The Way It 'Spozed To Be

Probably the most influential book of my (teaching) career was James Herndon’s (1968) The Way It Spozed To Be, the memoir of a well-intentioned idealist’s early experience teaching in the inner city. The title stems from a student telling him he wasn’t doing things the way a teacher was “spozed” to. Fast forward about 40 iconoclastic years, when, in my first year at Schechter, I had a student say, shaking her head in wonderment, “We’ve never had a teacher like you before, Mr. Berndt.” I took it as a compliment, because, by that point in my career, I pretty much taught the way that felt right, for me.

Over the course of those 4+ decades, I’m sure I left a variety of people, including at least some teachers and most administrators, shaking their heads because I didn’t do things the way I was “spozed” to. For the most part, however, I think the way I taught worked and my kids “got” what I was trying to do. One of the reasons I called it quits was because I no longer had the energy to resist the pressure, to conform, or to pretend to do things the way others thought I was “spozed” to.

But this is not a self-congratulatory paean. Rather, I’d like to encourage people to think about the problems they create for themselves spending so much time and effort doing what they’re “spozed” to, being who they’re “spozed” to, or, worse, conforming to what they THINK they’re “spozed” to be/do, molding themselves into their perception of someone else’s concept of the way it “spozed” to be. Often times, even in unimportant areas, people work at liking what they’re “spozed” to like; they’ll plow through books, watch TV, listen to music, or sit through movies they don’t even like, just because someone has asserted, “This is good.”

Rule #42 (coming in Version 3.5): “Just because a critic (or ten) says it’s ‘good’ doesn’t mean I have to like it.” Even worse, people stay in organizations or relationships that are problematical, not because they meet any real physical, personal, or psychological needs, but because that’s what they’re “spozed” to do, because that’s what’s expected. Too often, doing what we’re “spozed” to means not being true to ourselves, and if we’re not being true to ourselves, how can we live a satisfying life?

We can’t. I’m not arguing for existential anarchy, for everyone making up their own societal rules, although I admit that was essentially my approach to life, albeit within a moral framework that (I believe) would achieve a consensus for acceptable social norms in most circles. What I am saying is that most of the stress in my life came from trying to conform outside of my personal parameters. The actions that I actually took outside those norms didn’t create nearly as much stress as those I delayed taking (or failed to take at all) because I feared they might have defined me as aberrant in the realm of “spozed to.”

I also understand, and regret, that economic realities enforce a certain level of conformity on all of us, that appearance frequently trumps reality in terms of job performance.  There are, of course, two levels to this that occasionally interconnect: physical appearance and life approach, although the former is  (for better or worse, depending on your POV) diminishing, but not disappearing, in importance. The latter also seems to be abating as most of us work at becoming less judgmental about what are really superficialities.

While I, too, certainly had to deal with those realities from time to time, I was lucky. Back in the day, schools still recognized (granted, sometimes grudgingly) teachers’ professional autonomy; I never dreaded going to work (even during Spirit Week). I generally had fun and hoped that my students would enjoy the ride with me. The best teachers I knew taught their personalities, taught authentically. They defined, for themselves, “the way it spozed to be.” They, like James Herndon, though I knew him only through his books, were my role models.

Life is hard enough without having to shape-shift, to be someone you’re not, just because there’s an expectation in some quarters of how things are “spozed” to be. My advice: Don’t ignore the issue of “spozed” to be; instead, just be who YOU are “spozed” to be.

Mind Your (Miss) Manners

If you have a minute, please peruse the following….

Judith Martin (aka Miss Manners and now collaborating with her son and daughter) writes a regular column on manners and etiquette.

Now I can’t match the multitude of knives, forks, and spoons to their specific uses or placement on a properly set table. However, neither do I think many of my friends would notice the difference, except, perhaps, with confusion, anyway. I do know that red wine goes in a bigger glass than white, but, to be honest, my friends will pretty much drink their wine out of anything, even plastic cups, if they’re desperate.

But manners and etiquette are about so much more than superficialities, and I am of the Pollyannaist opinion that most of our country’s problems, if not the world’s, could be solved if we all concentrated on being polite and avoiding rude behavior.

