A Fight For Civility

It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.
            Albert Einstein

In an interview with the BBC, Kate Riley, the opinion page editor of the Seattle Times, suggested that the nature of opinions in media is a sum positive.  While she recognizes the “trolls” who clog up message boards and comment sections of online newspaper articles with contributions that are unproductive at best and hateful at worst, something better is emerging.  Ms. Riley might have a sense that she is producing an approach that embraces both conservative and liberal points of view and that her writers are embracing the best of “old-school civil discourse”, I’m not sure that has filtered down to the reader and commenter. 

When I started this blog, I wanted to create a forum where ideas and political opinions were discussed in a respectful way.  To do this, I’ve attempted to do various things.  I always refer to people as Mr. or Ms. or by their earned title.  I’ve stayed away from ad hominem attacks that tear individuals down.  I’ve tried to follow the axiom that it is best to disagree without being disagreeable.  Unfortunately, this is not valued in too many other places.  Social critic Neil Postman spoke of the sensational way in which news is presented – valuing the knee-jerk, emotional response over the intelligent consideration of issues and ideas.   

My view is exclusive to the American media scene as foreign papers and media outlets provide less a venue for reader comment and contributions.  The fact that the American media has so capitulated to it, it is easy to see some trends.  Throughout the history of our Republic, there have been two components to one’s ability to speak out – first was one’s position or expertise and the second was one’s ability to stand up in public.  It is the second category that typically included the “common citizen.”  In town halls from Maine to California, citizens stood up amongst their peers to question or challenge officials or experts on various matters.  Their comments were shaped by personal conviction and community standards of what was considered appropriate or not.  In short, such a public display of opinion prevented the most boorish and offensive behavior.   

The mass media and people’s access to it has greatly democratized the ability to speak and voice one’s convictions.  Still, for every person who does so responsibly through comments or their own blog, hundreds of others unleash a mind boggling barrage of depravity and coarseness.  What is more, they do so without the public indignation and pressure that used to govern society.  Some newspapers have disabled comments for their articles and that is likely a wise course of action.  My concern is whether we are reaching a point of no return.  English writer Samuel Johnson wrote that once civility is discarded, “there remains little hope of return to kindness and decency.”  I’m tempted to delve into the same level of pessimism but that cannot be the end. 

If there is a way to end this bâtonnage of rudeness and near psychopathic levels of thoughtlessness, it might be a simple return to the restraints of a previous age.  We cannot turn back the technological clock – we’ve already consumed the fruit – but perhaps we can reassess how we approach and experience it.  It is imperative that we first reacquaint ourselves with our values and virtues.  On that basis, we must become more critical of the technologies that assail us in the future.  By doing this, it might be possible to follow the words of Mevlana Rumi, the 13^th-century Persian Muslim poet and philosopher who said, “Let’s rise above this animalistic behavior and be kind to one another.”

The Option of Homeschooling

Germany is a democracy is every sense of the word.  However, there is one area where Germany discourages and punishes the freedom of choice – homeschooling.  It is an education model that has grown dramatically in the United States since the 1970s and it is the subject of fierce debate.  While the U.S. has not taken such actions as seen in Germany, the arguments are the same and the debate rages on.  It might seem odd coming from a public high school teacher, but there is value in homeschooling. At its best, it represents what education was meant to be.     

Homeschooling has its pros and cons – like nearly every other educational model I can think of.  Parents are, in some subjects and at some levels, incompetent and incapable of the instruction the student requires.  Parents, consumed by other things that they must do, are not as disciplined to provide a consistent level of education.  Since parents who homeschool often do so for religious or cultural reasons, another criticism is that these students are only exposed to a single viewpoint or theory that can ultimately stunt his/her intellectual development.  Not surprisingly, one of the leading critics of homeschooling is the National Education Association – the largest such association for teachers.  This does not invalidate the potential criticisms but the source of it certainly falls in the category of “self-serving.”   

However, the notion that education can only happen within a school building is absurd.  For over a millennium, people have educated and learned as a result of the world around them.  Consider my hometown of Baltimore, Maryland.  One could teach literature at the museum of Edgar Allen Poe, history at Fort McHenry, science by visiting the complex ecosystem of the Chesapeake Bay or learn mathematics by attending some of the many mathematics conferences held annually in Baltimore.  One would be hard pressed to make the argument that the real world doesn’t provide a much richer and interesting “classroom” by visiting what is around us rather than within the a building.  

As I’m a teacher, my medium is the classroom and to a large extent, I’m confined by it.  The classroom has developed as a practical way of educating a larger segment of the population faster.  Indeed, one of the toughest parts of being a teacher is working within the constraints of public education.  Aristotle taught at the Lyceum but it was one of many places he discussed things.  He also served as the tutor of his patron’s children within their home and the world around them.  While there is merit in the arguments of homeschool opponents, their objection is also part of a misunderstanding of what school is or rather, what it should be.   

Today, secondary school has become a farm system for universities and industries.  We label people by grades or GPAs so as to make it easier for these institutions to classify and place our graduates.  Often I feel saddened by the notion that people narrowly interpret my job as working for these institutions and insuring my students have a well-paying job afterwards.  However, that is not how education was conceived.  Education was devised to be an altruistic, holistic attempt to better a person – to enrich their lives with knowledge of the world around them.  Perhaps, by better understanding the world around us, we have a better understanding of our role within.  Outside of the classroom, homeschoolers have the chance to explore the true meaning of education.  It does not always happen but the potential is there.  

