Re: grades/authority/community and the ivory tower

["B. Silk" <bsilk@titan.iwu.edu>]

On Wed, 10 Jan 1996, Jeanne H. Simpson wrote:

> I not only occasionally think that, I think it all the time. My own theory
> is that one of the unspoken but clear functions of institutions of higher
> education is to serve as a kind of sheltered workshop for persons who are
> not really insane, not criminal, not stupid, but who are somehow impaired
> in a way that prevents their being able to be employees out in the
> so-called "real" world. People who can't possibly work for General Mills
> or Xerox.  

Yes, Jeanne, I agree thoroughly with your theory that one of the clear 
functions of higher ed is to provide shelter for these people, but my 
degree of emphasis in perception is a bit different.  I don't find these 
people (including, perhaps, myself) "impaired" in any way.

When I attended my daughter's graduation from the University of Illinois a 
couple of years ago, I had a seat on the aisle and therefore had a fine 
opportunity to watch the procession of dignitaries and speakers in their 
academic regalia.  Being a theater person, I love this stuff anyway.  But 
my favorite participant on this occasion was a world-famous mathematician 
who was receiving an honorary degree.  Although I don't begin to 
understand his accomplishments, the folks who do were in whispering awe.  
The program mentioned that his research and discoveries have not only 
made advances in the study of mathematics but have laid fundamental 
groundwork for the development of computers and, now, for artificial 
intelligence.

So I was particularly interested as he came past me, a stooped old man
wearing mortarboard, black gown with velvet stripes on the sleeves, brown
socks, and very well-worn birkenstock sandals.  I couldn't help but make
the comparison with the floods of IBM folks I'd seen leaving their
building in Chicago at quitting time one day--both men and women in black,
grey, or dark blue suits, discrete ties, and who carried frighteningly
similar attache cases. 

I truly do not believe that higher education is any less "real" a world
than the world of commerce.  But those worlds ARE different.  What would
the world of commerce have done with that mathematician?  My theory is
that, while academe can support a certain number of commerce-types, it is
basically an environment for its own type of beings.  Nature has salt
water fish and fresh water fish, and no one says that one is any less 
than the other because it cannot thrive in the other's environment. 

The major problem I see is that commerce, which is a very aggressive and 
dominating discourse/cultural community, sees itself as the norm and 
academe as the abberation which must be brought into conformity.  It's an 
environmental issue, an ecological balance issue--with a future as 
frightening to the total human community of the globe as the future of 
the natural world and Earth itself.

Co-existence in either ecology is complex and interdependent.  We can 
succeed only if we recognize and respect our difference and dependence.

But I seem to have gotten the track and into my own fears. 

  --Bobbie

   Bobbie Silk
   Illinois Wesleyan University
   P.O. Box 2900                  
   Bloomington, IL  61702-2900     
   (PH:  309/556-3085)
   email:  bsilk@titan.iwu.edu


[see above]
> 
> Obviously most university and college faculty are perfectly capable human
> beings who have, as several of you have eloquently stated, made conscious
> life choices.  But we also know, on every campus, there is that
> population of eccentric, usually gentle souls who really need the
> sheltered environment that exists around them. There they are allowed to
> manifest behaviors that would, in other circumstance, land them on the
> street. 
> 
> I am not being ironic or snide.  Nor do I necessarily think this situation
> is a bad thing. I do think it is true and that we ought to be honest with
> ourselves about it.
> 
> Jeanne Simpson
> csjhs@eiu.edu 
>