Kirby, Donald J. (2007). Compass for Uncharted Lives: A Model for Values Education. Reviewed by Kevin D. Vinson and Melissa B. Wilson, University of Arizona

Kirby, Donald J. (2007). Compass for Uncharted Lives: A Model for Values Education. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press Pp. xi + 244     $23     ISBN 978-0-8156-3153-8 Reviewed by Kevin D. Vinson and Melissa B. Wilson University of Arizona August 25, 2008 Donald J. Kirby’s Compass for Uncharted Lives: A Model for Values Education addresses a far too frequently underexplored concern across college and university cam­puses: the place of values education and sanc­tioned values education programs within the curriculum. It explores the complexities as­sociated with the nature of, the need for, and the implementation of intentional and for­malized efforts within higher education commu­nities toward an in-depth praxis of per­sonal and social commitment. Kirby, a Jesuit and Professor of Religious Studies and former Director of the Center for the Advancement of Values Education (CAVE) at Le Moyne College in Syra­cuse, New York, relates the story of the Values Program (VP) at Le Moyne as it was con­ceived and as it evolved between 1988 and 2003 when it was admin­istratively cancelled because of budget cuts. Kirby explores the history of the VP in all its complicated and dy­namic dimensions, including its triumphs, uncertainties, and dif­ficul­ties. Compass for Uncharted Lives begins by examining the need for values education programs—specifically the VP itself—within the multiple and developing settings of higher education. Considering the moral and ethical quandaries that have confronted US (and international) campuses in the wake of the events of September 11, 2001 and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, as well as key developments more directly connected to the do­mestic (yet more and more global) realm of American academic political eco­nomics—for example the long-term though intensifying trend of vocational­ism/vocation­alization— Kirby (2007) identifies three questions that faced the VP and CAVE from the beginning, questions that remained crucial throughout the Program’s existence: “First, what is values education? Second, should colleges and uni­versities be in­volved in values educa­tion? And third, what role do families, religious groups, and other commu­nity members play in values education?” Most fundamentally he asks: “Is there such a thing as a values-free education?” (p. 21). In Chapter Two Kirby considers the relationships between Le Moyne’s VP and other, often better known efforts at values education, notably “Values Clarification” (e.g., Raths, Harmin, & Simon, 1966), “Learning Communities” (e.g., Smith, MacGregor, Matthews, & Gabelnick, 2004), “Service Learning” (e.g., American Association for Higher Education, 1993), and “Ethics Across the Curriculum” (e.g., University of San Diego, n.d.). Here Kirby seeks to distinguish the benefits of the VP model and to show how its tenets complement, incor­porate, and improve upon those espoused by other pro­grams. He concludes that the VP held several advantages over “competing” approaches: First the Values Program process offer[ed] an umbrella-like structure under which all or most elements within the institution [could] find a welcoming place….Sec­ond, this dynamic, alive, and ever evolving structure…provided con­tinuing sup­port for participants….Third, the Values Program worked to make the experience of stu­dents going through college more connected….[And, f]inally, whenever possible the process [was] grassroots. (pp. 65-67) In these comparisons Kirby is rightly critical yet always fair, open-minded, sympathetic, and inquisitive. Kirby next overviews the CAVE model and the various processes he and his col­leagues undertook during the enactment of the VP. As he explains it, the CAVE structure consists of “three main components: the Values Institute [VI], the Aca­demic Forum [AF], and the Working Group on Values [WGV]” (p. 73). (Note that Val­ues Institutes and the Academic Forum are described in greater depth in Chapters Four and Five, respectively.) Briefly, the WGV served as a sort of steering committee, coordinating (not deter­mining or mandating) first the mission and goals of what would become the VP—the CAVE model—and subsequently the Program’s actualization and implementation, in­cluding its continuous, rigorous evaluation and its context-based, needs-driven evolu­tion. Kirby describes his status relative to the WGV as rather like that of the coach of a sports team whose success depends less on individual “superstars” than on teamwork and coor­dinated, purposeful synergy. (Interestingly and appropriately he draws parallels here be­tween his role and that of the late Red Auerbach, former coach of the multiple NBA championship-winning Boston Celtics.) The second component, the VI, represents to some extent the first applied or ap­plications phase of the VP. Its original aim, as Kirby identifies it, was as a forum de­signed to “assist[] students both in becoming aware of values issues and in fash­ioning values frameworks that are consistent, defensible to themselves, and in keep­ing with the best of human traditions” (p. 109). Moreover, “when we had ac­complished this aim, we wanted our students to have the moral courage to act on their principles” (p. 109). This goal, in part, led to the creation of what became the summer VIs for faculty. These Values Institutes consisted of “three stages,” each with its own unique commitments. Stage 1, the “Preparatory Stage,” included “choosing the theme,” “the search for personnel,” and “motivating fac­ulty” (pp. 111-116). Stage 2, “Experienc­ing the Institute,” encompassed “three phases within the Insti­tute itself”—acclimation, reflection, and the development of a personal implementation plan. The third Stage, the “Follow-Up,” was characterized by faculty “return[ing] to [their] classrooms” and “en­courag[ing] students to ask questions about their own [values-related] experience[s] and to be actively involved in their own [essen­tially values-related] educational process[es]” (p. 132). Kirby concludes by discussing what he terms the “six suppositions underly­ing the design and function of the Val­ues Institute” (p 132): First, the Values Institutes are inclusive….Second, the institute participants by intention cross barriers and boundaries within the institution….Third, the insti­tutes are inherently, intrinsically academic….Fourth, the Values Program makes a commitment to the participants and the participants themselves make a commit­ment to follow up the institute experience….Fifth, [the VI] presents a college­wide, rigorous, and vigorous dialogue and discovery about the values dimension of a theme and its ramifications for the faculty and staff as individuals and profes­sionals…And finally, the participants take ownership of the institute from the be­ginning. (pp. 132-133) The third component of the VP, the Academic Forum or AF, “pertains primarily to the educational efforts to make connections ‘beyond the class­room’” (p. 135). It con­sists of six critical components: First, it is more than just a series of events. Instead, it is like a catalyst that perme­ates and infiltrates even the most mundane of events….[It] is a dynamic, um­brella-like structure that provides the form and content to transfer the energy of the Values Institute to the academic year….Second, The Academic Forum’s um­brella-like structure is dynamic….Third, the forum’s primary function is to make connections between classroom materials and the out-of-class world in which stu­dents live….Fourth, The Academic Forum’s goal is to impact all of the stu­dents ….Fifth, the Academic Forum fills a need for a space that is trusting, wel­coming, and challenging….[And, f]inally, the Academic Forum makes it clear that we all have many miles to go. (pp. 160-163) Kirby next considers what many readers will view as the overriding challenge with respect to adopting the CAVE model (or adapting it in some localized variation more suitable to their own particular, institutional needs) within their own academic set­tings: the need for, and the pursuit of, scarce yet essential resources. Here Kirby stresses the importance of both “attracting human talent” and discovering and taking advantage of various funding opportunities. While recognizing that obtaining resources is difficult, Kirby emphasizes that it is not impossible. In describing his and the CAVE’s experiences he advocates (1) getting “the right people with the right idea in the right time and place” (p. 169), (2) beginning with grass-roots level grant-writing, (3) creating a “vision plan” (p. 174), and (4) working with college and university officials to make the Values Pro­gram an institutional priority. Kirby argues that a strong foundation is critical and that such a foundation can assuage future and continuing resource acquisition burdens. In Chapter Seven, “Implementing the CAVE Model in Diverse Contexts,” Kirby explores possible issues (pros and cons) regarding establishing similar Values Programs in settings other than midsize liberal arts colleges like Le Moyne. More specifically, he considers the unique challenges presented by medical schools, law schools, and business schools. While sensitive to the distinct needs and characteristics of contemporary profes­sional education, Kirby effectively makes the case that Values Programs do have a place in professional schools and that a structure similar to the CAVE model offers one appro­priate framework for implementing them. Next Kirby restates his aims in terms of the ongoing dialogue within colleges and universities over the relative necessity, meanings, purposes, and configurations of values education. He concludes with a hopeful and confident appeal: We have cast our stone into the waters of one college and seen the mingling of the upper and lower strata of the college so that the institution was transformed. With this book we are offering you an opportunity to discover a compass, to chart a new course. We offer you a tested, replicable model for making a positive differ­ence in a world hungry for direction. Won’t you take the tools and techniques we describe in this book and use them to make a difference in your college, your uni­versity, your business, your world? (p. 222) Overall, Compass for Uncharted Lives is a fine book, and it is perhaps best read alongside Kirby’s (1990) previous, edited work entitled Ambitious Dreams: The Values Program at Le Moyne College in which he and several of his colleagues present essays describing the genesis, purposes, and structures of the Values Program. (It will also be interesting to read the forthcoming companion book by Kirby’s associate Krystine Batcho, a professor of psychology at Le Moyne, detailing the methods and findings of her efforts to assess the success of the CAVE model.) As both book and model, Compass for Uncharted Lives succeeds on a number of levels, the most obvious of which, perhaps, is its potential to provide an archetype for colleges and universities other than Le Moyne that wish to consider a program of values