A friend of mine once introduced me to her principal as her conservative friend.  The principal looked at me and said, “Oh, so you are one of those in favor of ruining public education.”  I responded, “Yes, because public education has been doing so well up until now.”  Homeschooling is not perfect but--news flash--neither is public education.  One can find in both arenas misguided and incompetent instructors.  However, homeschooling draws the ire of the establishment simply because it challenges it.  The row is between the “expert” and the layman.  Regardless, we need to change how we see the role of public education.  In doing so, perhaps we will create a better educated pupil.

 

Brief Message VII

It is not a lack of things transpiring around the world.  We have protests in the Ukraine.  We have an end to door-to-door postal delivery in Canada and we have selfie-gate in South Africa.  However, there shall be no blog this weekend.  However, check out some of my past blogs or check out some of the blogs I follow listed to the right of this beautifully written, albeit short, entry.  Enjoy the snow or the oncoming of Christmas.  I’ll be back next weekend. 

Ross

South Africa's Huveane

The other day, former South African President Nelson Mandela died.  What makes his passing so heartbreaking was the singular nature of his personality and his governance.  Others have led great movements.  Others have endured torture and imprisonment.  Others have led countries.  Others have inspired.  However, it is rare indeed for someone to have done all these things.  Destiny and history converged to provide Mr. Mandela a path towards a pedestal that few obtain and even fewer deserve.  Nelson Mandela was indeed a singular figure and therein lies his greatness.   

Mr. Mandela lived in a country that was filled with fearless activists; people who challenged the apartheid authorities and risked everything including Stephen Biko, Robert Sobukwe and Walter and Albertina Sisulu.  Like these people, Nelson Mandela found a home in the African National Congress (ANC) when he joined the organization in the mid-1940s.  He championed non-violent resistance against the dominating white government.  However, in the aftermath of the 1960 police massacre of black protestors in Sharpeville, Mr. Mandela abandoned his pacifist ways and joined a militant arm of the ANC.  It was this period of his life that defined his reputation for many of today’s eldest white South Africans – some who still refer to him as a terrorist.  In 1964, the South African government sentenced him to the prison on Robben Island.  By all accounts, it was imprisonment that helped define the man who would emerge from incarceration in 1990.  When he emerged, he was an activist with few equals having refused conditional release that would have limited his political activities.   

Upon his release, he immediately visited the ANC to help organize continued activities against the apartheid government.  The next year, he took over the presidency of the ANC and over the subsequent years, he worked with South Africa’s president F.W. de Klerk to dismantle the policy that had protected the minority white government unofficially since the late 1800s and officially since the 1950s.  In work that would be recognized by the Nobel Prize committee, the two men worked to create and conduct non-racial elections under a new constitution.  In 1994, he was elected president of South Africa.  In a stroke of political genius and political practicality, Mr. Mandela reached out to the segment of population that viewed him with the greatest mistrust.  He combined the faith of black South Africans with the grudging respect that whites had to create the first halting steps toward a color-blind democracy.  In every sense of the word, he was a transforming and transcending individual.   

However, what makes his passing so impactful for both whites and blacks in South Africa is that its leaders since have seldom lived up to the promise and power of Mr. Mandela.  His immediate successor, Thabo Mbeki, resigned amidst charges of manipulating the prosecution of a political rival.  His backward views on the causes of AIDS further diminished his and the country’s reputation within the global community.  While he did oversee economic growth and foreign affairs, his resignation was seen as a setback.  The presidency of Kgalema Motlanthe is largely seen as that of a caretaker until the rise of Jacob Zuma, the current South African president since 2009.  President Zuma has dodged corruption charges for the better part of the last decade.  Meanwhile, economic disparity, racial violence and uncertainty have plagued a nation desperately wanting a place among other developed countries. 

With the death of who many have called the “moral compass of South Africa,” the man known as Madiba looms large over the future country.  With his death, it will be impossible for future leaders to measure up to the myth and man that is Nelson Mandela.  However, it is possible that his death will make room for a new generation of leaders who could catapult South Africa into the 21^st century.  Yet, whatever success happens in the coming decades, should South Africa prosper and emerge from this period of uncertainty, it will be through the example left by the man who rotted in a prison cell for over a quarter of a century to emerge as a modern “founding father.”

Beginning of the Reckoning?

Last weekend, European and American leaders, in negotiations with Iranian representatives in Geneva, Switzerland, struck a six-month deal to limit the enrichment of uranium.  It is hoped that this agreement is the first step towards slowing Iran’s search for a nuclear weapon.  However, as a historian, I hope this is not the Munich Agreement of our times.  At its core is a trust (or hope) that Iran will fulfill its obligations as it sincerely presented them at the negotiation table.  Despite this, there is a fear that the western European leaders and President Obama do not end up looking like the appeasers – a group of leaders who hoped, against history, that the promises slipping from the mouths of tyrants do not end up costing us dearly in the end. 

It is often said that the current elected leader of Iran, President Hassan Rouhani, is a moderate.  Keep in mind that in a country like Iran, “moderate” does not translate to a western definition.  If indeed he is not the promise that many westerners desperately hope he is, the question must be asked about the motivation of Iran.  Iran, like most dictatorial regimes, only agrees to that which costs them nothing to do so.  Consider the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Act.  Throughout the Harding/Coolidge administrations, there was a concerted attempt to take war off the table and help bring more belligerent countries in line with some fifty-four countries signing along.  This measure was joined by earlier efforts such as the Washington Conference (1921-2) and the various naval power agreements to limit tools of war.  However, such pie-in-the-sky idealism, further advanced by the impotent League of Nations, only assuaged people’s concern temporarily.  None of the agreements or the organization prevented the carnage ahead.   

