Higher education panel of Kansas State University alumni
Landon Lecture
Sept. 26, 2016
Lt. Gen. Robert Caslen Jr., superintendent of West Point Military Academy
Dr. David Hall, president of the University of the Virgin Islands
Dr. Bud Peterson, president of Georgia Institute of Technology
Mara Williams: Good morning. Before we get started with the questions, I want to give our panelists a little bit of time to reflect on their time at K-State. We don't have much time so I'm not going to take up time — you didn't come here to hear from me; we want to hear from our panelists. So let's start with Dr. Peterson. If you could give us some reflections about your time at K-State.
Dr. Bud Peterson: All right. Well, it was the early 70s. Actually, the way I came to learn about Kansas State is neither of my parents graduated — or went to college, let alone graduated from college. I grew up in Kansas City and my best friend's dad was a mechanical engineer. He brought us to Manhattan for the Engineering Open House. That would have been the spring of 1969. And I saw a machine in a movie at that open house — they showed a movie of a machine that peeled a grapefruit. And I thought, "I want to do that. I want to do that." And so I came to K-State to get an engineering degree and had a wonderful experience. It shaped my life, it made me who I am today, and I look back on it with fond memories — very fond memories.
Williams: Thank you. Dr. Hall?
Dr. David Hall: Well, first of all, good morning to everyone. It is an honor to be a participant in this lecture series and also to share the stage with two distinguished alums of this institution. And it's quite an honor to be here. I first would like to say that I think this panel is so critical because the future of higher education is so critical to the life of not only of this nation, but also this world. And as I reflect upon my time here at Kansas State University, being an athlete was a very special opportunity for me. But also being involved in leadership positions and involved especially in the Black Student Union allowed me to become the type of leader that I am today. And I reflect fondly upon Kansas State, not because it was perfect — but because it was open to being changed and open to have individuals like myself and other African-American students who were coming at that time to try to shape this institution and, in the process, hopefully shape ourselves so that we could have the type of society that we desired. So I look forward to us grappling with some of the types of questions and issues that are not only facing Kansas State, but also facing all of higher education. And this is a wonderful opportunity to do so.
Williams: Lieutenant General?
Lt. Gen. Robert Caslen: Well, thank you very much, Mara, and I, too, just want to say what an honor it is to be here. Since I've been at Kansas State I've followed the Landon Lectures and the speakers that have passed through. I'm really humbled to be able to be here. I also have to confess that I'm out of uniform, even though I am in uniform. As much as I want to wear purple, you know, the Army won't let me do it. So I've got a little pin stuck in here with the K-State — no, seriously it's just really great to be here. As Gen. Myers said, I'm not an undergraduate graduate from Kansas State, I'm a graduate with the University of Engineering co-op program that they had with the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth. If you stay in the Army as an officer, normally around the 10-year mark you go to this mid-career school at Leavenworth and it's to study your profession. And Leavenworth had really reached out with some of the other universities within Kansas, particularly Kansas State. And they had this co-op agreement with the Engineering School in industrial engineering that would let you get a master's degree with industrial engineering. And I knew how important something like that was so I signed up for the program. And the Department of the Army allowed us to take a second year after you finished Leavenworth to come over here as a resident student. I absolutely enjoyed life here at Kansas State and it was wonderful to be here. But I think in that particular program what I learned more than just industrial engineering was it really taught me how to think: How to think critically, how to think methodically, how to be able to articulate in concise sentences about what's important, and how to be able to summarize complex issues and to articulate them in simplistic manners. All skills I think that are necessary for senior leaders whether you're in the military or not. The other thing that really impressed me in reflecting on Kansas State was its tight alumni affiliation. Because I was serving on the Joint Staff when Gen. Myers was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs at that time — back in 2000, after 9/11 — 2001 to 2005 time frame. I think it was around 2004 there was a group of alumni who were coming through Washington, D.C., visiting the Pentagon. Gen. Myers, as a Kansas State graduate, was hosting a lunch for them. He put out this call across all of the Joint staff, saying anybody who has any affiliation with Kansas State was invited to the lunch. So I saw it as an opportunity to get a free lunch. But lo and behold, I had a great chance to meet some of the Regents and senior professors from Kansas State thanks to what Gen. Myers had done. So these are some great reflections and some great times that I've had here.
