COMMUNITIES AS GAMES:
"MAKE ME" vs "CALL YOUR OWN FOULS"
Dear President Rowe,
I know you are aware of the faculty's dereliction of duty in my case (among others). I also believe that you do not want me to present you with the case showing faculty negligence. Why not? Possibilities: Already investigated. Already known. Boring. Cannot contribute to the pivot. Might complicate matters. All of these and more.
One of my most important goals in preparing a Solution Plan for you and the Board has been to find ways to demonstrate that I understand both your approach and the philosophy that drives it. If I can do this and the faculty cannot--and we know they cannot--I will have separated myself from them in an important way, indeed, in the most important way possible. The question, then, is what scheme to use. What logic might I use to separate myself from the faculty and reveal that I have been playing at every stage the very game the president is asking us to play while the faculty remains unaware of her motivations, intentions, and plans?
The very first time I looked up your history, Dr. Rowe--the very first time--I reviewed the rules of Ultimate Frisbee and saw the unique requirement of "call your own fouls." It immediately resonated. I saw that this is the game I have always relied upon in my governance work at the College, for example. Calling oneself for a foul that one has committed may strike an observer as an unnecessary blow against oneself and a sign of weakness. In truth, this game offers many advantages and sources of strength.
I once saw a video of you where you asked rhetorically to no one visible, "Who needs referees?" You had just the right mix of skepticism and enthusiasm in your voice. At first, and for a long while, I thought, that's right, to hire referees is a waste of resources. Just do the job yourself!
Later, in fact only recently, I realized that the point is different than this, and more radical. I believe you have seen this all along, President Rowe. The key is that submitting to a game called by referees means limiting your possibilities. Having referees in the game weakens you substantially and undermines your ability to get things done. This was, I suppose, why I converted long ago to the game of calling one's own fouls. Anyone can play this game in life anywhere and at any time.
Below is a table that contrasts the game I have been playing with the one played historically at W&M. "Make Me" is the traditional power game of the College of William & Mary. "Call Your Own Fouls" is the new community game that sets the Alma Mater of the Nation apart from what existed before.
The contrast between me and the faculty is the contrast between these two games. Since my removal from campus, I have been playing the game of Call Your Own Fouls. The faculty, meanwhile, have played a determined game of Make Me.
The contrast between me on the one hand and the faculty on the other could not be more stark, for it turns out that I was playing Call Your Own Fouls for almost three years before President Rowe arrived, while the faculty have insisted on their game of Make Me three years after her arrival!
President Rowe, I claim that, in the story of my removal from campus, two distinct games were being played at the College. Each game represents an understanding of what a community is. Each shows how the existence of community shapes action and interaction.
I believe I am the first faculty member to play a complete game of "Call Your Own Fouls" in a significant contest over a long period of time. Opposed to me was the entirety of the active faculty, abetted by certain administrators, playing William & Mary's usual power-political game of "Make Me."
In the end, it is the undergraduates who won. Their participation was muted because opposing the game of "Make Me" puts one in danger. Nevertheless, at every step, they defended the practices of "Call Your Own Fouls" and protested against or criticized the game of "Make Me." And they were much braver than the faculty, as they showed, for instance, in their WTKR-TV appearance. The students showed before President Rowe was hired that the community they want is the community that the president requires if her reform plan is to succeed.
DISCUSSION: "CALL YOUR OWN FOULS"
The payoff in this approach is the list of categories in the left-hand column. This is what was not available in the legal and AAUP analyses. The two columns to the right identify what is boring, already known, and can no longer contribute: violations of rights, derelictions of duty, and so on. The left hand column tells you what role these already known violations and irregularities play in the overarching game. The listed roles are ones your plans, Dr. Rowe, demand the College make room for. For instance, community members must be willing to be examined and criticized and to defend oneself. Why? Because otherwise, your reforms will not work. Diversity will have no results, among other things.
This exercise had many interesting results. I offer this table as a rough guide only. No doubt, it can be improved. But constructing it was an invaluable exercise! I learned so much.