The hope for better things, with no history or facts to support such aspirations, brought us to the infamous Munich Agreement, where the Allies, desperate to avoid war, gave away Czechoslovakia in the late 1930s.  Czechoslovakia was not present at those meetings, and today, countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia, very concerned by an Iran with nuclear weapons, are equally minimized and now equally anxious.  To put it succinctly, many people are concerned because they don’t trust the governments that formed the agreement.  The Saudis do not trust the Iranians to carry out their obligations and they do not trust the Obama administration or the Europeans to punish Iran should the Islamic Republic fail to uphold its end.  For Saudi Arabia, who fears a Shi’a nuclear power, and the Israelis, who fear anyone nearby with a nuclear weapon, a rather untenable situation has developed.  Despite the words of assurances by various European and American leaders, the general sense is that it is doomed to fail because the aggressor lacks the interest and the appeasers lack the intestinal fortitude for a fight.  

Herein lies the problem of all of the major conflicts that have wreaked havoc in the 20^th century.  The League of Nations was destroyed because it failed to act against Italian aggression in Albania and Ethiopia and when Japan invaded its neighbors.  U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt felt that by not joining the Spanish civil war, the fight between fascists and republicans would not grow but it did when Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini helped.  The Allies partially created the carnage of World War II because they failed to check Hitler’s rise to power.  What will be said 40 years from now?  Will European leaders and President Obama further epitomize the folly of trusting untrustworthy dictatorships?  History seems to suggest that the treaty struck in Geneva will be an unmitigated disaster through either Iranian action or pre-emptive strikes by Saudi Arabia or Israel.   

From the outside, it is easy to make judgments and none of us are privy to all the factors that went into the construction of that treaty.  I can only use the examples of leaders past to understand what happens when you try to buy compliance with concessions.  One good side of the treaty is that it lasts only six months and perhaps, with a clearer vision, world leaders might take another approach.  I’d just hate to think the future of relations in the Middle East (and its stability) is dependent upon the cooperation of a country like Iran.  Let us hope our leaders have learned from history instead of just repeating it. 

Fifty Years On

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.
            President John F. Kennedy

Fifty years ago today, in the city of Dallas, the president of the United States died.  From a historian point of view, births and deaths are seldom discussed or noteworthy.  Yet, a man holding the most powerful position in the world, a man whose greatest promise was his youth and the time he possibly had in office, draws people in and invites them to delve into his achievements, his beliefs and his legacy.  I have my opinion on conspiracy theories, especially those related to the death of the president, however, they are beyond the point and not relevant.  What is relevant is what President John Fitzgerald Kennedy meant as a part of the American story and his role in the history he made and world he helped create.  

Among historians, it is often said that forty to fifty years are required to properly assess an event or individual.  So, it is with some historical certainty that I offer these thoughts.  From the beginning, John Kennedy was a classic New England liberal but one with conservative fiscal policies – today, what we would call the kind of left-leaning centrist that was instrumental to the approach of President Bill Clinton.  He had a compelling personal story as a member of one of the richest, most powerful American families.  He was a World War II veteran who served the dangerous duty of captain of a PT boat in the Pacific patrolling against the Japanese navy.  He had a beautiful family, including a glamorous wife and adorable children.  While southern Democrats bemoaned the Catholic, northern liberal, he made inroads into the South thanks to his vice presidential candidate, Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas. 

Politically, he is most discussed on two levels – his relationship with the Soviet Union and his actions dealing with civil rights.  President Kennedy’s record against Nikita Khrushchev was spotty at best.  His greatest highlight against the Soviets is undoubtedly the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis where the president displayed an intestinal fortitude greater than many of his critics imaged.  However, he flubbed horribly during the Bay of Pigs incident the year before and in a showdown with the Soviets over Berlin that led to the creation of a wall.  With regards to civil rights, he was reluctant to join the fray, fearing a backlash of southern discontent in the 1964 re-election bid.  He balked at James Meredith’s attempt to enter Ole Miss and he was not supportive of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s march on the capital.  It was this failing that led to some of his dreadful approval numbers prior to his death. 

In hindsight, his presidency when taken as a whole was not terribly productive.  One could say he did not have enough time and that is certainly a valid point but some presidents have done much more with less time.  Yet, his death created a mystique and aura that may only be available to us wrapped in nostalgia and our wonder of what could have been.  Some say that he was interested in scaling back in Vietnam but his increase of military advisors to the South’s government does not suggest he was making any serious exit strategies.  It is interesting to speculate how different his legacy would have been had he survived and won re-election.  Without the threat of another election, he could have been more decisive with civil rights, unions (part of a general centrist/right leaning fiscal stance) and other important aspects of his philosophy.  

This anniversary of President Kennedy’s death, unfortunately, will be misdirected.  It has been said that more people visit the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas than visit his presidential library in Boston.  In that is not just a morbid curiosity of his dramatic death but a disregard or misrepresentation of his record.  His promise was never fully realized but that is not a criticism.  Many good men have filled the Oval Office and failed to manifest their greatest hopes and aspirations.  John F. Kennedy is simply one.  Today does not need to be a saturnine remembrance but a reminder of our best intentions. 

The Forgotten War

If you go to a typical bookstore (provided you can find one), make a comparison between the books devoted to World War One and those about World War Two.  The second conflict fills a string of bookcases – everything from the generic survey history to Hitler’s women or something along those lines.  If the first conflict fills an entire single shelf, it is a minor miracle.  Next year will be the centennial history of World War I.  Yet, very little thought is given to that first conflict.  As the war’s veterans died, so did America’s interest.  As a history teacher, I’ve often said that World War One is much more important than the following war.  This is why.   

