Experts Matter. Find Yours.

Baylor Expert Shares Four Keys to Leadership from Ulysses S. Grant’s Reflections on Civil War

Near the end of his life, as he battled spiraling health and an empty bank account, former United States President – and iconic Civil War General – Ulysses S. Grant penned his memoirs and gave the world a glimpse into the mind of one of the nation’s most celebrated figures. The book, “Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant,” was published in 1885 and has been pored over for more than 135 years. Peter Campbell, Ph.D., author, associate professor of political science at Baylor University and a nationally recognized scholar on military strategy and international security, recently wrote an essay about Grant and his memoirs for Classics of Strategy and Diplomacy. He said Grant’s personal reflections provide valuable insights into his view and practice of leadership, specifically as he led Union forces in the Civil War. Below, Campbell offers four keys to leadership that he found in Grant’s writings. 1. Know Yourself. Grant was a careful observer of himself. He was able to reflect on his experience, see where he had made errors and learn from them. In July 1861, moments before what Grant thought would be his first engagement as a commander in the Civil War, he was terrified. His heart was in his throat. When he and his forces crested a rise that they thought would reveal the enemy force, they saw that the enemy had fled. “My heart resumed its place,” Grant wrote. “It occurred to me at once that [the enemy] had been as much afraid of me as I had been of him. This was a view of the question I had never taken before; but it was one I never forgot afterwards.” Grant absorbed this lesson and it transformed him as a leader and planner. 2. Know Your Enemy. The great Chinese strategists counseled that commanders must know their enemies. Grant shows us what this looks like in practice. Rather than dwelling on his fears, those things that his opponent might do that would spell disaster, Grant put himself in the shoes of his adversary and asked himself: What would my gravest fears be, were I in his position? He then designed his plan of campaign to raise the specter of his enemy’s fears, knowing that this would compel the enemy to be blinded by fear and compel them to react. To be fair, this was easier for Grant because in the Civil War he was fighting against fellow graduates of West Point and veterans of the Mexican War, including Robert E. Lee. Grant was not in awe of Lee. “I had known [Lee] personally,” Grant wrote, “and knew that he was mortal; and it was just as well that I felt this.” This does not diminish, but rather reinforces, the importance on studying one’s adversary carefully in any kind of competition. 3. Know Your People. As Grant rose in the ranks of the Union Army, he was pulled away from the sound of the guns and the command of troops in battle. This is true in any organization – the higher one rises the further one gets from the ground truth, whether in an army or a Fortune 500 company. Grant recognized that to influence the battles he could no longer superintend, he had to select the right subordinates for the job and then give them the authority to exercise the initiative in their area of responsibility. This meant that Grant also had to be a careful observer of the strengths and weaknesses of his subordinates. Even a hero of the Battle of Gettysburg like Major General Gouverneur Warren was not spared Grant’s penetrating character assessments. Warren’s weakness, Grant wrote, was that he could not trust his subordinates to carry out his orders, which meant that he could not be give a large command. “[Warren’s] difficulty was constitutional and beyond his control,” Grant wrote. “He was an officer of superior ability, quick perception, and personal courage to accomplish anything that could be done with a small command.” When you know your people, you know where to place them where their strengths will reinforce success and their weaknesses will be least disastrous. 4. Unleash the Power of Humility. The most decisive virtue that Grant practiced was humility. As a leader he did not allow pride in his own designs to blind him to the wisdom of his subordinates. Late in the war, Grant wrote up a campaign plan for attacking the Shenandoah Valley, the key source of supply to the Confederacy. He brought the plan to General Philip Sheridan for execution. However, when he met with Sheridan, the cavalry officer presented Grant with his own plan. Grant wrote that Sheridan “was so clear and so positive in his views and so confident of success, I said nothing about [my campaign plan] and did not take it out of my pocket.” When you lead, don’t let pride get in the way of the best ideas bubbling up from your subordinates. ABOUT PETER CAMPBELL, PH.D. Peter Campbell, Ph.D., is an associate professor of political science in Baylor University’s College of Arts & Sciences. He is the author of two books: “Military Realism: The Logic and Limits of Force and Innovation in the U.S. Army” and “Farewell to the Marshal Statesman: The Decline of Military Experience Among Politicians and its Consequences.” Campbell studies international security, civil-military relations, strategy and national security decision-making, international relations scholarship and policy relevance, insurgency and counterinsurgency, the just war tradition, unconventional warfare and advanced military technology, military culture, and the effects of cyber capabilities on conflict escalation. ABOUT BAYLOR UNIVERSITY Baylor University is a private Christian University and a nationally ranked research institution. The University provides a vibrant campus community for more than 19,000 students by blending interdisciplinary research with an international reputation for educational excellence and a faculty commitment to teaching and scholarship. Chartered in 1845 by the Republic of Texas through the efforts of Baptist pioneers, Baylor is the oldest continually operating University in Texas. Located in Waco, Baylor welcomes students from all 50 states and more than 90 countries to study a broad range of degrees among its 12 nationally recognized academic divisions. ABOUT THE COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCES AT BAYLOR UNIVERSITY The College of Arts & Sciences is Baylor University’s largest academic division, consisting of 25 academic departments and eight academic centers and institutes. The more than 5,000 courses taught in the College span topics from art and theatre to religion, philosophy, sociology and the natural sciences. Faculty conduct research around the world, and research on the undergraduate and graduate level is prevalent throughout all disciplines. Visit baylor.edu/artsandsciences.

