Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Blog

What Would Higgins Think of Two World Series Victories by Boston Red Sox?

By Peter Wolfe

Were George V. Higgins to come back to us from the grave, he’d stumble immediately into his obsession—his love-hate relationship with the Boston Red Sox. Then he’d hear the news that his Sox, bereft of a championship for some 80 years, swept the St. Louis Cardinals in 2004 and the Colorado Rockies in 2007 to win two World Series in 4 years.

He’d have good reason to doubt his ears. His 1989 book, The Progress of the Seasons: Forty Years of Baseball in Our Town, consists of one long lament about his home-towners’ failure both on the field and in the front office. His history with those home-towners has deep roots. Like his father and grandfather, who took him to his first Red Sox game in 1946, at age 6, he spent a lifetime suffering from the curse boiling up from the Bosox’s 1919 sale of Babe Ruth to the Yankees, the home run by Yankee shortstop Bucky Dent that ended the Sox’s season in 1978, and the error by first baseman Bill Buckner that cost the Sox the 1986 World Series.

Even Higgins’s fictional characters, looking for an emblem of futility, will invoke the Red Sox. A judge, during a long criminal trial in Sandra Nichols Found Dead (1996), tries to comfort the sequestered jury members who have lost time with their friends, family, and co-workers by reminding them that living in the same town as “those blasted Red Sox” has already schooled them in hardship. Few of the jury members would protest. Higgins recalls in Progress of the Seasons a friend groaning that the failures of the Red Sox have exceeded his ability to withstand pain.

So if you spot Higgins either near Fenway Park or the Locke Ober Café, his favorite Boston restaurant, be advised to change the subject when he starts talking baseball. Learning of his favorites’ recent success might shock him back to his grave, screaming that no novelist would violate probability with so outrageous a tale.

Peter Wolfe is the Curators' Professor of English at the University of Missouri-St. Louis and author of Havoc in the Hub: A Reading of George V. Higgins forthcoming from Lexington Books.

Revitalizing America’s Historic Sites

By Monta Lee Dakin, Executive Director

Mountain-Plains Museums Association

 
• Your site is significant. Yet, attendance could be better.

• Your historic site has a great collection, but few see it.

• Your historic site is special, but it seems lost among the dense urban area that grew up around it.

• Entrance fees do not sustain your historic site anymore.

• Financial backers of your site grouse that it costs too much to maintain.

• Staff and programs at your historic site don’t get the funding they deserve and need.

• Staff at your site think the programs are good, but attendance never matches the energy, time and money it takes to put them on.

• Your site has a revolving door with staff because of poor pay and long hours.

• The traditional tourism model is no longer a sustainable business model for your historic site.

Ever find yourself saying these things about YOUR historic site? Most of us who have worked at historic places have. And when we were the staff, we looked hard for solutions to these problems, trying to convince donors to give more money or suffering burnout from too many special events that in the end didn’t bring in much money. Very few of us found a golden goose (or program or donor) to shore up our failing site and most of us left, leaving the headaches of our under-funded yet beloved site to a new and usually younger group of folks. Much to everyone’s dismay, that cycle continues to present day.

While there is still no sighting of a golden goose to report, there may be some relief around the corner. Ideas, mainly. Yet, ideas that could be the springboard to bringing your site back to life and to gaining over-due respectability in your community.

These ideas came out of a forum I attended called Historic Site Stewardship in the 21st Century, held this past April at the National Trust site, Kykuit, in Tarrytown, NY. Thirty senior museum leaders from around the country engaged in dialogue over three days to discuss critical issues facing the many historic sites that are in decline all over the nation. The forum was a follow-up to one held five years earlier at which evidence was presented that proved there was a decline in historic house museums across the country. The recent convening in April built upon the first by broadening its scope from historic houses to historic sites. It considered models of innovation & success for historic sites as well as challenges to their sustainability and possible alternative uses.