First, World War One changed irrevocably the political landscape of Europe; gone were the archaic and decrepit ruling families who gave way to the first halting steps towards more democratic governments.  Revolutions erupted in Russia and Germany; the former creating a communist government the likes of which no one had seen before, the latter creating a deeply flawed democratic system that would fail miserably but in the end, would set the groundwork for the future.  The United Kingdom began to lose control of an empire that was a holdover of the past and the ideas of what made a “great” country.  France also began to lose control of its empire as the government began a turn towards socialist democracy.  Italy would slowly delve into fascism, much like their Teutonic brothers in arms. 

Second, the First World War shaped modern Europe.  The dominant powers in 1914, the year Serb nationalist Gavrilo Princip shot and killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand, were Germany, Austria-Hungary, France and the United Kingdom.  Eastern Europe did not exist, save for the countries of Romania and Bulgaria, as well as the various Balkan states.  Millions of ethnic minorities were trapped in large empires with no hope of autonomy or cultural recognition.  After the war, Europe was a completely different scene and map.  The Baltic states emerged; Austria-Hungary split with each nationality controlling its own boundaries and destiny.  Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belorussia and the Ukraine embraced President Wilson’s dream of self-determination.  The Europe of today, and its spirit, was created as a result of World War One.  This does not even mention the way post-war arrangements shaped, sometimes in capricious ways, the modern Middle East.

Lastly, the First World War created the Second World War.  The treaty of Versailles turned the Allies into money grubbers, fighting and squabbling over reparation dollars even as some of the leaders, particularly British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, knew the treaty was too punitive.  Versailles turned Germany, into a seething, embarrassed, broken nation that fell for a demagogue willing to sell them a twisted vision of their future.  Indeed, the treaty’s most impactful component is its treatment of Germany.  Germany’s military was nearly wiped out; it was saddled with millions of dollars in reparations but was stripped of its largest coal producing region, leaving it incapable in its attempt to build an economy to pay back the Allies.  Worst of all, Germany was saddled with the full and unmitigated responsibility of the war.  While Germany certainly played a role, arguably a significant role, to suggest it was solely responsible for the conflict was a form of punishment Prime Minister Lloyd George and French Premier Georges Clemenceau could not let go – their pre- and wartime rhetoric created a quixotic treaty.  So badly was it designed, French Field Marshal Ferdinand Foch said Versailles was not a peace treaty; it was a cease fire for twenty years. 

World War II is most recent and certainly filled with horrific moments that equal anything that happened between 1914 and 1918.  However, it was only a conclusion and not a conflict in and of itself.  Those men and women who fought and served in the “War to End all Wars” used state of the art weaponry with outdated tactics to create an imperfect peace.  Last week, we celebrated Veterans Day but prior to 1954, it was known as Armistice Day in honor of the end of World War One.  The names have changed but the responsibility is the same – remember their sacrifice by remembering their story.  It is the least we can do. 

What Some Don't Understand

In recent years, bullying has become a major issue within American education.  This past week, it has dominated headlines in America’s number one sport – professional football.  Miami Dolphins’ offensive lineman Jonathan Martin left the team without explanation and over this last week, it has been determined that teammate Richie Incognito was the reason.  Evidence emerged that Mr. Incognito sent some pretty vile texts and tweets to his teammate.  This seems to have been done with the acknowledgement of the coaching staff in order to toughen up Mr. Martin.  While outsiders have jumped to the defense of the offended, there is a dynamic with which few critics are familiar. 

One of the developments is the near complete lack of support for Mr. Martin coming from his former teammates.  I believe this to be the product of team, not individual, thinking.  Mr. Martin has taken something in-house out into the public – a public that neither can or wants to consider the team context.  A team works on the basis of trust.  A part of that trust is an understanding that the internal conflicts do not become public fodder.  Critics might suggest that people like Mr. Incognito thrive on that type of culture but it is that type of culture which creates the fidelity and fraternity that are instrumental toward team success.  

Then, there is the issue of hazing or initiation that is often present in group or team dynamics.  Such things are quite common and serve a group purpose.  A newcomer into a group must quickly understand the values of the group and integrate into the relationships.  Doing this shows a commitment to the group, the people within and the goals of the group.  Typically, everyone has done something that serves as an initiation and they oversee the process for newcomers.  As a member of the military, I went through various traditions and I’ve doled them out as well.  The purpose is never to hurt necessarily but to ascertain the character of the person seeking entrance into our team.  This is not a capricious concern but one that could determine our future success or failure.  If one has never been a part of this type of relationship, it might seem strange, even sadistic, but it serves a purpose.   

The other feature to all of this is the proposed racism involved.  When I was in the military (certainly a team environment), the teasing and needling was part of the bonding.  It is too early to tell if this is really racism or not.  I would suggest it is not always racism but the absence of racism.  Race meant nothing to my platoon – everyone was called everything.  As a Jew, I was called a kike and Heb and Holocaust jokes were slipped in frequently.  Whether you were a redneck, Asian, Hispanic or black, there was not a label or slander not heard.  In these types of environments, race means nothing and therefore the words mean nothing.  One’s worth is based simply on what one contributes to the group.  Words based off this were the ones that hurt – if you were called a slacker or weak.  People outside these groups cannot understand but that is the reality.  When the individual no longer matters, one’s ability to fit into and work within the group is all important. 

There is a good chance that Mr. Incognito is just a jerk and a racist (the kind that typically gets weeded out in a true team environment).  This article is not in defense of him or what he allegedly has done.  What I do defend is the group/team culture.  This can sometimes include things considered unacceptable in the outside world.  I cannot make “civilians” understand because they never will unless in that position.  Yet a system cannot be punished simply because others do not understand.  There is value here and such teams or groups have changed the world (or brightened an occasional weekend).  We would all do well to reflect on that. 

