NODDINGS: Well, to talk about the ethic of care in a few words is hard to begin with. Um, the evasic idea of the ethical care is to make natural caring, spontaneous caring, uh the preferred state so that usually mothers, friends (interruption) When we talk about the ethic of care um we really need quite a lot of time to talk about it because it’s difficult to summarize. But if you start with the idea that um in traditional ethics, in contuant ethics, for example, we only get moral credit if we refer to a principal and then do whatever we’re going to do for the other who needs something and then we get moral credit. Now cont doesn’t say it’s bad to act out of love or inclination, but we just don’t get moral credit for that. So the ethic of care turns that upside down and says that the preferred state merely is natural or spontaneous caring and that when another needs help or needs to share or somehow needs companionship, needs something from us, then the—we hope the natural inclination would be to respond. That is to respond as positively as possible. Now sometimes that natural inclination fails. Uh, we don’t feel like caring or the other is so obnoxious that we just can’t bring ourselves to care or whatever. You can think of a string of reasons why it might fail. In that case then, we have to refer to uh an ideal of ourselves caring. We ask ourselves what we would do if we were feeling better, if this other were more agreeable person, uh if, in fact, spontaneous caring were there. And I call that ethical caring as contrasted with natural caring. Uh, even then though, the hope is that in addition to doing what we would have done in our better state, that this act will help to restore natural caring. Uh, restore the preferred state. So that’s—that’s important. But the second part that’s important in this is that it’s the only ethic I know of that acknowledges the role of the cared for. This ethics always concentrates on the agent and in virtue ethics, in particular, we concentrate on the virtues that we build up and then we’ll draw on to do the right thing. Uh in the ethic of care, we recognize that the cared for contributes substantially and—and this true all the way from infancy uh through old age. And that understanding is important because it makes uh morality thoroughly interdependent.

In—in teaching um as well as parenting and in all the helping professions, we sometimes forget that the student, or the child, or the patient, or the client contributes to their relationship and contributes significantly. Now teachers become aware of it when the kids don’t respond. Then we realize how dependent we are on the—on the student response. But we rarely think to say to a class, “Gee, you guys have brought out the best in me today” or “ I don’t know how this would have gone if you hadn’t asked the significant questions that you asked.” We—we sort of forget, we put the—we put the burden entirely uh on the teacher in one respect and in another respect entirely on the student as that is they should—they should shape up, they should do what the teacher says, uh they should study um, but we don’t give them credit for it unless they make A’s for example. We don’t realize that the whole enterprise is interdependent.

I urge people who are interested in using uh the ethic of care to use as it as a lens to examine their practice. Uh, in a sense, of course this is reflective because we ask the question, “Why are we doing what we’re doing?” Uh, and then of course if—if we’re using the ethic of care as this lens, uh we’re interested in whether we’re maintaining caring relations uh by doing what we’re doing. And so when we ask the question, “Why am I doing this,” we immediately ask, “Is it helping to maintain or establish caring relations,” and “What is it doing to the whole web of care?” Uh, so one prime example that I like teachers to think about is the whole area of grading. “Why am I doing this?” The answer usually is “Because the school system says I have to do it?” Um, but he school system didn’t say that how would I behave differently? How would I evaluate the student? How would I give feedback? Uh, and once we’ve asked that question, we can do quite a lot to modify our practices even though we’re under the pressure of whatever a school district tells us we have to do. So that’s one example.

Uh, a community is something of buzzword in education. Now you hear it everywhere and the supposition is that it is a good thing. Uh, and usually it is a good thing. Most of us have a longing for community and a lot of the literature now in education suggests this. But I honestly think it’s gotten a little out of hand. I mean, we talk not only about communities in the traditional sense the way uh Bella and his colleagues uh talk about it, uh but we talk about communities of learners, communities of readers, communities of teachers, of leaders, you know, communities of practically everything. And if you stop and think about it, engage in reflection, you realize sometimes we don’t know what we’re talking about. Uh, so what would a community of leaders be? I have no—I’m not quite sure. So being of an analytic frame of mind, I like to ask questions about uh what we mean by community. Still, at bottom, most of us would like to have our schools and classrooms be more nearly like healthy small communities then like hierarchies and bureaucracies. I think that’s true. A couple years ago I did an article on community and pointed out that uh wonderful as the idea is, there’s a dark side to community too uh that while we enhance inclusiveness within the community, it’s wonderful to feel apart. In that very act we draw a circle around ourselves and there are people then who are outside the community. So there’s exclusion as well as inclusion.

