intramuralist ™

In 1992 Nat Hentoff penned a fascinating work. It was entitled “Free Speech for Me — but Not for Thee”… an interesting thought, indeed.

“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” That’s Amendment number one.

What does the right to free speech actually mean?

According to Cornell Law School, “The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without government interference or regulation.” 

According to the ACLU, “The First Amendment guarantees our right to free expression and free association, which means that the government does not have the right to forbid us from saying what we like and writing what we like.”

And according to Wikipedia, “Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.” 

The First Amendment declares that the government can’t restrict our speech except in specific, substantially-justified situations, such as incitement speech, for example; the government can forbid speech “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action.” There is also little to no legal protection for obscenity and child pornography. 

But it seems increasingly more, we begin to wonder whether reining back the right to free speech would be wise for far more than the above exceptions.

Note a Politico Livestream conversation from just last week, in which Facebook censorship board member and former Danish prime minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt said: “How do you moderate content and how do you find that balance between human rights and free speech, which is a human right, but also other human rights because free speech is not an absolute human right; it has to be balanced with all the human rights…”

What else do you hear there?

What other rights are being intruded upon by the freedom of expression?

And what does the social media executive perceive to be prudent in disregarding an amendment which has stood the test of time for the last 230 years?

Nat Hentoff actually keenly questions if we really believe in free speech…

Are we a little hypocritical, friends?

Do we really just want to silence those we disagree with?

Or…

Do we consider what we say to be truth and what another says to be opinion?

Do we deem our harsh words as necessary and another’s to be filled with hate?

And what if speech offends? Is it only ok if I agree?

Allow us to share the complete title of Hentoff’s insightful work. With its subtitle, the book is called: “Free Speech for Me — but Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other.” Hentoff gives multiple examples of persons on the left and right who change what they think, say, and believe about free speech based upon what is said and who is saying it. 

Writes Hentoff, “Those who created this country chose freedom. With all of its dangers. And do you know the riskiest part of that choice they made? They actually believed that we could be trusted to make up our own minds in the whirl of differing ideas. That we could be trusted to remain free, even when there were very, very seductive voices — taking advantage of our freedom of speech — who were trying to turn this country into the kind of place where the government could tell you what you can and cannot do.”

Again…

“… that we could be trusted to make up our own minds in the whirl of differing ideas…”

I continue to pause, soberly seeing a little more how the First Amendment is less about what we can do and more about what the government cannot.

Respectfully…

AR

Great conversations this week, friends! I appreciate that we can talk respectfully about tough topics. I know it isn’t easy. It’d be easier to insult… denigrate… stop listening. It’d be easier to rest in our echo chambers, where only the cushioning of our unknowingly, already-padded perspective bounces off the walls. Yes, it’d be easier to never have to wrestle with the aspects of our perspective which may be wrong. It’d be easier to never have to consider the notion that there most definitely exist areas where each of us is wrong.

As said here often, where we stand depends on where we sit. And sometimes we need to move our chairs around.

Timely, therefore, is this week’s updated, concise list from one of the Intramuralist’s more oft-frequented web sites.

As we know, bias exists. Let me be clear: bias isn’t necessarily wrong. It’s also not necessarily inaccurate. Bias, however, is in favor of a singular side. In the news, therefore, varied other potentially accurate perspective is intentionally omitted. We thus often are not getting the whole story; we are often being manipulated.

Such is why All Sides is one of my fave sites. They actively encourage reading across the political spectrum. In fact, they actually state that “center doesn’t mean better.” Allow the editors of All Sides to explain:

“A Center media bias rating doesn’t necessarily mean a source is neutral, unbiased, perfectly reasonable or credible, just as Left and Right don’t necessarily mean extreme, wrong, or unreasonable. A Center rating simply means the source does not predictably publish perspectives favoring either end of the political spectrum — conservative or liberal. A Center outlet may omit important perspectives, or run individual articles that display bias.”

Based on their detailed verification process and research, note their current assessment of how news sources rate:

According to All Sides, in this most recent analysis, FOX News moved from “lean right” to “right.” USA Today moved from “center” to “lean left.”

