Count Me Out

We have to develop a counternarrative to explain what we do; we don't need more [if there were an html code for scornful tone of voice, I would insert it before this noun] "data"!

— colleague, in debate about the means of improving student retention and measuring educational outcomes

One of the big buzzwords in education and management, and—well, come to think of it—almost every field of endeavor is "assessment." I once went to a whole conference dedicated to it, though I didn't realize it till I got there. Boy, was that a mistake (and this, even before the airport was snowed in and the foundation didn't want to spring for the hotel room; but I digress). I thought we were going there to share project results, and we did that, but a large portion of the weekend was devoted to rather inane lectures and exhortations on the topic of assessment. And in case we forgot any of the material, one hectoring consultant gave us each a free mousepad on which were imprinted the seven principles of "planning an evaluation." An object to be treasured.

It's easy to make fun of this drivel, but I know that there was an underlying purpose. Individuals and organizations are increasingly held accountable: to demonstrate effective use of funds, or simply to document their claims. And, in order to do that, one has to have evidence. Most claims about performance are expressed in terms that are comparative and thus at least implicitly measurable. Indeed, how can you possibly tell—much less, demonstrate to someone else— that whatever you are doing has increased or improved without recourse to some quantitative measure?

I can understand and sympathize with some of the faculty resistance to the creeping culture of consultants, what is seen as administrative micromanagement or surveillance, and so forth. At least these are things that one can debate. It's similar to the problem of "No Child Left Behind" and an emphasis on standardized testing that leads to "teaching to the test" rather than teaching in order to convey anything of greater substance. Fine.

Far deeper and more dismaying, though, is the inveterate resistance to measurement, as such, indeed, the notion that any sort of quantifiable evidence is weaker than descriptive or anecdotal evidence, by definition a "fiction," and generally just not something to be taken seriously.

One thing that always amazes me: No one ever (well, until the previously cited speaker and others of a like mind—or mindlessness) boasts about being illiterate, yet it is all too common to hear supposedly educated academics say, "oh, I don't understand graphs," or "statistics confuse me."

Already two decade ago, John Allen Paulos observed, with alarm:

Innumeracy, an inability to deal comfortably with the fundamental notions of numbers and chance, plagues far too many otherwise knowledgeable citizens. The same people who cringe when words such as 'imply' and 'infer' are confused react without a trace of embarrassment to even the most egregious of numerical solecisms. I remember once listening to someone at a party drone on about the difference between 'continually' and 'continuously.' Later that evening we were watching the news, and the TV weathercaster announced that there was a 50 percent chance of rain for Saturday and a 50 percent chance for Sunday, and concluded that there was therefore a 100 percent chance of rain that weekend. The remark went right by the self-styled grammarian, and even after I explained the mistake to him, he wasn't nearly as indignant as he would have been had the weathercaster left a dangling participle. In fact, unlike other failings which are hidden, mathematical innumeracy is often flaunted: 'I can't even balance my checkbook.' 'I'm a people person, not a numbers person.' Or 'I always hated math.'

He has some explanations:

Part of the reason for this perverse pride in mathematical ignorance is that its consequences are not usually as obvious as are those of other weaknesses.

He further attributes this arrogant ignorance in part to flawed education, but mainly to psychological factors:

Some people personalize events excessively, resisting an external perspective, and since numbers and an impersonal view of the world are intimately related, this resistance contributes to an almost willful innumeracy.

Quasi-mathematical questions arise naturally when one transcends one's self, family, and friends. How many? How long ago? How far away? How fast? What links this to that? Which is more likely? How do you integrate your projects with local, national, and international events? with historical, biological, geological, and astronomical time scales?

People too firmly rooted to the center of their lives find such questions uncongenial at best, quite distasteful at worst. Numbers and 'science' have appeal for these people only if they're tied to them personally

—Innumeracy (NY, 1988), 3-4, 80-81

Solipsism over statistics: perfectly explains what I see around me every day.

Whatever the explanation, it's really a disgrace. Or is it an embarrassment? Oh, well, seven of one, a half dozen of another.

Eye-Sore

"We're still tied up in the word and the number and that old hierarchy. The image was there before the word, and we are really going very fuddy-duddy."

