Hello everyone and welcome. Welcome to Knowledge Unbound. My name is Bryan Dewsbury and I am

your host of a podcast called Knowledge Unbound. Knowledge Unbound is brought to you by the

RIOS Institute for a racially just inclusive open STEM education. We are generously funded

by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. My producer Mr. Segev Amasay, Computer Engineering

major class of 2025. Segev, what's up? How's it going Bryan? How's it going? How's it

going Bryan? I feel like if you were using your DJ name and my audience, my producer

is also a DJ, he goes by DDX. If you're using your DJ voice... Oh Bryan, I am DDX. Oh okay,

alright. Alright, alright. My apologies. But if you were in DDX mode, you would have been

a lot more decisive in your response. Well that is very true. Okay. Hey welcome Segev.

Segev is our wonderful producer for all of these episodes. This is a series that we will

be in conversation, in community really, with people who just think provocatively, think

beautifully, think progressively about what education and science education can be. I

am honored to welcome so many diverse and inspirational guests to the studio. We'll

be recording most of our episodes from the Science Education and Society program at Florida

International University. And we will, you know, we will just ask people their story.

Part of it is their personal journey, part of it is their projects. But all of which

we can learn from in ways that are unique, that are new ones to make education just a

much more beautiful thing. Today it is my great pleasure to start this series off with

just a good friend of mine and somebody I know who's thought deeply and provocatively

about what science education can be. She is the director of the Reuos Institute that is

from which this podcast is coming. Dr. Carrie Diaz-Eaton is also an associate professor of

computer science and math at Bates College in Maine. And we just had a wonderful time

because you know, her and I have gone back and forth on the vision for this podcast and

you know, what opportunity we have to bring this conversation to the national audience.

And I think it's fitting to begin this 10 episode series with a conversation with her

because I think her journey and her thinking on not just this podcast, but these whole

issues around science education is really important. So I really hope you enjoy it.

So Carrie, you've always been an interesting collaborator to me because, you know, I've

had the pleasure of working with a lot of people on social justice related things in

STEM education. And I guess I don't want to kind of take up too much air time here,

but I feel like you get that so much of this is nuanced, it's hard to explain and for

this to work, right, for the social justice outcomes we're looking for in STEM education.

We have to be willing to sort of be brave and bring up things and go into spaces that

quite frankly, historically has been frowned upon for the kind of profession we have. And

I guess in that I see a tension between your activist self and your, you know, I actually

don't even know how you identify professionally now in terms of math education, computer science

education, all of the identities, all of the above.

We're doing that? We're doing that? All right, cool. Your tension between your activist self

and the confluence of disciplines that you represent, you know, start wherever you want

to start with that. But yeah, that's sort of my question. Which question I go for first.

Let me let me start with that tension because sometimes I've talked to folks or recounted

how there were times in where being in STEM meant I should erase the activist self. So

I know we've talked about this before. The activism that I've been involved with was

something you're involved with just by being right. And for me, like, I saw it when my

Spanish speaking church in Providence that my dad went to, like was involved with helping

new immigrants come to the area and the ish all of the issues they were dealing with.

And my dad was like, I'm here for you, because people were here for me when I came to the

US. But I never connected those to my STEM identity. They were very separate for me.

And even though I maintained activism, even through high school, through college, etc.

But when I was in graduate school, it was made clear, I had to choose who I was going

to be portrayed as. And it should be STEM and not activism. Well, let me ask you this

real quick without derailing you too much. But there's something happened that forced

that choice. Or did somebody kind of look at you and see this set of things you're doing

and say, yo, you need to kind of get over here. Yeah, so I think there was a particular

moment where I was having someone review my CV for me. And this was a CV that I was using

to apply for a scholarship. Okay. And I was a maybe first year grad student. And I had

applied for the scholarship when I first started, but I didn't get it. So I went, you know,

I was getting a little more coaching this time. So when she was reviewing, and best

intentions, of course, right, this is how it always happens. When she was reviewing

it, she saw, oh, you'd been involved in a gay straight alliance. Maybe we should take

that off your CV. Right. And so that's, I think that's like the best moment I can tell

where I'm like, I'm supposed to be separate about this. Like, right, like, it's literally

not supposed to be on my CV. There's always been moments of discordance where I think

like I put some activist energy into say, changing the climate for teaching in my department

or things like that. So I didn't stop, I just changed what kind of activism I was involved

in. Even though that was heretical for our one department, at least it wasn't putting

something about queerness on my CV, right? And, you know, especially in the south, right?

