted to learn more about this headline-grabbing work. So I followed Rubell’s directive and saw it myself.

The piece certainly pops: It’s pink. Very pink. And the Ivanka double has a plastic sheen that borders on surreal.

It took a moment to adjust to the saccharine visuals. But it soon became apparent that Rubell was drawing from a rich tradition of performance art. She seems to be compelling viewers to think about the huge numbers of women who perform invisible labor – all in exchange for a few crumbs from the great American pie.

Repetitive, relentless work

The work of art has been staged at the back of the gallery, in a space surrounded by three white walls. In the foreground, there’s a white cube, approximately three-and-a-half feet high and topped with a two-foot mound of Panko bread crumbs. Text invites the viewers to scatter the crumbs onto the pink carpet to keep the Ivanka doppelgänger busy.

Fortunately, the night I visited, Rubell was in the gallery observing the performance. She told me that she has witnessed the live performance in Washington, D.C., a few times. Otherwise, she’s been watching it on a live feed from her home in New York City.

The Ivanka lookalike is a model whom Rubell hired through an agency. In my brief conversation with Rubell, she mentioned that although she had to make some minor adjustments to the model’s hair color and makeup, it was relative easy to mimic Ivanka’s look because she is already so doll-like.

Rubell cited pioneering performance artist Vito Acconci as an inspiration for her interest in the medium. You can see his stamp on “Ivanka Vacuuming” in works like “Step Piece.” Over a performance period of one month in 1970, Acconci documented himself, each day, stepping on and off a stool in his apartment at the rate of 30 steps per minute until he was unable to continue. He wanted to highlight the absurdity of certain repetitive tasks.

Invisible female labor

In her work, Rubell is also tackling the seeming endlessness of mind-numbing labor. But she’s doing it in a way that aligns herself with artists such as Judy Chicago and Miriam Schapiro, who co-founded the California Institute of Arts’ Feminist Art program.

In 1972, Chicago and Schapiro collaborated with other feminists to create installations, performances and discussion groups concerned with the invisible labor performed by women, especially in the home.

Titled “Womanhouse,” this influential exhibition criticized prevailing attitudes towards femininity and domesticity that had been instilled through a range of cultural messages, from advertisements for home appliances, to toys like the Barbie doll.

The exhibition was set up in a dilapidated Los Angeles mansion. A group of 23 artists refurbished the residence prior to installing their work to make the familiar spaces of the home seem strange. For instance, the walls of the kitchen were pockmarked with fried egg sculptures that resembled eyes or breasts, while the shelves of a linen closet were merged into the body of a life-size mannequin doll.

In “Ivanka Vacuuming,” I also see echoes of New York-based artist Mierle Laderman Ukeles. In 1973, Ukeles got down on her hands and knees to scrub the floors and steps of the Wadsworth Atheneum museum. In another famous work, Ukeles shook the hand of every New York City sanitation worker.

Like “Ivanka Vacuuming” and “Womanhouse,” Ukeles wanted to bring attention to the drudgery of everyday tasks that are crucial to our well-being but go largely unrecognized and unrewarded.

The viewer as enabler

There’s a twist to “Ivanka Vacuuming,” however: It requires audience participation. In order to complete the work, viewers must grab from the pile of crumbs sitting on an abstract cube in the darkened half of the gallery and toss them into the brightly lit performance space.

Rubell’s invitation to viewers made me think of Yoko Ono’s famous “Cut Piece” from 1964. In it, Ono sat on the floor with her legs folded beneath her body and a pair of scissors by her side. Viewers were invited to approach the artist, one by one, and cut off a piece of her dress. The performance continued until the artist was almost naked.

I was also reminded of the 1990 work “Untitled (USA Today),” in which artist Felix Gonzalez-Torres piled a large mound of candy wrapped in red, blue and silver foil against the corner of a gallery and invited visitors to help themselves. Torres was prompting the viewer to think critically about the sugary news dished out by mainstream newspapers like USA Today and the way many readers uncritically gobble it up.

