Assault on the Ivory Towers
The “Assault on the Ivory Towers” colloquium moderated by the director of the Ed Snider Center for Enterprise and Markets, Rajshree Agarwal, was centralized around the theme of ethics, leadership, capitalism, and its relation to the first amendment on college campuses. Keynote speaker, Gred Lukianoff, is the president and CEO of FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. His professional experiences range from being published in established magazines, such as the Wall Street Journal, to acting as an attorney in FIRE. His noticeable achievement is the publication of his article, “Coddling the American Mind,” about free speech and inspiring uncomfortable conversation to spark innovation. He is known for his deep thought on issues and focus on human psychology in his philosophy.
The colloquium highlighted four main points of contention in relation to the question “Is free speech an American right,” and the issues at stake on college campuses across the country. The first topic covered was administrative regulation and its rise on campus. Lukianoff discussed the time between 2001 and 2011 as a time of fighting university oppression of speech and due process clause, and the revelation that these issues are not as simple as black and white, good and bad. He cited the example of Laura Kipnis, a professor who was held with a Title 9 investigation after she was questioning the Title 9 regulations. During the investigation she was not permitted to know anything about the charges, who was charging her, and she was unable to speak about it. After taking the situation public, the case was dropped and she was found innocent, due to the university’s violation of the due process clause. Relating this to another topic brought up in the interview is the effect fear has on inhibiting creative conversation at risk of being offensive. To that Lukianoff established that first, offense is not enough to ban a subject, and second, there’s a separation between harassment and discussion. Harassment is targeted discrimination, whereas discussion holds the potential of a positive output.
The second topic addressed was collective identity versus personal identity. On this, Lukinaoff stressed that there was value in being offended and that it inspired provocative discussion. He also mentioned that the nation doesn’t need separate amendments to protect the majority point of view, only the minority, and campuses should act accordingly. The third topic he discussed was mental health and the presence of microaggressions, the unconscious slighting of people. The punishing of people for making verbal mistakes creates a hostile conversing environment, and therefore, as he communicated, gives individuals the incentive to retreat. He also mentioned trigger warnings and their complicated place in society. He expressed that while it was good to see how microaggressions take place in society, they can also simple reflect the things people in power are made uncomfortable by, such as “America is a melting pot.” Lukianoff reveals this is not a microaggression, but rather something that makes people uncomfortable, and as a reaction people try to discourage its usage.
Lukianoff’s article, “Coddling the American Mind,” originally called “Arguing towards Misery,” reveals how modeling to deal with psychological issues on campuses are build on a fragility model that teaches students that they are broken and vulnerable if they experience unpleasant things. This has caused an increase in the number of depressed and anxious students because it validates and reinforces these mental habits. Lukianoff encourages the idea of thinking before speaking based on the cognitive therapy model and personal reflection. He stressed the idea of rational thoughts and self reflection. He also briefly covered emotional responses and how purely emotional reactions to issues produce no conclusion, while scientific research and data is social justices best friend and biggest ally. Lastly, he discussed activism and the absurdity of campus “free speech zones.”
THE POINT: The key take away from the BB&T colloquium was that campuses are an ideal marketplace for ideas, but in order to reach full potential it extends outside of laws. The student body is bound together with the idea that individually we are not bright and we require collective knowledge and we need to utilize that to be successful and innovative. Listening to dissenting opinions and encouraging uncomfortable conversation allows for greater creativity and inspires students to build a more well-rounded knowledge base. The keys for innovative thinking are epistemology and courage.
With that, individuals are able to unlock potential only available when free speech is protected and emboldened. In my women studies class I am encouraged to explore all sides to an issue in order to deeper understand where people are coming from and how to approach a solution. When we talked about women in the media we considered the benefit of ad agencies to degrade women and turn them into sexualized objects (hello, profits) and then considered the consequences and opinions of average women who are subjected to viewing such demoralizing images. I think it's really important to apply the idea of hearing all sides of issues in order to maximize empathy with consumers when creating products. We see this in IDEO's deep dive approach.
