FOUL STENCH

I read the story about Kevin Huffman ’92 (“Teaching for Change,” September Bulletin) with interest because Teach for America (TFA) has also impacted my life. I went from Swarthmore to TFA in 1998 with lots of idealism, which didn’t last long. Neither did my enthusiasm for TFA.

I was assigned to teach at East St. John High School in rural St. John Parish, La., which is about 40 miles and at least a half-century outside of New Orleans. It is just one of the many failed public school systems that are stuck with educating children in a community where education will get you nowhere. I was assigned to teach Careers for Education, a course title devised by the head of special education. When I suggested Education for Careers, I was met with blank stares. The title didn’t matter, though, because curricula for the school’s special education classes did not exist.

The administration seemed more concerned with expelling its African-American students than providing a decent education. It was especially not interested in new ideas from young Yankee do-gooders like me. I taught in a dirty, hot trailer on cement blocks behind the school; most days, I could not hold a class together for more than 10 minutes. I was about as prepared to teach these students as I was to be an air-traffic controller.

TFA places some of its corps members in districts that are beyond help. A recent college graduate from the suburbs cannot erase centuries of unspeakable poverty and racism. These districts are not interested in change; but they do need adult, college-educated bodies to fill classrooms, and TFA is happy to oblige.

That these teaching positions need to be filled is an unqualified truth. But TFA isn’t the answer. Although its organizers and supporters pat themselves on the back for their ingenuity—and spin wildly to deflect the foul stench of criticism that envelops the program—TFA allows the status quo to continue and devalues the teaching profession.

PATRICK RUNKLE ’98
Oakland, Calif.

---

HYPOCRISY

Although Teach for America (TFA) provides a temporary solution to the teacher shortages facing many economically disadvantaged school districts, I was disappointed that your article did not more fully address the criticisms that many educators have raised. Although I deeply respect the time and energy that Kevin Huffman ’92 has devoted to channeling enthusiastic, high-achieving college graduates into the teaching profession, I worry that programs such as TFA convince the public that mere enthusiasm and a liberal arts degree are enough to prepare prospective teachers adequately for the enormous challenges awaiting them in the nation’s most underserved schools.

Many of us currently in the teaching profession, myself included, fear that those so-called alternative routes to teacher certification, which require minimal preprofessional training, do much more than “deprofessionalize” teachers; they may actually contribute to the growing gaps in achievement between students in affluent and nonaffluent communities. Considerable research has demonstrated that the quantity and quality of teachers’ professional training has a direct impact on their students’ achievement. Recent analyses of scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) have found that students whose teachers have had better preparation in their preprofessional course work, more preservice or in-service training in working with diverse student populations, more training in developing higher-order thinking skills, and more experience with designing interactive learning environments do better on the NAEP assessments.

In light of such research, TFA’s five-week orientation seems to offer a poor substitute to traditional teacher education programs—many of which now require prospective teachers to earn a master’s degree in education while practicing under a skilled mentor and taking courses in child development, educational philosophy, learning theory, and teaching methodology. As a graduate of Swarthmore’s teacher certification program, I can attest that the extensive preprofessional course work and mentoring I received drastically improved my confidence and competence during my first year of teaching. Putting enthusiastic, inexperienced college graduates in the most disadvantaged schools does not seem like “teaching for change”; rather, such a program threatens to overwhelm beginning teachers and underserve the very students it aspires to serve.

Ultimately, I do not fault Huffman or TFA for the funneling of the least experienced teachers into the poorest schools; such a trend is nothing new in the history of education. Instead, I fault the hypocrisy of a society that demands the best teachers for its most affluent, advantaged students while refusing to provide its most disadvantaged students with the qualified, committed teachers they desperately need. If more communities pressured their state and local leaders into following the lead of New York City, which recently saw its teacher shortage evaporate when the city’s teacher salaries were raised to levels competitive with suburban districts, the nation’s disadvantaged districts would have no need to mortgage their students’ futures on the charity of underqualified teachers.

NATHAN MYERS ’99
Philadelphia

---

WHOLE SOUL

It was refreshing to read about the less one-track-minded Swarthmore alumni (“Are You a Renaissance Soul?” September Bulletin). We live in a social and economic system that seems to be based on the rule: “Exploit yourself as you would exploit others.” This controlled way of dealing with ourselves and the world has its roots in the darker side of our Judeo-Christian mentality: that is, in our fear of life itself and [of] true growth.

We grow not just up but in all directions, within and without. I believe that the diversity of interests and selves to which I have given expression are part of a larger unity that will be revealed to me in time, or, as I like to say: Many are the ways before becoming one.