Rubell’s work likewise, challenges her audience to engage and to think critically.

Vacuuming isn’t inherently degrading or abject. But it’s difficult to imagine Ivanka, at any point in her privileged upbringing, wielding a vacuum.

The artwork is jolting in the way that it juxtaposes Ivanka’s public image – pristine, professional, camera-ready – with tasks performed by the maids and housekeepers who labor in Trump’s homes, hotels and resorts.

But Rubell slyly subverts the dynamics of control. Who’s in charge? Is it the wealthiest one percent whose needs power the vacuums, start up the hotel laundries every night and turn on the kitchen fryers at 4 a.m.?

Or, perhaps it’s us – the public, the spectator – who keep the crumbs coming, participating in a system that privileges the few at the expense of the many.

* * * * *

Preminda Jacob, Associate Professor of Art History and Museum Studies, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Header image of Preminda Jacob by Marlayna Demond ’11 for UMBC Magazine.

by Margaret Re, Associate Professor of Graphic Design, UMBC

The look, feel and functionality of the modern American office can be traced back to the work of one woman.

Florence Knoll Bassett, whom Architectural Record called the “single most powerful figure in modern design,” died at 101 on Jan. 25.

In the early 20th century, offices consisted of rows of dark, heavy desks and chairs, with the executive desk angled toward an office door.

Knoll, who believed that a building’s interior was as important as its exterior, introduced an office aesthetic based on function. She interviewed people about how they did their job so they could do it efficiently and comfortably. She then went on to design products like the Model 1500 series – a desk that allowed drawers and cabinets to be added to the frame based on need.

The press coined a term for her “humanist interpretation of European modernism”: the “Knoll Look.” Her clients included CBS, Connecticut General, Alcoa and the University of Michigan, and you’ll see her influence in mid-century period pieces like “Mad Men.”

The U.S. State Department had also noticed Knoll’s growing reputation. As part of a Cold War propaganda effort to align consumer choice with political choice, they used her and her “look” to help establish and promote an American identity abroad.

Reimagining the textile

Knoll attended the Cranbrook Academy of Art, a school that’s considered the birthplace of American modernism, where she was a classmate of future star designers Charles and Ray Eames, Eero Saarinen, Harry Bertoia and Benjamin Baldwin.

She eventually moved to New York, where she joined the architectural firm of Harrison & Abromovitz in 1941. While living and working in New York, she met Hans Knoll, the owner of a small furniture company, and she joined his firm in 1943. The couple married in 1946; that same year, the H. G. Knoll Company was renamed “Knoll Associates,” and the Knoll Planning Unit, which focused on interior design, was set up. Florence was named head.

“I am not a decorator,” she famously declared in a 1964 New York Times article that credited her for revolutionizing office design as an architect in a predominantly male profession.

Frustrated by the challenge of finding fabrics suitable for use on modern furniture, Knoll initially used men’s suiting fabrics for upholstery and interiors.

Then, in 1947, Knoll Textiles, which worked closely with the Planning Unit, was launched, giving Knoll the opportunity to develop, market and sell printed and woven textiles.

READ MORE: A Designed Life: Modernism as Propaganda

“Textiles were among the most visible and industrially innovative products produced in the U.S. in the 1950s and impacted many aspects of postwar life,” Berry College historian Virginia Troy told me in an interview.

Wartime rationing, which included clothing and textiles, had ended in 1946. As the economy grew, so did the appetite for textiles. Used for upholstery, curtains and carpeting, they were integral to modern architecture: They could unify open floor plans, serve as dividers and separate work areas from living spaces.

Knoll’s unobtrusive textile designs – which tended to feature subtle colors – often included geometric or biomorphic prints and woven fabrics in which vertical and horizontal weaves formed a pattern.

Her textiles were quite different from the brocade and chintz cabbage roses sold in most of the era’s textile showrooms.

