Notes from a recent meeting with alumni about the Alexander Hamilton Institute
Supporters might be interested in these notes from a recent meeting hosted for the Fellows by alumni supportive of the Alexander Hamilton Institute.
In response to specific questions about the mission of the Institute:
i. There is a difference between advocacy and scholarship. For example, the difference between the Institute and the Heritage Foundation is that the Institute will not issue policy papers or take positions on political issues. Our mission is scholarly.
ii. We are not a right-wing counterpart to the Kirkland Project. The Kirkland Project advocates; the Institute informs and analyzes.
iii. The Institute provides benefits for students at Hamilton through the four groups that meet periodically at the Institute to discuss issues based on prescribed readings or to present speeches.
iv. The Institute does not offer courses for credit.
v. We rely on the generosity of donors to fund operations and are grateful for their support.
vi. A donor has indicated that he intends to support programming at the Institute by providing a series of gifts of $100,000 per year for the next five years. The first of such gifts has been completed. Those monies are not available for bricks & mortar or other occupancy expenses.
vii The AHI has reached an agreement in principle for a long term lease of its headquarters at the former Alexander Hamilton Inn at favorable rates. The terms will include an option to buy its headquarters, and we expect to close on the lease shortly. The annual cost of operating the building is for the account of AHI, and is an ongoing funding requirement.
viii The directors of the Institute welcome questions from prospective benefactors about the governance, organizational, and financial structure of the Institute.
Members of the alumni group were generally concerned by Hamilton’s open curriculum and what was perceived as a lowering of academic standards. The group applauded the effort of the Institute to address the deficiencies of intellectual life on the campus of the College. We emphasized that the Institute is not an adversary of the College, that the Institute is not an ‘anti-Hamilton’ at the foot of the Hill, that we look to provide opportunities through which the students can enrich their education.
hb
38 Comments
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (38)
Paragraph ii implies that the Kirkland Project (a misnomer several years after the name change) is left-wing, and that as it advocates and the AHI informs and analyzes, the inference we are to draw is that the Diversity and Social Justice Project does not inform and analyze.
Even the most cursory look through a listing of DSJP programming from the past year or so, would lead one to quite a different conclusion:
Public Health Consultant Helen Epstein Discusses AIDS Epidemic
Dr. Thomas Kensler '70 Discusses Global Cancer Epidemic and Solutions
Disability Policy in the Post-ADA Era
Cancer Survivor Presents "Reconstruction: Or How I Learned to Pay Attention"
Author, Scholar Sandra Steingraber Presents “Living Downstream”
“During her discussion on September 25, titled "Living Downstream," Sandra Steingraber outlined the devastating effects chemical toxins can have on the human body, more specifically, during the reproductive process.”
Bob Moses '56 Leads Discussion on Social Justice in Education
“Civil rights leader Bob Moses, a member of the Hamilton class of 1956, led a discussion on April 19 on social justice in American education. Moses, whose work has included the creation of The Algebra Project to improve quantitative literacy in disadvantaged schools, led students, faculty, staff, and community members in discussing educational inequality in America and how it can be addressed.”
I don’t find the topics of the AIDS Epidemic, the Global Cancer Epidemic, Disability Policy, Surviving Cancer, how pollution can cause human illness, and how many segments in society are failed in school, can be considered “left-wing”. They impact us all. Surely pollution and health issues impact us all, as does the failure of public education.
I can only conclude that you find the AHI enterprise (“scholarly”) somehow more serious and higher on the hierarchy of scholarly enterprise than those offerings noted above (“advocacy” but not “scholarly” by implication). Surely, were scholars not advocating on the topics listed, perhaps we might not be enjoying the relative health and prosperity that we do in this country.
"interdisciplinary intellectual activity necessary for social justice movements"
source: http://www.hamilton.edu/college/DSJP/index.html
'Social Justice' has a specific politial meaning in postmodern marxist lexicon (or plainly put, mumbo-jumbo).
Just look at what they do, not what you say they do.
"CODEPINK is a women-initiated, grassroots peace and social justice movement working to end the war in Iraq, stop new wars, and redirect resources into healthcare, education and other life-affirming activities. Intern responsibilities include sending out mass emails to CODEPINK groups around the country and work with their online database; assisting with events and planning; creating flyers and other outreach materials; and making press calls. "
http://www.hamilton.edu/news/more_news/display.cfm?id=14020
Like any terms in our postmodern era, "social justice" does not have a fixed meaning and can be shaped to include a variety of ideological and religious commitments. Thus, on paper at least, the Diversity and Social Justice project encompasses ideals embraced by thinkers on both the political left and right. It would not however embrace philosophy like Objectivism that rejects all altruism.
“The prevailing belief in ‘social justice’ is at present probably the gravest threat to most other values of a free civilization.”
Social justice is a term that yields an inordinate amount of “sloppy thinking and even intellectual dishonesty.”