“Renaissance soul” is elegant and complimentary enough but makes me sound more antiquated than I feel. Thus, I suggest the more explicit: “Whole soul.”

JEAN-MARIE CLARKE ’74
Staufen, Germany

---

DREAMS, NOT DOGMA

At Swarthmore, I was known as that “libertarian guy.” Rarely could I resist challenging the school’s dominant left-wing ideology, be it in Sharples, Parrish Parlors, or The Phoenix. Yet, on my way to the 2002 reunion, I wrote in my journal: “Drop the politics. What’s important? People, relationships. Not ideology and arguing.”

I looked forward to the Collection address by Arlie Russell Hochschild ’62, titled “Why We Need Dreams.” (An edited version of her talk was printed in “Back Pages,” September Bulletin.)

Unfortunately, Hochschild never explained why we need dreams. To her credit, Hochschild eloquently described them but could not resist slipping in political statements, which she glibly stated as if her audience agreed with them. Her thesis was that the only worthwhile dreams advance left-wing statist political causes, and Quakerism inherently supports them.

My point here is not to debate Hochschild’s politics or her interpretation of Quakerism; rather, it is to decry the speech’s fraudulent title and its presumptuous and small-minded content. Even if I did agree with her on these issues, I would still find them inappropriate for a Collection speech.

Swarthmore professes to be a tolerant community bound by not only by the love of learning but also dreams. Yet, by invalidating the dreams of anyone who disagrees with her politics—and those alumni whose dreams simply do not concern politics—Hochschild efficiently alienated much of her audience.

BRIAN SCHWARTZ ’97
Boulder, Colo.

---

CHUTZPAH

I feel bad for Aviva Kushner Yoselis ’96 (“In My Life,” September Bulletin). Like Anglo settlers on what was then Mexican and Native American land or Germans in various occupied parts of Europe during World War II, she is living on land that does not belong to her. In the case of the occupied territories, this land has been forcibly taken over in violation of international law and numerous U.N. resolutions. What chutzpah she has! What a great tragedy for the moral, ethical, and humane stature of Judaism that she and her ilk are representing Jewish people.

JEREMIAH GELLES ’63
Brooklyn, N.Y.

---

SWARTHMORE SANCTIMONY

Although I applaud and support the work of Bill ’72 and Amy Vedder Weber ’73 (“A World That Is Not Our Own,” September Bulletin), I have to disagree with some of their throw-away comments.

The first was Weber’s assertion that the (current Bush) administration is “in bed with” oil and energy. How unfortunate it would be if Weber’s science parallels his analysis of politics and the finance thereof, because he omitted important data. His own paycheck comes from Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), an organization that is supported, in part, by Jaguar of North America (oil-dependent Ford); ConEdison (energy); and, among others, Kraft (big tobacco). Are we to assume the bed is king sized? No, of course not....

Weber went on to decry the same administration’s lifting of the moratorium on logging roads in national forests. He doesn’t merely disagree but views the decision with contempt. Yet he and his wife own two (presumably wood-frame and furnished) homes, have written a book (presumably printed on paper), and another WCS sponsor is The New York Times, the annual output of which accounts for quite a few logged acres all by itself.

I grow tired of what seems to be the prevailing Swarthmore sanctimony: “It is OK for me to take money from these evil/wasteful/polluting/unhealthy capitalist organizations because I will use it to do the right (or left or progressive) things. And I can have nice things because I have the correct political views. But do you see those people over there? They disagree with me; therefore, when they take the money, or if they live in a gated community or drive, say, a Jaguar, it only shows how corrupt they are.”

According to this attitude, it is impossible to have integrity unless you believe in the right things. Then, anything you do is OK. This thinking seems to have been the justification for several of humankind’s greatest indecencies. At the very least, it poisons public discourse. And it makes me cranky.

Disclaimer: I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Republican Party.

JAN MENEFEE MCDONNELL ’78
Irvine, Calif.

 

Additional Letters (Web Only)

JACK-OF-ALL-TRADES

I was excited to see the article “Are You a Renaissance Soul?” (September Bulletin) and find myself “smack dab” in the middle of those words.

The company I started, The Renaissance One Co., specializes in designing Web sites, sign-language interpreting, developing businesses, speechwriting, and translating. I’m a believer—since my Swarthmore days—in being a jack-of-all-trades and a master of them all. I majored in music, focusing on theory and composition. I went to graduate school at Indiana University Folklore Institute, concentrating in ethnomusicology and receiving an M.A. in folklore. Then I went to Vanderbilt University Divinity School in Nashville, Tenn. Within one year, I applied for the five-year joint-degree program with the law school and ultimately earned two degrees in December 2001: J.D. and M.Div.

