intramuralist ™

Is it true that it only takes a little bit of salt?

A pinch of salt… taking it with a grain of salt… a little bit of salt will do…

And is it true that it only takes an iota of salt to make things salty? Is an entire batch affected by the tiny bit?

I’m wondering today if society is straddling into dangerous territory, beginning to incorrectly apply the salty analogy. I’m wondering if we ever make questionable — often wrongful — “entire batch” conclusions. For example…

If a “tiny bit” of men act stupidly, does that mean women are smarter than men?

If a “tiny bit” of Christians misapply biblical truth, does that mean all Christians reflect God poorly?

If a “tiny bit” of Muslims conduct murderous acts, does that make all Muslims evil?

If a “tiny bit” of white officers shoot a black man, does that make all police officers racist?

If a “tiny bit” of offenders are innocent, does that make all offenders incorrectly charged?

If a “tiny bit” of protestors act violently, does that make all protesters violent?

If a “tiny bit” of politicians have been proven to be dishonest, does that mean all legislators lie through their teeth?

If a “tiny bit” of gun owners act irresponsibly with their guns, does that make all 2nd Amendment appreciators unworthy to keep and bear arms?

If a “tiny bit” of persons who oppose gay marriage are disrespectful in the articulation of their opinion, does that mean all who oppose gay marriage are disrespectful?

If a “tiny bit” of activists believe intimidation is justifiable, does that make all activists bullies?

If a “tiny bit” of television shows are non-fiction, does that mean all “reality shows” depict real life?

And if a “tiny bit” of one demographic group is bigoted, does that make them all bigoted?

Friends, I’m wondering where we’ve made wrongful conclusions about an “entire batch” because of our emotional reaction to a “tiny bit.” Where have we gone too far? Where have we weighted an instance or incident too much? Where does our logic fail to hold up — as we’ve (hopefully) humbly made some potentially wrongful conclusions?

Truthfully, I understand the mistake, as the “tiny bit” can be an actual, awful thing. But one or two or even 17 actual, awful things don’t dictate the flavor of an entire batch.

Respectfully…

AR

A friend directed me to a recent article about school suspensions and their effectiveness. The author, Ashley Nicole Black, began as follows:

“When I was in high school, I was almost suspended twice. Bad to the bone trouble maker that I was, the first time was for being late to ‘zero period”’(the optional early morning class for honors students) more than five times in one semester (I literally lived on the wrong side of the tracks and would get stuck behind long trains on my way to school). And the second time was for a stash of “drugs” that fell out of my backpack in front of a teacher. I carry pain pills on me at all times because I’ve always gotten debilitating migraines. So when a bottle fell out of my bag a teacher took pity on me and didn’t report me… doing me a big favor because I went to a zero-tolerance school where I would have been expelled for a bottle of aspirin.”

So today’s students are disciplined for tardiness and Tylenol. I get it. I get that schools need standards. I simply question how we measure.

One of the trends of the past decade, for example, is to eradicate bullying. Bullying is bad — no more celebration of “bad, bad, Leroy Brown.”

Campaigns have existed. Many have stood and cheered at their onset… The Bully Project… The National Bullying Prevention Center… Stop bullying now! I agree. I have cheered as well; there is no place for the aggressive, intimidating behavior that is intended to make another person feel lesser because of who they are. There’s just one, small, but still huge problem…

In the evolving, litigious society in which we live — in a culture that rarely, willingly cedes vengeance to the divine — we like to take things into our own hands (… stop it now, remember?). Please hear me; bullying should not be allowed in any form. But we are challenged in authentic discernment of the bullying, because we are not always fully capable of discerning the heart of another. We often examine only the external factors or behaviors, making judgments and decisions completely from them — because measuring the heart is hard… measuring motive might be errant. And so we arrogantly justify making judgments solely on the external. I think that’s dangerous. I think that’s also a gaping pitfall for even the seemingly most intelligent.

Several years ago, one of my three sons was suspended from school for two days. He had said something inappropriate to another and then shoved the elementary student strongly. My son was the agitator and completely in the wrong. (Tangent note: it’s ok to admit when our kids are wrong.) Because my son’s physical behavior was (1) a repeated offense, (2) accompanied by a verbal threat, and (3) because he aggressively attempted to dominate another student, suspension under the school’s bullying policy was considered. All incidents which meet such criteria are treated the same way.