The colloquium highlighted four main points of contention in relation to the question “Is free speech an American right,” and the issues at stake on college campuses across the country. The first topic covered was administrative regulation and its rise on campus. Lukianoff discussed the time between 2001 and 2011 as a time of fighting university oppression of speech and due process clause, and the revelation that these issues are not as simple as black and white, good and bad. He cited the example of Laura Kipnis, a professor who was held with a Title 9 investigation after she was questioning the Title 9 regulations. During the investigation she was not permitted to know anything about the charges, who was charging her, and she was unable to speak about it. After taking the situation public, the case was dropped and she was found innocent, due to the university’s violation of the due process clause. Relating this to another topic brought up in the interview is the effect fear has on inhibiting creative conversation at risk of being offensive. To that Lukianoff established that first, offense is not enough to ban a subject, and second, there’s a separation between harassment and discussion. Harassment is targeted discrimination, whereas discussion holds the potential of a positive output.
The second topic addressed was collective identity versus personal identity. On this, Lukinaoff stressed that there was value in being offended and that it inspired provocative discussion. He also mentioned that the nation doesn’t need separate amendments to protect the majority point of view, only the minority, and campuses should act accordingly. The third topic he discussed was mental health and the presence of microaggressions, the unconscious slighting of people. The punishing of people for making verbal mistakes creates a hostile conversing environment, and therefore, as he communicated, gives individuals the incentive to retreat. He also mentioned trigger warnings and their complicated place in society. He expressed that while it was good to see how microaggressions take place in society, they can also simple reflect the things people in power are made uncomfortable by, such as “America is a melting pot.” Lukianoff reveals this is not a microaggression, but rather something that makes people uncomfortable, and as a reaction people try to discourage its usage.
Lukianoff’s article, “Coddling the American Mind,” originally called “Arguing towards Misery,” reveals how modeling to deal with psychological issues on campuses are build on a fragility model that teaches students that they are broken and vulnerable if they experience unpleasant things. This has caused an increase in the number of depressed and anxious students because it validates and reinforces these mental habits. Lukianoff encourages the idea of thinking before speaking based on the cognitive therapy model and personal reflection. He stressed the idea of rational thoughts and self reflection. He also briefly covered emotional responses and how purely emotional reactions to issues produce no conclusion, while scientific research and data is social justices best friend and biggest ally. Lastly, he discussed activism and the absurdity of campus “free speech zones.”
THE POINT: The key take away from the BB&T colloquium was that campuses are an ideal marketplace for ideas, but in order to reach full potential it extends outside of laws. The student body is bound together with the idea that individually we are not bright and we require collective knowledge and we need to utilize that to be successful and innovative. Listening to dissenting opinions and encouraging uncomfortable conversation allows for greater creativity and inspires students to build a more well-rounded knowledge base. The keys for innovative thinking are epistemology and courage.
With that, individuals are able to unlock potential only available when free speech is protected and emboldened. In my women studies class I am encouraged to explore all sides to an issue in order to deeper understand where people are coming from and how to approach a solution. When we talked about women in the media we considered the benefit of ad agencies to degrade women and turn them into sexualized objects (hello, profits) and then considered the consequences and opinions of average women who are subjected to viewing such demoralizing images. I think it's really important to apply the idea of hearing all sides of issues in order to maximize empathy with consumers when creating products. We see this in IDEO's deep dive approach.
Pitch Dingman
The event was super interesting and definitely got the creative juices flowing. Here are quick overviews of the 10 semi-finalists that spoke at the competition.
Afterclass:
Afterclass is a social learning network for students to get questions answered in non-class hours. It’s instructor free and built a point model that allows for consistent, reliable, efficient answers. They are operational on an Andriod, developing an IOS application, and mainly active through their web platform. They were interested in using the money from the case competition to expand the advertising abilities on their site. I thought that Ariel Kotch, the pitcher, was incredibly well spoken and prepared. I think the site would be helpful as a student, but I don’t see how it would beat asking someone in person or emailing the professor. If the time crunch is so tight that you need the app, what’s the guarantee you’ll a response in time? I can’t really see myself using it, but I think it’s a good idea.
