Thursday, September 11, 2014

On the Anniversary of 9/11, a Brief Personal Recollection

As the sun rose to greet the world on September 11, 2001, there was nothing to suggest that this particular day would deliver such terrible death and devastation. Then again, omens only exist in literature and hindsight.

I was just beginning my sophomore year at St. Joseph’s Prep. Aside from shaking off the rust of summer vacation and reacclimating myself to the tedious routine of a school day, I had few concerns.        
 
It was 2nd Period. I was in Room 301, the Physical Science Lecture Room. Fittingly, the course was U.S. History. Class had just commenced when Mr. Scott, the A.P. Government teacher, entered the room with a grim look on his face and whispered something to my instructor, Mr. Lindsay. After Mr. Scott departed, Mr. Lindsay shared with us the news: a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center in New York. We said a prayer and then went about our business.

Frankly, this initial report did not disturb me too greatly. I had never been to New York and had never seen the World Trade Center towers. I was too young to remember the ’93 attack orchestrated by Ramzi Yousef. I vaguely knew about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda from the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, but at that moment I thought this event was an isolated minor tragedy, not a major act of terrorism. I imagined a small plane had struck the building and naively hoped that few people were injured or killed.

Terrorism was a relatively foreign concept for a teenager in the halcyon years before 9/11. Sure, there were domestic incidents like the Oklahoma City bombing in ’95, the Olympic Park bombing in ’96, and the Columbine shooting in ’99. However, I was inclined to believe these were the actions of madmen who just wanted to kill innocent people. The notion that such delusional individuals would possess any kind of motive worth a moment’s consideration was beyond the comprehension of my self-righteous mind. Ultimately, I felt safe. Military violence and political terrorism were actions that happened in far-flung regions of the world; they were not part of my provincial reality. Besides, what had the United States ever done to provoke another country or terrorist cell? We were the good guys.            

It wasn’t until 4th period- my lunch break- that I began to grasp the gravity of the situation. I entered the cafeteria and bore witness to a bizarre scene. Nearly everyone was on a cell phone. I didn’t own such a device and didn’t know anyone in my neighborhood who had one. The mood was chaotic; few people were actually eating lunch. As I waited in line to buy a soda, I noticed the aforementioned Mr. Lindsay in front of me and asked him what was happening. I’ll never forget his response: “Our country is under attack.”

What? How is that even possible? I ate quickly and then walked into the main atrium, where a large TV had been positioned for students and staff to watch the news as it unfolded. It was here that I first saw the depth of the destruction that had occurred. It appeared as if a bomb had been dropped on Manhattan. Smoke billowed from the ruins of the World Trade Center. Soon replays of earlier events showed a passenger jet flying into the South Tower and both buildings collapsing after being consumed by flames.       

Not long afterward, school was cancelled for the day and we were all sent home to face an uncertain future.  

In attempting a broader description of the events of 9/11, I find my command of the written word lacking. After all, how can anyone adequately capture the collective shock of watching a large plane deliberately crash into a skyscraper as its twin burns nearby? Or the national disbelief as both towers collapsed in a heap of twisted steel and rubble? Or the shared horror that gripped us as our observational detachment broke and we slowly realized that thousands of human beings were passengers on the doomed planes or workers and first responders buried in the World Trade Center debris? Or the painful reality that once-happily anonymous folks would suddenly assume the burdensome label of “9/11 families”; that sons would grow up without their mothers, that daughters would be deprived of their dads, that wives would become widows, and parents would have to bury their children? And all for the crime of living in the United States and going to work on the wrong day, or boarding the wrong plane. It doesn’t make any damn sense; no words, however eloquently arranged, will ever change this fundamental inanity.     

So, in lieu of a definitive summary or a provocative analysis, I present my personal recollection, incredibly minor and insignificant though it may be, betraying an embarrassing ignorance of the world during my teen years. I also offer my sincere hope that the disorientating darkness that enveloped that day will no longer define it.    
 
-30-

  

Monday, July 28, 2014

We Need to Talk About the Way We Talk About Politics

There is an oft-cited, infrequently applied rule which we are told to follow when engaging in polite conversation: never talk about politics or religion. While I intend to break the former portion of this law (I’ll leave God alone for now), I hope you stick around to read and consider my argument, for I do not want anyone else to get caught in the web of inanity that our politicians and media have spun.  

Without further ado, here goes:

The way we talk about politics in this country is completely and utterly stupid. If you find yourself taking offense at this statement, I have two things to say to you: (1) The ease with which you get angry suggests you watch too much cable news; and (2) I’m sorry I’m not sorry.