Friends, I love this tool! Wanting a more comprehensive, impartial perspective — and knowing where we sit makes a huge difference — I recognize I will not be sharp on the wisdom/folly of critical race theory, immigration, how much money the government continues to spend and the like if I only pay attention to FOX, the New York Post, and the Daily Wire. I’m going to have an equally distorted perspective on critical race theory, immigration, how much money the government continues to spend and the like if I only pay attention to CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times.

Pay attention to those mixed sites. NPR news is thought to be in the center; their opinion page is not. Same with The Wall Street Journal news; their opinion page is also different.

What we pay attention to matters. And what we pay attention to grows.

Our perspective then grows…

Even when inaccurate.

Respectfully…

AR

One of the headline questions we posed in our most recent blog was the following:

“What Is Critical Race Theory, and Why Is Everyone Talking About It?”

To be clear, “everyone” includes multiple news sources all over the biased political spectrum. For example…

Critical Race Theory Is Patriotic, Not Anti-American

Critical Race Theory Spits on Civil Rights Movement

Setting Record Straight on Critical Race Theory in Education

NEA Goes All-In on Critical Race Theory

The Left’s Critical Race Theory Ruining U.S. Public Education

And that’s a mere smidgeon of the news. There’s a bit more emotion displayed in the headlines…

Private School Expels Children of Moms Who Advocate Against Critical Race Theory in School

‘Panic’ over Critical Race Theory Because White People ‘Afraid They Might Be Complicit in Racism’

Teachers’-Union Head Claims CRT Is Only Taught at Colleges 

National Education Association to Spend over $100K to Promote Critical Race Theory

Largest Teachers’ Union Erases Campaign to Push Critical Race Theory from Website

“Everyone” also now includes the Intramuralist.

Across the country, people have been talking about critical race theory (CRT). Many of these emotionally-charged discussions have come in the education arena, where the question is whether to adopt the theory, teaching it to K-12 students. Is it an accurate lens to teach about race? Is it just a theory — an uncertain belief that hasn’t proven to be either true or untrue? One of the clear challenges of this discussion, no less, is the underlying question as to whether or not people know what CRT actually is — or instead discern the theory’s folly or sagacity based on who articulates concern or support.

So what is it?

Let me humbly state before we begin that a singular blog post is insufficient. As known to active Intramuralist readers, I have now read over 16 books on racial issues in the past two years and still feel there is more to learn. Hence, this post is not intended to provide comprehensive discernment on the issue. It is, however, intended to provide increased insight into why concern and support both exist.

Critical race theory is a term derived by the writings of academics Derrick Bell and Richard Delgado in the 1970’s/80’s. According to Delgado and his wife, Jean Stefancic, CRT is “a collection of activists and scholars interested in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up, but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, context, group- and self-interest, and even feelings and the unconscious. Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.”

The basic premise of CRT is that society is divided into two groups: the oppressors and the oppressed. White people are the oppressors; black people are the oppressed. With the existence of systemic racism still in our country — and the even more emotionally-charged debate in regard to what’s systemic and what’s not — it is logical how the bifurcation is attractive to some as a tool to make sense of a complicated society.

Delgado and Stefancic publicly acknowledge that critical race theory builds on the insights of critical theory. Critical theory originated from the Frankfurt School in Germany in the 20s and 30s — an academic institute founded by Carl Grünberg, a Marxist professor of law.

It’s insightful then to recognize that the bifurcated approach of CRT — whether intentional or not — mirrors the teaching of Karl Marx. Like CRT, classic Marxism teaches that society is split into two groups — the oppressor and the oppressed. This oppression, however, is based on class — not race. The capitalists are the oppressors; the larger working class is the oppressed. Marxism contends that capitalists actually desire to exploit the working class for the purposes of maintaining self status and power. CRT makes like contentions in regard to race.

The resulting question we’re left with on this admittedly tough subject is whether in concern or support we are aware of CRT’s origins and parallels. What is the effect of those parallels? Are other agendas knowingly or unknowingly in play? If we could analyze historically and defuse emotionally, all over the biased political spectrum, my strong sense is we’d collectively have a more productive conversation about the wisest lenses to employ in regard to current societal challenge.

