Our competitiveness as a nation in coming decades will be determined not only by our financial accounts but also by our intellectual accounts. In that respect, we’re at a disadvantage, particularly vis-à-vis East Asia with its focus on education.
From Singapore to Japan, politicians pretend to be smarter and better- educated than they actually are, because intellect is an asset at the polls. In the United States, almost alone among developed countries, politicians pretend to be less worldly and erudite than they are (Bill Clinton was masterful at hiding a brilliant mind behind folksy Arkansas sayings about pigs).
Alas, when a politician has the double disadvantage of obvious intelligence and an elite education and then on top of that tries to educate the public on a complex issue — as Al Gore did about climate change — then that candidate is derided as arrogant and out of touch.
The dumbing-down of discourse has been particularly striking since the 1970s. Think of the devolution of the emblematic conservative voice from William Buckley to Bill O’Reilly. It’s enough to make one doubt Darwin.
There’s no simple solution, but the complex and incomplete solution is a greater emphasis on education at every level. And maybe, just maybe, this cycle has run its course, for the last seven years perhaps have discredited the anti-intellectualism movement. President Bush, after all, is the movement’s epitome — and its fruit.
--Nicholas Kristof
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Thunderstruck
Much of the time, blacks have a pretty good sense of what whites think, but whites are oblivious to common black perspectives.
What’s happening, I think, is that the Obama campaign has led many white Americans to listen in for the first time to some of the black conversation — and they are thunderstruck.
--Nicholas Kristof
What’s happening, I think, is that the Obama campaign has led many white Americans to listen in for the first time to some of the black conversation — and they are thunderstruck.
--Nicholas Kristof
Friday, March 14, 2008
Power
Society dictates how power is distributed. Institutions and ideologies determine who has privilege to be dominant and who must defer. Some persons are given great power to make choices for themselves and other people and are protected from the consequences of their choices.... Religion serves to define the nature of power and its legitimate uses. Religious leaders must choose whether to collude with the dominant culture as sanctioning agents of abusive power or to be prophetic critics of the way power is distributed and defined.
--James Newton Poling
--James Newton Poling
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Do Good
What shalt thou do? ... Do good. Do all the good thou canst. Let thy plenty supply thy neighbor’s wants; and thou wilt never want something to do. Canst thou find none that need the necessaries of life, that are pinched with cold or hunger; none that have not raiment to put on, or a place where to lay their head; none that are wasted with pining sickness; none that are languishing in prison? If you duly considered our Lord’s words, "The poor have you always with you," you would no more ask, "What shall I do?"
--John Wesley
--John Wesley
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Sharing the Pain
by Bob Herbert
Now that the economic crunch is reaching those near the top of the pyramid, there is finally a sense that the U.S. is facing a real crisis.
Forget about a soft landing. The stock markets continue to tumble. The dollar has weakened. The subprime mortgage debacle has morphed into a full-fledged panic. And Joe Stiglitz is telling us the war in Iraq will cost $3 trillion.
Maybe now we can stop listening to the geniuses who insisted that the way to nirvana was to ignore the broad national interest while catering to the desires of those who were already the wealthiest among us.
We have always gotten a distorted picture of how well Americans were doing from politicians and the media. The U.S. has a population of 300 million. Thirty-seven million, many of them children, live in poverty. Close to 60 million are just one notch above the official poverty line. These near-poor Americans live in households with annual incomes that range from $20,000 to $40,000 for a family of four.
It is disgraceful that in a nation as wealthy as the United States, nearly a third of the people are poor or near-poor.
Former Senator John Edwards touched on the quality of the lives of those perched precariously above the abyss of poverty in his foreword to the book, “The Missing Class: Portraits of the Near-Poor in America,” by Katherine S. Newman and Victor Tan Chen. Mr. Edwards wrote:
“When we set about fixing welfare in the 1990s, we said we were going to encourage work. Near-poor Americans do work, usually in jobs that the rest of us do not want — jobs with stagnant wages, no retirement funds, and inadequate health insurance, if they have it at all. While their wages stay the same, the cost of everything else — energy, housing, transportation, tuition — goes up.”
The economic pain and anxiety felt for so long by the poor and the near-poor has been spreading like a stain in the middle class as well. It’s hardly been a secret. But neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have stepped up to this fundamental long-term challenge, and that includes the three remaining candidates for president.
