911爆料网

David Townsend has been a tutor at St. John鈥檚 College since 1974. He has moderated seminars for the Aspen Institute, the Federal Executive Institute, and Weidenfeld Scholars at Oxford. A previous member of the board of the Touchstones Discussion Project and the Baltimore City Commission on HIV/AIDS, Mr. Townsend has also coordinated the Corporate Council on Africa鈥檚 HIV/AIDS Task Force. He has taught at Jessup Prison and the Baltimore Police Academy. He has been blessed with four wonderful daughters and six grandchildren. Here, he is interviewed by听Colloquy.听

Colloquy: What year did you start teaching at St. John鈥檚?

David Townsend: 1974.

And you started at Santa Fe?

I started at Santa Fe鈥擨 did come to Annapolis in 鈥�84. Before then I was a graduate student at Harvard. I was getting my PhD, so I had just completed my coursework. I had just gotten married and I applied for jobs in the west, 鈥榗ause I loved the west. So I only applied for jobs [from the] Rocky Mountains [on] west, and it was a time when you could get jobs.

You鈥檙e implying that it鈥檚 no longer a time when you can get jobs?

No, very different situation. It was just at the end of that situation鈥攊t was already getting difficult. Not quite as difficult as it is now. So I had about five to six offers. And the three that most attracted me were: Occidental, they really wanted me, a small liberal arts college in Los Angeles鈥攖hat would have been a good choice; University of Montana, Missoula, that would have been really fun, and most of the interview consisted of the head of the English Department telling me how he鈥檇 gone out elk hunting, and how difficult it is鈥攈e bagged it, a nine-hundred pound elk, and had to cut the thing in half to pack it out鈥攕o you know, I listened very eagerly to this and he thought it was terrific; and then St. John鈥檚, where I just visited and I loved it. So I had these really great opportunities. It was hard to choose.

But the person interviewing you at St. John鈥檚 did not tell you a story about bagging a nine-hundred-pound elk?

No, but Bob Neidorf was a wonderful guy. He was the dean at the time, a philosopher, just a really wonderful man. And I liked the smallness of the place. I liked the fact that I could鈥擨鈥檇 been in college, I went to a Jesuit College, I was an English major, but I took just as many philosophy and theology courses. So when I graduated, I won medals for Theology, Philosophy, English, so I could have gone to graduate school in any of these disciplines. I chose English because the prose was better, but I鈥檝e never been very departmental, so I liked the absence of departments at St. John鈥檚. And I鈥檇 known about it because I grew up in Baltimore. And had actually thought about going [to college there], but I didn鈥檛 have the money, and I got a scholarship to Loyola, so God wanted me to go there.

Why did you go to graduate school in the first place?

I was very interested in learning. It seemed like a wonderful thing to do and, again, I had a lot of options, really great options, and I ended up at Harvard鈥攖hey gave me a fellowship. It seemed like a great place.

You say 鈥渆nded up at Harvard,鈥� like that ever [just] happens to people.

I grew up in a working-class environment, and I was the first kid to go to college. It was a time when they were taking like one Jesuit kid a year. Cause Harvard was kind of blowing up. Loyola, you know, was just鈥攚e had two years of compulsory ROTC. My Sophomore Paper was [about] how the greatest cause of war in the twentieth century is the existence of standing armies. They [the ROTC] said, 鈥淚 don鈥檛 think you鈥檙e cut out for this program.鈥� And then I got drafted! You really wanna know this much about me?

Yes!

When I was in high school I wanted to go to West Point. Cause I wanted to fight godless, atheistic communism, right? So I actually got the congressional appointment, but I was so nearsighted that I couldn鈥檛 pass the physical. So I was heartbroken, but then I got to go to Loyola. They had Green Beret training. I loved that we ran around in the woods, we threw smoke grenades at each other鈥攊t was serious stuff! It was great stuff actually, and I loved it. But then I turned against the war, so I thought, 鈥淲ell, I鈥檒l go as a medic.鈥�

By the time I got drafted, I鈥檇 been at Harvard about three months and it was a very crazy scene. Judge Wyzanski was the Federal Judge in Boston who had declared the war unconstitutional, which, of course, was overturned on appeal. That was the atmosphere in Boston at the time. And there were like three hundred guys who went down to the recruiting station, and it was a madhouse! People had read Tuli Kupferberg鈥檚 1001 Ways to Beat the Draft and painted their bodies blue, stuffed rubber rats in various orifices鈥攊t was just a wild scene. Then there were like thirty-five of us that were just regular guys and didn鈥檛 know anything about this. So when we got to the very end, the guy looks at my eyes and he goes, 鈥渙h no.鈥� I said, 鈥渨hat do you mean 鈥榦h no鈥�?鈥� I didn鈥檛 actually flunk the physical, they delayed it. So if the war got much worse and they needed cannon fodder, they would鈥檝e called me back. It鈥檚 funny; when I didn鈥檛 get into West Point at sixteen I was heartbroken. Then at twenty-one, I [thought] 鈥淲hat goes around comes around.鈥� So I didn鈥檛 end up in Vietnam. I ended up at St. John鈥檚.