Fourth time a charm? Election audits are getting political in the Peach State

If at first you don’t succeed – try and try again. And Republicans did in Georgia, demanding multiple audits of last November’s presidential election, looking under every ballot box for evidence of election fraud, tampering or other shenanigans that could be used to put the results in doubt. So far, nothing has been found. But that’s not stopping those with an eye on a political future from backing down. In fact, election audits are now a hot topic for those looking to occupy the governor’s mansion in Atlanta. In a bid to bolster former President Donald Trump's lies about widespread fraud in the 2020 election, Trump's Republican allies are now seeking Arizona-style audits in other swing states – including Georgia, where the former President's false claims have set off an intraparty war. A day after Trump said in a statement that Georgia should follow Arizona's lead, former Georgia state Rep. Vernon Jones, a Trump supporter who is challenging incumbent Republican Gov. Brian Kemp in next year's GOP primary, proposed an audit Wednesday. "Georgians still have questions about irregularities found in the 2020 election and they deserve answers," he said in a statement. "We must get to the bottom of all of this and other irregularities to restore trust in our election process. If Mr. Kemp refuses to demand an audit, then I will when I am elected to replace him." Jones' characterization of the election was false: Georgia has already tallied the results to confirm Biden's victory there three times and conducted an audit of absentee ballot signatures. The state found no evidence of fraud, and Kemp and other Republican state officials have backed the findings. May 19 – CNN “This call for yet another ballot review is nothing but political theater," says Dr. Gregg R. Murray, professor of political science at Augusta University. "It’s extremely unlikely it would uncover anything that would overturn the 2020 election or substantial irregularities. It would be a huge waste of taxpayer money.” Despite the findings, this is an issue that won’t likely be going away soon, and if you are covering this topic, then let our expert help with your story. Dr. Gregg R. Murray, is available to talk about the election audit and what it might mean for voters in Georgia and across the country. Murray’s research focuses on political behavior and psychology with specific interests in voter mobilization and turnout. He is also executive director of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences. Simply click on Murray's icon to arrange an interview today.

First Commercial-Scale Wind Farm in the U.S. Would Generate Electricity to Power 400,000 Homes