No one will tackle the crucial issue of employment in a serious way. The cornerstone of a middle-class life in America (and that means the cornerstone of the American dream) is a good job. The American dream is on life support because men and women by the millions who want very much to work — who still have in their heads the ideal of a thriving family in a nice home with maybe a picket fence — are unable to find a decent job.
For years, families have been fighting weakness on the employment front with every other option imaginable. Wives and mothers have gone to work. People have been putting in more hours and working additional jobs.
And Americans have plunged like Olympic diving champions into every form of debt they could find.
As Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, told me some months ago: “Workers are incredibly, legitimately scared that the American dream, particularly the belief that their kids will do better, is ending.”
It is. The dream is in grave danger because the ruling elite stopped looking out for the collective interests of the society and all but stopped investing in the future. We are swimming in a vast sea of indebtedness, most of it bringing no worthwhile return.
Former Senator Bill Bradley, in a conversation the other day, described the amount of public and private indebtedness in the U.S. as “ominous.” In his book, “The New American Story,” Mr. Bradley said:
“For almost a generation, America has cheated our future and lived only in the here and now. Economic growth depends on the level of investment in both physical capital — machines, infrastructure, technology — and human capital, which consists of the combined skills and health of our work force.”
Instead of making those investments, we’ve neglected our physical and human infrastructure, squeezed the daylights out of the work force (now a fearful and demoralized lot) and tried to hide the resulting debacle behind the fool’s gold of debt and denial.
Americans save virtually nothing. They have looted the equity in their homes and driven their credit card balances to staggering heights. Meanwhile, the Bush administration has claimed colossal new standards of fiscal irresponsibility. At some point, to take just one example, someone will have to pay the $3 trillion for the war.
This craziness is not sustainable.
Without an educated and empowered work force, without sustained investment in the infrastructure and technologies that foster long-term employment, and without a system of taxation that can actually pay for the services provided by government, the American dream as we know it will expire.
Now that the economic crunch is reaching those near the top of the pyramid, there is finally a sense that the U.S. is facing a real crisis.
Forget about a soft landing. The stock markets continue to tumble. The dollar has weakened. The subprime mortgage debacle has morphed into a full-fledged panic. And Joe Stiglitz is telling us the war in Iraq will cost $3 trillion.
Maybe now we can stop listening to the geniuses who insisted that the way to nirvana was to ignore the broad national interest while catering to the desires of those who were already the wealthiest among us.
We have always gotten a distorted picture of how well Americans were doing from politicians and the media. The U.S. has a population of 300 million. Thirty-seven million, many of them children, live in poverty. Close to 60 million are just one notch above the official poverty line. These near-poor Americans live in households with annual incomes that range from $20,000 to $40,000 for a family of four.
It is disgraceful that in a nation as wealthy as the United States, nearly a third of the people are poor or near-poor.
Former Senator John Edwards touched on the quality of the lives of those perched precariously above the abyss of poverty in his foreword to the book, “The Missing Class: Portraits of the Near-Poor in America,” by Katherine S. Newman and Victor Tan Chen. Mr. Edwards wrote:
“When we set about fixing welfare in the 1990s, we said we were going to encourage work. Near-poor Americans do work, usually in jobs that the rest of us do not want — jobs with stagnant wages, no retirement funds, and inadequate health insurance, if they have it at all. While their wages stay the same, the cost of everything else — energy, housing, transportation, tuition — goes up.”
The economic pain and anxiety felt for so long by the poor and the near-poor has been spreading like a stain in the middle class as well. It’s hardly been a secret. But neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have stepped up to this fundamental long-term challenge, and that includes the three remaining candidates for president.
No one will tackle the crucial issue of employment in a serious way. The cornerstone of a middle-class life in America (and that means the cornerstone of the American dream) is a good job. The American dream is on life support because men and women by the millions who want very much to work — who still have in their heads the ideal of a thriving family in a nice home with maybe a picket fence — are unable to find a decent job.
For years, families have been fighting weakness on the employment front with every other option imaginable. Wives and mothers have gone to work. People have been putting in more hours and working additional jobs.
And Americans have plunged like Olympic diving champions into every form of debt they could find.
As Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, told me some months ago: “Workers are incredibly, legitimately scared that the American dream, particularly the belief that their kids will do better, is ending.”
