I drew the short straw today and won the right to take my youngest child back to college after a brief Thanksgiving Weekend visit. My daughter has the luxury of driving herself for her three hour return to academia. My son though, is still dependent on a parent to provide a little assistance. This time it was my turn.
I don't really mind the trips, to be honest, as it gives me a chance to have a three hour learning experience. For ninety minutes, we catch up, since we are stuck in close quarters. The return trip always provokes me to consider and weigh the conversation that occurred at the start. All tolled, I get 180 minutes of education each time I serve as the chauffeur.
I have been involved in education for all of my adult life. My son is pursuing a course that may lead to a teaching position. Naturally, I am humbled by the notion that he saw my profession as a worthy one, but I am more interested in following the course of his education as he 'discovers' things I like to think I have learned. I am not sure if that makes sense to non-educators, but I suspect that my fellow teachers will understand.
He tells me that he is concerned that he won't be a good teacher. I tell him, confidently, that he will be fine. After thirty years in the business, I think I have a pretty firm grasp on what differentiates the professional educator from the great teacher. You see, he gets it. His interest is in helping his prospective students to acquire skills and knowledge that supercede the curriculum.
He runs a few ideas by me, and I reinforce them. They are good ideas, but the more important feature to me is that he is thinking about how to be as much of a difference maker as possible. I know from expereince that some of his ideas won't work very weil, and that some of them will be superb. From a distance though, I can not forecast which ideas will fall into which category.
On the ride home, as I debrief myself, I mull over the range of topics that we addressed: his training for lacrosse, nutrition, his fall tuition balance, classroom management, lesson planning, curriculum management, students teaching students, philosophy, and sociology. He also considered and weighed in on my professional life, telling me I should pursue a doctorate and get a job teaching college students. No kidding.
The sociology-philosophy combination is what got the juices flowing for the ride home. I inserted a Bruce Springsteen CD, "Born to Run," I found while rummaging through the trunk; I let the music overrun the car and my brain goes on cruise control.
The young man left me with this tidbit as he grabbed his guitar, and a couple of other odds and ends out of the back seat and made his way to his room: "Humans are bent on self-destruction, I think." he says. History shows that the most stable and productive societies are always small ones. The bigger a society gets, the easier it becomes to fragment and destroy it. But the whole world seems bent on this globalization idea, even though it runs the risk of ruining the societies it serves. It will almost certainly undermine the larger society it creates." (Obviously, the quasi-quote is a paraphrase. I never let anyone talk that long without interruption, and I don't recall the statements verbatim.)
As I pulled into the driveway, I packaged a number of items together from our dialogue. If he pursues a teaching career, I am convinced that he has what it takes to be a great teacher. He sees the big picture first, and the little picture second - a requisite for great teachers. Also, his final volley is the best apology I can think of for organized religion, whatever denomination or faith is involved. Each congregation is its own small society. Whatever global faction the world forces us to join, that small society of a church, synagogue, or mosque provides the structure and stability that humans need to thrive. (I confess that this thought doesn't occur to me until about three hours after my return to home, and after casually watching Mitch Albom's "Have a Little Faith.")
My students and my own children have been teaching me things for years, but I think this particular drive and dialogue has been the most overt instance I have had for quite awhile. The boy had asked me during the discussion of his ideas on teaching, if his thought that he can use his stronger students as in-class tutors and supporters of his less motivated students. "Let students learn from other students," he says with a question behind it.
He is not there to hear my reply, but I answer him anyway: "The students are the best and most important teachers. Always."
Monday, November 28, 2011
Sunday, November 20, 2011
We Are?
People are often inclined to jump to conclusions, and quick to condemn, especially when the target of the contumely is a figure or institution that has largely cultivated a pristine image. Perhaps the most recent example is the demise of Tiger Woods. His situation turned out to be worse than originally reported, but the amount of glee that was expressed at the notion that his wife had attacked him with a golf club was both typical and indicative of the dark side of popular opinion and mob mentality.