The Vineyard Wind project, located off the coast of Massachusetts, is the first major offshore wind farm in the United States. It is part of a larger push to tackle climate change, with other offshore wind projects along the East Coast under federal review. The U.S. Department of the Interior has estimated that, by the end of the decade, 2,000 turbines could be along the coast, stretching from Massachusetts to North Carolina. "While the case for offshore wind power appears to be growing due to real concerns about global warming, there are still people who fight renewable energy projects based on speculation, misinformation, climate denial and 'not in my backyard' attitudes," says Karl F. Schmidt, a professor of practice in Villanova University's College of Engineering and director of the Resilient Innovation through Sustainable Engineering (RISE) Forum. "There is overwhelming scientific evidence that use of fossil fuels for power generation is driving unprecedented levels of CO2 into our atmosphere and oceans. This causes sea level rise, increasing ocean temperature and increasing ocean acidity, all which have numerous secondary environmental, economic and social impacts." Schmidt notes that what's often missing for large capital projects like the Vineyard Wind project is a life cycle assessment (LCA), which looks at environmental impacts throughout the entire life cycle of the project, i.e., from raw material extraction, manufacturing and construction through operation and maintenance and end of life. These impacts, in terms of tons/CO2 equivalent, can then be compared with the baseline—in this case, natural gas/coal power plants. "With this comprehensive look, I suspect the LCA for an offshore wind farm would be significantly less than a fossil fuel power plant," says Prof. Schmidt. Complementing the LCA should be a thorough, holistic view encompassing the pertinent social, technological, environmental, economic and political (STEEP) aspects of the project, notes Prof. Schmidt. "This would include all views of affected stakeholders, such as residents, fishermen, local officials and labor markets. Quantifying these interdependent aspects can lead to a more informed and balanced decision-making process based on facts and data." "At Villanova's Sustainable Engineering Department, we've successfully used both the LCA and STEEP processes... for many of our RISE Forum member companies' projects," notes Prof. Schmidt.

Why is the FDA funded in part by the companies it regulates?

In a recent piece published in The Conversation, C. Michael White, Distinguished Professor and head of the Department of Pharmacy Practice at the University of Connecticut shares his perspective on the Food and Drug Administration and its past and current role and influence in America. “The Food and Drug Administration has moved from an entirely taxpayer-funded entity to one increasingly funded by user fees paid by manufacturers that are being regulated. Today, close to 45% of its budget comes from these user fees that companies pay when they apply for approval of a medical device or drug. As a pharmacist and medication and dietary supplement safety researcher, I understand the vital role that the FDA plays in ensuring the safety of medications and medical devices. But I, along with many others, now wonder: Was this move a clever win-win for the manufacturers and the public, or did it place patient safety second to corporate profitability? It is critical that the U.S. public understand the positive and negative ramifications so the nation can strike the right balance.” May 13 - The Conversation The entire piece is a captivating read and a remarkably interesting topic with regards to accountability, transparency, and the influence big pharma holds across many levels of the United States government. And if you are a journalist looking to cover this topic, then let us help. Dr. White is available to speak with media -- click on his icon now, to arrange an interview today.

UMW Professor Jason Davidson speaks to The Guardian about ‘Costs of War’ in Afghanistan

As America readies to end its military presence in Afghanistan, there’s been much reflection and examining of the role America and its NATO allies played in the war-torn country. A report released just this week shed some light and much-needed perspective on the topic. University of Mary Washington Professor of Political Science and International Affairs Jason Davidson, the study's author, was contacted by The Guardian to lend his expert opinion. “British and Canadian troops were more than twice as likely to get killed in Afghanistan as their US counterparts, according to a study that looks at the scale of the sacrifice made by Nato allies over the course of the 20-year war. The UK also gave more to Afghanistan than the US in the form of economic and humanitarian assistance as a percentage of GDP, the study published on Wednesday by the Costs of War project at Brown University in the US found. Although the US suffered by far the greatest number of fatalities in absolute terms compared with other members of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) – 2,316 American troops were killed between 2001 and 2017, the period of the study – Canadians and British soldiers sent to Afghanistan were more likely to die. The Costs of War report looks at fatalities as a percentage of national troop levels at peak deployment in Afghanistan. The US losses were 2.3% of its vast military presence. The UK lost 455 lives, which was 4.7% of its peak deployment level, while the 158 Canadians killed represented 5.4% of their total. The study refers to a grim joke told by American soldiers in Afghanistan that ISAF stood for “I Saw Americans Fight”, but points out in the case of the UK and Canada at least it was grossly unfair. “Americans do not fully understand, do not acknowledge, the sacrifices that allies made in Afghanistan,” said Jason Davidson, the author of the report, and professor of political science and international affairs at the University of Mary Washington. “It’s something that not only doesn’t get attention from those who are critics of the allies. It doesn’t even get the attention that it deserves from those who are generally cheerleaders for allies, like the current administration. I would like to see more American policymaker acknowledgment and discussion with the public of the costs that America’s allies have incurred in these wars.” May 12 - The Guardian There will be a lot of coverage in the lead up to America’s exit from Afghanistan, and if you are a reporter looking to cover that topic or the ‘Costs of War’ project, then let us help. Dr. Jason Davidson is a professor of Political Science and International Affairs and is also an expert in American Foreign and Security Policy, and International Security. If you’re looking to arrange an interview with Dr. Davidson, simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.