“The phrase ‘social justice’ . . . has become a dishonest insinuation that one ought to agree to a demand of some special interest which can give no real reason for it.” It is the mark of “demagogy” and “cheap journalism.”
It seems the argument is that 'social justice' has no meaning ...on paper at least...and is therefore ok...because it is not not-ok...and valid by the perspectives of the Pope and Mother T because you say so.
And we take great confort in your assurance that it is not politicized. Sounds like a great way to spend some >$800,000+ of alumni and tuition monies. Go figure.
No less an authority than the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops acknowledges John Paul's commitment to what they describe as social justice. See their press release of June 24th <http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2008/08-095.shtml> which describes a conference of pro-life luminaries. (By the way, it took me about five seconds to find this reference on google, the Catholic Church's position on social justice is very well known.)
I am merely trying to complicate the horror of "social justice" I read far to often on these pages. Social justice can be and is embraced by thinkers and politicians whose views on many matters would be considered conservative.
Instead of being an empty phrase, social justice is an expansive term that accomidates a variety of views. Surely programing that encourages critical inquiry into questions of inequality is a valid use of a small portion of college resources.
Coming to Hamilton after thirteen years of Catholic education, I was always much amused by WASPish ignorance of things Catholic. A professor once referred to St Vincent de Paul as St Paul de Vincent, and I was the only student in the room who smiled. Vincent de Paul, by the way, might also be described as an advocate of social justice, although I am presently away from resources that would tell me if the phrase was used in his lifetime.
Ok, so a member of the Austrian School who won the Nobel Prize in 1974 objects to social justice; thus in 2008, Hamilton College shouldn't include programming on the topic. By the way, Hayek shared the prize with Gunnar Myrdal, a Social Democrat, so even the Nobel committee acknowledged that Hayek's arguments were not universally accepted.
Amartya Sen has also won the Nobel Prize-- more recently too, 1998-- somehow I don't think he objects to social justice.
The charters of the DSJP and the AHI tell what each organization wants to achieve and how they will accomplish it--Two very different ways of achieving freedom and equality..I'll take the AHI path anyday...
Upcoming DSJP Programs:
Tuesday, September 9th, 2008: Opening panel discussion on Environmental Justice and Sustainability with faculty: Erol Balkan (Economics), Joyce Barry (Women's Studies), Peter Cannavo (Government) and Ernest Williams (Biology) Moderated by Professor Ann Owen. Co-sponsored with the Levitt Center.
Saturday, September 27th, 2008: 2008 Student and Faculty Conference. Keynote speaker is K. Animashaum Ducre, Associate Professor of African American Studies at Syracuse University.
Tuesday November 4th, 2008: Majora Carter, Executive Director of Sustainable South Bronx.
Co-sponsored with The Levitt Center and the Kirkland Endowment
“Legal brief” an oxymoron? Verb “to brief” means to inform/instruct thoroughly.
“Trusting relationship”? Equal work for non-equal pay; sexual harassment in the workplace – and even on college campuses?
The feminist movement was never trying to be “equal but not equal”: how about recognizing equal reward for equal effort – and how about recognizing that men and women are different: not mutually exclusive at all.
Re: “affirmative action and subsequent morphed quota programs”: what have those got to do with cancer, aids and the environment?
Since you suggest we look at the DSJP Charter, let’s do that:
"Diversity and Social Justice Project
Mission
"The Project fosters a diverse community by promoting rigorous, interdisciplinary intellectual activity necessary for social justice movements and characteristic of a liberal arts education.
Goals
"Prepare our students to live and work as engaged citizens in an increasingly diverse world.
Foster student and faculty scholarship related to our mission.
Develop and support curricula and pedagogies that challenge students to think critically about social justice and human diversity and to make connections between this classroom learning and the society in which we live.
Initiate and strengthen connections between the Hamilton community and the surrounding area around the mission of the Project."
If you put the upcoming and last year’s programming in perspective, I’d say it falls more along the lines of ‘teaching a man to fish’ rather than ‘giving him a fish’. I’d rather teach a man to fish any day.
“The charters of the DSJP and the AHI tell what each organization wants to achieve and how they will accomplish it--Two very different ways of achieving freedom and equality..I'll take the AHI path anyday...” (Alum not in Academe)
To you, Alum not in Academe, the two are mutually exclusive: how short-sighted. If you would prefer that research into cancer, aids and pollution remain in the laboratory, and that the results of that research never see the light of day, then I suppose there is really no point in lighting a fire in students that shows that their work is not performed in isolation, and that they can do something that changes the world for the better.
And for The Economist: even “lowly animals” are capable of showing compassion.
http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?Doc_Id=297
Is any worthy objective possible without casualties? Even the AHI, which you clearly consider a worthy cause, has cost Paquette a raise.
Contradiction is a part of any idea worth examining.
