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.      

What’s in a Name?

Since the 1990s, various sports teams at all levels have gone through a transformation.  These teams were among those who had, as a nickname, some reference to Native Americans.  While various tribes have authorized some use as legitimate or while others benefit from their ambiguous names, others still find themselves in the crossfire.  Throughout the controversy, one team has been more criticized than others – the National Football League’s Washington Redskins.  While the pinnacle of opposition coincided with the team’s appearance in the Super Bowl in the early 1990s, there have been renewed attempts, namely the Oneida tribe, to convince the team’s ownership to change.  

There are three types of Native American-connected names the subject of debate over the last several decades.  One dealt with teams whose names are a direct reference to a tribe such as schools like the Utah Utes, Florida State Seminols and Eastern Michigan Chippawas.  The second are those who use as their moniker more indistinct names that do not reference a particular tribe such as MLB’s Atlanta Braves, NHL’s Chicago Blackhawks and NBA’s Golden State Warriors.  The last category are those who have used names that have either an obvious or vague racist tones such as the Redmen of St. John’s University, the Louisiana-Monroe Indians and the aforementioned Washington Redskins.  St. John’s and Louisiana-Monroe have changed their names but the football team that calls the nation’s capital its home has stood resolute. 

I do believe that racism exists and I do believe that the Washington Redskins are on the wrong side of this issue.  Its name is clearly a reference to the more racist connotations of days gone by.  Having said that, I’m reluctant to mandate a change.  In the 1960s, President John F. Kennedy used his muscle to force the Washington to accept black players, the last NFL team to do so.  A combination of political and economic forces compelled the team to do what public opinion did not.  However, if Washington changes its name, it must come from the marketplace.  I mentioned in an earlier article about the Boy Scouts of America that I feel a little queasy when organizations or individuals are forced to do something.  This is no different but I understand the backstory. 

For Native Americans, their recent history is one of societal, economic and political subjugation.  They have endured racism and worse, near ethnic annihilation.  Since the heyday of the Native American civil rights movement and the militancy of groups like the American Indian Movement (AIM), activists have tried to right wrongs.  For the most part, the American public has agreed and has supported changes that favor America’s indigenous population.  However, groups like AIM have not always been disciplined in their attacks and have subsequently unleashed their efforts on things that are questionable.  Therefore, when a real case emerges or a real argument is put forth, people have begun to tune it out.  This could be the case with the Washington Redskins.  

I don’t believe the team or its administrative staff are racists nor does it have a predilection towards racist overtones.  Yet, it would be better if Washington changed its name.  The Oneida tribe has made it clear that they are going to protest and push until the organization does so.  However, the fans have not been a part of the chorus, at least to the point where they have chosen not to attend games or purchase merchandise.  If the Oneida tribe can do what many other activists could not do – convince the fans that this is a racial issue – so be it and we are probably better off for it.  If they can’t, the name should remain the same.   

Uneasy Lies the Head

I once wrote an article about the supposed “red line” issued by President Obama over the usage of chemical weapons in Syria and the president’s lack of action.  I worried then and still do now that the lack of action sent the wrong message.  Whether action should be taken or not is no longer the question for the president has already committed us to action.  The question is, when, where and how should that action now proceed?  Once more, the Syrian government has unleashed an even heavier and deadlier attack of Sarin gas.  President Bashar al-Assad jabbed the sleeping giant and it growled and snarled but ultimately, went back to sleep.  Now, he has done it again and if we do not respond, it could have catastrophic effects.   

As the Syrian conflict first erupted a couple of years ago, the president suggested, as we tangled ourselves in Libya, that we had no interest in the conflict and would not join or assist in the fight.  Some observers wondered why Libya and not Syria but the Americans were in agreement – we had our fill of getting involved in the internal conflicts of Middle Eastern countries.  Then, there was intelligence that suggested Mr. Assad could use chemical weapons against those who opposed his government.  The U.S., along with Israel, declared chemical weapons to be a Rubicon that could not be crossed without a response.  Syria did and the U.S. decided that their “red line” was not as definite has had been suggested.  Recently, Mr. Obama suggested the “red line” was still in place and he would not tolerate the usage of chemical weapons.  Syria did and the president has taken an interesting stance. 

Earlier this past week, it seemed as if the U.S. was on the precipice of committing military action in Syria against the Assad regime and its chemical capabilities.  The president mentioned imminent action in an interview; the Secretary of State John Kerry delivered an impassioned case for the need to do something now.  The White House press secretary also suggested that the president had the power to do something now.  However, in the last twenty-four hours, the president and his administration have taken a different tone.  Now, the president declares that he will wait until the Congress is back in session (about a week from now) and communicate and work with them to get congressional input.     

There are a couple of things that I should add as a caveat.  One, the president is in possession of intelligence that no one else knows which might explain his actions or lack thereof.  Yet, as I said before, it begs the question of why the president has come out so strongly against Syria if evidence or intelligence would suggest a murkier picture.  Second, the Congress has been harping, rightfully so, that it needs to recapture some of its authority as it relates to the president’s power.  However, this is not the time to appeal to Congress and help them regain their authority if the situation requires more immediate action.  Lastly, the president is on the verge of emboldening forces that are carefully watching his actions – Mr. Assad, Hezbollah (the Shi’a extremists who operate in Syria and Lebanon) and Iran.  They are all watching things carefully and determining what to do next. 

Again, no one outside the White House has the complete picture yet, what can been seen is the impact of the decisions being made by the administration.  The president needs to know that off-the-cuff remarks and the need to say something at every turn has created some unnecessary quagmires.  At this point, the U.S. needs to follow an acta non verba policy and in the future, the administration needs to be more discipline regarding what they say about foreign issues.  It is not helping the administration and it certainly is not helping the United States.