A Call to Reasoned Purpose
Last semester’s readers of the Daily Gazette may recall that I penned a column (“Oh, Henry!”) written from the perspective of a very conservative freshman guinea pig enrolled at Swarthmore. Though the results were more fruitful than not, many of my readers found the idea of a fictional position conceptually difficult, especially when it seemed so close to the author’s own beliefs. The weaknesses of the author’s own writing skills did little to ameliorate the situation. The readers subsequently felt the columnist was either pulling a fast one, trying to save himself from the piercing arguments of those who opposed his writing, or was simply too cute in his presentation. It impeded the intent of the author from being achieved.
This semester’s column, rather than following in the same vein of last semester, will instead explore specific issues of our collegiate environment that are of interest to me, and hopefully, to at least some of my readers. While I hope to provide thought-provoking material, my other obligations prevent me from promising that I will reply to posted comments. I am always willing to share a meal with any interested parties who wish to discuss further.
Higher learning ostensibly serving as the main purpose of our institution, this first column will address some issues pertinent to this school. Namely, I contend that Swarthmore has failed to give us an education.
Swarthmore has provided us with the opportunity to make our own education rather than providing us with a moral framework for understanding. In decades and centuries past, Western schooling, from which Swarthmore’s is derived, had a strongly didactic element which tipped the balance up from open-mindedness and down to established truths. This did not, incidentally, mean that the Western ancients lacked critical thinking skills: even a cursory reading of the political or philosophical works of the Greeks and Romans will reveal that critical thought was alive and kicking.
In this preset age, we have swapped the weights: we now have no established truths, and only self-defined realities. This is most evident in the humanities and least in the hard sciences. I leave the position of the social sciences for my readers to deduce. Rather than teaching how to think, what to think, and why to think it, professors have reduced themselves to mere craftsmen of the final element: the art of thinking critically. Though the much simpler (though still very involved) job. The task of teaching students how to think remains, but professors have abandoned their students, most of whom have barely left home and have not yet even reached twenty years on this earth, to somehow reinvent the metaphorical wheel of life’s meaning and explanation. How can this be considered responsible behavior on the part of our faculty, who are men and women who have attained the highest level of learning and wisdom that our current society can attain?
Some readers may suggest that didactic instruction fails because we must discover things for ourselves. While I agree with the basic sentiment that opinions learned and developed on one’s own are treasured more, we are also creatures that seek answers often beyond our own comprehension, or which require unmaintainable effort. By way of analogy, while it is possible to learn to ice skate by oneself, a good teacher will make the process both more pleasant and more effective. The studies conducted by researchers into the human world also show that while personalities may differ, our moral frameworks for understanding the world are strongly influenced by environment. Take the single example of approval of interracial marriage between blacks and whites: in 1958, approval ratings in America were at 4%; only fifty years later, the approval rating was at 77%. We would be hard pressed to claim that this change occurred as the result of each person left to making decisions on their own, but rather because of the consistent pressure exerted by activists (one could even venture to call it education) which resulted in the change of a stubbornly persistent view.
Brown University once promised me with a straight face that “every student at Brown finds his Ithaca.” Maybe it’s true—I do know one student, dissatisfied at Swarthmore, who transferred to Brown. I don’t know if he has found his Ithaca yet. At Swarthmore, however, we don’t even have that promise. So far as I can recall, I have never been given any explanation for the guiding ideas or rationale for Swarthmore. Ethical intelligence, perhaps, but that seems to be more the personal crusade of Al Bloom and less the foundation of the whole school. Once he leaves, will his ethical intelligence last longer than former dean Bob Gross’s “No matter what you say or do to me, I am still a worthwhile person!” (an interesting and controversial message in and of itself)?
That also begs the question: what is ethical intelligence, and what reason do we have to ascribe to it? What is the rationale for a humanist understanding of the world? It has been taken on faith that for some reason we ought to use our skills “for good,” where “good” means a socially left cause (though, to his credit, President Bloom would probably agree that serving a missionary to Uganda or working to abolish embryonic stem cell research could be a form of ethical intelligence).
Now, let me say that a college maintaining a socially or politically left position is no more wrong, in some sense, than a socially or politically right school. While I would say that right is right, as a left-handed person, I can sympathize with the lefty position. However, if we want to fully embrace the liberal position as a college, we should do so without hiding behind false pretenses, or behind official silence. We can be both openly liberal and still accept others. That was once the meaning of liberal, after all.