Bridge-Building as a Career Path

Yusuhara Wooden Bridge Museum / Kengo Kuma & Associates. © Takumi Ota For my entire life I’ve imagined myself as a bridge between the U.S. and Japan. I grew up in Japan from ages one to eighteen — my parents are Southern Baptist missionaries who have lived in our heartland now for over 40 years. As an American growing up in Hokkaido, I often found myself in the position of explaining to Japanese why Americans do certain things and act certain ways, and then trying to tell Americans why Japanese or people outside of the U.S. saw the country in a particular way. This dialogue became an extension of who I am. Of course, like many children growing up, I wanted to be like my dad, who is a gifted pastor and long-term missionary. But, along the way, I realized that the role of a missionary is actually very much like that of being an ambassador or bridge-builder who represents their country, alliances, and traditions. As reinforced recently by Prime Minister Suga’s visit to the White House, the first of any international visitor for the Biden administration, the alliance with Japan is our single most strategic international relationship. Walter Russel Meade laid this out eloquently in the Wall Street Journal, “For the foreseeable future, the U.S.-Japan alliance is likely to remain the cornerstone of American foreign policy. Building the social and cultural ties that can support that relationship is an urgent task for both countries.” In my lifetime, and perhaps never before, has there been a moment like the present where the U.S. and Japan are mutually reliant to such a degree. Therefore, my personal commitment to being a bridge-builder, and our mission at Japan Society, have never been more critical. Finding my path After college I went to Turkey as a Fulbright Scholar, where I worked with the State Department through the Ambassador’s Office and the Embassy, enriching my understanding of foreign diplomacy. As I explored my interests in other parts of the world, I didn’t intend to pursue a career in U.S.-Japan relations. However, all that changed on March 11, 2011, when the Great East Japan Earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear disaster devastated the Tohoku region of northeastern Japan. At that moment, I felt a deep personal mission to help bring people from around the world together and realized that I was uniquely situated to build bridges with Japan. I had the opportunity to serve three different times in the State Department along with the Defense Department and on various Commerce Department advisory boards as I completed my academic degrees culminating with a PhD from Princeton. My time in academia and government service taught me the important skill of storytelling. When I left the State Department, I joined the strategic communications company APCO Worldwide, where I helped establish their Japan office and became immersed in Japanese public relations. Next, I had the privilege of running the USA Pavilion at the World Expo in Kazakhstan in 2017, telling America’s story from the ground up. That led me to Eurasia Group, the foremost geopolitical risk consultancy group, where I led the largest geopolitical risk summit in Japan, the GZero Summit, taking my academic, government, and public relations experience and putting it into a practical context. Embracing my ikigai Today I’m the President and CEO of Japan Society, working to take the Society’s mission into its second century, to be the deep connection, or kizuna, that brings the United States and Japan together through its peoples, culture, businesses, and societies. One of the greatest things that I see these days is concepts from Japan that have been adapted into the English lexicon — like ikigai, the idea of life’s purpose, which has become a catchphrase in our pandemic world’s search for meaning. Ikigai resonates deeply with me, because it is about finding your reason for being, your passion and calling. For me, this means being dedicated to promoting global understanding and helping make the world a better place. I don’t think I would have told you two years ago that I would be the President and CEO of Japan Society. It is an opportunity that caught me by surprise in some ways. But in other ways, now that I am here, it feels like the most natural job I’ve ever done, and I cannot think of a better place I would rather be or a better way to live out my ikigai. At Japan Society’s founding luncheon on May 19, 1907, the guest of honor, General Baron Kuroki “wished the new organization a long and successful health.” As The New York Times reported, “The object of the new organization will be the promotion of friendly relations between the United States and Japan.” Now in its second century, our work of bridge-building continues today. Joshua Walker (@drjwalk) is president and CEO of Japan Society. Follow @japansociety. The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.

