The Poverty-Weather-Suicide Correlation

I’m enjoying the conference I’m currently attending because there are people here from all over.  Aside from me there are only two Americans, but there is a large contingent from Europe and Africa.  Since I am a bit unusual as I haven’t left Africa for the past year a number of people have approached me and asked a variety of questions about my time here on the continent.  Today I had a conversation with someone about poverty in Africa.  I told her that most government officials in Africa regard poverty as being out of their control, something they simply can’t change.  Just like they can’t predict or influence the weather, they can’t influence or change the occurrence of poverty.

Botswana is considered an upper middle income economy, but according to the World Bank 32.9% of the population still lives below the national poverty level.  Of course, Botswana is the wealthiest country in sub-Saharan Africa.  I know I’ve mentioned some of the unemployment issues in countries like Nigeria (54.7% of the population lives in poverty) and Zimbabwe (72% poverty), that Lesotho (56.6% poverty) used to be so poor that one of their primary exports was human blood, and that Congo (71.3% poverty) is so unfortunate they can’t afford to eat the cassava and instead they eat the leaves from the plant.  Poverty alleviation is a huge key term which you hear all over the place.  But the truth is most African leaders don’t think poverty can be cured, so they don’t really sweat it.

It should be noted that poverty alleviation is different from economic growth.  I have a friend who works for the World Bank.  His job is to identify aspiring entrepreneurs, give them micro loans- typically $1,000 or less- in an effort to get them to improve their socioeconomic status.  He can’t GIVE this money away!  He told me about a conversation he had with a fisherman.  The fisherman said he caught three fish each day and then sold them; that would meet his needs.  Mr. World Bank explained he would loan him money to buy a new boat, or new nets, or whatever he needed to improve his business so he could catch more fish.  The fisherman’s response: “I don’t need to catch more fish.” Mr. WB explained if the fisherman caught more fish he could send his son to university, or have the money if his wife got sick, or maybe just buy some milk for his family.  The fisherman said he didn’t need money in case those things happened.  He said when his wife got sick he would just catch five or six fish that day to buy her medicine or pay the doctor.

The reason the fisherman in the story didn’t want to earn extra money is because he would never get to save that money, so it was pointless.  The challenge with elevating Africa out of poverty and improving standards of living is because the culture here does not encourage future planning.  Family ties are important and everything is communal.  This means if the fisherman catches 10 fish and suddenly has more money his aunt in the village will show up and ask for the money to pay her medical bills.  If he catches 20 fish he won’t see any profit from that either because his distant cousin in the next village will ask for the money to pay the bride price for her son’s upcoming marriage.  If he catches 50 fish then the niece of his neighbor’s granddaughter in the country next door will show up on his doorstep asking for a loan to pay for her father’s funeral announcement.  And the cycle continues and never ends.

As I continued my conversation with the woman at the conference today she asked me how Africans are able to withstand so much poverty, violence, government instability, persecution, disease and everything else they put up with.  Just last night I finished the book David and Goliath by Malcolm Gladwell.  In his book, Gladwell states that happiness is measured on a sliding scale in relation to one’s peers.  He states that Switzerland has the happiest people in the world.  However, Switzerland also has one of the highest suicide rates.  By contrast, Africans are significantly less happy because of all the challenges associated with living here, but since everyone else here is miserable (at least in terms of material possessions, wealth, etc.) the suicide rate is very low because they can’t look at others and be envious since everyone is in the same (sad) boat.

Presidential Protocol

If you’ve been following my blog for a while and read my posting back in December about How to Make a Speech (in Africa) then you probably already know where I’m going with this title.  If you missed that blog you can read it here.

As I mentioned yesterday I am here in Mauritius for the Advances in Hospitality and Tourism Marketing and Management Conference.  The fun thing about going to conferences in Africa is that the organizers take them very seriously, so they often bring high ranking public officials to be keynote speakers or guests of honor in order to show attendees how much the country values the topic of the event.  For instance, at the opening session of the conference today the President of Mauritius was the keynote speaker.  In the past year I have seen President Khama of Botswana, President Mugabe of Zimbabwe, President Sata of Zambia and now President Purryag of Mauritius at conferences.  In the last 35 years I have NOT seen Presidents Carter, Reagan, Clinton or Obama.  I did have breakfast with former President Bush Sr. when he was a speaker at an event I did in Vegas and while I didn’t meet W. (George W. Bush) I did ride in his limo when he did an event of mine while I was working at Disney- though that was before he became prez.  To put this in perspective, I have a 100% presidential citing average at conferences in Africa.  Considering the fact I have probably organized at least 500 events over the years that means I have seen presidents at 0.004% of my events in the U.S.

