He has been a hero of mine since I first began attending.

His book Without Apology was a guide to me from that time onwards, and remains so.

On this issue, however, I do not agree with the very weighty Friend.

I have no illusions of being able to change his mind on this as he obviously finds the whole question irritating.

I feel, however, that the discussion has strayed somewhat beyond the parameters of my initial post, so, with Friend
Fager’s consent, I offer my post here in entirety, with one omission: I have deleted my name.

I have received enough hate mail as a result of my post, and I have no wish to receive any more.

In Friendship
The Complainer

****
Why does the RSOF support education for the affluent?

I ask this question here because it is one that has been nagging me for
some time.

I live in New York City and send my child to public school, which I
mention by way of context. Those of you who do not live in New York City
may not be aware of the cultural and, often, economic divisions that
often occur between public and private school parents in NYC.

As a public school parent, a lapsed Quaker and a member of NYYM, I have
made the following observations:

1)Most of the Quaker parents I know send their children to public
school.

2) Most of the parents I know who send their children to
Quaker schools in the city have never been to a Quaker meeting and
probably could not explain, even in the most rudimentary terms, what
Quaker means, aside from being a brand name.

By themselves, neither of these observations is particularly disturbing.

What is disturbing to me, as a lapsed Friend and militant public school
parent, is the official connection between the Society and Quaker
private schools.

For example, a line item in the NYYM budget shows roughly $12 ,000
budgeted and $ 6,000 paid to the Oakwood Friends School, a private
boarding school with tuitions approaching $37,000.

(http://www.nyym.org/committees/treasurer/tr30jun09.pdf)

I realize that this amount is small enough to be symbolic, but what is
the message being conveyed.

I realize, also, that certain libertarian Friends find the idea of
public education offensive. That is a separate debate, and an
interesting one.

My questions remain:

Below is a description of the Oakwood Friends School from their website,
mentioning Quaker belief: is it really a Quaker School?

Why does the Society (in New York at least) maintain official ties to
expensive institutions in which many, if not most, of the students and
teachers are not Quaker?

Is it not divisive for monthly meetings to maintain ties, however
symbolic, to a nominally Quaker schools which many of the parents in the
meeting cannot afford?
(Brooklyn Friends and Friends Seminary for example.)

To put it bluntly, are Quaker schools really Quaker in word and deed?

About Oakwood Friends School:

Founded in 1796, Oakwood Friends School is New York State’s oldest
co-educational boarding and day school.
It is an independent, college preparatory school serving grades 6-12.
Devoted since its inception to the fundamental Quaker belief that “there
is that of God in every person,”

Oakwood Friends puts this belief into practice by focusing on the
individual learner,
and cultivating a diversified community of students and staff in an
atmosphere
of mutual respect and enrichment.

Mission Statement:
Oakwood Friends School, guided by Quaker principles, educates and
strengthens young people for lives
of conscience, compassion and accomplishment. Students experience a
challenging curriculum within
a diverse community, dedicated to nurturing the spirit, the scholar, the
artist and the athlete in each person.

Oakwood Friends School:
Provides rigorous academic preparation based on primary texts and
hands-on learning.
Respects the mind and imagination of students and focuses on
intellectual skills and habits.
Encourages powerful thinkers whose abilities are nurtured through artful
teaching, thoughtful assessment, and individual attention.
Fosters an accepting environment based upon the Quaker principle that
each individual is worthy and capable of meaningful insight and truth.
Provides an array of opportunities in the arts, athletics, and learning
experiences beyond the campus to encourage creativity,
self-expression, cooperation, and team-work.
Guides students toward the responsibilities of community life and
community involvement, through leadership and service both on the campus
and beyond.
Creates and sustains a vibrant residential and educational community
that embraces students in grades six
through twelve as well as faculty and families representing every stage
of life and a diverse range of experiences, backgrounds.

http://www.oakwoodfriends.org/08about/index.cfm

If AYFers, and any other branch of us FGC Quakes keep finding a valuable reason to attend these conferences, I suggest we grow a pair (spiritually, of course) and Quaker-Up! How about WE start setting some guidelines, huh? I say we stop rolling over and demand that sexuality issues be discussed openly. And if they have a problem with that, well, sucks for them. Doesn’t it? And what about non-theism? Or… some third hot-button issue. Lord knows we FGC Quakes can’t STOP talking about these things. Why do we have to be quiet when in the presence of outsiders? I never said a word when all the hell talk got brought up in front of me. I say it’s time for a little bit of the old vice-a-versa.

“Quaker-Up!” It’ll catch on, just you wait.

Also some descriptive language in the current conference invitation sounds to me more exclusively Christian than inclusive of diverse theologies. Again this may not be the intention of the planners, but a side effect of trying to reach out to more evangelical and Christocentric Friends. I have found the teens and young adults I have worked with recently through my YM and FGC to be generally accepting of, and sometimes quite interested in knowing more about, Friends who are culturally or theologically non-Christian.

By word and deed you are far from elitist all though you do fall into the traditional category as a more empowered member of socierty via your white male status. I also hold a marker as a citizen who was able to receive higher education.

I very much sympathise with your stance on this. It does sound as though there is a bias in evidence which goes against the ethos of liberal Friends. I see it as an all too typical and depressing trend, as Friends of a particular theological viewpoint seek to impose that on the rest of us, and to exclude those who hold a differing one. There seems little respect for diversity, or for the primacy of experience over dogma.

The “guidelines” seem unnecessarily presumptive, proscriptive and doctrinaire, and are not reflective of the practice of Friends gatherings, in my own experience. Reading them, if they did not contain the word Friends, then it would be hard to recognise them as referring to a Friend’s gathering, and not to a conservative, evangelical denomination. It causes me some concern, even distress, to see American Friends going down this road.

Young Quaker, What I am doing is learning about my own internalized classism, about social class differences, and about how those differences impact our institutions as well as the different social class groups.

Blessings,
Liz Opp, The Good Raised Up