Not all historic sites are in decline. Many are, however. And a growing number of them across the country have either closed or struggle to stay open in the face of dwindling interest, reduced staff and lack of funding. Some people have wondered publicly if there aren’t too many historic sites. Others have worried that increasing competition has put many historic sites in survivor mode, causing the quality of their preservation and maintenance to drop drastically. These are the ones that perhaps might benefit from the new way of thinking that came out of Kykuit. This new thinking may make people squirm, but should with time generate new models that are intended to strengthen historic sites and turn them back into places that people love.

What is this new thinking? It suggests among other things that historic sites have been applying inappropriate standards to their operations. Instead of following standards that work well for other kinds of museums such as art museums, historic sites should find their own standards. It also warns that many historic sites will have to make fundamental changes if they are to survive as museums. And finally, it supports a growing belief that historic sites do not have to be a museum to be successful. There are now successful models of alternative uses that can be used to revitalize an historic site without ever having to open the doors for tours again.

Alternative uses may be one of the more controversial notions to emerge in this new movement. However, transitioning to different uses is already happening. Donna Harris’ recently published book, New Solutions for House Museums, outlines eight “other” models besides museums for historic sites for which she presents case studies already in play: study houses, co-stewardship agreements, merger, long-term leases, short-term leases, sale with easements to a private owner, sale to a non profit stewardship, donation to a government entity and reprogram for mission-based use (or adaptive re-use). These different models convey a radical concept for what is becoming acceptable as good stewardship of historic sites: no longer do they need full time staff, daily hours of operation, “velvet-rope” tours, period or display rooms filled with specialized collections, or changing exhibits. The models instead encourage boards, staff and volunteers to consider deaccessioning under-used collections, finding a use that enriches the local community, and thinking creatively to achieve long-term sustainability for the site.

While Harris presents only eight case studies, they are enough to blow the lid off of traditional historic site models because they clearly show that not only do alternative uses exist, they can be successfully used to preserve an historic site. Presenting these case studies in public forums is also akin to throwing down a gauntlet, urging the museum community to give stewards of historic sites permission to do what they must to ensure a building’s future. This unconventional concept may be a little bold for a museum community steeped in tradition. But once it is understood that boldness may be necessary to attain good stewardship, the concept may find ready converts.

Underlying these new ideas and part of their appeal are three fundamental principles: acknowledging that taking care of historic sites is not easy, giving permission to believe that historic sites don’t have to operate as museums to be successful, and re-establishing the ethic that historic sites deserve proper stewardship.

Proper stewardship forms the guts behind this re-thinking of historic sites. It is what it all comes down to, preserving significant sites for the long term. To do less than that should not be acceptable practices in any community. And with new tools coming to the fore -– such as proven models, resources and a regional and national advocacy that supports local efforts --it should start to get easier to revitalize historic sites in ways we never thought possible.

To learn more, attend the session on this topic at MPMA’s 2007 Conference in Fargo this fall.

The planning for this forum was a joint venture of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, American Association for State and Local History, American Association of Museums and American Architectural Foundation. Primary financial support was provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the National Trust.

 

This article was written by Monta Lee Dakin, Executive Director, Mountain-Plains Museums Association based on materials prepared for this meeting and the discussions that took place there. It reflects the views of the author and not necessarily those of other conference participants or of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

Creating Presidential Images

by Ruthellen Josselson

As the current political campaign for President intensifies, we are all engaged in creating images of the candidates. The spin doctors try to manage how we will imagine them, but they know perhaps better than anyone that what we each take in about each of the candidates reflects our internal sensitivities even more than what the pundits say. We create one another in our social and political worlds just as much as we do in our personal life. Political drama offers the citizenry opportunities for playing out personal conflict but concealing it beneath the political debate.

I recall a conversation with my tailor several years ago when the debate about the Clinton impeachment was raging. My tailor is an aged man, an immigrant from Italy, who told me that he didn’t mind so much that Clinton was “playing around” with a young intern – but that he did it in the same house where his daughter was – THAT was unforgivable and deserving of ultimate sorts of punishment.