Of course, having a president, or any well-known public servant attend an event here calls for protocol.  First there is a red carpet.  I didn’t take a picture of today’s red carpet because it wasn’t one of the nicer red carpets I’ve seen in the last 12 months.  But, you can see Mugabe’s red carpet here if you like.  Of course, before the official of note shows up there is the corralling of all the staff at the hotel, as well as the entourage.  Mugabe travels with a presidential escort of 60 vehicles and hundreds of personal guards and staff.  I didn’t witness the line of all the hotel employees standing outside the hotel for inspection upon arrival by President Purryag today, but I know it happened based on reports by other conference attendees.

Once the official arrives there is the playing of the national anthem, then the seating ceremony.  Now, up until this point I follow along like a well behaved guest.  I only reveal my true colors once the speeches begin.  And today was no exception to the rule.  Each time someone spent five minutes saying hello to all the honored delegates and then stated, “Protocol observed” it was all I could do not to burst into laughter. Again, if you don’t know what I’m talking about with the “protocol observed” you REALLY need to read this blog post.

All in all the visit from President Purryag was positive.  He had a lot of good comments regarding tourism in Mauritius and Africa as a whole.  Plus, it was fun to have one final reminder about protocol and speeches before I head home.  Thanks for the memory President Purryag!

Quality Assurance

One of the best things about being a professor is encompassed in the phrase “academic freedom.” For anyone reading this who isn’t a professor or graduate student, academic freedom means that academics are permitted to research and teach without any significant limitations. As long as the professor teaches the objectives in the course he can use whatever methods (ethically and within reason of course) to do so. That’s why if four different professors teach the same course, they can get away with using completely different assignments, tests and grading methods.

Due to the academic freedom mantra, this means many professors often have little if any idea as to what their colleagues are teaching or how they are doing it. Since I am the Associate Department Chair I see the syllabi from my faculty and may sit in on classes from time to time, but if I wasn’t an administrator I wouldn’t be given that kind of access.

Here at the University of Botswana academic freedom exists and is readily championed, but there is a second belief system which is just as prevalent, if not more so: “quality assurance.” When I first learned about quality assurance back in July I was really excited by the prospect. I was told that all the faculty in the department would get together several times before and during the semester to give input on one another’s classes. Hearing this, I was jealous as I wish I had this kind of input back home. I’ve tried at other times in several institutions to encourage professors to include particular concepts in their classes to better prepare students for future coursework (i.e my classes). However, each time I’ve requested someone to include an extra topic I’ve been met with pushback: “I don’t have time.” “That’s not in my syllabus.” “I don’t know anything about that topic.” I’ve even offered to go into someone else’s class and teach a certain module and still haven’t received a welcoming response. So when I heard about quality assurance here I was gung-ho, until of course I entered my first quality assurance meeting.

My first quality assurance meeting was back in July. The six professors and lecturers in the Tourism & Hospitality Management department met to examine one another’s course syllabi. I quickly realized my idea of quality assurance was worlds apart from the accepted standard. Rather than providing suggestions for topics to include in the course or feedback on assessment rubrics, it was a communal proofreading session. The better part of an hour was spent on one particular syllabus debating whether the comma went before or after the word "and." I cannot tell you whether a consensus was ever reached as I eventually became so disenchanted with the whole situation I tuned out and when asked for an opinion I conceded, “Sounds good to me.” At that point I was so worn down they could have been asking me if I was in favor of drowning puppies for fun and I would have agreed.

Recently we had another quality assurance meeting. Apparently I did not learn my lesson the first time, and entered this meeting bright eyed and bushy tailed only to have the wind quickly sucked out of my sails yet again. The agenda called for everyone to have their final exams written so that they could be reviewed by the group. Expecting to receive recommendations about the rigor or wording of questions I immediately realized this was another exercise in editing. My graduate students readily brag/commiserate/dread my love of the English language and resulting tendency towards Nazi-esque editing. As such, the only issue with my final exam was the fact I wrote November 2013 Examination Period on the exam cover sheet instead of November/December 2013 Examination Period. Sadly, not everyone’s final was as straightforward. Ms. Comma from the July quality assurance meeting had several dozen grammatical errors which took a good chunk of time during the meeting. But the real impasse came when the group could not decide whether Ms. Comma’s exam should utilize bullet points or alphabetic sub-questions.