And so I feel like a lot of my journey over the last decade has like been reintegrating

what were already parts of me. So is that reintegration, is the success of that reintegration

now a function of where you are professionally and that you're tenured and that is, you know,

there's cashier to your name. There's, I mean, I don't want to make it about that, right?

But the reality is some of these, that integration is riskier at different points. And I just

don't know how much that factored into the intensity of the reintegration process, if

I could call it that. I think there were two things going on simultaneously. So where I

was prior was a non-tenure institution. So I didn't have tenure. And, but I was getting

some national appreciation, should you say. I guess that's just one way of putting it.

I was getting noticed. I felt more confident in if my current place doesn't like what I'm

doing, I can move and that's okay. So it's not quite the same as the security of getting

tenure. It's more like a different kind of job security that comes from self-confidence.

I don't know how to describe that in any other way.

No, I think it makes sense. And I feel like I also heard something else in your comment

about bringing activist energy to say teaching climate to your department. And I think about

Malcolm X's much used, but often misquoted quote by any means necessary and maybe an

interrogation of that saying, well, you have to sort of figure out which means are necessary,

right? So it doesn't mean that it's just any means, right? The necessary part is the

qualifier for what the means are and where it goes. And it sounded like, okay, do you

pick up the battle to fight for everything goes on your CV versus right now, this is

where the fires need to be put out or addressed. Is that kind of navigation an essential part

of your activism? Like kind of figuring out where needs your strengths, where is most

politically salient at the time when to give trouble, when to give good trouble, like I

know it's your name. I'm asking this question on behalf of people who are hearing you and

want to make these decisions, right? But maybe need a little bit of a playbook.

Well, I'm going to take a play from your book, which is knowing yourself, doing that like

reflection on yourself. The other thing I will say is, I'm a boundary spanner because

I've been involved in multiple worlds because I have a white mother and Hispanic father

because I identify as queer, but I'm in a heterosexual marriage with kids, right? And

this kind of boundary spanning, it has kind of meant that I could camouflage, but also

if I felt like I needed to. But I think that sort of, there was some self-consciousness

around whether I was dark enough to be an advocate for the Latino community because

my Spanish wasn't good enough or I had this privilege of a heterosexual marriage, so could

I really claim being queer, right? So I think that actually happened at a later point, which

was I think when I was teaching at Unity, my very first job, one of the really interesting

things that happened was being at a predominantly white institution where I was for many years

the only faculty of color. I was the touchstone for the students of color, for the Latino

students, and I was involved as a club advisor for American Sign Language Club and a few

other kinds of, I guess you could say diversity initiatives. All of a sudden, it didn't matter

that I was in whatever marriage or had whatever level of melatonin. It mattered that I was

making connections with students and that we were making a difference in each other's

lives. And then hearing that come back to me, keeping in touch with those students over

the years and having them say, it was so important for you to be there. And then that boosted

my confidence that I gave myself permission to do the work. And then around the same time,

for me, the critical event was the Trump election and the intensity of hatred against immigrants

going on there. And then as soon as the election happened, Maine is under ICE jurisdiction

in its entirety because of its border with the ocean as well as Canada. And seeing ICE

vehicles drive down my road the very first day that Trump was officially in office. And

I started getting much more vocal at that point in my own institution about how a lot

of the folks who were graduating in environmental law enforcement were bored of control and

getting hired there because there aren't enough wildlife jobs in northern Maine to employ

all the students. So there's where the money was. And how it was our ethical obligation

to start thinking about these things. And I don't know, I just found that confluence

of internal building and external happening. I was in the right place to start being more

vocal. Yeah, a lot to unpack. Well, no, in a good way, right? Because I think maybe to

push back a little bit on my own playbook question, or the use of the word playbook

in that context, what seemed to matter more was you were in a mental space where you looked

around you. And you saw that what the moment needed was more than just being an educator,

right? Or let me put it a different way. Let me put it a different way, more than just

teaching content. You were looking at an election, you're looking at the sentiment and the climate

of your community, of your state, and thinking it's not good enough just to teach people

to differentiate equations. And that is not a playbook thing. That's like a mindset. And

I'm wondering if you could sort of unpack that a little bit.