Most importantly, our political discourse suffers because we are too easily outraged. Our news media, cognizant of our society’s bizarre anger fetish and anxious to expand the debate to appeal to the largest audience, focuses on items that provoke anger at the expense of critical thought. For example, the news networks had a field day covering the recent Donald Sterling imbroglio. Audience and analyst alike were afforded an opportunity to express their shock and indignation at the racist ranting of a demented octogenarian. Lost amid the sanctimonious browbeating was any serious discussion about the more insidious evils of institutional and structural racism, but such talk might veer into uncomfortable territory for an industry that remains overwhelmingly white.  

Partisan networks like MSNBC and Fox News frame news segments in a way that will stoke anger within their viewership. While Fox News scours the news wire for any instance in which liberals are undermining the country’s so-called "traditional principles" and examines every nook and cranny of the country to ensure that Sharia Law is not being imposed, MSNBC is patiently explaining to its viewers how Republicans are ruining the "governmental utopia" President Obama is attempting to create. Meanwhile, CNN either ghoulishly obsesses over the fate of missing Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 or provides “expert analysis” of the trial of whatever wayward white person Nancy Grace has fashioned into a celebrity.

Moreover, we too readily cling to the ideological paradigm of liberal-versus-conservative, needlessly dividing ourselves into camps to which most of us do not comfortably belong. As Nick Gillespie affirms in a recent opinion piece for Time Magazine, Americans have been rejecting the false choice between the Democratic and Republican Parties. Gillespie points to a 2013 Gallup poll that shows 42 percent of Americans declaring an Independent political affiliation. Moreover, the author relies on polling to prove that broad areas of agreement exist on seemingly divisive issues like gun control and same-sex marriage, among others.  

Furthermore, the language of politics relies too heavily on clichés and talking points that enable the speaker to avoid the difficult task of actually saying anything of substance. If I were given a quarter every time I heard a Democrat declare that his Republican opponent wanted to “ship our jobs overseas,” I could retire tomorrow. Conversely, the irritating Republican talking point about President Obama’s “feckless” foreign policy ignores the fact that the administration has essentially adopted President Bush’s aggressive counterterrorism campaign. For example, Obama has expanded military operations involving drones; these machines have infiltrated sovereign countries and in many cases indiscriminately killed terrorist and innocent civilian alike. The drone program actually screams for greater scrutiny, but the Republicans in Congress might have to drop their bellicose posture and blind devotion to the Defense Industry in order to pursue a serious inquiry. On second thought, it is probably safer (and more politically expedient) for them to stick with the “feckless” bit.   

Additionally, this toxic environment has turned numerous charlatans and hucksters into millionaires and pseudo-celebrities. For one-time incompetent vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, political know-nothingness has become a lucrative cottage industry. Commentators like Ann Coulter and Ed Schultz have garnered fame and attention more for the extreme statements they make than for the intellectual value of their comments. Despite his controversial past, Al Sharpton has parlayed his fame into a daily show on MSNBC. Rush Limbaugh has made a fortune wading in the toxic swamp of conservative talk radio.

Finally, and most deleteriously, this noxious political environment has disenchanted innumerable voters. The resultant shrinking of the electorate has further empowered ideological extremists, party loyalists, and special interest groups.

Going forward, we would all do well to remember that idle complaining is easy. Visceral reaction is even easier. Getting educated on the issues and developing a nuanced opinion is a bit more challenging, but such is our duty as citizens. Otherwise, we’ll continue this fruitless cycle of changing our proverbial clothes every election season and then complaining that we don’t like the way we look.

Ultimately, as I survey the current landscape of our political discourse, I cannot help but recall an observation made by George Orwell, who remarked: “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” Perhaps by turning down the volume on our televisions and radios and resisting the reflexive urge to look left or right as we confront the problems we face, we might find the enlightenment we so desperately crave.


-30-

Sunday, June 22, 2014

At St. Joseph’s Prep, the Tuition is Too Damn High

Anniversaries hold a cherished place on the calendar. They provide us with an opportunity to share memories of the past, anticipate the future, and ponder the changes that have occurred in the interim. They are times for celebration and reflection. Yet, as I observe the ten year mark since I graduated from St. Joseph’s Preparatory School, I feel the occasion demands much more of the latter than the former.

While I look forward to reconnecting and reminiscing with my former classmates, I cannot shake the feeling that our reunion will devolve into a wake, for we are celebrating a St. Joseph’s Prep that might no longer exist. Indeed, our alma mater has been fundamentally altered since we departed its hallowed halls. 

