DOWNLOADS HERE
DAN TOMPKINS ARTICLE
Back to main page
DAN TOMPKINS ARTICLE
DOWNLOADS HERE
|
|
FIRST's reasoning flawed Academia Nuts "No generation can tell another generation to have a movement," said civil rights leader Dorothy Cotton at this weekend's FIRST conference. Perhaps inadvertently, Cotton summed up in that one statement the illogic of FIRST, the Foundation for Individual Responsibility and Social Trust. Purportedly an organization designed to help Generation X become more unified and active, FIRST was begun by a man "perplexed by his Generation X sons," according to Student Life and Leadership dean Stephen Schwartz. This man envisioned FIRST as a way "to bring (Generation X) into the civic life of their community and country." Those born between 1961 and 1981, it seems, are inadequate participants in their community. This very idea smacks of Baby Boom-style moralizing. We've seen that it doesn't take much for the Boom generation to criticize others - witness their condemnation of their parents in the 1960s - but what's sad about FIRST is that it is inviting, and getting, participation in this habit from Generation X. Boom to X: "Why don't you protest injustice like your parents did?" FIRST's reply: "We are bad people! Help us be like you!" The trouble with FIRST's conference in Marietta, and the trouble with FIRST nationally if this weekend is any indication, is that the real differences between the generations have not been considered adequately. What passed as community spirit for the Boom generation has in many ways been destructive and thoughtless. A bookstore was burned on our own campus at the hands of Boomers. Even if Generation X were inadequate, there is surely another group which could serve as a better model of community spirit. In truth, there is really little wrong with the behavior of Generation X. People do tend to forget that during the 1980 and 1984 elections, Ronald Reagan garnered great support from the youngest voters. People also tend to forget that Generation X these days is no longer the generation of youth. FIRST may supposedly be targeting people born between 1961 and 1981 - but that group includes primarily individuals in their 30s and late 20s, not college students, and certainly not the high school students MC's FIRST group sometimes meets with. Although the Columbine shooting, for example, is one often-cited instance of the savagery of today's youth, it cannot even be blamed on the "bad" Generation X. FIRST, it seems, has never carefully explored what differences between the generations exist, and why this might be the case. Indeed, at the weekend's conference the word "generation" was seldom used, and never used carefully. And the possibility that community spirit simply comes with age was not considered. Rather than questioning subjects such as "isolation and community," as MC's FIRST chapter does, the assumptions underlying the program should be questioned. Is Generation X really different, and if so, how? And for that matter, why? Is Generation X the group we are really trying to address? Is this generation really "broken"? Are we sure about that? And why are we taking the Boom generation's word for it? FIRST seems to have misfired on all these counts. Jaime Cleland, '00, completed an Investigative Studies project on the subject of generations, and continues to research the topic.
Jaime Cleland welcomes your comments and suggestions at
|
© 1999 The Marcolian
Webmaster Ryan G. Coleman: colemanr@marietta.edu
Last Friday, April 4, 1997, Albany, NY launched the first of FIRST's National Deliberation Day! The event was a terrific success, bringing young adults together for a conversation on the topic of: REINVENTING THE AMERICAN DREAM. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE CONCLUSIONS OF THIS INITIAL DISCUSSION. April, 4, 1997 - Albany, New York - Day of Deliberation - 25 people turned out for the event, which lasted 2.5 hours. - There was disagreement as to the continued existence of the American Dream. Some believed that the high rates of immigration were evidence enough of its existence; others pointed to the rise in extremist groups and tension among racial/ethnic groups that the dream was becoming a nightmare. - In citing our parent’s understanding of the American Dream, the most important fact to emerge was that there was diversity. the earlier American Dream simultaneously encompassed focused on economics, racial integration, gender equality, political participation, etc. - A useful way in which the group approached the issue of the American Dream was to counterpoise the “American Expectation” with “American Dreams”. The American Expectation refers to what has become expected of Americans by Americans, e.g., the suburban home, a nuclear family, high-paying employment. American Dreams - emphasizing the pluralness - refers to the fact that there can be no single dream. There probably are as many dreams as there are people. - The major item concerning what our American Dream should be was “opportunity,” but we were not able to operationalize the term according to a single type. In short, people believed that every barrier to human achievement and happiness should be eliminated, or at least reduced to levels that afford individuals a real shot at “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” To this end, “government has a role to play, but so do individuals and communities.” - The dominant themes and ideas to emerge during our deliberation were: family, security, freedom, liberty, obligation, responsibility, “sacrifice and service,” leadership, “individual effort,” and “hard work”. - Although there was much talk about economics and financial security, the emphasis was placed on the freedom, especially leisure time, that is believed to come with financial freedom. The mere pursuit of wealth for wealth’s sake was frowned upon. - Conclusions: the American Dream can be both individualistic and collectivistic; the American Dream is about opportunity; government should do everything in its power to promote opportunity; communities must socialize their members to understand that government has a positive role to play in the lives of people and the future of the nation.
Dante DiMarzio, '02, participates in brainstorming
at FIRST.
200+ attend FIRST deliberations
Ashlee Mullenix
The Marcolian
More than 200 Marietta College faculty, students and community members passed through the doors of the McDonough Center for Leadership and Business last weekend, during the Foundation for Individual Responsibility and Social Trust's (FIRST) conference on Isolation and Community.
The conference was part of MC's responsibility as a partner with FIRST, an organization devoted to involving members of Generation X in civic life.
Attendants of the conference participated in workshop sessions and a deliberation and heard several speeches focusing on the theme of Isolation and Community.
"This seemed to be a theme that really interested people," said Sandra Kolankiewicz, director of experiential education at MC.
Kolankiewicz said many people came and went during the weekend, but overall she was pleased with the attendance.
"We never had fewer than 20 people at any workshop," she said. "The speeches were also well-attended.
FIRST member Jessica Lane, '03, said the conference ran smoothly.
"Everyone did what they needed to do," she said. "The speakers were also very well planned."
Authors Dorothy Cotton, Linda Beatrice Brown and Scott Sanders, were to serve as keynote speakers; but Brown was unable to attend.
Dino DiDonato, who was scheduled to conduct a workshop, took her place.
"Dino was great," said Lane. "He did a very good job for such short notice."
Kolankiewicz said the other speakers gave good presentations as well.
According to Kolankiewicz, Sanders' speech had the largest attendance with more than 100 people.
"Dorothy Cotton and Scott Sanders were fabulous," she said.
Stephen Schwartz, dean of student life and leadership, agreed, saying, "The speakers were as good as any I've heard."
Lane also said the workshops were successful.
"The session on negotiation was very helpful."
"Everyone doesn't think the same way, and it (the workshop) showed us how to bring out both sides," said Lane.
Schwartz said he is working with a professor from the Burns Academy of Leadership of the University of Maryland to coordinate conferences between the two schools.
According to Schwartz, the University of Maryland and MC would conduct a conference together yearly, rotating host schools.
"It is a great opportunity for students to attend conferences of this quality," said Schwartz.
"It is a good way to expand learning beyond the classroom."
Schwartz said if such a merger takes place, the joint conferences would begin next year.
END OF MARIETTA COLLEGE RESULTS
ST LOUIS 1999 RESULTS FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