It is. The dream is in grave danger because the ruling elite stopped looking out for the collective interests of the society and all but stopped investing in the future. We are swimming in a vast sea of indebtedness, most of it bringing no worthwhile return.
Former Senator Bill Bradley, in a conversation the other day, described the amount of public and private indebtedness in the U.S. as “ominous.” In his book, “The New American Story,” Mr. Bradley said:
“For almost a generation, America has cheated our future and lived only in the here and now. Economic growth depends on the level of investment in both physical capital — machines, infrastructure, technology — and human capital, which consists of the combined skills and health of our work force.”
Instead of making those investments, we’ve neglected our physical and human infrastructure, squeezed the daylights out of the work force (now a fearful and demoralized lot) and tried to hide the resulting debacle behind the fool’s gold of debt and denial.
Americans save virtually nothing. They have looted the equity in their homes and driven their credit card balances to staggering heights. Meanwhile, the Bush administration has claimed colossal new standards of fiscal irresponsibility. At some point, to take just one example, someone will have to pay the $3 trillion for the war.
This craziness is not sustainable.
Without an educated and empowered work force, without sustained investment in the infrastructure and technologies that foster long-term employment, and without a system of taxation that can actually pay for the services provided by government, the American dream as we know it will expire.
Friday, March 07, 2008
Obama's Faith
So let's set the record straight. I have known Barack Obama for more than 10 years, and we have been talking about his Christian faith for a decade. Like me and many other Christians, he agrees with the need to reach out to Muslims around the world, especially if we are ever to defeat Islamic fundamentalism. But he is not a Muslim, never has been, never attended a Muslim madrassa, and does not attend a black "separatist" church. Rather, he has told me the story of his coming from an agnostic household, becoming a community organizer on Chicago's South Side who worked with the churches, and how he began attending one of them. Trinity Church is one of the most prominent and respected churches in Chicago and the nation, and its pastor, Jeremiah Wright, is one of the leading revival preachers in the black church. Ebony magazine once named him one of America's 15 best Black preachers. The church says it is "unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian," like any good black church would, but is decidedly not "separatist," as its white members and friends would attest.
--Jim Wallis
--Jim Wallis
Thursday, March 06, 2008
How Much?
We’ve been hearing a lot about “Saturday Night Live” and the fun it has been having with the presidential race. But hardly a whisper has been heard about a Congressional hearing in Washington last week on a topic that could have been drawn, in all its tragic monstrosity, from the theater of the absurd.
The war in Iraq will ultimately cost U.S. taxpayers not hundreds of billions of dollars, but an astonishing $2 trillion, and perhaps more. There has been very little in the way of public conversation, even in the presidential campaigns, about the consequences of these costs, which are like a cancer inside the American economy.
--Bob Herbert
The war in Iraq will ultimately cost U.S. taxpayers not hundreds of billions of dollars, but an astonishing $2 trillion, and perhaps more. There has been very little in the way of public conversation, even in the presidential campaigns, about the consequences of these costs, which are like a cancer inside the American economy.
--Bob Herbert
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
U.S. Economy
Middle Eastern fund managers and Asian consumers are quietly keeping the U.S. economy afloat.
--Fareed Zakaria
--Fareed Zakaria
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Feminism
Are there feminists who fit the media stereotype? Definitely. But from what I have seen, the vast majority of women who call themselves feminists believe that women's rights are human rights, whether in Iran or France or Palestine or Israel or the United States. To me, that's what feminism is. And no, that belief doesn't mean arrogantly informing happy people that they're oppressed, much less supporting the invading of foreign countries under the rubric of women's liberation. It means lending support, as requested, to the efforts of women, east, west, north and south, on behalf of gender justice and equality.
--Katha Pollitt
--Katha Pollitt
To Get Beyond Race
Arguing for policies that eradicate poverty, confront racism and homophobia, tackle economic and gender inequality and corporate excess, normalize the status of millions of undocumented immigrants and address the ballooning prison-industrial complex is about being progressive, not divisive. It does, however, mean recognizing that divisions exist and that to resolve them we have to take sides and fight for our beliefs. Unity is not forged by fiat but by struggle. Candidates can talk about "transcending" race, gender, region and party all they like. But before we can talk sensibly about transcending difference, we must first transform the conditions that give these differences meaning. To get beyond race, for example, we must first get rid of racism.