Happy Birthday Marines

It has dawned on me that I've never addressed a day that was a very important one for me for nearly four and a half years - November 10.  Today, around the world, men and women are celebrating the 238th birthday of the United States Marine Corps.  For over two centuries, the marines have been the first in and the last out in one conflict after another. 

For me, it changed my life - turning me from directionless to focused.  The drive I learned in the marines put me through college in four years - though I was balancing a double major and working at the same time.  It provided memories and experiences that I'll never forgot.  I've seen lands and talked with people I never would have otherwise and my provincial mindset has grown more global.  I've learned the true meaning of friendship and camaraderie as well as patience and coping skills.  In short, I'm a better man.  I would not be the teacher I am now were it not for my time with the marines.  I certainly would not be the husband I am without the maturity instilled in me in the marines. 

So, for all those wearing the eagle, globe and anchor, serving home and abroad, know that your efforts are appreciated and honored.  Happy Birthday Marines - Semper Fi.      

The Way They Should Go

This past week, an editorial in the Paris-based newspaper Le Monde discussed one of the most debated components of the teaching profession – to be nice or not be nice.  Of course, when I began my career, I was told not to smile until Christmas.  The thought was it was much easier to grow nicer than to grow stricter.  However, what the article misses altogether and what I was missing at the beginning of my career was that notions of “mean” or “nice” are beyond the scope of the question and not relevant.  Instead, the question should be about being a teacher.

In the past, I’ve alluded to the words of German thinker Martin Buber and his concept that a teacher’s job is to instruct the adult they will become – not the teenager they are now.  Therefore, my approach is not to be polite or mean but to be professional and keep the long term in mind.  In general, I have deadlines and restrictions on re-takes and make-ups.  Most teachers do but in the application of such policies, I respond to situations as a professional.  I will extend latitude when common decency dictates that I should.  If a kid’s parent has been in the hospital all weekend, it is as a professional that I extend the deadline where other students are not afforded such consideration.  For the student, I’m not being nice (though I’m surely sympathetic) but practical.  It is unreasonable to expect a student to complete an assignment if their parent was in the hospital all weekend.  To enforce the policy is not a case of being strict, it is being a jerk.   

However, more likely is the case that a student comes to me and ask for an extension on an assignment and I say no.  Again, not extending the deadline is not a question of being mean – as Le Monde editorial seems to suggest.  The question I have to ask myself is what is being learned from my action.  If the student learns in the future, be it in my class or another class (or a job), that it is not good to turn things in late, then a life-long lesson has been internalized.  Like parents, it does not serve me (and certainly not the students) to allow a kid to arbitrarily miss deadlines.  To do so could lead to the student suffering after they’ve left school where the consequences are more severe and less forgiving.    

 

What is the extent of my “niceness?”  I often say that I’m friendly but refuse to be friends.  Many teachers seek to be friends with students.  Like parents, that serves no one.  I’m not there to be a friend but to be a teacher.  My ability to do what is best for the student can be easily compromised with personal feelings or attachments.  Still, I seek to be friendly.  It would be equally ridiculous to take an adversarial approach to students I have to deal with for 182 days.  Like a professional, the best you can make these relationships, the better the students will perform.   

Now, those who argue against this approach say such teachers do not care for their students and do not care about what is best for them.  Typically, when a person’s response to a point is an ad hominem attack, it is never a good sign.  I’ve been told that I don’t care and I don’t understand what they are going through.  I should try to “meet them where they are.”  Such thinking is naïve.  When a teacher acquiesces to a student’s excuses (extraordinary circumstances notwithstanding) or a student’s plea to avoid consequences, the teacher is cutting the student’s legs out from underneath them – crippling them as they head into a world that cares very little for them.   

So what is a teacher to do?  It is not to be nice for niceness sake.  It is not to be mean because a student should be able to expect a certain level of decency.  The teacher should be the dispassionate advocate for the adult the student will become.  If a teacher does their job correctly, that student will enter the world with maturity and confidence and will have the benefit of having a mentor who sought what was best for the long-run rather than doing what was easier in the short-term.        

Carte Blanche?

Sometimes we do a thing in order to find out the reason for it.  Sometimes our actions are questions not answers.
            John Le Carre, A Perfect Spy 

Over the last few days, it has been revealed that the National Security Administration was monitoring German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s phone (as well as Americans’ phone and internet purchasing activities).  The NSA explained away its action by saying one, everyone does it and two, it was not collecting specific details.  While some Americans are outraged, Germans are more appropriately angry and Ms. Merkel, who was raised in the surveillance state of East Germany, understands all too well the implications.  From the American point of view however, the cries of injustice ring a little hollow.  The idea of government espionage and the protesting Americans’ accusations have technological, societal and moral components and implications.

First, the issue of U.S. government espionage is a product of technological advancements that Americans have increasingly demanded.  Over the last couple of decades, we have required from technology greater power and access to our normal lives and previously considered private domains.  We incessantly and without thinking give our information over at the drop of a hat so that credit card companies and grocery stores can monitor our purchasing and food consumption habits.  Yet, we are outraged by our government’s ability and willingness to use technology to monitor the behavior of foreign leaders (or us) – be they friendly or not.  We demand our lives be open books for our own benefit and feign shock and dismay that others are also benefiting.

Second, this is a societal issue.  We demand that our government know everything.  When the September 11^th attacks happened, some called for answers and wondered why our government did not know.  When Americans are killed overseas, we want to know when the chain of command broke down, why and what the government plans to do about it.  As a society, we are constantly amping up our expectations of government and then wonder why they are listening to or recording everything.  We cannot have both concepts.  We have, over the decades, created a myth that a government can and should be capable of all matter of things and there is a price for that knowledge. 