Carlouie & Company:
The pitch was an 80s inspired clothing collection, full of striped shirts and bright colors. The line is inspired by Zack Morris and the Fresh Prince of Bel Air. It marketing to mainly a male audience and within that audience primarily students. They made a revenue of $1700 and would invest the prize money in production overseas and marketing endeavours. I thought the presentation was cute and quirky, the presenter had a lot of personality and some really original components, such as planning someone in the crowd to interject into the presentation, but overall it wasn’t very number heavy or impressive. I also thought that the shirts were for a very limited audience. They didn’t appeal to me at all. Not my favorite, but gotta give them brownie points for their pizzaz.
CourseHunter:
The pitch featured a software that alerted a student the second a seat opened in a class during registration. They had 500 users within the first week and have 1300 users currently. Their revenue model is as follows- charging students $5-20 per registration and universities $20,000-$30,000 for annual subscription. The prize money would go towards marketing efforts and adding more digital features, like creating alternative schedules through the site. I loved this pitch. I thought the slides were amazing and engaging and the presenters were very professional and prepared. My problem with the product is that it is very seasonal and only really needed during registration season. Also, I’m not sure if it’s worth the money to get off the waitlist through CourseHunter’s notificaions versus checking back to the waitlist continuously. While getting into classes is super important, college students live on a budget. Their example about not getting into their fundamental classes and having to do an extra year sounded exaggerated. But overall, I loved the presentation and learned a lot about how to speak professionally.
Curu:
Curu was straight off the set of Shark Tank. The two presenters, David Potter and Abb Kapoor, were synchronized, organized, and ready to present. Their product was a program designed to maximize student credit scores through a robo-advisor. The company makes money from automation and financial products. They want to use the money for marketing, licensing, payment processing, and bank aggregation. I didn’t really understand the product, even after the pitch. I guess they are presenting to a more informed group of panelists, but I was very lost about how the product actually works. I think while it’s nice that they sounded so smart and prepared, it would be hard to market the product to the consumer with that kind of diction.
Frodoh:
The second they brought these out I wanted them. I am the biggest frozen foods lover ever. The product was a frozen organic donut hole. They are planning to expand to the UMD Co-Op with long term plans to end up in stores like Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s. They would use the funds for baking equipment, legal fees, and farmers markets. I loved the product, even though the presentation wasn’t very great. One of the presenters got super flustered and forgot what she was supposed to be talking about. While unfortunate, this was a great learning experience. She didn’t recover very well, repeating that she was “having a brain fart,” which allows me to take away the importance of recovery. I think it’s about practicing cues for when you forget something or creating associations to prevent forgetting.
Gravity LLC:
Gravity LLC is an online platform for fan fiction. It is already super successful and the company wants the prize money to expand their publishing abilities. In my opinion, while very prepared, the pitcher spoke way too quickly and ran through his slides before I even had time to conceptualize the product. It’s also something I definitely wouldn’t use, so I wasn’t very interested in his pitch.
Grumpy Joes:
Grumpy Joes is a t-shirt company for veterans that breaks the repetition of typical tough guy t-shirts. The shirts are based on average military experience and use inside jokes that only ex-soldiers would get. They are unique in their lower shipping rates, faster delivery, better quality shirts, and tighter fits. I really liked the pitch, especially how they brought in mannequins to demo some of their products. I think the shirts are geared towards a kind of selective audience, as only male veterans can buy them. Overall, the presentation was really good and I thought they were a strong contender in the competition.
Open PT LLC:
Open PT is an online physical therapy platform that allows PTs to upload exercises to patients with detailed descriptions. The company was created after the founders both had trouble remembering what their PTs had told them to do after their sessions. I’m not really sure how you make money on a product like this except for advertisements and membership fees, but users aren’t often long-term, as injuries heal and PT ends. I thought they had a really nice logo and a good idea, but I wasn’t sold on it.
