Is it possible for an individual to single-handedly change the fortunes of an oppressed group of people? Moreover, is it believable that this individual is simply a “mother” trying to educate her “children?” This was the essence of a case that occurred at the Boston University Metropolitan College: “I didn’t know anything about prisoners then, and I was impressed, not only by their brilliance but (also) by their eagerness for learning” (Merewood). This quote by Elizabeth Barker, or “Ma,” demonstrates her fascinating attempt to help out a group of people that were struggling to get the education they deserved: prisoners. Barker, with the assistance of Boston University president John Silber, initiated what would become the Boston University Prison Education Program:

As an untenured BU instructor in the early 1970s, Barker developed the G.E. Quiz Bowl for BU after learning of a similar Quiz Bowl team among prisoners at MCI/Norfolk, a medium-security men’s prison. She thought a match between her BU students and a team of convicted felons might be good practice. BU lost. (PEP Website)

Despite the somewhat surprising results of the competition, Barker had no obligation to help these men at all. She could have easily lost her job at BU due to the fact that she had not earned tenureship at BU along with “encountering resistance” from BU faculty. Despite this, she saw something in the prisoners that most other people and schools would not see: a chance at redemption. As it turns out, there was an unfortunate twist in Barker’s attempt to expand prison education with the introduction of the Crime Control and Prevention Act of 1994. Essentially, Pell Grants for prisoners were eliminated, and as a result, universities withdrew their Prison Education Programs with only BU continuing operations (P.E.P Website). With BU remaining, there is ample evidence that points to similarities between the values held by Barker and her program. Through a careful analysis of her virtuous character, it is evident that the program Barker created is a direct and personal reflection of her benevolence, magnanimity, and happiness towards the prisoners she educated.

“Ma” Barker’s virtuous character is best illuminated through her initiatives in forming the BU PEP and one important facet of this demonstration of character comes through the benevolence she exhibited to the prisoners in a time where they needed the external support. While it may be simple to call someone benevolent based on the kind actions they perform, it important examination of this connection is to analyze what the term benevolence really means through a philosophical perspective and whether or not Barker correctly exhibited it as defined. The philosopher in discussion here would be Scotsman David Hume, who stressed the importance of benevolence of one’s character in An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals: “We may observe that, in displaying the praises of any humane, beneficent man, there is one circumstance which never fails to be amply insisted on, namely, the happiness and satisfaction derived to society from his intercourse and good offices…from him the hungry receive food, the naked clothing, the ignorant and slothful skill and industry” (99). Hume, if he were alive today, would undoubtedly agree that benevolence is a characteristic demonstrated in Barker through her initiative to aid the cause in prisoner education. Instead of “feeding the homeless” (99), Barker is educating the helpless. The result of these benevolent actions spring up the consideration of how the BU PEP is reflected upon herself and her students: “And the prisoners. I have an obligation to help the people who are depending on our program to improve their lives. How can I desert them?” (Merewood). The key takeaway is the initiative to improving lives acts as a betterment to society as a whole. Barker simply has a desire to help an underprivileged group that could potentially help society through the process of receiving an education. The BU PEP was fully based on her own discretion and she knew the risks involved as it pertained to her career as aforementioned. Yet Barker realized that by being benevolent and kind towards her students, she could gain their respect, which would simultaneously bring legitimacy for the cause of the BU PEP.

Benevolence was not Barker’s only virtue that corresponds to classical philosophical theory. Another attribute she demonstrates is magnanimity, or generosity, as promoted by Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics: “The magnanimous man does not take petty risks, nor does he court danger, because there are few things that he values highly; but he takes great risks, and when he faces danger he is unsparing of his life, because to him there are some circumstances in which it is not worth living…people of this kind are thought to remember the benefits they have conferred, but not those they have received” (97). According to Aristotle, all humans are trying to find a Golden mean between excesses and deficiencies of a certain moral virtue (285). It is clear that Barker found the mean between what Aristotle called an excess known as “vanity” and a deficiency of magnanimity which is known as “pusillanimity” (285). “Ma” not only portrayed generosity to help out these people, but the program also reflects her magnanimous attempts to help prisoners by teaching them to learn the following: “demonstrate knowledge of, and ability to apply, fundamental theories, perspectives, and techniques in the areas of English, mathematics, computer science, natural science, literature, philosophy, and history” (PEP Website). A vast array of offerings from the outset indicates that Barker did something very profound. Many teachers in her relatively young and untenured position would have is not interested in giving a basic education to these prisoners and would have ignored the problem as a whole in a very pulllsimanrious manner. In another sense, she did not show the excess of magnanimity, vanity, by having standards and requirements to demonstrate the knowledges of the aforementioned areas. By having the requirements to “demonstrate knowledge” of subjects ranging from computer science to english, it shows that Barker had some expectations that the prisoners would fulfill an obligation and commitment to her program. In other words, Barker was not handing out degrees to the prisoners that did not earn it. This balance and preference to have them learn a variety of topics going adequately demonstrates her characteristic of magnaminty. Through her own areas of expertise, she crafted the many career paths for students that choose to attend the program—thereby enhancing the connection between herself and the program she created. Aristotle also posited that a critical feature of a magnanimous person is humility, which Barker undoubtedly exhibits: “I have struggled to have this known, not as Ma Barker`s program but as Boston University’s” (Merewood). This quote, by journalist Anne Merewood, demonstrates just how virtuous Barker is in regards to magnanimity as she had every reason to take credit for the idea but chose to take the spotlight off of her and onto the school and students.