Branding and selling America abroad

Around this time, the U.S. government started sponsoring international expositions to introduce the American people and their innovations abroad – what historian Robert Haddow called “Pavilions of Plenty.”

The most famous is probably the 1959 American National Exhibition in Moscow, during which then-Vice President Richard Nixon and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev held their “kitchen debate” and argued about the merits of capitalism and communism.

But there were smaller exhibits that preceded the American National Exhibition in Moscow including “How America Lives,” which was held in Frankfurt in 1949, and “America at Home,” an exhibition in Berlin that took place in 1950.

In 1951, the Traveling Exhibition Service – now called the Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service – asked Knoll to curate and design an exhibit. She had been recommended by Edgar Kaufmann Jr., the director of the Museum of Modern Art’s Good Design program. It also didn’t hurt that Knoll was known in some government circles. She had designed Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s office, and Knoll Associates had outfitted government buildings in the U.S. and Europe.

Titled “Contemporary American Textiles,” Knoll and the Planning Unit designed an exhibit that, like her office designs, was meant to be experienced as a whole. The self-lit aluminum-framed pavilion included its own drop-in floor, and double-sided wall panels assembled from textiles were hung by straps and braced by cross-wires.

For a 2018 exhibit titled “A Designed Life,” organized by UMBC’s Center for Art, Design & Visual Culture, I recreated Knoll’s original exhibit using photographs and plans from the Archives of American Art.

Brightly colored panels were used to make rooms within a room. Sight lines formed by triangular shapes and patterns directed visitors through the exhibit, offering a continuously changing viewpoint described by the magazine Interiors as “kaleidoscopic.”

The display showcased over 150 well-designed, mass-produced and readily available fabrics; in the forward of the accompanying catalog, Knoll described the textiles as “designs of beautiful color in all price ranges.” Over 50 of these fabrics were sold under the Knoll Textile label.

The goal was to sell the idea of capitalism, America and democracy in a post-war Europe that was anxious to rebuild, and it appeared in West German and Austrian schools, museums and trade fairs.

Government records note that the exhibit was included in the 1952 Berlin Cultural Festival and presented in 1953 in Munich and Essen. The U.S. Embassy in France also sponsored its display in a 1954 Parisian trade show dedicated to household management.

To date, there’s no known physical trace of this exhibit.

Was it thrown away or donated to a German school or museum in order to earn some goodwill? Was it discarded because the 1948 Smith-Mundt Act, which authorized international public diplomacy, discouraged the presentation of these exhibitions back in the United States?

I have no way of knowing.

I do know, however, that Knoll was proud of this exhibit: When German architect Walter Gropius praised it, she wrote that it was “a great honor.” And she included sketches, plans and photographs of “Contemporary American Textiles” in her papers that she donated to the Archives of American Art.

The exhibit is a reminder that one of the country’s most influential designers was also one of its great ambassadors.

* * * * *

Margaret Re, Associate Professor of Graphic Design, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Header Image:  For the 2018 exhibit ‘A Designed Life,’ the author rebuilt Knoll’s ‘Contemporary American Textiles.’ Dan Meyers, Author provided

by F. Chris Curran, assistant professor of public policy, UMBC

Proponents of restorative justice suffered a blow recently with the late 2018 release of a much anticipated RAND study of restorative practices in Pittsburgh schools. The study’s results showed restorative practices were not as effective as many hoped – or as they are sometimes portrayed by proponents and in the media .

Unlike traditional disciplinary approaches, such as suspension, which remove students from school, restorative practices focus on repairing harm done by getting victims and perpetrators together to talk.

The idea is to rebuild and restore a sense of dignity and community.

As an educational researcher who studies school discipline, I think it would be misguided to use the study as a reason to go back to the old way of doing things, as is currently under debate in some locales.

First, let’s look at what the study found.