Williams: Thank you. OK, well we're not going to waste any time, so let's get right to it. We're going to talk about some really crucial issues in higher education today and one in particular — it's like the elephant in the room — is funding. The shrinking portion of the pie that is public funds for higher education and the question of privatization of public institutions. So my first question — Dr. Peterson, if you could start us off with what is happening in higher education with funding and the de-funding of higher education?
Peterson: So one of the most frequent questions I get from people when I'm talking, whether it's in Georgia or here in Kansas, is why is the cost of education going up so rapidly. The reality is the cost of higher education is not going up. The portion that's being funded by individuals — by parents and by students — is what's going up because the state appropriations are going down. I'm not certain what the situation here is at K-State, but I know at Georgia Tech we're educating more students for less money than we did eight years ago. A lot of that happens, again, because of the reduction in state funds. Before I was at Georgia Tech I was the chancellor at the University of Colorado in Boulder for about three years. I started July 1, and at the first all-campus address when the students came back — it was in the first week in September or the last week in August — I remember I made a statement that we needed to find a sustainable financial model for higher education. The University of Colorado at that time had a budget that was about $1.2 billion, and $85 million came from the state. That was about 7 percent of the overall budget. I said that we needed to find a sustainable financial model. During the Q-and-A, one of the people in the audience said, "So what are some ideas that you have?" I talked about a couple things. One of the things I mentioned was a public authority — that perhaps the university could be like a public authority — how hospitals run — where the university contracts with the state to provide — that K-State would provide 250 MBAs and 1,000 engineers and those types of things. The next morning, I got a call from Gov. Bill Ritter who didn't think that was such a good idea. So when we talk about privatization as a way of funding, I think you have to think about it realistically. What is the endowment income for the institute? So start with how much resources does K-State get from the state? What is the income on the endowment? What is the income on the tuition? And if you were going to try to replace those state appropriations, how much would you either have to increase the tuition or grow the endowment? Those numbers are staggering. For Georgia Tech, our endowment's about $2 billion. If we privatized, we'd have to increase the endowment to about $6 billion or triple the tuition. So there's some room in tuition, but for us in Georgia it's not really practical. I'm not sure that it's practical here. Colorado today gets $45 million on a $1.2 billion budget.
Williams: So when you start talking about compensating or making up that difference as the public portion begins to shrink, Dr. Hall could you tell us how would that impact access in terms of cost in tuition for students?
Hall: Well, that is the major problem. And I really think it is a problem that as a society we have to come to grips with, because in essence we're making a choice. We're making a choice that higher education is going to have to survive more on its own. And when you make that decision, then you are basically saying that many individuals in this society will not have access and will not be able to afford quality education. Higher education was always supposed to be the equalizer, to be able to transform lives. If we continue down the pattern we're on, it will become a system where those who are privileged and rich and have access to resources will be able to access this wonderful gem, and those who do not have that will not be able to do so. Now clearly the federal government plays a role through Pell grants, and the state funding plays a roll, but I do think it's time for us to kind of go back to the original principle that education cannot be this value that is meted out to certain individuals. It has to be available for all. And even with state budgets shrinking, we have to elevate the importance of higher education or we will lose our way. At the University of the Virgin Islands, I came in with the notion that we were going to try to keep tuition at a very low level because it is the only university in the Virgin Islands, and therefore this access notion becomes critical. But as the funding from the local government had continuously gone down, we had to start raising tuition pretty much on a yearly basis — and that was contrary to the position that we wanted to take. When I think about the fact that our tuition is still extremely low compared to other institutions, there are still students who every year we end up losing because they can't afford to pay a relatively — our tuition per year is around $5,000, if you can imagine that. But yet for certain students, that is still a stretch even with some receiving Pell grants and others not being able to receive it. So as a nation, we really have to elevate the importance of higher education — and it's not just because of the degrees. The more educated a populace is, the greater the chances for that society to not only grow economically, but socially and otherwise. So many of the problems we face as a society are a product of not having come to grips with making sure higher education is available to all.
Williams: Thank you. I did want to ask the Lieutenant General, you talked to me a little bit about that you have a different perspective at West Point when you deal with funding issues. Could you talk to us a little bit about what that looks like for you?
