Active Learning in Political Science for

a Post-Pandemic World: From Triage to

Transformation Jeffrey S. Lantis
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/active-learning-in-political-science-for-a-post-pandemi
c-world-from-triage-to-transformation-jeffrey-s-lantis/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The Political Economy of Food System Transformation:

Pathways to Progress in a Polarized World Resnick

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-political-economy-of-food-
system-transformation-pathways-to-progress-in-a-polarized-world-
resnick/

Human Security In China: A Post-Pandemic State 1st

Edition Chi Zhang

https://ebookmass.com/product/human-security-in-china-a-post-
pandemic-state-1st-edition-chi-zhang/

The Big R-Book: From Data Science to Learning Machines

and Big Data Philippe J. S. De Brouwer

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-big-r-book-from-data-science-
to-learning-machines-and-big-data-philippe-j-s-de-brouwer/

Educational Psychology: Active Learning Edition, 15th

Edition Anita Woolfolk

https://ebookmass.com/product/educational-psychology-active-
learning-edition-15th-edition-anita-woolfolk/
Deep Learning for Targeted Treatments : Transformation
in Healthcare Rishabha Malviya

https://ebookmass.com/product/deep-learning-for-targeted-
treatments-transformation-in-healthcare-rishabha-malviya/

Learning to Look. Dispatches from the Art World Alva

Noë

https://ebookmass.com/product/learning-to-look-dispatches-from-
the-art-world-alva-noe/

Learning from Our Mistakes: Epistemology for the Real

World William J. Talbott

https://ebookmass.com/product/learning-from-our-mistakes-
epistemology-for-the-real-world-william-j-talbott/

Invitation to World Religions 3rd Edition Jeffrey Brodd

https://ebookmass.com/product/invitation-to-world-religions-3rd-
edition-jeffrey-brodd/

Invitation to World Religions 4th Edition Jeffrey Brodd

https://ebookmass.com/product/invitation-to-world-religions-4th-
edition-jeffrey-brodd/
POLITICAL PEDAGOGIES

Active Learning
in Political Science for a
Post-Pandemic World
From Triage to
Transformation
Edited by
Jeffrey S. Lantis
 Political Pedagogies

Series Editors
Jamie Frueh, Bridgewater College, Bridgewater, VA, USA
David J. Hornsby, The Norman Paterson School of International Affairs,
Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
The purpose of the series is to create a new space for conversations
between scholars of political pedagogy, and between such scholars and
those looking for guidance on their teaching, and become the main recog-
nizable authority/series/conversational space in this field. The prolifera-
tion of journals, conferences, and workshops devoted to teaching attest
to the accelerating interest in the pedagogy of Political Science and
International Relations over the past two decades. While research schol-
arship remains the dominant criterion for hiring and promotion at top
tier institutions, almost all academics in these disciplines spend most of
their energy teaching, and more than two-thirds do so at institutions
where effective teaching is the primary factor in career success (Ishiyama
et al 2010). Even those at research-intensive positions benefit from more
effective classroom environments, and institutions across the world are
building centers devoted to improving teaching and learning. The chal-
lenges of teaching span sub-disciplines and connect disparate scholars in
a common conversation. Indeed, teaching may be the only focus that
academics in these disciplines truly share. Currently, most writing about
teaching politics is published in journals, and is therefore dispersed and
restricted in length. This series will provide a much needed platform for
longer, more engaged contributions on Political Pedagogies, as well as
serve to bring teaching and research in conversation with each other.

More information about this series at

https://link.springer.com/bookseries/16526
 Jeffrey S. Lantis
Editor

Active Learning
in Political Science
for a Post-Pandemic
World
From Triage to Transformation
Editor
Jeffrey S. Lantis
Political Science
College of Wooster
Wooster, OH, USA

ISSN 2662-7809 ISSN 2662-7817 (electronic)

Political Pedagogies
ISBN 978-3-030-94712-5 ISBN 978-3-030-94713-2 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94713-2

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2022
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc.
in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such
names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for
general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and informa-
tion in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither
the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

Cover credit: Jemastock/Alamy Stock Vector

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Preface

The novel coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic has imperiled the lives of

billions of people and seriously disrupted institutions and social structures
around the world. It has also affected every college and university, as well
as students, staff, and faculty members. But after a year of canceled live
classes and suspended activities, the development of effective vaccines and
stronger public health education and mitigation programs have allowed
colleges to begin to reopen. With strong science and good fortune, many
are optimistic that the world will gradually return to ‘normal.’
But what will the new normal in political science education look like?
Will our approaches to teaching and learning in colleges and universi-
ties ever again be the same? Could they actually be even stronger as a
result of our experiences and thoughtful deliberations about how best
to meet learning goals? This volume in the Palgrave Macmillan Political
Pedagogies series is one of the first of its kind to grapple with critical
questions about possible legacies of the pandemic for political science
education. It devotes special attention to how our pedagogy in political
science has evolved from ‘triage’ to transformation over the course of the
pandemic. Chapters in this collection are authored by a diverse group
of experts on online instruction, award-winning teacher-scholars, experi-
enced administrators, and directors of teaching and learning centers with
political science backgrounds. They draw directly from the scholarship of
teaching and learning (SOTL) in developing unique approaches to polit-
ical science education, and these chapters also make valuable contributions

v
vi PREFACE

to the disciplinary discourse. Many chapters conclude with discussions of

expectations that the new normal in political science pedagogy may be
more clearly anchored in educational objectives, flexible, and centering
and empowering for students.
This represents a carefully curated and organized collaboration. The
chapters examine five common themes: (1) Pre-pandemic institutional
orientations and commitments; teaching and learning objectives in our
institutions and political science classes; (2) Detailed description of how
the pandemic changed teaching and learning at our institutions and
within our classes, with particular attention to blended or hybrid teaching
and learning approaches grounded in the SOTL. Authors also discuss
technical issues, including their use of learning management systems and
online/hybrid teaching tools; (3) Assessment and surveys of our experi-
ences, pre- and post-pandemic (including lessons and tips for successful
adaptation to pandemic pedagogy). These include reflections like: What
are the implications for the discipline by integrating more SoTL into
how we design and run our classrooms? What are the benefits of having
more students who may be more motivated to learn about pressing
issues like public health and environmental policies? And critically, will
the innovations and adaptations that we employed help produce ‘bet-
ter’ or ‘stronger’ political science student graduates, or have we simply
been getting by? (4) Reflections on inequalities laid bare during the
pandemic and our efforts to assist students to overcome these challenges.
This section frames political science instruction as a very important lens
to examine the promises and pitfalls of pandemic pedagogy in light of
inequalities and raises questions about assessment of student engagement
and participation change when students are remote; (5) Projections for
the ‘new normal’ in political science and higher education in the post-
pandemic world: What will we learn from pandemic pedagogy, and will
these changes be permanent or fleeting?
Another distinction of this project is that it is one of the first books in
the discipline to comprehensively examine how the Covid-19 pandemic
may have changed what we teach and how we teach it. To be optimistic,
one might argue that our discipline was especially well-positioned to
help make sense of the complex dynamics associated with the pandemic,
and Covid-19 effects and responses became the centerpiece of many
discussions. For example, some of our classes focused on global public
health, international organizations, foreign policies, and disease vectors.
But harsh realities also provided fertile ground to reexamine the utility of
 PREFACE vii

theoretical constructs in international relations, like whether neorealism

or neoliberal institutionalism best accounts for state actions in the face of
a global pandemic. Chapters in this book examine a range of adjustments
that instructors made in their curriculums in this spirit over the past year.
At the transnational level, the study of issues such as immigration policy,
climate change, populism, and regional wars took on new levels of signif-
icance. Courses on war and disaster studies were directly impacted by the
pandemic. This crisis also had direct implications for national, state, and
local politics. As we turned to our leaders for guidance, though, many
sensed the limits of governance. Instructors were able to raise and discuss
critical questions in their classes about the role of science in political deci-
sions, public trust, leadership qualities, and state and local government
capacities.
This book also features valuable conversations about how Covid-19 has
changed how we teach and even who we are as instructors. Responding
to this crisis has produced a flurry of innovations, and chapters in this
book explore themes ranging from reevaluating what constitutes student
participation during the pandemic, to experiments with ‘ungrading’ and
streamlined assignment and evaluation structures. Authors examine the
benefits and drawbacks of changing student expectations based on online
and hybrid class experiences and powerful lessons learned. Finally, on
a personal level, many instructors have had to adjust their expecta-
tions during a global crisis and perhaps have become more empathetic
about student experiences. Our chapters demonstrate the importance
of reflective assessment on the possibility of transformations in political
science education to more student-centered models, and they encourage
teacher-scholars to view the task of reevaluation as manageable and
fruitful.

Wooster, USA Jeffrey S. Lantis

 Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my colleagues and students for assistance in produc-

tion of this volume. This project was very much inspired by a crisis. In
the face of the devastating news that the novel coronavirus would change
the ways that we worked and lived, I joined most of my colleagues in
launching into ‘triage’ mode: I spoke with many of my fellow polit-
ical science instructors about how to quickly change my instructional
approaches and, along the way, I began to reflect with them on what
this might mean for political science education. I credit a conversation
with Dr. Yasemin Akbaba, a professor of political science at Gettysburg
College, as the real spark for this project: we reflected on how the Covid-
19 pandemic created challenges but also opportunities for personal and
professional development. By April 2020, I had launched an early iter-
ation of this project, identifying the outbreak as a tragic but powerful
teaching moment, and I began creating frameworks for comparisons
of institutional development and class teaching before and during the
disaster. I invited a diverse group of experienced and trusted colleagues at
different institutions to conduct surveys on the impact of the pandemic
on teaching and learning in political science during the 2020 spring and
summer terms. They then converted these into conference papers for
a linked set of panels that we organized for presentation at the annual
meeting of the International Studies Association (virtual) in April 2021.
Those panels produced thoughtful, earnest, and engaging conversations
about teaching and learning, and we advanced these for publication.

ix
x ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful for the support of all the contributors to this volume.

David Hornsby and Jamie Frueh have been encouraging of this project
from the outset, and they helped guide me through the proposal and
manuscript submission process. The editorial team at Palgrave Macmillan
were terrific to work with, applying their professional experience to
help us develop a more impactful book and streamlining the production
process. My friends and colleagues on the editorial team at International
Studies Perspectives have also been very supportive of this project from
its inception, including Jim Scott, Guadalupe Correra-Cabrero, Danielle
Lupton, Brandy Jolliff-Scott, and Yasemin Akbaba. In addition, I would
like to thank my colleagues Matthew Krain and Kent Kille for their collab-
oration on active teaching and learning work for two decades, along with
student research assistants, Emily Hasecke and Lilia Eisenstein for their
work on editing and assembling this manuscript.
Finally, I want to credit the thousands of students that I have worked
with in the classroom. This book is about how we can all become better
teachers and learners, and you inspire me every day to strive for that ideal.
 Contents

1 Introduction: Active Learning for a Post-Pandemic

World 1
Jeffrey S. Lantis
2 Theory vs. Practice: An Administrative Perspective
on Teaching and Learning in a Pandemic 17
Gigi Gokcek
3 Suddenly Teaching Online: How Teaching Excellence
Centers Helped Manage New Modes of Education
During the Covid-19 Pandemic 31
Amanda M. Rosen
4 Teacher Presence and Engagement: Lessons
for Effective Post-Pandemic Pedagogy 47
Jeannie Grussendorf
5 Flipped Learning and the Pandemic: How to Create
Group Space in the Online Classroom 63
Eric K. Leonard
6 The Pandemic and Pedagogy Experimentation: The
Benefits of Ungrading 79
Kirsten L. Taylor

xi
xii CONTENTS

7 Pandemic Pedagogy: Lessons from a Decade

of Teaching About Disasters 95
Jason Enia
8 Teaching War and Politics on Film During “World
War C” 109
Jeffrey S. Lantis
9 On Campus and Online: Evaluating Student
Engagement in the Covid-19 Era 123
Yasemin Akbaba
10 Collaborating in the Pandemic: A Pedagogy of Shared
Failures 139
Jamie Frueh

Index 153
 Notes on Contributors

Yasemin Akbaba is a Professor of Political Science at Gettysburg College.

