Toast to the Tutors

Toast to the Tutors, Summer 2016
Graduate Institute (Annapolis)
Delivered 3 August 2016
       
It is perhaps common, and indeed even laudatory, for these toasts to ask some variation of an entirely worthwhile question, what do the tutors do for us? or what purpose they serve with their questions. But I want to approach this toast from a slightly different angle, not so much what the tutors give us or do for us; but what they show us about the very act of tutoring; that is, the act implicit in the title of tutor. This is, I freely confess, a selfish question from someone who is by profession a teacher, even one called upon to run “seminars” and have my students dialogue with the great thinkers and writers our civilization (the catch--when they can barely dialogue with themselves!). In these circumstances I am quite fortunate as a teacher, even if I look with envy at the rarefied air of St. John’s method and practice, so wholly focused and intent on learning from the great books that even the happiest teacher should be jealous.

In as much as I have come to St. John’s the last four summers as a student, I have also come as a teacher to this “teacher summer camp.” And here I would suggest that for those interested in developing and practicing their craft of teaching, there are no better models than our dear tutors we are fortunate to have here at St. John’s. The poor student cannot be a good teacher--and if the poor student has the appearance of being a good teacher, we might correctly judge them to be false teachers, who at best might find their way at times but cannot truly instruct. One of the etymologies given for tutor--and here the secondary teacher shows his true colors, for words mean things and who can argue with the Oxford English Dictionary when cited in the classroom--we see the Latin root suggests the idea of guardianship, and so the tutors are the guardians and defenders of the great books and the ideas contained within! But that is not quite right in our usage, for we operate here with the assumption that all can consider and learn from the text, and surely such great books do not need custodians to illuminate their meaning.

Looking further we see the early English usage, a fellow of Oxford or Cambridge assigned to the supervision of undergraduates, or even “a senior boy appointed to help a junior boy in his studies.” This strikes me as far closer to what we are aiming for at St. John’s when we describe the faculty of the college as tutors, students helping students wrestle with the great texts that they themselves wrestle with. To be sure, they are highly qualified and credentialed students, experienced and well-read far beyond ordinary students. But they are students none the less, wrestling with the same texts and the same questions that we as students wrestle with in our first reading. And in that struggle, we may learn from them just as much as we learn from the text. This is not to discount the program that gives life to the college, but to suggest that the diverse approaches to dialogue practiced by the tutors is their most explicit act of teaching. We learn from them how to approach texts, how to dialogue about texts, and how to reflect on texts. In this tutors serve as the models of the community of learning that St. John’s desires and practices; tutors do not teach what is to be learned but teach how we ourselves ought to learn.

Opening questions perhaps are the most obvious example of how tutors teach us how to how to approach a text, and who here does not remember fondly many opening questions that have haunted or amused them. But the opening question only to set the stage for dialogue, not determine it; the follow up questions and references to the text are what make the drama and learning of dialogue so valuable. Here the perspectives of the tutors is most useful, and their knowledge of how to read most beneficial. They call us back to the text when we have gone awry, and introduce connections that might be missed in first or second readings. Everyone in seminar, of course, has read the text and considered it in some capacity; tutors help us see how we might do so in deeper and more fruitful ways.

Tutors also show us how to dialogue about text. In his “Notes on Dialogue” Stringfellow Barr remarks that “‘participational democracy’ consists in everybody's listening intently; it does not consist in what commercial television calls equal time.” This is quite contrary to the common norms of so-called democratic education, where everyone’s voice is equal. If understanding a text is the purpose of dialogue, however, listening becomes far more important. And in this our tutors are masters, listening closely both to the text and the discussion, and responding and questioning not for their own sake but for the sake of understanding. Barr compares good dialogue to a basketball team, where the ball is advanced and passed not for personal glory but for the goal of a basket. In our seminars there is no opposing team, only the goal of understanding, and here tutors lead by their consistent example.

Both reading and listening are forms of reflection on the text, in that they require the humility to hear what is being said and carefully consider it against the argument itself and not oneself. To reflect is to wonder, to ponder what makes something so, to always consider it anew. I fondly remember a certain tutor--who is perhaps speaking at commencement on Friday--expressing delight at a fairly unoriginal and mundane observation in Virgil. “I’d never thought of it that way!” he said with manifest joy. “Liar,” I thought to myself, “you’ve read it a hundred times.” How foolish I was to think this, to assume that a text could ever be so familiar as to be beyond reflection. To be a tutor is to approach the text with new eyes on a daily basis, to ask what else it might have to teach us today. We all have sincerely wondered this when faced with Kant or Vico or Plato for the first time; but to maintain this spirit of inquiry as a mode of living is the mark of a true student. As students we know this; and those of us who are teachers must take it to heart lest become stale and false in our instruction.
Please raise your glasses and join me, classmates, in a toast to these students and models of inquiry, our dear tutors and true students of learning:

To the tutors, who teach us to read the text and just the text;

To the tutors, who ask us why? and thereby bring us into the community of dialogue that we might
learn alongside them;

To the tutors, who might read a book twenty times, have had many seminars and papers on said book; or even have written their own book about it; and in rereading  a particular passage, may come know it for the first time;

To the tutors, the best students of the best books, who choose to spend their summers dialoguing with us for the sake of learning, the best teachers;

Cheers!