Before I begin, allow me to clarify: I do not intend to engage in an exercise of arrogant nostalgia. I loathe the “back in my day” malarkey that spews forth from predecessors who seek the comfortable blanket of self-righteousness to shield them from their fears of aging and irrelevance. Furthermore, I bear no animosity toward the current generation of Prep students, nor do I entirely blame the current administration for a situation that they have inherited as a result of short-sighted decisions from previous school leaders. Nevertheless, the Prep has a problem. 

The tuition is too damn high.

When I commenced my studies at the Prep in September 2000, the tuition rate stood at $10,000. For the recently concluded academic year, the Prep charged a staggering $19,900. If the Prep had imposed the same rate in 2013-14 as it had in 2000-01, adjusting only for inflation, the school would have issued a much more reasonable fee of $13,528.[1] So what accounts for the $6,372 difference?

Perhaps an analysis of the Prep’s expenditures in recent years might provide us with some guidance. In the autumn of 2000, the Kelly Fieldhouse was completed at a cost of $7.3 million;[2] the christening of the gymnasium culminated a twelve-year, $25 million capital campaign.[3] By September 2008, the school unveiled a brand new cafeteria, dubbed the Sauter Dining Hall, and 16 new classrooms in the renovated rectory, which was re-named Jesuit Hall. The renovation and expansion cost the school an astonishing $21 million.[4]

Aside from their state-of-the-art aura, the newer edifices on campus can be distinguished from the old building by the window design. The Kelly Fieldhouse, the Sauter Dining Hall, and Jesuit Hall each feature large windows that provide an unobscured view of the North Philadelphia community that surrounds the school. By contrast, the older Villiger Hall, built shortly after a devastating and destructive race riot on nearby Columbia Avenue in 1964, was constructed with very small windows designed undoubtedly to mitigate potential property damage. In explaining his design choice, the architect of the Kelly Fieldhouse, John Blatteau, affirmed: “‘we were trying to bring back the connection to the neighborhood.’”[5]

The larger windows are nice, but what Philadelphians really need from St. Joe’s Prep are open doors. In a city in which the median income sits at $37,016 and the poverty rate from 2008-12 was measured at 26.2%,[6] a $20,000 annual tuition constitutes a cost-prohibitive investment. Although the Prep provides financial aid to 35% of its student body with an average package of $7,000,[7] $13,000 still seems unattainable for a significant number of Philadelphia families. Even though the school obviously offers more lucrative aid packages to families that demonstrate a higher need, one wonders whether the “sticker shock” wards off parents of talented students from North Philadelphia and the increasingly destitute Northeast. [8]

Whereas this observation is merely hypothetical, the stagnancy of the Prep’s demographics are indisputable. In 2000, 19% of the student body hailed from Philadelphia; 18% resided in New Jersey while 63% were culled from the Philadelphia suburbs.[9] Today, the breakdown falls in this way: Philadelphia (20.67%), Philadelphia suburbs (58.35%), and New Jersey (20.98%).[10] Over the past fourteen years, I have attended, taught, and visited the school and thus feel very comfortable making the following generalization: the school remains disproportionately affluent and overwhelmingly white. Racial diversity has emerged as one of Philadelphia’s greatest features, yet the Prep has failed to tap into this asset in a meaningful way.

As the Prep’s coffers swell from the exorbitant tuition it imposes on its students, investments have been made in projects that provide the campus with incredible aesthetic value to the detriment of an aggressive urban recruitment campaign. The school has followed a trajectory that mirrors the path pursued by many colleges and universities, which have focused on beautifying their grounds and devoting capital to amenities that provide little educational benefit as they pass the buck (literally) onto the student.

 
***

The mission of Saint Joseph’s Prep as a Catholic, Jesuit, urban, college preparatory school is to develop the minds, hearts, souls, and characters of young men in their pursuit of becoming men for and with others.

-St. Joseph’s Prep, Mission Statement

Besides the physical changes at 17th and Girard that have occurred over the past decade, the Prep has also given itself a cultural makeover. The stewards of the school have embraced an Ignatian identity that was frankly nonexistent during my years as a student. While the motto “men for and with others” remains, other Jesuit vernacular, like cura personalis, has been added to the Prep’s philosophical dictionary. Moreover, the Prep has taken great pains to mark its physical space with an Ignatian stamp. The dining hall features a walkway with twelve bronze plaques that commemorate St. Ignatius’ physical and spiritual journey. Draped along the walls are the names of Ignatius’ original companions, the cohort that formed the Society of Jesus (Jesuits). The walkway leads to the Ignatian Room, which houses a bronze statue of the founder of the Jesuit order. The opulence of the place is trumped only by the irony of dedicating such a building to a religious order that takes a vow of poverty and to a saint who abandoned a comfortable existence in Spain for an ascetic life served in obedience to the Pope.