Caslen: Certainly, Mara. We are a public institution. We're funded by the federal budget and it's significant enough to where all of our students' tuition is paid. It only costs them five years of their life in service to our nation, but it's still covered. Nonetheless, our budgets will normally increase and decrease based on where the Department of Defense budget is at any particular time. There is a standardized cost in educating each particular student. So as budgets decrease, then we really have to watch carefully what our resources are and how we'll pay for that. One good thing that's happening, I think, in all public institutions, including the federal, is that our graduates are in the process of donating in support of their institution. It's what we call a margin of excellence — it brings government education to a certain standard. The additional resources that come in through graduates brings us to the next level, and that manifests in semester abroad studies and other internships and things like that. But the one thing I think that's an important point to make about public institutions is the commitment of our federal government and the people of the United States to the future of America and to the future of their leaders. And I think you can say that also applies at the state level as well. I think that's an important statement that our governments have to make. That if you invest into the future leaders of our nation, if you invest in future leaders of our states, that it's an important investment that they're really making.
Williams: OK. Well, we talked a little bit about access. Dr. Hall, I wanted to take the conversation a little bit further with access and talk a little bit about diversity and inclusion where access is involved. In getting a more diverse faculty, more diverse student body — that's a big issue on college campuses today. Students are demanding it. Can you talk to us a little bit about the significance and importance of that?
Hall: Well, it is extremely significant and it is a challenge that society has unfortunately, I think, not fully come to grips with. It was an issue when myself and others arrived here in 1968. It was one of the issues we petitioned the university around, that we protested about, tried to — or engaged President McCain at that time. And as I shared with the Black Student Union leaders who were here yesterday at our reception, I think that combination of engaging the administration in a very direct and cooperative way — and sometimes through protest — we were able to put the issue of inclusion and diversity on the institution's agenda. And yet today we're still struggling with those sorts of issues. And it goes to the kind of fundamental vision of higher education. I mean, higher education is one of those rare places where you can bring people together who have very divergent ideas, people who come from different parts of the world, and you can ask them to sit at the same table and have discussions about very sensitive and volatile issues. Not to mention, you can ask them to live together in the same dorms or the same facilities. And that's a real privilege that, unfortunately, certain communities don't have, certain religious institutions don't have. Our religious institutions, unfortunately, end up being more segregated than society. But higher education, when it really takes on this banner of inclusion and diversity, is able to create an environment where we can come to grips with some of those issues. And it becomes something that, unless we really grapple it in a very direct way, then some of the original sins of the society will continue to perpetuate themselves. I know that my personal life was transformed because I was able to go to an institution of this sort and meet people who I normally would not have met. And I believe that that is the story of so many other individuals. But I think what we fail to look at, or don't look at enough, is that not only was my life transformed, but I hope that my presence in the institution exposed other individuals to a culture, a history, a person whom they would not have had that interaction with. So it is an area where we've made tremendous progress. But, it is still an area that is easy for us to talk about in broad terms, but often not something that we're willing to grapple with on a day-in and day-out basis so that we can fashion the type of society that we really need.
Williams: Well, students certainly are demanding it. As all of you know, students have been protesting on campus after campus about increasing diversity of faculty members. Dr. Peterson, can you talk to us a little bit about what is the challenge in terms of increasing the number of minority faculty. Why is that such a challenge for an institution?
Peterson: Well, at Georgia Tech only 22 percent of our tenure-track faculty are women. So at our institution women are considered and classified as minority faculty. I think part of the challenge is numbers. The number of African-Americans and women who are pursuing graduate degrees in engineering and hard sciences is a relatively small number. I think there are a lot of things that we can do to help that. Eight years ago when I arrived at Georgia Tech, our freshman class was just under 30 percent female. And this freshman class will be 42 percent female. We've seen consistent increases in the number of African-American and Hispanic students. A lot of that is the result of some programs. I'd like to say it's because of all the great things we've done since I've been at Georgia Tech, but the reality is a lot of it is the result of things that my predecessors did. And the biggest thing that we've done to encourage that enrollment increase is the development of summer programs. We have over 75 programs that we offer in the summer for women and underrepresented minorities to expose them to science and engineering, computing and mathematics so that they can see that these fields can actually be fun. And more often than not when I go to freshman convocation and talk to some of our incoming freshman — whether it's black students or women or Hispanics — and ask them why did they decide to come to Georgia Tech, they say, "Well I went to a summer camp on computing when I was in eighth grade." So these are programs that are weeklong or three-weeklong programs that are focused on middle school kids primarily. This allows them to, first of all, understand that science, engineering, computing and math can actually be fun. But probably more important is that it allows them to envision themselves on a college campus like Georgia Tech — to see the campus and actually see themselves in that location and being successful in that type of an environment. It continues to be a challenge. The competition for minority faculty is very, very steep, as it is for minority graduate students. But it's a task — a challenge — that we can rise to and a challenge that we can overcome.