Facebook Oversight Board’s Trump Ruling Underscores Need for Clear Regulatory Frameworks for Social Media

The Facebook Oversight Board’s ruling temporarily upholding the social media giant’s ban on former President Donald J. Trump, which they instructed the company to reassess within six months, noted that the parameters for an indefinite suspension are not defined in Facebook's policies. The non-decision in this high-profile case illustrates the difficulties stemming from the lack of clear frameworks for regulating social media. For starters, says web science pioneer James Hendler, social media companies need a better definition of the misinformation they seek curb. Absent a set of societally agreed upon rules, like those that define slander and libel, companies currently create and enforce their own policies — and the results have been mixed at best. “If Trump wants to sue to get his Facebook or Twitter account back, there’s no obvious legal framework. There’s nothing to say of the platform, ‘If it does X, Y, or Z, then it is violating the law,’” said Hendler, director of the Institute for Data Exploration and Applications at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. “If there were, Trump would have to prove in court that it doesn’t do X, Y, or Z, or Twitter would have to prove that it does, and we would have a way to adjudicate it.” As exemplified in disputes over the 2020 presidential election results, political polarization is inflamed by a proliferation of online misinformation. A co-author of the seminal 2006 Science article that established the concept of web science, Hendler said that “as society wrestles with the social, ethical, and legal questions surrounding misinformation and social media regulation, it needs technologist to help inform this debate.” “People are claiming artificial intelligence will handle this, but computers and AI are very bad at ‘I’ll know it when I see it,’” said Hendler, who’s most recent book is titled Social Machines: The Coming Collision of Artificial Intelligence, Social Networking, and Humanity. “What we need is a framework that makes it much clearer: What are we looking for? What happens when we find it? And who’s responsible?” The legal restrictions on social media companies are largely dictated by a single sentence in the Communications Decency Act of 1996, known as Section 230, which establishes that internet providers and services will not be treated as traditional publishers, and thus are not legally responsible for much of the content they link to. According to Hendler, this clause no longer adequately addresses the scale and scope of power these companies currently wield. “Social media companies provide a podium with an international reach of hundreds of millions of people. Just because social media companies are legally considered content providers rather than publishers, it doesn’t mean they’re not responsible for anything on their site,” Hendler said. “What counts as damaging misinformation? With individuals and publishers, we answer that question all the time with libel and slander laws. But what we don’t have is a corresponding set of principles to adjudicate harm through social media.” Hendler has extensive experience in policy and advisory positions that consider aspects of artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and internet and web technologies as they impact issues such as regulation of social media, and powerful technologies including facial recognition and artificial intelligence. Hendler is available to speak to diverse aspects of policies related to social media, information technologies, and AI.

Kelley School expert who studies causes and effects of recalls available to discuss Peloton

Peloton Interactive Inc. on May 5 announced that it is recalling its treadmills in a statement from CEO John Foley who also apologized for the company’s initial refusal to comply with federal safety regulators’ prior request for this action. George Ball, assistant professor of operations and decision technologies and Weimer Faculty Fellow at the Indiana University Kelley School of Business, studies the causes and effects of product recalls. Below are comments from Ball. He can be reached at gpball@indiana.edu. “Recall decisions like this are very difficult for managers to make, especially the ones that are high profile and associated with consumer injury. Managers have to balance the firm financial health with consumer safety. Thus, this is a rich area of research. The research that my colleagues and I undertake in this field deal both with the regulator and the firm. My comments will attempt to address both perspectives. “I will start with the regulator. I am currently involved in a research project with two colleagues that is specifically critiquing the Consumer Product Safety Commission for situations very similar to this Peloton recall. There are three main regulators in the US that oversee product quality and in particular recalls: the FDA, NHTSA and the CPSC. “Of those, CPSC is the least proactive and in my view, least successful in properly managing product recalls and their timeliness. This is because there are two main ways in which a firm can push firms to recall; they can force them to, or they can work with the firm management to help encourage them, or nudge them, to recall. The FDA is very good at influencing firms while NHTSA is quite good at mandating recalls. CPSC does neither well. “In particular, the FDA frequently chooses to use their relationships with senior quality executives at firms to nudge them to recall when FDA feels it may be necessary and the firm has not yet acted upon the quality problem. Conversely, NHTSA mandates approximately 20 to 30 percent of auto recalls, such that they choose to force instead of nudge. However, in both cases, while neither industry (medical products and autos) are perfect when it comes to recall timeliness, and both have suffered unfortunate well-known examples of firms dragging their feet in the recall decision, both have a well-developed approach. “CPSC mandates practically no recalls and they do not, from my research, have strong relationships with firm executives that can help them nudge firms to make the quick recall decision. Thus, this Peloton example is one of many in which consumer product firms may take too long to recall. “From the firm perspective. There are several potential red flags that may indicate the firm took too long. The longer a consumer product industry CEO has been in their role, the slower they are to make recall decisions. This is because the longer a CEO is in the role, the less open they are to taking responsibility for such high-profile mistakes. Interestingly, a new CEO, such as one who has been in their role for two to three years, is much more likely to recall a faulty product. “The CEO of Peloton definitely falls into the category of a fairly long-tenured CEO who has his reputation tied closely to the firm’s success. Secondly, the more stock a CEO owns in their firm, the slower they are to make the recall decision, because they are trying to protect their financial welfare. The CEO of Peloton appears to have a significant fortune at stake in Peloton stock, which would be consistent with our research. The more stock a CEO owns, the slower the firm take to recall defective products.”

