by
Michael D. Waggoner
November 28, 2023
Thursday, November 30, 2023
Wednesday, March 15, 2023
Thursday, December 29, 2022
Supper Club Update from Cherie Dargan
Welcome, everyone.
As your new 'Supper Club Mama,' I want to encourage everyone to send Mike Dargan your speech after the presentation. dargan@gmail.com
Any questions, contact me, Cherie Dargan and if I don't know, I'll contact Judy, Lynn, or Paul. cheriedargan@gmail.com
Mike and I also use a Google Voice Mail number: 319-833-9118. When you call this number, we'll get an email with the message and will call you back.
The Cedar Falls Supper Club is moving to the Diamond Event Center at the Western Home Communities as of August, 2023. We meet on the third Tuesday of the month, except for those three exceptions, as noted. Remember, the club was sometimes known as 'Town and Gown,' and we try to accommodate those members who teach at the University or HCC and have Spring Break.
If you invite a guest, here is the address:
5307 Caraway Lane, Cedar Falls, Iowa
I will use Google Groups to contact you, instead of typing 23 names. You can also communicate with all of us by using the following. Just copy and paste.
cf-supperclub@googlegroups.com
Here is the lineup for 2023,
SUPPER CLUB SPEAKERS SCHEDULE 2023
Unfortunately, they already gave away our September date.
So, we're going to New Aldaya for one meeting.
Back to the Diamond Event Center
Last updated July 16, 2023
Tuesday, May 17, 2022
Monday, April 25, 2022
WHY ARE WE SO BAD
AT MEETING STRANGERS?
Presented by Max Kirk
April, 19, 2022
By
this, I don’t mean just meeting strangers.
By this stage in our life, experiences, good and bad, have helped us
create a system that allows us to meet and successfully interact with
strangers. We have each been taught from
childhood how to react in new and challenging social situations. We may look the person in the eyes in means
of showing our confidence and a means of determining the new persons
reaction. We maybe we extend a firm
handshake? Maybe we observe how the
person’s mannerism? Do they seem fidgety? Do they avoid eye contact? Do they seem interested in us or
disengaged? Do they seem pleasant and do
we like them?
We
all have our favorite means of gauging or sizing up a new person. After all, we have inherited this experience
and these traits over thousands of years from our ancestors, so we should be
pretty good at sizing up strangers.
Right? The answer is really
no. As a group, humans are really pretty
inept when it comes to judging the motive, character, and intent of
others. In his book “Talking to
Strangers”, Malcom Gladwell explores why our assessment of a person’s motive,
intent, or honesty is really a little more successful than random chance. Some of his examples are certainly familiar
to all of us.
PEACE IN OUR TIME
In
the fall of 1938, it seemed that the world was being drug into war by Adolf
Hitler, who had been making increasingly bellicose statements about invading
the German speaking portion of Czechoslovakia.
Europe did not seem to know how to react or how to handle the situation
created by Hitler. It was Nevel
Chamberlain, a Prime Minister of England, who devised a plan to get to the
bottom of Hitler’s true intent. He would
fly to Germany and meet with Hitler face-to-face.
It
seems that no one really knew Hitler.
Few European leaders had met him.
Neither Roosevelt, nor Stalin, had ever met Hitler. Various British aristocrats who were friendly
to the Nazi cause and would sometimes cross the English Channel to pay their
respects and join the Fuhrer at parties.
These people said that he could be very funny and did wonderful
imitations. These were social calls
however and certainly not the type of contact necessary to avoid a world war.
On
September 14, 1938, the British learned that Hitler would be very welcoming of
Chamberlain and was eager to meet with him.
Chamberlain was going to Germany to revert a world war. His support in the British polls was at 70%. Chamberlain was greeted by thousands of
Germans when he arrived. He was whisked
away by motorcade to the train station where he rode in Hitler’s private car to
his retreat in the mountains.
Their
conversations were often heated. Hitler
making it very plain that he was going seize the Sudetenland regardless of what
the world thought. Chamberlain’s purpose,
of course, was to determine if that was all that Hitler wanted. Chamberlain looked at Hitler long and hard
and decided that he believed him. Later,
Chamberlain wrote, “In short, I had established a certain confidence which was
my aim, and on my side in spite of the hardness and ruthlessness I thought I
saw in his face, I got the impression that here was a man who could be relied
upon when he had given his word.”
On
his return to England, Chamberlain stated, “Yesterday afternoon I had a long
talk with Herr Hitler. I feel satisfied
now that each of us fully understands what is in the mind of the other.”
We
now know that Chamberlain’s negotiations with Hitler are widely regarded as one
of the great follies of the 2nd World War. Chamberlain was outmaneuvered at the
bargaining table. He misread Hitler’s
intentions and failed to warn Hitler that if he reneged on his promises, there
would be serious consequences. But yet,
Chamberlain was no fool. He made careful
note of Hitler’s behavior. Chamberlain
wrote, “He gave me the double handshake that he reserves for specially friendly
demonstrations.” Chamberlain saw no
signs of irrationality or insanity. In
fact, most of the British diplomatic core that met Hitler felt that he hated
war as much as anyone and could be trusted.
While
some were deceived by Hitler, others were not.
Foremost amongst these was Winston Churchill. Churchill never believed for a moment that
Hitler was anything more than a duplicitous thug. Hitler called Chamberlain’s visit “the
stupidest thing that has ever been done.”
Churchill had never met Hitler and had only read about him. Very few people in the British foreign
service disbelieved Hitler’s intent and those were the ones who had never met
him and knew the least about him personally.
The people who were wrong about Hitler were the ones that had talked to
him for hours and believed they knew him.
Chamberlain was not a stupid man by any means, but he was obviously
deceived by Hitler. Others who had never
met Hitler saw him more closely for what he really was. How could those who judged Hitler with their
own eyes and ears be so wrong while others, having no personal contact with
Hitler, be so right? As Mr. Gladwell
says, this puzzling pattern pops up everywhere.
WHO GETS BAIL?