Posh:
Posh is a makeup matching service that takes the business out of freelancing makeup artists. It was founded off the issues of the client, time consuming to find a freelancer, uncertainty, late arrivals/no shows, and the issues of the freelancer, getting clients, awkward payment conversations, and overall client communication. It runs off a website platform where clients enter their information and needs and Posh matches them with the best makeup artist for them. They charge an $80 base rate. As a college student, I do not have $80 to invest in having my makeup done for one night. I would rather spend that money on makeup and watch Youtube tutorials to learn how to do it myself. I think the idea is great but the audience is wrong. I can’t imagine them having a lot of reoccurring clients at that price in this location. I think it’d be great for weddings, bat mitzvahs, and events in general.
Tagalong:
Tagalong is a software that appears on ticket buying sites that allows you to connect with like minded friends from social networks. It lives on the selling site, making the process super easy. The idea comes from wanting to go to a concert, but not having an immediate friend to go with. It matches people through Spotify and Facebook. I was super impressed by them using Spotify to match people because it’s such a perfect way to see who else has the same taste in music as you. I thought that they were unique in their idea, but I’m not sure I would want to go to a concert with someone I’m not very close to. I like the idea and would probably try it out.
THE POINT: Overall, Pitch Dingman showed me that innovation can be small and that it comes in all shapes, sizes, and forms. From frozen treats to t shirts, the innovations presented were all just modifications of things already in existence. They came from design thinking and passion for the product. I also learned a lot about how to present in a case competition. I think clarity and conciseness are the two most important focuses when presenting, as well as making sure the speed at which you talk is appropriate.
My favorite presenter was Afterclass because I thought the presenter was well-spoken and prepared, but my favorite product was FroDoh because I love frozen food.
10/10 would recommend the Oreo Popcorn.
Afterclass:
Afterclass is a social learning network for students to get questions answered in non-class hours. It’s instructor free and built a point model that allows for consistent, reliable, efficient answers. They are operational on an Andriod, developing an IOS application, and mainly active through their web platform. They were interested in using the money from the case competition to expand the advertising abilities on their site. I thought that Ariel Kotch, the pitcher, was incredibly well spoken and prepared. I think the site would be helpful as a student, but I don’t see how it would beat asking someone in person or emailing the professor. If the time crunch is so tight that you need the app, what’s the guarantee you’ll a response in time? I can’t really see myself using it, but I think it’s a good idea.
Carlouie & Company:
The pitch was an 80s inspired clothing collection, full of striped shirts and bright colors. The line is inspired by Zack Morris and the Fresh Prince of Bel Air. It marketing to mainly a male audience and within that audience primarily students. They made a revenue of $1700 and would invest the prize money in production overseas and marketing endeavours. I thought the presentation was cute and quirky, the presenter had a lot of personality and some really original components, such as planning someone in the crowd to interject into the presentation, but overall it wasn’t very number heavy or impressive. I also thought that the shirts were for a very limited audience. They didn’t appeal to me at all. Not my favorite, but gotta give them brownie points for their pizzaz.
CourseHunter:
The pitch featured a software that alerted a student the second a seat opened in a class during registration. They had 500 users within the first week and have 1300 users currently. Their revenue model is as follows- charging students $5-20 per registration and universities $20,000-$30,000 for annual subscription. The prize money would go towards marketing efforts and adding more digital features, like creating alternative schedules through the site. I loved this pitch. I thought the slides were amazing and engaging and the presenters were very professional and prepared. My problem with the product is that it is very seasonal and only really needed during registration season. Also, I’m not sure if it’s worth the money to get off the waitlist through CourseHunter’s notificaions versus checking back to the waitlist continuously. While getting into classes is super important, college students live on a budget. Their example about not getting into their fundamental classes and having to do an extra year sounded exaggerated. But overall, I loved the presentation and learned a lot about how to speak professionally.