Expert available to discuss Facebook Oversight Board's decision on Trump's account

Reporters: Girish Mallapragada, a social media marketing expert at the Indiana University Kelley School of Business, is available Wednesday (May 5) to discuss the Facebook Oversight Board's decision to uphold Facebook's ban on former President Donald Trump. In advance of the announcement, Mallapragada, an associate professor of marketing and Weimer Faculty Fellow, said he questioned whether the board’s decision will have much of an impact on Trump’s outreach to his followers. He noted that Trump’s rise in popularity primarly came through his use of another social media platform, Twitter, and not as much through Facebook. “He was more adept at short form communication than long contextual messages. Twitter is ideal for the former, Facebook for the latter,” Mallapragada said. “Twitter is closest online to a live large audience, where he thrives.” “If Facebook allows him to comeback, it might make people unhappy and others happy, but I don’t think it would be impactful to make a big difference.” George Vlahakis, associate director of communications and media relations at Kelley, can help arrange for interviews with Mallapragada, and can be reached at vlahakis@iu.edu.

A Message from Dean Sarah Gehlert on the Derek Chauvin Verdict

When I heard the verdict read at the trial of Derek Chauvin, I was relieved that a change had been made in how excessive violence by police officers has been viewed and treated in courts. This gave me some hope that a door had finally been opened to create change. A single verdict does not even begin to erase all the lives lost over decades of police violence based on prejudice and discrimination. It does however signal that change is happening, or is at least possible, if we are vigilant. It can be a step taken toward ending systemic discrimination by race in how our judicial system considers the actions of police. The wisdom of George Floyd’s seven-year-old daughter, who stated that her dad “changed the world,” has been validated. We also recognize the wisdom and courage of Darnella Frazier, the Minnesota teenager who filmed the event, knowing that what she was witnessing was wrong. When the verdict came in, I was with a group of community activists from three California counties around Los Angeles. While group members expressed some elation for an episode of justice realized, some cautioned that this victory does not mean that all is well. Racism, and the discrimination that it engenders, continues to run rampant through our judicial system. Within the last week we have added the names of Daunte Wright and Adam Toledo to our protests and vigils. We hope this verdict is a turning point, but we will need to work to assure it. It is worth reading a publication from 2018 to understand the role that social work needs to play in ensuring effective and lasting change to our judicial system. In their paper entitled “The Futile Fourth Amendment,” Professor Osagie Obasogie and Postdoctoral Researcher Zachary Newman examine the Supreme Court case that established the standard for court adjudication of excessive force by police, and how this has perpetuated excessive use of force in many communities of color. Protesting alone will not create the change we want to see. It will require change in policy and practices to establish equal protection for all under the law. This is a moment for us as social workers to seize. We must not wait to act until there is another incident of police brutality or an unfair trial. We should use this moment to move forward with renewed conviction in our beliefs, using our training in policy, community organizing, management and planning, and clinical practice. We should always be the voices demanding equality under the law, saying that an end to systemic racism is possible. The world is ready for change and social work should be leading it, with those whom we serve. We should be the champions of social justice for the well-being of individuals, families and communities through innovative teaching of evidence-informed and practice-based skills, and pioneering transformative research. If not us, then who? Sarah Gehlert Dean