While I think quality assurance is a great idea and I wish universities would utilize this practice to actually improve their courses, I’m disappointed the concept isn’t better applied here. While I am here at UB I will gladly contribute what I can to assuring quality by providing my editorial expertise, but since I likely won’t be able to institute a quality assurance component back home I will be satisfied with my academic freedom.

A “short” “200 meters” is “no problem” because “Who knows? This is Greece.”

In many places I have lived and travelled, I find there to be certain phrases unique to a geographic location which I dread hearing.

When I was in Sierra Leone I remember the phrase, “No problem.”  That is probably my all-time least favorite phrase.  Even today, no matter where I am in the world, if someone says, “No problem” I immediately cringe and wonder whether they are giving me lip service. The culture in Sierra Leone is such that people don’t like to say “No.” So rather than say no to a request they avoid saying yes.  “No problem” doesn’t exactly guarantee the affirmative; it simply implies there is a possibility.  Here’s an example: “Can I get a side of fries with my burger?” “No problem.” The waiter didn’t say fries were impossible, but he also didn’t say fries were available.  If this same question was asked in the U.S. using the resources of the Sierra Leonean waiter the answer would have been, “Fries? HA! We don’t have fries!  We don’t have burgers either.  Really, nothing that is on the menu is here.  I’ll tell you what, here’s some cassava, enjoy it while you can because there is no guarantee we will have that or anything else tomorrow.”  In case you were wondering, yes, I did order a burger with fries.  The waiter told me it was “No problem” and then came back with boiled cassava.  When I asked he said that was the only ingredient they had in the kitchen that day.

I admire the Greeks; they have a very laid back attitude about everything.  Of course, of late all that has gotten them is a $300 billion debt and a lot of resentment from Germany. But the Greeks’ laissez-faire attitude prompted one of my other least favorite expressions, “Who knows? This is Greece.” The “This is Greece” part of the equation is meant as a stand-alone explanation to justify the lack of a real answer (i.e. “Who knows?”).  I remember entering a train station to purchase a ticket, having been told there was a 3 o’clock train.  When I approached the ticket booth I asked when the next train would arrive.  The clerk told me, “Well, one came through yesterday.  And I know there should be another train on Sunday.” Confused I said, “Well, it’s Friday.  Is there a 3 o’clock train today?  Or is there any train scheduled today? Going anywhere?” His response: “Who knows? This is Greece.” The next day I caught a bus.

During the year I lived in London I learned that the British have no concept of distance.  To them everything is 200 meters away, whether it is within arm’s length or on the other side of the globe.  Seriously, ask a Brit, “How far away is the U.S.?” and he would probably tell you, “Jump in the water and start swimming.  You should run right into the Statue of Liberty in about 200 meters.” I remember going to Scotland with a friend, in the middle of a blizzard no less, and wanting to visit Urquhart Castle on the banks of Loch Ness, where the monster lives.  We took a bus to the village of Drumnadrochit and then asked directions to the castle.  We were told to follow the road about 200 meters and we couldn’t miss it.  Remember, this was in the middle of a blizzard, so there was snow EVERYWHERE! We walked for what seemed like days and when we got to the castle we saw a sign reading, “The Castle is closed for construction.” Having walked 1.2 miles uphill we were now forced to turn around and head back down to the village, having not seen anything except endless snow and sheep.

Today I identified my least favorite phrase here in Botswana: “short.” Sadly, I am not as smart as I thought I was because it took me a full three months to realize “short” translates into at least five times as long as I would anticipate.  It finally hit me today as I was sitting in a meeting.  I was asked to attend a “short" meeting about hiring an adjunct lecturer.  The meeting was scheduled at 9am and I told my boss that I could attend the meeting since it was supposed to be “short” because I had an appointment with a student at 10.  The student did not show at 10am so I remained in the meeting.  At 11:37 the meeting concluded.  The “short” meeting lasted a full two hours and 37 minutes!

