A Friendly Letter, The Blog.

One could almost set one’s clock by it. Mention Quakers and class, and one will shortly be eldered, either by N. Jeanne Burns, or in my case, by her partner, Liz Oppenheimer.

This time it was Liz, who commented thus:

You [chuck Fager] write, in part: So my recommendation to those who wanna moan and groan about how terrible those awful expensive and elitist Quaker schools are, is to chill out and face the fact that the RSOF exists in a real world of class and wealth divisions. We didn’t make it, but we’re not free of it either. Again, maybe we can buff off some of the rougher edges; but remember the Shakers and the rest.

Liz:
It seems that whenever new Light is brought to a system that (unintentionally) oppresses or gives advantage to one group over another, those who have a fair amount of unearned power within that system will tell the Light-bearers to “chill,” “get over it,” or “this is the real world and it ain’t gonna change.”

If we are called to a radical witness, I don’t think God will be satisfied if we stop at “buffing off some of the rougher edges.”

Well, this evokes a number of responses. First off, if there is any “new light” in the statement I quoted, by a Friend who has discovered and is mightily offended by the class stratification manifested via expensive Quaker private schools — nope, I don’t see it.

The discovery is neither new (I myself have heard it for 40+ years, and know of even older, now-deceased Friends who heard it well before I did.) Nor is it enlightening, any more than the discovery that Friends have not always gotten along, and that divisions among us have fallen out along other predictable lines: urban-rural; white, and non-; pacifist and war-supporters; etc.

Such discoveries are, in my view, preliminaries for finding “new light,” and not evidence thereof. They are in the category of “water is wet” and “gee, soiled diapers smell.” And talking as if such divisions (or variations, if one wants not to be polarizing) are in themselves offensive is, to speak plainly, naive and unhelpful in light-seeking.

So the specimen comment my rant was aimed at does not qualify as “new light” in my view. And for that matter, I rather doubt that comment was really what Liz had in mind. Her partner Jeanne has a blog on Quakers and class, gives workshops and so forth, and focuses on the topic extensively. I suggest that Liz regards this work as the “new Light” being brought to Friends and is interpreting my rant as an attack on that.

But here is another occasion to chill, Liz. If and when I want to write critically of Jeanne’s writing on class, I’ll do it plainly, and cite chapter and verse. If you will review my track record, you know that’s what I do.

Liz goes on to speak of my rant a a specimen expression of “those who have a fair a fair amount of unearned power within that system . . . .”

This is interesting, and typically passive aggressive.

I’m calling you out on this, Liz: I believe you were talking about me, but lacked the “plainness” to say so. But how do you know I have “unearned” power? What kind of “power” am I supposed to have? And how much is a “fair amount”? “Fair” as in middling; or “fair” as in a just share? And within what “system”?

I suggest that you don’t know this, except by stereotyping and presumption, and that these are illegitimate. Further, such remarks are not much more than an inverse form of the “discounting” attributed to me: they amount to saying one needn’t take a challenge or criticism seriously, because any challenge or criticism is only a display of “unearned power” by one who benefits from oppression, or is an oppressor himself.

I suggest that such stereotyped reactions are a circular substitute for serious discourse, and a stopper to it. They are what we call here in eastern Carolina, “baloney.” (Or something more earthy.)

Yes, I know about the “privilege” I’m supposed to have being a white, straight, male. Some of that (not all) is real enough. But what’s at issue here is something more than that, and other than what can be attributed to “privilege.”

To clarify, let me suggest an alternate thesis:

The “system” I’m interested in here is the Religious Society of Friends. In that “system” I have one empirical measure of “power,” in my day job at a Quaker project. There I supervise three persons; but none of them, currently, are Friends, so that “power” is strictly limited. Nevertheless, such as it is, I affirm that it is earned, not unearned. I did not inherit the position; maintaining it depends on continuing diligent effort, not on endowment funds; my post, previously held by women, is not a male preserve. And my predecessors came from various social and class backgrounds, including several non-Friends.

