Jon Monteith

Although I never announced it on here, after writing a column back in the spring about the merits of joining Teach for America that seemed to indicate I was actually going to put my money where my mouth was, I chose to decline their offer to teach in the D.C. metro area public school system. Unlike most people who turn down prestigious opportunities, I rejected TFA’s offer without any alternative offer on the table, and now I’m scrambling for a job.

Do I regret my decision? Not at all. I think back to the 2-3 different instances during my post-acceptance discernment when I confidently strode to the computer and put my cursor above the “Accept” button, thinking I was ready to commit to TFA, and it freaks me out. I had virtually all of my friends, my boyfriend, my U of I mentor, and my sister in one corner, consistently urging me to join TFA. In the other corner sat Augur, one or two other friends, and my parents. They were not convinced that the actual experience of teaching was something that I truly believed was right for me, regardless of the inevitable personal growth I would encounter along the way or the obvious pleasure I would take in trying to help an underprivileged group of people. Augur was convinced that there were more fitting ways to apply my talents while trying to serve the public, the 1-2 other friends were just really blunt about the fact that I did not seem like the TFA type, and my parents wanted to make sure that I was doing what I wanted to do, not what the Teach for America recruitment team suggested I do.

In the end, I agreed more with Group B. Some of my biggest “Do TFA!” cheerleaders later admitted that they were most interested in hearing all of my amazing classroom horror stories or living vicariously through my hands-on, down-and-dirty work while they did their death marches through law school. I’m pretty glad I was able to recognize some of this for what it was while it was actually happening; otherwise, Group A may have triumphed. To me, it would have been a major disservice to the kids I was supposed to be serving had I chosen to accept two years with TFA for the wrong reasons: because it was the first–and still the only–post-college job offer I had received, because a lot of people I loved happened to love the idea of me doing it, because I really only loved the idea of me doing it, or because I wanted to be able to add it to my resume. If I were to do it primarily for any of these reasons, I think it would have shown in the lack of passion for my work, and that wasn’t fair to anyone.

But that’s just me. Except that it’s not.

It’s actually the thought process of a good chunk of ambitious college seniors who apply, but right or wrong, many of them still go through the two years and have a positive impact on the lives of their students. As far as having a positive impact on the academic performance of those same students–as compared to non-TFA teachers–the debate rages on, with many education professors throughout the country siding with the TFA skeptics.

While I was in the middle of deciding what to do and after I declined, I was in touch with a reporter for the Chronicle of Higher Education. She was working a big story about Teach for America, and I got the impression that unlike most coverage I’ve seen of TFA, it wasn’t going to be solely flattering. As an ambivalent applicant and then as a confident decliner, I was obviously a desirable source for her article, and I agreed to serve as one when she asked.

The article was published last month, and you can access it here. It’s a fairly good read if you’re interested in the TFA debate, and I would say it’s reasonable in both its criticism and its praise for the organization. Since a few people have brought TFA up in various posts–Augur and Billy have, I think, and J. Prescott called it worthless or something once–I thought some of you might want to check it out and discuss.

Elizabeth Edwards made headlines yesterday by coming out in support of same-sex marriage, a position that places her at odds with hubby and Democratic “top 3″ candidate John Edwards. Unless Michelle Obama has parted ways with her husband on this issue and Google and I just don’t know about it, this makes Elizabeth the only declared gay marriage supporter among the three Democratic frontrunners and their spouses.

What might this mean for her husband’s campaign? Like blacks and Jews, the gay community can carry considerable sway within the Democratic Party, especially when it manages to coalesce around a single candidate. And with so many LGBT voters feeling jaded about their supposed political champions stopping at civil unions, a courageous pro-gay marriage declaration from one-half of the Edwards duo could move a lot of gay and lesbian voters to the Edwards column.

But how likely is it that Mrs. Edwards will actually become Queen Elizabeth of the gays? There is little distinction between the Obama, Clinton, and Edwards campaigns on LGBT issues—they all seem fairly pro-gay but not particularly inspiring as advocates—and of course there is the likelihood that if nominated, the socially moderate Giuliani will pull a decent number of pro-gay but otherwise moderate-to-conservative voters to his side. After all, Rudy’s already managed to charm Brian’s semi-liberal mother even though he now opposes the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and recently came out against a New Hampshire law legalizing civil unions. (Karen, if Brian and I stay together for the long haul, I hope you’re as excited as I am about our “domestic partnership/alternative lifestyle” ceremony—maybe we can even have a certified witch officiate!) At this point, it’s going to be an uphill battle for any single primary candidate to win over a majority of LGBT voters.

She faces some awfully tough competition. Even though the Clintons are about as aggressively uninspiring as the next mainstream Democratic politician when it comes to their collective record on LGBT issues, they have carefully cultivated a solid relationship with influential gay Democrats, and David “Sassfest” Geffen jumping ship is hardly an indication that Hillary’s gay foundation is in danger of collapsing. Hillary has won the long-term admiration of much of the LGBT community with her credentials as a woman of power. But Elizabeth is nipping at her heels; just look at AmIAnnoying.com, where both women enjoy membership in the category “Fag Hags [Women Loved by Gay Men].” For as long as Clinton and Edwards both remain in the race, gay voters looking for an alpha hag might be hopelessly torn.

But how far can a surrogate go? Elizabeth Edwards is not running; her husband is, and policy positions aside, the whole “straight white male” thing doesn’t resonate very well with LGBT voters. Sorry.

And what about Obama? This is perilously anecdotal, but a super-majority of my gay friends and acquaintances—as the former president of PRIDE, UIUC’s largest LGBT student organization, I do know quite a few—appears to have lined up behind Barack. Just like other voters in my generation, they are inspired by his “new era of politics” message, and in their view, Obama’s seemingly innate ability to “get it” amounts to a total eclipse of Hillary and Johnny E. In terms of tangible position-taking on gay issues, he isn’t running ahead of the pack, but his language on gay rights just seems more modern and thus creates an image that he is more “in touch” with younger gay voters than either of his top two competitors. Personally, I find it aggravating that the younger LGBT generation might be valuing style over substance, but I’m a skeptical curmudgeon, and regardless of my views, I’m well aware that this perception has been spreading.

As for this Rainbow Panther (thanks, Augur), I was largely behind Hillary because I’m easily dazzled by the Clintonistas, but I don’t mess around on gay issues; I favor substance over style any day of the week. If, like Hillary and Bill, Elizabeth has the ear of her husband on critical policy decisions—and I think she does—I am certainly tempted to jump ship and declare my support for Edwards, since gay issues rank so high on my political priorities list. I do know that a lot of politically active gays won’t be satisfied by anything less than marriage, so there is a decent chance that Elizabeth’s speech could shake the LGBT voter bloc up a bit. I feel a bit shaken up myself.

Rudy for president? Sure, if you want an arrogant fool whose failure to safeguard his city prior to 9/11 caused needless additional first responder deaths. But keep casting those stones!

Read it here.

This column is a change of pace for me, as it’s not generally negative or advocating some sort of reform. In light of the fact that many UIUC students–myself included for most of my time here–don’t realize how good they have it, this is a column of appreciation for the things that make this university a great place.

It’s also a shameless plug for the Institute of Government and Public Affairs, a wonderful policy and government institute at this university that too often goes unnoticed by students. I was an intern there my junior year, and I got to work in the same building as Governor Edgar, which was kind of hot–even though Augur thinks he’s a murderer or something.

New column here.

Everything you need to know is in the title. ;)

For the record, Billy, the best part of Field of Dreams is actually when the little girl chokes on a hot dog. I’m also evil, though, so there’s a degree of bias at hand.