Williams: Thank you. Among the student body — I guess faculty as well — there's also this issue of cultural competence. Lieutenant General, can you talk just a little bit about how you can actually change a cultural climate to embrace tolerance and diversity? How do you guys deal with that at West Point?
Caslen: Well that's a great question, Mara. If you're going to change a culture, then you have to change behavior. If you're going to change behavior, then you have to create some reflection and introspection. And then if you're going to create the reflection and introspection so that you can see where you are as compared to where you ought to be, you've got to engage in some type of dynamic, open, honest dialogue that really allows people within that small group to be candid with each other. Normally, it's within a small group that's facilitated by a peer facilitator. So that's the process. At West Point we feel character and character development is so important to the culture that when somebody graduates they should have internalized the values of, in our case, the values of duty and honor and country, as well as loyalty, duty, respect, which include the values of our Army. When they first come into the military academy, those values need to be internalized and the character-development process needs to take place. So we try to work that in a lot of our different programs that we have. But really, if you get some reflection and introspection — usually with a mentor — that can really end up with behavioral change, then ultimately you're going to be able to change a culture and make a difference. I would say this, too, if I could, Mara?
Williams: Yes.
Caslen: We think diversity is so tremendously important in the military for a number of reasons. Most important is that when we take our oath of office — all the soldiers will swear allegiance to the Constitution — it puts the military in a subordinate relationship to our civil authorities who are elected by the American people. So in the profession of arms, our client is the American people. And it's so important that we have a relationship with our client — a relationship that's built on trust. For the last 40 years we've had an all-volunteer Army. And through the all-volunteer Army, the Army became what the nation provided, but it is not necessarily representative of what the nation is. And as a result, our Army has some significant gaps in its diversity with its client, the American people, who the Army swears to uphold and defend. That can be a terrible indictment if we're not representing all of America. So the diversity of our Army and the diversity of the United States Military Academy that inputs officers into the Army becomes so tremendously important because of our client, the American people.
Williams: I just want to touch on this just a little bit more. Are university leaders getting together and talking about best practices — some of the things that the Lieutenant General was talking about — and ways to infuse diversity and inclusion on campus? Is this an ongoing topic amongst diversity leaders? Dr. Peterson?
Peterson: Yes, absolutely. When the University of Missouri football team — some maybe two years ago — protested, that happened to be about two weeks before the Association of American University Presidents meeting. So AAU's 62 public and private universities' presidents met and we essentially scrapped the entire agenda and spent two days talking about what we are doing on our campuses, how we could improve the climate, how we could avoid a situation like that particular one. And it's amazing. You get 60, some 62, or three or four university presidents together and they spend two days. And then they finally realize that it's really about communication and respect. That if you can — and the general talked about that a little bit, President Hall talked about it — if people will just work to try to understand and respect each other and talk to each other so that you realize that these are human beings. They have the same desires that everyone else does. They want to be heard, they want to have equal opportunity, and they want to be treated with dignity. It was interesting that it really kind of, in a day and a half or so, boiled down to talk to your students, communicate with your students, allow them to voice their concerns, their opinions and their thoughts, and their dreams and their hopes. That provides an outlet and doesn't — I'm an engineer — allow the pressure to build so much that you have an explosion.
Williams: We have about two minutes left on this question. I did want to ask about curriculum and infusing diversity and inclusion into curriculum. Dr. Hall, is that something that's being talked about and are you guys doing that kind of thing?
