revised May 26, 4:15 p.m.
Beware of writing about where you live. Smartmom has learned first hand the perils of being a local columnist. Case in point: her article in the Brooklyn Papers, “Ratner Money Can’t Buy Parents Love,” which angered many in the PS 321 community.
Needless to say, it wasn’t the first time Smartmom ruffled some Park Slope feathers. She already lost a friend because of one of her articles. And another friend is still angry about something she wrote. Teen Spirit has asked that Smartmom not write about him—too much. And the Oh So Feisty One would like a name change.
This time, Smartmom knew that she’d pissed off members of the PTA the minute she walked into the Parent’s office, when she got some really dirty looks and tepid hellos
Now, Smartmom feels like the philosopher, Hannah Arendt, who was called a self-hating Jew, after she wrote, “Eichmann in Jerusalem.”
For those who missed it, Smartmom’s article was about the PS 321 fundraising auction at the Brooklyn Museum and Forest City Ratner’s $7,500. contribution.
Oy, it’s been quite a week. One person called Smartmom “sleazy” because she is part of the PTA and she attended the auction. Ouch. Another person wrote to say that members of the auction committee, who worked so hard to organize the event, feel insulted and hurt.
The question she was exploring in the article was this: What do you do when a generous and controversial benefactor comes along?
Do you take the money or not?
For practical reasons, you probably take the money. Why? Because the public schools are under-funded, overcrowded, and in desperate need of cash.
Every public school PTA in New York City works its butt off to raise money to pay for pencils, art supplies, paper, and other very basic supplies. Above and beyond that, the PTA at PS 321 makes possible all sorts of enrichments that enhance our children’s lives.
So we need (and appreciate) all the money we can get. But it’s still a relevant moral question.
No one can deny that Ratner is a controversial figure in Brooklyn. Smartmom would have been remiss had she NOT mentioned that he was underwriting the event or that his name was in big letters on the program. Some in the school were incensed about his contribution. Others were more practical: Just take the Money.
In truth, Smartmom was not sitting in judgment about the school’s decision to take the money. Not by a long shot. She is far more interested in the way these issues play out in a school with a politically savvy parent body.
Some thought Smartmom put a negative light on the fact that the event was held at the Brooklyn Museum. Was she accusing them of being (gasp) pretentious or elitist? Not really. In Smartmom’s opinion, the museum’s Beaux Arts Court, which comes with a rental price tag of $6,500. is a splendid space for the school to come together as a community. But without underwriting, the PTA would have to charge $125. per ticket, which is much too much to charge public school parents. One PTA member said they could scale back and have the party in the Picnic House in Prospect Park like the old days, but that space only holds 200 people.
Even the PTA debated whether to accept the Ratner funding. Prior to the event, there was a meeting with the principal and other members of the fund raising committee. The final decision was made by the principal, who said: we have to take the money, we can not discriminate.
And that’s the mandate of school chancellor Joel Klein, who told the Department of Education that school principals must go after corporate money. This is a terrible state of affairs and a powerful topic for an article. But it was not the story Smartmom was writing.
Smartmom’s story was simply (nothing is ever simple she learned big time) about the school auction and a large donation by a very controversial Brooklyn figure. In the column Smartmom pondered if Ratner is an influence peddler or just a good friend of PS 321. She thinks he is probably a little of both. And that’s what makes the world go round.
If he’d wanted to make things easy for the PTA, he could have made an anonymous donation. But he obviously wants the recognition—that’s only human—and the publicity for his company (that’s showbiz).
As a people-pleaser, you can imagine how much Smartmom hates being snubbed on Seventh Avenue. But she’s getting used to it and is growing quite a thick skin.
And to the people who think Smartmom was ‘sitting in judgement’ of the PTA, a group she is actively involved with, Smartmom counters with this famous quote by Hannah Arendt from 1964:
“The heat caused by my ‘sitting in judgment’ has proved how uncomfortable most of us are when confronted with moral issues… and I admit that I am the most uncomfortable myself.”
With her eyes and ears open, Smartmom tries to write in an honest, and mostly loving way, about the community she is so passionately a part of.
Smartmom now knows that that can be a dicey thing to do.
Having just read your article in the PSP, let me, at the outset, express both my unqualified support for your position and my amazement that you would not only have to defend your actions but you would be subject to the this kind of negativity.
Firstly, you have the right, if not the obligation in the journalistic sense, to raise these type of issues. If these questions cause uncomfortable feelings, so be it.
Secondly, it is most likely that a majority of the PS321 parents are opposed in some way to the Ratner project. While I have no way of proving this, it is an educated guess; so supposing this, the issue is whether one can accept money from a person with whom one has serious disagreement, and who is offering the money subject to recognition which, in turn, implies that PS321 PTA supports his position. I don’t think so. As you said, if the money had been offered anonymously, it would have been a different issue.
Thirdly, both Ms. Phillips and your detractors are simply wrong in suggesting that the PTA cannot “discriminate” when money is offered. Who says so? If, for example, a convicted drug dealer offers monetary support in an effort to improve his social standing, would the PTA accept it? How about NAMBLA? I suspect not. Discrimination has unfortunately lost its original meaning, that is, being selective. And being selective is what we do all the time.
Finally, trying to ignore or dismiss this concern, or shooting the messenger, is probably more telling about the discomfort the critics have than the opposite.
One of my neighbours, very active in the PTA, expressed exactly the same sentiment you’ve gotten- what’s all the fuss about-we need the money. I must say that, unfortunately, I did not make my point face-to-face; I wish I had had the courage to say- no, it’s not about the money, it’s about the perception of rightness. It’s about old-fashioned values like not accepting tainted money, about being, like Caesar’s wife, above suspicion. If the PTA had refused Ratner’s donation, it would not have gone under. And it should have.
You owe no one an explanation for what you have written.
It is an important, yet polarizing issue and you are entitled to your observations and opinions. You are generally very fair in your musings about our neighborhood.
Remember, we have a very opinionated and outspoken populace here; that is one of the allures of living here.
I enjoyed both the column and your explanation here. With such a charged issue as Atlantic Yards, people are going ascribe motives to everything that’s written. If you are going to write your column in a sassy Dowd-like tone, I’m sure this isn’t the last controversy you’ll see.
But I am glad that you are keeping the neighborhood informed.
Well, not being a Brooklynite (or on the PTA), I know nothing about Ratner, but I do know your work and that you generally write (in this fashion) as an observer. It seems people sometimes misunderstand your writings as criticism – or the whole celebrity thing that upsets people for whatever reason. I guess being part of the media makes you controversial even when you’re not being controversial.