The Official Web Site of Stephen Willand ...
The "Greatest Generation" rarely complained. Stephen's Uncle Ed premo (above), earned the Purple Heart while fighting back the Nazis in France during WWII. He returned home physically and emotionally wounded but proud to have served his country. Ed moved in with Stephen's family after the war and remained with them for the next 30 years.
"I and several other students would like to express our desire for Dr. Stephen Willand, if he is available, to instruct our Capstone course. He is one of, if not the best, in our minds, instructors at the college. He is well versed on all subjects, engaging and an extremely effective communicator. He is not afraid to step out of the box and apply the subject matter to real world situations.
Ther esults being a better understanding of textbook concepts, just discussed in
a vacuum."
Robert T.
Worcester State student
 | ||||
ENGLISH
There has been much discussion lately regarding the establishment of English as the official or national language for the United States. Usually, this topic is presented in the form of a debate as to whether or not the country is better served by having a common or uniform language to conduct all of its business in both public and private matters. Proponents of an official language argue that our nation was founded in English and that all of the official founding documents including the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution etc. were written in English and that all of our official national legislation and official government business is also conducted using the English language. Opponents of establishing an official language counter with the argument of inclusion and multi culturalism and define our nation as a land of many diverse cultures, national origins and languages. Hence, to establish English as an official language, in this view, is to deprive non-English speakers of the use of their native language. This issue is the subject of a much larger debate that touches upon many more far reaching subjects such as immigration, public education and the like all of which require a detailed discussion which is not our purpose here.
For our purposes here it will be argued that English should indeed be used as the proper language for conducting our public and official business. This is not to say that English should replace Spanish, Vietnamese or Portuguese but that it must replace Jargonise. Consider this composite document being sent to you:
“We absolutely need to bring all the stakeholders to the table to dialogue cutting edge and replicable paradigms to leverage new funding streams and access new monies to craft a tapestry of seamless, strategic, synergistic, systemic, and sustainable modalities of holistic, wrap around services to impact all of our community partners in a proactive, inclusionary and collaborative manner. We must challenge ourselves to think outside the box and keep everyone in the loop; we need to be ahead of the curve and have a short learning curve; we must step up to the plate even though we may have a full plate; we need to hit the ground running and realize that it is amarathon and not a sprint; we need to raise the bar but also level the playing field; we must avoid the slippery slope but be incentivized to get out of our functional silos, and we must realize that it is not a slam-dunk but a call to interface and carve out a model of best practices and visionary,
state-of-the-art methodologies to go the full nine yards in addressing the huge challenges before us.”
Or
“We will have a meeting of all interested parties to discuss new ways to increase funding.”
If effective communication is essential to success in the public domain, then the language used should be understood by as many people as possible. Most industries and service sectors have their own separate language nuances that are easily understood by the people who work there. However, it appears that more than ever we, in the public sector, are replacing our use of English with the use of some hybrid form of a new-age American dialect that has only a faint resemblance to the original language. Why not just keep the language, and therefore it meaning, as simple and understandable as possible. When did it become necessary to butcher the language and ignore any pretense to observing the rules of grammar? “What we have here is a failure to communicate.” These famous words may be better suited for America in the 21st century than they were for the nation years ago. In its most simple form, communication is the basic means by which one person makes his thoughts known to others. Should it not go without saying therefore, that those others should understand your thoughts? I have been asked many times for the one magic elixir or most important rule of effective communication. Invariably, the response is a variation of speak English, use proper grammar and avoid jargon; i.e., keep it simple, clear and concise.
I would rather invite people to a meeting than incentive stakeholders to come to the table. However, once I find that elusive table I will ask those in attendance to explain when money became monies, when big and bigger became huge, when something definite became absolutely, when the nouns impact, access and leverage became verbs, and when did all the sports analogies creep into our everyday use? I will also ask them if they ever thought inside the box, and whether they even know what the box analogy is. (most do not) I am not sure if I can slam dunk if the bar is raised any higher (unless the playing field is not level); and what if I want to sprint to a quick solution to a problem? Where is that slippery slope, and is it anywhere near the curve I am supposed to be ahead of? These, and many other equally inane, questions may never be answered ( and probably never should have been asked.) Thus, I will stay with the recommendation to use clear, concise language and avoid the use of meaningless jargon. We can distinguish ourselves as communicators by the simple art of keeping it simple and understandable. After all, when we step up to the plate we want to knock it out of the park.
STEPHEN R. WILLAND
