Curriculum for the program could have included translating the leadership experiences outside of Denison’s campus to careers, graduate school, jobs, and considering the utility of our leadership after Denison.
The closest students came to this were conversations around our club leader’s relationship and experiences with leadership at Denison, which, albeit of import, became pinnacle of a critical perspective of leadership at Denison.
There then was little time in the two-day program to discuss how leadership at Denison differs across women and men, people of color and white people, and, which is rarely discussed, people from lower economic classes versus that of those from middle and upper classes.
What did dominate discussion were the epic Seven c’s of Social Change, the theoretical basis for the institute. Included in the workbook students received, these Seven c’s included: Consciousness of Self, Congruence, Commitment, Collaboration, Common Purpose, Controversy with Civility, Citizenship and, the surprise, implicit Change.
While these values, which were dogmatic, are important in outlining leadership, should not have occupied the crux of the curriculum and were loosely connected to leadership through an advocacy of joining clubs.
These topics would have been useful speaking points, but our time was, instead, spent thinking about the different clubs we can join to get involved on campus.
It became rather implicitly clear to me that D.U. Lead was a space in which a cohort of leaders who sit on the executive boards of various organizations were groomed and instilled with the values of Denison.
In the future, D.U. Lead’s curriculum may direct less attention to, what was admittedly valuable, the 7 c’s of Social Change, but rather to developing a rounder curriculum.