selective outrage

MeriamIbrahim2014-05With the recent understandable swelling of passionate outrage centering on citizens Sterling and Sam, can we handle a tough question?  Are we willing to address whether or not our outrage is selective?

I note the following from last week, as reported by The Los Angeles Times:

“A pregnant Sudanese woman who refused to renounce her Christianity was sentenced to death by hanging Thursday in a Khartoum court, provoking outrage from human rights groups.

Meriam Yehya Ibrahim, who has a young son and is married to a Christian from South Sudan, violated Islamic sharia law, the court said.  She insists she was raised Christian, not Muslim.

The court also ordered Ibrahim to be flogged for having sexual relations with her husband, since her marriage is not recognized by officials.”

Thankfully, outrage was expressed by Amnesty International:

“The fact that a woman has been sentenced to death for her religious choice, and to flogging for being married to a man of an allegedly different religion is appalling and abhorrent.”

Note also that Ibrahim, currently jailed with her 20 month-old son, will be allowed to give birth to her second child and raise/nurse the child until the age of 2.  She then faces execution.

Ibrahim’s husband in an American citizen.

saeed-abedini

Note, also, the following this week, as reported by the American Center for  Law and Justice:

“After spending two months in an Iranian hospital, we learned today that Pastor Saeed Abedini was removed from the hospital and taken back to Rajai Shahr Prison.

The transfer came without any advance notice and family members in Iran confirmed that he was severely beaten at the hospital and then forcibly returned to prison.

The reason for the transfer is unclear and according to family members, one of the guards who was involved in the transfer mentioned the Iranian nuclear talks as a possible motive.”

Abedini is a former Muslim who converted to Christianity in 2000.  He has been detained in Iran since 2012, incarcerated, and sentenced in January of 2013 to eight years in prison, reportedly on charges of undermining national security through his Christian faith and evangelical efforts.  Abedini is an American citizen.

And so today the Intramuralist wonders…

We hear passionate, national and political outrage regarding the individual cases of Donald Sterling and Michael Sam.  What they were involved in was significant, and some actions and reactions were outrageous.  Racism… bigotry…  Some aspects were so outrageous, pundits, politicians, and ordinary people passionately, publicly shared their disgust.  But where is the passionate outpouring of disgust for Ibrahim and Abedini?  … both of whom also have American ties?  They are persons who are currently being persecuted solely because of their religion… because of their Christian faith.

Are we unable to talk passionately and compassionately about the Christian faith?  Can we only talk racism and bigotry when Christianity is not the cause for the injustice?  Hence, I ask:  are we selective in our outrage?  If so, why?

Respectfully…

AR

2014 grads

Entrepreneur-After-Graduation-Since the Intramuralist’s invitation to speak at commencement has yet to arrive, allow me to humbly submit the following:  what I would say to the class of 2014…

 

Dear Graduates,

Congratulations!  Way to go!  Each of you has earned this moment in time.  Graduation is one accomplishment that is fully yours.  No one can take this from you.  To graduate, you have had to dig deep, find and apply some measure of commitment, discipline, effort, and integrity.  No one else did this for you.  Well done, my friends…  well done.

From this day forward, life will be different.  It’s not some big bad, scary world out there, but it will be different.  Not everything will happen as you expect.  Keep your eyes open.  Observe.  Learn equally from both the manifest wisdom and foolishness around you.  Make no mistake; both will be widely apparent.  But understand it is the perceived fool who learns from his mistakes that often evolves into the wisest among us.

Don’t think you have life all figured out.  Perhaps 20/30 some years from now, when you sit in a similar audience, watching your beloved brood proceed with their own pomp and circumstance, remember there is still more to discern.  If we ever arrive at the moment when we believe we have life all figured out, our innocence has been usurped by arrogance; our listening has become lesser; and our one-time, embraced humility has dissipated into life’s greatest obstacle to learning.

