Revisionist History: No Shades of Gray Here

 

I’m generally a “shades of gray” kind of guy. Very little is black or white for me, because, as Jimmy Buffett sings it, life is “simply complicated.” But not always and not everything.

For example, I’d prefer to be far less familiar with child and sexual abuse than I am. I’d prefer to know less, but about five decades in education, as well as some personal friendships, have made that impossible. What I don’t know, however, is anyone, ANYONE, who tries to defend child abuse, in any of its forms. No one says, “Well, it wasn’t that bad.” No one says child abuse was just “kind of” or “mostly” evil, or that it’s not so bad because it’s so common. What constitutes abuse may generate some gray area discussions, but once we’ve reached agreement that someone is/was the victim of abuse, no one, other than a defense lawyer, attempts to discount the life-long damage or minimize the evil. 

Or Nazis. There is no gray area with Nazis, even if they dress it up with a “Neo” prefix, or try to disguise it as “alt right.” Evil, pure evil. Indefensible.

Slavery is similar. The (peculiar) institution of chattel slavery in the United States was evil, pure black, no shades of gray. Its development, growth, spread, all are certainly subject to analysis and explanation – but not justification. It.Was.Evil.  It.Was.Wrong.  It.Was.Ugly.  And there is no excuse for it having hung on in this country as long as it did. Nor is there any excuse for the treasonous war that attempted to not only prolong it but expand its reach. It needs to be taught as such.

That many slaves endured, that some managed to develop the survival and other skills that allowed them to overcome such evil, to even achieve, changes nothing. Florida and other states are attempting to minimize the long and short term damage done to men and women who were seen as less than human, as less than equal persons, based solely on the color of their skin.

Don’t believe me? Think I’m over-reacting? See the annotated standards below from Florida’s state-mandated curriculum, referenced by cartoon art above:

Florida’s State Academic Standards; African American History   

• SS.912.AA.1.1 – Prior to any lesson on American slavery, Florida kids will learn about African slavery, Asian slavery, Muslim slavery, Native American slavery, Arabian slavery and more, just so we’re all clear that everybody ELSE was doin’ it, OKAY?! And it would be fair if we didn’t get our turn.
• SS.68.AA.2.3 — “Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.” This one has gotten the most blowback. The FL Ed. Dept. then offered “proof” of their “slavery with benefits” theory, providing the names of 16 slaves who benefitted from mad job skills they picked up during their unpaid lifetime internships. Unfortunately, of these 16, 9 were not even slaves, 9 had their line of work misidentified (including 2 accomplished inventors identified as blacksmiths, a guy who founded a shipping company identified as a shoemaker, etc.), and at least one was born after emancipation. And one was the free white sister of George Washington.
• SS.5.AA.1 — Slavery shouldn’t be a big Debbie Downer buzzkill, so the standards look for slavery’s silver linings, such as how escaping slave catchers, dogs and guns taught slaves resilience.
• SS.912.AA.3.6 — “Instruction includes acts of violence perpetrated against AND BY African Americans but is not limited to 1906 Atlanta Race Riot, 1919 Washington, D.C. Race Riot, 1920 Ocoee Massacre, 1921 Tulsa Massacre and the 1923 Rosewood Massacre.”✬

Nothing justifies an evil institution; anything, or anyone, endeavoring to discount, minimize, or whitewash slavery is perpetuating that same evil, and must be opposed with every fiber of our being.

✬ Credit Kirk Anderson for the research and cartoon.

Random Observations: COVID-19 & Social Media

• Yes, the media “awfulizes” the news. That, in and of itself, is also not news and has been around since even before the yellow journalism of Hearst and Pulitzer over a century ago. And if you pretend that Fox, Breitbart, NewsMax and other right-wing outlets don’t do the same thing as the so-called MSM, then we’re both wasting our time here.

• While Dr. Drew Pinsky is a media personality MD, his specialty is opioid treatment, not infectious disease. Which is why, though I’m a professional, certified, accredited (albeit retired) teacher, I’d urge you not to put a whole lot of stock in my opinions about teaching mathematics or science. Neither am I holding my breath waiting for Dr. Oz to weigh in on this.

• There’s a difference between mortality rates and deaths. You have to do the math, though. A 2% mortality rate, which I’ve seen dismissed as no big deal by some, is 40 times the rate of regular flu (.05%). The death numbers are smaller because the number infected is smaller – so far.