From the viewpoint of the theoretical framework that I set out in Playing Pygmalion: How People Create One Another,  I avidly read each day’s political commentary to track the latest in the imaginary constructions of each of these candidates. I wonder about what is in the unconscious of the American electorate. Are we in search of the good mother, the soothing father, the aggressive warrior, the stern taskmaster? Perhaps others would here like to add their observations of how this is unfolding.

Ruthellen Josselson, Ph.D. is professor of psychology at The Fielding Graduate University and was formerly professor at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem as well as at Harvard University.

Racial Disparity in Discipline Contributes To Drop-Out Problem

By Martha R. Bireda, Ph.D.

The recent report labeling many American high schools as “dropout factories” is troubling indeed.  According to Johns Hopkins University researchers, of one in 10 high schools across the nation, no more than 60 percent of students who start as freshmen receive a diploma four years later (Balfanz and Legters, 2004). Not surprisingly, schools in large cities, high-poverty rural areas, and those with high proportions of minority students are most represented as “dropout factories”. As we react and rush to find solutions to the dropout problem, the way that discipline is meted out cannot be overlooked as a possible cause.   A common reason that students give for dropping out is that they had been suspended or expelled. The excessive and often unwarranted suspensions and expulsions of minority students, especially African American males must be examined if we are seriously seeking solutions to the dropout problem.

National studies (The Advancement Project, 2000; the Civil Rights  Project 2000), found that: Black and Latino students were more likely to be referred for disciplinary action; to be disciplined for minor conduct; and to receive punishments disproportionate to their conduct. In addition, zero tolerance policies are more likely to exist in predominately Black and Latino school districts.  It appears that Black students, especially males, fare worse than any other group in our schools when it comes to discipline issues. Black students, though they make up only 17 percent of the enrollment nationally, are 32 percent of the out-of-school suspensions and Black males are disciplined more often and more severely than any other group( The Office of Civil Rights, 2001; The Advancement Project, 2000; the Civil Rights Project, 2000).

Efforts to stem the tide of increasing dropout rates fly in the face of racial disparities in discipline. Evidence shows that students who are repeatedly suspended from school suffer academically and are more likely to drop-out (Dupper, 1997). African American and Hispanic students, in many cases already performing poorly become trapped in a suspension-failure cycle that almost certainly guarantees their non-completion. These students, already behind academically, are punished by being deprived of instruction while suspended. This denial of much needed instruction predisposed African American and Hispanic students to further academic underachievement.  As a result, the students who need school most are pushed away (Noguera, 2003; Fultz, 2002).

According to Deridder (1990), suspension places all of the blame on the student, with the school rarely evaluating whether it has served all of the emotional or academic needs of the student.  Eliminating Racial Profiling In School Discipline: Cultures In Conflict is one of the first books that addresses the school-related factors that contribute to the racial disparities in discipline that ultimately lead to large numbers of African American and Hispanic students dropping out.

In Eliminating Racial Profiling In School Discipline: Cultures In Conflict, I examine the two school-related factors in particular that contribute to disparities in discipline.  The first factor is lack of knowledge, understanding, and sensitivity to the culture of African American and Hispanic students.  The second school-related factor that negatively affects African American students, especially male students, is the set of faulty assumptions and negative expectations for the academic performance and behavior of African American students.

A lack of understanding regarding the culture, especially a lack of sensitivity to the communication styles of African American students, i.e., eye contact, distance, physical contact etc., can create physical tension between the teacher and student and lead to discipline problems. This lack of understanding and sensitivity is significant in escalating incidents between teacher and student.

Although the lack of knowledge and understanding the culture of African American male students places them at risk of disciplinary actions, the problems that they experience in the school setting are equally the result of faulty assumptions and erroneous beliefs based upon historical myths and stereotypes. These myths and stereotypes generate fear and the need to exercise absolute control in the minds of many teachers, especially non-African American female teachers, and create a vicious cycle from which African American male students in particular cannot escape.