Hall: It is certainly being talked about, and it is something that we can point to examples where courses are being offered on this topic and other things are occurring on the curriculum level. But I really do think higher education has to step back and ask the fundamental question: Why. And let's just use 1968 as a marker, not to say that's the issue, but why in these 40-some years we're still grappling with it. One would hope that this would be such a minor issue now. But it's still a fundamental issue. I will give my sense of why in that regard. One, it has to be really ingrained into the mission and fabric of the institution. It is one thing to kind of focus on the notion that we are here to educate students' minds. I think higher education feels very comfortable in that particular arena. But we also need to develop the emotional and spiritual intelligence of our students as well and to claim that. And because those things are harder to measure, we tend to feel as if, well, that's going to happen on its own. Students will gain those things just by taking general education. I think we have to get to the point where we make that a part of our motto. At the University of the Virgin Islands, our strategic plan says that we are to produce students who are academically excellent, globally sensitive, entrepreneurially focused, emotionally and spiritually balanced, and willing to serve the world. And so that guides what we are doing every day. That says to us that our curriculum has to reflect those values. How are we exposing students to those things? It says that we should be looking at our extracurricular activities and seeing if we are integrating it into those areas. This is so curriculum does not develop outside of a mission and a vision, and it doesn't develop in a way that will be meaningful unless our rewards systems and unless the things that we value are also influencing those sorts of things. We need to think about what is the mission and vision of our institution and is it broad enough to incorporate those sorts of things or are we reacting to incidents — and too much of the latter keeps us from making the type of progress that we need.
Williams: You talk about values and incidents. That's a great transition into what we want to talk about next, and that is sexual assault on college campuses. And that issue has gained a lot of attention, especially after the U.S. Department of Education released its list of schools that were under federal investigation for how they handled sexual assault. And that list has grown. I think it came out in 2014 — it has since grown significantly. And now the nation's watching college campuses and how they deal with this. What are some of the ways that our colleges and universities are dealing with this very important issue of sexual assault on college campuses? Dr. Peterson, could you please start?
Peterson: So I don't want to ruin the flow here but I'd be very interested to hear what the General has to say about this and then I'll add some comments.
Williams: OK, that's fine.
Peterson: And the reason is because the academies are about 10 years ahead of the rest of the universities. The academies have been dealing with this issue for quite some time — a couple of issues that were very public. So General, I'd defer to you and then I'll follow up.
Caslen: Thank you, Dr. Peterson. Well this has been...
Peterson: That didn't sound very sincere, General. We've learned a lot from the academies and how you're handling this.
Caslen: I'm glad it's in the public domain because it's one of those things I think that really has to be discussed and has to be talked about. And of course, the United States Military Academy — all the service academies are in the public domain — and it's got a lot of attention. It really grabbed the attention about seven or eight years ago when Congress — and I remember testifying when I had another position at West Point as a one-star. I really sensed the emotion of Congress with the military academies and the sexual assaults that were being reported, and the importance for us to address this particular issue. And then attention kind of shifted historically a little bit over to the Army at large and all the other services. And then when I came on board three years ago as a superintendent, the Army was trying to get their arms around this. And they understood that it was going to take leadership — leadership from the most senior levels of the Army all the way down through leaders throughout the entire organization to really make a difference. The Army did a great job of coming up with what they thought was a strategy. This is also important in the Army, because socially we've gone through some changes here recently. We had the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and now the transgender policies that are in the Army. But probably most important is the removal of the combat exclusion law, which allows women to go into all areas of the United States military — in all the different services — and there's nothing that's banned for them. So all of our units — even our infantry units and our armor units — are now going to be integrated, which I personally think is a good thing. But nonetheless, if you're going to get after this to change the culture, you've got to change behavior. And one of those values that we talk about that really forces the change is the value of respect, that we respect each other. I remember when I was in Iraq there were some great teams that were out there that were gender-integrated teams, such as the road clearance teams that were commanded by women engineers and they had men and women together. And those teams were really close. They didn't see each other within that team as a man or a woman, they saw themselves as teammates and they worked together as teammates. That's kind of the ideal situation that you really want to get to. But really the strategy that we are looking at is one that addresses prevention. And that's the hardest part because that's changing the culture and changing behavior based on the value set of students when they come to the university and how that value set has got to evolve over time so that they understand the importance of respect. And then when an incident occurs, there's so much that's got