education. On this issue Kirby is straightforward, depicting not only the Program’s many successes but also its various difficulties, pains, and struggles. In effect, Kirby’s project is both exemplary and cautionary. It accomplishes its mission of demonstrating how a Values Program might proceed and flourish, and how the labor, time, and money required to build such a program can and should be worth the ef­fort. For, as Kirby shows, a successful Values Program can be transformative. Yet, as he makes clear, a process such as the CAVE model requires an abundance of pa­tience and commitment even as it almost guarantees certain frustrations. That we learn from the ex­periences of Kirby and his colleagues so that we might avoid as much as pos­sible re­peating their mistakes and reproducing their dilemmas, is yet another of his purposes that Kirby has admirably met. His repeated emphasis on participant ownership of any values-oriented program is another of the book’s strong points. Kirby persistently reminds readers that the achieve­ments of the CAVE model were possible only because of its grassroots and broad-based structure and that it was not administratively mandated from “the top.” What mattered, Kirby argues, is that the program itself existed as more important than any single individ­ual, office, or institution. Another strength is Kirby’s consistent claim that a successful college or uni­ver­sity-based values program must be one of “serious inquiry.” He is adamant that it cannot be based upon either indoctrination or moral relativity, but must instead inhabit some com­plex and dynamic space between the two. Despite Kirby’s own—and Le Moyne Col­lege’s—strongly held, professed, and committed Catholic, Jesuit beliefs, neither Kirby nor Le Moyne ever advo­cates imposing any specific ideology or religious tradition in the name of some univer­salist/absolutist values system, any more then they intend the Values Pro­gram to de­volve into mere ethical relativity. Such were not the Program’s goals. In Kirby’s words, worth quoting at-length: Although some might worry that the program engage[d] in indoctrination, it in fact initiate[d] a process of serious inquiry. Our aim [was] to help students fashion frameworks of values that are consistent, defensible, and in keeping with the best of philosophical and religious traditions. The program’s primary goals [were] to create an atmosphere that promotes the serious reflection of values issues, to en­courage faculty and staff to explore the relationship between teaching methods and the development of moral sensitivity in students, and to involve students, fac­ulty, and staff in an ongoing analysis and criticism of values. (p. 22) The CAVE model, as Kirby indicates, truly is (and was throughout its entire existence at Le Moyne) one of personal, deep, and humane reflection. In the end, Compass for Uncharted Lives is an engaging, readable, well-argued, and practical work. Kirby’s writing—conversational, direct, and personal (his stylistic use, for example, of metaphors, analogies, and so on—e.g., “weaving a fab­ric,” “prepar­ing the soil,” comparing Le Moyne’s efforts to those of the Wright Brothers and the workers who built the Erie Canal, etc., come off as helpful, never as trite or cli­ched)—positively con­trib­utes to the experiences readers may have both in struggling with values issues and in working through what a CAVE-type Values Pro­gram might mean for their specific insti­tutional situations. Engaging the questions and issues presented by Kirby is a worthwhile task for anyone interested in the purposes and practices of higher education. The opportunity to do so with Kirby makes Compass for Uncharted Lives a useful, timely, and important contribu­tion to the scholarly literature. References American Association for Higher Education. (1993). Series on service learning in the disciplines: Service learning toolkit. Available from the Campus Compact website at http://www.compact.org/publications/by_category/service_learning Kirby, S. J., D. J. (Ed.). (1990). Ambitious dreams: The values program at Le Moyne College. Kansas City, MO: Sheed and Ward. Kirby, S. J., D. J. (2007). Compass for uncharted lives: A model for values education. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Raths, L. E., Harmin, J., & Simon, S. B. (1966). Values and teaching: Working with val­ues in the classroom. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing. Smith, B., MacGregor, J., Matthews, R., & Gabelnick, F. (2004). Learning communities: Reforming undergraduate education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. University of San Diego. (n.d.). Ethics across the curriculum. Retrieved May 23, 2008 from http://ethics.sandiego.edu/eac/ About the Reviewers Kevin D. Vinson is an Associate Professor in the Department of Teaching and Teacher Education at the University of Arizona, where he specializes in critical educational theory and philosophy, social studies education, and the foundations of education. He is the co-author, with E. Wayne Ross, of Image and Education: Teaching in the Face of the New Disciplinarity (2003, Peter Lang Publishing) and the co-editor (also with Ross) of De­fending Public Schools: Curriculum Continuity and Change in the 21st Century (2004, Praeger). Melissa B. Wilson is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Language, Read­ing, and Culture at the University of Arizona. Her scholarship focuses on children’s lit­erature and power, specifically with respect to various critical understandings of disci­pline, social class, and social control.