Well, I wish—I wish that more people today were asking questions about the purpose of schooling. We’re living in an age uh in which unfortunately we have—it seems as though we’ve made a tacit assumption that the purpose of schooling is to get a good job and make lots of money and buy lots of stuff. And so even little kids are urged to do well in elementary school so that they can get into a good course of study in high school. In high school they take lots of AP courses. I mean, we even had that recent news magazine that publicized the 100 best schools in the country and what measure did they use—the used? How many AP courses are offered? Now surely there’s more to good schooling then AP courses but—and then kids should take AP courses so that they can get into very good colleges, so they can get very good jobs, make lots of money, and so forth. Uh, and I think that in education we have been complicit in that. We haven’t pushed back against it and raised doubts uh and haven’t asked the question, “What is the purpose of schooling?” Now, of course, it’s an ancient question. People have been asking it as long as—as long as there’s been anything nearly like education. But I think every generation has to ask it and answer it for itself and it may change from generation to generation. And I think every teacher has to ask the question uh so as to guide uh her own activity. Uh, what is the purpose of education? I think there’s a lot of answers but one I would give now because I’m just beginning to write about this, “What about happiness as a purpose of education?” If you talk to parents and ask them what they want for their children, almost universally they’ll say, “I want my child to be happy.” Then of course, we have to ask the question, “What does it mean to be happy?” Uh, but we have, so far as I know, rarely given that as a purpose of schooling. If we did, a lot of practices would change. (interruption) Well, one thing to add to this notion of happiness is that happy people by and large are not violent. There—and they’re rarely apathetic uh or bored, or self-destructive, or any of these things that worry us so terribly about our young people. But instead of asking ourselves “How could we make them happier?” uh we ask how we can protect them with mechanical devices and tools and uniforms and uh—and more schoolwork, more homework.

Well, I think first we have to recognize that teachers are pressed by the system. There’s no question about that and it would be foolishly naïve to suppose that they’re not. They’re under tremendous pressure from the system. But that having been said, there’s—there’s still some freedom to be snatched from that. Uh, it isn’t sitting there in obvious ways, but uh, uh a smart teacher can find those moments and spaces in which to do things that answer that basic question that is, “I believe happiness is one of—at least one of the purpose of schooling, then how can I—how can I aim toward that? How could I change what I’m doing in the classroom to make that uh realistic?” Uh, and one answer to it is that we have to look at the quality of present experience. I mean happiness isn’t just a goal that comes at the end of 20 years of schooling or whatever, if we looked at it that way, we could find reason to be very mean to the kids and we could say, “I’m doing this for your own good. Some day you’ll thank me for this. You’re miserable now, that’s because I want you to be happy someday.” See, I think that’s the wrong take on it and we need to look at the quality of present experience. So it—uh, if we have a choice in how to present a particular topic uh or to teach a particular skill, it makes sense to ask which of these possibilities is likely to make of experience a happy one.

Moral education is um as it happens, a very keen interest of mine now. Uh, and its been interesting to see how it’s changing. Um, for several decades I think it’s fair to say that moral education, at least in schools, uh was dominated by the Kolbergian Model. Uh, the idea was to uh help kids attain a higher level of moral reasoning. And that’s—that’s certainly not a bad thing, but the question that haunted Larry Kolberg all his life, and I know he was struggling with in the last years of his life, was the question, “What’s the connection between moral reasoning and moral behavior?” And so as—as uh—as we began to see signs in our society that kids weren’t exactly what we’d like them to be, the question became even more important. And then it became, “Why teach them moral reasoning if they’re not behaving any better?” Say we’ve got to do something about the actual behavior. Now to my mind it’s uh questionable whether kids are any worse today then they ever were. I mean Socrates thought that the younger generation was going downhill and people have thought that, you know, for—for centuries. That’s on the one hand but on the other hand, there are signs that are very troubling, uh, recent uh—a story on Ewing about the increase in the number of suicides, for example. This is a very worrisome and scary thing and so is the drug scene and uh, sexual harassment of peers, just not being nice to one another, all of this stuff. So it isn’t too surprising to see that there’s a revival of character education now. And so there are character education conferences going on all over uh—all over the country. And I think again it’s fair to say that this is now becoming the dominant mode of moral education, so much so (clears throat) that some people equate the two. Uh, they say character education when they mean moral education. And some of us like to say, “Well now hold on a minute because there are other forms of moral education then character education.” Um, most character education programs concentrate on the inculcation of virtues and (clears throat) while there’s certainly some admiral things to be said about that, I think some of these programs are quite good, there’s that worry again, that individualistic worry that we’re concentrating on the moral agent and trying to get the moral agent to be obedient, loyal, and courageous, and honest, and all these things. The question arises whether these things can be taught. That was Socrates question. We still haven’t really answered it. Uh, but the—the other worry from the perspective of an ethic of care is that it doesn’t—it doesn’t give a fair shake to moral interdependence. It doesn’t get us to ask under what circumstances are kids more likely to be good. Uh, that’s where I—I often draw on uh one of George Orwell’s essays. A wonderful essay in which he describes an abdominal school—primary school that he went to and then he say, “The enduring lesson of my childhood was that I was living in a world in which it’s impossible to be good.” See now that’s awful. Uh, and so I would say that one of our—our primary jobs as educators is to construct a world in which it’s not only possible to be good, but attractive to be good. So that’s the—the double meaning of moral education. We want to turn out people who are immoral. But to do that, we have to conduct education in a morally justifiable way.