to take place. And one of the most important things is advocacy; that we provide the alleged victim the proper advocacy that can address the issue in a very respectful way. And then the other element of this is the investigation and prosecution so that we can do the proper investigation with all of the sensitivities that take place during an investigation. And that we lay out all the different options for the victim or the alleged victim, and then we can proceed with the right prosecution to make sure that it is prosecuted. I remember when I did the testimony, one of the congressmen looked me in the eye, pointed his finger, and said, "General, until you see this as a criminal act you'll never be able to fix this." So it was important for us to define what the assault was, what a sexual assault was and that sort of thing. Finally, I think this is a significant issue and this goes back to prevention. In some of our surveys that we have taken, we look at assaults and how assaults are reported. There's a deterrent for someone to want to report this for a number of different reasons. If we provide the right climate that allows the reporting to occur and that protects the alleged victim and, at the same time, that they don't experience a lot of the retaliation and reprisal, particularly on social media, then we're going to make progress. But until it's reported, you know, you have someone that's really going through some trauma and some suffering and there's no one there that's really providing some assistance for them. And I think that's why the report is tremendously important. But if you're going to change that behavior, the precursor to an assault will be harassment. And we really have got to address harassing-type behavior. And then before harassment is what we call sexist comments. In our survey, we had over 90 percent of our women — this was two years ago — who said that particular year they took the survey that they had experienced sexist comments. And the sexist comment is inappropriate and unwanted comment addressed to one's gender. That's where you really have to start to address that type of behavior and why that type of behavior is not proper. That will then help clean that up and clean up the harassment, which will ultimately address the assaults that take place. But this is an issue that all of us have to take on. I know universities are taking that on and they're going through their own particular challenges, particularly through the investigation and prosecution issues that take place. But that's a key element of the strategy as well.
Williams: This idea of investigation and prosecution. I mean, a question that comes up often is are universities and colleges really equipped to do that type of investigation and prosecution. And they're challenged with that nonetheless because of the law. Could you speak to that, sir?
Peterson: Sure, and thank you, General. I didn't mean to pass that off to you, but we have learned a great deal from the academies because you were out in front on this issue. Several years ago, President Obama and Vice President Biden made public comments about statistics: 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 young women were sexually assaulted before they graduated from college. I think there were a lot of people in the country that didn't believe that. And there were a number of publications that kind of looked down on the surveys because it looked at only two universities and they were anonymous. But the Association of American Universities put together a survey of 27 institutions. Georgia Tech didn't participate in that because we are doing a statewide survey for all of the institutions in the state, and California was the same way. But these are Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Penn and a number of the public universities. And guess what? The number was the same: 1 in 4 or 1 in 5. And it really became an issue when the Office of Civil Rights — the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights — issued a "Dear Colleague" letter that gave a couple of directives to universities. Some people would say, "Well, that's not the law, that's just guidance." The guidance is pretty strong because if you don't follow it, you could lose federal funds. So it's guidance that comes with a pretty heavy price. And the standard of evidence that they said should be used at universities is the preponderance of evidence, which is what is used in civil trials, as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt, which is what's used in criminal trials. Because of some of the concerns about whether or not universities are equipped to conduct these investigations — I chaired the systemwide policy on sexual violence and made a recommendation — we have a systemwide policy now and we hire outside investigators to help. We can't depend on the prosecution and the legal authorities because they use a different standard of evidence, and they're success rate has been relatively low. But we hire outside investigators to come in and interview the victim, the respondent, conduct an investigation and then use that as part of our judicial process within the institution. That has proved to be very helpful because we now have people who are investigating these incidents who actually are trained as investigators, know what to look for and know how to ask questions, and know how to protect the rights of both the victim and the respondent.
Williams: Having to hire investigators and probably counselors as well to deal with the aftermath of these incidents, costwise how does that affect the university's funding?
Peterson: We hired two new sexual violence advocates on campus. We had two and we now have four. I don't think we ever stopped to think about what the cost was of that because the sheer numbers of students that we we're seeing coming forward. As students, as victims, started to see some results and some actions being taken by the university, we started to see the numbers grow. I don't think it's because we saw an increase in the number of sexual assaults; it was because people recognized that there was some action that was being taken and that they had a chance for some resolution of whatever the incident was.
Williams: Dr. Hall, do you have any comments on this issue?
