Conversing with Kerrey

By Mark Grueter

At 5 p.m. on a Wednesday I call Bob Kerrey for a thirty-minute interview.

“Hello,” he answers.

“Senator Kerrey?” I am not positive who it is.

“President,” he corrects me.

“Oh, President. President of the United States?” I joke.

The subject is the Graduate Faculty, the New School and education in general. Kerrey's secretary has instructed us to send the man – in advance via email - our questions, so Andrew Gold and I hurriedly put together ten of them. Kerrey is reviewing the questions when I reach him. He skips right down to the final question – a throwaway that has nothing to do with the topic of the interview. “I see you're supporting Wesley Clark.” It is true. Really, both of us would prefer to talk presidential politics but the theme of Canon this fall is education and that is what I am paid to write about.

I introduce myself. He is not aware of it, but the former senator from Nebraska and I go way back. I met him in the snow-sodden New Hampshire winter of 1991-2 when he was campaigning for the Democratic nomination to become President. I was only 14 at the time but was nevertheless attuned to the process, as I was an unusual kid. “The good old days,” Kerrey reflects, quite rightly I imagine, for no particular reason.

Now, there are many austere critics of Kerrey – for, such people, I regret to say, do exist – in the New School universe. I do not intend to disappoint this righteous crowd, but I should say straight off that I have no desire at the moment to discuss Kerrey's Left credentials, nor the allegations against him from Vietnam. This conversation is about education, not the moral superiority of the student body.

So, according to Kerrey, the most pressing issues facing the GF are finding a new dean, increasing the school's endowment, and rebuilding the gutted anthropology department. Certainly, all these things are related. The new dean needs to be able to generate funds but he/she also needs to be able to fit into the unique cultures of the GF and the New School. And Kerrey says that the anthropology department at the GF should benefit from the fact that the New School just hired a famous anthropologist, whose name I cannot decipher, to be its provost.

Kerrey concedes that when he first became president three years ago he was not interested in providing support for the GF. But all that has changed. He now understands and appreciates the value of the GF and is working hard to support us. Also, I find it interesting as he admits to me that when New School officials first approached him about becoming their president, he had never heard of the place.

He believes all the New School schools have common goals and that we should all be collaborating. We talk about how surplus revenue, which the Parsons School of Design generates, essentially keeps the GF afloat. Kerrey explains that this is okay because the GF can return the favor by assisting Parsons in non-monetary ways. His example: Fashion - a huge department in itself at Parsons - is the number one manufacturing business in New York. Because of the implications this has for jobs and globalization (“fashion takes you right into the heart of Asia and India”) the social research that the GF produces should be able to assist the efforts at Parsons. The connection still seems kind of fuzzy to me, but by this point in the exchange, I'm bored with the subject.

I ask him if there is any effort to implement needs-based tuition support at the GF. He says this just gets us back to attracting more donors; the GF has a difficult time doing so because we rarely engage in hands-on projects. He notes that the Milano School does a much better job of soliciting grants, partly because they are involved in the sort of development-related work that tangibly benefits actual people. However, because of his experience in both social research and fundraising, he believes himself uniquely capable in helping the GF to one day achieve its financial goals. He expresses optimism.

We talk for awhile about openness, diversity and dissent in education. We agree that it is illiberal to ostracize anybody in the New School community for holding oppositional views. People should always feel as though they can speak freely in an academic environment. He thinks it was and is a “tactical mistake” for certain critics to demand his resignation because of his view regarding Iraq. What he means is that if this is truly a progressive and open institution it should be more tolerant and engaged. Failure to abide by this principle compels one to question the school's commitment to liberal ideals. And it is not as if Kerrey had not already established his progressive credentials on the floor of the Senate. Consult the record. I note the irony of the desire to force him out since, after all, the New School was founded by individuals who were being squeezed out of Columbia University for dissenting with the school's majority opinion. He appreciates this.

Also, he says that GF student applicants should be evaluated based on their critical thinking skills, and that ideology and politics should not have anything to do with it. He stresses the importance of critical thinking and fears that these skills, in general, have deteriorated over time in America. He believes most college students know how to write pretty well these days because of email and other reasons, but that their knowledge base and analytical abilities are lacking.

Then we talk in general terms about how scandalous and burdensome tuition rates are in this country and at the GF. Is there any way to lower these costs? He believes the government should be providing more equity and less debt to assist students. I suggest that we all go for free and send the bill to the rich. But he would like to see something comparable to the GI bill set up to help regular students finance their tuition and housing. The only way to do this is to expand the middle-class. He emphasizes expanding the middle-class several times, though I am not entirely sure how this relates to lowering education expenses. But then again, I am not very bright.

Lastly, Kerrey never says so directly but makes it clear in a subtle and tactful way that my thirty minutes are up. Instead of ending it there I rush back to my final question and ask him just whom he is supporting for president. I do not expect an answer from a career politician and I do not get one either. The man is undecided. We do begin talking for another few moments. He asks me how I imagine Clark doing in New Hampshire. He responds by insisting that the field will be winnowed down to only two real contenders after NH. He goes on for a little bit; his analysis is shrewd, quick and penetrating. I contradict him for the sake of argument. I then ask him if he thinks Clark, John Kerry and some of the others will team up in the crunch if it looks as though Dean is about to get the nomination. He answers with a definitive yes, as if he has inside information that confirms this Stop Dean plan in the works. And then I'm struck with that odd sensation which tells one that things are wrapping up. And then I notice that it is 5:35 and, before I know it, we are saying good-bye to one another. “Bye.”