In uh—in talking about renewing democracy um this raises another, at least small worry about character education because often uh democratic attitudes, democratic participation uh these things are not even mentioned in the list of virtues. Uh, and that’s worrisome. But that could be taken care of by putting it in there. Paying—paying some attention to it. But then you realize that you’ve got to pay more attention to interaction and to moral interdependence because that is an earmark of democracy that we are not just uh entirely separate individuals even though we live in a cultural that has a long history of individualism. Um, John Dewey recognized this years ago uh and wrote about it very powerfully in the public and its problems. I think that’s the least optimistic of all his books. This is my own opinion now that it’s the least optimistic of all his books when he talks about the search for the great community he realized how difficult this is to forge community out of diversity and yet to respect diversity. Enormously difficult and it’s uh—to me it’s revealing that when I was in graduate school right around 1970, Dewey was referred to as a pragmatic liberal. Today he’s often referred to as a Democratic communitarian. You see? Because both things were important to him, the uh, you know, the rights and freedom of liberalism were—were certainly important to him, but so were the obligations, the comradeship, the caring for one another, that’s characteristic of community. So I think both those things have to be attended to uh when we’re talking about Democratic participation. And there’s one other thing (clears throat) that’s important and comes out of some current literature. Uh, democracy is not just a mode of government in which people vote and the majority uh wins and everybody has to go along with it. We’re beginning to realize that when we try to plop democracy down on nations that have never had a democratic tradition. It doesn’t seem to work to well. So there’s a free election, uh a decision is made, and the people who don’t like it get out their guns and shoot the people who won the election. Uh, so then we have to ask what lies at the foundation of democracy and the answer seems to be a tradition of free and liberal discourse. If—if that’s so, I mean that’s a suggestion that I find quite compelling, if that’s so then it behooves us in school is to be sure kids have practice in that. That to live in a society where they are expected to make well-informed choices, they need practice in that while they’re kids in school.

Uh, we’re asking teachers today to do um I think more than they can do. We have wonderful slogans that sound enormously generous. Slogan such as, “Poor children can learn as well as rich children.” Now see that isn’t true. I’m not talking about their inherent capabilities, I’m talking about the resources that they have, not only in school, but at home and in their neighborhoods. Uh, and that kind of talk, the um—the claim that having high standards for everyone, expecting everyone to meet these high standards will somehow do wonders for poor and minority children seems to me to be a claim that needs to be challenged. Uh, of course we should try in schools. We should do the very best we can, but kids don’t live their whole life in school. Uh, they have to go home sometimes through dangerous streets. Uh, they sometimes return to house or apartments that are inadequate uh where their meals are inadequate, where sometimes too the parenting is inadequate, although of course that can happen in wealthy homes as well. But when—when you think about that, you know, I’ve begun to think seriously that a lot of this talk about equality in schools is an enormous distraction from the great social problems in this country, social problems that have to be tackled at another level. Uh, maybe (clears throat) a modified capitalism, you know, one that isn’t quite so greedy, where we don’t allow such enormous disparities between those at the top and those at the bottom. And I often say in my lecture that no person who works full-time at an honest job should live in poverty. See that’s just wrong. And there isn’t anything that education can do about that.