Hall: Yes, I would. And it's very similar to the other issues that we've been talking about. I think the strength of the types of codes that one has at the institution becomes critical and the seriousness in which we take complaints when they are filed and how they are processed. We do handle ours ourselves. We are a smaller institution and we make sure that our Title IX investigators are trained not only internally but going to national conferences, etcetera. And we also, you know, have a, I think, a very fair internal process. But to me the core of this issue is not just how do we handle the situation once the complaint is filed, but what do we do ahead of time to try to keep these situations from occurring? And that's the whole issue of prevention and the whole issue of raising people's consciousness. And the thing that I think is just so critical is that men on college campuses — and we have to be candid that sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, rape, etcetera, is generally a one-way street. Therefore, we have to look at why is this mentality prevalent among men on college campuses and in society in general. And part of it is the fact that I don't think men on college campuses and men in general really understand the seriousness of the harm. We take, as you indicated, a sexual joke, an overture, as just kind of part of what we're supposed to do as men. And we don't see the harm. And certainly when it gets to an even more severe situation where date rape or something of that sort occurs, we don't understand that that becomes something that that person doesn't just live with for a night, but lives with for the rest of their lives. And we — out of our naiveté, out of our insensitivity — alter and change that person's life through some need that we think we have. So we have to do a better job on college campuses, we have to do a better job in society, of getting people to understand the seriousness of the harm we inflict by those sorts of decisions. But we also must change our mentality as men. Instead of objectifying women and seeing them as an object of our pleasure, we need to see them as equal, worthy human beings who we have to value and treasure, even when we may disagree with them or even when they're may be other issues going on. And again, like with diversity and some of the other issues we've talked about, unless we begin to deal with those kind of fundamental issues as what creates it — what allows us to operate from that mentality — then our codes and our processes will be important and will provide some healing for that victim and some justice for the victim. But it still means that we'll be going through this process for some time to come. I think universities have to examine what are those root causes and how do we focus on those root causes.
Williams: Lieutenant General, I just want to quickly ask this last question if you could wrap this up here. So are college campuses safer in terms of sexual assault today than they were, you know, like, 10 years ago or say the last six or seven years when this really heated up? Are we getting there? What do you think, Lieutenant General?
Caslen: Obviously, I could speak to what's happening at West Point. I think there's a couple of interesting dynamics. I think we're becoming much more sensitized to this issue and to this problem, both of the genders — male and female. Sometimes I see the pendulum going in the opposite direction, though. And what I refer to by that is gender-avoidance. By that, our men and women who are training together and working together are so sensitive that they may say or do something that may be misinterpreted, that they avoid each other all together. In the Army, where you have mixed gender teams, where everybody is dependent upon each other, you can't force that type of polarization. So we've got to bring the pendulum back to the middle where everybody feels that they're a valued member of the team, that they feel that they can contribute, that they feel that they are respected, and they feel safe and secure both emotionally and physically. And that's ultimately where we want to get to. So we have some work to do in that area. I'm very pleased to see our reporting is going up, which means that our command climate is facilitating and allowing that to occur. And I'm also very pleased to see grassroots organizations rising, not only at West Point but at other universities because the students want to take ownership of this and they want to address it themselves. And even our president from the White House has a national campaign of universities. It's called "It's On Us," which all of our universities — most of them — are all part of as well. And collectively, we can learn from each other and do some great work. For example, we're doing a seminar this week on sexual harassment, sexual assault avoidance. And we're using some of the lecturers that the White House has provided for us. One of the topics in particular is male masculinity. You know, what does masculinity mean for a male so that you avoid those type of other things and that culture. We're making progress, but 1 in 4 women are assaulted on college campuses today. We have a long way to go.
Williams: Thank you. Yes, sir. As we talk about college campuses and safety, that brings us right into the next issue that we want to talk about and that is, you know, across the country states are considering legislation about whether or not to permit guns on college campuses. Several states have already done that — concealed weapons on campus. I'm interested, you know, what are your thoughts about the ideas of students, faculty, visitors carrying a concealed weapon on your campuses and what is fueling this permission? You know, where are we going here? Dr. Hall, could you start please?