It seems to me that manners, at their core, are about treating people with respect. Without exception, every major (and even those less than major) religion has some variation of that philosophy as a core belief. Be nice, be kind, treat others as you would like to be treated. 

So it disturbs me to see what I consider an increasing trend towards rudeness. (Feel free to insert one of the multitude of examples available here.) When we are inconsiderate and self-centered we add acceleration and heft to a snowball that threatens an avalanche with the potential to destroy us all. Rudeness is essentially selfishness, caring only about yourself. 

Lying, cheating, stealing, bullying, taking advantage, intimidating -- just different ways of being selfish, deciding that no one is more important than you, that no one’s needs supercede your own.

Most important, the truly civil are that way regardless of the actions of others. Contrary to the NRA’s beliefs, truly polite people do not depend on guns to create a mannered society. Neither do they try to justify rudeness as a response to someone else’s discourtesy; no, they just always act politely, even in the face of churlishness. What a wonderful world if we all were sincerely mannerly and polite, if we responded to disrespect with (unearned) respect.

Thank you for your time.

On MLK-Day: Thoughts on Racism

Caveat: I’ve never been this nervous about anything written here before. What follows is intended only as a conversation starter, but the topic is too important to NOT talk about and, well, you’ll see what I mean.

    Everyone’s a Little Bit Racist is my favorite song from a favorite musical, Avenue Q (think Sesame Street on illegal steroids). I am wading into these waters, here on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday holiday, with great trepidation, hoping I haven’t miscalculated on my risk-reward analysis. Like most white people (especially, at least, of my generation), racism is topic that makes me uncomfortable, especially in a group of mixed diversity. Just because I don’t want to be racist doesn’t mean I’ve been 100% successful in shedding the pervasive, if sub-surface, racism with which I was raised. 

I certainly hope I have, but how can I be sure? No, I don’t want to be racist, not ever. Ironically, what I don’t want even more, however, is to be perceived as racist. Why is that ironic? Because if we recognize that, as the song says, we’re all a little bit racist, then we remain silent rather than even entering the conversation for fear of inadvertently revealing that abhorrent trait in ourselves. That silence inhibits the vital national dialogue our society needs to have about a problem that, while diminished from the past, still clearly exists. Our fear of having these difficult discussions actually sustains the societal poison that is racism.

I think we, all of us, black, white, and every shade in between, need to overcome our fear and start having these conversations. We need to give each other credit for good faith, for not wanting to be racist, and to forgive, in advance, the vestiges that may reveal themselves as we talk, openly and honestly, without guilt for a past we didn’t create, but with responsibility for a future still in the making. I hope my short article serves as a simple flagstone on the path to making Dr. King’s (and, I’d like to think, your and my) dream a reality, and helps honor his legacy.

This represents a first baby-step contribution. For anyone who wishes to continue the walk with me, my gate is open.

The above started as an introduction to a much longer, and as yet unfinished, piece that was threatening to become a memoir. My students know that once I get rolling I have trouble putting on the brakes (or sometimes looking like a bumper car with a broken steering wheel). I am not afraid of writing something that long, but I kind of doubt that this forum lends itself to many actually reading it!

KSDK -- Reporting News or Creating News?

For out-of-towners and cave dwellers, a TV news team (KSDK-NBC in St. Louis) planned a story on school security. Given that school shootings have almost become a growth industry, the topic is absolutely relevant. I had a great conversation with a former student who is now a principal (in a non-affected school), who asked if the job of a journalist is to report the news or make the news.

Certainly KSDK’s approach to this story did some of both. They attempted to gain access to five different schools, succeeding once (Kirkwood High School). According to their own and other reports, not once did the reporter ever identify himself as a reporter, even when the school “passed” their test. In the case of KHS, the “hidden camera equipped” reporter never identified himself, even after the school had “failed.” (And fail it did, without question.)

When KHS called the number he had given, his voice mail claimed he was a KSDK reporter (I could put that as my VM-message, too; well, I might have to have my granddaughter do it for me, but you get the point), but he failed to return the school’s follow-up calls or respond to their messages, eventually resulting in a near hour-long lockdown and unnecessary alarm and concern for students, staff and parents (to saw nothing of lost instruction). Imagine getting this text from your son or daughter…. Parents have every right to be outraged with the station (and upset with the school).