Respectfully…

AR

As is our practice, every now and then we take a look at the questions the media is asking. We scan the sites; take note of what’s being asked.

Here’s what the country is talking about. For arguably, your briefest assessment of what’s making news — 50 questions — here are a list of what we’ve been asking in the past seven days:

1. After J&J Vaccine, a Booster?
2. Biden’s Choice: Progressives or Bipartisanship? 
3. Bill Cosby is a free man, but is he innocent?
4. Bill Cosby is out of prison. What does that mean for his dozens of accusers?
5. Can J.D. Vance Take – And Pack – A Punch In Senate Race?
6. Can progressive prosecutors survive America’s crime wave?
7. Can the Left Defend Critical Race Theory?
8. Can The Phoenix Suns Cap Off A Magical Season?
9. A Compromise On Infrastructure? What’s Being Compromised?
10. Could a voter ID compromise be a win for voting rights?
11. Critical race theory: Who gets to decide what is history?
12. The delta variant is highly contagious. Do Covid vaccines still protect against it?
13. Democrats’ New Get-Trump Committee?
14. Does the Pentagon Take China Seriously?
15. How can a building just collapse?
16. How Fast Is The Economy Recovering?
17. How Is The COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign Going In Your State?
18. How unpopular is Joe Biden?
19. How Worried Should We Be About Election System?
20. If CRT Is Correct, Is America Worth Defending?
21. Is Biden Declaring ‘Independence From the Virus’ Too Soon?
22. Is Biden’s Lawsuit Against Georgia Dead on Arrival?
23. Is Eric Adams Really the ‘Face of the New Democratic Party’?
24. Is the U.S. a One-and-a-Half Party System?
25. Now Democrats Are Tough on Crime?
26. Olympics: Is It Fair to Make Women Compete Against Transgender Athletes?
27. On the Border, Can Harris Succeed Where Biden Failed?
28. Right vs. Left: Who’s Smarter?
29. States deploy police to border. What is their role?
30. Tropical Storm Elsa nears the Keys — where is it going next? 
31. What happened to Sha’Carri Richardson?
32. What Has China’s Communist Party Learned?
33. What Is China Buying in the Biden Administration?
34. What Is Critical Race Theory, and Why Is Everyone Talking About It?
35. What Underlies the G.O.P. Commitment to Ignorance?
36. What was the unemployment rate when the last stimulus bill was passed?
37. What Would the Founding Fathers Say?
38. When are the 2021 Olympics? Will they happen?
39. Where Can Americans Travel Right Now?
40. Where does ‘Black Widow’ rank amongst the greatest Marvel heroines?
41. Who Is Calling the Shots at the White House?
42. Who Really Wants to Defund Police?
43. Who runs the Vatican while pope is hospitalized?
44. Why Can’t the Left Let Go of Slavery?
45. Why do we celebrate July 4th?
46. Why does Kamala Harris laugh or cackle all the time?
47. Why is gas so expensive again?
48. Will Giannis play?
49. Will the military make the COVID-19 vaccine mandatory?
50. Would Nuking the Filibuster Really Help Democrats?

The above come via ABC News, American Prospect, AOL, As.com,  Associated Press, Chicago Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, CNN, Columbia News, Deseret News, ESPN, Five Thirty Eight, The Gatestone Institute, The Hayride, LA Times, MamaMia.com, Miami Herald, National Review, New York Post, New York Times, The New Yorker, News Bytes, NBC, NPR, PJ Media, The Poynter Institute, A Quiet Simple Life, Real Clear Politics, Rasmussen Reports, Roll Call, The Spectator, US News & World Report, Wall Street Journal, Washington Examiner, Washington Times, WVXU, Yahoo!News, and Yahoo!The 360.

