GODDARD NEEDS TO GROW UP AND GET RID OF ITS PRESIDENCY

By Chris Mattson

Well, just when I thought I couldn't become more incensed or horrified by my local newspaper, I was struck by the uninformed and offensive editorial (April 23rd) commenting on Goddard struggles with its current president, Richard Greene. The editor's indictment of the Goddard faculty is not only written with a condescending and patronizing tone; it is also based on information which is not true. As a Goddard alumnus and a local educator concerned with justice and democracy, it pained me to read this abusive editorial.

I have witnessed three presidents at Goddard, all of whom experience criticism from the Goddard community. However, neither the Lindquist administration, fraught as it was with crises of fiscal mismanagement, nor the Kytle administration, beleaguered as it was with governance problems, earned a faculty vote of "no confidence." In fact, the faculty was conspicuously absent from public debate on the president's role during my time at Goddard. As a student leader during Kytle's reign, I often lobbied faculty members to act as a body and take a stronger stance when Kytle acted undemocratically or violated basic tenets of progressive education.

Goddard faculty would have to be pushed by extreme circumstances and by unresponsive, autocratic "leadership" to make such a strong statement. They would not act lightly. As far as "instigating" a student protest is concerned, that is a ridiculous and unfounded charge. It would be against the shared values of the Goddard faculty to influence students in such a way.

Faculty and staff have resigned, putting their welfare and that of their families at risk. The financial aid administrator has initiated a hunger strike. The academic dean of the college, a well-respected veteran practitioner of democratic education, resigned under duress. Last year, when staff members and an administrator question Greene's use of power, there was a terrorist wave of homophobic firings in response. It is clear that Greene has created a climate of fear so intense that not only have the faculty and staff have been moved to extreme action, but students feel compelled to leave the college because of the restrictive learning environment.

As a current outsider with strong connections to and a great deal of experience with the institution, I know the situation at Goddard is grave. The actions taken by faculty, staff and students are not the whimsical "right of spring" the editorial suggests, but are a legitimate response to an illegitimate use of power.

The actions taken by those involved don't deserve to be trivialized by an editorial that is obviously ignorant about Goddard and progressive education in general. Harping on the tired stereotypes of those involved in radical education -- reluctance to wear a tie, sitting in a circle sharing feelings -- relegates the true issues to superficial status while attempting to ignite uninformed backlash. This type of writing is reminiscent of the techniques used by such commentators as Rush Limbaugh, and is equally as transparent.

The real issue is democracy: What forms of leadership are appropriate an effective for a particular institution? What forms of redress are possible when grievances go ignored by those in power? The very nature of Goddard encourages and celebrates a critical perspective, active questioning and dialogue -- especially dialogue about the constructs of power. The Campus Program at Goddard has long been an arena for educators and students to explore and struggle with democracy and education. Founder Tim Pitkin came from the progressive tradition of schools being real-world training grounds for democracy.

However, when, democratic discourse strikes too close to those in power (college presidents and newspaper editors alike), the tone has become scolding, trivializing and steeped in red-baiting, as evidenced by the editorial's use of an aside on Rep. Sanders' socialism and editorial's title "Anarchy 101." By the way, wasn't it the local paper that ran anarchist Emma Goldman out of Barre on a rail 100 years ago when she spoke out against the power structure? And since when does a person (Jane O'Meara Sanders) deserve to be judged according to one's spouse's politics? Does Jane's marriage to Bernie automatically qualify her as the progressive? Your readers deserve a more responsible editorial tone here.

So for Goddard, the questions remain. Is it possible to impose without discord hierarchical governance based on principles of domination onto a group of people actively engaged in practicing radical democracy? What is the appropriate role of the president at Goddard? Couldn't the function of the president be completed by an administrative team consisting of a fund-raising expert, a board liaison and a PR person and leave the educational and fiscal policy-making to the existing committee structure?

I think it's time for better to finally grow up; we don't need our "Daddy" any longer. Dissolve the office and get on with it.

Chris Mattson lives in Middlesex.