Lastly, there is a moral implication to the American outrage.  Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and others of that ilk have used various methods not dissimilar to our government to hack into and dispense information in such a way as to compromise the United States and, at least initially, get away with it.  Some American protestors hail them as “heroes.”  It would seem, at the least, there is a certain moral relativism that makes the charges as it relates to the government’s actions.  It’s legitimate to question the morality of the U.S. government and its efforts to monitor as much as possible but what are Americans doing to encourage this behavior?  By our acceptance of one, do we not accept the other?  Those who point to the actions of the government leading to the response are suggesting that the end justifies the means.  Such arguments are on shaky moral ground.   

It is not surprising that our intelligence efforts are so pervasive.  I don’t prescribe to the attitude that “those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear.”  That argument is ambiguous and diverting.  The answer lies with Abraham Lincoln.  When he describes a government “of the people, by the people, for the people,” he is not speaking of just the liberties we enjoy as citizens of this democracy.  He is also speaking to the responsibilities of American citizens.  We are not casual observers of the things that transpire in our government and in our society.  We allow it and in doing so, bad things happen.  I do believe that our government should have secrets in order for it to do its job and espionage is essential.  It’s also evident that our expectations and demands of government are not realistic.  A traditional liberal approach requires a paternalistic government.  I think that is dangerous and it might be what we have.

Hi-ho, Hi-ho...

Noël Coward, the English playwright, once said that “Work is much more fun than fun.”  I think in the perfect world, it’s possible, but I’m not sure that many of us live within a perfect world.  Most of us are given a life, we choose a path and we make the most of what we can.  But work?  My efforts at defining my work are complicated by two things – one, many people (most within the profession) label it a “calling” which adds a religious component with which I’m not always comfortable; two, a great many of people have little to no respect for it, which allows many people to feel free to comment on how they think it should best be done.  Which, in the end, still leaves me still pondering how to view work?  There are three major ways one can do so. 

The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche saw work, partially, as one’s salvation – the means by which to break through difficulties and emerge stronger in the end.  A later German philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein, spoke more plainly when he said that he was not sure why we are here on earth but he was certain it was not to enjoy ourselves.  This type of approach is often characterized by one who buries themselves within their work.  However, this can be damaging.  It does not bode well for one with a family, friends or any semblance of “life.”  It is also potentially damaging to one’s identity.  The one who defines themselves by their work are in a precarious position when something happens to that work.  What happens to one’s identity?  Does the work go on?  Does the true acolyte of Nietzsche say that a “job” is not as important as the “work?”    

Cannot the notion of work be condensed to the Aristotelian idea of contributing to society and having nothing to do with our personal lives?  The best life is not an actualization of oneself but wrapped in the duty one performs to the society as a whole.  It is a reaffirmation of the notion that our lives are not for ourselves but for others.  This is a self-sacrificing way to view one’s labor and there are certainly noble and amazing individuals whose work was their service to others.  Yet, like the one who buries themselves in work, do not the words of Epicurus remind us of a danger?  One looks upon the example of Mother Teresa or Gandhi.  Can one live a life if they do not experience it?  That is not to say that those two heroic figures did not know life but is it an example for others to follow?  I would say that the person who is absorbed by their work and the one who is absorbed by the needs of others run the same risk, however noble the latter is.   

Or, we could look at work as merely a method by which to enjoy life.  By “enjoy”, I don’t mean some sort of Aristippus notion of pleasure but merely to take part in the wonders of life.  The work is only a means to an end.  One works to enjoy life – work during the week to camp or hike or relax on the weekend.  Yet, this taken to its logical conclusion could lead to a life without work.  I think it is a legitimate idea to consider whether a life without work would be a moral life.  On some level, this is a selfish approach to one’s life and can one truly be moral and not consider the needs of others?  I would imagine that adherents of the first two concepts would not have much respect for a follower of the third.  Certainly, Wittgenstein would suggest that such a life is a wasted one.  The fact that God gives us talents and skills are not there for arbitrary reasons. 

Most Americans’ viewpoint of work is based on a Puritan concept of the importance of a work ethic, but the Christian concept of work only discusses the need for it and not the way it should be approached.  Gandhi viewed all work as noble and the nobility of work is its own reward to both the individual and the society.  After this little exercise, I’m not sure I’m closer to understanding the nature of work than I was earlier.  Like most things, there is a value in each approach but also a danger.  Perhaps, one needs to take the dedication of the first approach, the awareness of the second and the balance of the third.  By doing so (and this certainly is no easy task), perhaps we grow closer to a true answer to our question and an understanding of ourselves. 

The Making of a Judicial Giant

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is…If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each….This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
                Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803

From time to time, the Supreme Court has been the subject of one of my articles.  I love the Supreme Court and am endlessly fascinated with the issues they discuss.  Within the story of the Supreme Court, I’m most intrigued with the career of John Marshall.  He was the third chief justice of the Court and widely considered the most important judicial figure in the history of the United States.  He is responsible for the creation of the modern court and its powers.  However, like most things dealing with the law, one’s career is often centered on a single case.  For John Marshall, that case was Marbury v. Madison in 1803.

In the waning days of the Adams administration, having been defeated by the Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson, the Federalist president hurriedly worked to fill a slew of vacant federal judicial positions.  President Adams had been negligent to do so earlier but worked overnight to complete them before leaving the White House for good.  He stacked his pile of “midnight judges” appointees on his desk and assumed that the incoming president of a different party would finish the process.  Upon entering the White House, President Jefferson and his Secretary of State, James Madison, saw the appointees and pondered.  Are they required to fulfill these Federalist positions?  They answered no and likely threw them away. 