Mixed results

On the positive side, the study found evidence that teachers in schools using restorative practices reported better classroom management and school climate. Restorative practices led to an almost 15 percent decline in days lost to suspension overall. The intervention decreased the days lost to suspension for both black students and students from lower income households. However, it had no significant impact on white students or students from more affluent households. Furthermore, impacts were particularly large in elementary schools – there, the intervention led to an over 50 percent decline in days lost to suspension.

At the same time, however, there were a number of negative outcomes. Restorative practices did not lead to lower rates of suspension in middle schools. Nor did it result in declines in suspensions for violence or arrests. Furthermore, there were negative, statistically significant impacts on standardized achievement test scores in middle schools and for black students.

And, contrary to how teachers saw restorative practices, students reported worse classroom management and relationships.

In my opinion, it’s fair to say the findings were mixed at best.

Strong design, different takes on results

While the new study is not the first to examine restorative practices, it is notable for the strength of its research design. Schools were randomly assigned to use the Institute for Restorative Practices’ SaferSanerSchools Whole-School Change program or not. Since randomized controlled trials are considered the “gold-standard” of evaluating the effectiveness of an intervention, the RAND study theoretically provides more credible estimates of the true effect of the program separate from other school policies and practices.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the mixed findings have resulted in differing interpretations of the results.

For instance, Max Eden, of the Manhattan Institute, criticized the study’s original authors and popular media for focusing on the positive findings and downplaying the negative results. Ironically, Eden played up the negative findings claiming that “restorative justice isn’t working”.

In addition to the RAND study of restorative practices, other recent studies of discipline reforms, including bans on the use of suspension for minor offenses and shortening the length of suspensions, have also resulted in mixed findings.

A return to suspensions is not the solution

So what should educators and policymakers do with these results?

Even though the RAND study presents a speed bump on the road to discipline reform, turning back to what research has shown to be ineffective and inequitable exclusionary discipline practices would also be a mistake. Numerous studies have found that being suspended from school is predictive of a host of negative outcomes. Those outcomes include decreased academic achievement, a higher likelihood of involvement with the justice system, and decreased civic engagement as adults.

Zero tolerance policies have also been shown to result in greater uses of suspensions and little benefit in terms of improved school climate.

Exclusionary practices are also disproportionately used against students of color. Federal data and other studies have repeatedly shown that black students are three to four times as likely to be suspended as white students, with a large number of these suspensions being for lower level misconduct like “disrespect.”

Such disparities can’t be explained by differences in behavior across racial groups. The disparities may be the result of differences in the use of exclusionary discipline policies across schools.

Reducing suspensions and improving equity in school discipline is still a valid policy goal. The fact that initial reforms have not produced immediate positive results is disappointing, but hardly surprising. After all, changing practice and finding effective interventions in the field of education is hard work. Instead of settling for suspensions, I believe this is the time when states and local school districts should double down on trying innovative alternative approaches to discipline.2

* * * * *

F. Chris Curran, Assistant Professor of Public Policy, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Header image of Chris Curran by Marlayna Demond ’11 for UMBC Magazine.

UMBC Mock Trial took first in late January at Georgetown University’s 8th annual Hilltop Invitational Tournament, with UMBC’s A team finishing undefeated at 8-0. On the path to tournament victory, UMBC bested teams from George Washington University, Fordham University, and Hamilton College. The team scored over 100 points above competitors, including former national champions Yale and UVA, who scored second and fourth place respectively.

The winning team is made up of students from a broad range of majors and levels of competitive experience. They include Linnea Collins ’21, global studies; Kaitlyn Kauffman ’20, political science, Sydney Gaskins ’21, political science; Thomas Kiley ’19, chemistry; Ethan Hudson ’21, English; Natalie Murray ’21, biological sciences; and Nihir Nanavaty ’19, political science.

In addition to taking the number one spot, UMBC Mock Trial’s A-Team received two high-level individual awards. Sydney Gaskins earned Outstanding Attorney awards for both sides of the case, representing both plaintiff and defendant. Gaskins is still in her sophomore year, but has already earned several Mock Trial awards, and she is a finalist for Trial by Combat, an elite one-on-one Mock Trial national championship competition co-hosted by UCLA and Drexel University. Nihir Nanavaty received an Outstanding Witness award. (Above: first on the right.)