Hall: Sure. This is not an issue that we have had any discussion about in the Virgin Islands because, I believe, the senators and governor do not feel that it is the answer and we have not had to even engage in it. My perspective is security on a college campus is important. We want our students to come to classes and we want employees who work at a university to feel a sense of security and safety. Otherwise, you really can't do the thing that you're called to do. But I do not believe that having guns on a college campus is the answer to the security issue. From my personal perspective, I think issues around security have to be delegated to those individuals who are trained and who, as a part of their profession, understand the safe use of weapons and also understand law enforcement in general. If we feel that security and the other issues related to it can only be resolved by having every person armed, or having the majority of our students armed, then I really think that says a lot about where we've come as a society and something that should not be permitted. I respect the right embodied in the Constitution for individuals to bear arms, but there is no right that is absolute. We have to understand that rights are about balancing other rights and balancing the needs of people in the society and making some hard choices. And educational environments are, from my standpoint, not the place where we should be promoting individuals bringing weapons — concealed or otherwise — to the academic environment. We are all very distressed by the fact that we do have individuals who come onto campuses with weapons and who have, unfortunately, taken innocent lives out of their sickness and rage. And that is something as educators we have to be very concerned about. But I don't think the answer is to go to the extreme and try to arm others as a way of preventing that. There is a middle ground. And we have to focus more on making sure that our campuses are safe using other mechanisms.
Williams: Dr. Peterson, I know that Georgia's not one of the states where concealed carry is permitted on campuses, but I think this was just an issue — they just talked about this recently. Can you share with us some of your thoughts on this?
Peterson: So eight years ago when I arrived at Georgia Tech, the first day on the job I went to the Capitol to meet with some of the legislators. And one of the legislators there said that he promised me that he would keep the gun bill on college campuses — that it would never come out of committee. And he was right. Every year for the past eight years, there's been this inching up of where guns were allowed in the state of Georgia. This past year, the House and the Senate both passed a campus carry bill that allowed individuals to carry guns on campus if they were 21 years or older and had a permit. The governor vetoed it, thank goodness. I've been openly opposed to it. I don't think 18-year-olds, alcohol and guns are a good mix. I'm probably caught in the middle here. It's not really an issue in the Virgin Islands. In the Military Academy, all of the individuals are highly trained and so here we are. But the governor vetoed it. It will come up again next year, I'm sure. I don't know what form but it will come up. I just don't believe that in a college campus environment where you have so many young people living in close proximity with each other, learning to be the kinds of people they're going to be, experiencing a lot of stress and pressure, hormones and alcohol, that it's an idea that makes sense. The pushback that I hear frequently — and it happened with one of our legislators several years ago who was unhappy with the position I took in opposition to guns. He was beating me up about the Second Amendment, that I didn't believe in the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. And I said, "Senator, are you going to allow guns to be on the floor of the House and Senate?" And he said, "No." And I said, "Well then, we agree. There are limitations on the Second Amendment. We just don't agree on where the boundaries are." I think it's a bad idea, I'm thankful to Gov. Nathan Deal for vetoing it. And I hope if it comes up again next year, he will veto it once more.
Williams: Is there any way to keep a campus safe once you, I mean...
Peterson: I'll use Georgia Tech because I know the numbers. The probability that there will be a violent crime on the Georgia Tech campus is one-fifth of what it is in the rest of the city of Atlanta. We do not have a violent crime problem. What you hear about are a few incidents — Virginia Tech, other institutions — where there's been a very, very bad situation. I'm not sure arming the population is going to help in that situation. In fact, I don't believe it will.
Williams: If there were guns permitted on campus, do you think most students would carry a weapon on campus? I mean, is that something that you think your student body would actually do, Dr. Hall?
Hall: I think some would because anytime you say to individuals, "This is your right and you should do it," there are some who are going to take advantage of it. I think the majority of students would not. As I said, in the Virgin Islands that's not even being hotly debated, so I think, you know, we probably would not face that. In other states where the right to bear arms and security issues are more intense, you probably would have more individuals doing it. The problem is that I think it begins one, our focus on who is responsible for security. And it also adds another vulnerability to the institution that, from my perspective, is not a good vulnerability to have. I mean you have to imagine that we tend to make the argument that the reason this is needed is for security purposes. But what we fail to understand is that in academic environments we are purposefully asking people to disagree. When I was a law professor if a student made an argument, my goal was to find another student to disagree with that person. What I wanted them to do is to begin to analyze problems. And I'm going to push back, even when they're saying something that I agree with. And so in an environment where you are forcing people to get out their passions and ideas, to then have them armed is not consistent with what it is we're trying to create. So I would hope that most students would not, but I don't think that's an invitation that our legislators or governors should be sending to students.