Yes, stay humble.  I can’t say that enough.  One of life’s greatest mysteries to me is how humility seems valued most by the ordinary — the lesser known, the least famous, and the servant more than celebrity.  There seems strong temptation to allow notoriety and success to pierce the awareness of humility’s beauty.  Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit.  Value others above yourself.  That in no way equates to any suppression or low self-esteem.  Humility is simply the key to honor.  We are called to love and honor our brothers and sisters; we cannot honor another well if arrogance permeates our soul.

In your efforts to honor others, don’t lose sight of sound judgment.  Some will pounce upon the proverbial placard, saying, “don’t judge, lest you be judged.”  Such is true in the sense that it’s not our job to be the convictor of conscience nor the deemer of consequence.  However, refraining from judgment does not mean ignoring what’s right and wrong in this world.  There is right; there is wrong.  Know the difference, and learn from both. 

Also, don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young.  Be an example in speech, conduct, love, faith, and purity.  If you fall down, get back up.  If you fail, grow from it; try again.  Remember you have much to both teach and learn — to those who’ve gone before — and to those who will follow.  You will teach and learn from both.

The reality is, friends, I actually have much to say.  I will not say it all, however,  because part of life’s greatest growth comes as  we learn from our individual journey and adventure.  Enjoy it!  Take it all in.  But be careful, too, not to equate your individual experience as truth for all others.

A few more random thoughts before I close…  Have fun.  Floss.  Be sure to make your bed sometimes.  Say what you mean and mean what you say.  Don’t equate social media with conversation nor texts for writing letters.  Be honest.  Work hard.  Get to know people.  Don’t chew gum in Singapore.  Surround yourself with wise people.  Commit.  Pray.  Never look down upon another.  Accept both criticism and praise.  Embrace accountability.  Be gracious.  Resist entitlement.  Help others.  Celebrate the success of those around you.  Don’t squash dissent.  Be unselfish.  Be joyful.  Recognize that happiness and joy aren’t the same thing.  Refrain from hypocrisy.  Give.  Dance.  Dance some more…. maybe even to 80’s songs.  Never be afraid to say “I love you” or “forgive me” first.  Say it often.  Seek God first.  Figure the faith thing out.  Respect all others.  And above all, guard your heart, as everything you do will flow from it. 

Go forth, my friends, with hope, joy, and great expectation.  And congratulations… you are blessed.

 

Respectfully…

AR

impression management

IMG_0206Years ago I read this terrific book by John Ortberg that rocked my thinking somewhat.  It was called “The Life You’ve Always Wanted,” described further by its subtitle, “Spiritual Disciplines for Ordinary People.”  I feel pretty ordinary (…and truthfully, I also quickly surmised that if I could attain the primo, desired life for a mere $12 book, then such would be dollars well spent).

One of Ortberg’s more profound concepts was the idea  of “impression management” — the intentional attempt to manipulate other people’s opinions of us through targeted actions and words.  The attempt may be subtle; it may be slight.  It may be as simple as, “I don’t watch much TV, but I saw this program the other day…”  In other words, I am attempting to convey the impression that I don’t watch much television.  Impression management is a self-crafted means of getting others to believe what we want them to believe about us — but not necessarily believing what’s true.  Impression management takes time, energy, and insincerity, which combined equates to an unfortunate burden.

I used to think that impression management was solely exercised by our budding teenagers, seeking to find societal acceptance.  I thought, too, perhaps, it was only an attempt of the less intelligent; but when reading that ordinary book, it became painfully obvious that the practice is not indigenous to either the teen or intelligent.  We care what others think of us.  The motive may be different, but the awareness is rampant.  Regardless of intellect or age, people continually attempt to manipulate the impressions others have.

The most striking, apparent example this week was the criminal indictment of former NFL star, Aaron Hernandez.  Hernandez, who played for the New England Patriots, was charged with fatally shooting two immigrants in July of 2012.  Prosecutors believe Hernandez “stalked, ambushed, and senselessly murdered” two innocent men, who had a “chance encounter” with the so-called “Patriot” earlier in the evening.  Let’s be clear to offer the caveat that these are still charges and not a verdict confirmed.  Hernandez is, however, already jailed for charges in the fatal shooting of another Massachusetts man.

