School Gardens, The Future of American Education, Bush-Cheney, and My Husband

Trust me. This is all related. Lex, who blogs at Scholars & Rogues, posted a thoughtful comment in response to the Caitlin Flanagan garden brew-haha (is that how that's spelled). See it here. One of his points rang true at our household this week. Lex writes that

But given the economic reality of America, very few of these children will actually better their socio-economic situation by really cracking the books. The private sector hasn’t created a job in a decade now; recent college graduates are looking at massive unemployment numbers; and the jobs generally available can be done by trained monkeys.

I've noted here my concerns about the future of the American economy, especially the fact that in terms of research and intellectual development, the U. S. is being out-paced, quickly, by other countries, most especially China.

That concern came home --- literally --- this week. Unless you've been lost in space for the past year, you know that the "economy" is in trouble and that's especially true at the state level. Eg, California teeters on bankruptcy, Utah has put some state workers on four-day weeks, and so forth. One institution that's taking a hit these days is the "state" university. When times get hard, state legislators cut university budgets.

My husband is on the faculty at the state university here in Ames (Iowa State, to be precise). Last year, university administrators were told to cut the budget and this week they finally released the plan for Round One of the cuts. (They were just told to expect millions more in cuts, so presumably Round Two is not far behind.)

The deans in the College of Liberal Arts, the school that houses my husband's department, decided to divide its departments into four groups. One group --- consisting of sciences --- will continue to function as conventional research departments. (The faculty will be rewarded for its research and, to a lesser extent, for its teaching.) The other three groups contain the departments that have been "demoted" to a mostly or a strictly teaching function. Two groups will still be allowed some research time.

But one group gets none. Those departments will function as strictly "service" departments. No more new faculty. No research. Most likely no majors or upper level courses. My husband's department --- philosophy --- falls into that group.

He's trying to be, um, philosophical about it. But he places the blame not on bureaucrats, not on state legislators, but on George Bush and Dick Cheney. He argues that during their eight years, they sold off the country's future, got us into horrific debt (which, obviously, we were already in before GW was elected), and created today's mess: We're abandoning substantive education, ceding a future of intellectual development, inventions, technology, and so forth to, mostly, the Chinese.

Leaving us to squabble over things like whether kids should spend a half hour a day planting tomatoes and pulling weeds. 'Cause that's what people do when all the important stuff's been decided: fight over the crumbs of pie, while the winners feast on the pie itself.

Sam Fromartz on Caitlin Flanagan

Sam Fromartz, author of the excellent Organic, Inc. (which I've mentioned here before and plan to keep mentioning until I can persuade everyone to read it) has weighed in on the anti-Alice-Waters essay I mentioned in my previous post.

You can read his take at his blog, Chews Wise. Definitely worth reading. He and I land on opposite sides of the fence on this issue, but I think his critique is more pointed than others I've read. Oddly, he criticizes Waters for precisely the same reason I criticized the essayist at Civil Eats. (Eg, let's not confuse food policy with educational policy.) I think we can conclude that using gardens-in-the-school as either a route to or criticism of educational policy in general doesn't work.

Or something like that.) (Not being terribly coherent here: am trying to keep my brain focused on writing the  middle third of the new book. That means not letting myself get distracted by other juicy brain-fodder.)

Food Fight Over School Gardens

The current issue of Atlantic magazine has a fascinating essay by Caitlin Flanagan who criticizes the "school garden" movement launched by restaurateur/food "guru" Alice Waters. (*1)

The whole school-gardening thing has bugged me, but I couldn't quite put my finger on why, until I read this essay. And then I started nodding my head. Yep, that's the problem. Yep.

In the interest of fairness, of course, I also direct you to a thoughtful, smart rebuttal at the website Civil Eats. And make sure there to read the comments. I think the essayist at Civil Eats (an Iowa chef named Kurt  Michael Friese) makes good points.

But I also think his own critique smooshes the dividing line between Flanagan's critique of the garden movement with his own critique of the current educational system in the United States. He'dve been better off sticking to one topic. In any case, both essays are worth reading.

Although, cough cough, both of course manage to take a fairly tiny part of the "food debate" and inflate it into Something Monumental. In the general scheme of things, Waters' idea is fairly small potatoes (no pun intended). Still, it's indicative of the extent to which there is a debate and there is conflict about food in America that such a seemingly small matter can take on a life of its own.

____________

*1: Full disclosure at the outset: I'm not a big fan of Waters, if only because of what I think of as nearly narcissistic hypocrisy on her part. She claims to care about food, nutrition, etc. But according to everything I've ever heard and read, including an adulatory biography (*2) that came out a few years ago, waste is no problem with her. If a bunch of spinach, for example, is not perfect --- and I do mean perfect --- it gets tossed. Not just the bad leaves; the entire bunch. Hello? I mean, I could see not serving squished leaves on a plate when the restaurant is charging $30 for the plate of salad, but to toss the entire bunch? Hello??

*2: The biography, written by Thomas McNamee, is quite good: well-written and researched, lively, engaging. But it does lean toward the adulatory, so much so that the irony of Waters' attitude toward wasting food is lost on McNamee. Still, it's a good book and I recommend it.

Yo! Bring Out Your Inner Editor (aka More Text From the Work-In-Progress)

I had fun with the first round, so here ya go: more bite-sized text to edit. Click on the link and you'll get a piece of text from the draft of my new manuscript. This is from what I expect will be chapter three. Thank you in advance!

Oh: to answer a question posed in the comments section of the first entry on this subject: Yes, legally, this is okay. I'm only posting small chunks of a draft, which is akin to what I'd do if I were in a writer's group and posted my draft for critique from group members. So feel free; the editing/copyright police won't come get you.

The Food Fighters' New Year Resolution? Aim for Civility

There was a nice piece in yesterday's Los Angeles Times, in which food writer Russ Parsons urges both sides of the "food fight" to aim for civility (which is only another way of saying "Could ya stop yammering and start listening?).

I'm sure he's not the only one hoping for more discussion and less lunacy, but unlike others, he offers a specific, practical list of assumptions both sides need to dump. It's worth reading, if only because it's more pragmatic and substantive than most of what's out there.

Not, mind you, that I see much hope any time soon for a) civil debate; or b) informed debate. Sadly, most of those doing the talking (shouting? yammering?) argue (if you can call it that) their case based on muddle-headed assumptions, which (you can see this coming, right?) stem from lack of knowledge about the history of American agriculture, and especially the history of federal farm policies.

Anyway, worth a read if you have the time. Tip o' the mug in this case to Tom Philpott, who blogs at Grist and who wrote his own response to Parsons' essay. (Also worth reading if only because it's a near-perfect example of the "Big Ag is the devil" side of the debate.)

In Which I Dive Into the Digital Age Deep End

The good folks at Book Oven are among those trying to figure out what "writing" and "books" mean in the twenty-first century. (The link takes you to the site's home page; once there, you can check out their blog, twitter link, etc.)

Among their other projects, they've created a site called Bite-Size Edits, where control freaks like me can throw caution to the wind and let you, the reader, help write/edit our books.

(Yes, I am a control freak. The very idea of turning my text loose, unedited, unfinished, unpolished is unnerving. But what's life for but to learn and grow?) So you are hereby invited to join the process.

It works like this: I post some text at the Bite-Size site. The site software spits it back out in small chunks (bytes/bites. Get it?) and you have at it. So go! Have fun! Here's the link