Notes: Reflection and Choice vs. Accident and Force: The Making of the Constitution Webinar

Reflection and Choice versus Accident and Force: The Making of the Constitution

Ashbrook Center at Ashland University
TeachingAmericanHistory.org / Saturday Webinar
(50 Core Documents Series)

Informational Perma Link

Required Readings

• James Madison’s Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 (excerpts) (May 31 and June 6, 1787)
• Constitution of the United States (September 17, 1787)
• Brutus I (October 18, 1787)
• The Federalist No. 1 (October 27, 1787)
• Brutus II (November 1, 1787)
• The Federalist No. 10 (November 22, 1787)
• The Federalist No. 51 (February 6, 1788)

Presenters

• Christopher Burkett, Associate Professor of Political Science at Ashland University
• Peter Schramm, Senior Fellow and Ashbrook Scholar Program Director at Ashland University
• Gordon Lloyd, Honored Visiting Graduate Faculty at Ashland University

Discussion Notes

100 Years ago Charles Beard published his Economic Interpretation of the US, arguing a new take on the American Founding, that it was done for selfish economic class reasons. Represents a fairly significant change in the study of the founding, numerous new alternative views developing. So how can we take the founding seriously? Beard’s approach is interesting, because his view must underlie every word and document from the Constitution and the founding. Flip it and give a constitutional interpretation of the economic theory! (Gordon Lloyd). Forrest McDonald et. al. challenging this underlying progressive assumption that ideas don’t matter, only circumstances matter and the ideas follow.

In fairness, similar conflicts existed at the founding. Dispute between the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist was about the greatest challenge to liberty—both sides agreed that elections were not enough to prevent tyranny, but far deeper details.

Why are the progressives so vital even today? Because we haven’t completely solved the problems of inequality and democracy…and they are very concerned with that challenge. Close connection to how you view private property—is it an absolute and therefore okay to limit to the few, or alright to claim in the name of the many.

Ironic that Progressives really brought back the reading of the Federalist Papers, Beard reviving No. 10 esp. as a document protecting private property (ergo class interest). Madison understood in his context that property and liberty were the same thing (with the whole problem of chattel slavery). But even until the 70s documents weren’t really read by your typical students…viewed through Beard and a few others. Ultimately the reason a place like Ashbrook reads documents straight—without the interpretation of Beard et. al.—is an opening assumption that the human mind is free and able to rationally consider and think for itself; ergo Beard et. al. don’t provide any mystical understanding and frequently cloud the waters. Not that they are irrelevant, but not the source. Ad fontes. And in this case that means reading Wilson instead of Beard.

What we see is that there is a compelling logic and reason behind the constitution, not just an accidental structure that emerges. Again, an appreciation for the ability of the human mind to reflect and choose, not simply a ‘belief’ in humans ‘rights’ (i.e. freedom, but corrupted by the French). America perhaps the only country in the world that was “born talking” (Peter Schramm)—that is we came into being as a country with a deliberate, considered, thoughtful debate about who we should be and what our core beliefs would be. Current challenge and debate is what sort of freedom do we desire? Thinking today says “if one fat kid is left behind” we are doing it wrong; but that becomes dangerous to freedom. So what do we want government to do? Can have a freedom that is dangerous to government; and a government that is dangerous to freedom.

Consider: life is so complicated today, we needs lots of experts and systems to make life work. Is good government then administrative government? Need good scientists and bureaucrats etc. Very different question! Though not the first time it has happened…the ratification was the first major dispute or four or five, which are always revisiting the old ones:

1. Ratification
2. Lincoln and the Civil War dispute over Freedom
3. Wilson’s Progressive Vision
4. FDR? (con’t of above)
5. Technology and Terror

Opposite of slavery is not, for instance, equality, it is liberty. Opposite of tyranny is consent of the governed. It is fascinating how the early progressive vision was passed through the constitutional mechanism of amendments: the 15-18th were radical amendments, yet passed through 2/3 of the Congress & 3/4 of the states. Later progressive vision is through courts and gov’t—bureaucratic administrative expertise state. The next amendment? The Twentieth Amendment, which limits the powers of the president, and then the 22nd Amendment which attempts to limit the executive any further. Both a bit of an anti-federalist return.

Long diversion on the Tea Party as restoration of the anti-federalists…not really. Action ≠ thoughtful deliberation or engagement; fascinating that conservatives have adopted the more progressive idea of action and movements in place of reasonable debate. Entirely different perceptions of government…Coolidge said there wasn’t much to do as president, since then everyone has seen it as a call to action, problem solving! Politics as War…Roosevelt’s War Power kicking the can down the road rather than solving problems; gov’t isn’t really designed to solve problems, it is designed for liberty under the same roof. All about compromise and long-term perspectives; in our modern perspective politics is a declaration of war!