The impression management is visible via the dates.  The shooting occurred on July 16th.  On August 27th — after the shooting had taken place but before Hernandez’s suspected involvement —  Hernandez signed a $41 million contract with New England.  In his press conference — a moment team owner Robert Kraft called “one of the touching moments since I’ve owned the team” — Hernandez said:

“He [Kraft] changed my life.  Now I’m able to basically have a good chance to be set for life and have a good life and I have a daughter on the way, and I have a family that I love… He didn’t need to give me the amount he gave me and knowing he thinks I deserve that and he trusts me to make the right decisions, it means a lot.  It means he trusts in my character and the person I am, which means a lot.”

Hernandez was attempting to manage the impression we have of him.

Whether it be people, pundits, politicians, or press secretaries… whether it be celebrities or ordinary citizens… we are actively engaged in this less-than-honest effort.  Pick your issue.  Pick your event.  Pick your policy or platform or surrounding spin.  Pick your activist group.  Pick your supposed coverup.  Pick your athlete or agent.  Impression management is alive and well — and serves far too frequently as an unchallenged societal and political practice.

I love Ortberg’s application question… “What do you think would change in your life if you were free from the burden of ‘impression management,’ of trying to get other people to think about you in a certain way?”

What if the so-called less ordinary, politicians and celebrities, did the same?

Respectfully…

AR

sam’s status

michael-sam1In many arenas, we have heard that sports often leads societal acceptance.  Such may or may not be true.  ‘Twas certainly true via Jack Roosevelt Robinson, whose accomplishments were second only to his character that prompted him to persevere until finally breaking baseball’s color line, as he played for the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1947.  Jackie’s “42” now hangs proudly in every Major League Baseball stadium across the country.

With last week’s 2014 NFL Draft, some have suggested society is again leading the way — arguably modeling the good, bad, and ugly within our culture — as the University of Missouri’s Michael Sam was selected with the 249th pick in the draft.  Sam is openly gay.

Note that pick #249 is 7 picks away from being deemed “Mr. Irrelevant.”  (Note:  I’m serious; the last pick in the draft has been bestowed the dubious title since 1976).  In other words, Sam was close to not being drafted by any of the 32 teams in the National Football League.  What followed was fascinating; there was an overflowing editorial analysis tying’s Sam’s draft status to his sexuality.  For example…

From the Huffington Post’s Hank Koebler:  “In today’s NFL full of pass-happy offenses and hybrid defensive fronts, football reasons alone can’t justify why an award-winning pass-rusher like Sam fell so far in the draft.”

From USA Today’s Jarrett Bell:  “Yet amid all of the back-slapping for the NFL, there’s an essential question:  Why did it take so long?”

From The New York Times’ William C. Rhoden:  “The N.F.L. doesn’t get a parade: Sam should have been taken three rounds earlier. You cannot acknowledge the Southeastern Conference as the best college football conference, as the N.F.L. has, and then let one of its top players be drafted behind kickers and players from obscure programs in obscure conferences… the N.F.L. did the right thing by Michael Sam; I only wish it would have done the right thing a little sooner.”

Many thus immediately concluded and proclaimed Sam’s low selection was based on his sexuality.  Note that Michael Sam was a consensus All-American and the Southeastern Conference Defensive Player of the Year as a senior.  He had no known off-field, malfeasant issues.

Now there exist layers upon layers of aspects to this story, and different people will understandably,  passionately embrace different facets… ESPN’s coverage… the kiss… the second kiss with cake… the cameras in the living room of a 7th round pick… the extent of the coverage… the questionable words of those who were only focused on Sam’s sexuality — both in opposition and support…  and, of course, if and how sports often “leads the way.”  Opinions will be divergent, and we need to learn how to respectfully wrestle with such as opposed to manipulate perceived consensus or vilify desired dissent.

What we can also address, however, the proclaimed injustice that Sam’s low selection in the draft was due to his sexual preference.  Let me first submit the following names:

Jason White, Charlie Ward, Pete Dawkins… I will add Jackson Jeffcoat of Texas.

