I was at Fieldston at the same time as you. My widowed schoolteacher mother was able to send me there thanks to a very generous scholarship. While the school administration was generous with the scholarship, the class differences were apparent (by middle school) even to us kids and certainly to our parents. Parents worried about not being able to provide for their own children the same things their wealthier classmates routinely got, whether cashmere sweaters of elaborate vacations.
I, and a number of my classmates, believe Fieldston brought a number of the recent problems— specifically but not exclusively around the Gaza situation— some years ago by requiring that students join “affinity” groups. Think about that: mandatory affinity groups. Some of us call it tribalism. When I was a student, people called them “cliques.”
When I first heard about mandatory affinity groups, I tried to learn more about why the school would do this. No one would answer my emails, so I never found out which mandatory groups were available, but it’s a safe bet that “Jewish” would be one of them. Not clear whether “being raised by a single parent” would qualify. In any case, that’s when I stopped donating.
From reader (and my former Fieldston classmate) Douglas Lowy:
The joke that introduced your essay was hilarious but telling. What you describe reflects a broad societal change of what is considered acceptable advocacy behavior. Different constituencies—e.g., parents, faculty, and students— now tell leadership what it “must do,” and of course their competing demands are often mutually incompatible. So, if not getting up in the morning is not an option, what should administrators do? They need to accept that the boundaries of our era no longer exist, and that some people may stridently disagree, or worse, with what they do. Leaders who feel it’s too hot will get out of the kitchen (or be pushed out). Those who possess self-confidence without arrogance, a willingness to listen and learn, and the recognition that respect does not come automatically with their title, are most likely to be successful. Tony Fauci’s memoir "On Call" has a relevant anecdote; when the AIDS activists called him a “murderer,” instead of pushing them away, he invited them to his office, which led to many follow-up discussions and his ultimately agreeing to some of their demands.
Arizona, where I live, seems to be a red state leader in the '"school choice" movement. Since passage of a 2022 law, Arizona parents can apply for voucher grants of more than $8,000 per child per year paid from state revenues. Of course, this money comes from the till formerly allocated to public education. Parents receiving the grant may apply it to private or parochial school costs, or to home schooling expenses. So now we have tax money funneled into religious and private education. This program comes courtesy of our prior Republican governor and our perennially Republican legislature.
This thrust to shrink or destroy secular public education is unsurprisingly ignorant of the important history, vital role, and undeniable success of this American institution over the decades since it's full establishment in the late nineteenth century. This unfortunate development is very much like so much of recent U.S. history, where a penchant for institutional destruction has come to be embraced by a sizable fraction of our citizenry. This does not seem to this observer a hopeful trend for our future.
Maybe the good old days weren’t as pristine as you remember them. Back in 2000, I had only one friend who was voting for Gore with any conviction or enthusiasm. She’d been a teacher at Sidwell, in D.C., when the Gores had their children at Sidwell. She said the Gores were the only parents— out of dozens— who didn’t demand endless special favors and treatment for their kids. I also had a student who was one of two finalists for the headmastership at Sidwell some decades ago. After his interview, the search committee apologized to him for having wasted his time and raised his hopes. After a full day of meetings and interviews, it had become clear to the committee that my student was actually serious about his Quaker values. The headmastership would of necessity go to the other candidate, who was more malleable and less moral. No headmaster who was determined to be fair and treat everyone equally would survive a year with Sidwell parents.
Dr. Douglas Lowy’s contribution was to the HPV vaccine that prevents HPV infection and thus about 90% of cervical cancers. However, it does not cure any cancer.
I was recently asked to give a talk to a class at a local university by a professor I know. I spoke for 75 minutes. Only three out of 20 students paid any attention. The rest were dreaming or scrolling on their cell phones. I asked the teacher afterwards why he did not ban cell phones. He replied, “Because I don’t want them complaining to their parents, who are paying a lot of money for them to be here. Some of the parents are big shots. They could have me out of here easily. I am just an adjunct professor. Don’t have tenure or any protection. It’s a lot easier for the school to replace me than to replace that tuition money. I figure if some of these kids don’t want to learn anything, OK by me."
Successful people value education because it is a giant step toward leading a productive, happy, responsible life. Yes some want their name on a building but most times that contributes to enhancing the quality of education offered. Giving educational opportunities to those who don’t have the financial means to such opportunities is a good use for that” excess wealth “ that they have earned. School choice is one avenue to create that opportunity.
I should add that Didi and I are public school products. Our three children, all are public school products. Seven of our nine grandchildren are public school products. All have benefited from living in affluent communities with good public schools. For those who are not so fortunate, school choice is a reasonable option.
Fieldston, as I learned while applying to preK for my child, hoped they could impart some ethics to alum as they went on to claim their Master of The Universe birthright. While much is spent on scholarships, I still had a skewed impression from my classmates on how people lived in Manhattan. I did not bother applying to the Ivys, opting for SUNY Buffalo since I was bearing the cost; which was still less than Fieldston tuition. It was there, for the first time, I felt smart, though the calculus I'd mastered in high school, gradually eroded in the lecture milieu. I excelled in history from my Fieldston foundation, where the subject then, was subject to less political pressure. Today it's another matter entirely. It seems the parent's projected university aspirations drive much.