 
Tomorrow I have another faculty meeting to attend in which I am supposed to introduce myself to the rest of the faculty in my college.  I was told to prepare a “short” statement about myself.  I am debating whether I should abide by the Kelly-approved definition of short and give a two minute overview.  Or should I adhere to Botswana’s “short” introduction?  I will have to give this some serious thought.

Less talk and more pictures from the UNWTO

I realize my blog posting from yesterday was longer than usual and didn’t even contain any pictures.  So I will take this opportunity to show you a few pictures from the UNWTO conference.

In my previous post about the Opening Ceremony I mentioned that President Mugabe of Zimbabwe was staying at my hotel.  And one of the comments I made was that each time he entered or exited the hotel the staff “rolled out the red carpet.”  Well, in case you thought I was exaggerating, here is his red carpet waiting for him to exit the hotel again:

In the same post I stated that his car was parked right out front and babysat, while the rest of us had to go through security.  As you can see here is his car with the Zimbabwean flag on the front, along with the security person responsible for the car in the white shirt on the right side, and if you look at the top of the stairs there was the metal detector and security personnel checking all guests entering the property:

Since it wasn’t clear in the previous picture, here you can see the license plate on President Mugabe’s car reads “Zim 1,” kind of like Air Force One, but a vehicle:

In yesterday’s post I mentioned the brand new BMW motorcycles for the police as seen here:

 And then you have to look closely inside the police car, but you can sort of see through the open window the plastic coverings still on the seats:

Here is a shot of the actual building where all the general session meetings were held.  It was easier to take this picture when no one was in the building because when it was full of several hundred people it was just incredibly hectic and difficult to get a good shot:

Finally, here are the dignitaries who attended and spoke during the Closing Ceremony.  The Minister of Tourism and the Arts from Zambia, Secretary General of the UNWTO Taleb Rafai, President Mugabe of Zimbabwe, President Sata of Zambia and Vice President Guy Scott.  By the way, Vice President Scott  is white.  As he said in his speech, “You are probably surprised to see I’m white. In fact, I am the only white vice president to serve under a black president with the exception of Vice President Biden and President Obama.”  In this photo President Sata was giving his address:

 

UNWTO Opening Ceremony

Last night was the Opening Ceremony for the UNWTO General Assembly.  To sum up my experience in just a few words: “fun, chaos, long speeches, hungry attendees.”

Since the UNWTO is being co-hosted by Zimbabwe and Zambia that means there is twice the protocol, twice as many VIPs,  and twice the opportunity for confusion to occur.  As many of those of you reading this blog know, I formerly worked in the events industry and I often teach courses in event management to my students back in Texas.  Last night’s event highlighted practically everything I tell my students about in that class.

The Opening Ceremony was held at the historic Victoria Falls Hotel which is about 5 miles from where I’m staying.  Buses were transporting attendees from the official delegate hotels, including mine.  However, President Mugabe of Zimbabwe has been staying here at the Elephant Hills Hotel, which makes things infinitely more challenging.  We have to go through metal detectors and have belongings x-rayed each time we enter the hotel.  His car is parked right out front with a team of security surrounding it at all times, along with about 100 police scattered around the property, and each time he arrives and departs they roll out the red carpet.  Literately!  There is a red carpet which he walks on from the entrance of the hotel out to his car.

Due to the President being here all the buses from my hotel were forced to wait until he left, thus we all arrived a bit late for the event.  Not that it mattered, because there were about 5,000 people at the Opening Ceremony which meant arrivals took a considerable amount of time.  However, since we arrived later than most empty seats were difficult to locate.  Fortunately I was with a friend who convinced a server to bring us two chairs and then we found some other people we knew and joined their table.

But, before we could eat we had to witness the official arrivals and welcomes.  First the Zimbabwean VP arrived, then the Zambia VP, then the UNWTO Secretary General, then President Mugabe of Zimbabwe, then President Sata of Zambia, and finally the other Heads of State.  Once they were all present and introduced we listed to the Zambian national anthem, and then the Zimbabwe national anthem.  See how this was a little long?  At this point no one had even made a speech yet.

To expedite this description I will just list in order what happened next: prayer for dinner, safe travels and a productive conference; welcome remarks by Zimbabwean Minister of Tourism and Hospitality; remarks from the Zambian Minister of Tourism and Arts; remarks from the UNWTO Secretary General; address from President Sata; address from President Mugabe; lighting of the Victoria Falls Bridge and fireworks; address from VP of Zimbabwe.  Then we were told we could eat.  According to our program dinner was supposed to begin at 8:00pm.  Dinner was finally served at 9:42pm.  Better late than never?  I guess.

Overall, I would say it was very interesting.  Some of the comments made by the politicians were quite comical.  For instance, President Mugabe referred to President Sata as his “Siamese president.”  I suppose that is because the two of them have relatively good relations now and are “joined at the hip,” at least for the conference.

The Opening Ceremony took place outside, thus my pictures aren’t particularly good since it was nighttime.  But here are a few I thought you might enjoy.  Here is the caravan of vehicles which comprised President Mugabe’s motorcade:

This is the backside of the Victoria Falls Hotel with the Presidents and other Heads of State arriving through the arch and lots of tables in the forefront of hungry delegates:

Apparently most conferences here in Africa involve a ribbon cutting.  Instead of doing this, the Victoria Falls Bridge was illuminating in the distance and fireworks were set off to announce the official opening of the conference:

 

Related, relevant, and, or...

My department is looking to hire a Lecturer.  A Lecturer position is similar to an Assistant Professor position in the U.S. The person is expected to teach, conduct research and carry out service responsibilities.  However, I learned in a faculty meeting this morning that the hiring process is quite different here.

In the U.S. we don’t hire faculty members sight unseen.  Typically, a faculty candidate will travel to the university for a 2-3 day interview, during which time he will teach a class, do a research presentation and meet with all the faculty and dean.  Here there are no campus interviews.  They don’t even do phone interviews!  Bear in mind this is for a full time position, so if this person is hired he will stay on faculty full time, forever.  Thus, it is important not to hire the wrong person.

Rather than ever speaking to job applicants the hiring decision is made based on a spreadsheet containing information about each person’s qualifications.  We are expected to look at the information and determine, based on the job posting, whether each applicant is “appointable.”  “Appointable” means the person meets the required qualifications and is eligible for hire.  If ANYONE on the list of candidates is appointable, then someone must be hired. Thus, even if we know we don’t like a person, but that person is appointable, we are expected to hire that individual.

Ok, now that you have the background information, we had five applicants for the Lecturer job.  Three were “not appointable” because they either didn’t have a graduate degree already or were missing some other major requirement.  So these three were straightforward.  However, the other two were mediocre.  We didn’t really like them and didn’t want to hire them, but they were decent.  However, the department chair insisted we make a ruling on them.  And he kept reminding us that if one of them was deemed apointable that we would have to hire that person.  Apparently he must go before a university-wide board explaining the department’s decision as to who was appointable, who wasn’t, why the decision was made, and other seemingly bizarre questions.

As I was saying, we didn’t like the two candidates who appeared to be qualified.  Both candidates had graduate degrees in Environmental Sciences, not Tourism, which was our preference.  We referred back to the job posting which stated, “Applicants MUST have: a Master’s Degree in Tourism or RELATED fields, Bachelor’s Degree in the RELEVANT discipline, show evidence of engagement of research AND service.” For clarification, I added the capitalizations and bolding.

We spent no less than an hour discussing whether Environmental Sciences was a RELATED field or RELEVANT.  Finally, we came to the agreement that it was related, but not relevant enough to qualify the person to teach Tourism courses.  (Yes, you would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in this meeting!) However, we still needed to address the last part of the sentence: whether the person demonstrated “evidence of research AND service.”  I immediately pointed out neither candidate had research experience.  To which someone else replied, “Yes, both they both have service.”  Naturally I took my observation of the RELATED versus RELEVANT argument and used it to my benefit, “Yes, but the advertisement states ‘evidence of research AND service.’ It doesn’t say research OR service.  Since neither have both research AND service they both fail to meet the requirements.  I vote they are both unappointable!”

In the end we decided neither candidate met the requirements and elected not to hire anyone.  It only took 2 hours and 38 minutes to reach that conclusion.  I have to admit, after the first hour of this meeting I think I had a smile plastered on my face permanently because it was all I could do not to laugh.  I just thought the entire debate about the EXACT meaning of words was ridiculous.  But apparently when you are told to “choose your words carefully” you should really make an effort to do so because you never know when you are going to have to defend them in a fight to the death.  I believe from now on I will have to carry a dictionary wherever I go, just in case.