“The Georgetown University Tournament became the first time that UMBC Mock Trial ever maintained an undefeated record at a tournament. It was also the first time that an attorney from this program received two Outstanding Attorney Awards in one tournament,” explains Gaskins. “I am honored and grateful to have the opportunity to be a part of history in the making for UMBC Mock Trial. I hope it inspires my team to continue to dream big and believe in ourselves. Anything is possible if you work hard.”

While UMBC Team A was in Washington, D.C., UMBC Teams B and C competed at the Blue Jay Invitational at Johns Hopkins University. These teams are composed primarily of students in their first year of college mock trial, and they performed well against tough competitors. Thomas Azari ’22, individualized study, won Outstanding Attorney. Zachary Linkins ’20, computer science, competing in his first tournament, won Outstanding Witness (pictured below).

In addition to Azari and Linkins, UMBC Team B also includes Lauren Wotring ’22, political science; Fernando Silva ’21, political science; Wendy Zhang ’22, economics and psychology; Amrita Sarma ’22, psychology; and Hannah Thomas ’22, computer science. UMBC Team C includes Amanda Hampton ’22, biological sciences; Alexis Stevenson ’21, history and political science; Tyler Pollock ’21, English; Flora Jeon ’21, biological sciences; Tumee Agogbuo ’22, media and communication studies; Brandon Henry ’20, computer science and interdisciplinary studies; Matthew Brown; Rocio Marquez ’22, mechanical engineering and social work; and Joselle Royer ’21, sociology.

Head coach Ben Garmoe ’13, political science, a litigation attorney in Baltimore, is extremely proud of UMBC’s three mock trial teams. For him, UMBC’s first-place finish at the Hilltop Invitational has special meaning. “I came as a transfer student to UMBC and co-founded the mock trial team with Travis Bell in 2011,” remembers Garmoe. “We competed at the tournament in 2013 and also won an award, so now we have come full circle.” Bell ’14, psychology and political science, is now a public defender in Alabama. Garmoe credits the success of UMBC Mock Trial to UMBC’s leadership in creating a rigorous and diverse academic environment where students from all backgrounds and all fields value critical thinking, rigor, and teamwork.

Along with a strong student commitment, UMBC Mock Trial’s success is also a result of dedicated coaches from the legal field, including several alumni. They include Summer Akhtar ’18, financial economics and political science; Travis Bell; Dylan Elliott ’17, history; Zachary Garmoe ’17, environmental studies; Cheyenne Smith ’16, biological sciences and psychology; and Kayla Smith ’17, interdisciplinary studies.

Finally, it wasn't just our students out there winning ballots and awards; assistant coach and former Vice-President Kayla Smith competed at the @H_T_A_A Medical-Legal Trial Competition. Kayla's @brooklynlaw team took second place, and Kayla won Best Closing Argument! pic.twitter.com/ao1S57kkIo

— UMBC Mock Trial (@UMBCMockTrial) December 15, 2018

“Our culture is outstanding. We even draw coaches not directly connected to UMBC,” says Garmoe. “Whitney Wilder, a former competitor at the College of Charleston and now an attorney at Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, P.C., brings important expertise and guidance to the team.”

“As someone who was a four-year competitor for the program and was the program’s president as a senior, I find weekends like this past one to be both rewarding and exciting,” says Dylan Rogers Elliott ’17, history. “I came through the program and have been able to come back and coach while in law school, and nothing makes me happier than seeing both the success and potential of the UMBC Mock Trial Program continue to grow.”

Elliott shares, “We have so much young talent now, throughout the program, and it really feels like we’re getting the foundation set for a really terrific run over the next few years. This past weekend really shows us the potential of our program and underscores just how bright the future is.”