Note: if my/your primary news source fails to appear above, maybe they’re not so good at allowing their audience to answer questions for themselves. Maybe. Maybe not. Just saying. Makes me wonder more…

Respectfully…

AR

Today we remember our country’s most significant Declaration…

… We hold these truths to be self-evident…

There’s no need to explain; it’s obvious.

… that all men are created equal…

Men, women, humankind — equal in value. There should be no discrimination, partiality, or bias. Let’s be honest; we haven’t always done this well. But we don’t need to erase, cancel, or attempt to rewrite history. We need to learn from it. What will future generations say about us? What errors in our current thinking will they find need to correct? 

… that they are endowed by their Creator…

We acknowledge the great big God of the universe — who He is and who we are not. Some days I wonder if that’s our most grievous, national error… that in our intentional effort to separate Church and State — not wanting the Church to impose its moral code upon all — we’ve enabled the State to believe it’s capable of establishing a moral code.

… with certain unalienable rights…

Indeed. They can’t be taken away. 

… that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness… 

Our existence. Our freedom. And our pursuit of what makes us happy. It’s important to distinguish between the “pursuit of happiness” and “happiness” itself. There are no guarantees we will be happy. In fact, it humbles me to profess that some of my greatest learnings in life have come from the saddest of times. Troubles and trials help us learn perseverance. Perseverance is a mark of the mature.

… That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

Exactly. The people have a say. No politician needs to be puffed up — to think they are so necessary. No party, either — as last I checked the news, no political party has yet to corner the market on honesty, integrity, and compromise.

On the 4th of July, we celebrate many things — especially now that the days of COVID have at least temporarily waned…

That celebration makes me feel a little patriotic. True, that’s an emotionally charged term these days. People use it for everything from a more nationalist stance to a stance on a podium protesting our anthem.

For me it means being a little more grateful… for truth, equality, our Creator, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and all the people around me I get to freely do life with and pursue that happiness. 

I support our country not because it’s always been perfect or ever will be; we will always have things to learn. I support our country also not because we’re so good at empathizing and always getting along.

No, I support our country because 245 years ago, we declared what is good.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Happy Independence Day, friends… hope it’s happy.

Respectfully…

AR

At approximately 1:30 a.m. early Thursday morning, the twelve-story, Champlain Towers South collapsed in Surfside, Florida — a town a few miles north of Miami Beach. The definitive reason why the beachfront condominium collapsed is currently uncertain; it may never be certain. As crews continue to carefully mine the rubble, it’s been heartbreaking to watch the details that slowly but meticulously unfold. 55 of the building’s 136 units were destroyed. Approximately 150 people remain missing at the time of this posting. Eleven have been confirmed dead. It’s a gut-wrenching, traumatic scene.

The Intramuralist has tuned into several of the government and rescue team’s press conferences. There is a somberness that makes them hard to watch. But there is one aspect for which I am soberly, deeply grateful. I’ll share from Sunday’s morning presser…

First before the microphones came Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. DeSantis shared a brief account — first, of course, sharing grief with the affected families, thanking the first responders, then detailing the coordination efforts among multiple levels of government, giving insight into the ongoing approach.

Next came FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell, who thanked the Governor, let the public know she was there on behalf of Pres. Biden, and then shared details into how federal emergency efforts are more specifically involved.

Following the two was Miami-Dade Mayor Daniella Levine Cava, who also thanked both the Governor and FEMA in addition to the rescue teams, and spoke of several more specific developments, such as being able to control the resulting smoke and fire.

The three were joined by Surfside Mayor Charles Burkett, Lieutenant Governor Jeanette Nuñez and Florida Division of Emergency Management Director Kevin Guthrie. 

Allow me to expand on the reason for somber gratitude…

The primary presenters hail from varied backgrounds. They represent two different political parties. And in 21st Century America, increasingly more people and party loyalists justify dissimilar party adherence as grounds for uncompromising conflict and disrespect. That uncompromising conflict and disrespect, however, impedes what needs to be done.

In South Florida this week — even with the respective (D) and (R) placed next to the individual names on the bottom of my screen on Sunday — the political party of the public officials was not significant. What was instead significant?