From reader Ruth Galanter:
I was at Fieldston at the same time as you. My widowed schoolteacher mother was able to send me there thanks to a very generous scholarship. While the school administration was generous with the scholarship, the class differences were apparent (by middle school) even to us kids and certainly to our parents. Parents worried about not being able to provide for their own children the same things their wealthier classmates routinely got, whether cashmere sweaters of elaborate vacations.
I, and a number of my classmates, believe Fieldston brought a number of the recent problems— specifically but not exclusively around the Gaza situation— some years ago by requiring that students join “affinity” groups. Think about that: mandatory affinity groups. Some of us call it tribalism. When I was a student, people called them “cliques.”
When I first heard about mandatory affinity groups, I tried to learn more about why the school would do this. No one would answer my emails, so I never found out which mandatory groups were available, but it’s a safe bet that “Jewish” would be one of them. Not clear whether “being raised by a single parent” would qualify. In any case, that’s when I stopped donating.
From reader (and my former Fieldston classmate) Douglas Lowy:
The joke that introduced your essay was hilarious but telling. What you describe reflects a broad societal change of what is considered acceptable advocacy behavior. Different constituencies—e.g., parents, faculty, and students— now tell leadership what it “must do,” and of course their competing demands are often mutually incompatible. So, if not getting up in the morning is not an option, what should administrators do? They need to accept that the boundaries of our era no longer exist, and that some people may stridently disagree, or worse, with what they do. Leaders who feel it’s too hot will get out of the kitchen (or be pushed out). Those who possess self-confidence without arrogance, a willingness to listen and learn, and the recognition that respect does not come automatically with their title, are most likely to be successful. Tony Fauci’s memoir "On Call" has a relevant anecdote; when the AIDS activists called him a “murderer,” instead of pushing them away, he invited them to his office, which led to many follow-up discussions and his ultimately agreeing to some of their demands.
From reader Terry McDaniel:
Arizona, where I live, seems to be a red state leader in the '"school choice" movement. Since passage of a 2022 law, Arizona parents can apply for voucher grants of more than $8,000 per child per year paid from state revenues. Of course, this money comes from the till formerly allocated to public education. Parents receiving the grant may apply it to private or parochial school costs, or to home schooling expenses. So now we have tax money funneled into religious and private education. This program comes courtesy of our prior Republican governor and our perennially Republican legislature.
This thrust to shrink or destroy secular public education is unsurprisingly ignorant of the important history, vital role, and undeniable success of this American institution over the decades since it's full establishment in the late nineteenth century. This unfortunate development is very much like so much of recent U.S. history, where a penchant for institutional destruction has come to be embraced by a sizable fraction of our citizenry. This does not seem to this observer a hopeful trend for our future.
From reader Michael Zuckerman:
Maybe the good old days weren’t as pristine as you remember them. Back in 2000, I had only one friend who was voting for Gore with any conviction or enthusiasm. She’d been a teacher at Sidwell, in D.C., when the Gores had their children at Sidwell. She said the Gores were the only parents— out of dozens— who didn’t demand endless special favors and treatment for their kids. I also had a student who was one of two finalists for the headmastership at Sidwell some decades ago. After his interview, the search committee apologized to him for having wasted his time and raised his hopes. After a full day of meetings and interviews, it had become clear to the committee that my student was actually serious about his Quaker values. The headmastership would of necessity go to the other candidate, who was more malleable and less moral. No headmaster who was determined to be fair and treat everyone equally would survive a year with Sidwell parents.
From reader Holly Leeds, M.D.:
Dr. Douglas Lowy’s contribution was to the HPV vaccine that prevents HPV infection and thus about 90% of cervical cancers. However, it does not cure any cancer.
From reader Len Lear:
I was recently asked to give a talk to a class at a local university by a professor I know. I spoke for 75 minutes. Only three out of 20 students paid any attention. The rest were dreaming or scrolling on their cell phones. I asked the teacher afterwards why he did not ban cell phones. He replied, “Because I don’t want them complaining to their parents, who are paying a lot of money for them to be here. Some of the parents are big shots. They could have me out of here easily. I am just an adjunct professor. Don’t have tenure or any protection. It’s a lot easier for the school to replace me than to replace that tuition money. I figure if some of these kids don’t want to learn anything, OK by me."
From reader John Owens:
Successful people value education because it is a giant step toward leading a productive, happy, responsible life. Yes some want their name on a building but most times that contributes to enhancing the quality of education offered. Giving educational opportunities to those who don’t have the financial means to such opportunities is a good use for that” excess wealth “ that they have earned. School choice is one avenue to create that opportunity.
I should add that Didi and I are public school products. Our three children, all are public school products. Seven of our nine grandchildren are public school products. All have benefited from living in affluent communities with good public schools. For those who are not so fortunate, school choice is a reasonable option.
Fieldston, as I learned while applying to preK for my child, hoped they could impart some ethics to alum as they went on to claim their Master of The Universe birthright. While much is spent on scholarships, I still had a skewed impression from my classmates on how people lived in Manhattan. I did not bother applying to the Ivys, opting for SUNY Buffalo since I was bearing the cost; which was still less than Fieldston tuition. It was there, for the first time, I felt smart, though the calculus I'd mastered in high school, gradually eroded in the lecture milieu. I excelled in history from my Fieldston foundation, where the subject then, was subject to less political pressure. Today it's another matter entirely. It seems the parent's projected university aspirations drive much.