She has published several journal articles and book chapters on the role
of religion in IR. She is co-author of Role Theory in the Middle East and
North Africa (Routledge, 2019).
Jason Enia is Professor and Chair of the Political Science Department
at Sam Houston State University. He is also the founding director of
SHSU’s Center for the Study of Disasters & Emergency Management
(CDEM). His research explores the politics of low probability, high
impact events through a political economy lens, focusing on the way
institutions structure political incentives.
Jamie Frueh is Associate Provost and W. Harold Row Professor of Inter-
national Studies at Bridgewater College. He is the editor of Pedagogical
Journeys through World Politics (Palgrave Macmillan, 2020) and host of
The Teaching Curve podcast available through the International Studies
Association Professional Resource Center.
Gigi Gokcek is Dean of the School of Liberal Arts and Education and
Professor of Political Science at Dominican University of California. She is
the author, co-author, and co-editor of numerous publications including
The Final Frontier: International Relations and Politics through Star Trek
and Star Wars (Lexington Books, 2019) and Understanding New Security
Threats (Routledge, 2019).

xiii
xiv NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Jeannie Grussendorf is a Principal Senior Lecturer and Director of

Undergraduate Studies in the Department of Political Science at Georgia
State University where she teaches courses on foreign policy, peace
studies, and international relations both face-to-face and online. Her
research centers on the scholarship of teaching and learning focusing
on the effect of different pedagogical approaches on the development of
critical thinking skills.
Jeffrey S. Lantis is Professor of Political Science at The College of
Wooster. He teaches and researches on topics including US foreign policy,
international security, and pedagogy (the scholarship of teaching and
learning). Lantis has published numerous books, academic journal arti-
cles, and book chapters over the years, including Teaching International
Relations, editor, with James Scott, Ralph Carter, and Brandy Joliff-Scott
(Edward Elgar Publishers, 2021).
Eric K. Leonard is the Henkel Family Chair in International Affairs
and Professor of Political Science at Shenandoah University. He teaches
and researches on topics including IR theory, humanitarian law, and
US foreign policy, along with doing extensive work on pedagogy. He
is the author of numerous books, chapters, journal articles, and case
studies, including Building Your IR Theory Toolbox: An Introduction to
Understanding World Politics (Rowman & Littlefield, 2018).
Amanda M. Rosen is Associate Professor and Associate Director of the
Teaching Excellence Center at the US Naval War College. She special-
izes in the scholarship of teaching and learning, particularly on the use
of games and simulations, experiential learning, and teaching research
methods. She is the recipient of numerous teaching awards, including
a Civilian Achievement Medal for her work in helping faculty transition
to online instruction during Covid-19.
Kirsten L. Taylor is Professor of Political Science and International
Affairs at Berry College. Her teaching and research interests include inter-
national security, global environmental politics, US foreign policy, and the
scholarship of teaching and learning. Her pedagogical interests include
active- and inquiry-based learning pedagogies, interdisciplinary learning
communities, and innovative assessment strategies. She has co-authored
textbooks on international relations and US foreign policy.
 List of Tables

Table 8.1 Abridged summary of topics and films during first half
of the semester (Live, In-Person) 113
Table 8.2 Abridged topics and films during the second half
of the semester (Blended/Virtual) 116
Table 9.1 Changes in Student-Led Assignments 128
Table 9.2 Survey results 130
Table 9.3 Differences in average grades for student-led sessions 132

xv
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction: Active Learning

for a Post-Pandemic World

Jeffrey S. Lantis

Abstract This book critically examines challenges and successes in polit-

ical science instruction and higher education during the novel coronavirus
(Covid-19) pandemic. It devotes special attention to how our pedagogy
in political science has evolved successfully over time during the pandemic
from ‘triage’ to transformation, as well as examines challenges that remain
before us. This project began in the spring of 2020 when a group of polit-
ical scientists recognized the pandemic was becoming a powerful teaching
moment and created frameworks for comparisons of institutional devel-
opment and class teaching before and during the disaster. Chapters in this
collection are authored by a diverse set of experts on online instruction,
award-winning teacher-scholars, experienced administrators, and direc-
tors of teaching and learning centers with political science backgrounds.
Essays address common themes, including descriptions of our institutional

J. S. Lantis (B)
Department of Political Science, The College of
Wooster, Wooster, OH, USA
e-mail: jlantis@wooster.edu

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

Switzerland AG 2022
J. S. Lantis (ed.), Active Learning in Political Science
for a Post-Pandemic World, Political Pedagogies,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94713-2_1
2 J. S. LANTIS

missions, political science classes, and the state of higher education before
the pandemic; new dilemmas and opportunities presented by the inte-
gration of blended and hybrid learning in classes; critical examinations of
ways the pandemic has highlighted powerful inequalities among institu-
tions, faculty, staff, and especially students; and finally, assessments of our
pandemic transformations and projections for future. Chapters conclude
with expectations that the ‘new normal’ in political science pedagogy may
be more clearly anchored in educational objectives, flexible, resonant, and
centering and empowering for students.

Keywords Pandemic pedagogy · Political science · Blended and online

learning · Inequalities in higher education · Assessment ·
Student-centered learning

The novel coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic created serious disruptions

in higher education. It has had a tremendous impact on our lives and
work as teacher-scholars in political science. Indeed, many have wondered
whether our approaches to education will ever again be quite the same?
The political scientists who contribute to this special collection address
this question from diverse perspectives—as instructors, administrators,
and learning center directors who have tried to seize the “teaching
moment” created by this major disruption and reflect on transformations
in our teaching and learning about politics.
Our book features ten original chapters providing different perspectives
on the challenges of pandemic pedagogy. This initiative was launched in
the first months of the Covid-19 shutdown in the United States, and
the collection has been carefully curated and developed in collaboration
throughout the pandemic. Chapters reflect on, and conduct assessments
and surveys of the impact of the pandemic on teaching and learning in
2020, as well as longer-term transformations. The authors corresponded
about their ideas and then presented their experiences through papers at
two linked panels during the annual meeting of the International Studies
Association (virtual) in April 2021. These panels produced thoughtful and
earnest conversations about teaching and learning during the pandemic,
on topics ranging from what really constitutes student “participation”
during the pandemic, to experiments with “ungrading” and streamlined
 1 INTRODUCTION: ACTIVE LEARNING FOR A POST-PANDEMIC WORLD 3

assignment and evaluation structures. All of these chapters build on the

contemporary scholarship of teaching and learning (SOTL) and make
valuable contributions to our professional discourse about transformations
in political science.

What Has Changed? Transformations

in Political Science Pandemic Pedagogy
This project captures broader changes in higher education that are
underway, but it is very much rooted in the political science discipline and
classroom. This common foundation across the chapters provides focus
and coherence. At the core of our inquiries are questions like what the
pandemic means for the teaching of political science going forward, how
has the pandemic forced us to rethink prominent theoretical approaches
and their applications in the discipline, and what the long-term impli-
cations of integrating even more innovative approaches into our classes.
Chapters also examine the benefits or drawbacks of changing student
expectations based on online and hybrid class experiences, as well as to
what degree these changes will truly become transformations in teaching
and learning.

The Scope of the Challenge

Let us begin by acknowledging that the Covid-19 pandemic has been
absolutely devastating for the globe. This coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) is
easily transmissible and very dangerous for many who fall ill. It is not
the first pandemic to strike humans—the “Black Death” or plague of the
fourteenth century and the “Spanish flu” of the early twentieth century
resonate as past examples—but it represents the most recent, modern,
existential threat to humankind. And, while many epidemiologists and
infectious disease experts warned that such an outbreak could occur, few
people were truly prepared when the pandemic struck. Millions of people
died, many more were sickened, and the global economy effectively shut
down for a period of time.
Within two months of identification of the first known cases in
the United States and western countries, most colleges and universi-
ties around the world closed their physical campus spaces. But they did
not cease instruction. Instead, millions of students and college instruc-
tors had to quickly adapt to new realities. This project acknowledges the
4 J. S. LANTIS

seriousness of these events, and our chapters captures many pitfalls and
challenges. But it also examines how the discipline adapted to respond and
even overcome some of the challenges of pandemic pedagogy. Indeed,
for many this has been an opportunity for professional growth and the
advancement of political science education. The chapters address ques-
tions head-on, like how have we changed through the pandemic, and
what is really different? Though it will take years to know the true scope
of Covid’s impact on higher education, our authors assert that it has
been a catalyst for critical reflections on pedagogy that offer important
lessons. For example, chapters describe how instructors and students faced
numerous challenges associated with the transitions to online and hybrid
forms of learning during the pandemic (Jankowski 2020) and strove to
overcome them. They reckon with the challenge of losing the “human
connection” of classroom teaching and in-person instruction and what
solutions they have found. And the pandemic has renewed attention to
very important issues in pedagogy like whether traditional approaches to
assessment of class participation and testing are biased and should be
revisited?
The Covid-19 pandemic certainly altered what we teach in many polit-
ical science classes, and it did so virtually overnight. One might argue that
our discipline was especially well-positioned to help make sense of the
complex dynamics associated with the pandemic, and Covid-19 effects
and responses became the centerpiece of many discussions (Davies and
Wenham 2020). For example, at the global level, we tried to understand
public health, international organizations, foreign policies, and disease
vectors. But harsh realities also provided fertile ground to reexamine the
utility of traditional theoretical constructs. Illustrations of realism and
Hobbesian self-interest appeared to abound, from the closure of state
borders to hoarding and empty store shelves (Drezner 2020; Basrur
and Kliem 2021). Neoliberal theories were employed to explain inter-
national cooperation through programs like the COVAX initiative, an
international collaboration to share access to Covid-19 vaccines with less
developing countries that was administered by the World Health Orga-
nization. At the same time, neoliberal theories offered tools for critical
analysis of problematic responses by actors like the European Union, as
well as the failure of other institutions to provide adequate solutions
(McNamara and Newman 2020; Williams 2020). Theories of interna-
tional political economy helped us understand debates about the best
strategies to manage the global economic turndown, the supply of and
 1 INTRODUCTION: ACTIVE LEARNING FOR A POST-PANDEMIC WORLD 5

demand for vaccines, prioritization of access for different populations,

vaccine sharing with foreign countries, and the implications of waiving
patent protections on the intellectual property behind vaccines for faster
distribution in developing countries (Lipscy 2020; Marshall and Correa
2020).
At the transnational level, the study of issues such as immigration
policy, climate change, populism, and regional wars took on new levels
of significance. Covid-19 appeared to exacerbate concerns about immi-
gration on the US southern border, for example, and many countries
completely closed their borders to travel and immigration. These closures
began in early 2020 and continued well into 2022 in some parts of the
world, including periodic openings and then reclosures of borders for
transit or travel to countries in the European Union in 2021. Political
scientists were inspired by the pandemic to further analyze connections
between outbreaks of contagious diseases and regional political instability,
unrest, and dissent (Cordell et al. 2021; Gonzalez-Torres and Esposito
2020). Populism, which was already on the rise globally before the
pandemic, gathered incredible momentum in many countries, challenging
democracy and civil society (Pevehouse 2020).
The pandemic also had direct implications for national, state, and local
politics. As we turned to our leaders for guidance, many sensed the
limits of governance. Critical questions arose about the role of science
in political decisions, public trust, leadership qualities, and state and local
government capacities. Community health care policies took on a new
level of significance, for example, as did relationships between individuals
and institutions at every level (Kishore and Hayden 2020; Baccini and
Brodeur 2020). Economic concerns also dominated our political agendas,
as experts warned that restarting economies as soon as safely possible
would be critical to future success. Public education, infrastructure, util-
ities, and private businesses were all impacted by government decisions,
raising important themes for further public policy analysis. Local author-
ities also were suddenly responsible for a range of public health concerns,
from Covid-19 testing and contact tracing to establishing systems for
delivery of vaccines. And throughout these efforts, there was a relent-
less time pressure urging governments and private entities to act quickly
to save lives and reboot the economy.
This book also examines ways that Covid-19 has changed how we
teach and even who we are as teacher-scholars. In the era before the
pandemic, many instructors were working closely with students inside and
6 J. S. LANTIS

outside the IR classroom. Studies showed the value of student engage-

ment and in-person learning in the achievement of educational objectives
and academic and life-long success (McClellan et al. 2020; Hamada et al.
2019; Ishiyama et al. 2015). Residential liberal arts colleges and univer-
sity honors programs provided particularly strong opportunities for full
immersion in the educational environment. Professional organizations,
including the International Studies Association and the American Political
Science Association, helped foster norms and best practices for pedagogy,
including student support, active teaching and learning, innovation, and
assessment. Higher education may have had its share of challenges before
the pandemic, but many instructors and institutions were delivering high
quality, “hands-on” intellectual training every day.
Then, almost overnight, everything changed. It is not hyperbole to
suggest that the pandemic forced teachers and students in the discipline to
radically reenvision the ends and means of education. And while the need
for transition was sudden and jarring, what it produced was nearly without
precedent in the history of our discipline: Every political science instructor
around the world was catalyzed into action: we had to think hard about
what we were teaching, how we were teaching it, and what we might
change in the circumstances (Rice 2020). As St. George et al. (2021)
argue, “The coronavirus pandemic upended almost every aspect of school
at once. It was not just the move from classrooms to computer screens. It
tested basic ideas about instruction, attendance, testing, funding, the role
of technology and the human connections that hold it all together. A year
later, a rethinking is underway, with a growing sense that some changes
may last.”
On a personal level, the trauma of the pandemic has reminded us
of the importance of empathy and student engagement in the learning
process. The sudden pandemic displacement from our “normal” lives
to something isolated and different was shocking. Indeed, it is safe to
say that the pandemic fostered a sense of trauma and the activation of
the “grief cycle” for some teachers and students, and they experienced
some of the classic stages from denial and anger to sadness and accep-
tance (Kübler-Ross and Kessler 2005). The pandemic touched everyone’s
lives: Students and instructors experienced illness, students and instruc-
tors faced disruptions, student families and instructor families struggled
economically, students and instructors lost family members to the virus,
etc. Furthermore, the crisis cast long-term inequalities in a harsh light:
 1 INTRODUCTION: ACTIVE LEARNING FOR A POST-PANDEMIC WORLD 7

students of color and international students were disproportionately nega-

tively affected by the pandemic. Even as institutions searched for the best
hybrid alternatives, they remained concerned that online instruction was
highlighting inequalities among students. They knew that online educa-
tion could magnify academic problems with engagement and completion
of work, and a concerning percentage (perhaps more than 20%) of
college students also lacked easy access to learning technologies including
working laptops and reliable high-speed internet (Calarco et al. 2018).
In such an environment, leniency, flexibility, and accommodation
became critical for everyone’s success. Chapters in this book suggest that
a more empathetic and engaged learning process may have been set in
motion by the challenges of pandemic pedagogy. They discuss the impor-
tance of reflective assessment on the possibility of transformations in
political science education and encourage teacher-scholars to view the task
of reevaluation as manageable and fruitful. Chapters recognize and high-
light pedagogical innovations for the political science classroom, and they
illustrate how political science education is evolving from “triage to trans-
formation” (Maimon 2020). There is also emerging evidence that many
of these changes may be enduring (Purcell 2020; Bombardieri 2021).