… grieving with the affected families… thanking the first responders… coordinating efforts among multiple levels of government… being there on behalf of the President… controlling the resulting smoke and fire… dealing with the trauma.

It thus makes me grateful to see a diverse group of public officials come together, recognize the effort of one another, thank each other, coordinate, and get the job done. I don’t see any caring of who gets the credit — nor any denigrating of the politically different. The officials are focused on solving the problem — as opposed to seeing the different as the problem.

_____

Epilogue… sort of…

I had originally concluded this piece with an ending acknowledgement that it shouldn’t take trauma to get the job done; it shouldn’t take the gut-wrenching to make us focus on what’s most significant nor to stop always blaming the politically different. As journalist Charles C.W. Cooke opined two days ago:

“Hey, you. Yes, you. The one with his hands arched above the keyboard, debating whether to press ‘Send’ on your Surfside hot take. Don’t. Delete it, step away from the computer, go outside for a while, and reflect upon what you’ve become.

What is happening in Miami-Dade is not Mayor Burkett’s fault. It’s not Mayor Cava’s fault. It’s not Fire Marshal Patronis’s fault. It’s not Governor DeSantis’s fault. It’s not President Biden’s fault, either. Every single one of these people is horrified by the collapse. Every single one is dreading learning the final death toll. Every single one is working as fast and assiduously as they can. This is a tragedy, it’s not an election. For the love of God: stop.”

I found myself amen’ing along. Blaming the politically different is putting our focus in the wrong place. We are all horrified. 

Cooke concludes, “Sometimes in this imperfect world of ours, truly horrific things can happen to good people, and there is nothing of use to be gained by trying to weave them neatly into a broader political rationale. Not everything is ideological. Please: Just stop.”

We quietly, soberly amen once more.

Respectfully…

AR

Before we begin, let me gently but boldly opine that so many seem to handle any LGBT conversation poorly. So many justify shame for someone. The Intramuralist adheres instead to the Judeo-Christian ethic echoed by author and research professor Brené Brown, noting, “We live in a world where most people still subscribe to the belief that shame is a good tool for keeping people in line. Not only is this wrong, but it’s dangerous.” When we justify subjecting another to shame, disgrace, humiliation, or disrepute — especially by public exposure or venomous criticism — we are not “loving our neighbor” well. Whatever so-called side they’re on. We then look like the ones who most need to grow. Hence, allow us an added encouragement this day… May our passions and opinions never prompt us to justify the cruelty of shame.

With that as our backdrop, one controversy we all knew was coming is now here. Let’s borrow from the headlines…

First, from NPR: “New Zealand Weightlifter Will Be The First Openly Trans Competitor At The Olympics”

In 26 days, “Tokyo 2020” commences (still the official title for marketing and branding purposes). Laurel Hubbard will represent New Zealand, competing in the  women’s weightlifting category for women over 87 kg (approximately 192 lbs.). Hubbard is a biologically born male, who transitioned to being a woman eight years ago. Prior to her transition, Hubbard competed in men’s events, holding national records in junior competition.

Next, from Yahoo!News: “Transgender runner CeCe Telfer ruled ineligible to compete in the women’s 400-meter hurdles at US Olympic trials”

Telfer was also biologically born as a male. In fact, as recently as 2017, she competed in men’s collegiate track and field. She ranked 390th in the NCAA Div. II men’s 400 meter hurdles that year. Two years later, Telfer won the women’s title.

The reason Hubbard is allowed to compete at the Olympics and Telfer is not is due to testosterone levels. According to a 2015 decision by the International Olympic Committee, “Those who transition from female to male are eligible to compete in the male category without restriction.” However, those who transition from male to female and wish to compete in the female category must meet multiple conditions. One of those conditions is a limitation of testosterone level. Telfer’s level was too high; Hubbard’s was not. While the IOC set a maximum level of 10 nanomoles per liter of testosterone, note that such level is four to five times more than a biological woman.

Remember our early encouragement. No person is to be shamed. The shame, disgrace, humiliation, and disrepute some in the transgender community have received has been awful and unloving. None of God’s creation deserves that. Wisdom says we don’t disgrace or discriminate. We want to be honoring and fair.