Another
example is in the court system. In a
busy metropolitan courtroom, the defendants appeared everyday for
arraignments. The defendants are all
types of people who have been arrested in the past 24 hours on suspicion of
some type of crime. They have all been
in the holding cell and they now appear before a judge in handcuffs,
one-by-one. As each case is called
before the judge, the judge must look at the file with the lawyers and the
defendant directly in front of the judge.
The lawyers, of course, will make their pitch about whether or not the
defendant should be required to post bond and if so, how much the bond should
be. The judge’s question comes down to
“Does this perfect stranger deserve his freedom?”
The
criminal justice system assumes, as most of us would agree, that difficult
decisions regarding posting a bond and the amount of the bond are best made if
the judge can look the defendant straight in the eye and meet them. In most
instances, judges want to make these difficult decisions the same way
Chamberlain did, looking the defendant straight in the eye to try to get a
sense of who he really is. Did this
work? Are the judges armed with the
defendant’s information, file materials, and personal observation any better
than random chance at making these decisions?
A
study tested this, gathering up the records of over half a million defendants
brought before arraignment hearing in New York from 2008 – 2013. Of those individuals, human judges of New
York had released just over 400,000. The
artificial intelligence system was provided the same information that the
prosecutors had given the judges in these arraignment cases: age, criminal record, etc. The computer came up with its own list of
people who should be released and who committed the fewest crimes while on bail
and showed up for their trial date.
The
people on the computer list were 25% less likely to commit a crime while
awaiting trial than the 400,000 people released by the judges of New York
City. The computer system flagged 1% of
all defendants as “high risk”. These
were people the computer thought should never be released prior to trial. According to the computer calculation, well
over half of those individuals would commit another crime if let out on
bail. The human judges looked at the
same group of individuals; however, they released 48.5% of them.
Many
defendants flagged by the algorithm as “high risk” were treated by the judge as
low risk. The only difference between
the information provided to the human judges and the computer was that the
human judges had the evidence of their own eyes and a feeling about the
defendant before them. In summary, when
it comes to making bail bond decisions, the computer algorithm, without any
personal contact with the defendants, beats the judge’s perception by a factor
of 25%.
The
same puzzle, as faced by Chamberlain in meeting Hitler appears in this
example. What then is the value of
personal contact and observation? Part
of the answer lies in our human reaction to “default to truth”. We want to believe people. We must believe people. If we believe that everyone was lying to us,
we would have no ability to function in society. As with Chamberlain, however, defaulting to
truth can have ongoing serious consequences.
THE MADOFF TOUCH
In
the early 2000’s, a very complicated and widely successful head fund was
created by Bernard Madoff. He had all
the trappings of success. He moved in
the money circles. He had fancy office
buildings. He was reclusive and secretive. He raised many questions to financiers about
how he was able to achieve the outstanding results for his clients. Many questioned what he did and thought it
smelled a little funny. SEC investigated
Madoff on his success but found his tax returns to be rock solid. When the investigator asked Madoff for an
answer, Madoff said that he had an “infallible gut feel” for when to get in and
out of the market just before a downswing and back into the market just before
an upswing. An explanation apparently
was that he could see around corners and was very adept at market timing. The SEC investigator had questions and had gone
to his boss. His boss had questions but
did not find Madoff’s claim to be trading on “gut feel” to be necessarily
ridiculous. The SEC, in other words,
defaulted to the truth and chose to believe Madoff even though it had serious
misgivings. Many investment funds in New
York were not completely trusting Madoff trusted the system. Madoff was part of one of the most heavily
regulated sectors in the entire financial market. If he was really just making things up,
wouldn’t somebody catch him? Everyone
assumed that someone else was watching out for their interests and they
defaulted to truth, choosing to believe Madoff as it was more convenient than
not believing Madoff. He was suave,
sophisticated, and had a certain aura about him. For years, people would default to the truth
of what he was saying rather than risk discovery of deception.
In
reality, lies are rare and truth is more frequent. The greatest advantage to humans lies in
assuming strangers are truthful rather than deceptive. While believing in truth, we get efficient
communication and social coordination.
The benefits of relying upon somebody’s word are significant and the
costs of being deceived once in a while are trivial by comparison. We may get deceived once in a while but
that’s kind of the cost of doing business.
Often the cost is great!
JERRY IS JUST
PLAYING
In
February, 2001, a graduate assistant at Penn State University named Michael
McQueary observed Jerry Sandusky naked in the shower with a boy. There were slapping sounds he heard and
McQueary was absolutely shaken by the event.
McQueary went to his coach, Joe Paterno and eventually an investigation
took place with Sandusky being convicted of 45 counts of child molestation and
Penn State paying over one hundred million ($100,000,000) in settlements to his
victims.
The
observations made by McQueary occurred in 2001 and Sandusky wasn’t arrested
until November of 2011.
The
investigation revealed that over the years, there were numerous reports of
Sandusky having inappropriate contact with boys. The reports never went very far because they
either fell into a “grey” area or the complainants were placed in a special
loving relationship between Sandusky, who was really trying to do the best for
youth and would never think of doing anything sexually inappropriate. He had showered with boys in the past but
there was nothing sexual about it.
Again, officials determined to default to the truth of what Sandusky was
saying.
LARRY WAS SO
POLITE
There
are parallels to the Sandusky investigation with that surrounding the Michigan
State Dr. Larry Nassar. Nassar was
described as bespeckled garrulous and a little awkward. He certainly seemed harmless. He doted on his patients and would come out
at any time of day to give them assistance.
He treated all manner of injuries that his gymnastic patients
sustained. His specialty, however, was
“pelvic-floor dysfunction”, which involved his inserting his fingers into his
patient’s vagina without consent and without gloves. This medical procedure was used to cover his
own sexual gratification and he was convicted on federal charges in the summer
of 2017.
This
would be a pretty straight forward investigation, right? Well, it wasn’t. For years, his young patients would bring
reports to their parents and others of his sexual misconduct. Yet, no one would believe them. How could this be true? One of his victims was assaulted when she was
16 and she told the Michigan State gymnastic coach who confronted Nassar who
denied everything. The coach believe
Nassar, not the student. The allegations
raised doubts but not enough doubts. The
abuse went on. The sexual predator was
allowed to continue predations for a number of years just because no one believed
that he would do such a thing.
