Mon 14 Jul 2008
Running Scared
Posted by David Kane under Bicentennial Medals, Ephs in Iraq, Wick Sloane '76
Posted at 12:44 pmAnother fine article on war, veterans and education from Wick Sloane ‘76 writing in Inside Higher Ed. Read the whole thing, but here is the only Williams mention.
In helping a Bunker Hill Iraq veteran who will attend Dartmouth College this fall, I had communicated with James Wright, president of Dartmouth. Wright, an ex-Marine, has been visiting wounded veterans in Washington hospitals with James Selbe, another ex-Marine leading veterans’ issues for the American Council on Education. ACE last month had a two-day summit, “Serving Those Who Serve: Higher Education and America’s Veterans (see related essay). Dartmouth has wounded veterans attending.
…
The public institutions are in the lead. I rounded up the usual suspects from the privates, to see if any were following Jim Wright’s lead.
From Princeton: “The University has no records of current American students who are veterans of wars. While we have students who receive veterans benefits, they do so as dependents of service members, rather than as service members who served in the military. Our office of financial aid hasn’t processed any GI Bill benefits in recent memory (dating back the past two decades approximately).” Yale has not yet replied. Yale president Rick Levin and Joel Podolny, Dean of the School of Management, about a year ago, ignored my several queries asking if Yale was recognizing alumni or students who were veterans. From Williams: “As far as we know, we do not have any veterans of the Iraq war enrolled at Williams. We do have Iraq veterans working on staff — one who saw three tours of duty.”
Comments:
1) In our discussion last week on the Webb GI Bill, Frank Uible ‘57 wrote:
I would like to hear a McCain supporter’s version of the reason for McCain’s opposition. It appears anti-intuitive.
I am not a McCain supporter, yet I can understand his opposition to this bill. Instead of giving more money to veterans that they can only spend on education, I would rather see us give them the same amount of money that they can spend on anything at all. Not every enlisted soldier wants to go to college; not every office wants a Ph.D. (What I used my GI Bill money for.) Moreover, the extra funding should not go to veterans in general but should be focussed on those serving in the most dangerous, combated positions.
2) Unlike Wick, I am not particularly upset that Williams does not do anything to (specially) recruit veterans. Of course, I would like to see more veterans at Williams and would vote in favor of the College seeking them out. But I recognize this as special pleading on my part. Doing what Jim Wright does for Dartmouth takes time and money, both of which are always limited. It would not be hard for Williams to do more (mainly reach out to the various programs/departments which help veterans transition out of the service), but it is not unreasonable for the admissions office to devote its energies elsewhere.
3) The main change that I would like to see is to have an Eph veteran awarded a Bicentennial Medal each year for the next 5 or 10 years. You can call this quota, if you like, but there is no doubt (in my mind) that Ephs like Bunge Cooke ‘98, JR Rahill ‘88, Kathy Sharpe Jones ‘79 and others have demonstrated “distinguished achievement” in their fields of endeavor. Williams should honor them. Write to Secretary of the Alumni Society Brooks Foehl ‘88 if you agree.
July 14th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
David: Your answer is at best only superficial. I was seeking supporting digital info, in depth studies, etc. Probably not going to get them - at least not here.
July 14th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
McCain was concerned about the total cost and whether the bill would create incentives for soldiers to leave the military (in order to collect the benefit) rather then re-enlist. The benefit transfer mechanism, to child and spouse, helped solve that problem.
I bet we could find good numbers on the value to society of financing educational benefits rather than a less restrictive money transfer.
If it’s true that a person with a college education earns more than one with a high school education, then its also true that a GI Bill based on educational benefits (rather than an unrestricted cash payment) is an investment that is more likely to provide higher returns to society.
July 14th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Higher income and college education may be merely corelated.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Correlated or causal, there’s value in a policy that is more likely to provide higher returns to the society that finances it.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Re: Suggestion #3
There are so many ways in which a quota system for the Bicentennial Medal is a bad idea. I’ll stick with one or two practical considerations for now. What “field of endeavor” are you proposing for veteran Ephs? If it is military service, do they have to be career military such that their true “field” is military service? Or does one merely have to serve for a few years and then leave to do something else (note: the service is not “mere” but the time). If that is the case, then the military may not be the proper “field of endeavor” to judge upon for a veteran who has now spent a career as a doctor, lawyer, artist, teacher, etc.
And will we also provide a Medal for others who serve their country - an Americorps medal? Or a medal for Doctors with Borders? Is it the putting your life at risk part that you’re trying to reward? Then firefighters, police officers, etc. would deserve a dedicated category as well.
I don’t think it is the job of Williams College to reward military service above all (or most) other fields. While those in the military deserve respect, I think any Eph with a distinguished enough career in their chosen field should be eligible for a Bicentennial Medal on equal footing with all other Ephs. Period. So if an individual truly ditinguishes him/herself in the military, then certainly a Medal might be appropriate.
I do enjoy your selective love of quotas. I guess we now know the way it works: quotas for things David doesn’t care about = bad, quotas for things David does care about = good. I’ll remember that in the future.
July 15th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
JG writes:
This is confused on several levels. First, I generally don’t talk about quotas at EphBlog, certainly not like affirmative-action-quotas-are-bad manner that JG presumably imagines. Second, when I do bring up quotas, (as here) it is to complain about quotas that restrict the number of something that I think is good (international enrollment, in that case). Those quotas are bad and yet they concern something I care about.
Third, I did not say that this was a quota and I do not think of it as such. In fact, it is a guideline. I would like to see Bunge Cooke win a Bicentennial Medal in 2008, Kathy Jones in 2009 and, say, Paul Danielson in 2011. No worries if there is not a military Eph winner in 2010. That is why it is not a quota. But, over the next 5 or so years, I would like to see 5 or so military Eph winners.
But all that is prelude to our main dispute: Is serving in the military, qua military, especially praise-worthy? I think it is. Even if there are (many) other Eph doctors who are every bit as talented (as doctors) as Paul Danielson ‘88, I think that he, rather than they, deserve a Bicentennial Medal precisely because military service is special. Reasonable Ephs, of course, can dispute that.
I also think that the military, in and of itself, is an important “field of endeavor,” certainly as important as, say, documentary making. If Margaret Kim ‘91 deserves a Bicentennial Medal because she is a great documentary maker, then JR Rahill ‘88 deserves one as well because he is a great combat pilot.
The crux of my disagreement with JG is her statement that “So if an individual truly distinguishes him/herself in the military, then certainly a Medal might be appropriate.”
In other words, if Cooke/Jones/Rahill/Danielson are not in the top 1% (10%? 0.01%) of the military, then they do not deserve a Bicentennial Medal. I, on the other hand, think that service in combat is, in itself, distinguishing.
Which one of us is right?
July 15th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
I forgot to answer some of JG’s questions.
Military service itself. They do not have to be (and in most cases are not) career military.
In my view, a field of endeavor like military service in wartime is sort of like being an Olympic athlete. Even if you are the worst athlete in the Olympics, just being their is achievement enough. Any Eph who gets to the Olympics should get a medal. (And this fits with our demographics since so few Ephs do so. If we were a school where such athletes were common, than this would not work.)
The same applies to military Ephs in combat. What they do is so special that, just by doing it, they deserve a medal. The fact that there are so few makes awarding such medals reasonable. (But note that I would not give a medal to all 20+ of them but would focus on the most distinguished among them.)
We already award plenty of medals to those Ephs who serve others. Indeed, a glance through the list of past winners will show many Ephs whose primary achievements have been with non-profits. A great example is my classmate Catherine Salser.