—faculty member, in discussion of curriculum and standards, criticizing the emphasis on improving student writing, analytical reasoning, and quantitative skills

Huh?

Can't remember when I last heard the term, "fuddy-duddy." Come to think of it, anyone old enough to use it without irony must have become one himself.

Dude! It's the twenty-first century. Time to put those bell bottoms out for the tag sale.

Not quite sure why, if the image was there before the word, it is regressive to emphasize the latter. Then again, if you don't value logical reasoning . . . And as for that "number" stuff: try making sense of the financial crisis or healthcare reform without it.

The Write Stuff

"I'm curious as to why we think all students need to write well."

—faculty member in discussion about requirements and standards

Oh, I don't know:

Because this is an institution of higher learning?

So that they won't be illiterate idiots?

Geez.

In fairness, I believe the point had something to do with the need to value visual arts and expressive culture, as well. No argument there, in principle.

The fact remains, however: Many skills are important, but in a given context, there are hierarchies. There is, after all, a reason that, when I go to the Registry of Motor Vehicles to renew my driver's license, I am given a vision rather than hearing test.

And colleagues wonder why people hold us and our institutions of higher learning in such low esteem.

Amherst Then and Now: "a rat-tailed, razzle-dazzle ball of energy," or "paranoia—punch-drunk with intellectualism"?

Amherst Town Meeting concluded in what seemed to be record time: a mere two sessions. All proposed measures, from zoning changes to the controversial proposal to bring Guantanamo detainees here, passed.

As we stand poised between politics and history, I am reminded of the epigraph of Frank Prentice Rand's The Village of Amherst: A Landmark of Light a pretentiously titled but in fact very useful volume from our centennial era (Amherst Historical Society, 1958):

Parable

Three men were, as the saying goes, looking at Amherst, and loving her.

One of them said, "She's a madonna lily,"

"Do you mean that she's like a madonna lily?"

"No, she is a madonna lily."

Another said, "She's a rat-tailed, razzle-dazzle ball of energy."

The third man said, "She's paranoia—punch-drunk with intellectualism."

A small boy, who had been hiding, blew a strident toot on his toy trumpet, and ran away to join his playmates at Hartling Stake.

Okay. I have no idea what it means, either.

Guantanamo in Amherst

Amherst Town Meeting approves measure to invite cleared Guantanamo
detainees--overwhelmingly, by voice vote.
Sent from my iPhone

Breaking news: Anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss dead at age 100

Claude Lévi-Strauss est mort
L'anthropologue et ethnologue Claude Lévi-Strauss est mort dans la nuit de samedi à dimanche à l'âge de 100 ans, indique, mardi 3 novembre, l'Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales.

2 November 1917: The Balfour Declaration Paves the Way for a Jewish National Home

The declaration by the British Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour, addressed to Lionel Walter Rothschild, honorary president of the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland, paves the way for the creation of a modern Jewish state.

Medal issued to commemorate the 50th

anniversary of the Declaration

November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour

In this age of growing global "buyer's remorse" concerning the creation of the State of Israel, the Declaration has been subject to increasing criticism. Most of it, of course, is not as vulgar as the statement by the official Palestine News Agency (WAFA), which today called the occasion "black day in the history of the Palestinian people, also in the history of humanity, and a blow to justice and international legitimacy," and in addition criticized the UN Partition vote:

Jews have been able to exploit that clip from Arthur Balfour known proximity
of the Zionist movement, and then the Mandate, and the decision of the
General Assembly in 1947

though failing to note that the latter would have created the longed-for Palestinian state more than 60 years ago. (An interesting lens on the prospects for dialogue, peace, and reconciliation, incidentally.)

Still, the document and the motives behind it are rather more complex than even less crude interpretations might suggest. Far from giving the Zionists carte blanche, the Declaration in its final form was a carefully worded, deliberately ambiguous text, intended to serve, first and foremost, British imperial interests—which themselves were more subtle and multifaceted than many commentators imagine. More on all that later, perhaps. In the meantime, one example.