Even
when the scandal broke, many of Nassar’s chief defenders were parents of his
patients. Why would they deny the reports
of their own children and support Nassar instead of believing the truth? Again, it is the default to truth. Default to truth becomes an issue when we are
forced to choose between two alternatives.
One of which is likely and the other one of which is impossible to
imagine. Could Jerry Sandusky, a beloved
and respected football coach and public figure really be guilty of
pedophile? Could Bernie Madoff, a rich,
slav, and wildly successful financier really be running a ponzi scheme? Could Larry Nassar really be repeatedly
sexually abusing his young patients when he seemed to devoted to their best
interests? So often, when an issue is so
monstrous, so out of proportion that we can’t accept it, we reject it and choose
another alternative. This is the default
to truth.
If
any of the parents of Nassar’s victims had found him rude to their children,
they probably would have complained. If
any of the parents had seen him intoxicated while treating their patients, they
probably would have complained. Those
are obvious and noticeable matters which we can comprehend. To be a sexual pedophile or to be a sexual
predator however? So often we can’t
accept the reality and we default to the truth of what the person says rather
than the reality of their actions.
MEK/kw
3/18/2021
Wednesday, September 29, 2021
THE CEDAR FALLS SUPPER CLUB, THEN AND NOW -- CHERIE
DARGAN
1941 to 2021
(80 Years of Supper Club!)
OVERVIEW
• Brief
Comments on our History, from 1941-2021
• Connections
between the Founders
• Supper
Club’s Town & Gown – Then
• Supper
Club now
• Highlights
of my chapter on Cedar Falls, "Mind & Soil: An Iowa Town that Grows
Writers." (From the book The Sower & The Seer, a
collection of 22 essays).
Dorothy Grant’s History of the Supper Club, 1993
• One
of my primary texts
• Supper
Club Survey, 2017
• Research
for “Mind and Soil: an Iowa Town that grows Writers,” from The Sower and the
Seer: Perspectives on the Intellectual History of the American Midwest. March
23, 2021. Joseph Hogan & Jon Lauck, editors. Wisconsin Historical Society
Press, March 23, 2021.
Dorothy Grant, our Historian
Married to Martin Grant, one of the founders. She became the
first woman to join in 1986.
Dorothy documented the first 40 years of history, including
details about the members, speeches, cost of meals, and meeting places in a self-published
book in 1993, as part of her fourth speech.
Martin and Dorothy Grant, 1945 and 1966.
Supper Club’s Origins
The Cedar Falls Supper Club grew out of a conversation in
1940, when a group of men talked about forming a group to connect the college
and community. The group was sometimes called the “No Name Club,” “Town and
Gown,” or the “Cedar Falls Supper Club.” Katharine Hearst called it the “Deep
Thoughts Club.”
The name Supper Club stuck!
Each month members took turns presenting talks, and then,
after the speaker was done, everyone discussed the ideas. Even today, the
member in charge of the meeting reminds all visitors that they are expected to
participate.
Supper Club’s Purpose
“We wanted to form a discussion group where we could match our
wits--such as we had--against those of men whose ideas, opinions, prejudices,
and convictions grew out of the variety of their backgrounds, experiences,
disciplines.”
We stressed diversity, eager to see if the differences in
our personalities and occupations might stimulate us to examine our own points
of views, contrast it with theirs.
We were interested in controversy, in the opposition of
faiths, beliefs, and however misguided to our way of thinking, in a man’s
reasons for being.
We wanted to growl at each other a little.” (From James
Hearst, comments in a presentation in the 1980s)
The 12 Founders of the Supper Club, Feb. 1941
Ferner Nuhn (T) James
Hearst (T) Professor Willard
(Bill) Reninger (G)
Professor Martin Grant (G) Businessman
Paul Diamond (T) Leland Sage (G)
Iver Christoffersen (T) Charles
Hearst (T) Bun Newman (T)
Edward Kurtz (G) Samuel
Larson (G) J. B. Paul (G)
Description of the first group in Grant’s History by
occupation
TOWN (Community)
Iver Christoffersen – Lawyer Paul
Diamond -- Merchant
Ferner Nuhn -- Author, husband of Ruth Suckow Charles Hearst -- Farmer
James Hearst -- Farmer, Poet James
(Bun) Newman -- Lawyer
GOWN (on staff, Iowa State Teachers College)
Samuel Larson -- Registrar, ISTC J. B. Paul -- Head, Bureau of Research, ISTC
H. W. Reninger -- Head, Dept. of English, ISTC Leland Sage -- Professor of History, ISTC
Martin Grant -- Professor of Biology, ISTC Edward Kurtz -- Head, Department
of Music, ISTC
Charles Hearst, farmer & brother of James Hearst, poet
& teacher
Social and Historical Context
The club was open to men only for the first 45 years. In
1941, when the club was established, WW2 was on the horizon, with war raging in
Europe. Ferner Nuhn and his wife, Ruth Suckow, were opposed to America joining
the war. They did writing-workshops for and visited Conscientious Objectors.
At the same time, one of the founders, Bill Reninger, left
his position at ITSC and went into the Navy. He was commissioned a Lieutenant
Senior Grade and sent to Missouri to teach in the V-12 program. The founders
sought out different ideas.
https://library.uni.edu/collections/special-collections/biographical-sketches/h-willard-reninge
Not a “secret” club, but a very low key one!
The original group did not talk a lot about Supper Club in
the community, even though they obviously valued it. However, if you look at
their obituaries or biographies online, they seldom mention membership in the
Supper Club.
Without Dorothy Grant, we would not have much information
about the club’s origins, early members, topics of speeches, etc.
I looked at Hearst, Nuhn, and several others such as Tommy
Thompson, and no mention of Supper Club
Very Few Rules, Procedures
• Members
share a Meal
• The
speaker from the previous meeting serves as the MC for the evening
• Asks
for introduction of visitors, any business, and introduces the speaker
• Only
one officer -- a secretary, who mailed out postcards
• After
the member presents, all discuss (even visitors)
Scheduling Changes over the Years
For the first seven years, Dorothy writes that the club met
all 12 months.
Then, they took off December because of the holidays.
Next, they took off August because of “Gown” members
traveling before the semester.
Finally, they added on July and became a 9-month club.
Even so, Dorothy calculated that they had met over 500 times
by 1993--26 years ago!
26 x 9= 234, so at 80 years of age, the club has met over
734 times.*
• Connections
• Ruth
Suckow (Ferner Nuhn’s wife) and James Hearst both published work in the Iowa
publication called The Midland and credited editor John T Frederick with
helping launch their writing careers. However, Ferner Nuhn also gave him a
great deal of feedback on his poetry.
• James
Hearst was listed as farmer at first; later, he began teaching classes
• Many
of the UNI Professors knew each other from campus
• Ferner
and Ruth both gave talks at campus and were on campus for special events
• Ferner
was part of the art scene in Cedar Falls
Topics of speeches in those early days
History, Poetry, and Criticism Politics,
Education, and Religion
Commerce, Business, and Music Painting, Farming, Science, and Speech
Secretaries Through the Years
- Bill
Reninger -- the first Secretary
- Bun
Newman
- Oz
Thorson
- Leroy
Redfern
- Tom
Thompson
- Bob
Robinson
- Ray
Apel
9. Judy Harrington
(Page 9, Dorothy Grant’s History)
Note: the earlier Secretaries generally had their secretaries
type up the yearly speaking calendar and monthly cards. (Leroy Redfern was
Dorothy’s source).
Historic “Visit” by Six Wives, August 20, 1946
Dorothy Grant relates that she and five other spouses used
to get together for a meal during Supper Club. One night they decided to go
into the room to hear James Hearst read his poetry. “The men were speechless!
We had invaded their private sanctuary,” Dorothy writes.
They didn’t do it again!
Betty Reninger, Carmaleta Hearst, Ruth Suckow, Evelyn
Newman, Ann Trimble, and Dorothy Grant
Ladies Night -- Spouse Night -- Visitors Night
First Official Night -- July 18, 1950
Dorothy relates a story about the second Ladies’ night,
July 1951
Oz and Maxine Thorson provided a meal at their home.
Oz spoke: “The Problem: Women. Is the Answer ‘Proper
Education?”
One wonders at the response by women present.
The Women’s Issue--The group started as an all-male club.
James Hearst wrote, “We wanted it to be a meeting of
men--chauvinists that we are--so that our discussions would not be limited to
the polite answer.” (Oct. 1981)
He and Bill Reninger resisted efforts to invite women to
the club for 46 years. (See page 14, Dorothy Grant’s History)
Keith Burbridge (1975), Rich Newall, David Crownfield
(1967), and Irving Herman (1954) all advocated for letting women join. They
raised the issue multiple times, until finally, in May of 1986, the AYES had it
by ONE VOTE to allow women to join.
In October 1986, Dorothy Grant was elected, and she was
welcomed in November as the first woman member.
My story about Dorothy—and Regrets
When I first met Dorothy, I thought she was amazing! She
would call our house and say, “Is it alright with you if Michael picks me up
for Supper Club?” I would say, “Yes, certainly, Dorothy. But no going out to
the bar afterwards!” And we would both laugh.
I had no idea until she had died of her connection to Ruth
Suckow, Ferner Nuhn, and James Hearst. She wrote articles about them and
documented the history of Supper Club. I used those articles for my two
chapters. I think she would be thrilled that we’re going strong, 80 years
later.
Two remarkable women
Judy Harrington, UNI Professor and Ruth Anderson
She was the first black Director of Black Hawk County Social
Services. She taught at UNI and served on the Black Hawk County Board of
Supervisors
Judith Harrington, current Secretary, the second woman to
join the club (March 1988)
Judy Remembers Joining the Club
“I was invited to join Supper Club in March 1988, the second
woman to be so honored! Dorothy Grant was the first. I still have the letter
announcing my election, written by Tommy Thompson who was Club secretary at the
time. The letter included: "There are no formal dues. However, the
secretary must, from time to time, assess the members $5 each for the cost of
postage." (Yes, you younger ones, meetings were announced by post card,
not email!) Tommy concluded, "Incidentally, the membership voted last
night to shift the meeting site to The Broom Factory restaurant.”
More members 1986-1996 (Women join!)
Dorothy Grant (Oct. 1986)* Dwight Smith
Judith Harrington (March 1988) Greg Gerjerts
Robert Robinson (Early 1989) Ruth
Anderson
Mary Huber (1990?) Ray
Apel (March 1990)
Larry Brandt (Oct. 1992) Paul
Herman (son of Irving)
Mike Dargan (1996) Dave
Hoing
● Dorothy
Grant wrote the informal history of the Supper Club, 1993
More Members, late 1990s-2000s (Many still active,
indicated by bold)
Margaret Whiting, Scott Cawelti, Donna Wood, Loree
Rackstraw, Cherie Dargan, Ken Davenport,
Renata Sack, Lynn Brant, Del Carpenter, Rich Winsor, David
Sparks, Gary Kroeger, Wendy Hoofnagle
More members, cont. for 2000-2010
frje echeverria, Harold Kuester, Karris Golden, Jim
O’Loughlin, Jerry Stockdale, Saul Shapiro
Mike Waggoner, Mary Huber, Max Kirk, Dr. Dave Kabel
Supper Club’s Senior members
·
Paul Rider--joined 1974
·
Judith Harrington--joined 1988
·
Mary Huber--joined 1990s
·
Bob Robinson--joined 1989
Deceased
Members--greatly beloved, dearly missed
·
Ken Davenport --joined early 2000’s (d. 2009)
·
David Crownfield--joined in the 1970’s (d.