Outside this very small arena, I control no Quaker grant funds, no Quaker jobs, no Quaker institutions. I’m on a few committees, but as a member, working by sense of the group, and by no means always getting my way. (Altho, for the sake of truth, it must be added that I’m acting Pro-tempore Clerk of a Monthly Meeting, average attendance six to eight.)

Perhaps what is being referred to here is not “power” but something else; that is, it appears that some things I have written or said have been widely heard or read, and some of them have had a certain impact. Such impact is informal. It is not “power,” but influence. And a couple of things need to be said about such “influence”:

First of all, it is not some automatic inheritance. There’s no Quaker pedigree here; I came in as an unknown young seeker, and have labored among Friends for some forty-four years, across the branches and in several countries. Many dues have been paid and many hard knocks taken, both outward and inward. If as a result any of my writing or speaking has influence, it is inaccurate, dismissive and disrespectful to describe it as “unearned,” and I call on you to quit describing it that way.

But secondly, “influence” is a very ambiguous thing, and this I know perhaps better than many. For while some might be favorably impressed by some writing or comment of mine, one can find those who are equally put off by them. So such “influence” can be as much a problem as as an asset. (But don’t cry for me, Argentina.)

Finally, because I urged some Friends like the one I quoted to quit whining (which, stated more baldly, was my advice), does that mean I believe talk of class is useless or unworthy?

Not at all. There is much to learn about class, both in and out of Quakerdom. For instance, one very thoughtful and provocative recent essay about our current class situation is this column by David Brooks in the New York Times. And no question, class divisions can be, and have been, harmful and oppressive.

But I stand by the affirmation that class, or social stratifications, are extremely persistent social phenomena, inside and outside Quakerdom. Yet they are not always immovable, nor impermeable. They can be more oppressive and hurtful, or less. Rough edges can be softened. Mobility can be promoted and encouraged. But there are likely to be tradeoffs and unanticipated results, as David Brooks tellingly outlines. And last but not least, they do not tell the whole story about either me, or Friends.

But can they be done away with, though? I might have almost thought it possible myself once. But you’ll have to show me, because that notion is like Santa Claus; I just don’t believe it, anymore. Can’t. Is that what “radical witness” is supposed to mean? Is that the “new Light”?

If so, count me unconvinced; not in principle, but by experience.

The reason why includes my reference to the Shakers and other communal groups. Liz’s comment did not address this point at all.

But history and experience do matter, Liz. Citing them is not to be lumped in as another telltale sign of “privilege.” Nor is skepticism.

Consider: Jesus’ followers formed perhaps the earliest recorded “classless” society and held “all things common,” according to the second chapter of the Book of Acts.

But this noble experiment lasted exactly four chapters: by Acts 6, there were factions squabbling — and a self-proclaimed elite (all men, of course) claiming the right to be set apart and above the rank and file. And a good case can be made that’s it’s been pretty much all downhill from there, church-wise.

Is that the end of the story? Not at all. Or maybe . . . .?

Jesus: Aroint thee, O Demon of Class! Begone, I say!”

Demon: Allright, I’ll go. But just thee wait — I’ll be back!

The American Friends Service Committee will soon be picking its new General Secretary. On its website, the date for submitting resumes is late in March. Presumably it will be a few months after that before a final selection is announced. My guess would be they’d want to make it in time for summer, so the new person could make a grand tour of yearly meetings and the FGC Gathering, to be introduced to Friends at large.

But if there is still a lot of grinding of wheels yet to be done, I don’t think it’s too early to handicap the process. In fact, I’m ready right now to predict the outcome.

I predict that the next General Secretary of the AFSC will be:

Clinton Pettus.

I first met Pettus a few years ago when he visited and spoke to Baltimore yearly Meeting. He was introduced then as the Diretor of the AFSC’s Mid-Atlantic regional office in Baltimore. Even then, I could see he was a likely candidate for elevation, and when he was soon moved up to the main office in Philadelphia, my antennae quivered ever more noisily.