--Gary Younge
--Gary Younge
Monday, February 04, 2008
Plastic Bags
by Elisabeth Rosenthal
There is something missing from this otherwise typical bustling cityscape. There are taxis and buses. There are hip bars and pollution. Every other person is talking into a cellphone. But there are no plastic shopping bags, the ubiquitous symbol of urban life.
In 2002, Ireland passed a tax on plastic bags; customers who want them must now pay 33 cents per bag at the register. There was an advertising awareness campaign. And then something happened that was bigger than the sum of these parts.
Within weeks, plastic bag use dropped 94 percent. Within a year, nearly everyone had bought reusable cloth bags, keeping them in offices and in the backs of cars. Plastic bags were not outlawed, but carrying them became socially unacceptable — on a par with wearing a fur coat or not cleaning up after one’s dog.
“When my roommate brings one in the flat it annoys the hell out of me,” said Edel Egan, a photographer, carrying groceries last week in a red backpack.
Drowning in a sea of plastic bags, countries from China to Australia, cities from San Francisco to New York have in the past year adopted a flurry of laws and regulations to address the problem, so far with mixed success. The New York City Council, for example, in the face of stiff resistance from business interests, passed a measure requiring only that stores that hand out plastic bags take them back for recycling.
But in the parking lot of a Superquinn Market, Ireland’s largest grocery chain, it is clear that the country is well into the post-plastic-bag era. “I used to get half a dozen with every shop. Now I’d never ever buy one,” said Cathal McKeown, 40, a civil servant carrying two large black cloth bags bearing the bright green Superquinn motto. “If I forgot these, I’d just take the cart of groceries and put them loose in the boot of the car, rather than buy a bag.”
Gerry McCartney, 50, a data processor, has also switched to cloth. “The tax is not so much, but it completely changed a very bad habit,” he said. “Now you never see plastic.”
In January almost 42 billion plastic bags were used worldwide, according to reusablebags.com; the figure increases by more than half a million bags every minute. A vast majority are not reused, ending up as waste — in landfills or as litter. Because plastic bags are light and compressible, they constitute only 2 percent of landfill, but since most are not biodegradable, they will remain there.
There is something missing from this otherwise typical bustling cityscape. There are taxis and buses. There are hip bars and pollution. Every other person is talking into a cellphone. But there are no plastic shopping bags, the ubiquitous symbol of urban life.
In 2002, Ireland passed a tax on plastic bags; customers who want them must now pay 33 cents per bag at the register. There was an advertising awareness campaign. And then something happened that was bigger than the sum of these parts.
Within weeks, plastic bag use dropped 94 percent. Within a year, nearly everyone had bought reusable cloth bags, keeping them in offices and in the backs of cars. Plastic bags were not outlawed, but carrying them became socially unacceptable — on a par with wearing a fur coat or not cleaning up after one’s dog.
“When my roommate brings one in the flat it annoys the hell out of me,” said Edel Egan, a photographer, carrying groceries last week in a red backpack.
Drowning in a sea of plastic bags, countries from China to Australia, cities from San Francisco to New York have in the past year adopted a flurry of laws and regulations to address the problem, so far with mixed success. The New York City Council, for example, in the face of stiff resistance from business interests, passed a measure requiring only that stores that hand out plastic bags take them back for recycling.
But in the parking lot of a Superquinn Market, Ireland’s largest grocery chain, it is clear that the country is well into the post-plastic-bag era. “I used to get half a dozen with every shop. Now I’d never ever buy one,” said Cathal McKeown, 40, a civil servant carrying two large black cloth bags bearing the bright green Superquinn motto. “If I forgot these, I’d just take the cart of groceries and put them loose in the boot of the car, rather than buy a bag.”
Gerry McCartney, 50, a data processor, has also switched to cloth. “The tax is not so much, but it completely changed a very bad habit,” he said. “Now you never see plastic.”
In January almost 42 billion plastic bags were used worldwide, according to reusablebags.com; the figure increases by more than half a million bags every minute. A vast majority are not reused, ending up as waste — in landfills or as litter. Because plastic bags are light and compressible, they constitute only 2 percent of landfill, but since most are not biodegradable, they will remain there.