Consider this a call to reasoned purpose, to be a college which consciously matters – not because it might help our status in the world or attract students through the self-interested protection of both our sacred cows: the endowment and our official or unofficial rankings. Calling the school to be purposeful might turn some away. Instead let us be a college that trains up young men and women not to reinvent the meaning of life for each person, but to nurture them in the critical understanding of what they believe is the more moral way to lead one’s life, whether it be as an artist, an engineer, a chemist, a linguist, or whatever other major we choose.
Those of you who have read prior articles of mine may notice that I am advocating here that the college take a course which will make it more blatantly support positions that I oppose on other principles. This is true. But I did not come to this school to be manipulated by a weird, half-baked system of liberalism. I came to learn what liberalism could offer me by way of education. So far, I have been disappointed.
Print
Email
#1: 2/3/2009 at 12:11 p.m.
"Ethical intelligence, perhaps, but that seems to be more the personal crusade of Al Bloom and less the foundation of the whole school."
------------
I suggest investing a few hours in learning about the history of your College. Maybe start with the founder Lucretia Mott and her role in the Underground Railroad and the Seneca Falls Convention. Ethical intelligence.
Maybe move on to Alice Paul and her rather significant contribution to American politics. Ethical intelligence.
Or, the student body vote to abolish sororities when it was determined they were discriminating against Jewish students.
Or, the College's decision to pull out of the federal student aid program and replace those dollars rather than require students to sign loyalty oaths under policy implemented by Joseph McCarthy.
President Bloom is hardly plowing new fields with his emphasis on "ethical intelligence". It has been a trademark of the College since its founding.
You seem to be arguing that the College should teach you "what" to think rather than "how" to think. The flaw with that approach is that nobody knows "what" you will need to know as the 21st Century unfolds. Did your father need to know about the internet? Did your grandfather need to know about jet airline transportation or color TV? The whole point of a good liberal arts education is to give you the reasoning skills to deal in an ethical and intelligent fashion with whatever the future throws at you.
— a parent | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore
#2: 2/3/2009 at 2:27 p.m.
So, I understand the problem of "what" vs. "how, parent, but I'm not convinced that the school manages to teach us "how" to think--maybe the discussions do, but those discussion aren't a function that the school provides, in that classes ARE intended to impart content, not solely (or even primarily) methodology/practice.
— Student | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#3: 2/3/2009 at 4:17 p.m.
Maybe I'm crazy but I actually get a lot out of my classes.
— Another Student '09 | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#4: 2/3/2009 at 4:21 p.m.
Let's forget about liberal versus conservative. They are misleading terms. Conservatives often times want to change things...and as a lefty, Winston Churchill's Liberalism is something I would never want to subscribe to.
Usually, the terms right-wing versus left-wing attitudes make much more sense.
But I agree with you Chris. This school should have a clearly defined purpose and mission and not beat around the bush about it. The fact that we don't allows us to admit students with views like yours (which I find reactionary), and students whose goal in life is simply to accumulate wealth, whether it be through the medical fields, economic fields, business fields, or whatever else (again, a life choice I disagree with, and given the state of the world, find unethical).
Having said that, this should be a left-wing school. Social transformation rather than lofty knowledge should be our goal. We should have left-wing professors, left-wing courses, and left-wing students. If right wing students really really wanted to come, they could, so long as they knew what they were getting themselves into, and wouldn't harass the rest of us. That way the college would not have to claim it has quaker values, while investing in Lockheed Martin, and all of the other ethical inconsistencies that plague our school.
Somehow I thought in coming here that everybody I met, would be both as bookishly intelligent and feverishly radical as Che Guevara. Oh, how wrong I was! One has only to look at the way this student body reacts to the IC, Coming Out Week, the Israel/Palestine Conflict, the kick coke campaign, how many students go on to work at ibanks or mckinley and make more money straight out of college than parents of their fellow students, to see the number of students who could care less about social transformation.
What is ethical intelligence? Feeling good that you are "aware" about causes, but in reality do little about them? Making the decision to make lots of money as a "progressive" doctor or politician rather than a "bad, conservative" one?
No I agree, Chris. We are not doing enough. This school needs to be way more consciously left if we want the truly ethical to be reached.
