In my years working in the non-profit sector, I developed an ever-expanding wish list of things I would change. At the top of the list was the donor-fueled perverse incentive structure.  Under the [...]]]> Two recent articles point to the emergence of something I have been waiting for…philanthropic organizations recognizing and even publicizing when they fail.

In my years working in the non-profit sector, I developed an ever-expanding wish list of things I would change. At the top of the list was the donor-fueled perverse incentive structure.  Under the guise of not wanting to upset donors non-profits consistently deny themselves the opportunity to innovate, expand, improve their outcomes, and, through that greatest market information mechanism, failure, come to know how they could have been better.

The recently launched website,  Admitting Failure,
is making a go at tackling this seeming endemic problem.  Their page says it all: “By hiding our failures, we are condemning ourselves to repeat them and we are stifling innovation. In doing so, we are condemning ourselves to continue under-performance in the development sector…Competition for financial support in the aid sector has resulted in a ‘worst practice’ – secrecy. This site and those who support it are attempting to correct that error, and create a best practice of openness, transparency and honesty. We’re all in this together. We’re on the same side in the fight against poverty, inequality and unnecessary suffering in too many forms. Let’s admit our failures to find greater successes.”

Another recent article from The Chronicle of Philanthropy details a number of organization who were chartered with self destruct buttons…essentially an organizational death date.  How do incentives change when you know that you only have a limited number of years to make your impact? I could see it going a couple of ways. What do you all think?

All in all I think this is a healthy trend and I am encouraged by it. The economic system which allowed for $217.3 billion to be spent on specifically-charitable endeavors in 2009, is one that thrives on failure. It is about time those charity organizations get the message.

A closing thought:

We are all doubtless bound to contribute a certain portion of our income to the support of charitable and other useful public institutions. But it is a part of our duty also to apply our contributions in the most effectual way we can to secure this object. The question then is whether this will not be better done by each of us appropriating our whole contribution to the institutions within our reach, under our own eye, and over which we can exercise some useful control? Or would it be better that each should divide the sum he can spare among all the institutions of his State or the United States? Reason and the interest of these institutions themselves, certainly decide in favor of the former practice.

Thomas Jefferson

During WWII the Navy considered seizing the campus of St. John’s via eminent domain in order to expand the Naval Academy. The fledgling New Program based on the great [...]]]> We recently came across the following anecdote about Jacob Klein, an eminent liberal artist and once dean of St. John’s College, at this blog:

During WWII the Navy considered seizing the campus of St. John’s via eminent domain in order to expand the Naval Academy. The fledgling New Program based on the great books of western tradition had just recently found a home there, on a campus whose oldest building was constructed before the Revolution, and with funding precarious, any move would probably kill this controversial endeavor outright.

A small delegation headed by Jascha Klein was sent to Washington to try to dissuade the government from seizing the campus. They entered the office of the Secretary of the Navy, who brusquely told them, “You have exactly one minute to tell me why I shouldn’t use your buildings to help the Academy in war time.”

Jascha Klein silently took out his pipe and began filling it with tobacco. He lit the pipe and checked to see if it was drawing well. Then, after 55 seconds had passed, this renowned scholar who had fled Hitler stood up and went to the door.

Turning, he said, “Because without what St. John’s stands for, this country is not worth defending against the Nazis.”

The Navy built the addition across the Severn River instead.

Of course, you cannot help but admire the magnanimity of Klein in this story: his capacity to be cool under fire, to think first, to have the courage to speak truth to power. These are clearly goals of the liberal artist and Klein’s skills in this matter were almost certainly whetted in the school of Socratic dialogue.  (Incidentally, it is probably a good rule of dialogue that there be roughly 55 seconds of quiet contemplation for every 5 seconds of speaking.)

This anecdote illustrates, or at least pertains to, the two elements this blog contends are essential for unleashing the human potential.  The first is liberty in which there is freedom for a competition of ideas, freedom to grow and discover, and freedom to search for the truth.  The second is a firm commitment to the search for an understanding of what is good and true.

Liberty

One of the main issues at stake in this story is the government seeking to seize the property of the college to further its own war-making purposes.