Monday, January 28, 2008
The Truth About Obama's Faith
by Obery Hendricks
Everyday there seems to be some new outrageous charge leveled at Barack Obama. One of the most pernicious is that he is a Muslim who is dishonestly masquerading as a Christian. This charge is so malicious - and so untrue - that it is time to set the record straight.
Barack Obama has never been a Muslim. He has never attended a Muslim school. From about age eight to age nine Obama lived in Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country on earth, with more Muslim schools than one can count, yet his parents chose to enroll him in a secular, non-religious school comprised of teachers and students of all faiths. Nor can it be said that during his brief sojourn in Indonesia that his worldview was tainted by Islamic extremism; when Obama lived there, the practice of Islam in Indonesia was still among the world's most moderate.
Another false charge is that rather than using a Bible to be sworn into his elected office, Senator Obama instead used the Qur'an, the holy book of the Muslim faith. That is also a falsehood. The most cursory check of the facts shows that it was not Barack Obama who was sworn in with a Qur'an. It was Keith Ellison, the proudly Muslim congressman from Minnesota.
But by far the ugliest charge is that Barack Obama is lying about his Christian faith. The truth is that for years now, Barack Obama has been a baptized, fully confessed and practicing Christian, not only with his lips inside a church but, more importantly, with his limbs out in the community - striving to help the neediest and the most vulnerable of our brothers and sisters of all creeds and colors.
It is correct that Obama was not born into the Christian faith. Rather, Barack Obama made a conscious decision as a mature adult to become part of the body of Christ. One measure of the seriousness of his faith is that he has been an active and faithful churchgoer since he embraced the gospel of Jesus Christ as his own.
Dr. Jeremiah Wright - his pastor - a wise, sensitive Christian freedom-fighter (in the very best sense of the word), and a man deeply committed to his faith in Christ, whole-heartedly attests to this, as does every fellow parishioner who has encountered Obama in his home church - the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. (By the way, the United Church of Christ is a predominately white mainstream Christian denomination.)
But what is also troubling about all the false information being spread about Obama is its obsession with doctrines and creeds to the apparent detriment of any sense of the spirituality of service. This tragically flawed understanding of Christian faith is apparently more concerned with the fleeting testimony of one's mouth than with the abiding testimony of one's walk in the world. If this was not so, if what was really the concern of those seeking to discredit Obama was that one be a Christian rather than simply bearing the name, then why do they not attack the people "of faith" who tell every listening ear that they are Christians, yet everyday spit on the very tenets that Jesus taught by making greed, self-aggrandizement and treating poor people as children of a lesser God their de facto religion? Why not equally publicly indict the rapacious "prosperity preachers" and fake healers who appear in pulpits and on television weekly to steal from the poor so they themselves can live in imperial luxury like the Roman Caesar, the same Caesar whose empire tortured Jesus to death? According to the teachings of Jesus, transgressions like these are what believers should be exposing and denouncing. Indeed, in Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus makes it clear that betrayal of the poor and the vulnerable is among the worst sins possible. Moreover, there Jesus reveals that if nothing else will get one banished to Hell, hurting - even ignoring - those he calls "the least of these" surely will.
Also in that Matthew 25 passage, Jesus teaches that if we are to judge each other at all, it must be by the standard of whether we are trying to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and shelter the homeless. That is the gospel's paramount measure of faith, not how much one shouts Jesus' name or how often and how loudly one can recite doctrine and creeds. Jesus taught - and modeled - that what is most important for those who follow him is to spend their time and treasure in this world, engaging in loving, self-sacrificial actions with the express purpose of manifesting God's love and justice on earth as in heaven.
For me, that is the standard by which all those who seek to lead or govern us must be judged.
Everyday there seems to be some new outrageous charge leveled at Barack Obama. One of the most pernicious is that he is a Muslim who is dishonestly masquerading as a Christian. This charge is so malicious - and so untrue - that it is time to set the record straight.
Barack Obama has never been a Muslim. He has never attended a Muslim school. From about age eight to age nine Obama lived in Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country on earth, with more Muslim schools than one can count, yet his parents chose to enroll him in a secular, non-religious school comprised of teachers and students of all faiths. Nor can it be said that during his brief sojourn in Indonesia that his worldview was tainted by Islamic extremism; when Obama lived there, the practice of Islam in Indonesia was still among the world's most moderate.