A few months ago, Pettus joined the board of Wimington College, a small Quaker school in western Ohio. A college press release about his selection included lots of detail about his career. Here’s a snippet:

Pettus is deputy general secretary for programs of the American Friends Service Committee. . . .

In addition to his previous work as AFSC’s regional director and special assistant to the general secretary for restructuring, Pettus is a former vice president for academic affairs/provost and president at Cheyney University of Pennsylvania.

Also, he was a faculty member and college administrator at Virginia State University, where he served as a department chairperson, academic dean and vice president for administration.

Pettus is a certified trainer of managing conflict in the workplace and completed a management development program at Harvard University.

He holds a Ph.D. in personality psychology from the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, Ill., and is a member of the Pendle Hill Board of Trustees and a former trustee of Wilmington (Del.) Friends School.

He also is a member of the Wilmington (Del.) Monthly Meeting.

The “restructuring” in his AFSC resume is a key word, in my view. AFSC has reportedly been reduced to about half its previous size by the impact of the economic crash, so whoever has been managing that difficult transition would either be the scapegoat for all the internal resentments it must have generated, or the most likely candidate to take the helm and complete it. My vote is for the latter.

Pettus also has many other apt qualifications: he’s black, a card-carrying Quaker, and has much executive experience at Cheyney University, a school started by Quakers over a century ago to educate freed blacks. And as a former college president, he must also have done a lot of fundraising, which will surely be a big part of the AFSC’s top job.

So that’s my prediction. We should know soon whether I’ve guessed right.

His task will be to renew and re-polish a very tarnished and battered brand.

No, no, not THAT one!

Awhile back I wrote about hearing a teenage Friend talk about being asked by “Christian” peers about what Quakers believe and how it differs from other Christian and “born again” groups — and how she didn’t know how to answer.

Well, this is a situation up with which I shall not put. So I’ve prepared a resource for this Friend and others, not only of that younger Friend’s generation but perhaps older ones as well who are flummoxed when confronted with such queries. This applies particularly to so-called “Liberal Friends” — thee knows who thee are.

And here it is, or a snippet thereof, from the cover:

“What’s The Password for Jesus?” is now at the printer. It will be back and available soon. Meantime, come back in a day or two and I’ll be posting various other snippets from it. Like this one . . . .

Q. Why Don’t I Know Much About Quakerism – Or Other Churches?

One, you’ve taken part in lots of Quaker activities, but not in anything like a “class” on Quakerism and its beliefs. I don’t think there’s been any such class for you to take. (There are several kinds of Quakers, and you’ve been raised among what are called “Liberal Quakers.” More about this as we go along.)

And two, you haven’t been taught about other churches and what they believe and do either.

If you think about it, not knowing much about these two things is bound to make it hard to explain Quakers, or figure out how they might be like – or different from – other groups.

But as you’re noticing, churches and religion are important to people around you. So it’s a good idea to get familiar enough to be able to explain your group, and understand at least a little about others. . . .

Like this one, maybe . . . ??

Drop City. Those were the days. Or were they?

So here’s what the record shows: levelling and communalism are very, very hard. And divisions of class and affluence are with us inside the RSOF as well as out. Sorry if this is hard to hear, but there it is. Maybe we can buff off some of the rough edges, but i don’t expect much more.

(Same goes for other churches, friend. There are fancy rich Catholic churches, and humble Roman mission chapels; etc.)

Quaker schools are an artifact of these stratifications.

Many of them have lots of money in the bank left by dead quakes, some going back a couple hundred years, to “help” lower-income Quaker kids enroll. even so, some Quaker parents get all resentful and huffy about that fact, saying such differentials shouldn’t exist, the schools are elitists, they shouldn’t be selective (at least as far as MY kids are concerned), yada yada.

I don’t get it. One of my daughters attended one of those very expensive Quaker schools, and she did it mostly on that “dead Quaker money,” because her parents didn’t have the $40K per year it took.