At one point early in this episode, the faculty leader Cathy Forestell, commenting on the many false claims and evasions of the HR Chief at the College, asked rhetorically: "Why not just be honest?" About six months later I was being pestered by the reporter Sarah Fearing, who I had just met, for supporting documentation she knew I had. She had one request after another, and each time, or very often, she said, "Please understand, my credibility is important." At the time, Sarah was just beginning to see that the police documents she had reported in her newspaper could not possibly be about the person I really am. And getting to the bottom of this issue was her purpose in making the approach. She had become suspicious of the official line on me.
To help Sarah in this process, honor Cathy's leadership, and (I admit this) also perhaps to punish Sarah just a bit, I sent her a .pst file that was several gigabytes in size. It contained the previous 23 months of Gmail and W&M email, without redaction, meaning that it included the most upsetting emails I have ever written. They originate in my divorce in the summer of 2015 (before any problem was alleged at the College). In making all these documents available, I believed I was, in fact, honoring Cathy as a faculty leader. I can assure you, Dr. Rowe, Cathy was depending on me to show just this kind of honesty and openness. One time, very early on, when she suspected I might have misled her or maybe even lied to her, and that I might be not a victim but the source of the catastrophe she and Sophia were investigating, I realized I would be executed, or something along those lines. And deservedly so.
Sarah is an excellent reporter. She read every one of the emails I sent her. When she contacted me she said, "At first, I thought you probably took some emails out. And then I realized--OH NO YOU DID NOT!" Just like that. As if recalling a horror. The divorce emails are emotional in a challenging way, there is no doubt. She then said, "There was some pretty awful stuff in those emails." Strong emphasis--very strong--on the three italicized words. She concluded, "But nothing wrong."
The College had presented me as the most diabolically evil person one might imagine a professor could become. Their press releases included the famous "Dessler sent dozens of vulgar and obscene emails to College officials." This falsehood, which was totally made up, it had no relation to any facts, who knows why they fabricated such a claim, was repeated in so many W&M documents that Sarah accidentally reported it twice in the same WYDaily article in April 2017.
Here is a text from Sarah in which she summarizes her revised views of the College (on the one hand) and me (on the other):
Note Sarah's youthful talk. That's what I would call it. Which is not to depreciate it. Sarah is a great writer--you can see it right there. But the line, "how someone's reputation can do a 180"--well, it's not something anyone in my age group would write. As you can see, Dr. Rowe, there have been many, many rewards in this process. No one at the College wants to acknowledge them. That does not mean I have not remained a very fortunate person, something I have been lucky to be my entire life.
I just realized: Sarah will be 28 next week! Getting old. Oh, and since others know about this exchange, perhaps I should let you know of it: the first time I met Sarah, I asked her where she had gone to college. She said, "University of Maine." Then a pause. "Just a state school." I responded, "Do you know who used to say that, 'just a state school,' but not indifferently like you just did--he said it with anger, rage, and bitterness?" Then a pause. "Thomas Jefferson." Intended as a joke, but it does contain historical insight.
I would like to emphasize to President Rowe, if she is still reading, which she is not obligated to do, that in the real world where people interact and learn one another's character, motivations, and actions, I have during this episode gained the respect of all the professionals I have dealt with. These include the Richmond police, Richmond department of justice services, many psychiatrists in Richmond and Williamsburg, several judges, and several random others. I believe this achievement is significant because I earned this respect during precisely the period of time in which on campus, where people refuse all possible interaction and where my character, motivations, and actions are assumed rather than investigated, views of me range from criminally dangerous to hopelessly incompetent. But not outside this continuum.
Let me now return to the chart, which is looking increasingly valuable. When I was thinking to myself, "I am being honest," what was I doing? I say here that I was presenting myself as a certain kind of person. This release of emails turned Sarah Fearing completely around. I realize now that I got to that result with Sarah in part, perhaps large part, to the most awful emails I gave her. Not despite these emails. They were from a time unconnected to the disaster at the College. Sarah was clearly horrified by at least some of those emails. But the real impact these emails had on Sarah was mediated by her realization that I had given them up voluntarily and quite unnecessarily. Thus, perhaps it was not honesty that made the biggest impact, but the character I showed in being willing to risk the voluntary submission of those divorce emails. Perhaps it was self-confidence and openness and a willingness to take risks. And I wonder, was I also revealing that I trusted Sarah, perhaps in a big way? Because it did not take me long to develop full confidence in her abilities.