The situation at PSU is dark and ugly, and one component of the coverage has been driven by the despicable tendency of people to relish the unmasking of the hero - in this case, the institution and its most recognizable faces. I submit the notion that the same set of circumstances, transplanted to OSU or the University of Miami at the time of their other scandals, would have been treated somewhat differently. The crimes would have been just as heinous, but the temperature and the haste of the reaction would have been tempered by the public's ability to react as if they expected such bad behavior from places and people who were already sullied by past events. [I mean no disrespect to either of the two universities - I mention them only because they have most recently been scandalized.]
At this time, and with the current level of disclosure of information, I am comfortable in drawing a limited number of conclusions. Jerry Sandusky is most likely a monster. People who knew, suspected, or should have suspected this were derelict in fulfilling a human duty to protect children from a monster. I leave out the legal duty on purpose; some things are bigger than the law. A confluence of circumstances tempted some weak men into believing the unbelievable - that even though more than one person knew a 'secret,' their skill, their hard-earned reputation, and their fidelity in maintaining a lie through their silence and inaction would be enough to keep the secret hidden.
After that, I don't know what happened at Penn State. I don't believe Mike McQueary's version of events. If I suspend my disbelief long enough to accept that he saw Sandusky sodomizing a ten year old, ran away from the scene after making eye contact with the monster and his victim, waited an extended period of time before reporting the event ot someone, then provided a graphic account to the head football coach, a man identified by his efforts to run a clean program, and to act decisively when faced with behaviors that ran contrary to the motto, Success with Honor. To accept McQueary's account, I have also to believe that the head coach then provided a delibberately opaque or sanitized version of events to his bureaucratic superiors, who in turn further obscured or bleached the account, thereby providing themselves with a way to delude themselves into believing that they could camouflage/bury or purchase the squelching of the truth. I have further to believe that McQueary then proceeded to support the monster's various fundraising events in his official capacity of football coach at Penn State.
In case this begins to read as a defense of anyone, please review the things I think I do know in paragraph three. Quickly, there was a monster; people should have known about the monster; same people found an excuse for ignoring the existence of the monster.
I can't accept McQueary's account because it doesn't make sense. I initially read the McQueary was 23 years old at the time, and while youth doesn't excuse a decision to run, I know that psychological studies show that people faced unexpectedly with horrific situations often cower in fear and do not intervene. Finding out he was 28 at the time changed everything. Why would a 28 year old confronted with the scene need to seek his father's counsel at all. What advice would/did his father give? You mean to tell me that after running like a sissy, the 28 year old needed his father to convince him to go see the head coach? You mean that the coward consulted with his father, then suddenly transformed into the intrepid whistleblower and provided graphic, chillng testimony about a boyhood hero (the monster) whom he now had the courage to identify as a sadistic pedophile? The more likely behavior of such a mouse of a man is to talk with his father about how to expose the crime and ease whatever was left of his impotent conscience, while simultaneously assuring that
he, himself, would never have to face the monster.
You have probably deduced that I think McQueary is a different kind of monster than Sandusky, but I think that he is nonetheless a monster. I don't know what he told Joe, but I am fairly certain that his consultaiton with his father wasn't dedciated to determining how to tell the graphic truth. 28 year old men, even if the term 'man' is a misnomer, do not need coaching in how to tell the truth. If they are truly men, they don't need counsel with parents to decide whether to tell the truth. 28 year old pantywaists need to consult with mentors when they want to avoid responsibility or hide from difficult decisions.
Paterno in my mind is not protected. I confess that I cannot reconcile the image I have had of the man with the actions/behaviors that are embedded in this story. I don't believe that he was a doddering fool who ceased being abe to coach many years ago, and that he has been merely a figure head for years. Nor do I believe that he is a product of hubris who was brought down by his fatih that he, or the institution, or the football program are/were bigger than the human directive to prevent harm to children. I am sure that Joe has plenty of ego, and that he can be conned into believing that he is as important as the syncophants sometimes make him out to be. However, I cannot reconcile the current account of him as a co-conspirator with 60 years of benevolence, integrity, altruism, and success with honor. People want to limit this situation and his downfall to a selfish decision to protect himself and the program (and the university). Yet this wasn't a single decision made in the the heat of the moment. The lie had to be maintained for years. If the Paterno image has/had even one scintilla of validity, the man could not have facilitated the cover-up. Again, it does not make sense. Here I defer speculation and conclusion to the facts that will ultimately be disclosed.
