One of These Things is Not Like the Others

Memes, almost by  definition, are simplistic and misleading.

In the wake of a restaurant’s request to Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders that she leave, (false) comparative memes have popped up: the (CO) baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding or the (WA) florist who refused another couple flowers; even more of a stretch, the refusal of restaurants to serve blacks prior to passage of the Civil Rights Act.

Here’s the difference. Refusing to serve or do business with any individual is always that business owner’s right (it must be nice to be able to turn away business). But to do it based on the accident of a person’s birth, by virtue of race or sexual orientation, is discrimination by definition because it is not a decision about an individual, but a group, and not based on the actions (or even attitudes) of a particular person.

Ms. Sanders chooses to work for an administration that many people find abhorrent. This is her choice, as is the business owner’s (and its employees) to protest the policies of the Trump White House, a White House of which she is the face (at least as much as President Trump is willing to share the limelight for anything). That choice triggered the business owner’s choice.

Whether that turns out to be a sound economic decision or not remains to be seen. This particular protest, and others it may inspire, strike me as meaningless challenges that will accomplish nothing except to further fuel the outrage and divisions that are already growing the chasm between citizens. Unless the energy of outrage can be channeled into organized action, it is really little more than self-gratification. So feel free to vent your own outrage with prank calls, fake reviews, etc. if you have nothing better to do with your time. For me, I have now spent more time on this event than it probably deserves.

As counterproductive as the owner’s action may turn out to be, it does not compare to a civil rights violation, as were the segregation laws and policies and discrimination against gays. Business owners can refuse service to any individual for virtually any reason (including “You were mean to me in high school!”), but only as long as it is not based on that individual’s membership in a protected class of people. By the way, except for the District of Columbia, party affiliation is not protected.*

* I do not dispute for a minute that similar outrage (and quite possibly charges of racism) would have been generated in the opposite direction had a member of President Obama’s staff been treated in like manner. That, too, would have been counterproductive. Hypocrisy is a two-way street with both red and blue cars in more or less equal numbers. Secretary Sanders deserves credit for handling herself with grace and class under the circumstances. More than can be said about her boss's tweet rant reaction.

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.

Collusion Confusion & The Partisan Divide

President Trump repeatedly tweets and claims that he is not guilty of collusion. It may come as a surprise that I absolutely concur, although it’s neither a compliment nor an endorsement; Donald J. Trump is not capable of collusion (as far as I know, it is not even one of the many words he has misspelled).

Collusion requires listening skills; collusion requires the ability to work with others; collusion requires discretion and self-discipline; collusion requires loyalty and commitment to a common goal; collusion requires consistency. None of those attributes are hallmarks of the current president. His minions, of course, are, perhaps, another story.

Beyond that, I don’t think the Russians really cared who won the 2016 election. (If you think HRC was in their pocket but Trump is independent, or vice versa, your “stink test” detector might need a new battery.) There were advantages and disadvantages for Vladimir Putin to both candidates. No, what Putin wanted was exactly what he got, a divided nation with citizens so busy fighting amongst ourselves that Russian objectives, prime among them restoring Russia to global player and superpower status, could be achieved with a minimum of American interference. Russian trolls continue working to perpetuate those divisions.

“We have met the enemy and he is us,” said Pogo, so far back in the day that few of you reading this even get the reference.

Getting it, however, is less important than its truth. Are you part of the problem that is our toxic, tribal political atmosphere? If you’re posting or even sharing partisan memes, my answer is, “Yes.” If you’re railing and ranting against either liberals or conservatives, as if one group has a monopoly on truth or virtue, my answer is, “Yes.” If you’re pointing fingers (not just the middle one) or shaking fists at one group or another, religious or political or racial, if you’re generalizing and stereotyping, my answer is, “Yes.” If you believe that your team is good or that the “other” team is evil, my answer is, “Yes.” Political beliefs do not qualify their adherents as either saintly or ungodly.

Rabid partisans, almost by definition, are not prone to self-examination. Asking yourself, “What if I’m wrong?” before jumping in or sharing vitriol at least has the potential of mitigating some of the anger so prevalent on social media, the anger that continues to drive that wedge between us even deeper into our national soul. Of course, that means we have to admit such a possibility. But I’m guessing if you won’t, or can’t, admit that maybe, just maybe, you could be wrong (and that an opposing point of view might have value), you probably never started reading this in the first place.   

Incompatible

When I was a college freshman I took a vocational test (Strong Interest Inventory) that offered a score of 0-60 or 70 on your compatibility for certain professions. Although it turns out that teaching was a perfect fit for me (maybe not you, my student, but me, at least), I don’t recall that career score as being spectacularly high. What I do recall is that I was the only one of my friends with a NEGATIVE (below 0!) score on not one, but three potential careers. Notably leading the pack: police officer. (The other two were, not surprisingly to those who know me, minister and industrial arts teacher.)

One of the reasons I have so much respect for police officers is that I know full well it is a job I could never do, even poorly, much less at all. We may not share many personality traits, but what teachers and police do share is an under-appreciated, under-compensated, highly demanding job (that too many critics think they can do). Policing and protection take a certain personality type (and skills). And while there is no such thing as a typical teacher (or police officer, for that matter), I would suggest that in general the people best suited for teaching are poorly suited for policing, and vice versa. When I think back on the many teachers I have known, both as a professional and a student, the ones who seemed most focused on crowd, sorry, classroom, control often were the least inspiring in the classroom.

Which brings me to my main point, if you haven’t already guessed: you generally don’t want men and women best suited for policing teaching your children – it’s a poor fit. It may be well-intentioned, but “training” and arming teachers is a spectacularly bad idea; it has gained traction only out of a desperate sense of “We have to do something (but not anything that might interfere with our ability to arm ourselves with high capacity magazine weapons)!”

We all like to think we’d respond like a hero under fire, but the Parkland shooting shows that isn’t true, even for those armed and trained to respond. There’s a lot of macho bravado in this country (we’re not alone there, of course), and I enjoy those books and movies as much as the next person, but Stephen Crane (Red Badge of Courage) gave a more realistic portrayal. I'm guessing that most military veterans who have come under fire on our behalf (thank you for that) can provide examples of fellow soldiers who, shall we say, "blinked" under that kind of pressure.

And I am not criticizing them, not even the armed deputies who stayed outside the school while the shooter went on his rampage – disappointing, yes, but they wanted to go home to their families, too. I’d like to think I’d be like the teachers in school shootings who shielded their students and forfeited their lives in the process, but what I’d like to think and what I would really do is a scenario I hope I never have to encounter. However, as I head back for one more sub gig at Lindbergh HS in May, what I really hope is that as a country we have started to move toward actions that make such a life or death decision less likely. But pretending that training and arming teachers will do that is nothing more than a convenient fiction.

Remember the Law of Unintended Consequences as you ask yourself, “What could possibly go wrong?” Feel free to start the list below.