Hollister was a little
community that started out as a railroad whistle stop and grew up
around a college. This was a sad day for the community. The only
local newspaper, “The Hollister Town Crier,” was closing its
doors for good. It was about to be discarded as surely as
yesterday’s news. The only question was what would be left behind.
Old news stories quickly die, and the editions containing those
stories are placed in what is aptly called the morgue. Those stories
chronicle the triumphs and the tragedies of the town and its
citizens. The names of most of the average citizens rarely appear in
the more dramatic stories. Most people lead private lives, and their
names are only found in the announcements of births, deaths,
marriages, and graduations from the local schools. The obituaries
essentially repeat the information previously published in the
announcements.
As a member of the
Historical Society, Glen was compiling an index of the contents of
the newspapers, and he was packing up those papers to be stored in
archives at the museum. This task had him thinking about our lives
and the duration of the memories about us as individuals. He was
thinking of the announcements and obituaries as inky footprints that
are buried beneath the sands of time, unless or until some member of
a future generation becomes curious enough to uncover them.
Unfortunately, those footprints merely mark a passage and do not tell
a researcher much about the person who left them. What brought this
to mind was the obituary Glen had just read. It was written a year
ago to announce the demise of Professor Benjamin Reed. It contained
the usual information and the almost mandatory platitude about how
sorely the good Professor will be missed by his family, his friends,
his colleagues, and his students. Unlike a eulogy, it did not
present any anecdotes to tell the reader anything about the
professor’s personality or why he would be missed. This was a
shame because the professor was a very notable and quotable man.
Glen had just
transferred from a junior college to begin his junior year at
Hollister. On his first day at Hollister, he walked into Professor
Reed’s classroom and took a seat near the front. There on the
black board was a single word, “Reed.” The Professor’s hair
was turning gray. He was plump with age but not fat. His necktie
was pulled down and his collar was open. His suit jacket was
carelessly draped over the chair at his desk. His half reading
glasses sat on his desk. He would not need to use the glasses to
read notes during his opening statements.
“I’m Professor
Reed,” he said. “I’m not a reed bending in the wind, and
believe me, I’ve already heard all the jokes about reeds; so put
that nonsense behind you. From your history survey courses, I’m
sure many of you have concluded that history is merely a matter of
memorizing names, dates and events, but you are mistaken. History is
a discipline and an art. The events we study are important because
of the conclusions we reach about how they shaped the present and
what we can learn from that. Historians will agree on the proven
facts but will vigorously argue about the conclusions. Those of you
who become interested in the subject will undoubtedly test my
patience by espousing theories that have been widely rejected.
That’s all right. I know that at your age you are all too eager to
find panaceas to solve all of the problems of the world. The events
that cause a theory to be rejected do not necessarily invalidate the
entire theory. Circumstances can change; we can also change policies
and how they are implemented. Furthermore, the basic theory may be
sound with a few modifications. What is required is diligent
research and careful analysis. Be patient enough to gather all the
pertinent facts, my young friends, and I will try to be patient with
you.”
The Professor’s
patience, however, was limited. One student found this out when he
made a ridiculous statement based on ideology rather than the facts
presented. The professor’s rebuke was stinging.
“It’s a good thing
this isn’t a pop quiz, Mr. Chester, or I should have to penalize
you fifteen points for an unnecessary display of ignorance.”
In one of his classes
Professor Reed gave the example of S. I. Hayakawa pulling the plug on
the sound truck used by anti-war demonstrators during the student
strike at San Francisco State. “How many of you think Mr. Hayakawa
was correct when he said demonstrators should not be allowed to
disrupt classes or the conduct of ordinary business?”
Roughly sixty percent
of the students raised their hands. “I agree with you,” he said,
“and I opposed that horrible war.”
This, however, did not
mean that Professor Reed considered Mr. Hayakawa a hero. In fact, he
opposed Mr. Hayakawa’s candidacy for the U.S. Senate. After his
election to the senate Mr. Hayakawa became well known for taking naps
whenever he was not interested in the subject being discussed. He
also became well known for the absurd statements he made because of
his blind ideology. The Senator was much in the news because of his
comment about the Panama Canal. “We stole it fair and square,”
he said. Back in 1973, when there was a shortage of oil and gasoline
prices soared to unprecedented heights, Mr. Hayakawa had also said:
“The poor don’t need gas, because they’re not working.”
The subject of the
lecture the day after Mr. Hayakawa’s statement about the canal was
Theodore Roosevelt and the Panama Canal. When the students entered
the classroom they saw that Professor Reed had neatly printed on the
blackboard both quotations followed by Mr. Hayakawa’s name and the
dates on which Mr. Hayakawa had made the statements quoted. The
Professor waited for all of his students to settle into their seats.
