[Alumni-chat] Selling Antioch!

Tue Mar 27 21:03:06 EDT 2007

Great stuff Mark S.,

So instead of reining the students in let the ones that really want positive
change take the lead in more areas. Why not make part of a computer science
curriculum be about how to generate the funds for the modern technology
that's needed at Antioch.

Mark P.

-----Original Message-----
From: alumni-chat-bounces at w3.antioch.edu
[mailto:alumni-chat-bounces at w3.antioch.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Swanholm
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 5:56 PM
To: Alumni Chat List
Subject: Re: [Alumni-chat] Selling Antioch!

Mark P - I think you make a good, and hopeful point.  To take the  
Darwinian analogy I posited earlier a step further if we look to  
alums (even successful and generous ones like Lee Morgan) to "save  
Antioch" it is as if we could plop a cave man down today and expect  
him to become a CEO...  What has brought Antioch to this point is not  
a single cause or misstep (to Mike Brower's excellent points) - it is  
a series of little things - or lack of little adaptions - that have  
left Antioch in an environment in which it is not equipped to  
survive.  This is where I have to disagree with Mike and agree with  
Mark P - looking for alums to save the college is not a viable  
answer.  Doesn't mean we don't TRY, doesn't mean we aren't NEEDED,  
doesn't mean that someday we wouldn't be a large part of the SOLUTION  
- but I don't think it gets us past extinction to make that the  
cornerstone of the plan.  Instead Mark is correct - Antioch has to  
look forward for the answers - Social Entrepreneurship is a great way  
but there are other possibilities as well.  The Plan has some of this  
- but the Plan is also steeped in saving the college by looking  
back.  I don't want Duffy to think I am a skeptic - I don't intend to  
sit back and wax poetic about lost eras and begone greatness.  Duffy  
is definitely right - the kids at Antioch are as amazing as ever and  
doing amazing things - the problem isn't that the education sucks now  
- it is that the business model isn't sustainable.  Perhaps there is  
no way around this - if we want that revolutionary set of ideals to  
flourish perhaps we have to LET GO and let it become the idea of a  
new generation.  It will NEVER be what it WAS - because that is not  
what is great about it... Embracing that ideal is hard - and keeping  
it alive may (just may) prove very hard indeed.

Mark

On Mar 27, 2007, at 5:42 PM, Mark Pomerantz wrote:

> I have to agree with Mark S.'s major points. It never even occurred  
> to me
> that alums would be the major source of baling out Antioch from its
> financial woes. My take would be to refresh the ideas that once  
> made Antioch
> great and sell them to a new generation of student looking for an  
> activist
> educational experience with a real career path as change agents  
> (just like
> Morgan used to say). There aren't too many jobs as radicals in  
> residence
> anymore. But there are an increasing number of opportunities to be  
> a social
> entrepreneur, and foundation funding and $ from "venture  
> philanthropists"
> who like this approach. Most of us are just too old to appreciate  
> this I
> think. Most of the academic programs I hear about are student  
> driven. This
> is the kind of education an increasing number of students (who have  
> heard of
> people like Mohammed Yunus) want.
>
> Mark P. AC '71
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: alumni-chat-bounces at w3.antioch.edu
> [mailto:alumni-chat-bounces at w3.antioch.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Swanholm
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 10:41 AM
> To: Alumni Chat List
> Subject: Re: [Alumni-chat] Selling Antioch!
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Alumni-chat mailing list
> Alumni-chat at w3.antioch.edu
> http://w3.antioch.edu/mailman/listinfo/alumni-chat
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Alumni-chat mailing list
> Alumni-chat at w3.antioch.edu
> http://w3.antioch.edu/mailman/listinfo/alumni-chat
>

_______________________________________________
Alumni-chat mailing list
Alumni-chat at w3.antioch.edu
http://w3.antioch.edu/mailman/listinfo/alumni-chat