One Olympic fact highlights the fairness — first acknowledging some significant Olympic moments… Mary Lou Retton’s perfect “10” on the vault… Muhammed Ali lighting the torch… the absolutely amazing, “Miracle on Ice”… Names are forever etched in our memories… Torvill and Dean… Bolt… Phelps… Jenner… Strug and more.

One person we cheered on multiple times was the incredibly gifted Flo-Jo — Florence Griffith Joyner. She dazzled the world with both her speed and her style. She is considered the fastest woman ever alive, holding still-standing records in women’s track and field. She ran the 100 meters in a mind-boggling 10.49 seconds in 1988. And in the past 33 years, no other woman has come close.

However… hundreds of high school boys — non-Olympic champions — have significantly bested Flo-Jo’s time. Hundreds…

Back to weightlifting for a moment… Belgium’s Anna Vanbellinghen’s recent comments have been insightful in this controversy, especially since she expects to be competing against Laurel Hubbard in Japan. “I fully support the transgender community,” says Vanbellinghen. “I am aware that defining a legal frame for transgender participation in sports is very difficult… However, anyone that has trained weightlifting at a high level knows this to be true in their bones: This particular situation is unfair to the sport and to the athletes.”

There’s a biological difference between male and female. So how do we not discriminate against one in our support of another? How do we ensure our advocacy is not unfair?

Just asking questions, acknowledging facts with sensitivity and respect, getting set for the summer Olympics, and craving to handle all well… 

Respectfully…

AR

On Saturday, a white Dodge Ram truck stopped in the staging area of a Fort Lauderdale gay pride parade, moved slightly forward anticipating the parade’s onset, and then accelerated unexpectedly. The truck struck two pedestrians before continuing across all lanes of traffic, ultimately crashing into a fence on the other side of the street. At the hospital shortly thereafter, the first of the two pedestrians was pronounced dead. Absolutely awful. Scary. And unquestionably tragic. 

As news broke of the fatal event, shock and outrage accompanied the reporting. Multiple media sites included the outrage — even the Associated Press, which originally reported that the driver of the truck “acted” like he was part of the parade… Who would do such an evil thing?

That sentiment was echoed in the immediate aftermath, most notably by Fort Lauderdale Mayor Dean Trantalis, who was at the staging area at the time. “This was a terrorist attack against the LGBTQ community. He came here to destroy people. This was clearly no accident… It was deliberate; it was premeditated, and it was targeted against a specific person.”

Except that it wasn’t.

It was an accident; the driver was part of the parade; and he came to participate — not to destroy anyone.

Friends, let me first encourage great grace extended to Mayor Trantalis. We can be a rather unforgiving crowd when people misspeak. True, there is a difference between misspeaking and intentionally misleading; and way too often it’s difficult to discern which is which. But no doubt the understandable shock of the moment prompted emotion which impacted the Mayor’s perspective.

Allow us to say such once more, if you will…

No doubt the shock of the moment prompted emotion which impacted perspective.

Hence, there’s no need to criticize.

There is, however, need to recognize… to recognize that emotion has the unquestionable, understandable potential to distort perspective.

And not only did emotion distort perspective in Fort Lauderdale; it prompted far more than one to think the absolute worst of another… How evil — remember?

It makes me wonder… 

Where else is this in play?

Where is it in play in me?

Where — because I feel so strongly, feel so deeply, am sad, shocked, angered, outraged, you-name-it — where do I have an inaccurate interpretation of what actually happened? … Where, because of that inaccurate interpretation, have I allowed myself to think the worst of someone else?… (… how ignorant… how awful… how evil…)

Is that happening anywhere still? Are there other areas where I have allowed my emotion to dictate what I believe to be true?

And… 

Have I remained steadfastly unwilling to be challenged in my perspective, precisely because my feelings are so strong?

On Sunday evening, learning that he was incorrect in his initial statements to the media, Mayor Trantalis shared his regret. “I regret the fact that I said it was a terrorist attack because we found out that it was not.“ 

He also added,”But I don’t regret my feelings. I don’t regret that I felt terrorized by someone who plowed through the crowd.”