White, Ward, and Dawkins were each Heisman Trophy winners, the award given annually to the nation’s best college football player.  Jeffcoat was another All-American this past college season.  Each of the above went undrafted.

Some wish to proclaim that Michael Sam slid so far solely because of his sexuality; the reality is we can’t definitely conclude that; we don’t know.  Still others wish to proclaim that Sam’s sexuality had zero to due with his draft status; the equally true reality is we also don’t know.  We cannot know for certain if or how Michael Sam’s sexuality impacted his draft status.

Not knowing tends to make us uncomfortable; it also sometimes prompts us to proclaim our opinion as fact… when well, such isn’t reality.

Respectfully…

AR

press picking & choosing

Pie1over5Noting the populist rhetoric of income equality but not necessarily the economic prudence, allow me to highlight the Pope’s message to the UN Secretary General last Friday — which, not surprisingly, some media sources promptly pounced upon.

Had the Intramuralist simply adopted the media’s rhetoric (note to all:  never simply adopt the media’s rhetoric), I would have walked away believing the following headlines…

From Time Magazine:  “Pope Francis to World:  Redistribute The Wealth.”

From MSNBC:  “Pope Francis Calls For Wealth Redistribution.”

Let’s look at what the Pope actually said…

It is true that he condemned an “economy of exclusion.”

It is true that he said that we need to have “future sustainable development goals” that “have a real impact on the structural causes of poverty and hunger.”

It is also true that he said:  “An awareness of the dignity of each of our brothers and sisters whose life is sacred and inviolable from conception to natural death must lead us to share with complete freedom the goods which God’s providence has placed in our hands.”  Pope Francis has been a consistent advocate for the less fortunate — beginning his advocacy at conception.

Let us also then acknowledge what was omitted from the same media’s actual headlines — including the conception omission — aspects omitted which may point to a veiled bias within our press…

Pope Francis did not say government should embrace socialism, which equates to government mandated wealth redistribution — which by definition is a “stage of development in Marxist theory,” which eventually suppresses a country’s citizens.

Pope Francis did not dismiss the individual responsibility for caring for the hungry, poor, and essentially “least of these,” which is indisputably the biblical mandate.

And when Pope Francis addressed sharing the “good which God’s providence has placed in our hands,” he spoke not only of material goods, but also of “intellectual and spiritual ones.”  To focus on only the material would omit 67% of the Pope’s encouragement.

One of the aspects that absolutely amazes this semi-humble current events observer is that we quote the seemingly most popular when it appears to make us look good.  For example, Time and MSNBC rush to quote the Pope when it looks like he’s endorsing government-mandated wealth redistribution, but they oft seem to omit his perspective when it comes to government-funded abortion-inducing drugs.  They seem to shy mightily from the Pope’s encouraged, accompanied, spiritual teaching.

The point of this post has zero to do with wealth or drugs or our government’s role.  The point is that the press picks and chooses when and what to publicize, seemingly emphasizing their desired perspective.  The press thus does not always accurately represent all that any have to say.  In other words, the media manipulates the news.

As for Pope Francis’s perspective, the wise pontiff does seem to emphasize an unparalleled compassion for the poor that is respectful and contagious.  How far he presses in economic understanding and socialist priorities is a different conversation, and the press would be wise in acknowledging such.

They would also be wise in acknowledging the Pope’s stated desire to seek God first…  something seemingly far too convenient to also omit.

Respectfully…

AR

more to learn

imagesHead to head.  Face to face.

The unmistakable reality is that only one person could win.  Sure, there is second place — sometimes even third, maybe fourth — but a single soul is declared the victor.  There’s only one gold medal, so-to-speak.  The race was on.

The field was fascinating… diverse… and clearly, uniquely gifted.  This was their moment in time.  Some candidates were quite loquacious; others were more silent in their approach.  Some had much to share, while still others kept to the seemingly simple talking points.  Some, too, seemed serious or determined, no doubt resolute in their prized ambition; they would allow nothing to distract them from their cause.  Others were obviously more “go-with-the-flow,” even though such wasn’t necessarily an articulated, admired status.