So how did I come to that mindset? I think there are two things. I think one is a number

of student interactions over the years, where they've maybe also reflecting on my own, like

what really made a difference in me choosing my career path. And yes, it was my relationships

with certain individuals that just kept encouraging me. But I think it was more amplified when

I went to a liberal arts college, because at that predominantly undergraduate institution,

small liberal arts college, they really emphasize the relationship with students. And I do admit

that it was for someone, especially out of mathematics, we're very sort of more individual.

We're all about like the Christine content. It was the purity of the discipline. And I

had always been at a huge flagship universities. So I didn't have that experience exactly.

So I had to figure out what that meant. I think that was something I have gotten much

better at over the years as a teacher. I look back at like, you know, how I initially started.

And yeah, I really do think that being at that small liberal arts college was something

that really changed my mindset about what's the role of the relationship with the student.

It reminds me a little bit sometimes when I hear these conversations happen in mixed audiences

and by mixed I mean K-12 and higher ed. And I do see sometimes a collective eye roll from

the K-12 people because they're like,

I know, you had that figured out for years.

Well, how do you do your job then? And it's just amazing. You know, we talk about this

and oh my goodness, wow, relationships is a thing. And I get it. I get how this system

is set up that makes it hard for people to see that and how we train. But just as a point

of humor.

Yes, no. And even when we have these pedagogy courses that are part of GTA training programs

or certificate teaching programs in college teaching, usually we focus on content pedagogy

or something like that. We're not focusing on the importance of relationship making or

we're reading like literature on education and stereotype threat. But we're not talking

about relationships as not part of the typical sort of one semester college pedagogy course

either. I think we still have a lot to integrate on that conversation that K-12 already knows

on and somehow, I don't know, we think at 18 your brain switches and you don't need

relationships anymore. I don't know. I look back and think it's hilarious. But the prior

version of me thought it was completely logical.

I'm good. I just want content now. I had 18 years of that. Enough.

I'm sure that's exactly what I thought when I was 18.

So let's pivot just a little bit to Rios, Rishri Just Inclusive Open Science Institute,

generously funded by the Hewlett Foundation, which you have the privilege of being a PI.

Thanks for the great work you do on that front. Where do you see Rios playing a role in a

lot of the things that you just described? I mean, I know they're personal, right? But

you've brought that ethos, you've brought that spirit, that energy, that value system

to this institute. Tell me what sort of your hopes are, not just for this podcast, but

for all the projects that we involve ourselves in.

Yeah. So I think the sort of bigger picture to me, the kind of stuff that we've just talked

about, I think could be framed as humanizing STEM, but I want to take it a step further,

which is people are STEM. STEM and people are not two separate things. They are a ecosystem

together. People create STEM culture and science and that it's all part of everything.

That in turn impacts people and the social structures.

Oh, content education requires relationships. It is relational in its core. So I think one

of the exciting things about Rios is putting ourselves in places where we're getting other

folks to think about that earlier in their career or showing everyone's viewpoint on

this and creating a new storyline about what STEM is or could be. It's about changing the

culture strategically, but also using open as a tool for advocacy and for counter-narrating

and for doing something about the current culture, whether that's opening up the black

box, about having these conversations out in the open, all of the things. But also,

we have other initiatives that are going on in a lot of places where, I'll just take some

of the ones that I'm involved with because there's the ones I know the best, but one

is being involved on the next generation of the instructional practices guide for undergraduate

mathematics curriculum. Okay, so diversity and equity is a thing at the end. So what

if it's also throughout? What if the humanizing is throughout? What if that's really part

of it? Again, I know we're talking, we're here this week at Bates for the Gordon Research

Conference, which is all about rethinking vision and change, revisioning vision and

change, creating that new vision for biology education and what it means to think about

that as human created, human driven for humans, et cetera. And so I think it's about showcasing

the conversations. It's also about thinking strategically about where is this field going

to go, nurturing it, pushing it, helping other leaders come in, spreading the word. I'm just

excited about that level of work. So I'm going to circle back to the reason a second because

you brought up a new vision for change. And I want you to tell me in two to three sentences,

Max. Okay, I'll try. What would you say is your personal new vision for change? Yeah,

I mean, I'll go back to what I just said before. That's one sentence. Stem is people. Oh, Jesus,

I said two to three, man. I'm with you. Just thanks for the two. I was trying to be as

possible. I got there. Yeah, no, stem is people. Okay. And for which people? Well, I think

I read into your use of the word people that the inclusive is assumed or should be. Yeah.