One of the judges in question, William Marbury, wanted his post – justice of the peace of Washington, D.C.  At the time, the capital was a sleepy agricultural community with little for a justice of the peace to worry about.  He sued the government and Secretary Madison for his job on the basis of the Judiciary Act of 1789.  In particular, he called for a writ of mandamus – an order for the government to do its job.  For Chief Justice Marshall, the strident Federalist who wants and needs a stronger government for the good of the Court, his sympathies are towards Marbury but he has a problem.  With the little respect or prestige of the Court, if he ruled in favor of Marbury and ordered the president to appoint him, President Jefferson would simply ignore him.  However, in reviewing the law, he sees a chance to gain some much needed credibility for the Supreme Court. 

As John Marshall laid out his ruling, he began by saying that Marbury was appropriately appointed and should be given his position.  Nothing in the Constitution limits when a president can make judicial appointments and therefore, the post should go to Marbury.  As the audience begins to think that the Federalist judge has ruled in favor of the Federalist plaintiff, Marshall shocks by attacking the Judiciary Act of 1789.  In short, Marshall ruled that the portion of the law used by the plaintiff was unconstitutional and therefore, Marbury’s case and basis was invalid and his petition denied.  Jefferson was now in a bind.  If he did not accept Marshall’s opinion, he would be compelled to give Marbury his position, with many other midnight judges likely to follow the same path.  By accepting the Court’s opinion, he bestows upon the Court the ability to review the actions of government and determine its constitutionality.  In short, John Marshall took one step back to take two steps forward at a later date.  It worked and the Court was given an important power over the other branches – judicial review.   

The Supreme Court has the authority to review not only the actions of the government but those of the lower courts, both federal and state.  Over the course of his career, Marshall’s decisions would establish a strong federal government in the areas of interstate commerce, international contracts and on the question of federal law superseding state law.  Given the impact that he had, it is surprising that he is not more well-known.  Hopefully, I’ve changed that to some degree with this little story.  His life and his work is worthy of attention and study.    

Once More unto the Breach, Dear Friends

Shades of 1995 loom large as the congressional Republicans and a Democratic president face off over a question of the budget that has led to a government shutdown.  There must be a large institutional memory among both parties regarding how the last showdown turned out.  However, it is difficult to see this without conceding the Democrats refusal to negotiate.  It is a trend that began when the health care law was passed without a discussion or debate.  The House Republicans are trying to have some conversation about spending and debt but the Democrats, particularly in the Senate, refuse.  The Democrats are not seeking a solution. 

One of the Democratic talking points is that the Republicans are willing to hurt the average American by shutting down the government.  Meanwhile, the president has made a mantra, in between the ad hominem attacks, that he is willing to negotiate.  It has not been the experience of the congressional Republicans that the president is open to discussion.  If anything, the president is doubling-down on the rhetoric against his “ideologue” Republican opponents.  In addition to the president’s talking points, and much like what happened during the sequestration fiasco, the Democrats are seeking to make things as horrible as possible for the average American in order to convince the public the Republicans are irrational and mad.  Some newspapers took the administration to task earlier this year with regards to the disproportionate “pain” the Americans felt – particularly with the FAA, whose across-the-board minimal budget cuts (4%) turned into a delay of nearly half of all flights, according to the Wall Street Journal.     

Now, open air monuments are shut and privately funded parts of the National Park Service are ordered to close their doors.  Stern-faced administrative officials have hit the talk shows and issued flight safety warnings and national security concerns.  God forbid there should be a terrorist attack.  The administration will blame the Republicans.  Meanwhile, the non-ideologue president says he is willing to do anything to bring the government back into operation.  However, his Democratic compatriots view as outrageous the Republican effort to fund essential services of the government.  This led to a horribly unfortunate comment by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), where he incredulously asked why he would want to save a child with cancer (by agreeing to Republican efforts).  If you are dumbfounded, join the crowd; so were the reporters at the scene. 

I’m not sure it was the best idea to tie the question of public funding with the Affordable Care

Act by leveraging a possible shutdown of the government.  However, the dye is cast and the only way the Republicans can salvage the situation is if they can get some reduction in government spending or the national debt.  However, what began as a blunder by congressional Republicans is quickly becoming a telling moment for the president and the Democrats.  It should be known that my lovely bride is currently “enjoying” an unpaid vacation due to the shutdown.  My thoughts on the matter are not capricious rants.  However, if the Republicans can make some progress, it might be worth it.  The American people will see this and the nay-sayers who cast doubt about the Republican chances in 2014 might be overstating their point. 

Brief Message VI

I don't know if my occasional weekends of inactivity are normal for the bloggers out there but there are times when real life overtakes me.  I shall bury myself in some German philosophical musings and hope for the best.  As usual, however, take a moment to peruse what I've written before.  As for next week, there could be a myriad of potential topics - there are certainly not a lack of goings on at the present moment.  Enjoy the week - it is playoff baseball, after all. 

Cheers

Ross

The Aristotelian Model

Were it possible to gather together all of the prominent educational leaders of the United States and pose the question – what is the purpose of education? – it would quickly deteriorate into a blizzard of buzz words such as “standards” or “technology.”  Such terms are bandied about in education circles, meant to certify the seriousness and legitimacy of the speaker.  It is part of the dogma of modern education.  It means very little for few people are considering the true design of education – for the pupil and for the state.  To do so, we must stop looking into the cloudy crystal ball and set our gaze on the past. 

First, it is necessary to define our terms so that when I say education, I do not refer to the universities for which the United States are uniquely known and admired.  I am referring to the primary education given to our students, primarily at the high school level.  With that understanding, education’s purpose has never been as modern theorists have professed.  It has nothing to do with an “investment in our future” and it certainly has nothing to do with the pursuit of success – monetary or otherwise.  These are only aspects of life that are the product of the values we impose on students.  But if the goal of our students is success, as defined by going to a good college and getting a good paying job, that does not serve the end that education is designed to establish.  In order to understand, we must visit the teacher at the Lyceum in Athens.  We must visit Aristotle.   