Putting your life at risk for your country is the key concept. And note that fire fighting and police work are not that risky, at least when compared with combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think more awards should go to Eph police and firemen, but I have not studied this issue closely. To be awarded, such individuals would need to be nominated. I do not think that any have been. Several military Ephs have been. Why have none won?
July 15th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
wow, david, wow.
“I would like to see Bunge Cooke win a Bicentennial Medal in 2008, Kathy Jones in 2009 and, say, Paul Danielson in 2011. No worries if there is not a military Eph winner in 2010. That is why it is not a quota. But, over the next 5 or so years, I would like to see 5 or so military Eph winners.”
is it not a quota because it has a year off or because you have specific people you’d like to see get medals? either way, it’s an absurd argument–that’s a quota. don’t have your cake and eat it too. own your view.
i’ll leave the rest of the debate to someone else
July 15th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
If Bicentennial Medals were designed to award courage, then I would agree with you. But so far as I know, they are designed to award achievement. It is hard to argue that serving in combat is, in and of itself, an “achievement” when hundreds of thousands of Americans can and have done so, and the only requirement is not having a felony record (I think even this is being relaxed) and having a high school diploma. It’s like saying, anyone who teaches at an inner city school, or as noted above, serves as a fireman, deserves a medal. Now, if someone rises to high level in the military, or distinguishes themselves in combat in some way, I am all for awarding a medal, but again, I don’t see how you can argue that simply by signing up for the military, which pretty much any American can do (well, unless you are openly gay), makes you distinguished in your field. For the same reason, it drives me nuts that you added every Eph who has ever served in combat to a Wikipedia page of notable alums. I am sorry, they are simply not notable IN THEIR FIELD. It is like putting every doctor or every college professor on Wikipedia’s list of distinguished alums. Just because you happen to think military service during war time is a more noble calling than being a doctor or a teacher, something which is certainly open to debate, does not make any person who chooses to engage in such service distinguished. Rather, whether it be Wikipedia or a Bicenntenial medal, being distinguished means being at the top of your field, whatever that may be.
Your Olympic analogy is particularly idiotic. Looks at Lindsay Payne — she is one of the best six swimmers in the US, and she couldn’t even make it to the Olympics. All we know right now about the military Ephs you cite is that they are among the best 200,000 or so soldiers in the US. Come on David, at least pretend to some degree of intellectual rigor in making your arguments. Now, do a little research and let us know what any particular military Eph has done to merit special recognition either via actions they have performed or rank they have attained, and I will happily second your call for awarding a Bicentennial medal.
July 15th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
I hope everyone is reading Wick’s wonderful essay, especially anyone who has any doubts as to the value of encouraging and assisting Vets in pursuing higher education.
I think the ‘investment’ is so much more than just qualifying for a better paycheck. The writing alone, that this particular vet produced, serves as therapy for him and other soldiers, an educational eye-opener for civilians, inspiration for other vets, and on and on…
How do you even begin to measure the value of that? And considering the predictions that Vet suicides will surpass the number of active casualties, we should be doing anything and everything in our power to prepare for, and perhaps hedge, this horrific prediction.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
And don’t forget to write the Ephs who are in service right now.
July 16th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Except David, that you DID call it a quota, or at least admit that it was one. You said:
Well, I like. It’s a quota. Regardless of saying now that you “do not think of it as such,” your initial statement was that there should be a quota.
Disagree on ideas or perhaps my bit of exaggeration about your stance on quotas, fine. But it is just silly to argue that you didn’t say what you said (and is clearly in the post above where we can all see it).
July 17th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Oh BS! If you beleive in education, you have to support the Webb Bill. To say you would rather see them “give more in other places” is complete crap. If you do not think Veterans deserve to go to College on the taxpayer dime, say so, but don’t hide behind the “i’d rather see it go to other programs” nonsense!
July 20th, 2008 at 11:38 am
The discussion above is interesting on many important topics. The question less debated is Williams and veterans. One point says that outreach for anything takes “time and money” which are limited.