Right. We shouldn't have to go about, you know, defining it. And it was for you to,

it's for you to like that shouldn't be an extra message I have to, I have to send if

we're doing it right, then everybody understands that it's for everybody. And so I want to

segue back a little bit to the O in Rios. And you know, a good friend and colleague,

Dr. Karen Kangliosi is not here. She's the director of Every Line and Everywhere, wonderful

human and just done a ton of work on open science, open pedagogy, OER. And I've said,

you know, we've talked offline several times and I've said one of the things that have

really excited me about Rios is the potential around open to get at broader questions of

democracy and access and not just democracy, but participatory democracy, right? That this

notion that we are all part of knowledge generation, knowledge creation, knowledge curation. And

maybe I just want to hear your thoughts on what what how open lands with you. Yeah, I

had this wonderful conversation with a colleague of mine, Dr. Anna. Well, we were, she's, she

was here at Bates as a visiting assistant professor and we were chatting. We have some

common interests in in sort of digital activism. And she was saying as she teaches some of

our courses, it's a lot of critique because she comes from gender and sexuality studies

and from humanities. And that's a lot of sometimes critiquing a lot of things about about current

society. But then some students lose hope because there is, you know, such crap in the

world. I had to like work not to use a swear word. Such crap in the world. The podcast,

you see, doesn't care. And and so, you know, I was like, you know, I really feel like one

thing I can add to to this, you know, new imagination building is that I will besides

my eternal optimism, you know, this agency based, you know, building with students, building

the agency to make a difference. But then with with what what do you do? And I feel

like open as resistance has been a really, really important tool, at least for me throughout

my life. So what does it mean to think about open as active resistance to the system?

Tell me more about that.

So I think this goes on so many levels. But, you know, let's let's talk about it from the

economics perspective, right? The power is concentrated in knowledge who has access to

that knowledge, you know, the kind of knowledge that's at one university versus the kind of

knowledge that folks have access to in the other. So so they're that's controlled by

universities and it's controlled by textbook publishers and it's controlled, you know,

into their power money resources all tied up. So when we think about just a strict open

education, making your curriculum open, you know, making conversations about how you teach

and what you teach open, that's a form of resistance against those power systems that

separate us into the have and have nots. But then and then you look at, you know, I teach

a lot now about sort of the sort of digital human interface. And, you know, we know that,

you know, as we critique things like AI open in terms of social media and and transparency

requirements for for AI and open sourceness, you know, and access to tools. All of that

is direct open as resistance to conversations about how technology is shaping things moving

forward. And then let's take it another like sort of other personal level, these conversations

open talking about what happened to somebody on your CV. I follow this this this other

great podcast called Mathematically Uncensored. And I just love that they're open talking

about these conversations in the open. And, you know, it could be, you know, telling folks

how this made you feel and just opening it up for other people to see. I think of that

as just a different version of opening the black box and a mathematical model or a computational

model is like opening it up. And here's what what went into that whole process. Yeah. You

know, opening up and talking about what you get as a salary and how you got that salary,

like the things that are supposed to be taboo. Right. This is actually really interesting

because no, it is it because oh, my God, I feel like we could talk for hours because

you are getting into a philosophical space of open being beyond. You know, I think what

I mentioned to prompt a question was open in a very political social structure context.

You seem to be describing open as a philosophy and a value system. I'm always going bigger,

Brian. I know that. I know that. And and then it's and so in that context, it goes beyond

just how it applies to good governance and social structures. It goes into how we live

our lives and create relationships. Right. And it it pushes past things like proprietary

and this need to kind of commodify and and become an economic good and quantity and things

like that. And so then that then raises a whole bunch of other interesting follow up

questions. Right. But and I guess maybe just selfishly from the real perspective, it excites

me that there's all these other things to other rabbit holes to run down. The more we

lean in as a group to the old name. Yeah. We just had great conversations earlier about

moving from me to us. Yeah. Right. Yeah. And I think like unfortunately there is an I in