2013)
·
Saul Diamond (son of a Founder)--joined in
the 1960’s
·
(d. 2014)
·
James Robinson--joined 1975-1980 (d. 2016)
·
Tommy Thompson--joined in the 1950’s (d.
2016) 60 years
·
Fred Hallberg--joined 1975-1980 (d. 2020)
Supper Club Members Today
Lynn Brandt, John Burnight, Del Carpenter, Scott Cawelti, Cherie
Dargan, Mike Dargan
Judy Harrington, Mary Huber, David Kabel, Max Kirk, Jim
Lubker, frje Echeverria
Gene Lutz, Pierre-Damien Mvuyekure*, Paul Rider, Darius Robinson
(son of James)
Bob Robinson, Saul Shapiro, Alexa Sedlacek, Jerry Soneson, Thos
Sumner*
Mike Waggoner, Bill Witt, and Anne Woodrick
My Chapter about Cedar Falls & Supper Club
The Sower & The Seer: a collection of Essays
about Intellectual Development of the Midwest
Mind and Soil: Peter Melendy
“The mind and the soil is our platform and we would make a
thorough business of each, could we have our way.”
Early historian, mayor, and city booster
A truly remarkable man who organized the first lending
library of 500 books with the Cedar Falls Horticultural & Literary Society,
and then donated them to the city for its first public library.
Title change--The Midwestern Mind became The
Sower and the Seer
This collection of twenty-two essays, a product of recent
revivals of interest in both Midwestern history and intellectual history,
argues for the contributions of interior thinkers and ideas in forming an
American identity.
I was the only writer from Iowa to be included in the book.
My essay changed the title of the collection.
My editor, Joe Hogan, loved my quote by Peter Melendy.
It became my guiding theme--Cedar Falls as a town that grows
writers
I included Supper Club, the Cedar Falls Authors Festival, and
the Hearst Center as places that nurtured and celebrated local writers.
“Mind & Soil:
An Iowa Town That Grows Writers.” (Chapter Summary)
Cedar Falls, Iowa predates the Civil war by a decade: this
frontier town became a railroad town, provided a home for Civil War orphans,
established a college to train teachers, supported a newspaper, created a
library, and built several churches. Along the way, it became an important hub
for readers and writers: five best-selling authors have ties to Cedar Falls,
including Bess Streeter Aldrich, Ruth Suckow, James Hearst, Robert James
Waller, and Nancy Price.
The secret of this town’s success? A persistent focus by a succession
of civic leaders on the fertile blend of literature and the land. Many towns
had literary societies, but early Cedar Falls had Peter Melendy, founder of the
Cedar Falls Horticultural and Literary Society in 1859. His motto, “the mind
and the soil,” bore fruit in the creation of a city with beautiful parks,
gardens, and trees complemented by a vibrant literary culture with a modern
public library.
This chapter explores the city’s early history, examines
several community organizations that fostered reading and discussing ideas, and
explains how the community has honored its five best-selling authors.
3 Reasons Cedar Falls became a literary hub
- The
town valued literacy.
Peter Melendy, CF Horticultural and Literary Society
collected 500 books for a lending library, 1859-1860
- The
town valued its history.
Peter Melendy & Roger Leavitt wrote its history
3. Finally,
the college brought educated people to the community to serve on the faculty,
giving the townsfolk opportunities to interact with them.
From Iowa State Teachers College to UNI
The influence of the college in the community’s intellectual
and literary growth is evident researching local discussion groups where
teachers interacted with people in the community.
The Cedar Falls Parlor Reading Circle
Professor Moses Bartlett was a member of the CF Parlor
Reading Circle. President Gilchrist sometimes attended.
It was a mix of Town & Gown long before Supper Club
existed!
Cedar Falls Supper Club--Town & Gown
The Cedar Falls Supper Club is featured in my chapter
More than 60 years after the Cedar Falls Parlor Reading
Circle began meeting, the Cedar Falls Supper Club grew out of a conversation in
1940, when a group of men talked about forming a group to connect the college
and community. They began meeting in 1941. The group was sometimes called the
“No Name Club” or “Town and Gown,” or the Cedar Falls Supper Club. [1] Dorothy Grant. “History of the Cedar
Falls Supper club.” https://tinyurl.com/y7h53leg
Epiphany
Twenty-one years ago, Mike and I married. He connected me
with both Supper Club and the Ruth Suckow Memorial Association. He created the
original website for the RSMA, www.ruthsuckow.org
and I took it over. He created the blog for Supper club, still being updated. http://cedarfallssupperclub.blogspot.com/2017/
My interest in Ruth and Ferner, her short stories and
novels, their status as a literary power couple, their friendships, and the
origins of both RSMA and the Supper Club have kept me reading, researching, and
asking questions for the past two decades.
Since retirement, I’ve published two chapters. The first
one, “The Realistic Regionalism of Iowa’s Ruth Suckow” appeared in The
Midwestern Moment : The Forgotten World of Early Twentieth-Century Midwestern
Regionalism, 1880-1940 in 2017.
It all Started with a Date--and Ruth Suckow, My
presentation for the Hearst Center for the Arts this Spring. A hot date to
Earlville, Iowa! Later, a hot date to
Supper Club!
Cherie and Mike, 1999-our courtship days
Who is Ruth Suckow & what is her significance?
I had never heard of this woman, and I was an English
teacher, had been an English major, and taken numerous literature courses at
two universities. None of my teachers ever talked about Ruth Suckow.
Ruth Suckow is the most famous Iowa author you never
heard of; however, during the 1930s, Editor H. L. Mencken called her the “most
important female writer in America.” So, I added one of her short stories to my
Lit class, and my students “got her.”
Suckow captures the everyday life of ordinary Iowans during
the Great Depression up to the 1950s. Her stories take place in the small
farming communities, farms, cities, and colleges of Iowa. She is a remarkable
writer, and I wrote another chapter about her, describing her as a reluctant
realist and regionalist.
Ruth & Ferner, RSMA & Supper Club
Ruth married Ferner Nuhn in 1929; he was eleven years
younger but persistent. They shared a love of cats, travel, literature, and
Iowa. They would be together for over 30 years.