— Marc Engel | Registered, Swarthmore
#5: 2/3/2009 at 7:57 p.m.
I may have missed something or I may just be confused, but what does this have to do with "greening" of Swarthmore and why are there windmills at the top?
— student | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#6: 2/3/2009 at 9:22 p.m.
@student: You did miss something. It's a pun on his name, as emphasized by the emphasis on the "Green" in "Greening".
Regarding the general topic: What's wrong with just a mission of imparting knowledge, as well as leaving it up to professors and faculty to impart what wisdom they can, whether that falls on some moral or political axis or not? What's wrong with studying the topics that interest you, interacting with your similarly interested peers and being allowed to see who you want to become? Why do we need to be spoon-fed one truth, rather than be presented with theories, accompanied by the viewpoint of our teachers? Sometimes there isn't an easy answer, and I'd rather have teachers who are willing to honestly give me three viewpoints that might be true rather than just the one that they subscribe to.
Absolutism is a game for the sure and they are surely foolish.
— Zeus! | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#7: 2/3/2009 at 10:01 p.m.
I'd like to present a short list of things that annoyed me about "a parent's" comment.
1. "I suggest investing a few hours in learning about the history of your College." And I'd like to suggest that you find a less hostile and condescending way to share your opinions!
2. The spacing. Your ideas are not so profound that each deserves its own ident.
3. Your rhetoric, specifically repeating "ethical intelligence." Yeah, don't worry, we get it. Ethical intelligence.
— ought to be writing a paper | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#8: 2/3/2009 at 10:10 p.m.
4. Your last paragraph. First off, you're not Plato, and in general rhetorical questions are a bad idea. Second, Chris is talking about ethics and not the skills you describe. Learning about TVs before their invention is not analogous to learning about the ethical precepts of a philosophical position.
5. Oh, the whole damn thing. If we are supposed to get a sense of the college's ethics from the history of its important alumni and founders, where does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Mitchell_Palmer fit in?
I disagree with Chris's points, and we've been discussing it recently, but come on, a parent. Did you really need to present your disagreement as if Chris were stupid and as if your own points were so profound that they deserved the emphasis of a speech? The problem with relying on rhetoric on the daily gazette is that however effective those tactics are in speech, they fail in writing. I suggest in the future that you take a less pompous, less rhetorically driven stance. Though I imagine we're mostly on the same side on the how/what thing.
— premature submission preceded! | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#9: 2/3/2009 at 11:12 p.m.
Comment #4--
If we followed your prescription for success, wouldn't we be Antioch? And don't we all know how that worked out?
I would hate to go to a left-wing college with left-wing students, professors, and courses, personally, because I like the idea of college as education, and only exposing yourself to left-wing ideas for four years isn't nearly as complete of an education as, well, exposing yourself to both. I would actually argue that Swarthmore students could have more of an impact on the world if we had more Chrises around, and had to learn to defend and argue our ideas here, and had to learn about real world compromises and solutions instead of the sort of pie-in-the-sky solutions that tend to get suggested on lefty campuses.
But then I think that being a "progressive" doctor or politician is a really honorable choice to make with your life, so we're coming from different starting points here.
And yeah, I'm with parent--the world changes quickly, and if the college took positions and told us that we should take them, too, we'd be getting a useless education. I came to Swarthmore hoping to immerse myself in the "life of the mind" and hoping to learn how to reason and think by exposing myself to a bunch of different approaches (I can look at things with the tools of economics, of biology, of history, of english literature if I so desire).
It's done a more than OK job of that.
— looking forward to the next one, Chris | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#10: 2/3/2009 at 11:21 p.m.
Lots of Swarthmore students are going to become useless drains upon society. Maybe most of them. That is not the college's fault but their own. I would tell Chris to drop the Derrida and study something else if he feels slighted, but Chris doesn't strike me as a Derrida kind of guy.
— Argos | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#11: 2/4/2009 at 12:40 a.m.
in all fairness, you study psychology and chinese, chris. those are not exactly fields that emphasize "what" one should think. have you taken much philosophy, political theory, hell, even english literature?
Also- if the school is supposed to teach us what to think, does that mean curricula should just leave out the authors who don't subscribe to those theories? that seems rather counterproductive to me...
