In her column in Newsweek this week, Anna Quindlen announced her retirement. As a matter of fact, this was her last column. And, as always, it was thought-provokingly eloquent. And very wrong--in my opinion.
Let me preface this with a disclosure--Anna Quindlen is one of my favorite columnists and authors. I own most of her books--to get her collections of writings, I combed used bookstore shelves (this was in the days before Amazon and E-Bay).
Anna began her career as a journalist at the New York Times, and began writing an OpEd column for them in 1981. In 1994, she quit her job to spend more time with her family, and to write novels. She's produced 4 novels, 2 childrens books, and a couple of non-fiction books. Much to my delight, she did eventually get back into the "OpEd business"--nine years ago, when she started writing a bi-weekly column for Newsweek.
In her final column, Quindlen writes that, after 40 years of "word work", she feels "America's opinionators are too white and too gray. They do not reflect our diversity of ethnicity and race, gender and generation." This may be true--there do seem to be a lot of old white guys expounding on this and that.
Quindlen further states that, at a time when "throughout the country there seems to be an understanding that this is and ought to be a time of reinvention, in the economy, in education, in the office," that, as her eldest son points out, "You guys just won't go." He is referring to a family friend (a Baby Boomer) who is having trouble coming to terms with impending retirement. This seems to be a problem with many of us Baby Boomers--we seem to be in a state of denial over retirement.
Anna says that it's time to go, time to turn the keyboards and all other work tools over to the younger generation--particularly in the field of journalism: "It's particularly glaring when this generational stall happens in the news business, which constantly remakes itself in the image and likeness of the world." She has seen the newest "best and brightest", and thinks she can safely hand over the reigns now.
But she's wrong. Each generation is enriched by the historical perspective of generations gone before it. If nothing else, elder generations remind the young that they are not alone, that they are not the only ones in history to feel they way they do. There's a comfort in not having to reinvent a response to a situation. Indeed, without the voice of experience, younger generations might not understand the importance, the "why" behind the actions taken in history. For instance, they may question the need for safe and legal abortions if someone isn't there to remind them what happens in a back alley "clinic" or when desperation leads to a coat hanger. Indeed, when my mother's generation is gone, there will be nobody to tell the eye-witness accounts of the days of pre-Roe v Wade.
A business can remake itself in the image and likeness of the world, but there are still gray heads out there, and much experience to be brought into any discussion.
I realize there is a fine line between being nostalgic for the olden days, being against change, and remembering why exactly we felt a need for...oh...the ERA. Baby boomers will tell you that discussions, protests, and questioning the system are reasons why we aren't still discussing why women can be more than teachers and nurses, and why we're a bit further in our discussions of affordable day care and equal pay than we were 30 years ago.
Say it ain't so, Anna. This new generation--the "Obama Generation"--will find history dry and easily ignored if it's left with history books and paper memos from the past. This generation is the verbal and visual generation, and will much more appreciate timely words and interesting stories told by Boomers like you. For, after 40 years of "word work", you've still got it. Still got the wit and eloquence to inspire, instruct, and inform. In a good way, you still reflect the gender, generation, race and ethnicity that deserves a voice among the "opinionators".
I will leave you with words from Anna:
In April, 1990, writing about a recent decision by the Catholic Church to spend $5 million in a campaign against the right of women to have abortions, Quindlen said this, "I do not believe the bishops understand the abortion issue, and not only for the obvious reason that they will never be pregnant or have a wife or daughter who is. It reminds me of all those years when our mothers came to them in the confessional and quietly pleaded: Five children in seven years, Father. Isn't it enough? Isn't there something that can be done? No one does that anymore. We already know the answers. Abstinence, abstinence, abstinence. This is how they lost us in the pews. They refused to look at our lives. The same is true today. They do not listen....A multimillion-dollar payout to public relations and polling firms....tells those women convinced they are the best guardians of their own bodies that the Church believes they are shallow enough to be swayed by practiced paid persuasion, as though they were buying soap powder. It suggests that the bishops no longer see us as souls, but as votes. And in a country where people dine from Dumpsters, it is a monumental waste of money."
