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.”