Spanier, Curley, and Schultz are somewhat in the same boat as Paterno, in that their actions don't jibe with the carefully cultivated images that the public had of the leaders of PSU. A large difference though is that they were the people who had to have made a calculated decision to enable the monster. They did notify the Second Mile. They did ban the monster from campus in the most wimpy manner possible. They don't make those calls or those decsions without acknowledging that their concerns were serious enough to do so. Subsequently, if their concerns were serious enough to do those things, they are then serious enough to turn over to law enforcement. Even notification of the university police that Schultz administered would have led to an interview with weeny McQueary, who would have had another chance to handle himself properly. Paterno would also have completed a statement detailing exactly what McQueary said to him before 7 years had passed. Likewise, we would have written statements from Schultz, Curley, and Spanier.
Bigger than all of this, had Curley, Spanier, and Schultz been genuine leaders, we would probably have had the monster arrested and contained long before now.
.
The situation at PSU is dark and ugly, and one component of the coverage has been driven by the despicable tendency of people to relish the unmasking of the hero - in this case, the institution and its most recognizable faces. I submit the notion that the same set of circumstances, transplanted to OSU or the University of Miami at the time of their other scandals, would have been treated somewhat differently. The crimes would have been just as heinous, but the temperature and the haste of the reaction would have been tempered by the public's ability to react as if they expected such bad behavior from places and people who were already sullied by past events. [I mean no disrespect to either of the two universities - I mention them only because they have most recently been scandalized.]
At this time, and with the current level of disclosure of information, I am comfortable in drawing a limited number of conclusions. Jerry Sandusky is most likely a monster. People who knew, suspected, or should have suspected this were derelict in fulfilling a human duty to protect children from a monster. I leave out the legal duty on purpose; some things are bigger than the law. A confluence of circumstances tempted some weak men into believing the unbelievable - that even though more than one person knew a 'secret,' their skill, their hard-earned reputation, and their fidelity in maintaining a lie through their silence and inaction would be enough to keep the secret hidden.
After that, I don't know what happened at Penn State. I don't believe Mike McQueary's version of events. If I suspend my disbelief long enough to accept that he saw Sandusky sodomizing a ten year old, ran away from the scene after making eye contact with the monster and his victim, waited an extended period of time before reporting the event ot someone, then provided a graphic account to the head football coach, a man identified by his efforts to run a clean program, and to act decisively when faced with behaviors that ran contrary to the motto, Success with Honor. To accept McQueary's account, I have also to believe that the head coach then provided a delibberately opaque or sanitized version of events to his bureaucratic superiors, who in turn further obscured or bleached the account, thereby providing themselves with a way to delude themselves into believing that they could camouflage/bury or purchase the squelching of the truth. I have further to believe that McQueary then proceeded to support the monster's various fundraising events in his official capacity of football coach at Penn State.
In case this begins to read as a defense of anyone, please review the things I think I do know in paragraph three. Quickly, there was a monster; people should have known about the monster; same people found an excuse for ignoring the existence of the monster.
I can't accept McQueary's account because it doesn't make sense. I initially read the McQueary was 23 years old at the time, and while youth doesn't excuse a decision to run, I know that psychological studies show that people faced unexpectedly with horrific situations often cower in fear and do not intervene. Finding out he was 28 at the time changed everything. Why would a 28 year old confronted with the scene need to seek his father's counsel at all. What advice would/did his father give? You mean to tell me that after running like a sissy, the 28 year old needed his father to convince him to go see the head coach? You mean that the coward consulted with his father, then suddenly transformed into the intrepid whistleblower and provided graphic, chillng testimony about a boyhood hero (the monster) whom he now had the courage to identify as a sadistic pedophile? The more likely behavior of such a mouse of a man is to talk with his father about how to expose the crime and ease whatever was left of his impotent conscience, while simultaneously assuring that
he, himself, would never have to face the monster.
You have probably deduced that I think McQueary is a different kind of monster than Sandusky, but I think that he is nonetheless a monster. I don't know what he told Joe, but I am fairly certain that his consultaiton with his father wasn't dedciated to determining how to tell the graphic truth. 28 year old men, even if the term 'man' is a misnomer, do not need coaching in how to tell the truth. If they are truly men, they don't need counsel with parents to decide whether to tell the truth. 28 year old pantywaists need to consult with mentors when they want to avoid responsibility or hide from difficult decisions.