Um, I thought for a while that the National Standards Movement might contribute something positive to education. I was never happy with it to be honest, but I thought it might contribute something. It doesn’t hurt uh for us to be urged to pull up our socks sometimes and try harder and to remember that uh we ought not to have uh predetermined notions of what kids can do. I mean, on that much I’m with the people on national standards. We ought not to decide because of a child’s race or ethnicity or gender that he or she can’t do something. That’s just wrong. And if that’s what people mean then I’m with them 100 percent. But when you join National Standards, and I’ll come back to the questionable part of that, but when we join National Standards to high stakes testing right off the bat, then I think we’re doing an awful thing. Just an awful thing uh because we haven’t studied the experience that children and teachers have with these new standards sufficiently to know what they mean. Uh, and—and so to make it impossible for a child to be promoted from 4th grade on the basis of a high stakes test is just—it’s irresponsible. Uh, so at the very least, I—and I was pleased, by the way, to see that a couple months ago Secretary Riley did caution people to move more slowly. Uh, I think the reason is that he’s hearing a hullabaloo all over the nation. Uh, educators are on the point of rebellion over this and so he’s cautioning people not—not to move quite so fast. So if you have to have—and I don’t think we have to have National Standards, by the way, but if you want to try them out for a while, then why not do it experimentally. I mean we’re a great scientific nation. Why not say, “All right. We’ll put these in there and then we’ll carefully study the experience of kids and teachers as they work toward these. See if there are positive affects, see if there are negative affects. But we certainly won’t slap on them high stakes testing. Now after one talk that I did on this, uh a man in the audience said, “How can you have a standards without testing” and I said, “Well, see I didn’t say without testing, I said without high stakes testing and there’s no reason why you couldn’t do random sample testing where there---where there’s nothing at stake for the kids but we’re just trying to find out how we’re doing. What’s working and what isn’t working? Uh, you certainly could do that.”

Well, a lot of us are struggling with the problem of uh standards and high stakes testing now. Uh, and a lot of reasonable people have changed their minds about uh the wisdom of moving in this direction. There are powerful movements now, one in Massachusetts in particular led by Alfie Cong and joined by Debra Myer, the principal of Central Park East. She used to be principal there and uh Ted Seizer I understand is showing this uh, powerful effort to just—just say no to this. Uh, and in a couple of communities parents have said they just won’t send their kids to school on the day that those tests are being given. This surely says something about enormous discontent, that people really think this is unfair and unreasonable. Uh, it—it was hard initially to fight against it because it was offered as a um—as a move toward equality that now will have the same high standards for poor kids and little black kids and Hispanic kids and all. And then if we stood up and said, “This is a bad thing,” people would say, “Haa.” You know, you’re a racist or something dreadful. So it was very hard to talk back on this. But most of us—I think it’s fair to say in education, proper anyway, um at least many of us now feel that the very people this was suppose to help are again being hurt most. Uh, that it’s the same old story that people have been heard over and over again by one movement or another are being hurt most by this one. So in New York City it’s almost a sure thing that many kids are not going to get high school diplomas or if they do they’ll be second-class high school diplomas. Uh, there are little kids in Texas going to school with sick stomachs, second graders, you know, facing these tests. Um, this just—it just doesn’t seem right. Now when—when I was high school teacher um back in the 60’s, we gave standardized tests at the end of the year. I gave them in algebra and geometry, but there were no high stakes attached to them. We gave them to sort of confirm our own judgment, uh to see—I use to like to predict how the kids would do. Uh, to see whether my judgment and the judgment of this test came close together. But it had nothing to do with whether the kids would past or get a grade in the course. It had to do with that uh, I suppose an accountability of sorts, although we didn’t use that word at that time. We—we more keenly felt responsibility. That is we were—and that in two senses that we were responsible for what happened to the kids we were teaching. I like to use responsibility with a hyphen, response-ability, to uh emphasize the fact that teachers have to be able to enough to be competent in responding to the needs of their students. So I don’t—I—I have to admit that I don’t have much patience with the whole national standards high stakes testing now. I think we’ve been at it long enough to know that it’s hurting the people it’s suppose to help. There’s a long history of uh standards movements, not just in education, but in law and medicine and a number of other professions, in every single case the affect was to exclude some group. Sometimes that was a deliberate intention. Oftentimes it was a side affect. But we want at least to be aware of that and ask the question, “Who benefits from this movement? Who suffers from it?” It may even be—and this is a horrible thought, but it may even be that some people really would like to destroy the public schools so that if—at the end of five years we can’t meet these impossible objectives, they’ll be able to say, “See, the public schools can’t do it” and it will be an excuse to do something else.

We do uh see in the country both top down and bottom up reforms. Um, sometimes it’s hard to tell which is which when you look at them uh out in the schools. And I don’t—I don’t find the uh—the labels all that helpful. I mean, on the one hand we look for strong leaders uh and there’s a lot of literature that suggests that the principal is the most important ailment in school reform, on the other hand as a democratic nation uh we would in some ways at least prefer the bottom up, that is to get people together and to try to make decisions democratically. Um, I—I’d like to get rid of the two terms; I guess and use our heads on what we’re trying to do. Sometimes it’s very helpful to have a leader who has a vision and can make suggestions and rally people around and so forth. So there’s something to be said for that model. There’s certainly something to be said for the democratic model except that that miscarries sometimes too. Uh, to invite teachers to participate in decision making seems wonderful, but if it means uh attendance at six or seven more committee meetings every month, then teachers are—are ground down by it. And so I’ve seen models in a recent dissertation that one of our Stanford students did, the teachers were exhausted and they were exhausted attending meetings that were suppose to help them. See? So we have to watch for that too. We can go too far in that direction asking people to make decisions that they don’t really want to make and would be happy if someone else were to make so as to feel facilitate their work. Uh, now there’s one other facet to that that I would like to say something about and that is sometimes in the top down model, uh leaders want to recruit people who agree with their particular philosophy. And so in this business of reconstituting schools, we see that quite often. The principal will say, “All right, here’s the vision, here’s the philosophy.” Now we interview people, people who agree with that will hire and those that don’t we won’t. Um, I, you know, I have grave doubts about that. Uh, it—it may accomplish something but as a uh supervisor, and I spent a few years in public education as a supervisor, I much preferred to ask the question, “How can I help teachers to do the best possible job with their own educational philosophy?” so long that it wasn’t fascist of cruel or something of that sort. But, you know, we—we do have a pluralism of descent, legitimate, educational philosophies and why should you have to accept mine? Why can’t we as a—as a caring community help one another that do the best possible job without changing our own individual underlying beliefs. Today that sounds kind of radical, I guess.

Well, subject matter preparation for teachers uh has always been important. Uh, sometimes it’s been recognized as important and sometimes not. And there’s been research that sometimes seems to show that the knowledge the teacher has makes a difference in student achievement. We’ve also had research that shows it doesn’t make a difference in uh student achievement. So I don’t know what the answer there is. But intuitively it makes sense that the kids are going to do better all other things being equal, if the teacher knows the subject matter. So, of course, we want people teaching math who know math and people teaching English who know English and so forth. But when I talk about uh greater depth and breadth, uh I mean that a math teacher should know more than—than the standard math curriculum because not every child like mathematics. Uh, as an old math teacher I know that many children do not like math. In fact, many adults do not like math and our very happy that they will never have to face it again. (coughs) So when we realize that we’ve got a task of general education that comes before a specific subject. So, of course, I want people to know their subject but I want them to know more than that, to be comfortable at least with all the subjects that their students are required to study. So since a student is not required to study a particular foreign language, I wouldn’t expect every teacher to be uh, uh proficient in every foreign language. But since every kid who goes through high school has to master certain things in English and history and science, the hope would be that the math teacher would know at least as much as the kids. Uh, so uh it seems to me that this enriches the math classroom too when you can make the connections that are so missing and we ask the kids to make the connections on their own. If you can bring stories into the classroom and poetry uh and connections to art and architecture and philosophy, uh that seems to me enlivens the classroom. There’s no guarantee that any one particular kid will be fascinated by the one topic that I choose. But if I can choose among 25 topics, I’ve got a much better chance at making connections with kids then I otherwise would have. When I look at the really uh very bright, well-educated young people we get at Stanford who come in to the teacher education program, they come in for a 5th year program after four years of undergraduate work, they are usually quite proficient in their subject field if we measure that proficiency by tests in that field. But I rarely run across one who can do anything with biography, history, philosophy, fiction, in all of these connections that I would so much like them to have. So in teacher education I think we have to help people to develop a—a wide repatra um and it—it reminds me of a wonderful essay back in the era of open education. David Hawkins wrote this wonderful essay called, “Planning for Spontaneity.” Uh, it—it became known as the ‘Bird in the Window’ essay, but it was “Planning for Spontaneity.” Uh and enlarging on that, I would say, “Well, how in the world do you do that?” Well, you do it by preparing the teacher so that when you have this repatra, it’s like having all the aces up your sleeve when a question arises or suggestion is made, you can pull out these stories, anecdotes and applications and that’s what I’d like to see happen.

Trying to do this that is to prepare people for more depths and breadths in their subject matter is a hard thing to do in a teacher education program. Uh, many years ago teachers were prepared in teachers colleges or normal schools where their entire collegiate education was conducted by that school. Uh, now there were things wrong with that system clearly, but it’s great strength was that there was no separation between subject matter and pedagogy. The two were tight all the way. Uh, when we moved to that separation so that the liberal arts department prepares people in the subject content and the schools of education prepare them in the pedagogy, then we get this great gap uh because the people in the liberal arts courses don’t think this way as a rule. And in US colleges especially, we think in linear terms. That is the more courses, the better prepared. So math teachers have to take differential equations and advanced calculus and typology and a bunch of other subjects that they will never use in teaching high school. Never use. Now you could argue that somehow, at least they know where it’s all going and they’re better prepared. But see I think they would be better prepared if it were spread out on a horizontal axis uh and they could talk about what all this means in terms of uh the kids there that they’ll actually be teaching.

It seems sometimes that uh not only other people but I to have—may be asking too much of teachers because uh I—I would like them to contribute to the inner growth of students as well as their competence for uh the public world. But this is a tremendous topic. I mean, um if right volumes on it, part of it is preparation for personal life—private life and not just public life. Um, I like to remind classes and audiences that relatively few people use quadratic equations in their adult life. I mean, there are some who do and we’ve got to have a cadre of people who are really good at math, but the vast majority of people don’t. And yet we insist that all students, no exceptions must take algebra. Now in contrast, almost all of us—well, all of us make homes and the vast majority of us have families. And yet we don’t really teach this in schools. We give parenting classes for young girls who are already pregnant, or we spend three days with artificial babies and think that we’re accomplishing something there. So that whole realm of private life is by and large neglected and there are a lot of people who want it to remain neglected and for a variety of reasons. The liberal tradition says you don’t mess around in the private lives of your citizens. Well, even the help—even to make those lives better in the next generation? It’s an important question. And then there are some conservatives who don’t want us to mess around either because they don’t want the beliefs taught at home to be in any way questioned or shaken up. So this is—this is difficult work and to try to help to develop this inner life means having a tolerance for ambiguity, being able to ask hard questions without hurting one another, to talk about things that are taboo in many school systems. And so I don’t expect it’s going to happen over night, but I would still like to edge in that direction.

There is one thing that I uh would like to say about cultural diversity. Uh, it’s so enormously difficult to talk about the problems of diversity uh fully and honestly and critically because we tend to draw lines uh and to give politically correct answers to stay out of trouble. So—and—and part of that is good because we’ve done lots of bad things in the past. But we’ve rejected something called the Deficit Model, for example. We don’t feel it’s right for one culture to say to another, “There’s something wrong with you and you have to shape up.” Um, I partly agree with that but I—I’ve begun to worry about it too because we no that the single most important thing in a child’s success is the home. We know that. Now there are a couple factors there. Sometimes the socioeconomic status that we point to, sometimes it’s the attitude of the parents toward education; sometimes it’s the manner of upbringing. Though, we know all three of those things are important. If we know that, why don’t we share that with people? See it isn’t a matter of saying, “The way you’re working is wrong,” it’s more a matter of saying, “Look, in this society operating in roughly this way is shown to be instrumentally more powerful then some other ways. You don’t have to do it, but we at least want to know this. We want to share it.” But you see how delicately that has to be said and having said it I’m worried about how people will receive it now that I’ve said it. (interruption) There’s a model that we might use here and—and this uh occurred to me at some conference, I’ve forgotten which one, but a student—a graduate student was presenting a paper uh on a couple women educators and one of them was Jane Adams and parenthetically she said, “Of course she wasn’t an asimulationist.” And then she went on. And afterward I stopped her on that and I said, “You know, if she was she was, she was uh an intelligent and generous asimulationist.” She was not the—the kind of asimulationist, you say, “Well now, all these folks have to be like us and the sooner the better. If you read her essays, some of them are just wonderful because what she sets out to do is both to preserve the original culture and to help people fit in and succeed in this culture. And it seems to me that that’s exactly what we have to do.