— humm drumm | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#12: 2/4/2009 at 10:41 a.m.
I'm with #4! What have people making money ever done for society, or for Swarthmore for that matter?
A person working for a well meaning and grossly mismanaged nonprofit is such a better asset to society than someone who consults with nonprofits for McKinsey! And there's nothing noble about growing wealth as an ibanker so that some family can send their kids off to a nice college like Swarthmore, is there?
Jeez, people like McCabe, Lang, Kohlberg, and Kemp are such a pox on our nation! I even heard McCabe was a Republican.
In sum, I think they should turn all $1 bills into $100 bills so that everyone can have lots of money and we won't need to rely on people who actually do things for endowment support.
— Boo money! | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#13: 2/5/2009 at 6:23 a.m.
"Namely, I contend that Swarthmore has failed to give us an education. Swarthmore has provided us with the opportunity to make our own education rather than providing us with a moral framework for understanding."
After re-reading the "Discussion Rules" to the right, I'm going to phrase my response in a more constructive fashion.
Is this really your thesis?
— NotMattTurner | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#14: 2/5/2009 at 9:26 a.m.
Perhaps some people feel the way Chris does, but I doubt most people share his sentiment.
I don't, for one.
I study Phil/Econ and in Econ there are DEFINITE ideological underpinnings in every class. Every professor in Econ brings with them their idea of the truth. We should be thankful, however, that these same Professors do not profess absolute knowledge of the truth, and admit their fallibility. Failing to claim that one possesses the truth of truths is not tantamount to not providing a moral framework. Instead it teaches a more nuanced moral framework. It is the hallmark of good teaching.
In Philosophy we study exactly this issue - the dilemma between objective and subjective points of view on the world, and how and why each are appealing and problematic in their own right. Chris' argument seems to presume an objectivist framework as the correct one.
Has Chris considered that teaching that there is no absolute truth at all is teaching what is closest to truth after all? Even if Chris is right that we are being taught that critical thinking trumps all else, and that the only reality is a self-defined reality, is this not in itself a TRUTH being taught?
In fact, Chris' question: "That also begs the question: what is ethical intelligence, and what reason do we have to ascribe to it? What is the rationale for a humanist understanding of the world?" lends itself least of all to a dogmatic, orthodox response, and most of all to an open debate in which there is no right answer. To me, whether an institution or an individual, one is more insightful in uncertainty than certainty, especially when it comes to questions of absolute worth and morality.
So perhaps it is precisely this sort of truth, and this sort of education, that was offered to Chris at a liberal institution - a truth about truths, and an education that recognizes the failures of the type of framework he is proposing. If, in Chris' eyes, this nuanced view of truth constitutes no education at all, and lends itself to purposelessness, then he will be pleased to offer with more detail and precision, in his next column, why this sort of education is empty.
Until then, however, the assumption must be that he simply failed to notice that the education he calls "no education" is a powerful framework in its own right.
— Vivaan Nehru | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#15: 2/5/2009 at 2:11 p.m.
@Chris, I applaud your willingness to discuss this issue, and I appreciate your point of view. However, I disagree. I disagree even more with #4. This is why...
Swarthmore is not a political institution. I do not believe that it should be. I believe that empowering students to make choices for themselves is the highest goal of education, not teaching fleeting points of view that will soon be updated or outdated by the next edition. Exposure to these points of view is a necessary aspect of education, but students should be free to ascribe to whichever POV they choose. By politicizing or moralizing the education offered here we risk the ability to be truly diverse. If students here wish to establish a particular moral framework, there are plenty of courses on ethics and forums in which to discuss socially responsible ways in which to use a Swarthmore education, though whether or not there is time to take the classes or attend the meetings is an issue for another day.
As for the points brought up in #4, I most take issue with the idea that acquisition of wealth is somehow inimical and inherently opposed to a socially progressive agenda. Mindlessly characterizing those who choose to pursue a career with a high salary as uncaring or aloof betrays ignorance and bitterness. One of my parents is a lawyer, the other an engineer. Both are professions traditionally at the high end of the pay scale. To my parents, such a socioeconomic position requires an equal responsibility to further our society for all. Hence, they consider Swarthmore more important than a new car and would rather volunteer their time on the school board or working with the homeless than at a country club or cruise. My mother works to help wealthy citizens who wish to make a difference to the less fortunate ensure that their estates are used in a socially responsible way after they die. To me, there is no higher ideal and no greater purpose. Such purpose comes from the ability to think clearly and critically, and my parents do not support a "purposeful" approach to education because it can so easily blind one to the opportunities and diversity in the world around us.