• 2% means 2 out of every 100. I’ve seen dismissive posts about that number. “No big deal” unless it’s someone you care about who’s infected. Because early statistics can skew toward the severe, even if it’s 1% (and it Italy it’s apparently climbing toward double digits), if that one (1) is your parent or grandparent or someone else you love….

• Neither the Democrat Party nor President Trump is responsible for this outbreak; however, both ARE responsible for helping our country navigate its way through what must be now recognized as a crisis. I also do think a monotonal litany of anti-science, anti-intellectual tweets and statements is, and has not been, helpful, either specifically in this case or in general.

If Life Was Fair (I'd be Rich & Have Hair)

The SAT will be adding an “adversity score” algorithm in an attempt to level the playing field for disadvantaged students. In these contentious times, this has, shockingly, generated a bit of controversy. 

I don’t pretend to know if an “adversity score”  is a good idea or bad idea. I give credit to the Educational Testing Service (ETS) for having (what passes for) its heart in the right place, for recognizing the inherent advantages of children from the affluent classes. ETS, of course, is also not divulging any of the details of its proprietary algorithm. While I don’t find fault with that decision, I also don’t trust them to make it work like it’s supposed to.

The program has been criticized from both poles, so maybe it’s not all bad. The bribery scandal that allegedly shocked the nation (Were you shocked? Was it really news that children of the wealthy had advantages not available to mere mortals?) was just an evolution. Large “donations” have been buying acceptance letters to prestigious schools for decades; we need look no further than our government. The main difference here was the attempt to make the process less obvious. You want more evidence? How about the fact that you can now buy an entry for your child if (s)he doesn’t actually win a ticket to the national spelling bee? ($1500 plus your travel and lodging expenses)

I’m not so naïve as to believe that adding one variable to the formula will change much, certainly not in the big picture. If you can pick your parents, all other things being equal, money will open more doors. I doubt that the number of kids, nationwide, who get a small bump to a (maybe more prestigious, not necessarily more appropriate*) particular school will be significant. If those few that do benefit bump an advantaged kid to a less prestigious, but undoubtedly still high quality, school, well, I doubt that will severely handicap the affluent kid.

In theory, though, this provides information to the admissions counselors (process) that may (slightly) change the perspective of the decision makers. Just knowing that an “adversity score” has been added may open eyes if not doors. Of course, because the Law of Unintended Consequences will not be denied, it might also unfairly discount the efforts of an applicant who would have received consideration outside of some arcane formula.

I’m skeptical that we can achieve fairness in the admissions process (or much of anything else, for that matter). That doesn’t mean, however, that we shouldn’t try to find ways to, if not actually level the playing field, at least remove some of the landmines. The effort and intent alone are worthwhile reminders that some of us start life’s marathon with unshared advantages that give us a head start.

* I was accepted at, and matriculated to, an allegedly prestigious college, with more graduates (per capita) than Harvard or Yale listed in Who’s Who in America, thanks in part to the fact that standardized tests were rigged in favor of white middle class (and above) kids (should there have been a “lack of adversity” factor?). Ivies, or Little Ivies, are not necessarily the best fit for kids from, shall we way, more common backgrounds. That was certainly the case for Hamilton (named for Alex while he was still alive) College and me. Mind you, my failure there was on me (does it make me exceptional, by comparison, to accept actual responsibility for that?), my immaturity, the cultural and socio-economic disparity between me and many of my classmates, my inflated opinion of my level of sophistication, plus multiple other factors obvious in hindsight.  Some of those would probably have played out no matter where I attended, but the point is, I used the wrong criteria (prestige high among them) to make my decision. But it all worked out, for me, at least, and I recognize my outcome was based, at least in part, on the advantages I had starting out.

July 4 and The Importance of History

I have neither the intellectual rigor nor academic credentials to claim the label “historian,” or really even “history buff.” Still, I do know stuff, a lot of it history from teaching and preparing to teach various courses. Maybe I can claim “history dilettante,” which kind of fits my approach to so many things.

Nevertheless, on the 4^th of July, I am disturbed by the number of people willing to ignore history, the number of people willing pretend history doesn’t matter, the number of people willing to twist history to fit their world view and agenda.

This holiday in particular seems to inspire people.

Conservatives proudly wave their flags and tout their beliefs, failing to recognize that the history of conservatism is the story of people swimming against the tide. In their time, conservatives opposed declaring independence and the American Revolution (Tories), ratifying the Constitution (anti-Federalists), abolition, passage and enforcement of the Civil War Amendments, women suffrage, organizational rights for workers, social security, social integration and Brown v. Board, the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, civil rights protections for all people…. Change is scary and conservatives play an important role in making people slow down before adopting ill-conceived (even if usually well-intentioned) proposals without considering the inviolable Law of Unintended Consequences. But conservatives have consistently been on the wrong side of history. You can’t truly own your political philosophy without also owning its historical roots.

