Blog
-
When Incivility Rules
In recent
days, many people have urged me to write about
the acrimonious and divisive public discourse
that has gripped the nation around health care.
But each time someone has made this request, I
found that they themselves would engage in some
form of incivility. The question is: Where are
we right now, and where do we want to go?
Whether you like the legislation or not, the passage of the historic health care bill has revealed glimpses of the worst in us. You’ll remember that much of the nation’s discord hit a noticeable low during last summer’s infamous town hall meetings. Perhaps then we thought the worst of our lousy discourse was over; and yet now we know that assumption would have been wrong. In just the past week we’ve reached new lows as we’ve witnessed the spewing of homophobic and racist comments, and with some congressional members being labeled “baby killers.”
I hear such comments and wonder what has gotten into those who utter them, those who repeat them, and those who egg others on. Yes, we’ve heard such hatred at times in the past; but does that fact make such comments good and right now? And what makes matters worse today is our ability to communicate at any moment and reach millions of people at once. One ugly comment then begets another, and on and on it goes.
During the 1990s, I was not one of those in the civic world who embraced what might have been deemed the “civility movement.” I cringed when people would associate my own work and efforts with civility. I thought there was a kind of Miss Manners’ notion at play – if only each of us would be “nice” to one another, then the world would be a better place. But political discourse ought to be filled with tension, drama, and emotion; after all, when people care about something, they get worked up.
But that was then, and this is now. Today, our public discourse seems filled with hatred and rage, at times unmitigated and unfiltered, even reckless, often ridiculous. The Glenn Beck’s of the world lather people up into a tizzy, oftentimes seeming to have forgotten their original point, other than to destroy their so-called opponent. Those on the left are not immune from such criticism either.
But perhaps the larger point is that none of us are immune – that is, those who purport to want to move the country forward, and those who cherish some semblance of good, if not heated, public discourse. So many of the people who asked me to write this piece did so, themselves, using the word “hate” or “stupid” or “idiot” in the same sentence as their request – as in, “I hate those stupid idiots who say….”
There’s enough hatred to go around these days; there’s also ample belief that the person on the other side of the debate from us is just plain stupid – perhaps even an idiot. But we don’t gain anything by engaging in such discourse. In fact, we lose something each time we go down that ugly path. No one individual controls public discourse; but each of us contributes to it.
No one can put a halt to the hatred we are now witnessing; but none of us has to help in its spread. No one should stop expressing their heart-felt emotions about something as important as health care; but none of us should believe that anything goes in public discourse.
Our negative comments spread like a contagion, gaining more and more momentum when left unchecked, and can leave us sick to our stomach and doubled-over. It’s time to swear off such comments and stand-up straight. So here’s a test I urge you to consider: When you make your point, do so with as much emotion and tension as necessary, but can we leave the hatred behind? -
Sister Rose and the Jocks
Today,
on the front page of The
New York Times, is a must-read story about
a 77 year-old nun who is demonstrating that
big-time college sports can work. Sister Rose
Ann Fleming is the academic advisor for Xavier
University athletics, where all 77 senior
basketball players have graduated since she
came to Xavier. That’s remarkable in age when
too many people are willing to dumb-down
expectations for jocks.
It’s well known that many universities graduate relatively few ballplayers. Just take the 65 teams that will take part in “March Madness,” the NCAA men’s basketball tournament. The Times reports that a new study by the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport at the University of Central Florida shows that one in five tournament teams have graduation rates below 40 percent. Where are all those kids going?
When such topics arise, you can usually hear apologists say, “But that’s big-time sports, get over it,” or, “At least those kids get to go to a college.” To be honest, I’m tired of hearing such gibberish. No one would want such a path for their own kid, and yet we are willing to tolerate it for other kids. And let’s face it: these kids often are minorities from poor areas.
What Sister Rose is telling us is that we can embrace these kids and create the right environment for them to learn and grow and – yes – get a higher education degree. She knows where Xavier’s priorities are, and she lives them. In the Times, Xavier basketball coach Chris Mack is quoted as saying, “Sometimes, she’ll schedule an appointment or an academic meeting right in the middle of practice.” Then, he continued, “I’ll say, ‘Sister, we have practice at 4.’ She’ll say, ‘No, this is important.’” Damn right it is.
Sister Rose lives by the belief that if a kid is good enough to become an outstanding ballplayer, then a kid can learn. The job of the school is to harness their energy into their studies. The trick is to figure out how each kid learns and to work with them.
My point today is not about educational pedagogy; rather, it is about what we choose to focus on and what we believe we can affect, even amid all the countervailing forces in our lives. Conventional wisdom is that big-time college sports are first and foremost a business; perhaps next, they’re entertainment. But all-too-often the education of the kids wearing a school’s uniform seems way down the list. The philosophy is: recruit them, use them, and discard them.
Now, very few of us, if any, are involved in college sports. But we are all involved in activities and endeavors that call upon us to make basic judgments and choices about how we will approach something. For instance, will we insist on using our organizational lens for thinking about community challenges, or will we think first about the community and the people who livers there. Or take dealing with funders and foundations: will we kow-tow to their every wish, or engage them in a real conversation?
What Sister Rose is telling us – and proving to us – is that there are alternate paths we can take. To do so, we must be brave enough to choose them. -
Obama: Call more summits
I know
people have said the health care summit came
and went with scant notice – that it was
either a naïve or cynical political move. But
we should look again. There’s genuine
potential in holding a series of summits that
the Obama Administration should seize. It would
be good politics; even more, a real
contribution for the country. Before you
dismiss me out of hand, please read on.