Common Themes and Considerations

in Pandemic Pedagogy
This collection of essays is organized around five common themes that
help to define our approaches to pandemic pedagogy. First, the chap-
ters outline different orientations and backgrounds of our institutions and
political science classes in the pre-pandemic era—establishing a baseline
from which we might anticipate comparison and changes. For example,
prior to 2020, many teacher-scholars were working closely with students
inside and outside the classroom, reflecting best practices outlined in the
SOTL (McClellan et al. 2020; Hamada et al. 2019; Ishiyama et al. 2015).
Professional organizations, including the American Political Science Asso-
ciation and the International Studies Association, helped foster norms
of student support, active teaching and learning, innovation, and assess-
ment. Higher education may have had its share of challenges before
the pandemic, but many instructors and institutions were delivering
high quality, “hands-on” intellectual training every day. However, these
dynamics changed very quickly when the vast majority of instructors on
8 J. S. LANTIS

college campuses in the United States and around the world had to tran-
sition from teaching in-person classes and advising students on campus to
online or virtual instructional modes (Lederman 2020).
Second, our chapters take a deep dive into how the pandemic impacted
our institutions and changed teaching and learning in our classes. This
includes special attention to the pedagogy triage work that many of us
engaged in, including rapid adoption of blended or hybrid teaching and
learning approaches. As class modes shifted from live and in-person to
online or hybrid, many instructors found themselves quickly scrambling
to adapt. Some of this work was informed by innovations described in
scholarship of teaching and learning (SOTL) on interactive remote and
hybrid learning techniques and a mix of synchronous and asynchronous
activities (see, for example: Glazier et al. 2019). These were certainly not
new techniques in 2020, but rather pedagogical tools that more and more
instructors quickly came to embrace in higher education (Seaman et al.
2018). Many instructors had to quickly learn “on the go” about how best
to engage these modes using videoconferencing technology or learning
management, and some gained a new vernacular practically overnight,
including “Zoom,” “hyflex,” “asynchronous and synchronous” teaching,
and “hybrid” learning.
Third, the chapters provide surveys and assessments of our experiences
with pandemic pedagogy. All authors discuss some data and impressions
drawn from surveys, studies, or direct and indirect assessments of their
pandemic pedagogy. With the benefit of hindsight, these chapters begin
to offer systematic reflection on what was admittedly a chaotic time.
Instructors quickly drew lessons from existing studies of blended and
hybrid learning models emphasize that course designs should be clear and
goal-driven. They were also reminded that classes should be consciously
designed to achieve particular learning objectives, and instructors who
can articulate these linkages to students clearly find that everyone is more
vested in the process (Mason et al. 2013). In addition, experts discuss
how classes should be developed to use technology wisely—to see it as a
value-added or enhancement of the learning process—and not as an extra
or cumbersome set of responsibilities (Akbaba and Başkan 2017). Blended
learning environments also emphasize student responsibility, and so clear
rubrics for assessment and regular communication with students about
expectations and standing are vital to promote and incentivize student
engagement (Diep et al. 2017; Prifti 2020).
 1 INTRODUCTION: ACTIVE LEARNING FOR A POST-PANDEMIC WORLD 9

Fourth, chapters address the critical challenge of inequalities that

appeared to be heightened by pandemic pedagogy. The most immediate
and common response to the spread of the pandemic in the United States
in the spring of 2020 was the suspension of in-person class instruction
and the wholesale export or move of students off of college campuses.
By April of that year, nearly 90% of colleges and universities employed
online-only instruction (Neelakantan 2020). Even though this seemed
to offer a solution to the immediate challenge, the approach also high-
lighted inequalities that plague the educational system (Glazier 2016). For
example, studies have demonstrated that student performance, particu-
larly for students who are already academically struggling, can seriously
suffer in online courses. Roughly 20% of college students have issues
accessing effective technology including working laptops and reliable
high-speed internet (Gonzalez et al. 2018). The answer to these chal-
lenges included expanded internet access and connections, providing
laptops or tablets to students, and a transition to a pass/fail grading
system instead of standard letter grades. But these short-term solutions
reflected much more the spirit of triage versus transformation. And our
efforts were further compounded by fiscal problems at some institu-
tions that were dependent upon student payment of tuition, room, and
board, not to mention a broader impact on adjunct and contingent faculty
compensation (Foresman 2020).
Finally, chapters summarize their experiences and offer predictions
and projections for the “new normal” in higher education in the post-
pandemic world. Authors describe potential lessons from our pandemic
pedagogy and imagine how we can move successfully from “triage to
transformation” in our teaching and learning approaches (Maimon 2020).
For many of us, this involves creativity and engagement with innovations
in teaching and learning, including mastery of hybrid and online formats
that will effect permanent changes for our institutions. We embrace a new
mindset that is conducive to encouragement and collaboration in exper-
imentation, and we imagine creative new combinations of face-to-face
instruction in the classroom with individual and group activities outside
the class, facilitated through technology (Thai et al. 2017).
10 J. S. LANTIS

Chapter Previews
The chapters included in this collection reflect the spirit of the project:
reflection and assessment of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on
political science education. They represent a diverse set of perspectives
and offer insight into our understanding of what it meant to live and
work through a global disaster. For example, Gigi Gokcek offers a valu-
able perspective as Dean of the School of Liberal Arts and Education at
Dominican University in California. She writes that as an international
relations professor, she has learned the hard way that teaching about
disasters is not the same as living through one. Similarly, Amanda Rosen
examines broad patterns and challenges in higher education, including a
meta-analysis of surveys conducted at various institutions on their adap-
tation to Covid as well as reports from professors and faculty developers
at multiple institutions in the United States.
Jeannie Grussendorf offers a dual perspective on these challenges as
the Director of Undergraduate Studies and a Lecturer in Political Science
at Georgia State University. Her paper examines the results from an
end-of-semester survey of students in her advanced courses at a public
state university that asked students to comment on their experience with
the transition where the last four weeks took place entirely online. This
chapter discusses the students’ suggestions and her own reflections in
the context of the online pedagogy literature, focusing in particular on
the important concepts of relevance of assessment as well as instructor
engagement and presence. In his chapter, Eric Leonard offers an expert
perspective on pandemic pedagogy drawn from a decade of experience
with online and blended teaching and learning. When the pandemic
struck, Leonard was teaching three international relations-related classes
with a flipped learning model at Shenandoah University, but with the
onset of Covid-19 and the movement to entirely online delivery of course
content, Leonard gave careful consideration to how his students would
engage in group space activities and fulfill the higher-level learning.
In her chapter, Kirsten Taylor of Berry College confronts the chal-
lenges of experimentation with pedagogy during the pandemic by
describing an unconventional approach: “ungrading.” This paper reflects
on how ungrading shaped student learning, engagement, and motiva-
tion in a foreign policy analysis course before and after the shift to
remote learning in spring 2020 at a small liberal arts college. In the next
 1 INTRODUCTION: ACTIVE LEARNING FOR A POST-PANDEMIC WORLD 11

chapter, Jason Enia reflects his experiences teaching an upper-level under-

graduate seminar titled, “Problems in Political Science: Disaster Politics”
amid the pandemic at Sam Houston State University in the summer of
2020. Having taught the course online during the same summer term
the previous two summers, Enia used the Covid-19 situation as an oppor-
tunity to change course material and pedagogy in ways that he hoped
would better tie course themes to current events and take advantage of
new opportunities for student engagement given rapidly changing modes
of instruction.
Jeffrey Lantis writes about his experiences teaching “War and Poli-
tics on Film” during World War C. This paper examines the impact of
the Covid-19 pandemic on teaching and learning in an IR course at
a residential liberal arts college in 2020, as well as the surprising rele-
vance between class themes and pandemic challenges, such as the study
of how individuals experience and overcome adversity and conflict. Simi-
larly, Professor Yasemin Akbaba of Gettysburg College drew directly on
her online teaching successes when she recognized the pandemic as both
a challenge and an opportunity to unveil capacity of virtual learning plat-
forms. Her essay focuses on how transition to online learning influenced
students’ experience as learners with a focus on student engagement.
Finally, Jamie Frueh, the Director of the Center for Engaged Learning at
Bridgewater College, concludes the project with a chapter that examines
student performance in an interdisciplinary Global Identities class focused
on public discourse and debate. This offers a fitting coda to this collection
by discussing both successes and failures in our collective efforts to deal
with the disruptions of pandemic pedagogy.

Conclusion
This book is the first of its kind to capture the opportunities and chal-
lenges of political science pedagogy during the Covid-19 pandemic. It
acknowledges that many of us have been on a journey from triage work
to transformation in our teaching and learning approaches over the past
year. And as the threat of the coronavirus appears to have ebbed in the
United States, this may be a propitious time for reflection, reinvention,
and recommitment to interactive methods of teaching and learning.
We hope that this collection of essays will be the beginning, and not the
end, of thoughtful consideration of how the pandemic has changed Polit-
ical Science—and how Political Science theories and constructs can help
12 J. S. LANTIS

us understand how the pandemic has changed the world. The study of
pedagogy within this context is rich and fertile ground for further inquiry.
Not only would we hope to see broader treatments of pandemic peda-
gogy emerge soon—such as studies of how simulations and games for the
active classroom have been transformed for online and hybrid courses—
but also much greater attention to the impact of the pandemic on global
education and advancement. For example, to what degree has the Covid-
19 pandemic really “set the world back” or set higher education back,
and how can we continue to strive to overcome these inequalities? What
forms of pandemic pedagogy will truly stick around the world, and what
impacts will these changes have on teaching and learning? This collec-
tion of essays celebrates a diversity of perspectives on these journeys and
seeks to add more fuel to the fire that is the vibrant dialogue in the
SOTL. By capturing challenges and solutions, danger and hope, at a crit-
ical time in modern history, this book shows how teacher-scholars are
seizing the moment, identifying learning objectives, selecting methods
for teaching that reflect a sense of purpose, and looking forward with a
renewed commitment.