Property is the means of undertaking action.  Articles of property are the means of production, which individuals employ to pursue their goals. Respecting property is, therefore, tolerance.  If individuals’ property can be taken arbitrarily by government, the freedom to plan and to act on the part of those individuals no longer exists.  All goals, plans and actions become subsidiary to the ideas, plans and wishes of the state.  There is no room for diversity of aims, no room for experimentation or objection to state activity.

In his work Liberalism, Ludwig von Mises, one of the greatest advocates of human liberty, described the role of private property thusly:

Private property creates for the individual a sphere in which he is free of the state. It sets limits to the operation of the authoritarian will. It allows other forces to arise side by side with and in opposition to political power. It thus becomes the basis of all those activities that are free from violent interference on the part of the state. It is the soil in which the seeds of freedom are nurtured and in which the autonomy of the individual and ultimately all intellectual and material progress are rooted.

Mises also recognizes that there is a strong tendency on the part of those “who control the governmental apparatus of compulsion and coercion” to “impose oppressive restraints on private property…and to refuse to respect or recognize any free sphere outside or beyond the dominion of the state.”

We cannot hope that those in charge of the government apparatus will voluntarily permit us spheres of activity free and separate from the goals of the state.  Those in government must be restrained by a general public opinion that freedom is important, in other words, that individuals’ decision-making power over their own property—the means of pursuing their own goals—ought to be respected and remain free of the arbitrary interference of government.  This is the meaning of tolerance.  Only under this condition can social discovery and experimentation, alternate social arrangements and objectives “arise side by side with and in opposition to political power.”

(Of course, the very definition of fascism, including Nazism, is that all activities become subservient to the belligerent activities of the state.  On this issue see Mussolini’s own definition and Sheldon Richmond’s.)

How wonderful that St. John’s was able to avoid the social homogenization and destruction caused by belligerent government.

Commitment to the search for truth

One of the reasons it is so easy to be enamored with the Klein story above is that it leaves open to interpretation what St. John’s is all about.  If you like, it says “fill in what you like about St. John’s here.”  This was probably wise on the part of Jacob Klein.  Insofar as the story is true, it would mean that the Secretary of the Navy could fill in his own meaning, do his own thinking and research about why St. John’s and the kind of activity that goes on there is valuable.  The Secretary was clearly not in a receptive place and it would be almost impossible to have said anything significant about the liberal arts without creating a controversy that would have been insurmountable in only a minute.  But Klein’s comment was ideal to turn the Secretary’s “smug ease” into a “need to know,” which is the essential characteristic of Socratic teaching. (See the chapter “The Nature of Socratic Learning” in Peter Abbs’ The Educational Imperative.)

We cannot know definitively what Klein believed “St. John’s stands for” (although, his several lectures and essays make some excellent statements about St. John’s and the liberal arts).  Different people have different ideas about what makes St. John’s valuable.  All the parties in an organization cannot have exactly the same ends, but just as in market exchange where diverse goals are coordinated and mutually advanced by exchange, dialogical exchange is complementary and mutually supportive of many diverse understandings and objectives.  This, in fact, is what I believe makes St. John’s valuable.

In my opinion, there are two basic things St. John’s implicitly “stands for.”

Firstly, St. John’s commitment to dialogical inquiry requires a commitment to peaceful sharing of diverse understanding and the humility to realize that we have something to learn from others who are different from ourselves.  Secondly, St. John’s stands for the faith that “knowledge is possible, that truth is attainable, and that it is always [our] business to seek it” (Buchanan).

Freedom is necessary to find out the good and to do it.  Freedom is necessary for learning and action, but it is not sufficient.  Also needed is the genuine desire to search out truth and what is good.

Jacob Klein’s works and anecdotes about him like this one are inspirational to me.  When I read them, I cannot help but want to emulate him.  I admire his penetrating understanding, the clarity of his thought and writing, his assiduity in the liberal arts, and his erudition.  Klein’s example compels me to want to be better, to not settle for a poor and partial understanding but to constantly search for greater understanding and self-mastery.  I speak earnestly when I say that Jacob Klein is one of my all time heroes.

