hcagr challenges Alexander Hamilton Institute & colloquium participants
Without doubt the inaugural colloquium was a huge success. Beyond all expectations.
As noted on the AHI website “Liberty and Slavery: The Civil War between Gerrit Smith and George Fitzhugh,” integrated three undergraduate classes—from Harvard University, Colgate University, and Hamilton College—into an intensive conversation with a diverse group of fifteen academics and informed citizens. They included a judge, a museum curator, a Methodist minister, an award-winning high-school teacher as well as some of the most influential historians of their generation. The result exceeded the ample expectations of the AHI’s founders. Professor Stauffer called the event “one of the highlights of his career, if not the highlight.” Tim McCarthy, a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, informed one of the founders of the AHI a week after the event, “My students are still talking about it!” Video of the opening night’s events and audio of the colloquium’s six sessions are now available at the AHI’s Papers & Publications for examination by interested parties.
________________________________________
We’ll keep the challenge short and present it as an idea for discussion.
Let’s up the stakes and broaden the tent.
- Leverage the existing intellectual work product
- Repackage the substance of the colliquium & retarget to the high school level as the preeminent explication of the abolitionist/apologist dialogue in all the dimensions you explored so wonderfully in the colliquium
- Utilize internet and other media/technology to leverage national distribution as a free good available to public & private high schools across the United States and the world
Civic literacy & superior scholarship created by AHI, its Fellows, affiliates & associates, leveraged by the technologies of new media and the internet to a near zero marginal cost of distribution for the benefit of high school teachers and students across America. QED
_________________
What do you think?
hb
22 Comments
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (22)
An "abandoned hotel"? You ought to stop by and take a tour sometime. It's a lovely historic building with an elegant interior, and rooms enough to house resident scholars. The very large, early 19th century safe of Cincinnati manufacture was a nice and unexpected touch (frankly, I'd use it to store wine).
The Fellows will be happy to show you the place settings all with the 'AHI' initials (Alexander Hamilton Inn or Institute). Providential, don't you think?
I was at Reunion Weekend and attended the AHI open house. I had a chance to speak only to one of the founders because the others were busy with other visitors.
The goal as stated to me was that the founders want to create "a mini-Hoover Institution in upstate New York." Realistic? Who knows. Ambitious, yes. I heard nothing that would indicate that they trying to rub the College's nose in it. If they're successful, more power to them.
So far so good--and the Inn is a wonderful home for the AHI.
Why would I support something financially if I disagree with how it is being run? I'm not going to give money to Obama '08 if I want to see McCain in the WH.
An interesting choice of words by paid employees of C&D ..."our college".
One wonders whether he is the source of the AHI's $100,000 commitment?
Any answers anyone?
Given that the reappearance of fraternity houses on the Hill is about as likely as that of Kirkland College, I would conclude that no longer receiving solicitations from Hamilton would be what you would want. About the “loyal alumni” reference – perhaps this was a somewhat obtuse way of letting you know that many alumni have made peace with past issues. As I said to hb and Prof. Paquette (whom I had the pleasure of meeting at the AHI over Reunions weekend) less-than-elegantly, “we all have our beefs with Hamilton”.
Slidell, I would be interested to learn what you mean by feeling “abandoned” by the College. The AHI seems to be doing quite nicely, even though it is not on campus, and perhaps that solution affords both parties the opportunity to function as they wish.
As for the ratings game, I would suggest you read http://www.hamilton.edu/college/president/7rankings.html
By signing this letter, Hamilton is in good company.
It would take a paradigm shift to avoid participating without suffering the consequences.
From the perspective of the Committee for Kirkland College, a small gift to Hamilton lets us know that the Kirkland alumnae are following our work, and approve of what we are doing. So, goading is not the word I would use. Seeking some affirmation is more like it.
And about protesting alumni’s “purchases” in excess of cost being counted as unwitting “donors” – oh come on. Having chaired the Planning Committee for the All-Kirkland Reunion last year, I can tell you that what alumni pay to register for various events does not even come close to fully covering the cost of these events. Of course, if you choose to “round-up for Hamilton”, that would indeed count as a gift.
While comparing the fate of the Houses and Kirkland is a lot like comparing apples and oranges, the one thing in common is that they are no more, and are unlikely to be resurrected.
I agree that “our college” is not obtuse (coming from a fellow alum); and perhaps the “loyal alumni” comment was gratuitous. Yes, their mission is to serve all alumni, but they can’t please everyone all of the time, and they have to operate from the circumstances as they are.
You definitely have a right to be angry about the decision about the Houses, and I believe that the Kirkland women also have a right to be angry about the merger. Some fraternity men and some Kirkland women have made their peace, in order to be able to enjoy memories of their time on the Hill, and I would submit that those people are some of the alumni who give to Hamilton today.
A number of H’78 Chi Psis were on the Hill for our 30th Reunion, and while no one talked about the House closings (or the merger) specifically, some mentioned going up to the attic in Chi Psi and remarked that it had not changed at all. For many, sharing memories with the people they were made with in the place where they were made, is a good palliative for the discomfort of knowing that things aren’t the way they used to be.
Come on, Ki. Get with the therapy!
You're simply insensitive which is why they took you off the mailing list in the first place. It's 'our college' not yours. Get it?
................
"We now have closed-shop, massively subsidized, intolerant political fiefdoms, and they are the gatekeepers of society's rewards. Without incentives for different models of higher education, we shall have this same system of colleges and universities as far as the mind can foresee. The tax-free mega-endowments will grow. The legislators and the public will not end the subsidy. The alumni will continue their bequests. The trustees will proudly attend the administrative dog-and-pony shows, the most efficient act on any campus. Well-intentioned donors will support ghettoized "centers" (without faculty lines, cross-listed courses, graduate fellowships, or degrees) that marginalize inquiries that should be central to the academy. These provide protective coloration for administrators, help with fund raising in certain quarters, and permit a transfer of funds to the accelerating thirst for ever new forms of regnant campus orthodoxies. Until civil society makes administrators pay a price for the politicized hiring, curriculum and student life offices they administer, nothing truly will be reformed."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121184146283621055.html?mod=opinion_journal_federation