At the moment, our politics are a mess. Battles between Democrats and Republicans are at fever pitch. There seem to be new scandals revealed each day. The name of the game is to corner your opponent and do as much damage as possible. The dominant frame of reference is now the mid-term congressional elections – not taking substantive action on major issues.
Ordinarily, I have pooh-poohed efforts like one-day summits. What in God’s name could ever be accomplished? But these are no ordinary times. The demonization of opponents without any accountability for what one says leaves the political process left hostage to those who are willing to impose the most damage. We are seeing those at the fringes of politics – here in Washington, D.C and throughout the land – grab the microphone and dominate public discourse.
I watched almost all the health care summit. A few of things stood out for me. First, there actually was something resembling a conversation at times. Second, the conversation often focused on real issues and underlying values. Third, there were healthy differences, but also important places of agreement for moving ahead.
And yet, when the summit ended, and I watched CNN and other news outlets, it was amazing to see that they framed nearly all their coverage in terms of the differences and tantalizing sound bites. Their coverage followed true to form, and did little to reflect what I had just witnessed.
But the lack of political progress and the lousy media coverage shouldn’t dictate our next steps; in fact, they should embolden us to move ahead. The fact that Democrats and Republicans at the summit demonstrated they could engage should give us some modicum of hope. For much of the summit, most these leaders were able to lift themselves out of their normal tit-for-tat. Among Republicans, I was particularly impressed by Senators Lamar Alexander, Mike Enzi, and Tom Coburn and Representative Paul Ryan. There are reasonable people on the other side of the aisle The White House can work with.
Which leads me to this proposal: the president should convene summits on a host of key issues. The metric here is not whether we see new legislation produced; of course, that would be good. But first think of these summits as a crowbar, or lever, used to pry open space for reasonable public discourse we sorely need. Think of them as a disruption to shake up the status quo to get us out of our negative default mode. Think of them as a way to defuse the tension in the political system and to force leaders to sit at the same table rubbing elbows. Think of them as a way to show that having real differences – on priorities, values, and ideas – is not something to avoid but to see as just part of reality.
We desperately need to change up the rules of the game. That’s one of the main themes President Obama ran on. Politicians will engage differently when they realize that’s the only way to get a seat at the table. The message needs to be clear: you can stand on the sidelines and be acrimonious and divisiveness all you want, but it won’t get you in the room.
Finally, this process must be public so that people across the country can see their leaders and how they engage. When some of the leaders at the health care summit wouldn’t move off the political talking points, they looked silly. Let’s shine a bright line on them for all to see.
Of course, the health care summit came too late in the larger political process to allow for any changes in health care reform. OK, that was a mistake. But we shouldn’t make the lesson we learn that the summit held no value. Or that it holds little potential for the future. -
O Canada, You Hockey Puck
Just to the north of us sits a
grand and vast nation that just hosted the 2010
Winter Olympics with grace and aplomb. As I
watched the Olympics unfold, I was reminded of
what it means to have a neighbor you respect,
even adore. And I was reminded of the beauty of
patriotism that comes in the form of humble
devotion.
First, before another word, let me get something off my chest: I am a devoted hockey fan, and I was crushed when Canada defeated Team USA on Sunday, 3-2 in overtime. I remember standing in a Skidmore College dorm, watching the 1980 Miracle on Ice with my buddies, when Team USA defeated the Soviets and then went on to win the Gold. That was an incredible moment, and this year’s team was comparable.
And yet, truth be told, I was also filled with joy for Canadians on Sunday. Just watching the game, you could feel the swelling pride of the nation as Team Canada asserted itself. The red and white uniform of Canada was adorned by almost all fans – perhaps all Canadians – as scores of maple leaf flags swung back and forth. Many people say that hockey is like religion in Canada. So, it is.
But in hosting these Olympic Games, and in winning the hockey Gold, we witnessed something else about Canada, something that has always been there, but which maybe in the States we don’t always see, or perhaps we take for granted. There is a humility about Canadians that is special and inviting. Even in winning they are understated and gracious. Sidney Crosby, perhaps the best hockey player alive today, was asked after the game if, after scoring the overtime goal, his individual play was special. His response: that play could have been made by any of my teammates.
Maybe I have a romantic view of Canada; except the people in Canada who I’ve worked with seem to reflect these same sensibilities. My kids often say that I wish I could be Canadian – well, I’m a proud American, but I’m also a proud neighbor of Canada.
In fact, I remember as a kid growing up in upstate New York, not too far from the Canadian border; it was during a time when it was easy to go back and forth between countries. Fast forward to more recent times, when I remember visiting Canada for work, and I was required to have my passport. Yes, this was post 9/11, but it seemed so out of character given the relationship between the two nations. It still feels like a violation of friendship.
I know it’s hokey (not hockey) to say that I felt great when seeing those ads during the Olympics touting the US/Canada relationship, depicting the sweeping vistas of our respective lands, reminding us of our unprecedented trading relationship, and celebrating our long and peaceful border. I don’t mean to be saccharine about all this; but, I was literally proud of the relationship between our two countries.
I have a trip planned to Ontario in May, and I am looking forward to it. Of course, I’ll have to get into a little give-and-take with my Canadian friends about the Olympic hockey game; but then I know we’ll get down to work, and the friendship between our two nations will carry on. Sometimes the (other) good guys win – and when that happens, the world seems good and right for a moment.