Curu:
Curu was straight off the set of Shark Tank. The two presenters, David Potter and Abb Kapoor, were synchronized, organized, and ready to present. Their product was a program designed to maximize student credit scores through a robo-advisor. The company makes money from automation and financial products. They want to use the money for marketing, licensing, payment processing, and bank aggregation. I didn’t really understand the product, even after the pitch. I guess they are presenting to a more informed group of panelists, but I was very lost about how the product actually works. I think while it’s nice that they sounded so smart and prepared, it would be hard to market the product to the consumer with that kind of diction.
Frodoh:
The second they brought these out I wanted them. I am the biggest frozen foods lover ever. The product was a frozen organic donut hole. They are planning to expand to the UMD Co-Op with long term plans to end up in stores like Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s. They would use the funds for baking equipment, legal fees, and farmers markets. I loved the product, even though the presentation wasn’t very great. One of the presenters got super flustered and forgot what she was supposed to be talking about. While unfortunate, this was a great learning experience. She didn’t recover very well, repeating that she was “having a brain fart,” which allows me to take away the importance of recovery. I think it’s about practicing cues for when you forget something or creating associations to prevent forgetting.
Gravity LLC:
Gravity LLC is an online platform for fan fiction. It is already super successful and the company wants the prize money to expand their publishing abilities. In my opinion, while very prepared, the pitcher spoke way too quickly and ran through his slides before I even had time to conceptualize the product. It’s also something I definitely wouldn’t use, so I wasn’t very interested in his pitch.
Grumpy Joes:
Grumpy Joes is a t-shirt company for veterans that breaks the repetition of typical tough guy t-shirts. The shirts are based on average military experience and use inside jokes that only ex-soldiers would get. They are unique in their lower shipping rates, faster delivery, better quality shirts, and tighter fits. I really liked the pitch, especially how they brought in mannequins to demo some of their products. I think the shirts are geared towards a kind of selective audience, as only male veterans can buy them. Overall, the presentation was really good and I thought they were a strong contender in the competition.
Open PT LLC:
Open PT is an online physical therapy platform that allows PTs to upload exercises to patients with detailed descriptions. The company was created after the founders both had trouble remembering what their PTs had told them to do after their sessions. I’m not really sure how you make money on a product like this except for advertisements and membership fees, but users aren’t often long-term, as injuries heal and PT ends. I thought they had a really nice logo and a good idea, but I wasn’t sold on it.
Posh:
Posh is a makeup matching service that takes the business out of freelancing makeup artists. It was founded off the issues of the client, time consuming to find a freelancer, uncertainty, late arrivals/no shows, and the issues of the freelancer, getting clients, awkward payment conversations, and overall client communication. It runs off a website platform where clients enter their information and needs and Posh matches them with the best makeup artist for them. They charge an $80 base rate. As a college student, I do not have $80 to invest in having my makeup done for one night. I would rather spend that money on makeup and watch Youtube tutorials to learn how to do it myself. I think the idea is great but the audience is wrong. I can’t imagine them having a lot of reoccurring clients at that price in this location. I think it’d be great for weddings, bat mitzvahs, and events in general.
Tagalong:
Tagalong is a software that appears on ticket buying sites that allows you to connect with like minded friends from social networks. It lives on the selling site, making the process super easy. The idea comes from wanting to go to a concert, but not having an immediate friend to go with. It matches people through Spotify and Facebook. I was super impressed by them using Spotify to match people because it’s such a perfect way to see who else has the same taste in music as you. I thought that they were unique in their idea, but I’m not sure I would want to go to a concert with someone I’m not very close to. I like the idea and would probably try it out.
THE POINT: Overall, Pitch Dingman showed me that innovation can be small and that it comes in all shapes, sizes, and forms. From frozen treats to t shirts, the innovations presented were all just modifications of things already in existence. They came from design thinking and passion for the product. I also learned a lot about how to present in a case competition. I think clarity and conciseness are the two most important focuses when presenting, as well as making sure the speed at which you talk is appropriate.
My favorite presenter was Afterclass because I thought the presenter was well-spoken and prepared, but my favorite product was FroDoh because I love frozen food.
10/10 would recommend the Oreo Popcorn.