I think that’s a pretty sincere, honest, even profound account…

I regret that I said something that was wrong…

I don’t regret my feelings…

But my feelings don’t make my perspective right.

That seems wise to recognize.

Respectfully…

AR

Last week when one New Jersey school board voted unanimously to remove the names of all holidays from the calendar, the reasoning one board member shared was that “if we don’t have anything on the calendar, we don’t have to have anyone [with] hurt feelings…”

Hence, in what’s considered “education,” instead of educating about the beauty of difference, the wisdom in respecting difference, and the even sweeter joy of celebrating difference, this board chose to ignore individual differences in case it’s hurtful to another.

Wouldn’t it be wiser instead of watering down reality, to teach respect of what’s different? 

Years ago when my kids were younger and I was frantically attempting to get my hands on anything that would help a semi-clueless madre get a better grasp on this parenting gig, I picked Dr. Tim Kimmel’s Raising Kids for True Greatness. It was a life saver. 

“What is your goal when it comes to raising your children?” Kimmel asks at the onset. Now let me not fuel any mindset that parents are so in control of their kids; in fact, the older I get, the more manifest the “by the grace of God I go” mantra makes emphatic sense.

But what I love about Kimmel’s insight is that he encourages the reader not to look at another’s kid as in competition with their own; the success, difference, reality of another takes nothing away from me. In other words, instead of being upset that your kid gets the lead in the school play — or your child is chosen for the select soccer team — or your teen gets the solo in the grand finale — and — mine does not, as a parent I still choose to celebrate your kid enthusiastically. 

Our differences — our realities in how life is playing out — are not something that need be a lingering source of hurt. If they are, I would hope that the mentors and authentic education encouragers in my life would gently but firmly help me learn how to deal with my perspective. I would hope they would teach me how not to find fault in another nor water down reality, but to instead, sincerely, selflessly celebrate both them and me. 

I have a son many find different. In fact, I have three. Each has distinct gifts, talents, strengths and weaknesses… each growing into the man they’re called to be. My youngest, as has been documented here, has Down syndrome. He proudly, sweetly calls it his “ability.”

And while your kid and my kid unquestionably have different skills and “abilities,” our differences don’t lessen another’s reality. My reality is not better nor worse than another. This is the way God has allowed my life to play out, and while it isn’t always easy, I give great thanks. That is my reality.

It’s part of why the Intramuralist has respectfully chuckled with the recent use in some select circles of the term “birthing people” to describe mothers. No disrespect, but I can factually tell you as a mom — even a semi-clueless one at that for a while — I did a whole heck of a lot more than physically give birth. While I understand the supposed political-correctness of the term, let me also suggest that it’s a clear watering down of reality.

What about today? 

It’s Fathers Day. I am so proud of my Dad and of the other excellent fathers in my family and the precious, admirable few who have also served in a comparable role in my life.

But as John Kass wrote in The Chicago Tribune this week, “If moms are ‘birthing persons,’ then what are dads on Father’s Day?”

Kass gets a bit tongue-in-cheek with his continued ramblings… “Americans are being bombarded with ads for gifts for that special day for fathers. Should I say ‘sperm contributors’…?”

Friends, it’s ok to call a person who/what they are. It’s ok for us to have differences. If there is disappointment in acceptance of those differences, no doubt that’s wise to wrestle with. But instead of watering reality down, let’s educate about the beauty of difference, the wisdom in respecting difference, and the even sweeter joy of celebrating difference in another.

P.S. Happy Father’s Day, dads.

Respectfully…

AR

Growing up — and maybe I wouldn’t have called him this at the time — one of my best friends was a guy named Norm… 

… a retired Army veteran, a loyal employee as Manager of Blue and White Station No. 6, Norm had to be at work by 4 a.m. most days, managing the flow of auto care and repair. After retiring, Norm couldn’t stop working; he spent 10 more years for the newly-immigrated Indianapolis Colts in Special Projects. He’d pick up new players from the airport, take cut players back, even return women’s outfits to the appropriate retail outlet when tags weren’t removed after an elegant evening. Norm always had great stories.

