In print | Published September 28, 2006

To the Editor:

I find myself in a bit of a bind. Two weeks ago, I was quoted in a pull-out “blurb” for an article about John Brady Kiesling identifying what I believe(d) to be Swarthmore’s essential values. I did not mean to project these values onto every student as an individual but rather to the prevailing norms of the institution — those things that typically manifest under the generally negatively-connoted description “stereotype.” Somewhat ironically, my intent at a subtle criticism in my description of Keisling’s action as “unstrategic” was taken from its positive (this is what I see) basis and made normative (this is what is good) in an article last week by Maria Macia and Julian Moore. We have since resolved our differences in a few lovely chats and as it turns out, we agree in our critiques.

But, the question still remains as to whether my positive description of Swarthmore’s education in general as “unstrategic” is accurate? Can we as individuals affect a system without embracing its premises? Can the Kick Coke campaign, for example, score an ethical win big enough to challenge an economic reality? Having recently heard a more complete description of the campaign and its intentions, I think they can. But what our realist friends argue is that the only convincing argument is one made on the grounds of our opponents. Yet, perhaps we doubt this. Can our personal ideas and lives be revolutionary? Or do we have to embrace a prevailing system in order to change it? Maria and Julian have given a firm and affirmative answer in the political spectrum. I guess my question is do you feel that Swarthmore prepares you for this? If not, should it? I ask because I don’t know, and in the hope that, as has often happened in the past, conversations with interested peers can help me figure out where I stand.

Jeff Merkle ’07

« RETURN TO OPINIONS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »