[The Montana Professor 16.1, Fall 2005 <http://mtprof.msun.edu>]
James O. Freedman
Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2003
146 pp., $29.95 hc
Joanne A. Charbonneau
Liberal Studies
UM-Missoula
jc167543@emails.umt.edu
James O. Freedman, as president emeritus of both the University of Iowa and Dartmouth College, is eminently qualified to write about the importance of liberal education at a time when practical know-how, standardized testing, and high-paying jobs in technical fields are undermining confidence in the less tangible benefits of a liberal arts education. It is heartening for those of us in academia to know that some university presidents can and do share our vision of education and that one of them has published a collection of his lectures defending our lives' work.
In the seven chapters he defends activism and intellectual engagement for college presidents; explores the necessity for an open, pluralistic environment that nurtures each individual and sustains American democracy; praises education that has "redemptive potential to heighten the glories and exhilarations of life, as well as to prepare us for its trials and anxieties"(70); discusses An American Dilemma, The Affluent Society, The Uprooted, and The Lonely Crowd; celebrates John Gilbert Winant and Dorothy Day as exemplars of lives lived with conviction; asks college presidents to speak their consciences on sensitive political or social issues; and explains how honorary degrees should be conferred on people "worthy of emulation and admiration" (132).
Freedman's passion and commitment are clear, and at times he rises to eloquence as the best preachers do:
A liberal education seeks to strengthen students' capacities to deal with the world's and the nation's agendas, to expand their horizons, enrich their intellect, and deepen their spirit. It asks them to accept responsibility for their actions and for the welfare of others.
I nurture the ardent hope that a liberal education will encourage students to dedicate their talents, energy, and idealism to the task of what Faulkner called "finishing" the world. And even if, as Faulkner understood, the intractable reality of the human condition means that men and women will never be able to put their final signatures to the job and say, "It is finished. We made it, and it works," the effort of seeking to bring the world nearer to completion is an undertaking worthy of the most devout dedication. (xi)
Not many college presidents use this kind of rhetoric, and I am grateful that he does.
My gratitude is nonetheless mixed with disappointment and sadness concerning the book's failings. First is a problem with how the book is "packaged" and what it actually is: the dust jacket claims that this book is a "practical guide for those administrators struggling with such threatened institutions as tenure and affirmative action." This is misleading, since the book is more a theoretical defense of such an education than a practical roadmap. It offers few specific or practical ways of accomplishing the desired outcome to "advance the human condition" (ix). I do not remember any sustained discussion about how to deal practically, fairly, or ethically with the vexing issues concerning tenure and affirmative action, although Freedman does devote some pages to a philosophical and moral defense of each. In the pages on tenure (40-43), Freedman takes a lofty stand that society ought to say "we are prepared to permit you a lifetime of speculative thinking and let your mind roam and your ideas gestate, because we believe that the long-term results will benefit humankind and amply justify the commitment" (42). On affirmative action (46-51), he maintains racial and ethnic diversity as a noble goal. He sees educational opportunity as a marker of real progress in a nation, so that those "confined to the margins of society by poverty and discrimination" will aspire to "full participation in the promise of American life" (50). By speaking in such generalities, Freedman does not contribute much of substance to a spirited debate about problematic issues when faculty and administration have to grapple with competing interests or real conflicts with noble intentions on both sides of a contentious issue. In his own preface, he claims the book is "about the possibilities of presidential leadership in higher education" and "about the opportunities for college presidents to make the case for liberal education" (ix). But this high-sounding rhetoric does not match the reality of the text.
Packaging aside, the question of the intended audience remains unanswered, since five of the seven chapters were originally lectures delivered between 1997 and 2002 to very specific, targeted, and different audiences--none of whom were college presidents. Moreover, none of the lectures was ever intended for the general, educated reader interested in liberal arts education. This is a serious flaw in the construction and publication of this book since the original audiences have already heard his talks, and 4 of the 7 pieces are already published in appropriate venues (Harvard Magazine and The Chronicle of Higher Education). What is the purpose or necessity of re-publishing material already published elsewhere or to yoke together lectures as though an apologia, a sustained argument for liberal learning? The cynical reader might come to the conclusion that this volume is primarily self-serving (yet another publication for the author) when a spirited and fresh defense of liberal education would be most welcome. Because these lectures are published together as chapters of a single volume, the reader has every right to expect some coherency, some development of ideas: in short an integrated book. Instead it is a collection of six speeches on the same subject that fails to develop an argument for the importance of liberal education and the public interest, exactly what the title leads us to believe the book is.
Although the dust jacket describes Freedman as one who "speaks out clearly, lyrically, and sometimes bluntly," I found his prose descends too often into the banal. He loves clichés such as "bully pulpit" and seems to believe a noun should always be accompanied by an adjective, especially an expected or stale one. For example, in just fourteen lines of print (from the bottom of page 56 to the top of page 57), we find "distracting barrage," "frenetic movement," "suspended moments of silence," "humane education," "rich interior life," "enduring openness of mind," "sturdy private self," "baleful omnipresence of the media," and "compulsive urgency." A good editor should have swept away at least half of these adjectives. In his compulsive need to sound persuasive, Freedman too often lapses into prose that I presume he thinks sounds educated and profound. Instead it sounds like someone with a well-thumbed thesaurus and dearth of fresh ideas. To be fair, these pieces no doubt sounded better than they read in print. In fact, audiences probably found them compelling and powerful as speeches. However, that rhetorical power does not always translate well into print. The author should have taken the time to flesh out ideas, think more deeply, and give more thoughtful analyses than he could pack into 50-minute speeches. This is not to say that the text has not retained some of the power and grace of impassioned speech. But since he has not revised oral speech into carefully crafted chapters, the book is seriously flawed as written text.
Occasionally, Freedman seems to whine. In Chapter 1, for example, he decries the "proliferation of administrative responsibilities and internal pressures" (18) as well as the lack of time to read, reflect and engage in "intellectual pursuits" (22). His one specific suggestion is that "alumni, development, and ceremonial activities" be reduced to 10% of a president's schedule instead of consuming over 1/3 of his time. At other times, he adopts a self-congratulatory tone, as in Chapter 6 where he tells us at great length about his moral courage in speaking out against Dartmouth's history of anti-Semitism--but only after already announcing he was stepping down as president. In his dedication of the Roth Center for Jewish Life, he says "Jewish students at Dartmouth now had a place at which to come together" and adds that they now "feel a complete and significant part" (113) of Dartmouth's community. He seems unaware that a place apart contradicts the idea of being a "complete" part of a community. Thus, his imprecise language diminishes the power of his message.
It is a shame that the book is weak since Freedman is in a position to make a compelling case for the necessity of liberal arts education in the twenty-first century. It is a shame, too, since he obviously believes in the value and necessity of the liberal arts. It is a shame that Freedman, like many advocates of a liberal arts education, falls into the trap of hortatory declamations of "oughts" and "shoulds" without examining the "whys" and "hows" of accomplishing his laudatory goals. He could have filled in, added depth and important insights from his experiences, expertise, and thinking as a university president. While James O. Freedman does address the moral and theoretical imperatives of a true liberal education, the book is deeply flawed in its conception, audience, style, and coherency.
[The Montana Professor 16.1, Fall 2005 <http://mtprof.msun.edu>]