And I’ve known other modest-income families doing the same thing. Quietly, skilfully, getting their kids in on this Quaker “endowment,” and not letting the stratifiers see them sweat, or the complainers hear them whine.

You know something, speaking as one of those parents, it didn’t hurt me a bit to ask for & take those deceased Quakers’ dough. I mean, it’s what they left it for, right? I’d do it again in a New York minute.

As for the education she got, it was great in some ways, not so good in others; but no regrets.

And as far as being divisive for meetings, my view is it’s actually better if the schools are freestanding, like Sidwell School in DC. (Which, BTW, is not simply about wealth — hey, you want stratification, Mr. Sidwell has got stratification to burn! There it’s also about status; Al Gore’s kids went there; the Obama girls. And I think Amy Carter. Yet lots of other people with tons more money than those folks –but not their exalted status — couldn’t get in there to save their lives.
If that’s an intolerable offense to thee, well again, there it is.)

And actually, I’ve come to the view that maybe if your kid has to have a fulltime Secret Service detail to keep them from getting kidnapped, maybe a special school is not such an intolerable thing anyway; after all, did Sasha and Malia ask to become “high value targets” for terrorists? And do I want my grandkids going to a school that al Queda might want especially to bomb??

When they’re formally “under the care” of meetings, expensive schools too often becomes proxies and patsies for all kinds of other resentments, which waste time and fog up the light.

I could also go on a long rant about how too many Quake schools aren’t any more “Quaker” than the Quaker Oats Co. (neither started nor owned nor ever run by Quakes; pure marketing.)

But really, folks, their vacant “Quaker values” are no more than a reflection of the theological vacancy of much of the larger RSOF. Dig it. You want better? Better do it yourself.

And anyway, the schools don’t OWN Quakerism. One can ignore them and do just fine.

Besides, a funny thing happened on the way to the Self-righteousness Forum: here in our little meeting in Fayetteville NC, a guy shows up a year or so ago, really kind of a lost soul looking for a spiritual community, and we somehow filled the bill. But why, with 300+ other churches in our county to choose from did he come here?

Simple: about a million years ago, he went to Oakwood Friends School, up in New York’s Hudson Valley. It’s not the fanciest of the lot, but it’s up there. He didn’t learn much about “Quakerism” at the place. But something got under his skin there, which took awhile to come to the surface.

I expect there are other such stories. In fact I know there are.

So my recommendation to those who wanna moan and groan about how terrible those awful expensive and elitist Quaker schools are, is to chill out and face the fact that the RSOF exists in a real world of class and wealth divisions. We didn’t make it, but we’re not free of it either. Again, maybe we can buff off some of the rougher edges; but remember the Shakers and the rest.

In any case, now I’m running into this at the next level: Nearing “retirement” age, I can see that there are also lots of Quaker retirement communities, and — surprise, surprise! — they vary in cost and amenities along similar stratified lines of wealth and class, and most of them I will never EVER be able to afford.

Well. So I can spend my time in these remaining years being all huffy and resentful about this. Or I can say, “So freaking what?” and get on with my own stuff, work things out the best I can, and be happy with what I’ve got.

After all, I’ve lately begun to notice that in even the fanciest upper-class cemeteries, the rich folks there are just as dead as the nameless paupers in the county graveyard.

Now THERE is some serious equality for you. Wonder who thought that one up?

Fayetteville NC Observer

Published: Mon Feb 22, 2010

Marines’ training at Fort Bragg to raise decibel levels around town

A staff report

The noise level around Fort Bragg may increase when the Marines conduct their annual spring artillery training on Fort Bragg from March 1 to April 2.

“These units fire significant amounts of 155 mm ammunition, which can be associated with loud explosions and echoes upon detonation,” a statement from Fort Bragg said.

The visitors will bring two dozen 155 mm howitzers to Fort Bragg.

The Marines will comply with Fort Bragg requirements that prohibit firing all of their howitzers together between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. daily or from 10 a.m. to noon Sundays.

However, the Marines are allowed to fire fewer than 24 howitzers during these times.