In Tennessee, I did liturgical dance, acted in an international play that was performed for an international CEO conference in the Bahamas, won speaking awards at law school, tutored deaf students, took violin lessons, and sang in the Vanderbilt University gospel choir. I even took a leave of absence to live in Ecuador for a semester to learn Spanish in fall 2000. I decided to return the next summer and work at a law firm in Guayaguil.

Now, I live in Pasadena, Calif. It might appear that I’m “all dressed up with no place to go,” having four degrees and no job. But I like it that way. As Philip Metzidakis ’79 said, “[I]f I ever work for a grand and glorious individual again, it’s going to be me.”

The next steps? Get into amateur tennis tournaments; learn Japanese; relearn how to read and write German; take more violin lessons; and ultimately, make lots of money to give away!

ANTONIO GOODWIN ’94
Pasadena, Calif.

---

FRAGMENTED CULTURE

I enjoyed the article about “Renaissance souls” (September Bulletin) and would like to carry the discussion further. These people seem to have been selected for their unusually diverse interests. But the greater gift a liberal (read Swarthmore) education gave me was that of seeking, and often finding, a unity among these interests—of discovering that truth is a single whole.

Like others, I had trouble deciding on a major to pull my interests together. After considering math, I settled on history as an “umbrella” that allowed me to explore fields like biology, Greek, and religion. I remained in course because honors was not flexible then. The high points were Medieval Europe, Comparative Anatomy, and Sam Hynes’ Shakespeare. I have never regretted these decisions and have always found that these interests enriched each other. I have used almost every field in one way or another—including teaching several. I have always felt a responsibility to talk to both “science” people and “humanities” people and encourage them to talk to each other.

In our fragmented culture, I still believe that this sense of unity is perhaps the most important quest of a liberal arts institution.

SISTER MARY JEAN (MANNINEN) ’59
Peekskill, N.Y.

---

DEEPLY OFFENSIVE

I am surprised that the Board’s February directive about subsidizing drug convictions (June “Collection”) has gone without comment. It is inappropriate for the College to replace federal aid for which students in need are ineligible because of criminal convictions for drug dealing or use. The manner in which this new policy was announced to alumni is also inappropriate.

Director of Financial Aid Laura Talbot attempts to disclaim the moral implications of the College’s decision by calling it a “continuation of the status quo.” They cannot be minimized by burying this significant news in a tiny blurb. Contrary to Talbot’s statement, the College’s prior policy of making up federal aid that falls short has not been a specific response to criminal convictions. It is inaccurate to equate the new policy with the prior practice, as I experienced it.

I was one of those pacifist students in need of federal loans who benefited from the College’s similar policy concerning Selective Service nonregistrants. I will always be grateful for the College’s endorsement of my deeply held pacifist beliefs via its loan, which matched the terms of the federal one for which I was ineligible as a result. But I find Talbot’s equating pacifism and criminal drug-dealing convictions deeply offensive.

A fundamental ethical difference exists between the refusal to participate in government preparations for official killing through war and the desire to get high or profit from others’ addictions. The College’s support of its low-income pacifist students stems directly from its prior Quaker roots. The same cannot be said for its new support of low-income students’ drug convictions. If the laudable goal is making college more affordable to those from low-income families, its current policies should simply continue or be extended—without regard for drug convictions.

The assertion that such laws “discriminate against students who come from lower-income families” is also false. This characterization blurs the distinction between a cause and an association; it ignores the difference between acts of free will and protected class characteristics like race and sex that are nonvolitional. A law criminalizing drug dealing removes eligibility for the federal student subsidies only as to the Swarthmore students who choose to deal drugs and are convicted. Those students knew these activities were illegal when they undertook them. Such a grouping via acts of free will is fundamentally different from a discriminatory grouping of people based on characteristics they did not choose like age, race, or sex.

The statement that fighting discrimination is the College’s motivation means that those convicted of drug dealing either have no free will or no morally acceptable alternative. If that is the College’s position, it should be stated explicitly and without equivocation on the front of the Bulletin.

The moral foundations of the Board’s new directive cannot be ignored and should not be equated with the different motivation underlying its policies on making up federal loans lost for pacifism. The new policy is only appropriate if the College is willing to take a public stance that, as with pacifists, it is doctrinally in agreement with the convicted students’ conscious decisions—under whatever circumstances—that it was better to use or sell drugs than to choose another course of action. Otherwise, the College has no business implementing this policy, comparing it with the one supporting low-income student pacifists, or burying its announcement in the Bulletin.