Up next for the focused team is the Owings Mills Regional Tournament, which UMBC is co-hosting with Stevenson University. This will help the teams refine their approach and prepare for the Opening Round Championship Series (ORCS), a national semifinal event hosted by the American Mock Trial Association where the nations 700 teams will compete. From there, they hope to advance to the national championship tournament in Philadelphia.

Fans can follow the team on their path to nationals through @UMBCmocktrial on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook.

Banner Image: UMBC Mock Trial trophies by Marlayna Demond ’11 for UMBC.  All other images are courtesy of UMBC Mock Trial.

UMBC is one of six universities nationwide selected to host the “Engaging Scientists in the Science and Religion Dialogue” project, administered by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). UMBC’s “Engaging Scientists” events will be held March 25 – 26, 2019, and will be open to the entire UMBC community.

The centerpiece will be a science engagement and communication workshop, run by staff of the AAAS Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion (DoSER) program. The interactive, three-hour workshop will focus on how STEM graduate students, established scientists, and science educators can engage with diverse (and especially with religious) communities about science in both formal and informal settings.

“An individual’s cultural background and worldview (which, for most Americans, includes faith) informs their perceptions of the role of science in society, and their opinions about a range of science and technology issues,” says Robert O’Malley, project director at DoSER. The DoSER program “offers scientists, educators, and communicators a range of evidence-based strategies, toolkits, and resources for engagement” with people of diverse religious backgrounds, he explains.

Springboard for conversation

Talking about faith and science is not always easy, nor does it come naturally to all scientists, even if they are people of faith themselves. “Some people see science and faith in harmony, but for others the two are discordant,” says Bill LaCourse, dean of the College of Natural and Mathematical Sciences, the program’s on-campus sponsor. He notes that this can set the stage for conflict, silence, and misunderstanding, which can only be resolved through dialogue.

To promote this dialogue, the organizers are developing a range of events for the UMBC community. On March 25, in addition to the workshop there will be a public panel featuring scientists and science communicators from a range of faith traditions, and an open-house style event where anyone can leave a written or video message recording their thoughts on the topic.

Partners from all three UMBC colleges are joining in the project. They will organize companion events for people to explore their thoughts on this topic more deeply within their on-campus communities.

A final component of the event is a Public Engagement Contest. Graduate students, postdocs, faculty, and staff who attend the workshop are eligible to enter the contest with a community partner outside of UMBC. DoSER will award $1,000 to up to four ongoing or proposed projects that demonstrate commitment to engaging with religious publics about science and technology. Entries are due April 15, giving participants time to be inspired by and reflect on the Engaging Scientists events. In addition to UMBC, other participating universities include Stanford University, Vanderbilt University, Texas State University, Indiana University, and Howard University.

More than one way to truth

Dean LaCourse and the UMBC co-organizers hope the March events will serve as a springboard to launch further discussion around science and faith and make the topic a more explicit part of UMBC’s mission to foster inclusive excellence.

Some scientists of faith may be reluctant to discuss their religious lives in an academic setting, LaCourse says. Yet some of the world’s greatest scientists have practiced some manner of religious faith without finding it in conflict with their work.

“20th century scholarship converged on the idea that no one approach to finding truth is sufficient or superior,” says Steve Freeland, director of UMBC’s Individualized Study Program and a Christian astrobiologist who has spoken internationally on the topic of science and faith.

“This gives all of us reasons for humility as we seek truth in our different ways,” Freeland says. “UMBC is blessed with such diversity in every imaginable dimension that it is an exciting place to experience a scholarly exploration of the interface between science and faith.”

That rich diversity creates many opportunities for UMBC community members to interact with people whose views differ from their own. “The path to acceptance of differing views starts with dialogue, which may be difficult without the proper words,” LaCourse says. “This program is a unique opportunity to help our campus begin the conversation.”

See more details about all UMBC Engaging Scientists events and register for the workshop and panel here.

Image: Faculty attending an interdisciplinary UMBC research forum on aging in May 2017. Photo by Marlayna Demond ’11 for UMBC.