“We realize the sound for this training may be bothersome to some, and we apologize for this,” said Tom McCollum, Fort Bragg spokesman.

“The Marines, like the Army units stationed here, have to train as they would fight, and one of the main advantages of the U.S. military is we can fight in all types of weather and around the clock. To restrict the Marines from firing at night would handicap their training, which may reduce their abilities to accomplish their combat missions.”

The training will give Fort Bragg soldiers a chance to see how the Marines operate and what their capabilities are.

Zen Koans of the day:

#1
What is the sound of 23 howitzers going off at 3 AM?

#2
Is this the true hidden meaning of “March Madness”??

A Friend wrote privately about the previous report about US & UK funding agencies withholding donations to schools in Kenya because of rampant corruption.

Kenyan Quakers operate many schools, and for the sake of clarity, the articles I quoted did not directly allege that Quaker schools had been stealing US and UK funds.

Rather, the unfortunate patterns of thievery involving some Kenyan Quakers (mainly older “leaders”) have been around since long before this current educational crisis, and some are, I fear, continuing. They involve other institutions, particularly the once-thriving Kaimosi Friends Hospital, which was plundered repeatedly by many who held responsible positions.

Unfortunately, such corruption is a very widespread problem in Kenya. The international monitoring group “Transparency International” publishes an annual ranking of countries in terms of public corruption, and year after year, alas, Kenya ranks very near the bottom.

Also unfortunately, there have been many US-based Quaker officials, mainly associated with Friends United Meeting, involved in the missionary enterprise who played an enabling role in this corruption. They did not steal funds themselves, but turned a blind eye to it, and helped keep information about it from reaching the donors here.

Even now, while current FUM staff insist they are “working on” the problem, reporting on the efforts and the results is very sparse, which leaves some, like me, to suspect that there is less progress than there ought to be.

I hope I might be wrong about this; but extended silence about what may be underway does nothing to dispel my uneasiness. Indeed, it only feeds it.

In my yearly meeting, I have spoken of being unwilling to send our group’s funds to Kenyan Quaker projects without clear explanations of how the integrity of the funds delivery and use can be assured.

There are some theological issues between my yearly meeting and Friends United Meeting, but this concern does not involve them.

“Thou Shalt Not Steal” applies to all versions of Christianity I know anything about. It also applies as much to mission projects as to domestic ones.

And beyond theology, it does not serve justice, or economic “development,” to be silent about thievery, or to be less than thorough in rooting it out.

I urge other concerned Friends to raise their voices for more disclosure as well.

Seems to me it’s time for an open update for American and other Friends on the struggle against theft and corruption in Quaker institutions and programs in Kenya.

This question has been growing on me in recent months, but I figured maybe there had been one and I missed it.

But it was brought back to mind by some recent news reports.

Did anybody else see these BBC stories?

UK freezes Kenya school funding amid fraud allegations
13 December 2009

The UK government has frozen funding for free primary education in Kenya until an investigation into fraud allegations has been carried out.
The Department for International Development said no more money would be released until $1m (£615,000) thought to be missing had been accounted for.
Kenyan media suggest the total of the alleged missing funds may be larger.
The money was supposed to go towards building new classrooms and buying text books in impoverished parts of Kenya.
The funds are said to have disappeared earlier this year.

This story was soon followed by . . .

US suspends Kenya school funding

26 January 2010
The US has suspended $7m of funding for free primary schools in Kenya until fraud allegations are investigated, the US ambassador in Nairobi has said.
Michael Ranneberger says “credible action” must be taken on claims that 110m shillings (£900,000; $1.4m) were siphoned off a free-education fund.
The US move comes a month after the UK government pulled out of the project.
Kenya is ranked as East Africa’s most corrupt country by campaign group Transparency International.
The US has been pushing for reform in Kenya since deadly violence swept the country after an election in 2007.
Although the violence was primarily political and ethnic, US officials have highlighted underlying causes such as corruption and weak institutions.
Future ‘in the balance’
Mr Ranneberger demanded an independent audit of the free-schools programme.
“Those culpable for the fraud should not only be sacked - they need to be prosecuted and put behind bars,” he said.