When the race began, it was profound…

Some began with a bang — others with more of a whimper.

Some egged the crowd on — others found the crowd too stimulating.  One endeared competitor sorrowfully had to leave the arena.

There was another young man who had a physical altercation with another.  I was touched by the woman and child who deliberately paused to pick him up.

As each finished the so-called fight, the entire crowd cheered.

In fact, the entire crowd cheered for every competitor.

No matter the pace — no matter the candidate — no matter how they ran or how they played the game — each entrant was celebrated for who he was and what place they came in… even if said placement was something other than number one.

No competitor was viewed as adversarial.  The idea of being “evil” or an “enemy” simply because one was the identified opponent was obviously furthest from every mind.  Each competitor was celebrated.  Each hand was either shaken or high-fived.  Losing did not equate to anything lesser.

I remain struck, my friends, by the consistent lack of civility within the competitive process… whether that be a politician vying for position… a parent cheering on only their child, thinking he or she must make the team… or one of us advocating for one person or party only and always.

We could learn a lot from the competition the Intramuralist witnessed yesterday, as  there’s nothing quite like the Special Olympics.  As first introduced by Eunice Kennedy Shriver at the inaugural 1968 Special Olympics international games, each athlete vows the following:

“Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt.”

Every politician, parent, and pundit should vow the same regardless of the game they play.  Every athlete, candidate, and competitor should be celebrated.  And opponents should not be viewed as evil or adversarial.

Yes, we have much to learn from the special, Special Olympic athletes.  Perhaps we have more to learn from them than they actually do from us.

Respectfully,

AR

respected

huddleCLRThis week I’ve wondered if we have a harder time being respectful than we think we do.  It seems if just the right issue or experience arises, we are far too willing to sacrifice respect in the name of passion, emotion, or justice… far too willing.  In fact, my growing sense is that even in more emotionally-grounded moments, we may actually conclude that on given occasions, throwing respect right out the nearest window might be the absolute right thing to do.

From our leaders who rhetorically fail us in their own examples…

From our own cyberspace moments when rants become our routine…

People are not sincerely respected.

The most poignant example came for me yesterday at the polls.

I decided some months ago to throw my political hat into the primary ring.  For me it wasn’t about politics or any perceived unworthiness in my opponent; it was more about being an ordinary person involved in local government.  How often, I ask, do we sit back, take note — frustrated with municipal ongoings, but refuse to get involved, still firmly maintaining the right to complain?  Feel great grace, friends… I have often done the same.

And so I decided to get involved.  Let me share with you from the onset that I did not win.  While a novice, I ran against an older gentleman who has served for decades, belongs to a family of career politicians, and has significant name recognition.  Let me also share that even as an enthusiastic newbie, I received an encouraging, far-more-than-forecasted number of votes.  It was a great, competitive race.

When I arrived in those early hours to greet people at the polls (also known in some circles as bombarding voters with more information than they really want), one of the first persons I met was my opponent.  I had not met him previously.  I didn’t know much about him, save what I knew publicly about his family.

When he shared his name, I was so excited… “Richard, I’m so thankful to meet you!  I’m eager to get to know you today — and know how you think and what you truly believe.”

You know, I wonder now what his initial thoughts of me were; he seemed a little guarded, surprised, and no doubt pondering the sincerity of my words.  I really respected him, but then again, he had no way of knowing that.  Most likely to him, I was merely the opponent.  In some cases (as evidenced especially at national levels), that equates immediately to “enemy” or “adversary” or “person we must always disagree with.”  Hence, such also oft equates to that justification for throwing out respect.

Over the course of the day, Richard and I shared our similar values… our commitment to integrity… our appreciation for family, faith, and our mutual love of the Indy 500.  We spent hours getting to know one another, interrupted only by asking for the votes of those we semi-subtly bombarded with information.  Throughout the day, I learned to appreciate Richard.  And hence, allow me to say more as an observation than a boast, it was obvious that not all candidates nor supportive citizens shared that respect.  Perceived adversary status seemed more prevalent.