JOHN GOLDSBOROUGH ’88
Philadelphia

---

INTERCONNECTEDNESS

Thanks for Bill Ehrhart’s [’73] piece on Bill ’72 and Amy Vedder Weber ’73 (“A World That Is Not Just Ours,” September Bulletin). Some of us have followed their work through the class grapevine, so it’s great to see it lifted up for the whole community. I especially appreciated their vision of the interconnectedness of the global environment including the pernicious effect of energy development on wildlife habitat.

Those who want to know and do more about what we can do to reduce the relentless ravaging effects of fossil fuels on the planet are invited to visit my organization’s Web site at www.aceee.org (American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy). We have researched energy policy solutions based on energy efficiency that can reduce U.S. energy use while continuing economic prosperity.

BILL PRINDLE ’72
Silver Spring, Md.

---

BEYOND FREEDOM AND DIGNITY

Recently there have been some rather testy letters about marriage and sexual orientation. As far as I can tell, the only thing Swarthmore really believed in throughout the last century was psychology. Remember, it was the only M.A. offered.

It seems that the primary mission of psychology is to persuade us that we are not as smart as we assume, emotions rule our lives, and the smart thing is to get high and be gay. (That is precisely what Sigmund Freud did most of his adult life.)

As the words of our Harvard psychologist B.F. Skinner go, “Beyond Freedom and Dignity.” If you don’t recognize Walden II (by B.F. Skinner) as the basic model for Walden College and Swarthmore), you missed the major point.

The only useful thing I learned from my one semester of psychology at Swarthmore was the basic mathematics of statistics. My only regret at Swarthmore is that I didn’t “fight freely” to pursue my original major of mathematics.

JOHN TYLER ’60
Houston

---

PACIFIST PRINCIPLES

Since I espouse the traditional Quaker pacifist position, I disagree with the sincere pro-Palestinan view of Roger Heacock ’62, (Bulletin March 2002) and of Roger's sincere pro-Israeli critics in later issues. Both positions add—perhaps unwittingly—to the rancor and bloodshed in the Middle East.

I suggest an alternative which seems more constructive and far less deadly, the Peace Testimony of the Society of Friends, the body that gave birth to Swarthmore College. The Quaker Peace Testimony has been expressed by George Fox, founder of Quakerism, by William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, and by many other Friends.

The Quaker position is clearly based on the Tenth Commandment in the Old Testament, Thou shalt not kill, and on Jesus’ commandment in the New Testament, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. I accept those two commandments (although I admit, as a liberal universalist Quaker, I do not accept all commandments of all sorts in the Bible.)

I write as one who has espoused the peace position during my 89 years, and who took the Quaker stand in World War II, refusing to fight. I write as a member of a family that has advocated the Quaker peace position since the late Nineteenth Century. In short, I write as an enthusiast for Quakerism's role as a Peace Church. That seems fine to me.

You find an early expression of Friends testimony in the 1660 peace statement by George Fox, originator of Quakerism, together with other Friends. They wrote, “All bloody principles and practices we do utterly deny, with all outward wars, an for any end.” That statement is in disagreement with both Roger Heacock and his opponents. The affrmation by George Fox and fellow believers sounds like statements of Quaker faculty and students, when I was enrolled at Swarthmore in the 1930's.

You will find amplification by William Penn on George Fox's position in the opening part of Penn's Essay on the Peace of Europe. There, Penn describes a European situation that too closely resembles the Middle East of today. Penn proposes a Parliament of Europe—a model for our United Nations—as one way of bringing peace to Europe.

Of course Penn relied on the same pacifist principles in founding his Holy Experiment in Pennsylvania. Penn invited people of all nationalities and religions to come and live peaceably together in our colony.

I recommend that we imitate William Penn and seek to establish a Holy Experiment in the world today. Is that practical? Of course it is. It's far more practical than the witless devastation and killing in Palestine/Isreal today, which only produces more violence and more hatred.

I note with deep concern: The death of any person—Muslim, Jew or Christian—is the death of a son or daughter of God. All of us. That is the truth that Jesus preached during his life. That is a central feature of world religions, Judaism and Islam included.

I conclude with a practical, down-to-earth statement from Penn, "Let us try what Love will do: for if men [and women] did once see we love them, we should soon find they would not harm us. Force may subdue, but Love gains, and he that foregives first, wins the laurel." I hope that Roger Heacock and his critics will consider the non-violent, loving method suggested by William Penn, and earn the laurel.

T. NOEL STERN ’34
Indiana PA