“Are Quaker Values Still Meaningful”
Tom Hoopes’ Remarks at the
Forum on the Legacy William Penn’s Philosophy of Public Education
Lower Merion Historical Association
October 16, 2004

I have been asked to say a few words about the relevance and meaning of Quaker values in the context of today’s event. I want to start by saying that I have used inductive reasoning to come to the conclusion that Quaker values must still be relevant to education. The reason I know that is that, perhaps like many of you, I have the dial on my car radio permanently set to one of the public radio stations. And, as recently as yesterday – or perhaps two days ago, before the pledge drive – I heard one of our local Friends schools inviting people to an open house by stating that the school has emphasized “academic excellence” and “Quaker values” for hundreds of years. (Pause) Well, I can assure you that these schools do a lot of market research. So, if they have determined that Quaker values are a good selling point, then ipso facto, they must be relevant. ? (Of course, I recognize that by the logic I have just offered, anything for sale on the Home Shopping Network might also have to be considered relevant, too, so I may have to re-visit my logic here.)

Let me speak briefly about what we mean when we say “Quaker values.” In point of fact, what we are referring to are a set of universal humanistic principles that can be found in virtually every religious and ethical tradition. I am talking about values of Community, Equality, Fairness and Integrity of character. When I take my children to the YMCA, for example, I see large banners above the swimming pool extolling these very same virtues. And these same values are on display in virtually any educational institution’s statement of philosophy. So, I know that we Quakers do not have a monopoly on them, by any stretch of the imagination.

But when we talk about “Quaker values,” we are also talking about two additional principles which are not necessarily held up in the dominant culture, and which DO have a special place in the Quaker historical tradition. These bear mentioning today, because they have had a lot to do with why Quakers have always been a half-step out of the mainstream (?), in education and elsewhere.

The first principle I am talking about is Simplicity, by which we don’t mean outward simplicity – such as dressing only in gray and driving an hand-me-down Toyota. Of course, living simply may, indeed, be one manifestation of inward, spiritual Simplicity. But by Simplicity we are talking about a condition of the soul, in which one’s heart stands in direct, unambivalent alignment with the power of Universal Love. Nothing complicated about that, right? (?) That’s a rather high standard for daily life, of course. It is closely coupled with a deep sense of Humility, about the limits of our power and who is really in charge. (We Quakers do not tend to talk about a “Humility Testimony,” of course. That would have a strangely ironic quality…!) For Quakers, over the years, it has been helpful to us to return to this alignment, over and over and over, to remind ourselves of what is right, and good and true, whether in the arena of slavery, women’s rights, prison reform, gay rights, education or elsewhere. We don’t always get it right the first time, but in the long run, our commitment to Simplicity has been a dependable compass in the wilderness.

The second distinctive Quaker value that sets us apart from the dominant culture is our commitment to nonviolent conflict resolution, which we often, in shorthand, refer to as our “Peace Testimony.” Simply put, we find warfare – and the kind of thinking and relating with others that contribute to a climate in which warfare seems like the best option – not merely unethical, but also ineffective in the long-run. In response to the over-arching question, “Are Quaker Values still Meaningful?”, I cannot think of anything more relevant to our world today than a set of inclusive, humanistic principles anchored in a commitment to creative, non-violent problem-solving, predicated on the fundamental, spiritual insight of Quakerism, namely: that there is the essence of the Divine in every single person. To paraphrase from that famous Quaker, Mahatma Gandhi, “If you don’t find God in the next person you meet, you might as well not look any further.”

Well, that’s right, isn’t it? And there is the challenge. The challenge in the Middle East and the challenge in Lower Merion Township. The challenge in my family, and in yours. And it is a challenge especially in this very, very acrimonious political environment that we find ourselves today, to look at those with whom we find ourselves in political opposition and say, “Oh, yes. That person is a child of God, just like I am.” That’s a real challenge.

And similarly, in the arena of education, this challenge is quite stark, and the stakes are quite high. There are children – and adults – in our classrooms and in our school systems – whatever the context: Quaker school, public school, parochial school, Hebrew school, home school – who may test our ability to see their Divinity. Now, that’s not THEIR problem, that’s OUR problem. Because I stand before you, as a Quaker and a fellow child of God to say that their divinity is most certainly there, whether or not I see it on any given day. And when we abandon those children who have no powerful friends to advocate for them, we are abandoning our ethical principles. Just talking about “leaving no child behind” flunks the Integrity test, if that talk is not backed up with action.

Let me finish by saying, again, that Quakers have no monopoly on truth or ethics. Far from it. But our tradition and our principles, which have been tested ever since they were laid out by William Penn and the people who came before him, and after him, still have something of value to contribute to our world today.

As we have heard this morning, Quakers do have a special place in the history of the great American experiment of public education. In many ways, a quality educational system for ALL children, regardless of background, is the cornerstone of our republic and of our democracy. That’s right, you heard me say it: a commitment to leaving no child behind is both a republican and a democratic value. (Both lower case and upper case!) So, when we say that it is essential that ALL children – no matter their wealth, no matter their skin color, no matter their gender, and, more recently, no matter their native language and ethnic origin – receive an education of equal value, we are saying that because we are affirming that all of these children themselves are of equal value.

When it was set forth in the Declaration of Independence that “All men (by which they intended “property-owning white men,” but you and I know that they meant, in their deepest hearts, “all people” ? ) are created equal,” Quakers took it literally. (? ) Quakers started with the claim of people’s inherent equality, and put it into practice by establishing the first public schools.

And whether that educational system, or any system so conceived and so dedicated can long endure, is a real unanswered question in our time.

I am grateful for the restoration of this beautiful building, as a reminder of our proud past, and as a symbol of our optimistic vision of the future, a vision in which each person is recognized as unique, sacred and worthy of, as William Penn put it, “a virtuous education.”

Thank you.

Tom Hoopes serves as Director of Education for Philadelphia Yearly Meeting. In that capacity, he supports and supervises Philadelphia Yearly Meeting (PYM) Central Office staff for scholastic education and children's religious education. He serves as a primary Quaker liaison to the 41 Friends schools in our region, as well as a for programs and issues affecting the many PYM members who teach and send their children to public schools. Tom comes to us from a background as a high school Assistant Principal, a children's summer camp Director and a devoted Boston Red Sox fan. He is a member of Central Philadelphia Meeting. He makes his home in Wayne, PA, with his wife, 2 pre-school children and his 103 year-old Grandmother.

Top of Page