At the end of the day, as the results were unknown but both Richard and I knew it was a competitive race, I shook his hand, wished him well, and sincerely shared, “Please know I say what I mean and mean what I say.”

He knew I meant it.  He also knew he was respected.

 

Respectfully…  always…

AR

ignorance?

img24238608

With current event monitors focused sharply last week on Sterling, Sharpton, and new Benghazi information (sigh), there was this small, perhaps trivial incident that flew somewhat under society’s radar.  Reigning Heisman Trophy winner, Jameis Winston, a 20 year old soon-to-be Florida State sophomore, walked out of a Publix grocery store with $32.72 worth of crawfish and crab legs that he never paid for.

Expectedly, social media and sports reporters experienced a bit of an editorial heyday…

“Just a shellfish act on Jameis Winston’s part.”

“At least be classy enough to go for the Lobster tail…”

Or my personal favorite:

“Really wonder about Jameis Winston’s decision making. This entire episode was high-bisque, low reward.”

I must subtly, gleefully acknowledge that sarcasm is sometimes simply too tempting to sidestep.

But as the Intramuralist resists the common-to-man temptation, I was struck by Winston’s immediate apology.  Remember that this young man stands to net millions of dollars in the immediate future, as he’s projected as nothing less than a top — or the top — 2015 NFL draft pick.  Hence, image is everything.  A positive public image equates to millions in potential endorsements.  Note here are excerpts from his contrition… granted, only stated after caught:

“As reported in the news, last night I received an adult civil citation for petit theft from a local supermarket. I went to the supermarket with the intent to purchase dinner but made a terrible mistake for which I’m taking full responsibility. In a moment of youthful ignorance, I walked out of the store without paying for one of my items.

… I make no excuses for my actions and will learn and grow from this unfortunate situation. I hope and pray my friends and family will view me as the 20-year-old young man that I am, and support me through this unfortunate situation.”

[emphasis mine]

Friends, there is no reason to pick on Jameis Winston; he is an incredibly gifted young man, and he has is being watched by many of the next generation, continuously craving, I believe, positive, public role models.  The lingering discomfort embedded within his contrition is the identification of shoplifting as “a moment of youthful ignorance.”  

Certainly most of us can relate… (FYI… thank God Facebook and Instagram didn’t exist back then).  I do believe there should exist generous grace for our mistakes.  But this is Winston’s 4th known brush with the law… the serious rape accusation…  the more petty BB gun fight… reports of stealing a soda.  Each of us makes mistakes, but my question is for how long can the incidents be attributed to the ignorance of one’s youth?  I don’t believe “ignorance” is the correct word.

Ignorance means “not knowing.”  For an athlete who wants us to treat him like a man in so many other areas — earning potential, leadership, relationships, responsibility, etc. — are we to believe he did not know shoplifting was wrong?

I am thus wondering when it’s appropriate to call behavior “foolish.”  When do we acknowledge that such behavior may be a pattern?  And when do we caution our kids as to the possible jeopardized status of yet another athletic role model?

I do hope Winston becomes an excellent role model for my boys, but I have a hard time believing his shoplifting was based on ignorance.  I also have a hard time believing his image isn’t most in play.  And yes, being sarcastic about shellfish would be easier.

Respectfully…

AR

higher learning

rice275On Saturday, former Sec. of State and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice announced she will no longer offer the commencement address for Rutgers University.  In a letter to the university’s president, Rice wrote:

“Commencement should be a time of joyous celebration for the graduates and their families.  Rutgers’ invitation to me to speak has become a distraction for the university community at this very special time.

I am honored to have served my country.  I have defended America’s belief in free speech and the exchange of ideas.  These values are essential to the health of our democracy.  But that is not what is at issue here.  As a Professor for thirty years at Stanford University and as it’s former Provost and Chief academic officer, I understand and embrace the purpose of the commencement ceremony and I am simply unwilling to detract from it in any way.”