References
Akbaba, Yasemin, and Filiz Başkan. 2017. “How to Merge Courses via Skype™?
Lessons from an International Blended Learning Project.” Research in
Learning Technology 25: 18.
Baccini, Leonardo, and Abel Brodeur. 2020. “Explaining Governors’ Response
to the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States.” American Politics Research
49: 215–220.
Basrur, Rajesh, and Frederick Kliem. 2021. “Covid-19 and International Coop-
eration: IR Paradigms at Odds.” SN Social Sciences 1 (1): 1–10.
Bombardieri, Marcella. 2021. “COVID-19 Changed Education in America
Permanently.” Politico.com, April 15. https://www.politico.com/news/
2021/04/15/covid-changed-education-permanently-479317.
Calarco, J. M., Ronald Christensen, and Syung Kim. 2018. “Coached for the
Classroom: Parents’ Cultural Transmission and Children’s Reproduction of
Educational Inequalities.” American Sociological Review 79 (4): 1015–1037.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414546931
Cordell, Rebecca, Reed M. Wood, and Thorin Wright. 2021. “Disease and
Dissent: Epidemics as a Catalyst for Social Unrest.” Author’s copy.
 1 INTRODUCTION: ACTIVE LEARNING FOR A POST-PANDEMIC WORLD 13

Davies, Sara E., and Clare Wenham. 2020. “Why the COVID-19 Response
Needs International Relations.” International Affairs 96 (5): 1227–1251.
Diep, Anh-Nguyet, Chang Zhu, Katrien Struyven, and Yves Blieck. 2017. “Who
or What Contributes to Student Satisfaction in Different Blended Learning
Modalities?” British Journal of Educational Technology 48 (2): 473–489.
Drezner, Daniel W. 2020. “The Song Remains the Same: International Relations
After COVID-19.” International Organization 74 (S1): E18–E35.
Foresman, Betty. 2020. “Pandemic Relief Bill Doesn’t Go Far Enough for
Higher Education.” EdScoop.com, December 29. https://edscoop.com/pan
demic-relief-bill-2020-higher-education/.
Glazier, Rebecca. 2016. “Building Rapport to Improve Retention and Success in
Online Classes.” Journal of Political Science Education 12 (4): 437–456.
Glazier, Rebecca, Kerstin Hamann, Philip K. Pollock, and Bruce M. Wilson.
2019. “Age, Gender, and Student Success: Mixing Face-to-Face and Online
Courses in Political Science.” Journal of Political Science Education. https://
doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2018.1515636.
Gonzalez-Torres, Ada, and Elena Esposito. 2020. “Epidemics and Conflicts:
Evidence from the Ebola Outbreak in Western Africa.” https://papers.ssrn.
com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3544606.
Gonzales, Amy L., Jessica McCroryCalarco, Teresa Lynch. 2018. “Technology
Problems and Student Achievement Gaps: A Validation and Extension of the
Technology Maintenance Construct.” Communication Research. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0093650218796366.
Hamada, Ryoju, Songsri Soranastaporn, Hidehiko Kanegae, Pongchai Dumron-
grojwatthana, Settachai Chaisanit, Paola Rizzi, and Vinod Dumblekar (eds.).
2019. Neo-Simulation and Gaming Toward Active Learning. Singapore:
Springer Nature.
Ishiyama, John, William J. Miller, Eszter Simon (eds.). 2015. Handbook on
Teaching and Learning in Political Science and International Relations.
London: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Jankowski, Natasha A. 2020. Assessment During a Crisis: Responding to a
Global Pandemic. National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment
Report, August. https://www.learningoutcomesassessment.org/wp-content/
uploads/2020/08/2020-COVID-Survey.pdf.
Kishore, Sanjay, and Margaret Hayden. 2020. “Community Health Centers and
COVID-19—Time for Congress to Act.” New England Journal of Medicine
383 (8): e54.
Kübler-Ross, Elisabeth, and David Kessler. 2005. On Grief and Grieving: Finding
the Meaning of Grief through Five Stages of Loss. New York: Simon and
Schuster.
14 J. S. LANTIS

Lederman, Doug. 2020. “How Teaching Changed in the (Forced) Shift to

Remote Learning.” Inside Higher Education, April 22. https://www.inside
highered.com/digital-learning/chapter/2020/04/22/how-professors-cha
nged-their-teaching-springs-shift-remote.
Lipscy, Phillip Y. 2020. “COVID-19 and the Politics of Crisis.” International
Organization 74 (S1): E98–E127.
Maimon, Elaine P. 2020. “From Triage to Transformation: Higher Education Is
at a Pivotal Moment.” Inside Higher Education, July 30. https://www.inside
highered.com/views/2020/07/30/higher-ed-institutions-should-use-covid-
crisis-rethink-their-systems-and-create-new.
Marshall, Wesley C., and Eugenia Correa. 2020. “The Crossroads: The Political
Economy of the Pandemic.” International Journal of Political Economy 49
(4): 304–317.
Mason, Gregory, TeodoraRutar Shuman, and Kathleen E. Cook. 2013.
“Inverting (flipping) Classrooms—Advantages and Challenges.” In 120th
ASEE Annual Conference & Exhibition. Atlanta: ASEE. http://www.asee.
org/public/conferences/20/papers/7171/download.
McClellan, Fletcher, Kyle Casimir Kopko, and Kayla L. Gruber. 2020. “High-
Impact Practices and Their Effects: Implications for the Undergraduate
Political Science Curriculum.” Journal of Political Science Education 17:
674–692.
McNamara, Kathleen R., and Abraham L. Newman. 2020. “The Big Reveal:
COVID-19 and Globalization’s Great Transformations.” International Orga-
nization 74 (S1): E59–E77.
Neelakantan, Shailaja. 2020. “Fully Online in Fall 2020 Too? Many Colleges Are
Leaning Toward it, Says Survey.” Diverse Issues in Higher Education, April 12.
https://diverseeducation.com/chapter/172917/.
Pevehouse, Jon C. W. 2020. “The COVID-19 Pandemic, International Cooper-
ation, and Populism.” International Organization 74 (S1): E191–E212.
Prifti, Rezart. 2020. “Self-Efficacy and Student Satisfaction in the Context of
Blended Learning Courses.” Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance
and e-Learning 1–15.
Purcell, Margaret A. 2020. “Teaching PSC to Gen Z.” Journal of Political Science
Education 16 (3): 335–343.
Rice, A. 2020. “Follow the Data: How Campuses Use Assessment in Times of
Change.” Campus Intelligence, May 21.
Seaman, Julia E., I. Elaine Allen, and Jeff Seaman. 2018. Grade Increase:
Tracking Distance Education in the United States. Babson Survey Research
Group. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED580852.pdf
St. George, Donna, Valerie Strauss, Laura Meckler, Joe Helm, and Hannah
Natanson. 2021. “How the Pandemic is Reshaping Education.” Washington
Post. March 15.
 1 INTRODUCTION: ACTIVE LEARNING FOR A POST-PANDEMIC WORLD 15

Thai, Ngoc Thuy Thi, Bram De Wever, and Martin Valcke. 2017. “The Impact
of a Flipped Classroom Design on Learning Performance in Higher Educa-
tion: Looking for the Best ‘Blend’ of Lectures and Guiding Questions with
Feedback.” Computers & Education 107 (1): 113–126.
Williams, B., 2020. “The Politics of a Pandemic.” Political Insight 11 (3): 37–39.
 CHAPTER 2

Theory vs. Practice: An Administrative

Perspective on Teaching and Learning
in a Pandemic

Gigi Gokcek

Abstract As Dean of the School of Liberal Arts and Education and a

political science professor, I learned the hard way that teaching about
disasters is not the same as living through one. In IR, the study of
pandemics and communicable diseases falls under neoliberal institution-
alism because the prevention and management of global pandemics
require the cooperation of states, through intergovernmental organiza-
tions like the World Health Organization, to overcome a collective goods
problem. Students of IR learn that global health security is a collective
good (common or shared interest for all humans). Yet with the Covid-
19 pandemic, today’s students and future generations will learn that the
lack of global governance produced a worldwide health crisis in 2020.

G. Gokcek (B)
School of Liberal Arts and Education, Dominican
University of California, San Rafael, CA, USA
e-mail: gigi.gokcek@dominican.edu

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 17

Switzerland AG 2022
J. S. Lantis (ed.), Active Learning in Political Science
for a Post-Pandemic World, Political Pedagogies,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94713-2_2
18 G. GOKCEK

This essay offers the perspective of an administrator at a small liberal arts

institution to examine how colleges and universities can avoid the collec-
tive action problem at all levels of the organization to deliver education
remotely. Relying on anecdotal evidence from faculty and student surveys,
the discussion focuses on the lessons learned for effective delivery of
remote teaching. The chapter draws parallels between global and univer-
sity governance to show that states, like campus units, can collaborate to
conquer an unforeseen challenge as a pandemic.

Keywords University administration · Collective action · Student

safety · Realism · Neoliberal institutionalism · International cooperation ·
Teaching and learning

As Dean of the School of Liberal Arts and Education and a professor

of political science who has published on and taught about pandemics
to undergraduates for years, I learned the hard way that teaching about
disasters is not the same as living through one. In the subfield of interna-
tional relations (IR), the study of pandemics and communicable diseases
falls within the theoretical framework of neoliberal institutionalism. The
prevention and management of global pandemics require the coopera-
tion of states, through intergovernmental organizations like the World
Health Organization (WHO), to overcome a collective goods problem.
Students of IR learn that global health security is a collective good as a
common or shared interest for all humans. Yet, the Covid-19 pandemic
in 2020 will serve as an example for future generations on how the lack of
global governance led to a worldwide health crisis in the early twenty-first
century.
Even though governments were slow to act in response to the spread
of this virus, universities in the United States quickly shut down their
campuses and shifted to remote instruction in record time to avoid a
catastrophic event in higher education. This essay presents an admin-
istrator’s perspective on the actions that universities took to avoid the
collective action problem at all levels of the organization in order to
deliver education remotely. Dominican University of California is a small
private university of approximately 1800 students in the Northern San
Francisco Bay Area. This chapter focuses on our experiences, the lessons
 2 THEORY VS. PRACTICE: AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERSPECTIVE… 19

learned, and some parallels between global and university governance to

show that states, like complex campus units, can collaborate to conquer
an unforeseen challenge as a pandemic.

Pre-Pandemic Institutional Orientations

and Commitments: Facing the Covid-19 Challenge
By some bizarre coincidence, before the Covid-19 pandemic I co-
authored a chapter titled, “Invisible Foes and Micro-enemies: Pathogens,
Diseases, and Global Health Security” in a volume that I co-edited, titled
Understanding New Security Threats (Gueldry et al. 2019; Formentos
and Gokcek 2019). I assigned the chapter on global health security in
my IR course, which concluded at the end of Fall 2019, around the
same time doctors in China were becoming alarmed that a virulent virus
was spreading throughout Wuhan, the capital of Hubei province. At the
conclusion of that semester, any fears and concerns my students and I
might have had about a future pandemic were minimal, instead being
relegated to a science-fiction fantasy in movies like Outbreak (1995)
and Contagion (2011). The confidence that I had in our international
institutions to facilitate cooperation between governments to avert an
unimaginable nightmare scenario is the reason teaching and studying
about a global pandemic seemed hypothetical. I could not have imag-
ined back then how the pandemic would actually impact my institution
and me as an educator/administrator.
Why were universities across the country able to act immediately
and decisively in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, when govern-
ments around the world appeared to struggle with stay-at-home orders?
Naturally, one reason is that universities are much smaller units, unlike
sovereign states, with perhaps much less complexity and constituencies
to rely upon in the management of their day-to-day operations. More-
over, unlike the anarchic global system composed of sovereign states,
universities are managed hierarchically, with the upper Administration
beholden to governing boards, which are charged with fiduciary respon-
sibilities, while the administrative units have delegated authority over
academic affairs and operations. As it became clearer each subsequent
day, week, and month in 2020 that a deadly virus, which had emerged in
one country, was now spreading like wildfire across the globe, university
leaders began responding similarly.
20 G. GOKCEK

By mid-March 2020, over 300 universities in the United States had

made a decision to move classes online (Foresman). This dramatic
transition required all units on campus (academic affairs, information
technology, residential life, business services, athletics, etc.) to come
together quickly, with little warning to deliver education remotely.
The goal was “to ensure that students’ education was disrupted as
little as possible” with universities relying on a variety of digital tools,
“including online learning management systems, video conferencing tools
and messaging platforms, to make sure students can access course mate-
rials and communicate with professors” (Foresman). Whereas universities
were already making preparations to shut down and move everything
online, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) at the time had not
recommended that campuses pre-emptively close, but rather, asked that
they take decisive action only if they had identified any Covid-19 cases
(Foresman). However, previous research on the 1918–1919 Influenza
Pandemic showed that school closures were among the most effective
non-pharmaceutical interventions (Markel et al. 2007). Unlike national
governments, universities and colleges understood the urgency to act
quickly because we had learned from previous emergencies and tragedies.
Academic institutions regularly and continuously hold workshops and
retreats to train the campus community to navigate through almost any
unimaginable crisis. The ability of faculty to adapt their courses demon-
strates resilience and leadership to students when an unforeseen challenge
is presented. Professors know to design courses with inherent flexibility,
thereby building into the schedule adaptability to get through content
without overwhelming students (Joshi et al. 2018). For example, during
the wildfire season in California, schools are now routinely prepared to
temporarily shut down and evacuate the campus. This preparation has
resulted from the experience of multiple power outages, the close prox-
imity of fire to campus, and/or dangerous air quality in past years. In
the US Southeast, schools have prepared to do the same during hurri-
cane season. When Hurricane Florence hit in 2018, the University of
North Carolina Wilmington had to shut down for approximately one
month. On the other side of the world, when a 6.3 magnitude earthquake
struck Christchurch, New Zealand, in 2011, faculty at the University of
Canterbury “adapted to teaching in tents on the car park or in approved
buildings off-campus. Courses were shortened by one to three weeks,
and students were required to become stronger independent learners.
With less opportunity for face-to-face contact, lecturers learnt how to use
 2 THEORY VS. PRACTICE: AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERSPECTIVE… 21

the computer learning system more intensively, and some recorded their
lectures” (Lord 2011, 591).
These types of experiences taught university administrators that class
meetings could be held remotely through “the use of e-learning and
associated available technologies” in order “to provide students with
continued access to educational” programs “when physical attendance
on a campus is highly problematic or impossible” (Tull et al. 2017, 66).
Thus, universities had learned through crises (either their own or those
at other institutions) that investment in technology would be the key not
only to survive, but also to overcome possible disruptions to regular busi-
ness operations. During a crisis, university administrators, professors, and
staff need to communicate regularly with the campus community directly
via email, social media, or through a communication tree.
It is also important to recognize that some members of a univer-
sity community may be more directly impacted by a crisis than others.
University counselors are available to help those in need. Professors
make alternative arrangements for course assignments when students are
unable to do their work, either because of physical disruptions like power
outages and displacement, or for emotional reasons after living through
a crisis.Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, educators were already prepared
and knew, should the unexpected hit, they would need to deliver the same
course content in an alternative mode. Indeed, some faculty build a crisis
into their courses as a learning opportunity. In the immediate aftermath
of the Boston Marathon bombings in 2013, some faculty at surrounding
universities and colleges “changed their original plans for class upon real-
izing that their students needed to discuss the crisis” (Hosek and Lauren
2016, 71).
Although there was some variation across institutions over the course
of the pandemic, higher education was nearly completely remote by mid-
spring 2020, with online course delivery and Zoom meetings becoming
the norm. As states made varying decisions on the degree to open the
economy and lift stay-at-home orders, most universities and colleges
seemed to act in unison. However, as the pandemic wore on, some
colleges and universities diverged from others. Whereas the California
public universities decided to remain online because of surging cases
throughout the state, in Texas, Georgia, and much of the southern United
States, the attitude was quite different as students and teachers were
encouraged to engage in-person or hybrid learning. The political culture
or leaning of a region appeared to influence local or state governments
22 G. GOKCEK

on mask mandates, in-person gatherings and limited capacity, as well as

online teaching, thereby impacting university decisions. Nonetheless, and
despite these differences, the ability of all universities and colleges to adapt
quickly and effectively in response to the pandemic likely kept the number
of cases lower than they might have been in other circumstances.