Paterno in my mind is not protected. I confess that I cannot reconcile the image I have had of the man with the actions/behaviors that are embedded in this story. I don't believe that he was a doddering fool who ceased being abe to coach many years ago, and that he has been merely a figure head for years. Nor do I believe that he is a product of hubris who was brought down by his fatih that he, or the institution, or the football program are/were bigger than the human directive to prevent harm to children. I am sure that Joe has plenty of ego, and that he can be conned into believing that he is as important as the syncophants sometimes make him out to be. However, I cannot reconcile the current account of him as a co-conspirator with 60 years of benevolence, integrity, altruism, and success with honor. People want to limit this situation and his downfall to a selfish decision to protect himself and the program (and the university). Yet this wasn't a single decision made in the the heat of the moment. The lie had to be maintained for years. If the Paterno image has/had even one scintilla of validity, the man could not have facilitated the cover-up. Again, it does not make sense. Here I defer speculation and conclusion to the facts that will ultimately be disclosed.
Spanier, Curley, and Schultz are somewhat in the same boat as Paterno, in that their actions don't jibe with the carefully cultivated images that the public had of the leaders of PSU. A large difference though is that they were the people who had to have made a calculated decision to enable the monster. They did notify the Second Mile. They did ban the monster from campus in the most wimpy manner possible. They don't make those calls or those decsions without acknowledging that their concerns were serious enough to do so. Subsequently, if their concerns were serious enough to do those things, they are then serious enough to turn over to law enforcement. Even notification of the university police that Schultz administered would have led to an interview with weeny McQueary, who would have had another chance to handle himself properly. Paterno would also have completed a statement detailing exactly what McQueary said to him before 7 years had passed. Likewise, we would have written statements from Schultz, Curley, and Spanier.
Bigger than all of this, had Curley, Spanier, and Schultz been genuine leaders, we would probably have had the monster arrested and contained long before now.
.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
What does the Kim Kardashian Farce have to do with Gay Marriage?
First, I have to make an admission - before the recent firestorm surrounding the announcement of KK's divorce (Is it all right to call her KK? Probably not, but I don't care) I had only vague recognition of who Kim Kardashian is. I feel a bit ashamed and embarrassed about my latest topic. However, listening to people draw comparisons of some kind between societal offense to the sham wedding, and reluctance to accept the notion of gay marriage has drawn me in.
I barely know who KK is, and after looking her up on the computer, I am not sure of the fascination. She is reasonably attractive and overweight. She is not voluptuous; she is unfit. In simple terms, I have no idea why the populace has found her interesting. Alas, however, they have.
So if I have the story straight, she and her family duped the public into believing that their scripted TV life is engaging, and when interest waned, they cooked up a scheme called a wedding to revitalize the dim-witted public's attention. That about right? Furthermore, they waited about two and a half months before indirectly confessing to their scam by announcing an intention to divorce. And judging by the channels my wife flipped through last night, revelation of the subterfuge is cause for media coverage overkill? Am I warm?
What drew my attention was an incessant need by the various pundits - and there were pundits galore who wanted to talk about this non-event - to snidely suggest that the ruse marriage by two artificially created celebrities somehow serves as a talking point when considering the validity of gay marriage. My first thought was that logic would prevail and the moderator, or fellow pundit would destroy such a premise. No one said boo about the specious association.
INTENTIONAL DIGRESSION: I have a semantic problem with gay marriage. Marriage occurs between a man and a woman. If you ask me should laws allow same-sex couples to declare themselves an indissoluble couple and gain legal benefits from said union? I say sure. I think they need to make a new word. Marriage already has a meaning.
The KK marital fiasco speaks not at all to the topic of marriage. You see, it wasn't real! Only an idiot would view a fabricated event and then say that its unfolding has some relevance to actual life. If I watch Criminal Minds and see a young couple go on a murderous rampage because of abuse they suffered as children, does this make a statement about the state of parenting throughout the country? Real people sometimes get married for ridiculous reasons and without proper forethought and preparation, and they often get divorced rather quickly as a result. These events, taken in a larger context, have some bearing on the state of marriage in the country, but not a made-for-tv event, even if it took 72 days to play out.