Please forgive my length. I hope that this discussion continues and that we as a student body continue to use our education in a socially responsible manner.
— Will Hopkins | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#16: 2/5/2009 at 11:17 p.m.
Will,
I'm sorry but the problems are not going to be solved through charity and volunteerism, they are just not. Furthermore, the idea that the reason that people pursue high paying jobs is so that they can somehow better society is a ridiculous lie that people tell themselves to sooth their consciences. The fact of the matter is, it hasn't panned out. Look at Bill Gates, lauded for his philanthropy. In his case, even with the immensity of the money he gives away, he is still only giving a percentage of the interest on the money he already has, and by doing so is shielding himself from paying taxes. Meanwhile, his foundations have yet to make any real sustainable change---try though the education ones have to privatize our schooling system.
Nobody is attacking your parents. They are just playing a part in the system. Im sure they are wonderful people.
It is, however, ignorant on your part to forget about the way the world is purposely set up. Anyone who goes to Swarthmore should have learned at some point, that our economic system is set up to create winners and losers. And that these winners are certain people and the losers are certain people. What I find unethical, is having that knowledge, and consciously deciding to be a "winner" rather than working hard, whether it is from within the system or without, to change it.
— Marc Engel | Registered, Swarthmore
#17: 2/6/2009 at 3:00 a.m.
I realise that consequentialist arguments generally don't go over well with people that are going to end up in jobs putting them below the poverty level, but did you honestly just try to downplay the capital-b Billions of dollars (25 times our own endowment, using year-old figures) in the Gates Foundation going towards things like AIDS assistance, financial help for the poor, and (oh, the horror!) getting better schools and teachers? You can look someone in the eye and say you're morally superior to that?
What else is evil to you? Is Swarthmore evil? You can't argue that it would be anything like it is today if not for the likes of McCabe and Kohlberg (I'd imagine you really love Kohlberg) mentioned earlier by "Boo money!" If someone devotes twenty years of their life to making a drug to cure pancreatic cancer, are they evil if they then expect some kind of payoff for their work? If your moral stance varies at all from the cookie-cutter socialist/communist view that even the smallest degree of income inequality must be eliminated, regardless of any sort of merit other than having been born, you should elaborate.
To me, your way of thought is the "evil" one, embracing the moral results of a veil of ignorance and forcing humans to unnaturally meet in the middle when we should have stellar outliers that are the pride of the species. I would generally use a different word, maybe "misguided," to describe it. Come on, though, Bill Gates?
— Swattie Expat | Registered, Swarthmore
#18: 2/6/2009 at 10:57 a.m.
Is there any point arguing with Marxism?
- Seth
— Seth Green | Registered, Swarthmore
#19: 2/6/2009 at 12:13 p.m.
I enjoy badgering useless people.
— Swattie Expat | Registered, Swarthmore
#20: 2/6/2009 at 3:30 p.m.
Please, please improve your writing. This column is a total disaster, even besides what you're trying to say in it. I understand that you want something to push back against and that your school is refusing to provide the kind of solid position that would allow for that - but you know what? Cry about it. The things you're asking for don't even go together: you think a school with a fixed, explicit set of values can simultaneously "nurture [its students] in the critical understanding of what THEY believe is the more moral way to lead one’s life"? [emphasis added, obviously] Because that's typically not how it actually works. How it actually works is, schools with agendas do things like kick you out if you stray too far from their orthodoxy.
Look: you have opinions, and you're entitled to them. But you ought to be able to express them clearly enough and firmly enough to argue for them in an ideological vacuum. Pleading for an enemy you can knock down in order to make yourself look bigger is silly and amateurish - although, to be fair, at least that means that the substance of your piece matches its style.
— augh my eyes | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore
#21: 2/7/2009 at 12:48 a.m.
Writer of #7 and #8, I like how in trying to ream out "a parent," you gave each of your own ideas its own indent.
— Ben Starr | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#22: 2/7/2009 at 1:03 a.m.
My self-worth is controversial?
— j | Unregistered, Swarthmore