Rio. I don't know. Maybe I should have been a you. You want to use the joke. There's no

I in Rio's but there's an I in Rio's because it's for your one joke. We need to go ahead

and change your whole name. Is that what you're trying to say? But I you know, I think I think

that's like part of the culture of of of not just STEM but broadly. Right. So rethinking

when we start thinking about open we start thinking about really democratizing all kinds

of knowledge. Right. And all systems and processes. Right. Then then yeah that's that's what we're

talking about. We're talking about thinking about us as a community and helping each other

instead of how to help myself. Yeah. And that's a mindset shift especially considering how

our economy is built and run. Right. So let me let me kind of circle back to a point you

brought up earlier that that stuck with me about post 2016 and Border Patrol. And this

again selfishly is one of the reasons why I feel a professional connection with you

that I think is a little rare because unprompted you bring up things that I think about and

I don't hear in other places. Right. And one of those things is I think about January 26

2022 blanking on the year. But when I say January 6 you know exactly what I mean. And

I've often compared that to in the 1920s when they were lynchings and who attended those

lynchings. Right. And who attended January 6. And I think part of my job is to is to

kind of think about broadly social function. How do we get this right. How do we how do

we continue this democratic experiment in a way that everybody is a part of it and can

live long peaceful happy lives. Like that's sort of a guiding question of my professional

life. And I find that in situations like January 6 there's a reactivity right is a reaction

of bad people put them on trial. Let's move on. Can I think I'm not enough of what lessons

can we learn from understanding what led to this so that we hope to not repeat this kind

of thing in the future if we are to work as a country. Right. And one of the things that

stick with me is we give those people degrees. Right. We gave them high GPAs in some cases

and said summa cum laude you go and start a business go and be a lawyer go and be X

Y and Z. And you know we give a lot of other people degrees too. But there's a feeling

of responsibility I feel where I worry that in especially in STEM we kind of assume almost

that because you can major all the other values associated with being a good noble community

driven participant of a society just automatically kind of comes with that. And we don't have

to be explicit about those values at the undergraduate level in particular. And I don't know when

on kind of a while here but I just want to make the point that that you know part of

you know to the extent that we are John Dewey acolytes here and that that education is is

built to to help prepare people for democratic participation. You know what are we doing

in STEM classrooms and some research some education research et cetera to be intentional

about that. And so you bringing up seeking for the patrol and knowing that you have students

who are going to go into that like so the mentality they go into that with matters.

Right. And I think there are two things going on. So one in that particular case we were

educating them for environmental professions thinking first of all right that that that

had no they didn't need this kind of ethics training because they were just going to be

I don't know out tagging bear or something like that. Right. And so there is that also

is a misconception because now you know there's been especially in sort of hashtag black and

stem and other places there's been a lot of folks talking about they can't go birdwatching

because somebody is going to say why are you here on your own as a black man like you know.

So now we we know that that's well some of us know that is false. Right. And then there

is this sort of idea of like what are you what do you think you're preparing students

for versus what are you actually preparing students for. Right. Right. And coming from

teaching mathematics I think this is something that we as a community of mathematics have

been struggling with on and off because teaching something you know that counts as a math requirement

so you can get your check mark on general education is algebra teaching them to really

think as critical citizens moving out in the world. Right. So they think there's like you

know what do we think we were doing versus what we what we are. And I think one of the

the coolest talks that I heard also someone responding to the 2016 was Carl Bergstrom

talking about their calling bullshit curriculum and that was like you know how are we educating

future voters. You know to to to like realize whether the thing they got shared on Facebook

is totally false or not. Like you know they can vote for whatever as long as they don't

believe BS information. Right. Like like you know I mean I'm kind of taking the politic

you know the partisan out but still at the end of the day are we really preparing folks

and I don't think those skills are totally different than what we say we're doing in

science with critical thinking and all these other things. I think they're very related.

But yeah also acknowledging hey you know this isn't just about the outside what you're going

to see on the ballot. This also affects your discipline. That's like a whole nother conversation

people are. Oh but this is ecology. This doesn't have anything to do with humans. I'm like

wait a minute. Like you know like not a single thing. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So I

think I'm pretty excited about one. It's not going to solve all problems. But one of the

things that Bates is doing structurally is now we are requiring that students take two

courses that address power privilege place race racism in you know as graduation requirements

and one of them must be in your major discipline. And I think I think there's it's an acknowledgement

that this is not a separate. So I worry a lot about transference. You did your ethics

requirement or you did your you know critical thinking requirement. But that doesn't have

anything to do with science. Right. You know and I like that. No I'm 100 percent. Yeah.

