Peter Levine

« November 12, 2004 | Main | November 16, 2004 »

November 14, 2004

a story about universities and communities

I thought the following was the most interesting story told at the Penn State conference last weekend. (I'll relate it in an anonymous paraphrase, since I don't have the speaker's permission to name her or her institution.) The story takes place at a major research university that's near a deeply impoverished city. Don't try to guess which one--there are lots. An administrator gathered a group of socially engaged, committed professors to meet with representatives of the community. The community members listed a set of pressing concerns, one of which was the huge trucks that rumble through their city. It came time for the professors to respond, and one by one, they all said that they knew nothing about trucks. The community members replied (in effect), "Well, it looks like we'll have to deal with this on our own. But what good does it do us to have a world-class research university here?"

Like all good stories, this one prompts many thoughts, not all mutually consistent. My colleagues at the meeting made some interesting points, and then I came up with other ideas on my way home. In particular ...

It wasn't necessarily wrong for the professors to disclaim expertise about trucks. There's nothing worse than false pretentions to knowledge, and these people really didn't know about urban planning, traffic control, or related issues.

Possibly, the university should hire different people if it can't field experts on the topics that concern the neighboring community. But possibly not. It all depends on mission. The university in question sees itself in service to the whole world, so it's understandable that they don't hire truck experts.

It might have been a good thing for the community to realize that they had to solve the problem on their own. There is nevertheless a question about the purpose of universities, especially ones that are supposed to serve their neighbors.

There could be a role for the university as a knowledge-broker. A staff member could be charged with putting community members in touch with experts--either at the campus or elsewhere. (Although no one at Penn State said so, this is a traditional role for librarians.)

Perhaps the professors who said they knew nothing about trucks were missing the point. Trucks are easy to understand; and urban planning (while complex) may not be the issue here. The real problem may not be trucks or roads but power: who wields it, how to confront it, how to get it. Professors, specifically political scientists, are supposed to understand power. But you can't just transfer information or expertise about power to community members. Something much closer to real education would be required. By the way, the education could be mutual, since the best political scientists learn from observing or participating in political struggles.

Posted by peterlevine at 9:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

"gay in a red state"

Since the election, I have repeatedly heard sophisticated liberals make extraordinary statements about conservative America, statements that verge on hatred and panic. One senior colleague, for instance, thinks that the election was basically about race; according to him, a hard-core 30% of Americans are fundamentalist Christians who regularly hear KKK-like speeches in their churches. I'm sure that there are equally extreme stereotypes on the other side of the Red State/Blue State divide. That doesn't make it OK for liberals to lash out; nor are massive misinterpretations a good basis for rebuilding the Democratic Party. Even when stung by a bitter defeat, liberals, of all people, need to keep their minds and ears open. Anne Hull's Washington Post article, "Gay in a Red State," is a good place to go for some nuance.

Several weeks ago, I argued that the New York Review of Books should not have illustrated an article about American conservatism with a photo of Fred Phelps, an elderly reverand holding a "God Hates Fags" sign. I wrote that Phelps was essentially a cult-leader whose doctrines contradicted the mainstream teachings of evangelical Christianity. I said that using his face to illustrate an article about conservatism was like putting Castro's picture next to a critical piece about liberalism.

Today, Anne Hull tells what happened when Phelps arrived in Sand Springs, OK, home of the 17-year old Michael Shackleford. Shackelford was previously the subject of Hull's article about being gay in small-town Middle America. After reading this earlier story, Fred Phelps and his coterie came to Sand Springs to demonstrate, armed with signs saying, "Fags are Worthy of Death," "Fags Doom Nation," and other charming slogans.

Shackleford's mother and pastor, convinced that homosexuality is a sin, were intent on "saving" him. His church's sign said, "I hate the sin but love the sinner--God." If this message was directed at Michael Shackleford, it suggested a lack of tolerance. Michael Shackelford's community fundamentally disagrees with me and my community about the young man's nature and its moral significance. They think his soul needs "saving"; I think he's fine just as he is. There is a cultural divide in America.

However, Phelps was enraged by the church's sign and told the Post, "It's a play on words, the sin and the sinner. You can't separate the two. There are some people in this world who are made to be destroyed." Michael Shackleford's neighbors knew that this was wrong. They knew it instinctively and passionately--not because they are liberal (although they are actually very liberal, by global and historical standards), but because they are Christian.

A truck driver shouted at Phelps, "Let he who cast the first stone ..." A "burly man with a crew-cut" approached Shackleford in church and gave him a thumbs-up. Another congregant (holding his Bible) told Shackleford, "Man, you be who you are. We got your back." His mother let him go to Washington for a Human Rights Campaign dinner. There, he visited a gay bookstore to buy a book for her, a book "on being a Christian parent of a gay child."

There is deep moral disagreement in America. I passionately believe that the other side is wrong and doing harm, maybe even contributing to the suicide and murder of gay kids. However, there is also a great deal of commonality--and flexibility. Michael Shackelford's mom, for instance, hopes that her son will be "saved" from homosexuality, but supports his educational journey to the alien big city. She is a better citizen than a liberal who forms hostile opinions of American fundamentalist Protestantism without actually listening to any fundamentalists.

Posted by peterlevine at 2:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack