David J. Marmins: Kiski School deserves support
Share this post:
I graduated from the Kiski School in 1987, so I am a contemporary of David Conrad, who wrote an eloquent op-ed lamenting the decision of our alma mater to begin accepting girls next year (“What The Kiski School has lost,” Oct. 9, TribLIVE).
David went so far as to speak of the school in the past tense, writing “Kiski was also a school.”
Kiski alumni are fervently passing David’s editorial around social media and text chains, evoking responses of “how sad” and fanning flames of discord between alumni and the administration, most alarmingly about how this is a “woke” decision done at the tip of the “liberal agenda” spear.
I wonder if Kelly Pidgeon (the son of the revered Kiski headmaster of 47 years, Jack Pidgeon) is proud that his Facebook post sharing David’s editorial has the following comment: “Schools move further away from academia to promoting equity which ironically can only really be achieved by teaching work ethic and focusing on academics. But apparently now we’re just a bunch of old privileged white guys that don’t know what is best for younger generations of all colors today.”
I don’t even feel that strongly about the decision to admit girls, and a week ago I never would have thought I’d devote time to writing this letter. But, you see, I am on board with “promoting equity” and wholeheartedly agree that a “bunch of old privileged white guys don’t know what is best for younger generations of all colors today” just like they did not know what was best for younger generations of all colors yesterday. And I believe that Kiski, which obviously provided a great deal to those now eulogizing it prematurely, deserves our support.
To give credit where due (or blamed, I suppose, in the opinion of many of my fellow alumni), it was something my wife Amanda (I know, a female) said to me over coffee this morning when I mentioned David’s editorial. “If they all loved the school so much, and the decision has been made, why aren’t they showing support now?”
Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the benefits of teaching boys without the distraction of girls. But, c’mon, “Next year that ‘place’ will no longer exist.” That’s hyperbole intended to evoke the emotion I see in the comments that follow its postings. “Continue to exist” is exactly what Kiski is trying to do. The result of David’s editorial, and those forwarding it around, is that it will be even harder for Kiski to succeed. And that is why I am taking the time to write this letter.
Let’s be clear: Much of what David wrote about has nothing at all to do with whether Kiski admits girls. Much of it is simply an appeal to emotion, or, as Mr. Pidgeon would say, a logical fallacy.
Kiski can continue to be all the things David says make (not made) it special. Kiski can continue its admissions practice of providing a place for students “whom no other private school was going to touch.” Kiski can continue to provide a place where troubled adolescents can go from “being potential dangers to themselves or anyone they might one day be involved with to being decent men.”
For all those circulating this editorial accompanied by nostalgic pangs for yesteryear, please tell me why these things cannot ever occur with girls around? Do we really believe that single-sex education is the only path to developing decent men? How sad.
Why not look for the opportunities here? Now Kiski can help young men learn how to be gentlemen in ways it could not before. Kiski can also prepare young men for how to study while also learning how to be in relationships with girls. I graduated near the top of my class at Kiski, but had the worst grades of my life during my first semester at college (to my parents shock) having fallen for a girl in my dorm.
I happen to think Kiski is exactly the sort of place where this can work. A place families can count on to help raise their boys in an environment appropriately respectful of girls. And Kiski can now be a place where families can send their girls and know they will be in a safe environment. Maybe Kiski should be a leader in boarding schools that do promote equity — is that a bad thing? Maybe a little evolution will be good for our beloved alma mater.
Let’s also dispel this notion that Kiski cannot still be a home for the “ungovernable ones, the exhausting, angry, brokenhearted boys” or that that was ever its real identity. Kiski may have been more socioeconomically diverse than Shady Side Academy, but that’s a very low bar. Kiski absolutely gave chances to students who would not otherwise have had the opportunity, but it can still do that. Maybe now even more with the financial benefit of attracting not just girls, but families who don’t want their boys going to a single-sex school. And to be accurate, Kiski boys generally came from upper middle class, if not wealthier, families (who was it that came back from weekends in a helicopter?). The campus has a 9-hole golf course, for goodness’ sake.
I agree with David that Kiski was “a solid, hard-nosed place that focused on what it took to make adolescents into something resembling decent men.” Can’t that include, in fact, doesn’t it necessarily include, teaching them to be gentlemen in the presence of young women? Isn’t that something the world could use these days?
For what it has given us, especially as you say, for you, David Conrad, doesn’t Kiski deserve a chance and our collective support? So, please quit publicly bashing it over the head while it is attempting to get up off the mat.
David J. Marmins, Kiski Class of 1987, grew up in Churchill and is now a lawyer and author in Atlanta, Ga.