Living Through the Pandemic

At Dominican University, our experience was similar to institutions across
the country. On March 16, 2020, the first shelter-in-place order in the
country went into effect in the six Bay Area Counties of California. The
week prior was our Spring Break, and most faculty and students were away
from campus. Prior to Spring Break, university administration, faculty, and
staff began a conversation on what might happen if the university needed
to shut down immediately because of a Covid-19 outbreak, as commu-
nity spread had been reported in the adjacent counties. The university
began preparing while waiting for directives from local, state, and national
governments. Although students and faculty were away, including two
sets of groups on co-curricular excursions to Iceland and Costa Rica,
the rest of the staff/administrative units were on campus planning for
asynchronous or synchronous delivery of courses. Vice presidents, deans,
faculty developers, and information technology team members gathered
to map out remote delivery of education if the campus was forced to shut
down. The administration canceled classes for the first two days following
Spring Break, but no one imagined that we were preparing for a far longer
shut down than any of us knew was coming.
Once the shelter-in-place order went into effect, all students, faculty,
and staff were asked to leave campus immediately. Many faculty did not
realize that what was happening was not going to be a few days away from
campus, as we had grown accustomed to during past wildfires and power
outages. Thus, offices were vacated without taking into account that
faculty might not be able to return to access books and other materials to
teach. Until that point, many faculty had not even used Zoom either—
on a regular basis, or ever. As one faculty member stated, it was truly
a “triage moment” as we all adapted day-to-day with ongoing guidance
and leadership from the president and provost every few days. However,
the sense of community was felt in spite of the distance. Everyone came
together, supported one another, and demonstrated compassion toward
each other, thereby managing to conclude the semester remotely.
 2 THEORY VS. PRACTICE: AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERSPECTIVE… 23

Once the academic year wrapped up, a Fall Strategy Team (FST) was
instituted at the university. Knowing full well that the pandemic would
not end on the first day of classes in August 2020, the team consisted
of academic and operations leaders across campus that met weekly to
prepare the university for the fall semester. Several working groups were
established with guidance from the Association of Independent Cali-
fornia Colleges and Universities to help FST members focus on different
issue areas that would require planning and implementation: Health and
Safety; Learning and Student Support; Infrastructure; Personnel; Finance
and Legal: and Communications and External Relations. Together, they
guided leaders of the various units to coordinate on a range of issues:
weekly Covid-19 tests for members of the campus community; adapting
dorms, residential halls, classrooms, and office spaces to limited capacity;
making protective gear available to everyone on campus (face shields);
arranging outdoor classroom space and building covered dance floors
to take the place of indoor studios; posting signage inside and outside
of buildings; shifting to online forms for all business (reimbursements,
course substitutions, etc.); etc.…
The Academic Affairs Office determined that in order to keep the
campus community connected, professional development sessions and
tuition-free courses should be offered. Professional development sessions
were geared toward pandemic pedagogy to assist faculty in adjusting to
face-to-face, hybrid, and online asynchronous and synchronous modal-
ities. Given that no one could predict in the middle of the summer
whether the campus community would be fully in-person once the
academic year resumed, faculty had to be prepared for all scenarios. As
the summer rolled on and Covid-19 cases surged throughout California,
it became clearer that not everyone would be able to return to campus
in the fall. Before the state issued guidelines that only essential programs
could return to campus, school deans and department chairs determined
that only those courses that would be unable to meet learning outcomes
effectively through remote instruction would be held in person.
In terms of enrollment, for the academic year 2020–2021 Dominican
was consistent with national averages of new students, but retention rates
were higher than anticipated among continuing students, even in a non-
pandemic year. Athletic programs remained on hiatus until the NCAA
indicated it was alright for athletes to return for practice and games. What
distinguished Fall 2020 from Spring 2020 was the amount of advanced
24 G. GOKCEK

preparations for the remote delivery of education. As Dominican’s Presi-

dent wrote in “Moving from Tactical to the Strategic” for Inside Higher
Ed, “By necessity, that adaptation has been somewhat ad hoc and reac-
tive as we struggled to understand the nuances of evolving public health
protocols…” (Marcy 2021, 2). So how well did our collective planning
and preparation work once everything went into effect? The next section
answers this question with evidence gathered from aggregate data from a
student survey conducted in Fall 2020.

Assessment: Delivering
Education in a Global Pandemic
Between September and October 2020, the university administered a
Covid-19 Student Survey, developed by the Higher Education Data
Sharing Consortium (HEDS). Our objective in conducting the survey was
to assess the effectiveness of online instruction and co-curricular delivery,
to learn how students were performing, as well as to understand where
greater support from units on campus was needed. For example, in terms
of living arrangements, we learned that more than 80% of students, lived
off-campus during the fall semester. Students who were not on campus
conveyed satisfaction with their reduced risk of contracting Covid-19, as
well as spending time with family, and saving financially. Students living
on campus claimed that wearing masks in their residential units was the
hardest guideline to follow; nevertheless, 90% of them felt “pretty” or
“very” safe with the measures the university had taken to protect the
campus.
With respect to academics, over 40% of students indicated they took
at least some in-person classes, though 95% said most of their classes
were online. Regarding their Fall 2020 courses and communications from
Dominican, students expressed the highest level of agreement with the
statement: “My professors respond in a timely manner when I have ques-
tions or concerns;” and the lowest agreement with the statement: “My
online classes this fall are better than my classes last spring after my
institution moved to online learning.” Students communicated that they
were most satisfied with class discussions and lectures via Zoom, and
identified potential opportunities for improving satisfaction that included
virtual tutoring sessions, online library materials, interactive simulations,
and discussion boards, as well as virtual office hours. More than half
of students taking courses exclusively online reported an average of
 2 THEORY VS. PRACTICE: AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERSPECTIVE… 25

seven hours or more spent on the computer for classes and work per
day. Many students discussed challenges related to academic workload,
expressing that some faculty expectations seemed unrealistic, and in
fact, more demanding than during a typical term. The combination of
pandemic, wildfires in the area, family and work responsibilities, physical
and mental health issues seemed to impact students’ abilities to manage
their coursework.
Regarding connectivity to the Dominican community in an envi-
ronment of remote learning, most students felt “Some” or a “Very
strong” connection, while 25% reported “Very little” or “No” connec-
tion. Among the undergraduate population with each cohort, a sense of
connectivity to the university decreased, freshmen reported the strongest,
and seniors reported the weakest connection. When asked for ideas on
how to improve student experience, many requested increased online
event offerings, like game nights, other social activities with peers,
informal meet-and-greets with faculty, more personal check-ins with
instructors, and even extended office hours. Other students expressed a
desire for a variety of in-person, but socially distant, opportunities for
interactions on campus, which ranged from being allowed to have guests
in dorms, to one-on-one faculty meetings, to study groups, to more
hands-on learning experiences or “just getting back to normal.”
Some of the negative student experiences included the challenges of
engaging online and social activities, low motivation levels, and a hard
time focusing without distractions were also reported, however. Frequent
struggles related to a lack of connection to peers and instructors, diffi-
culty meeting and making friends, especially among first-year students,
and generally feeling isolated from the campus community. Students
were least satisfied with the social life on campus, followed by access
to services to improve their physical health, and opportunities to partic-
ipate in campus events, clubs, and student organizations. Respondents
also expressed disappointment for missing out on a traditional college
experience, and wished that they could be back on campus. Yet, many
also requested the option of continuing remotely during the pandemic,
because of physical and mental health reasons, as well as homecare and
work responsibilities.
26 G. GOKCEK

Reflections on Inequalities Laid Bare

Unlike undergraduates today, as a student of the twentieth century, I had
not experienced a global pandemic. When I was in college 30 years ago,
as a political science major in an IR course, I learned about arms races,
nuclear non-proliferation, and great power wars. Twenty-first-century
college students yearn to learn about cyber warfare, sex and human traf-
ficking, water security, food security, international and domestic terrorism,
and now global health security. Writing about micro-pathogens, or “invis-
ible foes,” as potential threats to global health security started out as a
hypothetical, that, as a responsible educator, I felt was necessary to teach
my students. In an anarchic world, the only way to manage the spread of
virulent diseases to prevent the massive loss of life is through international
institutions and coordinated efforts across governments (Formentos and
Gokcek 2019). What the world experienced in 2020 was the failure of
collective action, or a lack of cooperation among sovereign states to
coordinate their policies to stop the spread of Covid-19.
Almost a year and a half after the WHO declared Covid-19 a
global pandemic, more than 175 million people around the world had
contracted the virus, and nearly 3.8 million people have lost their lives
(https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/). Moreover, the world
economy suffered, as many lost their jobs, businesses of all sizes went
bust, and hundreds of thousands were forced to collect unemployment
benefits. Universities felt the direct impact as well, with many seeing
significant hits to their budgets, forcing the closure of programs, cuts
to employment benefits, and even the shuttering of whole institutions
because of the financial hardships exacerbated by the pandemic. Despite
direct relief from the federal government in response to the Covid-19
fallout, one wonders how the pandemic might have played out had the
United States, as a global leader, mobilized other countries to coordinate
efforts to combat the problem.
Instead, the Trump administration announced in the middle of the
pandemic that it was withdrawing the United States from the WHO
(Cohen et al. 2020). The administration reasoned that the, “US’ contri-
bution to the WHO—$400–500 million—was inordinately large in
comparison to China’s, and consistently accused the organization of
aiding the latter in allegedly covering up the origins of the virus and
allowing its spread” (Cohen et al. 2020). Subsequently, leaders of the
 2 THEORY VS. PRACTICE: AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERSPECTIVE… 27

American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, Amer-

ican Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Physi-
cians urged Congress to reject the Trump Administration’s decision to
withdraw from the WHO and preserve the United States’ “relationship
with this valued global institution…to invest in global health, rather than
turn back” (Cohen et al. 2020). Once he took office on January 20,
2021, President Biden announced that the United States would rejoin the
WHO in an effort “to advance pandemic preparedness, reverse the health
consequences of climate change, and promote better health globally”
(Weintraub 2021).
The decision to remain engaged with the international community
through the WHO supports the theory of neoliberal institutionalism. The
establishment of the UN in 1945, and subsequently the WHO in 1948,
was a shift in global attitudes from fear, mistrust, and conflict, toward
cooperation and peace. “The lack of a world authority compels sovereign
states to provide protection of their national interests in an environ-
ment of global anarchy. Some international problems require that states
place global interests above national ones when the two may be at odds”
(Formentos and Gokcek 2019, 111). Neoliberal institutionalism provides
insight as to how governments are able to overcome their respective
national interests to address a common goal through cooperation facil-
itated by IGOs “to deal with a collective goods dilemma, which benefit
all, irrespective of individual contributions to its production” (Formentos
and Gokcek 2019, 111). The WHO, as well as US membership and lead-
ership in the organization, is key to heralding others states to coordinate
in protecting the citizens of the world from future pandemics (Weintraub
2021).

