College in Prison Program: One Bold Step Does Not Prevent Another

I would like to respond to the Wespeaks published on May 1 by Elana Baurer and Sylvia Ryerson regarding their problems with the College in Prison program at Wesleyan (respectively, “Let’s Talk About This,” May 1, 2009, Vol. CXLV, No. 20; and “What Does it Mean to Have College in Prison?” May 1, 2009, Vol. CXLV, No. 20). 

I am not a member of the student group on campus, nor have I facilitated a workshop at any Connecticut prison. I am, by all accounts, an independent member of the Wesleyan student body. I, however, disagree with the assertion that I have been left out of the dialogue. I feel that the student body has been encouraged to ask questions about the Wesleyan Center for Prison Education (WCPE); I attended the College in Prison symposium and I know that lunch discussions have been made available for students to voice concerns. I resent Baurer’s implication in her Wespeak that students on this campus are ill informed, only supporting the program for its “cutting edge, liberalist social capital.” If you criticize the WCPE for not speaking more directly to the student body, you ought to find out yourself how students on this campus feel about the program instead of assuming they are blindly supporting it because it is trendy. As impassioned and thoughtful as the concerns voiced by Baurer and Ryerson are, I am not convinced that those opposed to the WCPE’s program have been any more transparent or constructive in their actions thus far. 

I would also like to note that it was difficult to stomach the argument made by Ryerson that the WCPE, because it would “necessarily privilege those coming from more advantaged backgrounds,” should not be passed. Are we not all products of such an advantaged background, necessarily, by our very presence here? How dare we deny prisoners access to Wesleyan education based on this premise as we gladly accept course credits and degrees from this institution. If those opposed to the WCPE were to drop out of Wesleyan University on these grounds, I would find their views more authentic. Assuming that they will take their diplomas come graduation day, I cannot accept this notion as anything more than misguided and hypocritical. I am curious if Baurer, Ryerson, or the current members of the student group have considered discussing these issues with the inmates of the Cheshire Correctional Institution. If these inmates opposed the program on these grounds, or any other, their views should be voiced and voiced now. Yet as neither side of this conflict has publicly shared the views of the prisoners themselves, and as the majority of the student body has no access to such dialogue, I find great fault in the supposition that this program, by perpetuating selectivity, should be denied to interested inmates. 

While it is incredibly unfortunate that this program cannot include more students, it is a pilot program, and I believe all parties involve hope that its success will lead to expansion further on. As to the question of selectivity, neither Baurer nor Ryerson offers a feasible alternative. I think it is wonderful that community colleges have been able to offer open access to courses, but to my knowledge there has been no practical proposal for offering Wesleyan course credits without any application process or selectivity. Additionally, even if Wesleyan could offer “open access” to courses against all probable objections, the class sizes would still be limited to the same number of students. Greater access cannot be provided until the program has proved successful, and more teachers (and funding) are found. I do appreciate concerns over this program perpetuating “a system of denied access,” and I think this is a very important insight. Yet the answer to this necessary exclusivity is not to throw WCPE out, but to provide workshops, lectures, etc., that would be available to the prison population at large and could be accessed by any and all who are interested. 

The claim made by Ryerson that this program would somehow divert attention and energy from “meaningful radical organizing” seems both insulting and unfounded. Not everyone at this university agrees with a radical prison agenda, and for those who have the means and intention to provide educational courses to inmates, they should be supported. If the discussion on this campus is any sort of indication, this proposed program has expanded the discussion of prison reform exponentially rather than diverting attention away from it. I sincerely believe the interests of both sides of this debate are not mutually exclusive. Let those committed to the program provide education for the hundreds of prisoners who could potentially benefit over the next decade, and those who are unfulfilled by the WCPE can promote their own agendas simultaneously to an audience that is now paying attention. Why burn bridges instead of building new ones?