Ferner, Ruth, and James Hearst were friends. Ruth and James
wrote introductions or forwards for each other’s books. I found a note that she had written
“corrections” on one of his poems and always wondered how that went!
James and Ferner became two of the founding members of
Supper Club.
Martin Grant’s comments
In a letter to his parents, Martin wrote:
“I have joined a rather interesting discussion club that
meets for supper at the downtown hotel once a month, with a speech by one of
the members, preferably on a controversial topic, followed by attacks by the
others... It is as stimulating and intellectual group as I have ever been
connected with….”
JAMES HEARST: POET AND FRIEND by George Day
“My friendship with Jim was rich and in retrospect seems
longer than it actually was. We had many a great conversation in this very
house (and often in front of the fireplace, which has been so carefully
preserved by the entrance). I was a guest here several times for meals, and Jim
and Meryl were guests in our home a few times. Jim and I belonged to the Supper
Club together, and his English department office was just a few doors away from
mine. In addition, I have a file of notes and letters that Jim sent to me on
several occasions.”
“He was an active member of the Cedar Falls Rotary Club.
He helped found another club, a discussion group, the long-running Supper Club.
Every month he played poker with a group of men. And finally, he took up the
trombone in his fifties or sixties. He took lessons and could play a pretty
mean version of “My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean.”
jhda.omeka.net/exhibits/show/poetandfriend/poetandfriend
Bill Reninger’s thoughts, 1981
Bill was one of the founders; he also drafted the informal
rules as the first secretary.
He commented, “We never thought of ourselves as a prestige
club of any kind...many of us have sensed a certain elitism, and a feeling of
pride in being chosen.”
Reflections of Supper Club Members on Supper Club (2017
survey)
Memories of other members
Among some of the other members who have died since I became
a member: David Hansen (my internist); Irving Herman; Doug Jacobson; Roy
Redfern, attorney; Dwight Smith, minister at Cedar Valley Unitarian
Universalists; and Judge Blair Wood--all "townies" immediately come
to mind. Also, Don Whitnah from UNI.
In addition to my notes earlier about Rich Newell and Saul
Diamond, I remember Ken Davenport's relatively brief membership. A bright,
interesting man, he happened to be very large. The steep stairwell at Bourbon
Street finally precluded him from continuing with us--so unfortunate.
Memories of other members, cont.
I still think often about Tommy Thompson, David Crownfield,
and James Robinson. When I first joined, I came to expect that regardless of
the presenter or topic, those three along with Fred Hallberg had a mini-UNI
Philosophy and Religion Department "discussion" during the Q & A
portion. I confess that I frequently couldn't follow what points they were
trying to make, but they seemed to understand one another just fine!
David had such a reputation on our campus for argumentation.
He had led collective bargaining teams for some time and seemed to relish in
those debates. And so, he would carry on at Supper Club. His last presentation
to us was in April 2008. By then he was living at Western Home Stanard's Center
and just couldn't figure out how to use a computer there. So, I invited him to
type his talk on my home computer.
Memories of Ray Appel
Ray Appel shared his experiences as a marine landing on Iwo
Jima during WWII. This was the first time in over 40 years that he had talked
to anyone about what happened. It was riveting. There are numerous other
memorable stories, presentations, and special guests, but Ray's was the most
memorable to me.
Judge Blair Wood
Judge Blair Wood also shared a story about taking home a
"brick" of marijuana that was evidence in a case that he was
supervising and burned some in his fireplace just to see what it smelled like,
and how you felt when inhaling some of the smoke. While this was occurring, an
aide of his appeared at his door to ask him about something and he had to
scramble to clear the air and hide what was going on.
Memories of Tommy Thompson -- a member for almost 60
years
Tommy's last presentation was August 24, 2010.
On October 16, 2012, Tom has asked ‘permission’ to remain in
the Club without presenting.
On September 9, 2013, Tom resigned from the Club for health
reasons, after 59 years of membership having joined the Club in 1954. He died
on April 28, 2016, at 92 years.
Memories of Tommy Thompson
I am sharing a poignant moment with you about Tommy: By 2011
or so, Paul Rider and/or I were kindly giving Tommy lifts to Supper Club.
"I had finished my talk (on hoarding, as I recall) and
the Club was into discussion, when I glanced over at Tommy. (To help you
envision this: Dining tables were square, 2 diners to a side.
I was speaking at one corner. Tommy was seated diagonally
across the table; Paul Rider at one side.) I glanced at Tommy; he looked ashen
and was in the process of fainting.
I glanced at Paul, nodding my head for him to look at Tommy.
Paul immediately jumped up and went to Tommy's side. By then, Tommy had
recovered and insisted he didn't need to go to the hospital. No Dr. Dave Kabel
there that night!
Rushing to find an employee to get a wheelchair. Paul seemed
to be gone a long time--in truth, probably only a few minutes, while the
discussion and evening had summarily
come to an end. Then Paul returned to our room, wheeling a--wait for it--desk
chair!!
He got Tommy into the chair, and nobly wheeled our colleague
out to the car. Tommy insisted he was OK--"simply" had forgotten to
take some medicine. DESK CHAIR?? Turned out Ferrari's had no wheelchair. Tommy
fainted again at a later meeting when I happened to be out of town.
I had a call from Mike, telling me that Dave Kabel had been
present that evening, took over and firmly had to assert to the staff to CALL
911! I'm relieved to end this saga by
telling you all that Tommy survived for another near-three years."
Memories of James Robinson
Now James Robinson was unique unto himself. With a mixed
drink, he was the image of elegance at each meeting. Taking notes, ready to
challenge or at least query the speaker when the time came, I felt from the
beginning that one did not mess with James!
My fondest memory of James happens to be in that small
restaurant where we were at a table for only 2 one evening and spoke of our
childhoods and fathers. I gained such insight into James at that time,
something that never would have happened had we been at a larger
restaurant--how ironic.
Criteria for selecting a venue
Judy reminded me: “Our Club has constantly had the problem
of locating a restaurant with decent food, not too pricey, and a QUIET facility
for the presentation and talk backs!”