Nowadays, with the presumed benefit of hindsight, we probably tend to focus on the phrase, "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine," while passing over, unthinkingly, the subsequent phrase: "or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." The difference is instructive—and elusive. The first reference is deliberately and explicitly to civil and religious rather than national rights. In other words, the document sees a national home for one people and the human rights of peoples of another nationality living within it as entirely reconcilable. This was an article of faith, indeed, a matter of necessity in the attempt to remake the post-Great War world, whether on the basis of Wilsonian principles or Realpolitik. Because national-political and ethnic boundaries could not be identical and at the same time yield functional states with contiguous territories, attempting to apply the vaunted principle of self-determination for any given people in the lands of the former multi-ethnic empires of the Central Powers necessarily led to the presence of national minorities. Hence, minority rights, sometimes codified by treaty, became a prominent issue. In that sense, the future Palestine Mandate was really no different from Czechoslovakia or Poland.

The second phrase, however, presents a somewhat different challenge. Why should support for Zionist goals and creation of a Jewish "national home" prompt a statement about Jews living elsewhere? The original draft language proposed by the Zionist leaders Chaim Weizmann and Nahum Sokolow referred to "the national home of the Jewish people," in keeping with established doctrine. The British government insisted on the indefinite article. One of the implicit issues here was one that the Zionists had always had to contend with: the prospect that, if a Jewish state were established, either the Jews living elsewhere would be suspected of dual loyalty, or the existing states might seize the opportunity to expel them against their will. Some Jews feared that the clause might in fact embolden antisemitic expulsionists. Balfour himself evidently thought that the action and the clause would improve and clarify matters: Jews who wanted to emigrate to a national home could do so, while those who chose to remain where they were would in so doing incontrovertibly demonstrate their loyalty and, accordingly, assimilate all the more rapidly and fully.

Rededication of Amherst's South Church After Preservation Work and Energy-Efficiency Improvements

Nick Grabbe, "South Church celebrates 'new life'," Amherst Bulletin, 30 October:

South Congregational Church has just completed more than $500,000 in structural and energy efficiency improvements to its 1824 building on the South Amherst common.

At this Sunday's 10 a.m. service, the building will be rededicated. During her sermon, the Rev. Caroline Meyers will display items that were found in the walls, including old church bulletins, newspapers and nails, a beveled mirror, and a jelly jar with jelly still in it.

"The church really wants to make a pledge to the future of the church that says this building is not just for us," Meyers said. "We see it as a place where we want to continue to be a community of the faithful for generations to come." (read the rest)

It is interesting to note the contrast with North Church. The latter has far fewer members, struggled heroically to come up with the funds for emergency repairs following storm damage to the steeple and roof, and then saw its plea for a modest $ 7000 in Community Preservation Act funds to complete the repairs rejected at last spring's Town Meeting. Both churches are "contributing structures" in their respective national historic register districts, and we can only hope that both will continue to generate the loyalty and resources that they need. They are part of the cultural patrimony (as the French would say) of the town as a whole.

Dickinson Damage Day 7

The new website of the Emily Dickinson Museum went live at the end of last week, and it contains the good news that the Museum reopened on October 31, "with a new tour highlighting Emily Dickinson's relationship to her brother's family next door."

it also reports on the damage from the ceiling collapse, in the form of both the original press release:

AMHERST, MASS.--On the afternoon of Oct. 25, the plaster ceiling in the front parlor of the Emily Dickinson Museum’s Homestead fell into the room. Although the building was open for tours, no one was in the room at the time of the incident; there were no injuries to staff or visitors. In order to complete a thorough safety review of the facility and assess the extent of the damages, the Emily Dickinson Museum will be closed Oct. 26 to 30 and/or until the building undergoes a full inspection. An estimate of the value of the damages is forthcoming.

and this update (with photo):

IN THE SIX YEARS SINCE ITS ESTABLISHMENT IN 2003, the Emily Dickinson Museum has taken giant steps in preservation, restoration, and maintenance of its two historic buildings and landscape. The Museum has completed several assessment, documentation and planning studies of the buildings and grounds, as well as preparation of a master plan for overall restoration. We’ve also kept up a brisk pace of preservation projects: restoration of the Homestead’s exterior to its nineteenth-century colors, replacement of its electrical system, new state-of-the art fire detection systems in both historic houses, perimeter drainage around both houses to solve moisture problems, as well as numerous smaller projects. Most recently, the Museum Board spearheaded a stellar restoration of the historic hedge and fence along the 1,000-foot southern property line.

