A Modest Proposal for the Sidwell Friends School

Washington's Sidwell Friends School

The Sidwell Friends School in Washington is in the news: once more, important and powerful people are sending their children there. It is by all accounts an excellent school. It has the resources to assure the best in teachers, in equipment, in curriculum, and in caring parents. In all these areas Sidwell, like other such private schools in the District, stands in sharp contrast to the public schools of the nation's capital. These are struggling, and, the affluent and influential having deserted them, are now ghettos for the non-white and non-privileged.

Like other non-profit institutions, Sidwell would be exempt from local taxes, and contributions to Sidwell would be deductible from income taxes. So taxpayers, including the poor who cannot afford to send their children there, are nevertheless asked to pay for some of its costs.

But many of Sidwell's parents are on record for improving the lives of the poor. This is certainly true of the powerful politicians that are now preparing to send their little ones to Sidwell in the coming year. Sidwell's own Board of Trustees has voiced similar sentiments:

We cultivate in all members of our community high personal expectations and integrity, respect for consensus, and an understanding of how diversity enriches us, why stewardship of the natural world matters and why service to others enhances life

It isn't cheap to go to Sidwell, in fact it's downright expensive. Tuition and fees come to over $30,000 per child per year (with twenty-two percent of the student body receiving some degree of financial aid). At these prices, "service to others" means, primarily, others who are well off.

And here is another disquieting thing about the Sidwell philosophy:

We seek academically talented students of diverse cultural, racial, religious and economic backgrounds.

Those who are not "academically talented," whatever that term may mean, what are those students, chopped liver ? Is that the meaning of the "Quaker way" that is so proudly touted by Sidwell ?

In other words, there is a bit, more than a bit, of a disjunction between the high-minded sentiments of parents and Board on the one hand, and the elitist nature of the program on the other. It doesn't look good.

But wait... this blog has some solutions.

Sidwell and its parents have tremendous resources that they could make available, to some extent at least, to that vast majority of District children who have no hope of ever becoming Sidwell students. Here are some ideas, submitted with all the humility for which this blog has become justly famous:

● Sidwell parents could be asked to make financial contributions to enrichment programs at the public schools. Whenever a Sidwell parent makes a tuition payment, a "Service to Others" (STO) surcharge could be added.

● At least some of Sidwell's resources could be made available to all students in the District. Perhaps there could be classes in art appreciation, or college-entrance preparation, or music, or whatever, free of charge to all children. Perhaps the STO funds could be used for these services.

● Some of Sidwell's parents command considerable venues on their own. The White House itself will soon be one. Perhaps such facilities could be used for regular enrichment programs for all of the District's children.

P.S.: How many of the Sidwell folk can be found in this part of Washington ?

Truxton Circle, Washington DC

How the Jews Voted: Exactly 78 Percent for Obama ?

Hasidim of Brooklyn: Strongly for McCain
photo by wayupnorthtonowhere

Upper Westside: Probably Obama Country
photo by Ed Yourdon

My friend was an Obama supporter. "Seventy-eight percent of the Jews," he told me, "voted like me." How did he know, how does anybody know anything ? The New York Times. Of course. All the news that's fit to print.

Nobody in authority asked me my religion when I voted. That doesn't happen, and if it did it would be illegal. But it appears that there are "exit polls" in which professional pollsters place themselves in front of polling places and importune voters who have just voted. I myself have never encountered such a pollster in more than 60 years of voting, but I have been told that this is, roughly, how the conversation goes:

Sir, would you mind telling me for whom you have just voted ? Thank you so much. Just a few more questions .... years of education ?, occupation ?, etc. etc., and yes, "religious preference." And then of course there is a quick peek to ascertain race.

As a result of such exit polling, we have information on a national scale that has been shown to be more-or-less accurate for the broad demographic groups. We know that McCain, like Bush before him, received a convincing majority of the white vote. And, this time round, we know that Black people voted Obama in overwhelming numbers. The same reports that tell us these well-established things also purport to tell us about the Jewish vote: 78% for Obama. The trouble is that unlike the large demographic groups, the small minority of Jews in this country (between one and two percent of the population) make any such precision illusory.