Another false charge is that rather than using a Bible to be sworn into his elected office, Senator Obama instead used the Qur'an, the holy book of the Muslim faith. That is also a falsehood. The most cursory check of the facts shows that it was not Barack Obama who was sworn in with a Qur'an. It was Keith Ellison, the proudly Muslim congressman from Minnesota.
But by far the ugliest charge is that Barack Obama is lying about his Christian faith. The truth is that for years now, Barack Obama has been a baptized, fully confessed and practicing Christian, not only with his lips inside a church but, more importantly, with his limbs out in the community - striving to help the neediest and the most vulnerable of our brothers and sisters of all creeds and colors.
It is correct that Obama was not born into the Christian faith. Rather, Barack Obama made a conscious decision as a mature adult to become part of the body of Christ. One measure of the seriousness of his faith is that he has been an active and faithful churchgoer since he embraced the gospel of Jesus Christ as his own.
Dr. Jeremiah Wright - his pastor - a wise, sensitive Christian freedom-fighter (in the very best sense of the word), and a man deeply committed to his faith in Christ, whole-heartedly attests to this, as does every fellow parishioner who has encountered Obama in his home church - the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. (By the way, the United Church of Christ is a predominately white mainstream Christian denomination.)
But what is also troubling about all the false information being spread about Obama is its obsession with doctrines and creeds to the apparent detriment of any sense of the spirituality of service. This tragically flawed understanding of Christian faith is apparently more concerned with the fleeting testimony of one's mouth than with the abiding testimony of one's walk in the world. If this was not so, if what was really the concern of those seeking to discredit Obama was that one be a Christian rather than simply bearing the name, then why do they not attack the people "of faith" who tell every listening ear that they are Christians, yet everyday spit on the very tenets that Jesus taught by making greed, self-aggrandizement and treating poor people as children of a lesser God their de facto religion? Why not equally publicly indict the rapacious "prosperity preachers" and fake healers who appear in pulpits and on television weekly to steal from the poor so they themselves can live in imperial luxury like the Roman Caesar, the same Caesar whose empire tortured Jesus to death? According to the teachings of Jesus, transgressions like these are what believers should be exposing and denouncing. Indeed, in Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus makes it clear that betrayal of the poor and the vulnerable is among the worst sins possible. Moreover, there Jesus reveals that if nothing else will get one banished to Hell, hurting - even ignoring - those he calls "the least of these" surely will.
Also in that Matthew 25 passage, Jesus teaches that if we are to judge each other at all, it must be by the standard of whether we are trying to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and shelter the homeless. That is the gospel's paramount measure of faith, not how much one shouts Jesus' name or how often and how loudly one can recite doctrine and creeds. Jesus taught - and modeled - that what is most important for those who follow him is to spend their time and treasure in this world, engaging in loving, self-sacrificial actions with the express purpose of manifesting God's love and justice on earth as in heaven.
For me, that is the standard by which all those who seek to lead or govern us must be judged.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Lynching
by Scott Hamilton
“Lynch him in a back alley.”
That retort, intended to be a back-door compliment for Tiger Woods, required about three seconds to tumble from Kelly Tilghman’s mouth during Golf Channel’s Jan. 4 broadcast of the Mercedes-Benz Championship.
Two days passed before she apologized on air for the remark and five days went by before Golf Channel handed down a two-week suspension without pay, and then only – whether related or not – after it had drawn the ire of a well-known civil-rights activist. But as drawn out as the process was, there is little doubt the ramifications of that off-the-cuff comment will linger. Golf rarely contends with controversy, and the few flaps that do occur usually are limited to the insular world of golf.
Tilghman’s remark escaped golf’s biodome and slipped into the mainstream where it is fair game to everyone with a microphone or a computer. Change of some sort – major or minor, right or wrong – was bound to result.
Golf Channel already has revised a scheduled management training session to include sensitivity education on diversity issues in an effort to prevent and react to similar instances. It also is questioning internally why it took so long for a public apology to materialize and the suspension to be doled out.
That investigation could result in punishment for other Golf Channel employees, particularly the on-duty producers of the Mercedes-Benz.
“There were a number of factors that came into play,” Golf Channel president Page Thompson responded via e-mail to Golfweek. Thompson is a former senior vice president and general manager of video services for parent company Comcast who took over as Golf Channel president last spring. “But the bottom line is we need to look at our process and see how we can move more swiftly in the future.”