Projections for a New Normal: Lesson

Learned from Remote Education
Whereas governments failed to cooperate in preventing the Covid-19
pandemic, universities took decisive collective action to shut down their
respective campuses and move everything to remote delivery to avoid
what might have been a far more catastrophic event to the world.
Dominican’s administration realized that this new way of “doing” higher
education was not a temporary adjustment because of the pandemic, but
likely would pave the way for a new normal. Remote learning taught
faculty, who held reservations about online teaching, that it was not
28 G. GOKCEK

as daunting as they once assumed. When it became necessary to make

the shift, most faculty effectively made that adjustment, and were even
surprised that they enjoyed the experience far more than imagined.
One lesson learned here is that going forward, the university will
be able to offer more online and hybrid course options, as a way to
appeal to students with busy lives who might not always find it easy
to take courses on the physical campus. The university’s investment in
smart classroom technology to provide streaming services now makes it
more likely that professors and students will continue to rely on virtual
video-conferencing tools like Zoom post-pandemic. The administration
also decided that many of the day-to-day operations could be handled
remotely, including meeting through Zoom, as opposed to on-campus.
The ease with which staff, faculty, and administrators can Zoom into a
meeting taught everyone that we did not all need to be in the same
location to carry on with handling important university business. We
now know from our experience that universities are capable of adapting,
shifting, and responding to individual needs, while continuing to deliver
education effectively even while fully remote. The forced adjustments in
response to the pandemic might prove in the long run to be “more
sustainable and more educationally robust” (Marcy 2021, 3). Finally,
political leaders might apply some of the strategies used by univer-
sity administrators to implement effective planning to better prepare
corporations, organizations, and institutions for future global events and
emergencies.

Acknowledgements I thank Dr. Leah Ozeroff, Director of Institutional Effec-

tiveness at Dominican University of California for providing the results from the
HEDS (Higher Education Data Sharing Consortium) survey that was adminis-
tered to students at my university. I also thank Dr. Lonnie W. Olson, Director
of Assessment at Texas State University for his constructive feedback. I express
my gratitude to Dr. Jeffrey S. Lantis at the College of Wooster for the invita-
tion to contribute to this important volume on pandemic pedagogy in political
science, as well as Dr. Yasemin Akbaba at Gettysburg College for her insightful
comments on a version of this chapter that was presented first as a paper at the
annual International Studies Association virtual convention in April 2021.

Declaration of Interest Statement The author declares that there is no conflict

of interest.
 2 THEORY VS. PRACTICE: AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERSPECTIVE… 29

References
Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities. 2020. “Recom-
mendations for a Fall Return to Independent Higher Education in California.”
AICCU Higher Education Task Force, June 19.
Cohen, Z., J. Hansler, K. Atwood, V. Salama, and S. Murray. 2020. “Trump
Administration Begins Formal Withdrawal from World Health Organiza-
tion.” CNN , July 8. https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/07/politics/us-wit
hdrawing-world-health-organization/index.html.
Foresman, B. 2020. “Here are the US Universities That Closed Due to Coro-
navirus.” EdScoop, March 12. https://edscoop.com/universities-closed-due-
coronavirus-2020/.
Formentos, A. and G. Gokcek. 2019. “Invisible Foes and Micro-Enemies:
Pathogens, Diseases, and Global Health Security.” In Understanding New
Security Threats, eds. M. Gueldry, G. Gokcek, and L. Hebron, 106–117.
London: Routledge.
Gueldry, M., G. Gokcek, and L. Hebron. 2019. “Yesterday’s Security Debates,
Today’s Realities.” In Understanding New Security Threats, 106–117.
London: Routledge.
Hosek, A. M., and A. Lauren. 2016. “Exploring Pedagogical and Emotional
Response in Higher Education Classrooms During the Boston Marathon
Bombing Crisis.” Qualitative Research Reports in Communication 17 (16):
68–76.
Joshi, R., Kong, J., Nykamp, H., and H. Fynewever. 2018. “Universities Shaken
by Earthquakes: A Comparison of Faculty and Student Experiences in Nepal
and New Zealand.” International Journal of Higher Education 7 (4): 176–
186.
Lord, B. 2011. “Coping with Natural Disasters: Lessons Learnt by a Head of
Department.” Accounting Education: An International Journal 20 (6): 589–
592.
Marcy, M. B. 2021. “Moving from the Tactical to the Strategic.” Inside Higher
Ed, January 5. https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2021/01/05/col
leges-shouldnt-mistake-forced-short-term-adjustments-pandemic-necessary-
long.
Markel, H., Lipman, H. B., and J. Alexander Navarro. 2007. “Nonpharma-
ceutical Interventions Implemented by US Cities During the 1918–1919
Influenza Pandemic.” JAMA 298 (6): 644–654. https://jamanetwork.com/
journals/jama/fullarticle/208354.
Tull, S., Dabner, N., and K. Ayebi-Arthur. 2017. “Social Media and E-Learning
in Response to Seismic Events: Resilient Practices.” Journal of Open, Flexible,
and Distance Learning 21 (1): 63–76.
30 G. GOKCEK

Weintraub, K. 2021. “Biden Administration Renewed Support for the World

Health Organization ‘Is Good News for America and the World’ Scientists
Say.” USA Today, February 22. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/hea
lth/2021/01/22/scientists-applaud-biden-decision-rejoin-world-health-org
anization/4243377001/.
 CHAPTER 3

Suddenly Teaching Online: How Teaching

Excellence Centers Helped Manage New
Modes of Education During the Covid-19
Pandemic

Amanda M. Rosen

Abstract As Covid-19 forced many courses online with little or no

notice, faculty and students had to quickly adjust to new learning environ-
ments under traumatic conditions. This chapter examines the transition

This paper is solely the work of the author, and the views expressed here do not
necessarily represent those of the U.S. Naval War College or Departments of
the Navy or Defense.

A. M. Rosen (B)
Teaching Excellence Center, Naval War College,
Newport, RI, USA
e-mail: Amanda.Rosen@usnwc.edu

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 31

Switzerland AG 2022
J. S. Lantis (ed.), Active Learning in Political Science
for a Post-Pandemic World, Political Pedagogies,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94713-2_3
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 De ez csak szó volt. A szive bensejében egy addig ismeretlen
hang támadt föl és – akár hiszik, akár nem – egész komolyan ezt
mondta:
– Tévedni tetszik, Jozefin.
 XIX.

Quastl ur, a derék fiskális, egy nap arra a felfedezésre jutott,

hogy Tilda kisasszony szeszélyes. Ez magában véve nem lett volna
nagy baj, sokkal kellemetlenebbül érintette azonban az ügyvédet az
a tény, hogy az ifju hölgy éppen vele szemben éreztette a
szeszélyességét. Tilda mindig talált valami kifogásolni valót a
vőlegényén, hol a kalapját, hol a jogi fejtegetéseit, hol a világnézeteit
kifogásolta. E mellett a lány állandóan annak a gyanujának adott
kifejezést, hogy a fiskális csak a világ előtt mutatja a komoly és
megfontolt embert, titokban azonban éppen nem veti meg az élet
apró örömeit.
Quastl ur egy ideig nyugodtan türte mindezt. Tőle Tilda
beszélhetett, az ügyvéd ur komolyan – mint a halottaskocsik
tollbokrétás lovai, – bólintgatott hozzá a fejével. Egyszer azonban a
lány oly területre tévedt, ahol Quastl ur nem értette a tréfát.
Mint tudjuk, a fiskális arca csupaszra volt borotválva, mindössze
az állán fityegett egy furcsa kis kecskeszakáll, amilyet régi szepesi
polgárok arcképein lehet látni. A Quastl-családban, amely szintén
felvidéki volt, családi hagyomány volt ez a furcsa szakáll. Az
ügyvédnek az apja, a nagyapja, az ükapja is ilyet hordott és az
unokák bizonyára szintén ilyen hajdiszt fognak viselni.
Egy napon Tilda ránézett vőlegényére és igy szólott:
– Hogy lehet kérem ilyen lehetetlen szakállal járni?
A fiskális majd hanyattesett e sértésre. Hogyne: hiszen a Quastl-
szakáll olyan jellegző családi vonas volt, mint a Habsburg-ajak, vagy
a Hohenzollern-áll.
 – Lehetetlen szakáll? – dadogta tehát. – Csak nem gondolja ezt
komolyan?
Tildát hidegen hagyta az ifju megdöbbenése.
– Igenis, lehetetlen szakáll. Ilyet ma csak kucsébereken látni.
Miért nem visel mindjárt fülbevalót is?
– De Tilda kisasszony! Dédapám a sultész, nagyapám a rektor,
és apám a tanácsnok is ezt a szakállt hordta.
A leány hidegen nézett rá vőlegényére.
– Az nekem mindegy. Nekem ez a szakáll nem tetszik, s ha
becsül valamire, holnap leborotváltatja ezt a pamacsot.
Pamacs! Quastllal forgott a világ. De végre, a galambnak is van
epéje, sőt még az ügyvédnek is. Az ifju tehát felállt, az égnek
forditotta tekintetét és elhatározottan igy felelt:
– Azt nem fogom megtenni, kisasszony. Azt semmi esetre se
tehetem meg.
A leány gunyosan bólintott fejével.
– Tehát annyira tisztel, hogy ezt a szerény kivánságomat is
visszautasitja?
A vőlegény begombolta a kabátját.
– Sajnálom, – válaszolta szilárdan, – de e kérdésben nem
engedhetek. Kivánjon akármit, szivesen kapitulálok, de a Quastl-
szakáll tradicióit nem tagadhatom meg.
A leány nem szólt többet. Szépen fölszedte a kézimunkáját és
átment a szomszéd szobába, magára hagyva az elképedt ügyvédet.
Szegény Quastl, mit tehetett volna? Egy ideig elcsevegett a
kanárival, amelyet többszörös „Mándi! Mándi!!“ megszólitással
tüntetett ki, aztán kinézett az ablakon és megszámlálta hány ember
megy el alatta, végül azonban, látva, hogy Tilda nem tér vissza,
fogta magát és komoly léptekkel ballagott haza. Komoly léptekkel,
mondom, de, ah! bensejében a fiskális csalódással vegyes
keserüséget érzett. Soha nem tételezte volna fel Tildáról, hogy ilyen
kegyetlen tudjon lenni, sohase hitte volna, hogy a nőknek áldozatot
is kell tudni hozni, végül sohase gondolt arra, hogy a szerelemben
más tényezők is legyenek, mint a házassági szerződés, az egyházi
összeadás és a férji magánjogok. Hogy valakinek a boldogsága egy
szakállon forduljon meg, egészen uj és megdöbbentő volt Quastl ur
praxisában.
Az ügyvéd tehát kissé elkeseredve érkezett haza és némileg a
Goethe Wertherjéhez hasonlatosnak érezte magát. Igen, a fiskális ur
el volt szontyolodva és többször e szavakat ismételgette magában:
– Ez nem helyes. Ez nagyon nem helyes!
(Végre is: az ő vérmérsékleténél ez a kitörés elég erélyes volt.)
Minekutána körülbelü százszor elmondotta volt e szavakat,
Quastl ur elborult ábrázattal hivta be a gazdasszonyát.
– Lizi néni! – szólt zordonan. – Hozzon fel nekem egy kancsó
karviniki sört.
A jó öreg asszony állkapcsa leesett ijedtében.
– Sört? – hebegte. – Azt tetszett mondani, sört?
– Igen, – felelte az ügyvéd szigoruan.
– Sört… sört, – dadogta még mindig Lizi néni, aztán sürü
fejcsóválások között engedelmeskedett a parancsnak.
– Vajjon mi üthetett hozzá? – tépelődött a szegény asszony a
lépcsőházban. – Életében egyszer kért csak sört, mert egy kliense
bepanaszolta a korcsmárost, hogy hamisitott sört árul és
bizonyitékra volt szükség.
Quastl ur mohón hajtotta fel az árpalét, aztán a postája
elintézéséhez látott. Mindenféle hivatalos iratok, törvényszéki
értesitések feküdtek az asztalán, az egyik kék papiros mellett
azonban kihivó szemtelenséggel nevetett feléje egy rózsaszinü, apró
boriték.
– Hát ez mi? – dörmögte Quastl ur és feltéve pápaszemét,
komolyan vágta fel a piros levelet.
Bizony ez szép meglepetés volt. A boritékból egy tűzvörös,
csókolózó galambokkal ékesitett lap hullott ki, amelyre kissé férfias
vonásokkal ez volt irva.
„Tisztelt Uram! Gyakran hallottam már, hogy ön Magyarhon
legjelesebb jogásza. Égek a vágytól, hogy e jeles férfiuval – noha szerény
és tudatlan nő vagyok – megismerkedhessem. Ma este sárga dominóban
ott leszek az álarcos bálban, ismertetőjel: egy oleandervirág a balkézben.
A nagy jogász ismeretlen tisztelője: Bellaria. N. B. Biztossan eljöjjön.“

Quastl ur mindenekelőtt megállapitotta, hogy ezt a szót „biztosan“

egy s-el irják, aztán elgondolkodott az eseten. A dolog nem volt
mindennapi, őneki legalább még ilyen bókot nem adtak irásban. De
ha megtisztelő tény is volt, hogy ismeretlen hölgyek érdeklődnek
iránta, a másik oldalról kétségbevonhatatlanul bűnös dolog
álarcosbálba menni és ott hölgyekkel csevegni. Az ilyesmit
megtehetik könnyelmü ifjak, a Petők, Bulcsuk, de komoly fiskális
nem bocsátkozhatik bele ilyesmibe.
Mindez bölcsen volt mondva, ha a dolognak nem lett volna egy
bibije. Ez a bibi pedig a hiuság volt, a hiuság, amely még Cicero, sőt
Justinianus fejéből sem hiányzott, – hogy állhatott volna tehát ellent
neki Quastl ur? Ha egy hölgy azt mondta volna neki: „Adonis vagy!“
sőt esetleg azt: „Meghalok érted!“, a fiskális ellent tudott volna állani.
De ha valaki azt mondta neki: „Te vagy a hon legnagyobb jogásza!“,
Quastl ur meg volt fogva, annyival inkább, mert közben a sör
karviniki szelleme is feléledt benne és kidüllesztette a mellét.
– De hát miért ne beszélhetnék egy tisztelőmmel? – töprengett
magában az ügyvéd. – Hátha egy nevezetes törvényszéki esetről
van szó? Hátha valami zsiros pört akarnak reám bizni?
Az utolsó érv döntőleg hatott és Quastl elhatározta, hogy elmegy
a rejtelmes Régi Lövöldébe az álarcosbálba.
 XX.