I mean we've been saying in math forever. Like you know yeah yeah I finished my math

requirement but what does that have to do with you know my major in political science

or something right. You know so so I think just even making that a requirement. Yes of

course we hope it changes you know what we're graduating students with. But at the core

it's telling it's making a statement that yes we believe that discussions on power and

privilege and race deserve to be in every major. Right. And just because you think you're

going to send someone off to tag bears doesn't mean they don't need a conversation. Yeah.

Yeah. I just asked one quick last question on the Bates point. Can you comment if you

know anything on on if there is something in place to assess especially the major class

one. And the reason why I ask is one of the things I worry about with all these really

good initiatives is that it comes from the heart is well meaning I agree with it. Right.

But then five six years down the road nobody can really have it. You know somebody can

come down the line and so you are just indoctrinating a bunch of students like no. You know you

shouldn't have to do that. And we don't have a response other than we thought it was a

good idea. Right. And I'm just wondering if there's something in place that if there are

goals associated with having that class in the major is there some assessment in place

to figure out you know if that was valuable and why. So there is a committee that's charged

with like overall looking at the requirement in those classes itself. And I think right

now they're more concerned with what goes in because you know before they address what

goes out though I tell you I'm around here looking at posters GRC looking at you know

possible survey instruments and other kinds of things that I can bring back to my institution.

You know because I think I think we want to know that we're making a difference. You know

I think there is some resistance for some for all man we're going to assess the heck

out of you know that's why I didn't go to K-12 education. But yeah I see eternal optimist.

And you want to know if you're making a difference. Well it's funny because GRC is at your institutions

you don't have to bring anything back. You just need to lock the doors. It'll only take

a minute. With permission I will share you know the contact information. This will be

a little bit of a

You sign a waiver. You sign a waiver. It is what it is. Hey Carrie thanks so much.

Knowledge Unbound is brought to you by the Reos Institute for a racially just inclusive

open STEM education. We are generously funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

You can find out more about the podcast at our website. Click on the bio in our link.

There you'll find more about Dr. Eaton's work at Bates College and a transcript of today's

episode as well as several other Dr. Eaton's interests and other projects related to the

project. You'll also find a link to the Reos Institute where you can peruse some of our

other projects, the working groups, learning communities and other projects that we've

been involved in. Our producer today is Mr. Segev Amasi, Computer Engineering major,

Florida International University, class of 2025. I'd like to thank my guest Dr. Carrie

Diaz-Eaton for spending some time with us sharing her vision. I'm always moved and

marveled when I get a chance to be in conversation with people like Carrie because I guess part

of it is commiseration. Part of it is, you know, people see beyond what this could be,

right? People don't, they don't stay satisfied. They don't just accept that because this is

sometimes you do X, Y, Z, that there isn't more to do and willing to maybe even put themselves

at some professional risk to make it happen. So to the extent that that's a reminder for

me and a reminder for you, my listener, to be likewise brave, I hope it was a good listen.

As you go into the week, I hope you look forward to our next guest or next episode. And really

all equity based, inclusive social justice education is, is trying to imagine a world

where all of us are part of each other's in group. So my name is Brian Dewsbury. Until

the next episode, please be excellent to each other.

I think the sort of bigger picture to me, the kind of stuff that we've just talked about

then could be framed as like humanizing STEM, but I want to like, I want to take it a step

further, which is like, people are STEM. Like STEM and people are not two separate things.

They are a ecosystem together. I think there are two things. I think one is a number of

student over interactions over the years, you know, where they've, you know, maybe also

reflecting on my own, like what really made a difference in me choosing my career path.

And yes, it was my relationships with certain individuals that just kept encouraging me.

I had always spent at a huge, you know, flagship universities. So I didn't have that experience

exactly. So I had to figure out what that meant. You know, I think that was something

I have gotten much better at over the years as a teacher. I look back at like, you know,

how I initially started. And yeah, I really do think that being at that small liberal

arts college was something that really changed my mindset about what's the role of the relationship

with the student.