EVEN WITH THIS FULL RECORD OF STEWARDSHIP AND RESTORATION, SURPRISES HAPPEN. One such bolt from the blue was the October 25 ceiling collapse in the Homestead parlor. The cause of the incident is being reviewed as part of a structural investigation. The plaster was not part of the original house fabric, but had been installed during the twentieth century. Photographs of the dramatic event show the entire front parlor ceiling lying across the room with furniture and objects only partially visible behind the sheet of plaster. Miraculously, and thankfully, no one was hurt. Just as astonishing is that damage to artifacts was very limited. Among half a dozen pieces of furniture, only one was seriously damaged, and of half a dozen smaller artifacts belonging to Emily Dickinson's family, only one suffered harm. This incident highlights the tremendous challenges facing those responsible for the stewardship of our nation's historic and cultural sites.

Halloween, Angels, and Demons: Now That's Scary!

Barry Rubin relates another tale of the solicitude or squeamishness of American schools, drawn from his 10-year-old son's experience as a visitor in the Maryland school system. Earlier postings involved the tendency to discourage aggressiveness and praise even mediocre performance on the playing field, a reluctance to discuss September 11 because it was not "pleasant," and the banning of violent themes even in a fantasy writing assignment. This one has to do with the dangers of Halloween:

In the United States, mainly, there is a holiday called Halloween which involves dressing up in costumes. The holiday has a bit of a morbid side to it, often focussing on things related to monsters and death. Today, the school had the kids wear the costumes to class, which is not necessarily the best use of time in academic terms.

However, and I never heard of this happening before--my 10-year-old son Daniel reports from the front--that certain costumes are forbidden, that is those deemed too scary for the younger children to see. For example, a student wearing a skeleton costume was asked to take it off, while others were forbidden from wearing masks thought to be too frightening.

I can think of a lot of political figures whose visage is far more scary than any imaginery goblins and ghouls. But I digress.

Yeah, so can I. But I can think of something even scarier: the superstition and credulity of the American population. The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life informs us that a solid majority believes in apparitions and evil supernatural powers:

According to a 2007 Pew Research survey, two-thirds of Americans (68%) completely or mostly agree that angels and demons are active in the world (and not just on Halloween). Just 14% completely disagree with this idea. Among religious groups, Mormons (88%), evangelical Christian (87%) and members of historically black churches (87%) are the most likely to agree that angels and demons are active in the world. Jewish Americans are by far the most likely to disagree that these spirits stalk the planet (73% disagree with 52% completely disagreeing). Buddhists (56% disagree), Hindus (55%) and the religiously unaffiliated (54%) are other faith groups disagreeing that angels and demons exist in our world. Happy Halloween!

By contrast, barely a quarter of Americans believe, in some form or fashion, in evolution. It may be even worse than that. Pew Research, dislocating a shoulder to pat itself on the back, boasts of the subtlety of its question and accuracy of its method. Well, the only reason it got an answer that topped the 25-percent mark was because it framed the question in such a pusillanimous way:

Pew Research's formulation provides a significantly more positive description of the scientific position by characterizing natural selection as "a natural process" rather than something "God had no part in." This implicitly allows people who believe that God or a supreme being set the evolutionary process in motion, or even shaped it in some way, to still opt for "natural selection" as the main engine of evolution.

Well, that's very nice, if you want to know what people think about "natural selection" in a way that neither Darwin nor modern science would understand the term. Natural selection without chance is not natural selection.

By contrast, when Gallup forthrightly framed the poll statement as, "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process," only 14 percent assented.

Now, if you glance back up at the Pew results on angels and demons, you'll recall that 14 percent of the population absolutely reject such superstition. Coincidence?

Either way, it's pretty bad: Pew and Gallup arrived at nearly identical results by at least one measure, concluding, respectively, that 42 and 44 percent of Americans are believers in creationism.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.