Egy barátságos téli estén – ahogy a régi regényirók mondanák –

különös dolgokat látunk a Bauernebel-házban és pedig az arany
polgár lakásában történni. Az ebédlőben hárman vannak együtt:
Tilda, Bulcsu mester és Pető, aki rejtelmes női ruhában áll a tükör
előtt. Ez a titokzatos ruha nem más, mint egy sárga dominó,
amilyent annakidején nagy előszeretettel viseltek az álarcosbálokba
járó hölgyek. Mig Pető bizonyos megelégedéssel szemlélgette
magát a tükörben, Tilda és a zenész egy sarokban ültek és
beszélgettek, közben-közben segitségére menve a jogásznak, aki a
ruhakapcsokkal nehezen jött tisztába.
– Mondja, Bulcsu, – szólt a leány a Nero szerzőjéhez, – mit tenne
maga, ha egy hölgy arra kérné, hogy vágassa le a kecskeszakállát?
– Nekem nincs kecskeszakállam.
– De ha volna?
– Természetesen rögtön levágatnám, – felelte a zenész habozás
nélkül.
Tilda elgondolkodott.
– Persze, ezt könnyü mondani, – szólt aztán, – mert önnek nincs
kecskeszakálla. Ha lenne, esetleg meggondolná a dolgot. Mert a
dolgot nemcsak a szakáll, de a hozzá füződő tradiciók teszik.
Vannak családok, ahol a kecskeszakállviselet évszázados
hagyomány s igy az illetőknek nehéz tőle megválniok.
Bulcsu meg volt sértve.
 – Kérem, – mondotta határozottan, – a zenészeknél is tradició a
hosszu haj, akár a Sámsonoknál. Ettől megválniok éppoly nehéz,
mint a katonáknak az egyenruhától, a papnak a reverendától. Én
azonban, ha felszólitanak rá, szivesen meghozom ezt az áldozatot,
sőt megteszem azt akkor is, ha senkise kivánja tőlem.
És ezzel a Nero szerzője gyors mozdulattal vette ki Tilda
munkakosarából a pamutvágó ollót és mielőtt megakadályozhatták
volna, két nyisszantással lenyeste lobogó hajdisze nagy részét.
– Tessék! – mondotta olyan vitézül, ahogy Dugonics Titusz
dörögte volt a töröknek azt, hogy: „Gyere, öreg!“
Pető visszafordult a tükörtől.
– Meg vagy őrülve? – kérdezte nyugodtan, aztán ujra a
kapcsokhoz tért vissza.
A leány csodálkozva nézett a Nero szerzőjére. Szegény Bulcsu,
alaposan el volt csufitva; félig levágott hajzatával inkább
megtépázott kakashoz, mint komoly zeneszerzőhöz hasonlitott. De
Tilda e pillanatban nem azt nézte, tisztelője mennyit vesztett
külsőségekben, hanem azt, hogy mennyit nyert az lelkiekben.
Hiszen, ha nem is cselekedett rendkivülit, az ifju mégis csak
áldozatot hozott érte, oly áldozatot, aminőre Quastl ur sohase lett
volna képes.
– Maga mégis jó fiu, – mondotta Tilda halkan.
A zenész boldogan egyenesedett ki.
– Akarja, hogy levágjam az egyik fülemet? – kérdezte tőle telhető
hevességgel. – Feleljen: akarja?
– Az istenért! – sikoltott fel a leány. – Legyen esze! Tegye le azt
az ollót!
Bulcsu szerényen mosolygott.
– Mi az egy fél fül? Semmi! Savonarola annakidején mukkanás
nélkül égette el a fél karját.
 A zenész láthatólag összetévesztette Savonarolát Mucius
Scaevolaval, de ez mindegy volt, a hatás nem maradt el és Tilda
megdöbbenve, szinte tiszteltel nézett fel a Nero szerzőjére. Egy
percig csend volt a szobában, az a néma, titokzatos csend,
amelyben hirtelen addig rejtett érzelmek sarjadnak ki a lélekből,
aztán Pető fordult Tildához:
– Ezek a kapcsok sehogysem fogadnak szót, – mondta, prózai
hangon szakitva meg a beszélő némaságot, – kérem, adjon talán
egy biztositótűt.
Tilda felkelt s átment a másik szobába tűt keresni. Mikor az
ajtóhoz ért, a leány önkéntelenül végigsimitotta homlokát.
– Te Bulcsu, – szólt a jogász a zenész mellé telepedve, – meg
kell vallanom, hogy egész jól csinálod a dolgodat.
– Kérlek, – szerénykedett a fagottművész.
– No, no. Ennyit tulajdonképp nem is tételeztem volna fel rólad.
Nemsokára itt az ideje, hogy a magad szárnyára bocsássalak. Mert,
ha ez a leány nem szeret téged, akkor egész életemben sárga
dominóban járok.
– Pető!
– Én értek az ilyesmihez és láttam azt a pillantást, amit rád vetett,
amikor azt kérdezted, levágjad-e a félfüledet? Tehát csak üsd a
vasat, megérdemled, hogy boldog légy és két füled legyen.
– Te jó barátom, te! – tört ki a zenészből a lelkesedés. –
Remélem, hogy te is megérdemled!
– A fülemet illetőleg elég nyugodt vagyok, – felelte Pető, aki
közben a legyezőjét próbálgatta, – de egyébként nem vagyok
tisztában magammal. Tegnap is találkoztam „vele“ és őnagysága
nem a legmelegebben viszonozta üdvözlésemet.
Bulcsu mosolygott magában.
 – Oh, ne félj, – nyugtatta meg komoly ábrázattal barátját, – a te
ügyed nem kerül kátyuba. Vannak jó szellemek, – tette hozzá
szerényen, – akik őrködnek lépteink felett.
Tilda visszatért a biztositótüvel és igy aztán Pető végre elkészült
az öltözködéssel. Az ifju még egyszer odaállt a tükörhöz és
megelégedetten jelentette ki:
– Zenész legyek, ha Quastl ur nem vall ma nekem szerelmet!
Tényleg: az ifju oly előkelő és tiszteletreméltó volt sárga
dominójában, hogy a hatast még kissé nagy és kissé piros kezei se
tudták lerontani.
– Akkor hát menjünk! – inditványozta Bulcsu és az ifjak
utrakeltek.
– Nehogy rosszat halljak magáról, – szólt Tilda a
fagottművészhez és megszoritotta a Nero szerzőjének kezét.
Pár perc mulva a két jó barát már a Régi Lövölde fenyőgallyakkal
diszitett termében volt, ujabb néhány perc mulva ráakadtak Quastl
urra, aki bizonyos megilletődöttségel szorongatott balkezében egy
oleandervirágot és ujabb pár perc mulva a magyar Justinianus már
tüneményes komolysággal magyarázta hölgyének a római perjog
alapelveit.
– Tudja-e ön, kisasszony, mi az az actio libera in causa? –
kérdezte néhány „séta jobbra“ után szellemesen.
– Oh, igen, – felelte vékony hangon a jogász, aki konyitott egy
kissé ehhez a tárgyhoz, – ez azt jelenti, hogy a tettes
beszámithatatlan állapotban jogsértő eredményt idéz elő, de ez a
magatartása beszámitható állapotban történt elhatározásra
vezethető vissza.
– Nagyszerü! Fulmináns! Önnek ily nagy jogismeretei vannak? –
csodálkozott Quastl ur.
– Szeretek joggal foglalkozni, – szerénykedett a sárga dominó. –
És épp ezért kivántam önnel, a hires tudóssal is megismerkedni. De
– nem adná nekem az oleandervirágját?
– Oh, szivesen. Valóban, meg kell mondanom, hogy ily müvelt
hölggyel még nem hozott össze utam. Talán azt is tudja, mi az actio
quanti minoris?
– Hogyne, – darált Pető, – ez egy olyan kereset, amelyet a vevő
indit az eladó ellen s amelyben az áru hiányos voltára hivatkozva, a
vételár aránylagos leszállitására törekszik.
– Fenomenális! Ön a női Verbőczy, – szólt a fiskális.
– Ön lekötelez, uram. Azonban, nem mennénk vacsorázni?
Quastl urat ez a közbevető mondat kissé lehütötte, de miután
gavallér volt, a karját nyujtotta és az étterembe vezette hölgyét.
– Mit parancsolnak az uraságok? – kérdezte a sólyomként
lecsapó pincér.
– Vaddisznófejet mártással! – inditványozta a jogi dolgokban
annyira járatos Bellaria kisasszony és aztán könnyedén felsóhajtott.
– Vaddisznófej mártással? – döbbent meg magában a takarékos
fiskális. – Hiszen ez az étlap legdrágább fogása! Mintha egy
borjuszelet nem éppugy tenné meg s hozzá nem lenne táplálóbb!
De már késő volt. A pincér előkelő kézmozdulattal hozta el a
vaddisznót és letette a sárga dominó elé, aki alapos étvággyal látott
neki a ritka csemegének.
 XXI.