Constitution to (a) restrain gov’t powers or (b) solve problems. Radically different imaginations of what government should do and will do; hence the different views of courts, etc. Conversation between Madison and Sherman on June 6th, who slowly come to an understanding. Reflection a necessary element of deliberation.

Practically speaking, kids don’t understand this perspective on gov’t at all. Best solution is always to go back to the beginning. Remember that historically rule was determined by whoever had the biggest guns! Aristotle traces things back to our passions—hunger and sex! Put that into view and you can work your way forward to a very different view of government not as provider but protector. As Hamilton points out in Federalist 9, all governments, republics to tyrannies, fail in this regard, and all the quicker when they attempt to do anything more than protect the people. Different definitions of “security;” ability to enjoy liberty v. “job security.”

Back to the idea of deliberation…notice how when we think of government and laws we think first of the president and the courts, not the Congress! Fascinating mixup, Congress is suppose to be our thoughtful element and the progressive vision completely ignores that; far more than the anti-Federalists would have ever dreamed possible (substituting a different sort of tyranny instead). The number of people Congress is suppose to represent is a huge part of this problem; 1:600,000 ratio isn’t really representative or thoughtful at all. And really no good way to fix that in a republic of our size. Voter turnout and voter literacy about who their representative is v. who the president is also quite telling here. Probably the best way is a return of many of the functions of government back to the state and local government…and local institutions! Private schools, local aid societies; civic education, etc.

Another reminder that freedom is not lack of restraint. Reiteration of earlier points. FDR’s strange half-breed understanding. Why are young people better understand gov’ts role in freedom of speech than other protection of liberties instead of something like education or welfare? Natural sense that speech is a very fundamental part of their existence and liberty. Necessary to connect to broader world and role of government. Their idea is that gov’t is to make us free not only from our fears, but also our problems in the democratic world. Difference in who applies the restraint—for the modern democratic man, it is society; for the founders, it is ourselves. Means a vastly different role for government.

So ask your students: what areas of life are they capable of governing themselves? What food you eat? Who you should date? Which pills you can take? Riding your bike? Where do you draw the line about what we can do or not do?

Democratic consensus is majority rule; Rousseau’s vision says everyone agrees before something can be done. Absolutely absurd; Locke would never buy it. Rousseau’s line that people “must be forced to be free.” Slightly problematic? Perhaps the most we can do is nudge them.

(Talking about the counties in Northern Colorado that are attempting to secede? Is secession a valid attempt from the founding perspective? Seems more like a realization of the limits of the conversation and the whole inability to compromise. Obviously one hopes it isn’t necessary…but the CSA was definitely a case where the conversation had no future. Fascinating side into Rousseau/Hobbes idea that there is no ‘exit’ right from government; Locke gives you a small exit right but under strict conditions. Whereas today we have no-fault divorce in almost all the states, no real reason required or even therapy (appeal to the experts). No-fault divorce and secession both seen to abandon the idea of deliberation and working to overcome differences. Revolution as the traditional exit right; states aren’t sacred and don’t have inherit rights.)

Still trapped in the notion that action is simply the implementation of previously agreed upon policy. Not really. An election is not a “mandate” because the people do not speak with one unified voice. Elections are just one small part of the overall discussion…instead we seem to view them as imperative voices-of-god that mysteriously seem to to run into thousands of problems when attempted to implement. Haste to execute before deliberation, “we won’t know what’s in the bill till we put it into action” (Nancy Pelosi). And when it doesn’t work we say “we didn’t sell it properly!” Politics has simply become policy salesmanship…not thinking or compromise. One of the great reasons we need to reclaim federalism…yes, Jim Crowe happened. But the policy overall can be quite healthy (pot excluded, perhaps). A valve and view worth reclaiming.

Three Root Questions We Must Always Ask:

1. What should gov’t do? At elections, at votes, at every possible opportunity.
2. Which level of gov’t should do this?
3. And which branch of gov’t should do this? Constitutional prudence dictates it…as power always tends towards terrible centralization.

Q: President seems like the papacy…somehow representing everyone. A: Liberty and infallibility never go together.

Very sidelining discussion about diversity and discrimination related to the idea of federalism; challenge of the idea of absolute equality in all things across all states at all times…big difference between owning another human v. manufacturing intoxicating liquor. There is a line in somewhere that we seem ignorant of. Same dilemma with just war v. unjust war. We desperately want a one-size fits all; perhaps a result of the very ideas embodied in the Declaration of Independence of universal claims! Distinction between universalizing core values and universalizing particular values…Jefferson was not a Kantian; one size does not fit all in all regards and Jefferson understood that (contra John Rawls). A denial of prudence.

2013-11-02