In charting a new cultural course, it appears the Prep has lost its way. In truth, no one would quibble with the decision to steer the school toward Ignatian principles. Yet the Prep would have been better served if it simultaneously recommitted itself to the values that led to its foundation in the first place. St. Joseph’s Prep opened its doors in 1851 to educate immigrant Catholics escaping the persecution of nativist elements in the city.[11] Anti-Irish Catholic sentiment in Philadelphia had engendered a riot in 1844 that resulted in the destruction of two Catholic churches in the city. As late as 1889, the Prep did not charge a tuition fee.[12]

Philadelphia has certainly changed in the past 160 years. Although there are fewer Catholics in the city, as evidenced by the Archdiocese’s increasing divestment from Philadelphia, intractable poverty continues to pose a major challenge. After a devastating fire in 1966 destroyed the school building, the Prep’s decision makers could have joined in the white exodus to the more comfortable environs of the suburbs. Instead, the Prep remained in the city and courageously committed itself to North Philadelphia. However, the boldness of this decision has been diminished somewhat by the school’s inability to educate the young men of this city in more substantial numbers.

By catering to a majority of wealthy students, the Prep can only exacerbate the tremendous socioeconomic inequality that defines the Delaware Valley. While it is certainly important to offer privileged young men an opportunity to experience an impoverished environment and cultivate in them a social consciousness, it is arguably more important to provide students mired in poverty with an opportunity for social mobility that only a stellar education and superior networking can supply. This does not mean that the Prep should diminish its academic standards in order to accommodate poorer students (just as it should not lower the academic bar for students whose parents can pay the full tuition rate); instead, the school ought to identify and recruit the best and the brightest of Philadelphia’s pupils and provide them with an outstanding education that they might then use to ameliorate the destitute condition they inherited by accident of birth.

An intensive urban recruitment campaign will also inject some much-needed diversity into the student body. Such a strategy emerges as the best way to create the empathy required to develop men “for and with” others. Students left unexposed to poor and/or minority peers are more susceptible to fall into a pattern of “othering” folks mired in poverty. If the status quo is maintained, the Prep runs the risk of perpetuating a culture of paternalism and patronization. Poverty would remain an abstract force exerted outside the walls of the school, something to which one is temporarily exposed during a brief service trip or a community service initiative. I doubt such a culture is Ignatian. It is certainly not Christian.    

 
***

It is quite likely that no one in any position of power at St. Joseph’s Prep will read this essay (or, more to the point, gives a darn what I think about the state of the school), though I can anticipate the criticism that might be directed toward me if it is issued. “You don’t know what you’re talking about!” It’s true. I do not have access to the financial ledgers of the school; even if I did, I lack the expertise to offer a constructive criticism of the school’s expenditures. However, I do know what it is like to grow up in a large, middle-class Philadelphia family. I know what it is like to struggle to meet the financial demands of an unreasonable tuition fee. I know what it is like to sacrifice in order to gain access to the elite academic institutions in this city. I know not to be fooled by the sleight-of-hand trick being played when a lavish building is dressed in the humble garb of Jesuit history. And I know this: the financial path that the Prep has taken, if uncorrected, will price out the Philadelphia students most in need of a Prep education.  


-30-




[1] A cost of inflation calculator can be found at: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
[2] http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rXl8Y-fBCd4J:www.sjprep.org/s/80/images/editor_documents/Admission/international_/preppa_-_eo_flyer_-_13_12_05.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
[3] Maria Panaritis, “Prep School Dedicates Fieldhouse,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, 20 November 2000. http://articles.philly.com/2000-11-20/news/25614853_1_students-school-leaders-joseph-s-preparatory-school
[4] http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rXl8Y-fBCd4J:www.sjprep.org/s/80/images/editor_documents/Admission/international_/preppa_-_eo_flyer_-_13_12_05.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
 
[5]Panaritis, “Prep School Dedicates Fieldhouse.”
[6] http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42/42101.html
[7] http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:T3tY-7HtD1wJ:visual.ly/top-ten-myths-about-st-josephs-preparatory-school+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
[8] http://thephilanews.com/poverty-up-in-northeast-8711.htm
[9] http://articles.philly.com/2000-11-20/news/25614853_1_students-school-leaders-joseph-s-preparatory-school
[10] http://www.sjprep.org/s/80/index.aspx?sid=80&gid=1&pgid=1183
[11] http://www.sjprep.org/s/80/index.aspx?sid=80&gid=1&pgid=1217
[12] http://www.sjprep.org/s/80/index.aspx?sid=80&gid=1&pgid=1221