The New York Times, for example, carried a report on the exit poll that was conducted by Edison/Mitofsky on November 4. It seems that 17,224 voters, at 300 polling places nationwide, were interviewed that day by E/M. Among these there were about 350 Jews, of whom 78%, or about 270, said that they had voted Obama, with almost all the rest having voted McCain.

To what extent can these 350 individuals be said to be representative of the American Jewish electorate ?

The sample of 300 polling places, or about 5 per state, represents about one quarter of one percent of the nation's voting districts. It was drawn as a random sample of all the nation's districts, and, for purposes of the larger population, can yield reliable results. But to accept its validity as representative of the Jewish population, we have to assume that the Jews of the country (roughly one or two percent of the population) are randomly distributed, more or less, over all the voting districts, all over the country. The proportionate size of the Jewish communities of Williamsburg and Borough Park would have to be similar to those of Idaho and Utah. If that assumption does not hold, there is no validity in the result. (There are statistical techniques -- oversampling -- used for the larger minorities, to correct for some of these problems. There is no indication that such techniques have been used for the Jewish population. I have written to Edison/Mitofsky to get details of their methods, but so far I have had no reply.)

The Brooklyn Paper has reported overwhelming support for McCain in Hasidic neighborhoods. No doubt there was heavy support for Obama on the Upper West side. The Jews of Wyoming, Idaho, Utah ? It is doubtful that the national pollsters ever encounter any of these at all. A valid sample of the American Jewish electorate would have to encompass such diversity. A national sample of all American voters, if it is of practicable size and complexity, cannot do this.

These exit polls almost certainly overstate the extent of Jewish support for Obama, for this reason: since they are based on methods that seek to create representative samples of the American population as a whole, they may do an adequate job of reaching Jews who are well dispersed in that population. But they cannot adequately reach those dense pockets of Jewish population that consist, to a large extent, of Orthodox Jews. And it is probable that these Orthodox pockets were much more favorable to McCain.

Did the Jews generally favor Obama over McCain ? Probably yes. But to the extent of 78 % ? Not likely.

Sarah Palin and Her Cultured Despisers

Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska

In the City of New York, the enlightened are smarter, more cultured, more couth than the Governor of Alaska. The woman is a redneck ! Could you find her at MOMA ? Could you see her reading The New Yorker ? Or, for that matter, The New York Times ? Would you find her at a parents' meeting of Brooklyn Friends ? None of the above, obviously.

And she is not an Episcopalian, not a Reform Jew, not a member of Ethical Culture. She does not attend mass at St. Patrick's. Her religious affiliation, Pentecostalism, can be found in Spanish Harlem, but since when is that part of New York, part of Culture ?

Way back in 1799, the German theologian Schleiermacher had a message for the "cultured" of his time. But did this put an end to mindless, ignorant, snobbish judgmentalism ? What do you think ?

Friedrich Schleiermacher, author of
On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers (1799)

The ideology of Trinity United

Stanley Kurtz

The ideology of Trinity United, the Chicago church in which Obama was an active member for twenty years, is not at all representative of Black churches. It is a strictly minority view in Black American Christianity. It is the brain child of the radical "Black Liberation" theologian James Cone of Union Theological Seminary with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright as his most prominent disciple. "Black Liberation Christianity" proclaims that Jesus was Black, that only Black Christianity is authentically Christian, that White Christians should be ashamed of their skin color, and so forth .

The black intellectual's goal, says Cone, is to "aid in the destruction of America as he knows it." Such destruction requires both black anger and white guilt. The black-power theologian's goal is to tell the story of American oppression so powerfully and precisely that white men will "tremble, curse, and go mad, because they will be drenched with the filth of their evil." In the preface to his 1970 book, A Black Theology of Liberation, Wright wrote: "There will be no peace in America until whites begin to hate their whiteness, asking from the depths of their being: 'How can we become black?'"

This quotation is from a thorough explanation of Black Liberation theology by Stanley Kurtz. Kurtz's piece, in my view, is absolutely required reading for anyone who wishes to understand the folks that Obama worked with for those twenty years. Click here to get the full text.