I decided NOT to list every place we’ve met, even though
some people do not remember WHEN they joined but do recall WHERE we were meeting
at the time!
Ferrari’s, Bourbon Street & Revue Room at NewAldaya Streetscape
Photos of some of our long-time members
Thank you to Scott Cawelti for many of these photos!
Paul Rider (1974) Our Senior Member, Joined in 1974
Bob Robinson, former Secretary
Fred Hallberg (joined 1992) From Paul and Judy,
“He could be counted on to offer a brief rebuttal,
regardless of the topic!”
James, Fred, frje, Del, Scott and Jim
Mary Huber, with Bob
Dave, Lynn, Cherie, Scott, and guest
Ferrari's -- great food, conversation & artwork
Mike Dargan, joined 1996
Gene, and Del with Mike
Pierre-Damien, Scott, and Saul
Cherie and Mike, Jerry and frje
Jim, Max, Judy, Mary, Bob, Lynn, and Rich
Darius, and Anne, Gene, and Mary
Max, Alexa, and Martin
We have a logo, after 80 years, thanks to the staff of
NewAldaya
Cherie’s Takeaways from her research
The “Secret Sauce” (Mix of Town & Gown)
The college brought educated people to the community to serve
on the faculty, giving towns folks opportunities to interact with them in clubs
like the Cedar Falls Parlor Reading Circle. Peter Melendy was part of the
efforts to establish the Normal school and establish a lending library.
Professor Moses Bartlett and President Gilchrist became part of the Cedar Falls
Parlor Reading Circle early on in 1876.
• Supper
Club has a rich history in Cedar Falls that has focused on bringing together a
group of people from both the community and the college, to create dialogue and
better understanding.
• While
it didn’t allow women to join until 1986, it now welcomes them, and we have
several notable women to thank for documenting its history and providing
leadership, including Dorothy Grant and Judy Harrington.
• Town
and Gown is a concept that goes back to the Cedar Falls Parlor Reading Circle
and leads to more diversity of thought.
We’ve had several Father/Son members (James and Darius
Robinson, Paul and Saul Diamond, and Paul and Irving Herman)
• Several
couples have joined Supper Club, or the spouses have attended frequently.
• Several
members in our current group joined during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.
• Many
notable people have been part of Supper Club, if only for a short time.
• The
Supper Club Blog is an excellent resource for archiving presentations.
Supper Club has endured for 80 years this year, 2021!
It’s survived WWII, the Cold War, the conflict in Korea,
Vietnam, and the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It’s survived economic turmoil, college protests, political
differences, Civil Rights, Women’s Rights, and all sorts of other things. Later, we can say it survived the Pandemic of
2020/2021. Happy Birthday!
Thanks to Scott Cawelti
Has taken many of the photos in this presentation over the
past few years.
Has brought in several new members and guests.
Thursday, January 23, 2020
Sacrilege, Cultural Borrowing & My Theology by Del Carpenter
Sacrilege, Cultural Borrowing & My Theology by Del Carpenter (sermon to CVUU 1-19-20, then to Town & Gown Supper Club 1-21-20)
This sermon started as a speech for a group called Town & Gown supper club. When I started, it was not intended as a sermon. I picked a religious topic because I have a long history of being interested in religion; for instance my master’s thesis in history, completed almost 48 years ago, was about a particular variety of religious groups. Also some of the members of the supper club are religion or philosophy professors. I don’t have to worry about a grade. I wanted to talk about something that already interests people. And this subject very much interests me.
Last summer, while I was looking for a topic, I was privileged to listen in on and somewhat participate in a conversation two Unitarian Universalists were having about their personal response to a particular Sunday service here at CVUU about 3 or 4 years ago. Both had felt uncomfortable about that service and still carried what I will call hurt or pain from that service. Did I say clearly enough both of them were then and still are now Unitarian Universalists?
My own official Unitarian Universalist membership stretches over a period of 51 years. The longer I’m a UU the more convinced I am, I ought to be able to translate enough to be able to sit down and worship with almost anyone. I respect both of the two UUs having the conversation about how they felt about that one particular service. Their conversation started me on a theological journey to understand how a Unitarian Universalist service could feel somewhat sacrilegious to two Unitarian Universalists. I should mention they did not mention sacrilege but that is the term that came to my mind. The term sacrilege already interested me because of my UU nephew’s insistence that cultural appropriation is often a form of sacrilegious oppression.
So what is sacrilege?
Sacrilegious is often used in reference to religion, or to religious things, so it is easy to see why people might be confused by its spelling. However, sacrilegious and reli
"The earliest sense of sacrilege, in use since the beginning of the 14th century, was concerned with the theft, misuse, or desecration of sacred or holy things. It still is used in this sense quite often, but has also taken on a broader meaning, in which it refers to irreverence to a person, place, or thing which may or may not have religious significance.
“come with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear” (bonus points for identifying that reference)
Historically the Unitarian denomination is based on a belief the concept of the Trinity was wrong, Perhaps their most important religious contribution was early support for religious freedom or tolerance as found in the Edict of Torda which was issued on January 13th, 1568 in Transylvania. The concluding paragraph of the edict says in part:
…in every place the preachers shall preach and explain the Gospel each according to his understanding of it, and if the congregation like it, well. If not, no one shall compel them for their souls would not be satisfied, but they shall be permitted to keep a preacher whose teaching they approve. Therefore none of the superintendents or others shall abuse the preachers, no one shall be reviled for his religion by anyone, according to the previous statutes, and it is not permitted that anyone should threaten anyone else by imprisonment or by removal from his post for his teaching. For faith is the gift of God….
The Universalist denomination which was called the Universalist Church of America traces its roots to the 18th century when John Murray’s immigration to America brought a doctrine of Universal Salvation. Other religious groups have had similar doctrines, such as some Anabaptists, & Moravians, and some others.