You write that, "The charters of the DSJP and the AHI tell what each organization wants to achieve and how they will accomplish it--Two very different ways of achieving freedom and equality..I'll take the AHI path anyday..." I thought that conservatives objected to "tenured radicals" because their "biases" shut down intellectual inquiry, but here you are proposing that only one method "of achieving freedom and equality" is worthy of examination.
RE: DSJP and AHI
I am not proposing that one suit fits all...The last time I looked this country was still mainly free...I wrote what I would choose..You can still do what you want...
Please don't lose your sense of humor....Legal Brief is an oxymoron to many of us!!!!!
The legitmacy of your personal beliefs are not in question. Of course, you are entitled to them.
The question is whether the DSJP is an appropriate use of college funds.
The college is a private institution..It can do whatever it wants as long as its constituencies either agree or are unable to stop it if they disagree...As an individual member of the alumni(ae) group I can choose not to support either the DSJP and/or the college if they opt to spend college funds on projects I cannot countenance..
Putting ideas on the table is one thing...Advocacy is something else!!!!!
The study of AIDs is not an overtly political act; policy prescriptions in treating the disease are political acts.
What strikes honest people is that the reformed Kirkland Project emerged from the scandals of a few years ago stronger than ever. Yes, Professor Nancy Rabinowitz was unceremoniously cashiered for her excesses, but the successor organization, the DSJP still has access to lots of money, and I am told the organiztion even has office space and secretarial support. No doubt, the new leadership is playing things carefully while under the microscope. One wonders if the DSJP brought to the study of AIDs, the environment, or whatever social justice cause that grabbed them, a speaker that did not demand some massive statist intervention and redistribution of income. Somehow I doubt it.
Never once in more than a decade did the trustees and the overwhelming majority of the faculty raise any serious questions about the operation of the Kirkland Project. Yet, I am told that the trustees and administration demanded "day-to-day" management of the AHC. I can only hope that Professor Paquette is confirmed by the Senate so that he can then publish the documents in his possession on this tawdry affair. I have seen some of it. The administration has acted dishonestly and disgracefully.
Of course, “policy prescriptions in treating the disease are political acts.” Research for the benefit of mankind is of no effect if it exists in a vacuum; any decision with public impact is by definition political. Nonetheless, new generations of researchers must be trained and decisions must be made.
“What strikes honest people”… Are you suggesting that those who disagree with you are dishonest?
My understanding is that the DSJP does not receive funding from the Kirkland Endowment. What proportion of the Kirkland Project’s support came from the Kirkland Endowment I do not know; however I daresay that this was a fiscally significant event.
And, lest you don’t know, the Kirkland Project was the only active legacy of Kirkland College on the Hill post-merger. And I would bet that the KP had some designated space (a corner of some professor’s office, perhaps) and some administrative help – not so terrible.
The programming I noted above seems innocuous – do you find it impossible to believe that the DSJP might provide some worthwhile programming? I can assure you that the Kirkland Project did, as well. Go trolling on HOLAC and have a look for yourself. Sure, there have been a few esoteric/egregious programs, which have been brought up ad nauseam here, but on the whole, a lot of content of general interest.
In the wake of Ward Churchill, you can rest assured that the Kirkland Project (now DSJP) was/is monitored as closely as you say the AHC might have been -- which was the locus of the dispute between the AHC and the College, was it not?
The relative independence of the Kirkland Project was a function of its role as the only active legacy of Kirkland College post-merger. Read Limited Engagement (Sam Babbitt’s book) if you want to understand the history here. Remember that Kirkland College was a separate coordinate institution with its own students, faculty and endowment as well as physical plant -- both created and dissolved by Hamilton College --and has its own alumnae body within the larger Hamilton alumni community. If you don’t know the history, you can’t appreciate how the Kirkland Project operated.
Re: “I can only hope that Professor Paquette is confirmed by the Senate so that he can then publish the documents in his possession on this tawdry affair.” I see no reason why he wouldn’t be confirmed – what makes you think he would publish the “damning evidence?” Apart from his “zero”, the relations seem to be calm right now. This is a most provocative statement.
And finally, since your posting just completes the circle and takes us back to that perennial issue of AHC/I vs. Kirkland (DSJ) Project – tell me: why given the innocuousness (in Churchillian terms) of the DSJP programming, why do you believe that it should not exist?
What is striking is the scholarly snobbishness evidenced here. To be sure constitutional craftsmanship is on a different order from the cancer epidemic; both very serious, both of great import. The uses in practical life of the latter are more superficially evident however, and more immediately requiring of action for significance to society than the former.
What is also striking is in denying value of the KP/DSJP, you loudly deny the ability and right of others of your cohort to be supportive of the work of the KP/SDJP. You are not affording those with equal education and intellect (a degree from the Hill) the respect of allowing them to have an opinion. It’s all or nothing; our work is more scholarly and important than yours; we can’t live together; it’s all your fault.