Barack and the Sonim

Washington Post

mlive.com

Bill Ayers by edexcellence.net

My neighborhood -- Downtown and Brownstone Brooklyn -- is graced by diversity of commercial and religious enterprise. Restaurants of high and low quality, stores (ditto), and of course people. So it's not surprising that you can buy, no trouble at all, copies of the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion," both in the street from vendors and from a number of bookstores.

Now one of these stores that has featured this work in its shop window has just begun to display a great big sign: Obama Needs You, Sign Up to Help as Volunteer, or words to that effect. This particular store is run by "Afrocentric" sonim, haters of Jews. (There is now an absolutely hair-raising account of "Afrocentric" sonim at Wellesley College, of all places, by Mary Lefkowitz: "History Lesson.")

I do not for one minute believe that Obama shares the views of these sonim, nor do I think that he would be aware of what they do in his name. But, as I have pointed out before on this blog, it is a curious fact that haters of Israel and of the Jews endorse him. Why ? Do they know something that the rest of us don't ?

By and large, the media and even the McCain campaign have given Obama a free pass on his twenty years in a Church of Hate and on his connections with other extremists. Now Commentary Magazine, God bless it, has broken this silence and has published a comprehensive (almost) account of these matters in an article by Joshua Muravchik in its latest issue.

I do not endorse the doctrines and dogmas of Commentary, which to some extent inform this article. Nevertheless, I think that the factual account is sound (except that it leaves out, surprisingly, the Hamas connection with Trinity United Church). I do hope that the article will find the readership it deserves. Some material on Obama's connection with the Weather Underground's Bill Ayers, for example, has not been widely known before.

Hating Israel, Loving Obama

The Frozen Smile

Barak Obama has said, more than once, and in unmistakable language, that he supports Israel's right to exist and Israel's right to defend itself. But the funny thing is that (at least some of) those who hate Israel and who don't think that it has any right to defend itself nevertheless love and endorse Obama. Do they know something about Obama that perhaps Obama himself either doesn't know or doesn't want to say ?

First and perhaps foremost, there is Jimmy "Frozen-Smile" Carter, who thinks that Israel practices "apartheid" and is solely responsible for the Israel-Palestinian conflict. It has been announced that Carter will be one of the main speakers at the Denver convention to endorse Obama, although, as of this writing, it appears that he has been told not to mention the word "Israel." The Soviets, before passing out of history, experienced a thaw. Can we hope as much from Carter and/or his smile ? Hope again.

[Update, Aug. 28: In the end, the Forward reports, the Dems decided to honor Carter by showing a video of him but not allow him to speak at the convention.]

The Nation magazine, something of a voice of twenty-first century American Communism, gives a little more hesitant endorsement of Obama, all the while blaming Israel for everything that is wrong in the world, or at least in the Middle East.

And then there is the poor little Communist Party of the USA. It has seen better days -- say those of Earl Browder and William Z. Foster. But it still soldiers on as a ghost of a ghost, somewhere halfway between being moribund and dead. It endorses Obama (with some hesitation), but never misses a beat in beating down on Israel.

But wait, there is hope for those who want to dismiss everything I say in this posting. There is at least one enemy of Israel (not counting Pat Buchanan) who will not support Obama. That is the estimable Cynthia McKinnon, who is running for President all on her own.

On Vanity and Pride and Bragging

All is Vanity
Painting by Charles Gilbert (1873-1929)

Praising oneself (or one's children) inordinately is something that is frequently practiced but never condoned. All the sacred sources that I could find, religious and secular, with the only possible exception of Ayn Rand, condemn the practice. "Pride cometh before the Fall," or words to that effect, expresses the professed attitudes. Our language generally implies a negative evaluation of "braggarts," of "vanity," "vainglory," and "boasting," with positive evaluations of the "unassuming" and the "modest." But practice, as I said, is often different.

The question is, in a world that depends so much on selling and buying (of goods and esteem), could we do entirely without just a bit of exaggeration, say just now and then ? When I want to sell, say, a new automobile, can I say that what I have to offer is just about as good, or maybe a little inferior, to the wares of my competitors ? American law allows "puffery" in advertising, defined as an exaggeration that no reasonable person will take literally, but it does not allow misrepresentation, which, presumably, may mislead. Some "exaggeration," when it does not mislead, is something we seem to have accepted and are willing to live with. (Of course outside the sphere of advertising legality, or even within it, the line between "puffery" and misrepresentation may often be far from clear.)