What did you study as a graduate student at Harvard?

It was called 鈥淎merican Languages and Literatures.鈥� It was basically the English Department.

Sounds interdisciplinary!

It was as interdisciplinary as I could get. And we also had a program called 鈥淎merican Studies,鈥� and I was the Graduate Student Chair of that little program. That was great because it was an honors program at Harvard so you had to apply for it as an undergraduate. We had some really terrific students.

So you were at Santa Fe for how many years?

I started in Santa Fe in 鈥�74, I came here in 鈥�84, and I took an interlude and went to law school.

What prompted that?

I was interested in justice. I was interested in social justice and, frankly, my wife wanted me to apply to law school, become a corporate lawyer, and make a lot of money.

I see that didn鈥檛 work out.

No, that didn鈥檛 work out. I came back to St. John鈥檚. By that time, I had three kids.

颁辞耻濒诲鈥檝别 used the money!

[I] could鈥檝e used the money, but I wasn鈥檛 thinking about money. I did a lot of nuts and bolts, hands-on child-rearing, and I couldn鈥檛 figure how I was going to do that and be a lawyer. Cause if you鈥檙e a lawyer, you have to be in the office at eleven o鈥檆lock at night, in case some other lawyer calls you.

What are the distinctions, as you see it, between what we鈥檙e doing at the Graduate Institute versus what St. John鈥檚 is doing with their undergraduates?

The undergraduate is different in that it is a four-year, intense commitment and you have generally younger people鈥攏ot all of them, but they鈥檙e taking a four-year period of their lives, where they鈥檙e doing almost nothing else. Maybe they鈥檙e working. And that鈥檚 really unusual. They鈥檙e never going to get to do that again, most likely. Hardly any of them realize that they鈥檙e making friendships, relationships, having conversations鈥攖hat they鈥檙e never going to have that opportunity again.

The graduate students have more experience, more life experience, more appreciation of the values of patience and time. The wonderful thing about the young, adolescent undergraduates is that they have this terrific arrogance where they think they can identify and solve all of the intellectual, political, and social problems, and fix them and that鈥檚 great! It鈥檚 wonderful. The graduate students have a little more experience and realize that things are a little more intractable than that. But there鈥檚 a wonderful joy in the graduate students because they鈥檙e making this time for themselves to live the life of the mind, and realizing that there is a wonder and preciousness about it that I don鈥檛 think the undergraduates appreciate as much. Because they haven鈥檛 have had as much experience of the world and what a harsh place it can be, for the most part. So that鈥檚, I think, the major difference, but they鈥檙e both delightful groups of people.

You mentioned that part of what you see the College鈥檚 mission as being is to educate for values-based leadership. Do you see the Graduate Institute as participating in this project?

Yes, I do. I think that anybody who can tell you what the world is going to look like in five years is blowing smoke. We鈥檙e in such a revolution, a revolution of technology and information and globalization. Nobody knows what鈥檚 going to be. Most institutions are going for specialization and more emphasis on job training, and I think that鈥檚 unfair. I don鈥檛 think it鈥檚 going to work, because you don鈥檛 know what the jobs are going to be in five years. Some technology could come along that blows out a whole discipline and no one does it anymore. It鈥檚 like learning how to make buggy whips鈥攚e don鈥檛 make them anymore.

The competitive advantage a St. John鈥檚 student has [as] an entrepreneurial leader is [that] you鈥檙e going to find yourself with a group of people from very different backgrounds, who probably fundamentally disagree on many things, but they鈥檙e all going to have to come together and come to some common understanding, and reach a decision that has the utility to move the business forward, to move whatever the goal is forward. This is what we do. In that room, the St. John鈥檚 graduate is going to understand how to get people talking, how to get them focused on some outcome that makes sense, based on the information that they have. So it鈥檚 the gathering of information, the data, it鈥檚 the interpreting of the information, and then it鈥檚 trying something out, and then going back to the data and interpreting, and trying something out. That鈥檚 what McKinsey [&Company] or one of these leadership organizations teaches you, right? We do it in a better way, in the sense that we do it in terms of ideas and the text as well.

But we鈥檙e doing more at St. John鈥檚. There鈥檚 something deeper.

Oh, for sure. Yeah, I don鈥檛 mean to sell it short. I鈥檓 just saying [that] in terms of competitive advantage, I think what you get here鈥攂ecause of the ability to have conversations with one another鈥攚hat we get good at is conversations with other people. We live in a time where you don鈥檛 have a conversation, you figure out whether you agree with someone first and then you make the conversation. That鈥檚 a real tragedy. Democracy will not work that way. I think we recognize that, no, we don鈥檛 have to agree with someone to talk with them, we can talk with anybody. So we have that competitive advantage. I think that鈥檚 a real advantage in business and in the world.

You wrote an article for the Capital Gazette that was part of a series that they had commissioned from community members on what Annapolis could mean. And you said something that seems very relevant to what you鈥檙e saying now鈥攁bout seeing St. John鈥檚 and the way that St. John鈥檚 could be incorporated into the city of Annapolis as a way of showing America how to be citizens again.

