[Alumni-chat] Selling Antioch!

[Mark Swanholm]

To the Usual Suspects:

While it is nice in a way to see the chat again I notice that it is  
the same crowd and that speaks to one of Antioch's core problems.   
There are a couple of dozen folks in a dialog - some angry, some  
defensive, some disillusioned, some in denial, some lurkers seeking a  
glimmer of hope - just like a community meeting at Antioch.  The  
problem is that it is just us - we all in our way care about Antioch  
or we wouldn't take the time to participate... some of us (more than  
a few) were even crazy enough to go work there to try and help - but  
we are not enough to turn things around.  I think that BECAUSE of  
Anticoh's nature, its philosphy, what it instills in people at its  
core (if an institution can be imbued with such personal qualities)  
is in fact its undoing.  We learned to be skeptical, critical, not  
joiners, adventurous, inquisitive and that new things trump old  
ones... or some variation on this that we could argue about for  
weeks.  NONE of those things add up to a broad set of alums that  
provide deep pocketed support.  There are a core of us that give  
time, thoughts and some that give very generously financially - but  
broadly MOST alums don't participate AND many alums are not in a  
position to provide hefty donations.  We actually have ENOUGH of a  
financial base (and I know because I have seen the research) to meet  
the goals of "The Plan" - but that is in theory and that theory is  
based on numbers that don't apply to our quirky, unique set of  
alums.  By and large our alums give more to philanthropic causes (and  
here I am anecdotal - but I have talked to a lot of alums so I feel  
confident in this) - they support AIDS research, Choice, politics,  
whatever - and give to those causes where their passion lies.  We  
have a lot of donors - but not a lot of large donors... and it really  
does come down to that.  I really don't believe it would matter WHAT  
the administration or board SAID or even what they DID - no matter  
what stance, position or proposal came forth 20% would embrace it,  
40% would hate it and 40% wouldn't respond.

While David makes a credible point about the message being simple and  
relatively cheap the real issue is that given the average donation  
size we need to reach a lot of people - and Antiochians are HARD to  
reach... if we had enough people to fund the plan on the chat list NO  
PROBLEM... but the 50-60 people here are NOT enough.  And the TIME to  
convince skeptical, questioning and ultimately interested alums is  
also very high - We are fun to talk to - but gods we like to talk and  
ask tough questions - to effectively reach and respond to all of the  
alums would be very difficult (and having tried I can almost say  
impossible) even with an adequate budget (and the alumni /  
development office hasn't had an adequate budget for some time -  
which is a self feeding problem).  Antioch has done a great job of  
turning us out into the world to question authority and hegemony...  
but it really never thought self-consciously about what this would  
mean for itself.  Had federal funding persisted (from the 60s) and  
student demographics been on a rising curve (as in the 70's) Antioch  
could eat its old and go on cranking out first class rebels.  But the  
climate changed - and Antioch's business model (yes it is a business  
at some level) was not setup to adapt.  It didn't know how to hunt  
alumni - it had ALWAYS (and this is born out in looking at the Morgan  
years, McGregor years, all of the eras) rejected most of the alums  
and looked to the future.  Guskin (for all his flaws) tried to turn  
this around - but it was too little, too late - the diaspora had  
happened and the connection was lost to too many of the people.

Now none of this is to say that I don't think the current  
administration has some serious issues - they do and it starts very  
directly with Steve.  But we have had Presidents with very different  
strengths, styles and agendas - and the 20/40/40 rule has applied to  
them all.  Sure some were duds - but there were some very capable  
people in there as well - and at least 1 of them should have struck a  
cord with donors and students if that were REALLY the issue.  I  
submit to the meat grinder of the chat that THE issue really is US  
(collectively the alumni) and that Antioch was TOO EFFECTIVE for its  
own good.  Yes we can all say that if only they would adopt a plan  
that we could support for reasons x,y,z we would rise up and support  
them - but I am almost certain that they HAVE tried that plan - and  
it brought along 10-20 percent of us, and that not being enough they  
moved on to some other plan that put us in the 80% category and  
dragged someone else into the 20%.  For Antioch to survive it needs  
an infusion of resources - and it needs so many resources now that it  
would take the support of about 50% of the known alumni base... I  
have grown skeptical that we can reach that many people, and do it in  
time.

I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong - because for all  
its flaws David is right - Antioch does have a place in the world  
that is vital.  But from where I sit, in the current climate and  
resource pool, it seems that Antioch will fall victim to Darwinian  
forces - evolution does not favor those who have cast out their  
elders, at least not right now.  If we can solve this riddle, then we  
can talk about esoteric issues like loss of Community Government, a  
need for a Dean of Students, etc... but until we solve the resource  
puzzle we will only keep adding to the list of issues that we all  
love to debate.

Mark