NETNOTES: Columbia Pacific University Alumni Info

John Gray is perhaps the most famous alumnus of Columbia Pacific University. He is known worldwide for his successful participation in an important public discourse: the male and female relationship. Writing, as in the expression of Gray’s ideas, can be considered as a form of social practice. Whether such practices convey methodically executed empirical research (e.g., Gottman, 1999) or a simple analysis of relationships along gender lines, they help to socially construct realities through their acts of speech (see Austin 1962; Gergen 1994, Parker 1992). McNanee and Gergen invite us to think of theory in terms of its potential uses, as a “potential resource … that permits particular forms of action and supresses others” (p. 5). As far as relationships go, Gray’s writings offer one version of the real and good. His books have proven to be catalytic, drawing responses of both adverse criticism and agreement.

Some adopt the critical stance in reference to Gray’s message; they argue that Gray is socially constructing and maintaining gender stereotypes. Yet, others state that they have found Gray’s ideas to be emancipatory. On the related topic of speech acts and what they construct, Gergen (1999: p.185) proposes the question: “what kind of world do we bring together through our forms of inscription?â€? One related question could be whether Gray’s books hold power over the reader. His books are easy to read and do not hold the power of nontransparency over the reader. Rather, they invite relationship by inviting us to engage in relational activities with others from a place of acceptance. Is Gray’s path the best one? If you think so, than make it so. Otherwise pick something that works for you and your partner.

The Facts of Gray’s PhD

Known worldwide for his Mars and Venus books, Gray completed his PhD at Columbia Pacific University in 1982. Those were pioneering times for CPU and its unique community of experienced adult learners. Recently, distance and alternative education expert John Bear, PhD, wrote that

at the time he [Gray] received his PhD, Columbia Pacific graduates could apply to sit for the state boards in psychology (1) .

Columbia Pacific University, founded in 1978, was at that time a fledgling experimental institution, adopting a philosophical and practical emphasis on wholism, reflective practice, and health. CPU was in fact one of the first in an elite group of, albeit nontraditional, “universities without wallsâ€?. The University’s peers included the Union Institute, Walden University and Antioch University. By 1983 the State of California had approved some of CPU’s degrees, citing CPU as comparable with appropriately accredited institutions in the USA. By 1986, the entire institution had what the State called “full approval”.

In 1982 Dr. Bear wrote the following in his popular book on distance education:

No other resident, doctoral granting institution, has a staff with the credentials, reputation, and experience of Columbia Pacific. Many major universities, including Harvard, Yale and Princeton have expressed a willingness to accept C.P.U. degrees. I have had more positive enthusiastic feedback from CPU students and alumni than from any other school, accredited or not. These people praise the very personal approach, the valuable learning experience, and the comparatively low costs (2).

Whether or not one agrees with John Gray’s ideas, what is of value is that he has presented them in the public forum, the ultimate ground for explorations on important issues. This practice of ‘being public’ is one quality reflected in the work of many CPU graduates: they embody a willingness to take risks, be transparent with their views, and thus help bring about public dialogue. The high volume of sales for Gray’s books imply that a wide segment of the public finds his ideas to be of value.

Irresponsible Internet Criticisms

Regrettably, many negative comments on Dr. Gray have been posted on the Web, including preposterous conspiratorial fantasies linking him with the tragedy of September 11. These criticisms rarely present a well formed arguement against Gray’s work; rather, they spread partial truths and innuendos against his person and his degrees. Unfortunately, the Web has now become a jungle where reliable information and serious material interact with blatant lies, non sequiturs, flawed analyses and irrational misinformation. Gray is an intended victim of Internet bullies. He has never concealed that his education was non-tradional. He talks about it himself in his books. He did not use his CPU doctorate to meet licensure requirements for becoming a registered psychologist in California. Many others, with Columbia Pacific University PhDs, have indeed achieved licensure as pyschologists. We know several.

The Web now represents a collective of multiple interchanges, many of which can be conceived as language games of influence. Attempts are often made to influence various constructions of the real and the good: a preferred social order in which the influencer benefits. The majority of the criticisms of Gray merely reflect a social order of the lowest form of anarchy. The Web technology provides us with access to voice participation. We can now join in discourses in ways we may have never dreamed of (see Kavanagh 2002 + paper in press). We can rally against corporate sweatshops, protest unfair invasions of others’ countries, and investigate others’ misfortune. We can also become as observing critics, daily blogging our insights and reflections. Intelligent arguments often display evidence of well-rounded consideration, but where on the Web are such intelligent arguments?.

Are there agreed upon moral standards on how we should express ourselves when using the Web? The answer, unfortunately, is “no”; amidst the dynamics of influence games there is an absence of agreed upon moral standards. The techno-society, when it comes to Web communication, is in a young developmental state of order and disorder; joined with technology we are living as young cyborgs (see Parker and Cooper, date). As we become extensions of the technology that was intended to be an extension of us, we become the human-technological interface. Any person can now start a blog and offer their opinions on just about anything, without any accountability on what they write. Some fortify their opinions with innuendo and by replicating fragments of information or gossip. But does the cyborg show signs of relational intelligence and reflection in its blog arguments? The prospects for intelligent cyborgism, if we look at the Internet criticisms of Gray, are not good.

Moral standards are imperative to creating a society in which voice participation can thrive. It is just too easy to destroy others under the guise of pseudo journalism and self expression. In the process of being the nonreflective cyborg, we also destroy our own credibility. The proliference of cyborg non-intelligence on the Web is rapidly eroding the notion of the written word as purveyor of truth. On this subject in reference to the Web, Gergen (1999) acknowledges the construction of moral standards as grounded in face-to-face community relations. He addresses the dilemma which is emerging as many of us participate in techno-based communities: “if we consider community to be a group of people enjoying face-to-face interactions in a specific geographic location, then we may suspect an erosion in moral standards� (p. 210).

Conventions for going on together in Web interactions, such conventions could be a manifestation of community grounded morals, must be continually negotiated in the midst of trancience within techno-communities. All communications, even commentaries on blogs, can be considered as supplementing somethings already existing (see Hosking, 2002). While some Web participants subscribe to netiquette, others pay little attention, and bring along their own rules or lack of rules. Gergen has addressed this: in making internet community “in terms of what can be said what is reasonable and what is right - we enter a world of anything goesâ€? (p.210). The non standard of “anything goes” is evident with recent blog commentaries about John Gray.

Alec Hosterman, professor of communication arts at Indiana University (South Bend), recently suggested the following to us on the John Gray situation (personal communication to Paul Hartal, March 7, 2005):

… the story behind the closing of the school shouldn’t have a major impact on Gray’s position / status … Unfortunately
I’m not familiar with CPU and the story behind its closing, so from a Midwest perspective there hasn’t been much impact on his reputation. I did a quick google on him and found the following statement … on his website: http://www.marsvenus.com/degreeinfo.php . It sounds as though he’s just an unfortunate casualty and his credentials are valid.

Finally, we’d like to reiterate that the Web has provided an excellent technology to facilitate persons of all kinds to participate in public discourse. At the CPU Press Blog we are dedicated to socially responsible blogging (e.g., we only make claims that we can support with documents; we also do not promote innuendo; we try to tell as many facets of a story as possible). We would like to invite our fellow bloggers into socially responsible Web communications. Dr. John Gray, like everyone else, has a socially bestowed right to express his views. If you disagree with Gray’s views then we encourage you to say so and offer yours as a better way to go on. We invite you to make a coherent argument. Therein lies the beginnings of public dialogue in which many voices can participate. Although we don’t necessarily agree with John Gray, we do salute him for his efforts and for his contributions to the public discourse on male and female relationships.

References

* Austin, J.L. (1962). “How to Do Things with Words�. New York: Oxford University Press.
* Bear, John PhD (2005, July 7). Topic “Dr. Greg Cynaumon�.
Web address - http://www.degreeinfo.com (see the discussion forums)
* Bear, John PhD (1982). “Bear’s Guide to Nontraditional College Degrees, 8th Edition.�
* Gergen, Ken, PhD (1999). “An Invitation to Social Constructionism�. London: Sage
* Gergen, Ken PhD (1994). “Toward Transformation in Social Knowledge, 2nd Edition�. London: Sage
* Gottman, John, PhD (1999). “The Seven Principles for Making marriage Work”. New York: Three Rivers Press.
* Hosking, Dian Marie (2002). E-Communication and Relational Constructionism: Distributed Action, Distributed Leadershsip and Ecological Possibilities. In Holmes, Hosking and Grieco. “Organising in the Information Age: Distributed Technology, Distributed Leadership, Distributed Identity, Distributed Discourse”. Hamphshire: Ashgate.
* Kavanagh, Earon (2002). Epilogue: A Juxtaposition of Virtual Discourse Communities and Organisational Life. “In Holmes, Hosking and Grieco. Organising in the Information Age: Distributed Technology, Distributed Leadership, Distributed Identity, Distributed Discourse”. Hamphshire: Ashgate.
* McNamee, Sheila, and Gergen, Kenneth (1999). An Invitation to Relational responsibility. In McNamee and Gergen. “Relational Responsibility: Resources for Sustainable Dialogue”.
* Parker, M., and Cooper, R. (1998). Cyborganization: Cinema as Nervous System. In Hassard and Holliday. “Organization-Representation: Work and Organization in Popular Culture”. London: Sage.