In Waterloo IA a 1954 centennial commission noted the 2nd religious group organized in Waterloo was a Universalist group which began meeting in 1867 and built a church in 1889. A Unitarian Fellowship was established in Cedar Falls in the 1940s. The two national UU denominations merged in 1961. The local UU groups either merged in 1960 a year ahead of the merger of the national denominations or a year after in 1962. The local merged group called themselves the Unitarian Universalist Society of Black Hawk County which later became Cedar Valley Unitarian Universalist.
Reading the Edict of Torda today one might think it extended religious freedom to all groups in that area. History wasn’t that simple. But the Edict was part of the foundation which helped to lead both to religious freedom for all groups and also for all individuals.
That was part of how we got to the priesthood of all believers. Within Unitarian Universalism and in some other denominations we have also in effect come to what I will call the pope hood of all believers. The fact that an adult curriculum called Building Your Own Theology is one of the most popular courses published by the Unitarian Universalist Association is not accidental. UUs do expect and use that amount of religious freedom for themselves, and are comfortable being in services next to members who also use that freedom even though the individual results are different. We Cedar Valley Unitarian Universalist members are Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Pagans, and perhaps others.
Sometimes we UUs may need to adjust whatever sense of sacrilege we have so we can sit next to each other in a service.
Our UU congregational polity is like that of the Congregational Church. Each UU congregation handles all of its own affairs including selecting ministers; and holding on to or letting go of ministers. No bishops, no real popes. We have an organizational democracy and a Theological democracy.
I still have some sense of sacrilege. I have a bass voice. One of my sources of joy is singing the bass part on hymns. To me the current UU hymnal is somewhat “sacrilegious” because the harmonizing parts on two of my favorite songs are missing. In this hymnal both “O Come O Come Emmanuel”, and “Morning Has Broken” are printed to be sung in unison. The harmonizing parts in the previous hymnal were left out of this hymnal. My enjoyment of two of my favorite hymns is damaged each time we sing those hymns. The omission of the harmonizing voice parts doesn’t meet what most people would call sacrilege. But, that omission creates for me a feeling of loss. Some day I’m going to photocopy pages from the old hymnal with the harmonized parts and paste them into the new hymnal.
In the first conversation two other UU’s were talking about a particular UU religious service about 2-4 years after that service. In that service they felt something they individually held sacred was being somewhat violated. They did not use the term, sacrilege. But to me, a UU listening to and participating in the conversation, I thought they were talking about that particular UU service as though they had been in the presence of sacrilege or something close to what they regarded as sacrilege. Listening to them I wondered on the one hand, how can they really be UUs if they can have that reaction within a UU religious service? Even while I was having that thought I knew deep down they were and are Unitarian Universalists. So what had happened?
Both of them felt an emotional touchpoint was stepped on in that service. It was a communion service on an anniversary Sunday in a January at Cedar Valley Unitarian Universalist. The Universalists first met in Waterloo in 1867 (the second group mentioned in a 1954 listing on early Waterloo churches.) , They built their first church in 1889, moved to a 2nd building in 1915, and merged with the Unitarian Fellowship of Cedar Falls in 1962. I don’t know if Anniversary Sunday refers to their 1867 beginning as a group or the 1889 construction of their first building.
Sometime around 2010 after a long time without any communion services our minister at that time, Eva Cameron, started having communion on each Anniversary Sunday, celebrating of our Universalist heritage, on the first Sunday in January. I participated in those services and was not at all offended by them. A few years later I was privileged to be part of a conversation with two other UUs who attended the one of those communion services and who both felt offended by the service. Both of those UU persons felt the service encouraged play acting by non-believers. Both felt that sense of play acting was not sufficiently sacred or not respectful enough to what they regarded as the intent of communion. One of the them was no longer Christian, one of them was still Christian: both were disturbed by a lack a sense of sacredness in the communion service. Neither of them used the term sacrilegious. I don’t know if either of them would say that UU communion service was sacrilegious. But my experience in that conversation was a catalyst in leading me to this sermon.
What had happened was a question that bothered me? Two UUs for whom I have a lot of respect felt damaged by a lack of sacredness in a UU communion service. I did not have that same feeling. Why were they not as tolerant as me? Why was I not as damaged as they? After considering these issues off and on for about 6 months, I think I finally have an answer.
What we believe intellectually or what we are willing to allow intellectually is not the same as what we are willing to allow emotionally. Emotional responses that build up and are reinforced over decades can’t be as easily converted as our intellectual response. Given new information today we might change our mind and say we now believe something new. But our emotional response won’t change today. That slow emotional change might explain part of the persistence of emotional attachments, positive or negative; such as some of the persistence of racism. And it may explain why a behavior that was regarded by us in the past as sacred can still give us an emotional twinge or hurt or damage even though our current beliefs don’t hold that behavior as sacred. In my case the fact I wasn’t bothered by the communion service could mean my emotional attachment to my past beliefs wasn’t as strong as I had thought.
Saturday in the middle of the night I thought of another explanation and wondered why I didn’t think of it before. In high school I acted in three all school plays, 4 main plays at UNI, one student production, and one Wesley Foundation play. I’ve written & presented several skits for UU finance campaigns. Play acting doesn’t always work. Not for everyone. But sometimes, play acting conveys truth.
Sacraments don’t always work either. Sometimes the outer sign of a hoped for inner grace is just the outer sign of an inner desire for grace. If the only result of play acting with a sacrament is awakening a spark of a desire for inner grace for some, then I think the play acting was worthwhile.
In another conversation with a UU who is a nephew of mine I listened to a righteous expression of anger as he talked about instances of what I call cultural borrowing, which he calls cultural appropriation and which he regards as cultural oppression of Native Americans. I think for my UU nephew what he was describing was sacrilege. I agree that is true part of the time. I still think most cultural borrowing is just borrowing; just the most recent example of what humans do and not oppression in intent or effect. We don’t agree on that yet. We are still talking. And that is another example of what humans do.
We have a theological democracy for good reason. We are here among people of differing beliefs, with different senses of what is sacred because, we choose to rely somewhat on each other and our differences to help us to a better path.
That is also a good reason to have a political democracy: our differences can help us to a better path.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)