When you don’t know your history, you adopt slogans like “America First” without knowing its provenance. The slogan was used by the Ku Klux Klan in marches as early as the 1920s and as late as David Duke in 2016.

It was also used as an argument by Woodrow Wilson to keep us out of World War I and opponents of the League of Nations after that war. It was resurrected by Nazi sympathizers, anti-Semites, and isolationists, including Charles Lindbergh, during the 1930s to try to keep us out of World War II, or from even helping our (eventual) allies, and the short-lived AFC (America First Committee), formed in opposition to FDR in 1940, but disbanded for obvious reasons after Pearl Harbor. Pat Buchanan (who notoriously called WW II “an unnecessary war”) used it in his run for office in 2000 on the Reform Party ticket. Do you know who also tried to get the Reform Party nomination in 2000? Donald Trump (who called Buchanan a “Nazi-lover”). Although his campaign style may be consistent, apparently he forgot the origins of his now favorite slogan.

   And then there’s the just plain “bad” history. Although I reject that the Civil War, at its core, was about anything other than preserving and expanding slavery, I recognize the deep roots of the “lost cause” school. I also “know” that its goal was to transform sedition into nobility, but understand why others might reject that view. Today, however, someone said slavery was incidental and the true cause was taxes. Fortunately for my self-esteem, I do not know and did not teach this person; and my goal here is not to create a lesson on the cause(s) of the Civil War. I’ll just end with what I was tempted to say, the variously (and apparently often incorrectly) attributed quote, “It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool than to talk and remove all doubt of it.” I obviously do not always heed my own advice. 

Happy July 4, 2018.

Zero Tolerance for Zero Tolerance

Zero Tolerance implies a black and white solution for a problem shaded in variations of grey. It is currently being used by the Trump administration to the (worldwide*) problem of immigration, but this latest incarnation has been applied before to many problems with limited success, at least in part because it is almost always trumped (no pun intended) by the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Zero tolerance has been used to try to make schools safer, with minimal, at best, (perhaps even counterproductive) results. ¹ (Here’s an irony: many of those favoring zero tolerance re: immigration oppose zero-tolerance re: guns in schools, and vice versa.)

Companies are starting to re-think their zero tolerance policies toward employee drug use and testing as they are increasingly struggling to fill vacancies in a time of low unemployment. ²

I’m guessing very few of us want a zero-tolerance enforcement by police officers when we get pulled over on a minor traffic violation.

How many of us raised our children with a zero-tolerance approach? How did that work out for you when you tried?

How many of your best teachers had a zero-tolerance policy (s)he fanatically enforced? What was your opinion of those teachers who never made exceptions for anyone or anything? Be honest.

It seems to me that we all recognize the limitations of zero tolerance, except perhaps when it doesn’t seem to impact us personally.

    It’s a complex world and while laser sharp black and white rules might look attractively clean and simple, under closer examination, even those are pixilated. (Also see Rule #42: Most rules written in crisp, dark black print on starkly white paper may be clear but are also fragile and easily broken. )

Jimmy Buffet got it right when he sang, Simply Complicated.

* Immigration is a worldwide problem, replete with shades of gray. It is, in fact, the one issue where citizens we have met from all corners of the globe** agree is problematical for their country. Problematical, but not the same problem. Canadian concerns are not English concerns are not Swiss concerns are not Aussie concerns are not Kiwi concerns are not American concerns. You get the idea. We share the issue in general, but not the problems it generates, and certainly not the solutions required.

¹ The [APA] task force reviewed 10 years of research on the effects of zero tolerance policies in middle and secondary schools and concluded that such policies not only fail to make schools safe or more effective in handling student behavior, they can actually increase the instances of problem behavior and dropout rates.

The research also showed that zero tolerance policies failed to increase the consistency of discipline across student groups and failed to decrease uneven enforcement of punishment across racial lines.)

²  Desperate to fill open positions, some employers are beginning to soften zero-tolerance drug policies, particularly for jobs where safety is not an essential function.

Low unemployment and increasing use of illegal drugs are narrowing the pool of qualified workers in many regions and industries. State laws allowing medical and recreational use of marijuana are complicating recruiters' efforts to find drug-free employees, as is the continued abuse of prescription opioids. [SHRM]

** Now there’s an expression that makes no sense, but I decided to use the cliché anyway.