In Eliminating Racial Profiling In School Discipline: Cultures In Conflict, I discuss the ten consequences i.e., unrealistic expectations, faulty assumptions, “behavior tracking”, leading behaviors, etc, that result from cultural conflicts and stereotyping in the classroom. Eliminating school-related factors that place African American and Hispanic students at greater risk for disciplinary referrals and sanctions requires that fundamental and significant changes occur in the school culture and environment. Two types of changes on two different levels must take place: changes related to culturally responsive and culturally responsible actions must occur at both the institutional and individual level.

I offer suggestions and provide steps for administrators to change the school climate and for teachers to develop effective communication and relationships with students. Any efforts to reduce the dropout problem must necessarily involve addressing the issue of racial disparity in discipline. This book provides a guide for addressing this issue and to creating a culturally sensitive and responsive school environment, which will ensure student retention.

Martha R. Bireda, Ph.D. is an educational consultant who specializes in racial disparity in discipline and achievement gap issues. She conducts workshops for school administrators related to the topics.

Idealism and Realism in the Political Economic Thought of John Adams and Adam Smith

By John E. Hill

John Adams (and the founders in general) and Adam Smith were pragmatic idealists. Think of the meaning of these words in the Declaration of Independence: “…That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness….” Today we have forgotten how revolutionary those ideals were in 1776. Equality in the pursuit of happiness? Preposterous! The founders’ idealism was combined with the pragmatic willingness to wage a long, and eventually successful, struggle for independence.

However, since independence, many, but not all, economic thinkers have forgotten (or never understood) some fundamental things about the thought of the founders and Adam Smith. For instance, John Adams argued that commerce makes it obvious even to someone with the weakest eyesight “‘…that we are made for one another, that our destination is to be useful reciprocally, that we are members of the same body and children of the same family’” (Democracy, Equality, and Justice, p. 89).

Similarly, Adam Smith argued in Wealth of Nations that commerce, the market system, was cooperative, a social system. That dimension of capitalism has been forgotten or ignored. Instead, 21st century capitalism has been extremely individualistic with a fixation on laissez-faire. This is not Adam Smith’s capitalism.

Smith did not advocate laissez-faire; his ideal system would combine natural liberty with justice. To give just a taste of why I argue this, look at some of the things Smith argued the government could do to provide a level playing field for all.

He listed three major responsibilities for government. I doubt that anyone would quarrel with the duty of a government to defend its territory against other nations. Second, the government should administer justice. Public works was the third duty Smith listed; I will focus on that duty.

In discussing public works, Smith writes about the commonwealth (think of the implications of that term) facilitating commerce and “promoting the instruction of the people” (Wealth of Nations, p. 779). The government role in education includes not only youth but also “people of all ages” (Wealth of Nations, p. 779). He even wrote that, because instruction in religion would be beneficial for the whole society, government could pay for religious instruction (Wealth of Nations, p. 877). I certainly am not advocating that policy; I mention it here simply to illustrate how very far Smith was from being an advocate of laissez-faire.

Facilitating commerce includes providing infrastructure such as good roads, bridges, harbors. Has the laissez-faire attitude dominant in the US in recent decades severely weakened the ability of government to provide the infrastructure that businesses require to function efficiently?

Smith also included under public works government support for science and “public diversions” (Wealth of Nations, p. 855). He thought that, to prevent fraud, government should place quality control stamps on sterling silver and linen and woolen textiles (Wealth of Nations, pp. 140-141). And while Smith was a strong critic of taxes on the “necessaries of life,” he advocated luxury taxes to restrain and possibly prevent the poor from unnecessary expenses. Such paternalistic roles for government are definitely not laissez-faire.