I’ll say it again: I get it. There’s just one problem; this was my son with Down syndrome.

Now let me briefly offer two relevant side notes. Just because my son is deemed by society as “special” does not qualify him for sainthood; he, like every other thriving young man does some things well and some things not. He is just as in need of discipline as you and me. That means when he makes a mistake in my absence at school, the teachers and administrators will have my full support; we’re in this together.

My frustration, though, was not with the suspension — Josh deserved it. My frustration was the suspension possibly falling under the bullying policy. Bullying implies an internal intent — yet we as a society aren’t good at measuring the internal. We think we are; we make judgments off of the external instead because it’s far easier. The challenge is that man cannot fully judge the heart. We have blindly lost sight of that reality.

We live in a society which likes to think we know it all. In my opinion, that equates to failing to recognize that only a one, true God has the omniscience we subtly proclaim. If we recognized that reality — that judging the internal is not something of which we are fully capable — we’d be more comfortable with the subjective, less judging of the external, and be ok with tardiness and Tylenol.

Respectfully…

AR

For years many encouraged this former HR director to be a graphic designer. I could see things and draw them with ease, often adding that clever, artistic touch. Despite the consistent encouragement, I instead pursued a management career.

Later there was one of those “seasons in life” when I thought, “I could do that… I could be a graphic designer, too…” I even set up my own design company — working with multiple clients — corporate and individual — designing logos, storyboards, even complete marketing campaigns. It was fulfilling and fun, and many even raved at my work. There was one problem: it was never quite my actual “gift.” It wasn’t my deepest passion. While I could do it, I wasn’t certain that I should.

Yes, I could accomplish the tasks and do the job. I was able to create some fascinating designs, but there was something more — something deeper within me… something laborious… something that just didn’t flow as naturally… something that was more work than talent… more strain than strength, and more burdensome than actual brilliance.

Then it dawned on me. As much I was able to fulfill the role of a graphic designer, it wasn’t my “gift”; it wasn’t something where all flowed naturally…

• … like the highly intelligent doctor with a rude bedside manner…
• … like the articulate preacher who can’t selflessly relate to the persons in the pew…
• … or like the salesman for whom cold calling is especially uncomfortable.

Maybe they want to be a doctor, preacher, or salesman, but the necessary skill set may not be completely compatible with their actual gifts.

It’s part of what I observe in Hillary Clinton — a person who seemingly, strongly desires to be President, but yet seems so calculated and uncomfortable handling conflict. It’s what I saw evolving in former VP candidate, Sarah Palin — just a repeated awkwardness in moments of significant limelight. It’s the same awkwardness I’ve observed manifest in varied forms within Al Gore, Rick Perry, and Ron Paul, for example. While each possesses a credible resume (even from varied parties), there’s something within them that makes me question whether they also possess the actual “gifting” necessary for the job.

One of the Intramuralist’s long habits has been reading varied biographies. From athletes to politicians — from Ronald Reagan and Zell Miller to George Stephanopolous and Louie Zamperini. One of my favorite biographical reads in recent years, no less, is that of Condoleezza Rice.

Condi Rice has an incredibly impressive resume. She became the first black, female and youngest provost of Stanford University at the age of 38. She later became the National Security Advisor and then Secretary of State. She is considered an expert on Soviet and Eastern European affairs. Prior to each of those accomplishments, however, Rice had long planned on pursuing a professional music career; she is an exceptional pianist — even playing Mozart with the Denver Symphony at age 15. But Rice realized something fairly early on.

As shared by the New York Times: “At 17, she attended the prestigious summer school at the Aspen Music Festival in Colorado and came to believe that though she was a very good pianist, she was ‘not great,’ she said. ‘That was really the revelation,’ she added. ‘And it wasn’t just that experience. You start noticing prodigies, and you realize that I’m never going to play that way.’ There is ‘just some intangible’ in music, she said. Whatever it was, she said she felt she didn’t have it. She decided to major in international relations instead…”

There is just some intangible. I call that a gift… something that comes more naturally — less laborious… more talent than work… more strength than strain… an obvious, innate ability.

Just because we can do something, doesn’t mean we should. Just because we are good at something, doesn’t mean we’re gifted. My sense is we each function best when using our gifts.

Respectfully…

AR