New head for Sidwell Friends School

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sidwell teachers should rember that the Quaker aspect is what makes the school particularly cool. As good academics can be found at about 10 other private /public schools around DC.

My kids have had quite a few teachers at Sidwell who manage to live Quaker values while at the same time setting high academic standards and helping kids reach those standards. And, yeah, at least my kids thought they were pretty cool people in the bargain. The fact that someone is a birthright Quaker doesn't make him/her infallible.

You were doing pretty well on the "Quaker Values" front until you had to get that little dig in at the end. Not so Quakerly, friend.

Different poster. I see no dig at Quakers or anyone, just recognition that no one is naturally superior to anyone else. I would guess you are Quaker and being overly sensitive, but I don't see a Quaker using the term "unquakerly." So I'm guessing you're just trying to stir up trouble.

If you know the context, the "birthright Quaker" reference is definitely a swipe. Not the first, worst, nor last -- but it was barbed. To be fair, the poster was responding to a post that seemed aimed at Sidwell teachers. However, it may be kindergarten wisdom but two wrongs don't make a right.

Meh. I've heard several friends refer to themselves as "birthright Quakers," and cite it as a badge of supposed honor, so I don't see how you get to cast it as a swipe. I stand by my assessment that you're just trying to stir up trouble.

I am aware that we have crossed the line into "annoying side argument" here, and I will let you have the last word if you would like to rebut my own last post on this.

Neither of us knows exactly what the original poster meant. However, with some familiarity with the issues, I think there are some allusions that you are missing in your evaluation of the point. I don't want to try to explain them at length because I don't want to take veiled negative allusions and translate them into blunter attacks (that I think are unfair). I am also willing to concede that I may put a less charitable spin on any given post because (1) I am frustrated by how much people use the anonymity of this forum to anonymously attack specifically identified individuals; and (2) I believe that when it comes to Sidwell in particular, individuals using this board who should know Quaker values act in a manner inconsistent with them. I just hate the unfairness of people getting picked at anonymously -- that's what it boils down to.

I'll cop to anger, frustration, and being snarky, but I think I got the original intent of the post right, and I also reject your assessment of me that I am "just trying to stir up trouble." I suspect we shall have to agree to disagree on those points.

[Anonymous]

You can't be a birthright Quaker unless your mother was Quaker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can't be a birthright Quaker unless your mother was Quaker.

Isn't that kind of like the Jews?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't be a birthright Quaker unless your mother was Quaker.

Isn't that kind of like the Jews?[/

Yes. Sense of humor comes down through the father.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't be a birthright Quaker unless your mother was Quaker.

Isn't that kind of like the Jews?[/

Yes. Sense of humor comes down through the father.

You're on to something here, PP; this is true for our Episcopalian family as well! Kids definitely got DH's sense of humor -- dry and self-deprecating. (nb -- DH is cradle Episcopalian, so not sure how that cuts.)