For Aristotle, education is the first step towards a virtuous life, the foundation of ethics that shape the person, which in turn shapes the society.  Furthermore, to say that education is the beginning would ignore a grave responsibility.  If it is true that education is a part of the process towards an ethical life, then education cannot end.  Teachers who speak of high school and college as things to get through in order to enjoy life are robbing their students of a basic tenet.  The ethics that define a good person (and in turn a good society) are nourished with the knowledge gleaned from further education.  Indeed, for a good society to continue to flourish, all members of said society must continue on the path of learning more and broadening their perspectives.   

As one continues on the path of education, the world opens up and provides the student a glimpse of what is possible through learning.  As we pursue what is possible, we learn that “possible” is not just a matter of what can be imagined but what can be done.  Today, the paradigm used in high schools, particularly with history, is to focus on what has happened that is horrible, corrupt and jaded – failures of man and the systems in which they worked.  The mark of “critical thinking” is often measured in the cynicism that we instill in students and then we bemoan the ambivalence they show towards the world, our country, its history and our potential.  Yet, Aristotle would suggest that continued education should emphasize the possible as we consider it intellectually and physically.   

Aristotle’s Politics suggests that one of the objectives of long term education is the merging of moral and intellectual virtues to make up a code of ethics that shape and direct our lives.  This is learned by repetition – both in deed and in word.  Therefore, moral virtues can be instilled and used to nurture intellectual virtues which are taught.  We don’t teach intellectual virtues any longer.  We teach short cuts, expediency and relevance – as if, in the pursuit of knowledge, there is such a concept as relevance.  The very notion amputates the mind, the intellect and therefore, our ability to understand the world around us and ourselves.   

Aristotle spoke of education at greater length, suggesting what such programs would look like.  However, it matters little what that is composed of if no thought is to be given to the foundations of education.  There are times when it seems like a hopeless battle.  Perhaps, as a school teacher, it is impossible to create something more – something better.  It was said that American civil rights activist and writer James Baldwin had to leave the pulpit to preach the gospel.  I hope that is not true for me and my convictions on education.  Aristotle, as a teacher, set a standard.  Perhaps I and others like me can re-establish that standard. 

The 1912 Election

For some people, politics and elections are an exercise in patience and endurance.  For these people, elections are a string of distorted facts, hyperbole and one boring candidate trying to talk over another.  Often, the major complaint of American political elections, particularly the presidential ones, is that they are made up of candidates not worthy of the office.  However, there was one election that would see not two but three men who spent a nearly combined twenty years in the Oval Office.  It is not spoken about often, but the 1912 election is one of the more interesting ones of the 20^th century.  

Theodore Roosevelt (1901-9) had some regrets in life but likely none more than the day he said, during the 1904 presidential campaign, that he would not seek a second elected term.  After his presidency, he grew increasingly disenchanted with his hand-picked successor, William Howard Taft, to continue his progressive policies to the point of throwing his hat into the ring once more for 1912.  President Taft (1909-13) was no Rough Rider but the corpulent chief executive was a good steward of progressive ideals though he had lost a key fight against the old guard Republicans over tariffs.  The Democrats, sensing a weakened Republican party, selected New Jersey Governor Woodrow Wilson (1913-21) to carry them to victory.  The former president of Princeton University made a career of smashing people’s misconceptions of the timid academic and proved more than capable in the rough and tumble world of New Jersey politics.     

The campaign would be remembered as one of the more lively ones in recent history.  All three were men were progressives, all believing that the government needed to take on a more expansive role.  However, that is where the togetherness ended.  Mr. Roosevelt was pushing a more radical version of his Square Deal, coined New Nationalism, with increased business regulations and social welfare.  Governor Wilson’s New Freedom sought to favor small entrepreneurship and the breakup of the large corporations.  President Taft, a lawyer who never wanted to be president, spent the beginning of the campaign questioning his options. 

From a sensational point of view, the campaign was known for two things.  In October, the former president was shot in the chest while in Milwaukee by a man upset about the idea of third terms.  He survived partly because the bullet hit his bulky, folded speech in his suit breast pocket.  It was still dangerous, however, because he insisted on given an hour and a half speech before going to the hospital.  Both President Taft and Governor Wilson suspended their campaigns and offered condolences but that was as magnanimous as it got.  Teddy Roosevelt resorted to attacking his former friend by calling him a “fat head.”  Formerly blasé President Taft struck back, calling his former mentor a “demagogue” and a “dangerous egotist.”   

Woodrow Wilson, a minister’s son, won the election easily against a divided Republican opposition.  He would lead the U.S. through World War One and tried to take an isolated nation into an internationalist role.  He signed into existence the Federal Reserve System as well as the Federal Trade Commission.  He was only the second Democrat to win the White House since the Civil War.  The Rough Rider retired to New York and spent much of his time attacking President Wilson’s lack of response to European aggression.  William Howard Taft left politics altogether and re-entered the legal profession, teaching at Yale for eight years.  Then, in 1921, President Warren Harding gave him his dream job when Professor Taft became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. 

Seldom has a presidential election seen such a tandem of candidates and likely, it will not happen again.  While, in many ways, Woodrow Wilson’s presidency is seen as a success, it marked an end to the progressive period and a re-commitment to isolationism and conservatism.  Though seldom discussed to the extent of its importance, the 1912 election was unique in its ramification for the future of the country and its direction.  It is worthy of further study and shows that politics is anything but a boring process filled with colorless characters.