Had the station truly been interested in reporting the news and not generating “gotcha” publicity for their news promos, had it truly been interested in improving school safety, the reporter, immediately after the school had “failed,” could have contacted the school, identified himself as a reporter, and followed up with school authorities about their lack of security. That would have been a real and worthwhile story, real and worthwhile reporting, and avoided generating its own story. At the very least he could have responded to his damn messages.

Here’s my big issue. I am 100% certain KSDK wanted a school to fail; otherwise, they have no story. “New at 6 – School Security Plans Working.” But once they had generated the story and promos, they did nothing to follow up, except to defend their approach and give a non-apology apology – “We never intended to create this problem.” I’m sure that’s true; I’m almost equally sure they never considered, or cared about, the possible consequences.

Kirkwood is apparently reviewing its procedures, which, I’m sure, will result in more locked doors and less freedom. I have trouble arguing with that, admitting that it’s a better alternative than making the news for hosting a massacre. Still, while I do miss the times when schools were open and welcoming, I can’t deny that train left the station a long time ago, a sad but necessary fact of life, even as it makes me sad to have to get “buzzed in” to Becca’s school or my previous places of employment.

Perhaps KSDK deserves some credit if Kirkwood becomes safer because of the station’s need to generate headlines and ratings, but it also needs to take responsibility for creating stress on innocent students, parents, and teachers (the administration deserves whatever stress it’s feeling) where none was necessary. All it took was to think about someone or something besides the story.

Pick Your Poison: Politics or Religion

Well, the holiday season is (finally?) over and most of us have survived our time with our families, often because either we intentionally limited the time spent with our less enlightened brethren and sistren or we steadfastly adhered to the old axiom about avoiding conversations centered around politics or religion. For many of us that’s not an easy task.

I can only talk about sports so long (and once you get past baseball and softball I admit to blissful ignorance, for the most part); then, everything (even entertainment like books, movies and television) eventually gets sucked into the vortex of politics, like water draining from a tub. Besides, I LIKE talking about politics (not arguing, but talking, discussing, even listening). Unfortunately, there’s a lot of “belief superiority” in my family, with generally a hard right bias. I like to think I’m a left-leaning centrist, but that puts me in the crosshairs on most issues in my family.(My family might disagree with that self-assessment, but they’re obviously wrong!)

If there’s one thing I like talking about more than politics, though, it’s religion. Well, I would like talking about religion, because religions and religious beliefs are fascinating (to me), but those are topics people avoid like, well, a plague of locusts, for example. It’s certainly not a topic my family tends to broach, for a variety of reasons, I suppose, and if there’s a topic more treacherous among friends, I don’t know what it is, and I have few enough friends as it is!

I’d like to suggest that it’s really easy to engage these topics as long as no one takes a counter view personally. I really would like to suggest that. Unfortunately, deeply held religious and political beliefs are, by definition, personal, often intensely so. How can you not take personally a pointed question or criticism, either implicit or explicit, of something you believe down deep in your soul? Creating more problems is that sarcasm is a dominant genetic trait in my family; difficult to not take that personally! In discussions with “certaintists” of any stripe, even an ambiguous or non-committal position represents a threat to their particular world-views.

 Studies have shown that those who are most certain of their beliefs are also prone to seeing those who stray from orthodoxy as not just wrong but dangerous or even evil, which explains the bitter partisan divide not just in Congress but in the country. And that brings us full circle to why the old axiom remains the best defense for peaceful meetings of divided families.

Holiday Movie Reviews -- 3 for 3

Yet another snow day or just looking for a good movie?

We probably saw more movies in the last four weeks than we have in the last four months (well, no probably about it; maybe more than in the last 8 months). Three winners in a row is definitely a record (and that doesn’t count Frozen, which we saw with Becca in 3-D -- the three could also have stood for how many people were in the theater, including us, or Hunger Games 2, again, the number standing for how many people were in the theater, including us; both of them were good, as well). 