“The art of diplomacy
is saying what you want the other person to believe rather than what
you really believe. Needless to say that Senator Hayakawa is no
diplomat.” The professor then pointed at both quotations.
“Apparently, the only times he can open his mouth without sticking
his foot in it are during his frequent naps.”
“Do you think the
Senator should have said he didn’t mean those things, and should
have apologized for saying them?” a student asked.
“As a semanticist and
an expert on language, I think we have to presume that he said
exactly what he meant, proving once again that an open mouth can be
as unseemly as open trousers.”
‘Depending on what
pops out.”
“As usual, Mr.
Miller, your statement is overly graphic, but it does demonstrate
your comprehension of the subject. And no, I’m not going to add
‘at hand.’”
The professor
frequently stated his objection to the use of sarcasm, which was
funny because of the fact that he was so good at using it. This was
true in his personal life as well as his professional life.
Glen was leaving the
drug store when he saw the Professor emerge from the dry cleaners.
The professor was carrying an empty, wire coat hanger. The Professor
walked over to his car, which was parked in front of the Wells Fargo
bank, right in front of the window prominently displaying a picture
of the Wells Fargo stagecoach. He then tried to insert the coat
hanger between the weather stripping of the front window on the
driver’s side.
The Professor had
locked his keys in the car and Glen asked if he could help.
“Please! Do you mind
if I leave you while you’re trying to get my car open? I really
need to get to the savings and loan before it closes.”
“I’ll bring the
keys to you if I get it open before you finish your business there.”
“That’s very kind
of you. Thank you!”
“You’re welcome.”
Glen opened the door
and retrieved the keys. He looked across the parking lot just as the
Professor entered the savings and loan. When Glen entered the
savings and loan, he saw the professor sitting in a cubicle bearing
the sign “New Accounts.”
“Why are you closing
your account at Wells Fargo?” the lady behind the desk asked.
“Let’s just say
that the man riding shotgun on the coach should not shoot the
passengers.”
The lady behind the
desk laughed and so did Glen.
“They charged me an
outrageous fee they would not reverse,” the professor explained.
He then turned and
looked up at Glen. Glen handed him the car keys.
“Thank you very
much.”
“You’re welcome.”
Glen turned to walk
away.
“If we ever do
anything to make you angry, please tell me before anyone else because
you’re far too quotable.”
Glen had to resist the
temptation to turn back around and agree with her.
On the day before a
non-presidential election, Professor Reed was urging his students to
vote. “Who is elected to Congress is important, and so is your
vote. One of the examples people frequently cited to demonstrate how
one vote can change an election is Adolph Hitler’s election as the
leader of the Nazi Party. As the story goes there was an anti-Hitler
member of the party who was well known for his weak bladder. As the
time to vote approached, this member was feeling a strong urge to
void his bladder. He turned to a member sitting next to him.
‘Please cast my vote for Herr Drexler if I do not return before the
vote is taken,’ he asked. The member he asked to do this, however,
was a supporter of Hitler. He therefore cast both votes in favor of
Hitler, and Hitler won by one vote.”
The day after the off
term election, Professor Reed admitted that the story of Hitler’s
election as leader of the party was apocryphal. Then he smiled.
“If you wish to
penalize me fifteen points, however, it must be for a deception
rather than an unnecessary display of ignorance. Although the story
is not true, I have used it to demonstrate three points. The first
point is that one vote can matter. Another point is how capricious
human events can seem. We have a strong tendency to look for great
actions that trigger monumental events. Often, like the shout that
releases the kinetic energy of an avalanche, the trigger is as
mundane as a full bladder. The third reason I used this story is
because so many people repeat it without checking the facts, and
unfounded rumors are often the mundane cause of riots and such.”
On the day of the
Professor’s death, he delivered a lecture on Benjamin Franklin.
The professor was having some fun over the reaction to Mr. Franklin’s
lightning rod.
“Preachers and other
religious zealots objected to the lightning rod because they thought
it thwarted God’s will. Never mind the fact that both the
righteous and the sinners frequently died from lightning strikes or
the illogical conclusion that puny mortals could actually thwart the
will of an omnipotent being. I think this illustrates just how far
we have progressed in our thinking. A blind faith is not a true
faith. Never let your beliefs make you reject reason or facts that
can be scientifically proven.”
This was the last class
of the day. The sky was dark with clouds when Professor Reed left
the building. He was struck by lightning as he approached his car.
Glen raced over to the prostrate professor. The professor’s eyes
blinked once.
“Where was the damned
lightning rod when I needed it!” he muttered.
Those were his last
words.
No comments:
Post a Comment