While magnanimity was certainly displayed through Barker’s initiatives, no virtue or characteristic can be more important than the genuine happiness she experienced and gave to prisoners in starting the BU PEP. Happiness seems to be an end goal for many philosophers but there is one philosopher in particular that exhibits the true value of being happy. However, Barker has had her fair share of unhappy moments: “Until that happens, two thoughts motivate her to carry on. She was married for 54 years, and before her husband, Guy, died in 1988, he told her to continue with the prison program, ‘That keeps me going, knowing that I’m doing what Guy Barker ordered” (Merewood). This is a fascinating account in the sense that it implies that “Ma” needed an incentive to continue doing what she is doing. She goes on mention that the second factor that keeps her going is, of course, the prisoners themselves (Merewood). Instead of feeling a sense of despair, she continued doing what she loved for the sake of her husband because it made her happy. It made the prisoners happy as well. Happiness is described by the Ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus in The Letter to Herodotus: “In addition to these general points, we must also understand that the greatest disturbance to the human mind arises through the following…expecting or foreseeing of some everlasting evil, either because of the myths or because of a dread of the lack of sensation that occurs at death, as if these matters were pertinent” (42). Epicurus’ point here is that in order to truly reach happiness (“mental tranquility”), we must quell the certain disturbances and fears that prevent us from reaching that happiness which, in this case, would be death (42). In relating this to Barker, it seems that the fear of death, as Epicurus would put it, does not refer to the passing of Barker’s husband. That served as a catalyst for continuing her efforts. Rather, some of the “everlasting evil” that she had to endure sprung from the aforementioned Crime Control and Prevention Act of 1994 which could have ended the BU PEP as well at the time (PEP Website). The potential “death” of her program is what triggered some of the “disturbances to the mind” (42), or feelings of wanting to discontinue it. It was Guy Barker’s insistence that kept her going and cleansing the “disturbances” she faced. Thus, with the help of her late husband, “Ma” was able to reach her happiness through the continuation of the program and the happiness that she brought to her students as well.

Why is it important that Barker started an initiative such as her prison education system? Why would someone care enough to want these “dangerous criminals” to get a second chance? Most importantly, why should prison education be expanded? There is a statistical argument coming from a study done in another prison education system, Bard college: ‘nationally more than 50 percent of released prisoners end up back in prison within three years, only 2 percent of the graduates of the Bard initiative do. Taking college courses reduces recidivism far more than does completing prison high-school and vocational programs. Also well above average is the 75 percent of the project’s alumni who find gainful employment within a month of release” (Monaghan). This evidence shows that criminals will tend to escape the cycle of recidivism, if and only if, they are given that crucial second chance. Barker’s program has proven to be a success even after her passing: “From the program’s inception through October 2006, 185 students earned bachelor’s degrees, 39 received master’s degrees, and 23 were granted both bachelor’s and master’s degrees” (PEP Website). The evidence proves that Barker was correct in her judgment that prisoners were not on some continuous path of recidivism but rather need a chance to prove their worth to society. Despite acts such as the Crime Control and Prevention Act of 1994 preventing Pell Grants (PEP Website), it becomes clear that education is the tool to help salvage those considered to be a lost cause. Perhaps no better explanation as to how critical Elizabeth Barker’s influence was over her students from an actual student in the program who had this to say about “Ma”: “When I feel discouraged, she makes time for me; she`ll come in to sit and work with me and tutor me to feel better about myself and about society. She’s really a memorial to education—she has so much spirit” (Monaghan). A memorial to education is a perfect analogy to make about Barker and her program. Revisiting the aforementioned question: Is it possible for an individual to single-handedly change the fortunes of an oppressed group of people? The answer would be yes without any hesitation. A lot of help went towards her way, but Barker was the driving force in helping prisoners get the education that they deserved. Now that Barker has passed away, what could this hold for the future of prison education? Perhaps the solution is much simpler than what it may seem to be. What society needs is not another individual virtuous “mother” to prisoners, that can go only so far (even if in Barker’s case it went remarkably far). The real solution is for everyday citizens to spread the awareness around not only the country but the world as well. Instead of allowing those Pell Grants (PEP Website) to take away funds, why not let citizens donate to the cause of prison reform. For all the closed prison schools across the country, there can be a petition started to contact the alumni that have gone there and are explained the story of Barker, her program, her values, and her students so that they may donate to the cause. This puts a responsibility on common people to push for change as Barker did and, in this case, her story will serve as the “Guy Barker” to our desire to expand prison education globally. It is time to change. It is time to make “Ma” proud!

Works Cited