I recently returned from my first North American Montessori Teachers Association Meeting, held in Seattle, WA. What I learned there absolutely reaffirmed that education is the best way, certainly the best voluntary way, to support liberty. [...]]]> “No social problem is as universal as the oppression of the child.” ~Maria Montessori

I recently returned from my first North American Montessori Teachers Association Meeting, held in Seattle, WA. What I learned there absolutely reaffirmed that education is the best way, certainly the best voluntary way, to support liberty. I am not talking about college courses and white papers churned out by think tanks (I love you think tanks, you know I do!). We have to start earlier, we have to cultivate a culture that educates about the ideas of freedom from the beginning, not one that merely tries to change minds later.

I had the opportunity to spend time with the lovely Marsha Enright of the Reason Individualism and Freedom Institute, while at the conference. A long time Montessorian who also is a true lover of liberty and the founder of the new College of the United States, whose vision is: “To create the global leaders of tomorrow who will fulfill the vision of our Founding Fathers by becoming successful men and women of principle and action, capable of spreading the benefits of reason, individualism and the bounty of liberty worldwide through their work and their example. “

We spoke about how the Montessori Method supports the development of the child in a way that generates a love of liberty, a respect for others individuality and a recognition of the value of their own. It is such an amazingly thorough pedagogy, and absolutely goes against the cookie-cutter mentality of compulsory education.

“We must, therefore, quit our roles as jailers and instead take care to prepare an environment in which we do as little as possible to exhaust the child with our surveillance and instruction.” ~Maria Montessori

Each Montessori Guide is a gentle hand that helps to cultivate an environment (sort of like law is supposed to be) that allows each child to find their strengths, at their own pace, in a way that encourages a love of learning and therefore a love of thinking.

Isn’t that amazing? An education that in its very principles supports the thing I value the most: freedom, especially the freedom of children!

Below is a song by the elementary students of Countryside Montessori School in Northbrook, Illinois It is an excerpt of their opera, “On the Road to Freedom”

They are reciting the words on the Statue of Liberty:

“Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEW-uDC1VII]

“How can the mind of a growing individual continue to be interested if all our teaching be around one particular subject of limited scope, and is confined to the transmission of such small details of knowledge as he is able to memorize? How can [...]]]> Maria Montessori writes the following in “To Educate the Human Potential”:

“How can the mind of a growing individual continue to be interested if all our teaching be around one particular subject of limited scope, and is confined to the transmission of such small details of knowledge as he is able to memorize? How can we force the child to be interested when interest can only arise from within? It is only duty and fatigue which can be induced from without, never interest! That point must be very clear” (6)

“knowledge can be best given where there is eagerness to learn” (3)

The end of the eductionist “is the child’s spontaneous interest and application” (16)

“The child should love everything that he learns, for his mental and emotional growths are linked. Whatever is presented to him must be beautiful and clear, striking the imagination. Once this love has been kindled, all problems confronting the educationist will disappear” (17)

Doesn’t the fact that interest, eagerness and knowledge cannot be forced in from the outside require us to understand the child? Not only the general needs and tendencies of any age group, but the interests, needs and tendencies of each particular child we seek to guide? If so, this would mean that a classroom cannot be centrally planned!

It’s a pity they didn’t publish just a little more of [...]]]> I found out recently that the Christian Science Monitor published an excerpt from John Maynard Keynes’ “General Theory” next to an expert from Frederic Bastiat’s “What is seen and what is not seen” about economic stimulus. What a cool idea!  Here’s the link.

It’s a pity they didn’t publish just a little more of Bastiat’s article.  He goes on to apply the idea of the broken window more explicitly to questions of stimulus.  He shows that all government spending and stimulus requires a drain on resources (through taxation, inflation, and/or government borrowing), which amounts to an anti-stimulus somewhere else.  This is just a fact.  So the real issue about economic stimulus is not whether to have stimulus or not, but whether it is more effective for governments to direct the resources available for stimulus according to a central plan or to allow dispersed individuals to allocate their own resources according to their local knowledge.

Here’s a video that was flying around the blogosphere last week that applies Bastiat’s principle of the broken window to the recent issue of stimulus.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV5Ulu86-TY&hl=en&fs=1]