Are these resources limited at Williams? For outreach to those serving in wars? Reasonable people may disagree but I don’t think that’s the case for Williams here.
If Williams, and the other elites, are going to take in federal aid — from grants and loans and tax benefits — it would seem to me that there’s some obligation to reach out to veterans during a war. Morty Schapiro does what he can on many fronts. Is this one another where the current batch of trustees are failing in their fiduciary duties toward the federal resources we, the people, have entrusted to them?
I’ve sent this veterans outreach question to four Williams trustees over the past week. I’d defend any day their right to disagree with me. They have not replied at all. This is my puzzle — yes, such outreach takes time and money. We are talking about Williams College here. The trustees have just build the new Baxter and, across the street from that, the new humanities center. Would housing for 25 veterans, plus some support services, tax Williams?
I do recommend to all the two books about veterans by Jonathan Shays, Achilles in Vietnam and Odysseus at Home. I read them after Jim Wright at Dartmouth suggested them. I realized how wrong I was about how combat affects people — it’s at least 100 times worse than I ever imagined.
July 20th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Congratulations to the Bunker Hill student who will attend Dartmouth and to Wick for his help with that (thanks to Wick also).
I don’t have a say in most of the trustee slots but, for the ones where I do, I would never vote for someone if I knew he or she would ignore a sincere communication from an alumnus/a, staff member, student or parent — even if the response were little more than an acknowledgment of the writer’s concerns. I have very little respect for any Williams trustee who would do that. I don’t care how important any of those people think they are; they shouldn’t be on the board if they can’t be responsive or don’t have time for the job.
That said, and believing firmly that potential applicants shouldn’t be shut out by paternalistic/maternalistic assessments of what a good fit might be, I do still wonder whether Williams would be a good place for many veterans. On the student level, Williams is very much an age ghetto; any older student is likely to feel out of place. Unlike a university, Williams won’t have many graduate students who are closer to the veterans’ ages; unlike a place like Smith with its proud, tight-knit community of Comstock Scholars (older women returning to school for undergraduate degrees), Williams isn’t set up to, and probably wouldn’t have the critical mass to, build and nurture a community of veterans. Overall, a small residential rural college may not be the best setting for reentry adults. We did have Vietnam veterans who came to Williams after their service. I remember that it was very difficult for them (although I know any place would have been).
I would like to hear that Morty or someone at the College had contacted the alumni who came to Williams (or finished at Williams) after their service in the Vietnam War or more recent combat. What are their ideas? Do they think that Williams should put on a push to enroll veterans and if so, what are their ideas about how that might best be done? (And if there is a push, I think Williams has an affirmative obligation to nurture the resulting enrollees — what are the alumni’s assessments of what would be needed/helpful?)
What about offering (instead? in addition?) a summer pre-college experience somewhat similar to that offered to pre-frosh from disadvantaged backgrounds/weak schools? Williams has experience with the basics of that and could tweak it to fit the veterans’ needs. I would think that there would be grant money available, as someone should be studying what helps with a successful reintegration.
July 20th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
I did not mean to imply that alumni who had been in the service after Williams wouldn’t have important ideas. I am certain that they would, and I would hope they would chime in. I just would like to see the college reach out to those whose experiences would more nearly parallel those of the veterans under discussion.
July 20th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Having Williams alumni who are veterans, especially those from Vietnam, advise on how Williams can help current veterans is a terrific idea.
I certainly wonder, as does lgeorge above, what kind of place Williams would be for an Iraq/Afghan vet. I have read and read about assimilation and what we can do in recent weeks. I guess the point that shouts out is that there are no places where combat veterans fit in. The point seems to be that we have to educate ourselves and adapt to make a place for the men and women returning from Afghanistan and Iraq. The question, then, for us seems to be, “How do we make Williams/Bunker Hill Community College/Yale places where veterans can make their way home?”
With 500,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan out here now, using the GI Bill, do we have a choice but to insist that Williams find a way?