After the school’s Board of Governors invited Rice to speak and award her an honorary degree, several faculty members and students protested, wanting the invitation rescinded because of Rice’s role in the Iraq War.  Signs at last week’s student-staged sit-in included:  “No honors for war criminals”… “War criminals out”… and “RU 4 Humanity?”

Once again members of a place that considers itself an institution of higher learning and academic excellence choose to learn by drowning out contrary opinion.  My sense is that these students and faculty believe they are wise and smart and keenly intellectual.  They understandably disagree with any involvement in the Iraq War.  But let the Intramuralist be clear… agree or disagree; agree or disagree on the legitimacy of America’s stated purpose in Iraq.  Such is the valid prerogative for each of us.  Saying, however, that a person should be silenced because we passionately disagree with their point of view is an exercise in foolishness… no matter the supposed excellence of any institution.

Friends, I speak not about the validity of passions regarding the Iraq War; there exist wise people from all parties who feel strongly on all sides of that issue.  What concerns me is the growing number of people who feel justified in silencing those they disagree with — and in the case of Condoleezza Rice, acting as if this remarkably accomplished African-American woman is somehow unqualified to speak.

Note that…

Rapper Sean “Puff Daddy” Combs will speak at Howard University on May 10th.

Former MLB manager Tony LaRussa will speak at Washington University on May 16th.

PBS’s Gwen Ifill will speak at St. Mary’s College on the 17th.

Bill Nye, the Science Guy, will speak at Umass Lowell.

Forest Whitaker will speak at Miami University.

World-renowned chef, Jose Andres, will speak at George Washington University.

Katie Couric will speak at Trinity College…

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards is scheduled at Barnard College…

John Legend, Joe Biden, Barack & Michelle Obama, Bill Gates, Brandi Chastains, Diana Nyad… even Peyton Manning and the founder of Chobani Yogurt will be speaking at a college commencement this spring.

Each of the above has been deemed “qualified,” even though some also have made some very controversial comments and decisions.

Rutgers’ students and faculty most likely wish to believe they qualify as members of an institution of higher learning and academic excellence.  Remember again, though, that wisdom and intelligence are not synonymous, and by drowning out opposing opinion, what they are learning remains in question.

Respectfully…

AR

what have we learned?

NAACP_sterling_awards1After a week of storms — via both the atmosphere and articulation, what have we learned?

That racism unfortunately still exists…

That civil rights can still be an issue…

And that bigotry is not indigenous to any one ethnic group.

Friends, bigotry will only cease to exist when no one fights solely for a single group of people no matter the prudence of a particular situation.

Hence, I find it absolutely ironic that on May 15th, both LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling and Rev. Al Sharpton were set to be dually honored by the NAACP in Los Angeles.  Sterling was to receive their “Lifetime Achievement Award” and Sharpton an award for “Person of the Year.”

And yet it was Sterling, who spoke so offensively this week, privately asking his mistress not to bring black people to his games.

And it, too, was Sharpton, who for decades has refused to apologize for publicly, vociferously chastising multiple white men for the cover up of an assault on a black teen girl, that the teen admits making up.

Bigotry will only cease to exist when no one fights for only for one group, all the time, no matter the prudence of the particular situation.  Bigotry will only cease when…

… the guilt or innocence of an OJ Simpson is not presumed by the color of his skin…

… the effectiveness of a President Obama is not gauged by his ethnic heritage…

Bigotry will not cease to exist as long as white, black, Asian, Arab, Jewish, Christian, gay, straight, disabled, etc. … until none of it matters.

Unfortunately, as a society we still seem to hypocritically pick and choose which prejudice to pounce upon.  Someone like Sterling, who for over 30 years has displayed aspects of racially discriminatory behavior, has been banned for life and may actually be forced to sell his property.  Someone like Sharpton remains celebrated on a weekday, evening newscast, even though only 20 years ago, the Rev. Sharpton made this college address:

“White folks was in the caves while we [blacks] was building empires … We built pyramids before Donald Trump ever knew what architecture was … we taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.”

We must always remember the prudence of the particular situation.  We must not pick and choose the prejudice.

Hence, I again ask, what have we learned?

Respectfully…

AR