So, in reverse order, here are three quick reviews of non-blockbuster films which we felt were all worthy of our time and money:

 The Book Thief -- I read the book and enjoyed it (well, enjoyed might be a stretch for a (sort of) Holocaust book narrated by Death) and wanted to see the movie. I didn’t think the book was an easy read, but I think it helps to have read it if you’re going to see the movie. I guess it’s not really a Holocaust book, but it is set in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust plays an important role. Geoffrey Rush is (as always) great and Sophie Nélisse, who plays the heroine, Liesel, is also spectacular. The relationship (from the book) between Liesel and her only friend, Rudy (Nico Liersch), gets short-changed, I think. Actually, I thinkalmost  all the relationships get a little short-changed, but that’s common in book to film transitions. In short, good movie, better book (hardly a unique assessment). Still, a look at the war from the POV of German non-combatants makes it unique.

Saving Mr. Banks -- I struggled briefly in the middle with this movie about Walt Disney’s (Tom Hanks) courtship of P. L. Travers (Emma Thompson) to secure the rights to make Mary Poppins, in part because Thompson was so good that I found her tiresome and unlikable. I get that Travers had lots of baggage (Colin Farrell does a good job as her father, in flashbacks), but who wants to watch people lug around their baggage all the time? I also think (because this is a Disney studio release) that Walt Disney is, if not sanitized, at least portrayed in the best possible light, and Hanks is always good. Still, by the end, I was genuinely touched and glad we went to see it. I think Carolyn liked it even more than I did. Definitely worth your time and worthy of the award nominations coming its way (or already arrived).

Philomena -- The best of these three good movies. We tried to see it New Year’s Eve but it sold out just as we reached the ticket sales register. Judy Dench stuns (well, can Dench really stun you any more with a performance?) as an almost-70 Irish woman on a quest to find the son taken away from her and sold by the nuns a couple or so years after the unmarried teenager gave birth at their convent. Caveat: this is probably not a movie for big fans of the Catholic Church. As a recovering Catholic,* however, I had no problem with it. Steve Cougan (he also directed and co-wrote) plays a disgraced former PR flak for British Prime Minister John Major. Yes, this film is based on actual an actual story, and the “lost” son was a real person who served in both the Bush and Reagan administrations. Philomena still lives, and Dench creates a fascinating character of depth and complexity. It’s an indie film, and so far the only place you can see it is at Frontenac. (I’d love to see indie films get exposure at venues that could show them off better, although we did see The Book Thief at a “real” theater.) Oh, and if you want to eat at The Canyon Café before or after, make a reservation. With or without dinner, Philomena is outstanding.

 * Not my expression, just one I borrowed. Thanks MAM.

Fading Facebook??

It’s been interesting to watch the evolution of Facebook and its demographic. It may have originally been designed for the young and as a competitor for MySpace, but wherever it’s really aiming, that’s not the target it hits now, at least as near as I can tell. Facebook seems almost as likely to appeal to someone in danger of a broken hip as it is to someone who actually is hip.

It appears to me, although I admit I’m only truly aware of my own FB-Friends, most of whom are former students (now adults and peers), plus colleagues and relatives, that FB is most popular among adults, and not exactly young adults at that. I’m seeing fewer of the embarrassing quotes or pictures that tend to be the hallmark of the immature. I do see, and enjoy, travel pictures, kid and grandkid pictures, celebrations, announcements, wry observations, etc.*

The young have moved on as their elders have moved in (kind of the opposite of modern society, where the young move (back) in, keeping their elders from moving on, but that’s a column for another day, and not a problem I personally have). They are more likely to be found on SnapChat, Tumblr, Twitter or something even cooler (no doubt an uncool expression, but MY target audience understands) I haven’t heard of yet. (I’ll get caught up during softball season.)

To tell you the truth, I like it this way. Facebook may have gotten grayer, but, for me at least, it’s become more interesting and a way for a less than social being like myself to stay connected with people I’m interested in but would have lost contact with, barring a random encounter at a store or mall. Whether that’s a viable business model or not, I don’t know (although it IS scary how accurately the ads reflect my product searches), but I didn’t get in on the IPO anyway.

* FB is also the only way I can follow my former Mirowitz students and I’m thankful for that, as well.