Az alkotmányos éra helyreállitása után történt, hogy a király

hosszas tartózkodásra Pestre igérkezett. A hirt természetesen
általános öröm fogadta s az egész város már hetekkel előbb
nekilátott, hogy méltóan fogadja az uralkodót. Diadalivek
emelkedtek, az utcák járdáit kijavitották, a középületeket
rendbehozták, a király szeme hadd lássa mentől tetszetősebb
diszben a magyar fővárost. Ekkor történt, hogy a polgármesternek,
amint végigjárta az utcákat, megnézendő, minden rendben van-e, az
álla hirtelen leesett. Amint ugyanis a derék férfiu végigment a
Koronaherceg-utcán, egy teleknél majd felforditotta két bozontos
kuvasz, amelyek jobb ügyhöz méltó buzgalommal üldöztek egy
acélkékszinü kakast. A kakasnak tudniillik kedve volt egyet sétálni s
átröpült a palánkon, amit a komondorok nem hagyhattak szó nélkül
és utána iramodtak a Koronaherceg-utcába. Hogy a kép teljes
legyen, a telek belsejében egy tehén keservesen bőgni kezdett, mig
a kuvaszokat egy ingujjas bolgár követte, aki, kezében vasvillájával,
harsányan ezt kiáltozta:
– Burkus! Filax! Vissza! Azt mondom, hogy vissza!
A polgármester elkékülve nézte az ázsiai képet.
– Mi ez, atyámfiai az Urban, mi ez? – hebegte a szegény városfő
és homlokán verejtékcseppek jelentek meg. – Mi akar ez lenni, az
Isten szerelmére? Tatárok törtek be?
Hogy mi volt? A kakas, a két komondor, az ingujjas bolgár
természetesen a hirhedt Bauernebel-telek tartozékai voltak. Hogy is
kerülhettek volna másképpen a Koronaherceg-utcába? A
polgármester is csakhamar rájött a dolog nyitjára és szomoruan felelt
önmagának.
– Ez Bauernebel műve! Ez az ember még a penzióba visz
mindnyájunkat! Ha őfelsége meglátja ezt a telket, meghallja a tehén
bőgését, a komondorok vonitását… jaj! nem is merek a
következményekre gondolni.
És a polgármester szomoruan ballagott tovább. Utja elvitte a
másik Bauernebel-ház mellett, amely piszkosan, töredezett
vakolatos falakkal bámult reá, káposzta- és szénaszag lengett rajta.
A közigazgatási hatóság első tisztviselője elhatározottan kapta fel a
fejét.
– Nem, nem, – mondotta magában, – ez nem maradhat igy! Ki
kell egyezkednünk ezzel a Bauernebellel, mert soha többet a király
sem jön Pestre, ha azt látja, hogy a város első utcájában szénaszag,
káposztaraktár van és bőszült kuvaszok lökik fel a járókelőket. Itt
tenni kell, – fejezte be elmefuttatását, – még pedig sürgősen!
Másnapra a tanács már össze is volt hiva és a Bauernebel-ügy
szőnyegre került. Mindnyájan igazat adtak a polgármesternek, hogy
ez ázsiai állapotokon segiteni kell s hogy erre csak a barátságos ut
alkalmas, mert az arany polgár tovább viszi pénzzel, ravaszsággal,
mint a tisztelt törvényhatóság. Mit érnek vele, ha el is tiltják tőle,
hogy a Koronaherceg-utcában káposztát és kuvaszokat tartson,
másnap kieszel valami ujat és talán még jobban bemártja őket az
uralkodó előtt! Azért tehát határozatba ment, hogy Bauernebellel
meg kell békülni s e célra rögtön bizottságot is alakitottak.
Az arany polgár egy délután éppen szobájában üldögélt és a
pénzét számolgatta, mikor nyilik az ajtó és belép három
feketekabátos, köcsögkalapos ur: Sartoris Vince, Gutfreund
Erazmus és Gámauf Péter, a város küldöttei, akik némi köhögés
után rátérnek jövetelük céljára, a Koronaherceg-utcai telekre.
Végre tehát!
Ez a perc Bauernebel életének legszebb pillanata volt. Ime, előtte
állanak hát ellenségei és a béke olajágát lebbentik meg előtte. Ime,
a büszke város megalázkodik az egyszerü polgár előtt. Ime, a dacos
polgármester belátni kénytelen, hogy Pest legfontosabb faktora nem
ő, hanem Bauernebel Jeromos. Diadal ez, oly fényes diadal, amilyet
álmodni se mert volna s amely egyszerre elfeledtette a viselt
hadjárat minden kellemetlenségét, nehézségét, borsát, sőt költségeit
is!
Az arany polgár egy ideig szótlanul élvezte a győzelem édes
mámorát, aztán kegyesen intett kezével.
– Üdvözletem a nemes uraknak!
A deputáció tagjai szaporán hajbókoltak.
Bauernebel ujabb szünetet tartott, majd igy szólt:
– A Bauernebelek egész földi pályafutásukban józan belátásuak
és méltányosak voltak. Küzdelmeikben sohase vezette őket a
bosszu, csak az igazság kutatása, soha rossz indulatot, csak az őket
megillető jogok törvényadta tiszteletének keresése. Ez volt célom
(majdnem azt mondotta: célunk) a galamb-pörnél is. Tudtam, hogy
igazam van és bántott, hogy a hatóság ezt nem ismeri el. Ezért
harcoltam, ezért lettem volna kész utolsó forintomat is csatába vinni.
Ha azonban azt látom, hogy jogaim elismertetnek, hogy az igazság
győz, akkor leteszem a fegyvert és szivesen nyujtok jobbkezet.
Tehát, mindenekelőtt: mi lesz a galambokkal?
Sartoris Vince szaporán kapta el a szót.
– E tekintetben nyugodt lehet, Bauernebel ur. A galambokat a
város megveszi, kisajátitja, agyonlövi, ahogyan ön kivánja s amikor
ön kivánja.
Bauernebel komolyan intett fejével.
– Lőjjék agyon őket.
– Ugy, ugy, – bólintotta vissza Gámauf Péter.
– És a kártérités? Ki fizeti meg azt, hogy a galambokat évszámra
tartottam, hogy azok részben elriasztották lakóimat, részben
tönkretették szépen vakolt falaimat?
– A költségeket is a város viseli, – mondta Gutfreund Erazmus,
hogy ő is szóljon valamit.
– Akkor kitüzhetjük a fehér lobogót! – jelentette ki az arany polgár
méltóságteljesen. – A béke meg van kötve!
Igy fejeződött be a hires galamb-pör, amelynek aktái mai napig
megtalálhatók a főváros levéltárában és igy esett, hogy a
Koronaherceg-utca sétálóit ma már nem veszik üzőbe haragos
alföldi komondorok.
 XXII.

Az oleandervirág és az álarcosbáli jelenet végleg betette az ajtót

Quastl urnak. Mikor a derék fiskális másnap látogatást akart tenni
Tildánál, az arany polgár leánya nem fogadta el látogatóját, hanem a
szobaleánnyal egy levelet kézbesittetett neki, amelyben ez állt:
„Vaddisznófej mártással!“
Quastl ur elsápadt s megsemmisülve tántorgott haza. Többé nem
merte a lábát Bauernebelékhoz betenni, ha pedig disznót látott,
hátán végigfutott a hideg. Tényleg: a vaddisznófej mártással a világ
legdrágább eledele, – tőle elvitte Pest városa leggazdagabb
eladóleányát.
Pár napra a nevezetes esemény után Pető lélekzetvesztve
rohant be Tildához.
– Tudja-e, mit beszélnek a városban? – kérdezte rémülten. – Van
sejtelme róla, hogy mit beszélnek?
– Hogy tuladtam Quastl uron?
– Nem! Ezerszer nem! – kiáltotta a jogász, aki még mindig levegő
után kapkodott. – Azt beszélik, hogy Bulcsu megkérte az ön kezét és
ön nem dobta ki a zenészt!
Tilda ránézett a jogászra.
– És mi köze önnek mindehhez? – kérdezte hidegen.
– Hogy mi közöm? – csodálkozott Pető. – Hogy mi közöm? Az a
közöm, hogy én önt nagyrabecsülöm, tisztelem és meg akarom óvni
az ilyen könnyelmüségtől! Ön és Bulcsu! Inkább a tűz és viz, nap és
éjszaka, mint kegyed és ez a korhely zenész! Nem, nem, – tette
hozzá fejét rázva, – ez nem valóság, ez tréfa, ez lehetetlenség!
Az arany polgár leánya a sarkára állt.
– Kedves Pető ur, – mondta erélyesen, – nincsen semmi
szükségem az ön tanácsaira. Hogy mit cselekszem, az kizárólag az
én dolgom, akár tréfának, akár lehetetlenségnek tetszik azt felfogni.
– Tehát igaz? – dadogta művésziesen Pető.
– Az nem kell, hogy önt érdekelje, – válaszolta Tilda és
visszavonult a szobájába.
A jogász láthatólag lehangolva távozott, amint azonban a
folyosóra ért, egyszerre vigan kezdett el fütyörészni és hatalmas
ugrásokban tartott a fagottista lakására.
– Bulcsu! – kiáltotta az ajtóból. – Bulcsu! Hamar, kapd magad,
szaladj át Bauernebelékhez és kérd meg Tilda kezét. Egy pillanatig
se késlekedj, mert még meggondolhatja magát!
– Mit beszélsz? – ijedt meg a Nero szerzője. – Megkérjem a
kezét, hogy kidobasson Lámpl urral?
– Nem fog kidobni! – emelte fel két ujját a diák. – Esküszöm, nem
fog kidobni!
Bulcsu tétovázott.
– Az lehetetlen, – jelentette ki igen szerényen. – Én ismerem
magamat. Egyszer vallottam csak szerelmet egy leánynak és az is
hozzám vágta a pamutos kosarát.
– Ezuttal nem fogják a pamutos kosarat a fejedhez vágni, én
mondom, Pető, aki a vesékbe lát! Vedd a kalapodat, a botodat és
menj át, vagy viszlek!
És nem is várva meg a zenész válaszát, a jogász fejébe vágta
barátjának a kalapját, kezébe nyomta a botját és azzal végighurcolta
a folyosón, becsengetett Bauernebelékhez és belökte az ajtón a
Nero mélyen megdöbbent szerzőjét.
– Végre! – kiáltott fel a jogász és azzal a tekintettel nézett az
ajtón lógó Karpfenbiller-táblára, mint Napoleon Saint-Cloudra.
 XXIII.

Önök, kedves olvasóim, akik jártasak a világtörténetben,

bizonyára tudják, hogy Saint-Cloud nem volt az utolsó stáció
Napoleon diadalmenetében. Következett még Marengo és Ulm
bevétele. Marengo az adott esetben azt jelentette, Bauernebel
Jeromost megnyerni Bulcsu részére, Ulmnak pedig tegyük meg
Jozefint, akihez való vonzódását Pető napról-napra erősebben
érezte.
Marengo aránylag könnyen adta meg magát. Az arany polgár
ugyan első pillanatban majdnem leesett a székről, amikor Pető
elárulta Bauernebelnek, hogy Tilda és Bulcsu az apai áldást
kivánják. Pető azonban mihamar lábra segitette Bauernebelt,
megmagyarázva neki, hogy Bulcsunál jobb férjet keresve se találhat
a leányának, mert a zenész ugy beleszokott a nyomorba, hogy a
hatost is tüneménynek nézi s ehhez képest becsüli is meg, továbbá,
mert: a Nero szerzőjének sejtelme sincs róla, mi a fiaker, a pezsgő,
az uri kényelem, következésképpen nem is vágyik rája, végre, mert
Bulcsu a legjobb üzletember, aki még a fogsorát is el tudta adni
kettőszáz forinton, amire nem volt eset a földön. Azonkivül, ha a
zenésszel békét köt, a förtelmes fagott-hangversenyek is
elmaradnak s Jozefin egyik leghathatósabb támaszát veszti el.
Mindezeknek tetejébe Pető még szerényen megemlitette a galamb-
pört, amelyben ő (már mint jogász) némi kárpótlásra tart igényt s ezt
olyan módon állapitja meg, hogy az arany polgár adja áldását az ifju
párra. Ha ez nem következik be, jelentette ki Pető, ugy csekélysége
át fog pártolni a város oldalára és akkor a polgármester talál rá
módot, hogy a pört ujra felvegye és Bauernebelt megtáncoltassa.
 Az arany polgár egy ideig ötölt-hatolt, azután megadta magát.
Hiszen tény, hogy a legjobb az olyan vő, aki nem ismeri az élet édes
bűneit, fényüzéseit, a szegény ifju még a garast is megbecsüli, mig a
gazdag kérőnek az igényei is gazdagok.
– Áldásom reájuk, – dörmögte tehát Bauernebel. – De egyet
kikötök. A fagott első napon a kályhába kerül!
Petőt az ujabb győzelem arra ösztönözte, hogy most már Ulm
ellen induljon. Ami sikerült a Nero szerzőjének, az neki sem
lehetetlen. Felhuzta tehát gérokkját és beállitott Jozefinhez. A jogász
nem volt bátortalan gyerek s ezért rögtön gazdag érzelemvilágára
hivatkozott és fokozott szerelméről biztositotta a szép özvegyet.
A szavak, amelyeket Pető ez alkalommal használt, oly szépen
voltak összefonva, hogy nem tudom őket szerény tollammal hűen
visszaadni. Ennek dacára azonban a hatás elmaradt, mert Jozefin
végig hagyta ugyan beszélni az ifjut, egy szót nem beszélt közbe,
denique azonban nyugodtan ezt jegyezte meg:
– És mindezt elhigyjem önnek, kedves Pető ur?
A jogász meghőkölt.
– Természetesen, – felelte önérzetét összeszedve. – E földön ön
az egyetlen lény, akit imádok.
Jozefin gunyosan mosolygott.
– Az egyetlen? Nem rossz. Ön tehát nem szoknyavadász?
– Én és szoknyavadász? – méltatlankodott Pető. – Hogy
tételezheti ezt fel rólam?
A szép asszony nyugodtan nézett tisztelőjére.
– Bizonyitékok alapján, – jelentette ki aztán hüvösen. –
Kétségtelen adataim vannak rá, hogy ön a főváros legrettenetesebb
szoknyavadásza s hogy emellett a legzajosabb korhelyéletet éli,
hogy nem törődik a földön senkivel, semmivel és hogy tréfából se
tud igazat mondani. Azt hiszen, ennyi bizonyiték elég arra, hogy ne
higyjek önnek s hogy az ön barátságát kételkedő mosollyal kisérjem.
Pető leesett az égből. Saint Cloud és Marengo után, ime, nem
Ulm, hanem Fontainebleau következne! Teringettét, ki számitott
erre?!
– Asszonyom! – kiáltotta felháborodva a jogász. – Esküszöm
önnek, hogy mindez csunya rágalom, amelyet ellenségeim találtak
ki. Ha ifju is vagyok, azért nemesen gondolkozom, hűen teljesitem
köteleségeimet, nem futok szoknyák után s ön az egyetlen
eszményem. Méltatlan dolog az, ami velem megesett!
A diák elkomolyodott és lelógatta fejét.
– Van egy ember, – folytatta szomoruan, – aki tudja, mily
végtelenül szeretem önt, mennyit gondolok hónapok óta önre és
hogy önön kivül nincs senkisem a világon. Hallgassa meg ez embert
és ha hisz neki, akkor meg fog róla győződni, mily nagy tévedésben
van és milyen alaptalanul kételkedett bennem!
Jozefin felbiggyesztette ajkát.
– És ki ez az ember? – kérdezte közömbösen.
– Ez az ember Bulcsu! Hallgassa meg őt s ő el fogja mondani,
mint gondolkozom kegyedről, mily tisztelettel, ragaszkodással
hordozom képét szivemben!
A szép asszonyból kitört a gyilkos kacagás.
– Bulcsu! És amit ő fog önről mondani, az igaz?
– Az igaz, – bólintott fejével a jogász, aki természetesen mit sem
tudott arról, mit cselekedett a meglepetést csinálni akaró zenész a
háta mögött.
Jozefin Pető vállára tette kezét.
– Jól van, barátom, – szólott gunyosan, – kivánsága szerint lesz.
Sőt, többet mondok, én már beszéltem is Bulcsuval és óhajához