Granted that bragging is something we all do to some extent some of the time, at least three important questions present themselves. First there is the extent, insistence, and sheer volume of claims made at any one time. A second question is how customary or expected an incident may be, considering community standards. Finally, there is the question of the veracity of the claims. I am mostly interested in claims that are 1) insistent and shrill; 2) relatively rare, i.e. not customary in the given circumstances, and 3) essentially lacking in veracity. (Lawyers might see a three-prong test here for what is flagrant bragging.)

Disclaimer: My observations and conclusions are not based on systematic research. Nor have I been able to find such systematic research in the literature, pace Erving Goffman and his school of "ethnomethodology."

The Groves of Academe

To some extent, self-promotion by academics is as necessary as self-promotion in any other field. It's hard to imagine a scholar advancing in his own field -- receiving necessary research grants, obtaining good graduate students, achieving promotions in the academic ladder, etc. -- if he does not spend a certain amount of time informing others of his accomplishments. As long as the interactions take place among peers, who can be assumed to understand the difference between meaningful accomplishment and embroidery, there is little opportunity for vainglory. But when self-promotion is directed to people outside academia proper, the door opens to claims that are no longer veracious, or are, at least, borderline veracious.

Before the internet, it was difficult to see who does the unacceptable bragging. Information tended to remain local, or confined to small circles of insiders. But now, when so many professors have their own websites, the braggarts -- for better or worse -- can be observed far and wide. I will give just one case study to illustrate what can go wrong. Although I don't cite the name of the individual, the details are all based on the information given by the person's websites.

Professor X. is at a large denominational university. He is the chair of his department and he also holds other administrative posts at his university. He has at least three websites, which, in addition to the more customary material of such sites, also feature

a. "downloadable publicity shots of Dr.[X]"
b. the claim that he is frequently consulted by the media on matters of public interest
c. the claim that he has had "conversations" with a former president of the United States
d. his schedule of occasional lectures at other universities now and in the future. (One such appearance, claimed by X to have been a "Keynote Address" to a learned society was listed on the website of that society as no more than an address.)
e. the fact that one of his books had "forwards" (sic) by two well-known (but controversial) men
f. testimonials of his work by a number of well-known (but controversial) public figures
g. laudatory descriptions of these public figures
h. details of X's travels in various parts of the world
i. nomination for a prize that he did not ultimately receive
j. lavish self praise ("Professor X's work extends beyond the ... analysis usually offered by the media to encompass the essence of spiritual evolution...")

This material, as I see it, adds up to the portrait of a flagrant academic braggart, using the three-prong test that I have suggested:

1. There is high "volume;" the claims are shrill, insistent, numerous
2. The claims, taken together, do not seem customary in academia
3. They lack veracity, at least by implication. Professor X. claims, by implication, that praise by the cited well-known personages is relevant to his own scholarly merit. Of course other scholars in his field cannot be misled by such claims, so to them the claims may be no more than "puffery," material that reasonable men will ignore. But Professor X. addresses himself, by his own insistence, to people outside the scholarly community. When addressing this larger audience, Professor X's claims lack veracity.

Professor X is a braggart, flagrantly so.

The Synagogue World

I know very little about Orthodox and Reform synagogues. I have been a member and guest at a number of Conservative groups over the years, and find, when it comes to a bar or bat mitsvah, that every one of these youngsters, to believe the rabbi, is always the brightest, the best, the most learned, the most selfless of all creatures. The volume of this praise is high and the veracity, obviously, is low. But here is the problem: this bragging seems customary in the Conservative community. Which community standards should be operative: that of the Conservative world, or that of the larger community ? In other words, is this synagogue practice an instance of flagrant bragging ?

I will end my little disquisition on boasting on this uncertain note, just to prove my own modesty: I don't have all the answers.

It is clear that flagrant bragging, as the Parsonian sociologists used to say, serves important "functions." The world would certainly be different without it. But I myself think that it is at least useful to identify bragging, especially flagrant bragging, because the practice impinges so importantly on the ethic of truth. Even if we do not wish to be "moralistic" and condemn bragging (God forbid !), we should at least know the difference between a braggart's account and that of someone more restrained by the truth.