Let me say, in the spirit of critical self-reflection, that I feel like I'm stumbling around in a new territory, a new land, and I should have visited this place before. It should already be familiar. That's my sense, at least. Also, in the spirit of calling my own fouls, and doing so rigorously, I do admit that this .pst dump was meant in part to punish Sarah for pestering me so much with those requests for documentation and the comments about her need to remain credible. I do not think this reflects well on me.
Looking at these events through the lens of "game played" reveals so much I had not seen before! What does "game played" introduce into the analysis? I need to think about this more, but as a first cut, I would say, it introduces the concept of community. Which seems spot on. This lens will be the one we need when we focus on diversity and inclusion, among other core concepts. So this is a big step forward. For me at least.
I would say that, of all the materials, proposals, analyses, excessively large pdfs and overblown matrices and all the rest that I have produced, I am most proud of the chart below. It does not look difficult, perhaps because in the end it was easy to fill in those boxes. But the turning of mind needed to get there--the requirement to dump old categories that seemed necessary, I did not want to let them go, and then to match old data to new concepts--was hard. If not "unnatural." Perhaps also not the "kindliest" change I have experienced. That too.
Thank you, Dr. Rowe.
David Dessler
I just realized: Sarah will be 28 next week! Getting old. Oh, and since others know about this exchange, perhaps I should let you know of it: the first time I met Sarah, I asked her where she had gone to college. She said, "University of Maine." Then a pause. "Just a state school." I responded, "Do you know who used to say that, 'just a state school,' but not indifferently like you just did--he said it with anger, rage, and bitterness?" Then a pause. "Thomas Jefferson." Intended as a joke, but it does contain historical insight.
I would like to emphasize to President Rowe, if she is still reading, which she is not obligated to do, that in the real world where people interact and learn one another's character, motivations, and actions, I have during this episode gained the respect of all the professionals I have dealt with. These include the Richmond police, Richmond department of justice services, many psychiatrists in Richmond and Williamsburg, several judges, and several random others. I believe this achievement is significant because I earned this respect during precisely the period of time in which on campus, where people refuse all possible interaction and where my character, motivations, and actions are assumed rather than investigated, views of me range from criminally dangerous to hopelessly incompetent. But not outside this continuum.
Let me now return to the chart, which is looking increasingly valuable. When I was thinking to myself, "I am being honest," what was I doing? I say here that I was presenting myself as a certain kind of person. This release of emails turned Sarah Fearing completely around. I realize now that I got to that result with Sarah in part, perhaps large part, to the most awful emails I gave her. Not despite these emails. They were from a time unconnected to the disaster at the College. Sarah was clearly horrified by at least some of those emails. But the real impact these emails had on Sarah was mediated by her realization that I had given them up voluntarily and quite unnecessarily. Thus, perhaps it was not honesty that made the biggest impact, but the character I showed in being willing to risk the voluntary submission of those divorce emails. Perhaps it was self-confidence and openness and a willingness to take risks. And I wonder, was I also revealing that I trusted Sarah, perhaps in a big way? Because it did not take me long to develop full confidence in her abilities.
Let me say, in the spirit of critical self-reflection, that I feel like I'm stumbling around in a new territory, a new land, and I should have visited this place before. It should already be familiar. That's my sense, at least. Also, in the spirit of calling my own fouls, and doing so rigorously, I do admit that this .pst dump was meant in part to punish Sarah for pestering me so much with those requests for documentation and the comments about her need to remain credible. I do not think this reflects well on me.
Looking at these events through the lens of "game played" reveals so much I had not seen before! What does "game played" introduce into the analysis? I need to think about this more, but as a first cut, I would say, it introduces the concept of community. Which seems spot on. This lens will be the one we need when we focus on diversity and inclusion, among other core concepts. So this is a big step forward. For me at least.
I would say that, of all the materials, proposals, analyses, excessively large pdfs and overblown matrices and all the rest that I have produced, I am most proud of the chart below. It does not look difficult, perhaps because in the end it was easy to fill in those boxes. But the turning of mind needed to get there--the requirement to dump old categories that seemed necessary, I did not want to let them go, and then to match old data to new concepts--was hard. If not "unnatural." Perhaps also not the "kindliest" change I have experienced. That too.
Thank you, Dr. Rowe.
David Dessler