Yes.

Do you still feel that could be true?

I think that鈥檚 what our founders were after. In Stringfellow Barr鈥檚 words, 鈥渉ow do you become citizens of the world?鈥� What鈥檚 your responsibility as a citizen? I think America is an experiment and it鈥檚 a metanation. It鈥檚 beyond national boundaries. It鈥檚 a new vision of the way human beings can be, and [the way] communities can be. I think the founders understood that鈥擝arr, Buchanan, Adler, Hutchins, and other people very interested in St. John鈥檚 were interested in this project. So let鈥檚 train real citizens.

Are there ways that we鈥檙e obstructing ourselves in this project?

It鈥檚 hard to say. I think one could get diverted from it by鈥攖here鈥檚 a lot of pressure to become an academic institution like other academic institutions, so that鈥檚 the market and how do you get your market share? I think we鈥檙e doing something bigger than that, but if we lose energy or get scared then we might revert back to the tried and true academic traditions, which in fact are not working very well in these small institutions which are all under economic threat. It鈥檚 the belief in the capacity of the soul鈥攖he power of the human soul to come forth鈥攁nd I think that鈥檚 what we do. It goes back to Book VII of the Republic: the power and capacity of learning exist in the soul already. It鈥檚 believing that that really is true about human beings, and that the difference between freedom and slavery is allowing that to emerge, or enabling it to emerge, or getting out of the way. Yeah, I think that鈥檚 what we鈥檙e really doing. And the more we recognize that and just own it, the better [of an] institution we become.

I have found at the Graduate Institute that there鈥檚 a startling diversity in terms of the kinds of students there are here. I鈥檝e been around a lot of graduate students and for most traditional kinds of graduate programs, you get a much more typical kind of student body. There might be a diversity in age range, but here it鈥檚 really significant. We have older students, much older students, we have students who have already found a career and then they鈥檙e doing this in addition. So, in a way, it feels like the Graduate Institute is a very democratic institution, pulling people from all these different areas of life. Are there ways in which that affects the conversation in the classroom that you think are important to note?

I certainly think that having life experience makes a difference鈥攁nd I don鈥檛 mean just bringing personal anecdotes into the classroom, because I don鈥檛 think that works particularly well. But I think awareness of the real effects and the utility of ideas, and the consequences of ideas鈥擨 think graduate students understand better that ideas have consequences and that you鈥檙e going to be living what you believe, what you think is true. And the diversity is great. I鈥檓 all for diversity, but it鈥檚 instrumental and can鈥檛 suffice as the goal, the telos, or end we鈥檙e aiming at. I mean it鈥檚 not the be-all and end-all鈥攚e鈥檝e got to figure out where we鈥檙e going with our diversity, but I think it鈥檚 a good thing.

You鈥檝e been involved in quite a few non-profit organizations or institutions. Would you speak to the programs or institutions you feel tied most closely to, and what the work you鈥檙e doing there is and why you鈥檙e doing it.

I guess the Aspen Institute would be the one that I was involved with the longest鈥攐ver two decades. I was recruited to run seminars there, they were looking for a seminar person. Again, these were very fortunate things that happened to me鈥攁nd I got to do some of those with Mortimer Adler while he was still alive. Adler founded the Aspen Institute and he was instrumental in founding St. John鈥檚. He never taught here, but he did give lectures every year. It was Stringfellow Barr and Scott Buchanan who became the officers, but he was very much one of the intellectual fathers of the college and he was very much for outreach. The college itself was an outreach鈥攊t was a way of trying to reach out and change [things].

So I鈥檇 be thinking about how that鈥檚 going to happen. What is the way that pulls us all together, rather than thinks about how we鈥檙e divided and divides us into different groups? Again, I鈥檓 all for diversity, but you can鈥檛 build a nation or a citizenship based on what particular politically correct group you鈥檙e a member of鈥攊t鈥檚 just not going to work. So I think that鈥檚 where we are, I think we鈥檙e in a huge technological revolution and this goes back to the earlier conversation about job training. I mean it鈥檚 true about government and politics. And that鈥檚 where St. John鈥檚 has the advantage because we have the long view and we know what ideas are in competition, and [which] are really working. So we know about values like equality and liberty and community and prosperity.

There鈥檚 also a risk inherent there, that the college鈥攈owever relevant it might continue to be鈥攎ight no longer be desired, as an institution, by the society it exists within. Do you feel optimistic that that鈥檚 not going to happen? That there will always be enough people who want to receive the kind of education they can receive at St. John鈥檚, that we won鈥檛 go out of business, as it were?

Yeah, you gotta pay the bills. But I think the college has untapped opportunities. People are dying to understand what鈥檚 going on. They鈥檙e dying for a liberal education, as it were. And we have such a national platform to talk about that right now that I think we should do that. We should just get ourselves out there, which we鈥檝e been doing some of in the last couple of years. I think that鈥檚 a good thing.

听

Previously published in the Fall 2018 issue of Colloquy.