While Norm’s life never looked glamorously successful, he was indeed one of the most successful men I ever knew. He was deeply respected — both by Mr. Cloud at Blue and White and by the entire Irsay family, the NFL franchise owners. I’ll never forget when Norm took me with him to training camp one summer, when 300 lb. left tackle Chris Hinton scurried toward him in the cafeteria, all smiles, high-fiving his beloved “Stormin’ Norman.” There’s an autographed football from Chris still in my room to this day. He and I both were on the cherished receiving end of our “stormin” friend’s generous love, joy, and always, respect. 

Yes, Norm was one of my best friends. 47 years older than me, he got me. In fact, he and I always had an uncomplicated deal; if I ever felt need to run away from home, it was ok… as long as I ran to him.

It would be true, therefore, to say not only that “he got me,” but also, that he worked to get me. 

So much of what we witness in the world today is a lack of trying to get. We see it often with the generations clashing, not understanding one another… not working to either.

Many have studied the issue. Such as author, speaker, and Inc.com contributor Elizabeth Dukes not long ago, in just one example of what we don’t get:

“The most popular misconception Millennials harbor of Baby Boomers is that they are resistant to technology, and (considering how inundated the workplace is with technology) this makes them difficult to work with. While they do rank the lowest in adaptability, this does not mean they resist technology. In their lifetime, Boomers witnessed life-changing breakthroughs in technologies — ATMs, the internet, cell phones — that entirely altered the way we live and work. But these improvements were released at a much slower rate than the pace at which technology evolves today. The Baby Boomer issue isn’t a refusal to use technology or a lack of enthusiasm for it, but perhaps a greater need for training/on-boarding…

The most common misconception Baby Boomers have about Millennials is that they lack a strong work ethic. It’s assumed they are too dependent on technology to think for themselves or connect humanistically with the real world, which makes them lazy and difficult to work with.

In truth, Millennials struggle with challenges no other generation has yet faced, like impossibly high debt and expensive college degrees that no longer hold the same value. These challenges have altered how Millennials prioritize work and life. But the social and professional movements Millennials have inspired is proof that ‘lazy’ is not an accurate depiction. With little hope of debt freedom, Millennials chase what makes them happy instead of what makes them wealthy… They see work and life as an integrated concept and strive to make careers of their passions…”

The above is simply one perception of generational contention. Sometimes the clash is more colloquial. On social media this week, for example, I had the unfortunate pleasure of witnessing my sororal, alumni organization argue incessantly about future recruitment approaches. For far too many, it became open disrespect of the young or the old, believing entire generations to be misguided. My strong sense is when we make sweeping conclusions about entire generations, we miss what they have to offer. And yes, each generation has much to offer.

One of the three zillion things I loved about Norm — who passed away some while ago, after 66 years of marriage to his beloved B.J. — was that as said, he worked to get me. He knew we didn’t think alike. He knew there were things important to me and perspectives I held that he was nowhere close to sharing and maybe would never share. He knew he wouldn’t always understand.

But instead of sitting back, assessing the relationship as there being something wrong with one of us, he asked questions, listened intently, let me ask him anything in return, and never once judged or discounted me. And in those places where his years indeed made him wiser, there was no rebuke; he instead made sweet, uncomplicated deals.

Today one of my greatest, life-giving professional opportunities is serving on a highly talented team comprised of multiple Millennials and those in Gen Z (colloquially known as zoomers). They are the clear majority of our team, and while sure, I have much to teach them, they have so much more to teach me. Yesterday, in fact, we had an all day team building day — one we affectionately entitled “staff summer camp.”

Let me offer a hair more insight… after hours of games, play, including dodgeball with a hilarious twist and 3 hours of all-out fun, highly competitive laser tag, sprinting through warehouse sets and a challenging, outdoor obstacle field, this bit older body is fairly sore this morn. 

No doubt Norm would have been proud.

Respectfully…

AR