Smith believed that it would be good for government to provide incentives for artisans and manufacturers who excel in their occupations because such prizes would help improve quality without overturning “…the natural balance of employments…” (Wealth of Nations, p. 560). Can you imagine a government program to award, say, a $50 million prize to the first corporation to market an affordable zero-emissions automobile or cost-effective solar electricity cells?

Smith not only argued for a larger role for government than commentators usually note, but he was also egalitarian. There are several examples of this idealist streak in his thinking. “The difference between the most dissimilar characters, between a philosopher and a common street porter, for example, seems to arise not so much from nature, as from habit, custom, and education” (Wealth of Nations, p. 17). Whether or not he has taken the correct side in the nature vs. nurture argument is not the point here. The point is that this statement is egalitarian.

In addition, he repeatedly supported the workers; for instance, he argued for higher wages for workers, for the end of regressive taxation, and for governmental programs to mitigate the mentally deadening effects of repetitive work.

He understood that there would always be wealthy people, who were useful to society as models for emulation, but he wrote that huge differences in wealth were dangerous for society. Note also that he sharply criticized the wealthy for their corrupt control of members of parliament.

My final argument is this. If Smith was a strong supporter of laissez-faire, why did he actively solicit government officials for an appointment as a Commissioner of Customs in Edinburgh? He succeeded in that quest and happily carried out his duties as Commissioner for the last twelve years of his life. He did advocate free trade, but he was not an extremist on free trade. In contrast to the unlimited free trade policy of recent Democratic and Republican administrations, Smith was more subtle. He wrote that, if free trade would put workmen out of their jobs, it should be approached gradually.

If I am right that US government economic power has been eviscerated in recent decades by an individualistic, laissez-faire fixation, most, if not all of us, have been harmed because, as Smith recognized, there are some things which government must do. This goes beyond national defense and roads and bridges that are safe to drive on. This goes to the heart of what we are as a country.

Remember our founders’ claim that all are created equal, with an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Can we logically claim today that all have an equal opportunity to pursue happiness when educational quality varies so much from community to community? Would Smith today advocate that instruction for people of all ages include tuition for higher education? (I think it is abundantly clear that the pursuit of happiness today is severely undercut for many people by the cost of higher education. There are too many stories of people ending up in careers they do not like because of the burden of college loans. How many potentially superb teachers have never been able to follow that love because of the Catch-22 of low salaries for teachers and the need to repay $10’s of thousands of college loans?) Can we claim equality in the pursuit of happiness when 47 million US citizens lack health insurance (the same number who lacked health insurance decades ago before Medicaid and Medicare became law)?

In Democracy, Equality, and Justice, I argue that a deeper understanding of Adam Smith and John Adams would result in a wealthier and more just nation. To get to that wealthier and more just nation, we have to accept that there are certain things government can and should do. Under laissez-faire ideology, the pendulum of government economic power has swung too far in one direction. But we must also take care that the pendulum not swing too far in the opposite direction. Our founders were right: unlimited government power is dangerous. Like Smith (and the founders) we need a subtle appreciation of what government can do, as well as the need to limit its power.

Such a cautious attitude toward government power is realistic. The founders and Smith based their ideas on real life experience and deep reading of history. But they balanced that realism with democratic ideals: the founders’ ideals of equality in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and Smith’s ideal of justice in the market.

The US has been magnetically attractive to people throughout the world for decades, perhaps centuries, both because of our ideals and because of the reality of our economic success. But more recently, many people, in various parts of the world, have learned to hate us. Obviously, there are foreign policy reasons for this. But we could regain that appeal in the 21st century if we were to remove the foreign policy impediments and change our domestic policy to combine the Declaration of Independence with Adam Smith. Our ideals are powerful; they could produce a better country for everyone and could help our foreign policy. In short, our government’s policy should be to provide, in the words of the pledge of allegiance, “…liberty and justice for all.”

 

For additional information about the author and to read excerpts from the book visit http://stumail.curry.edu/~jhill