It has been several thousands of years since rulers realized
that a population guided by principles of mutual trust was much more
productive. This doesn’t mean that societies end up living in pure harmony,
what it means is that the laws and rules put in place were designed to
facilitate interactions between people who were not friends or family members.
The benefit of creating comfort for ongoing interactions among large groups of
unrelated individuals comes from the non-zero-sum nature of information and knowledge.
The more that more people know, the more knowledge those people can produce
none of which limits the amount of knowledge available to others or for future
discovery.
Robert Wright uses the metaphor of the brain to describe a
productive human system. The more neurons (people) the more the overall
knowledge the brain can both access and produce, nurturing the health and
growth of the brain itself (and therefore its neurons). There is nothing to be
gained from a rogue ‘neuron’ conquering and destroying others. It eventually
damages the brain to the point that the neuron itself cannot survive – in other
words, it leads to a total loss.
Should each neuron in the brain insist on working by itself,
there is no doubt that things such as language, writing, medicine, or cake
could never have been developed. If a neuron were to, let’s say, refuse to
answer emails or always work with its door shut, it would not be contributing
to the growth of the brain’s potential but instead would be a parasitic entity trying
to benefit from the production of others while failing to contribute any value
of its own.
If the goal of the collection of neurons into a brain is the
advancement of opportunity, information, and benefits then there is a
requirement for mutual and transparent communication. This has been
demonstrated through an exercise known as The Prisoner’s Dilemma. The situation
offered as an example is that of two prisoners who are being separately
interrogated – cooperation is in their mutual interest but there are also two
primary barriers to this cooperation.
The first barrier is the inability of the two to communicate
with each other. You cannot communicate if there is a wall (either physical or
social) between you. If your door is shut, your attitude is hostile, and your
emails unanswered, communication for mutual benefit is impossible.
The second barrier is one of trust. If you cannot openly
communicate with a person who is neither a friend or family member, how can you
develop the ability to trust that they will do what is in the best interest of
all? If they continually indicate that they don’t trust you by engaging in
regular practices of anti-social behavior, the possibility to believe that
their actions are or will ever be designed to be of mutual benefit is nil.
The question then becomes, why would two (or more) neurons
in the same brain, ostensibly working for the betterment of the brain as a
whole (and therefore the mutual benefits to its neurons) not build the
possibility for open communication and trust?
The answer would have to be that they are either a sociopath
or that they see a benefit to themselves that requires or is contingent upon
sacrificing the health of the brain. They have other goals.
Obviously, this is a metaphor.
What I am asking here is this:
If members of UNCG’s administration (and here I am thinking
particularly of Paul Mason, although he is simply representative of the type of
executive that UNCG’s new public management culture has favored) are interested
in the growth of UNCG as a university (that’s the brain) then how do we explain
their actions?
We can’t.
Instead, those actions become explicable only if we realize
that they are not working for the positive growth of the university as an
institution of higher education. They have a separate set of interests…and to
find out what they are, you have only to follow the money.
The faculty, staff, and students at UNCG are feeling the
impact of the zero sum game being played by upper administration. Each time a
neuron dies, each time a person disappears from the collective consciousness of
that brain, it entails a loss of knowledge. We are each weaker for it.
Certainly there are times when through growth or death, we will lose people who
contribute to our overall well-being. At other times, though, we must look to
surgically remove those who cause damage.
Recently, our mind has been deprived of Lyda Carpen, Beth
English, Chris English, Betsi Robinson, Debbie Schallock, Andrea Spencer, and
David Wilson. We have also been injured by the loss of Helen Hebert, Laurie
Sims, Nelson Bob, Linda Carter, Patti Stewart, Steve Gilliam, and many others.
There is a continual, concerted, and intentional effort to
carve away those who would send signals of alarm at the rampant parasitism. As with
all parasites there will come a time when the damage is so severe that both the
host and parasite are lost. In the short term, however, the benefits to a few
are great enough that they will willingly sacrifice everyone’s potential for
mutual benefit in order to collect as much as they can right now.
They are fools to sacrifice so much for so little. They give
up more than they will gain. Even the corporate world understands that the non-zero
sum gains to all are greater than the
momentary theft of current
assets. Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, and Freddie Mac demonstrated quite clearly
what happens – you could have $1 billion now but end up disgraced, jailed, and
ruined or you could accept $1 million per year and be remembered as a hero.
Short sighted greed will never buy long term good.
UNCG’s administration has gone corporate…but it has gone out
of date corporate. Google, Costco, IDEO – these companies and many others
realize that happy employees are more productive employees. They understand the
non-zero sum nature of the collective brain.
I’m not suggesting they are philanthropists. Running a
business isn’t a charity. However, they are smart. They see the benefits that
come sharing, from feeding the brain, that are longer term and more sustainable
than those that can be obtained by being a parasite. They also are working for
the success of the company as an entity. UNCG’s administration has forgotten
about the success of the university as an entity and become obsessed with the
simple reproduction of administrative structures.
The UNCG community isn’t under attack. It’s up for sale.