And this story was soon followed by this one:

Kenya faces political ‘meltdown’
By Will Ross
BBC News, Nairobi

16 February 2010
Ongoing political wrangling in Kenya’s coalition government is having a major detrimental effect on its fight against corruption, a lobbying group warns.
Transparency International warned Kenya risked turning into a failed state.
A rift in the fragile power-sharing government developed after PM Raila Odinga announced the suspension of two ministers after corruption scandals.
President Mwai Kibaki annulled the suspensions, saying the Mr Odinga did not have the power to take the action.
The head of Transparency International in Kenya, Job Ogonda, said the political dispute in Kenya’s coalition government was sending out a very dangerous message.
It was showing that the struggle for power was more important than the fight against corruption and this, he said, would have dire consequences come the next election.
“In 2012 it’s very likely we’re going to have a meltdown,” said Mr Ogonda.
“We have the significant risk that Kenya will be generating to a failed state.
“This is how[civil wars] in Sierra Leone and indeed Liberia were fomented: the executive being eliminated and oblivious for the failed state risks that corruption causes especially where the population is young, educated and unemployed”.

Plagued by scandal

Fighting corruption in Kenya is a difficult - some would say impossible - task.
Mr Ogonda said his staff had been threatened on several occasions.
While he said some Kenyan politicians had built a reputation through professionalism and accountability, he was on the whole scathing of the political elite.
“Within parliament you find a new breed of leaders who are committed to the good governance of this country, but the vast majority of the people who wield immense power are definitely fraudsters,” he said.
Kenya has in the past been plagued by huge corruption scandals, but punishing the perpetrators is very rare.
Whilst the political dispute in Kenya has halted the suspension of two ministers, Job Ogonda said if they were to be suspended it would send out a positive message and would help end a deeply entrenched culture of impunity.

Now, these reports don’t mention Quakers. However, they echo many Friends concerns about fraud and theft of Quaker funds there, especially donations from the US and UK.

Every time I have spoken or written about this matter in a public forum (and the speaking goes back a couple decades), I am given assurances that “something is being done,” and urged, overtly or covertly, to shush and go along.

(A major piece on this was called, “Wrestling With a Roomful of Elephants,” posted on an earlier version of this blog — good grief — more than three years ago.)

And while I ‘m sure some good folks are working on it, I wasn’t able to locate any reports about that online that were less than about four years old.
Friends United Meeting is the largest such donor from the US, and the chronic problems have centered there. Its website has an unusually candid report on the history of the Friends Hospital at Kaimosi, once the pride of the Quaker missionary labor there, which was run into the ground by fraud and theft, not just once but again and again, til it had to be shut down. FUM reports that it is committed to resurrecting the hospital, as an enterprise marked not only by US-Kenyan cooperation, but also “partnership, mutual accountability, transparency, capacity building, and local ownership”.

All very well. But the report’s information does not appear to include anything after January 2006, four years ago. How’s it going, eh?

And how’s the overall effort to root out corruption in Kenyan Quaker projects? The other reports on the FUM website do not mention the topic, at least not that I could see. So answers to questions about updates don’t seem to be very plentiful.

Another source, Dave Zarembka, has also been more than typically candid when the subject was surfaced. And he has written many reports from Kenya, related to his work with the African great Lakes Initiative.

However, the most recent report on that site is from October of 2009, and does not address these concerns.

Too bad, as the recent news from the larger Kenyan scene is worrisome indeed.

So who will fill us in?

This single lonesome Daffodil is blooming in our backyard, amid the rain and facing a freezing night.
It moves me to verse –
With apologies to His Eminence, Leonard Cohen:

They’re comin’ from a hole in the ground
We’ve waited months for them to be around
I know that you may feel
That this ain’t exactly real,
‘But it’s real,
It just ain’t exactly there.

The daffodils are coming
To the USA!