I have gotten to the point where I am trying not to grumble too much about the people who are - in my opinion - foolishly taken into by reality tv. I want to believe that they see it, as my wife does, as light entertainment that doesn't hurt anybody. Yet the commentary last night tells me that the scam is becoming eerily destructive. It has grown so large that the people who are supposed to be reminding the viewing public that it's just a game are instead polishing the facade and building an even bigger lie.
Maybe this will help. To make money and draw in viewers, KK pretended to fall in love with a guy, threw a giant lucrative wedding, then took away the mask to get on with the rest of her life. Don't be offended or disgusted that such events makes light of marriage. Instead, poke yourself in the eye for being so gullible that you fell for the pretense. THESE SHOWS AREN'T REAL! THE BACHELOR AND THE BACHELORETTE AREN'T LOOKING FOR OF FINDING TRUE LOVE. THE REAL HOUSEWIVES AS PRESENTED ON TV ARE ACTING. YOU, IF YOU SUSPEND YOUR DISBELIEF FOR A FRACTION OF A SECOND, ARE THE ONE MAKING A STATEMENT ABOUT THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS IN THE COUNTRY. Go occupy something and be unable to articulate what you want to be the result of the protest.
I barely know who KK is, and after looking her up on the computer, I am not sure of the fascination. She is reasonably attractive and overweight. She is not voluptuous; she is unfit. In simple terms, I have no idea why the populace has found her interesting. Alas, however, they have.
So if I have the story straight, she and her family duped the public into believing that their scripted TV life is engaging, and when interest waned, they cooked up a scheme called a wedding to revitalize the dim-witted public's attention. That about right? Furthermore, they waited about two and a half months before indirectly confessing to their scam by announcing an intention to divorce. And judging by the channels my wife flipped through last night, revelation of the subterfuge is cause for media coverage overkill? Am I warm?
What drew my attention was an incessant need by the various pundits - and there were pundits galore who wanted to talk about this non-event - to snidely suggest that the ruse marriage by two artificially created celebrities somehow serves as a talking point when considering the validity of gay marriage. My first thought was that logic would prevail and the moderator, or fellow pundit would destroy such a premise. No one said boo about the specious association.
INTENTIONAL DIGRESSION: I have a semantic problem with gay marriage. Marriage occurs between a man and a woman. If you ask me should laws allow same-sex couples to declare themselves an indissoluble couple and gain legal benefits from said union? I say sure. I think they need to make a new word. Marriage already has a meaning.
The KK marital fiasco speaks not at all to the topic of marriage. You see, it wasn't real! Only an idiot would view a fabricated event and then say that its unfolding has some relevance to actual life. If I watch Criminal Minds and see a young couple go on a murderous rampage because of abuse they suffered as children, does this make a statement about the state of parenting throughout the country? Real people sometimes get married for ridiculous reasons and without proper forethought and preparation, and they often get divorced rather quickly as a result. These events, taken in a larger context, have some bearing on the state of marriage in the country, but not a made-for-tv event, even if it took 72 days to play out.
I have gotten to the point where I am trying not to grumble too much about the people who are - in my opinion - foolishly taken into by reality tv. I want to believe that they see it, as my wife does, as light entertainment that doesn't hurt anybody. Yet the commentary last night tells me that the scam is becoming eerily destructive. It has grown so large that the people who are supposed to be reminding the viewing public that it's just a game are instead polishing the facade and building an even bigger lie.
Maybe this will help. To make money and draw in viewers, KK pretended to fall in love with a guy, threw a giant lucrative wedding, then took away the mask to get on with the rest of her life. Don't be offended or disgusted that such events makes light of marriage. Instead, poke yourself in the eye for being so gullible that you fell for the pretense. THESE SHOWS AREN'T REAL! THE BACHELOR AND THE BACHELORETTE AREN'T LOOKING FOR OF FINDING TRUE LOVE. THE REAL HOUSEWIVES AS PRESENTED ON TV ARE ACTING. YOU, IF YOU SUSPEND YOUR DISBELIEF FOR A FRACTION OF A SECOND, ARE THE ONE MAKING A STATEMENT ABOUT THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS IN THE COUNTRY. Go occupy something and be unable to articulate what you want to be the result of the protest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)