Thompson said no discussions had been held with regard to firing Tilghman. He would not speculate whether Golf Channel might scale back the number of events Tilghman works as lead anchor upon her return.
As of Jan. 14, Tilghman was slated to resume her duties 10 days later for the first round of the Buick Invitational. However, there had been conjecture by Golf Channel insiders that Comcast will order Tilghman fired before her suspension is up and that fill-in Rich Lerner will take over permanently. Tilghman, 38, who has risen through the ranks in 11-plus years at Golf Channel, also could be assigned to other duties. Before taking on anchor duties for Tour telecasts, Tilghman was a host of Golf Channel’s “Golf Central” nightly news show.
“It was a horrible analogy, and she will be kicking herself for a long, long time to come,” said Michael J. Whelan, a former Golf Channel executive who hired Tilghman. “That’s live television; people do make mistakes. . . . You have to think about what you are about to say and the ramifications of what could be said. What sounds so cute and funny in your mind comes out horrific. That little line in Kelly’s head was a cute little idea. Once she said it, everything stopped.”
Other sportscasters’ careers have been damaged or destroyed by spontaneous on-air comments. But Tilghman’s situation is unique, as she is the first female lead anchor in PGA Tour history and is as much the face of Golf Channel in its landmark 15-year deal with the PGA Tour as is six-time major winner Nick Faldo.
Assigning a man to that position immediately after Tilghman’s gaffe could be seen as a setback for other women looking to move into the 18th tower. On the other hand, reinstating her as if nothing had happened could stain Golf Channel’s – and Comcast’s – image.
“That was a totally unacceptable choice of words. I’m actually surprised that she’s only getting two weeks’ suspension,” said Rosie Jones, a former LPGA player and Golf Channel commentator. “You wouldn’t want someone to lose their job or their career, but I thought two weeks was a short amount of time.”
The incident in question began harmlessly enough.
During their usual post-round banter as they wrapped up Day 2 at the Plantation Course at Kapalua, Tilghman and co-host Faldo discussed young players who might challenge Woods. Faldo jokingly said perhaps the youngsters should “gang up (on Tiger) for a while.”
The pair chuckled before Tilghman responded by saying, “Lynch him in a back alley,” and turned back to the camera smiling broadly. Golf Channel said it received a limited number of complaints regarding the comment. Tilghman explained the incident during the final-round broadcast after having already reached out to Woods herself.
She later sent out another apology in a written statement saying she “used some poorly chosen words. I have known Tiger for 12 years and I have apologized directly to him. I also apologize to our viewers who may have been offended.” Mark Steinberg, Woods’ agent, called the matter a “complete non-issue” and said he considered the “case closed.”
But the Internet and mainstream media wheels kept turning, resulting in the Rev. Al Sharpton calling for Tilghman to be fired during a Jan. 9 interview on CNN. He said his National Action Network would picket Golf Channel headquarters in Orlando and boycott the station if action were not taken. Golf Channel issued a statement later that evening saying Tilghman had been suspended for two weeks “for offensive language.’’
“While we believe that Kelly's choice of words were inadvertent and that she did not intend them in an offensive manner,’’ the statement read, “the words were hurtful and grossly inappropriate.” One source inside Golf Channel said the decision to suspend Tilghman had been made shortly before Sharpton appeared on CNN. A PGA Tour spokesman said the Tour didn’t weigh in on Tilghman’s fate, describing Golf Channel’s action as “an internal decision.’’ The Tour says it plays no role in choosing or rating the performance of on-air talent.
Regardless of the decision process, some observers argue even suspending Tilghman is overreacting despite the negative connotation of “lynch.” Context and intent, they say, is more important than the words used.
A recent comparison involves radio host Don Imus, who last spring spouted racial and insensitive remarks regarding the Rutgers University women’s basketball team. After one week of a growing outcry from civil-rights groups, including Sharpton’s, Imus was fired from WCBS. He returned to radio late in the year.
“Imus has a long history of making nasty, vicious, bigoted comments usually at poor people or oppressed people, people who can’t fight back,” said civil rights lawyer and radio talk show host Ron Kuby. “Kelly’s comment was about a very powerful person who also happens to be her friend and she was praising him. She was using mind-boggling offensive phrasing, incredibly stupid phrasing, and that’s the way broadcasters get themselves into trouble. . . . (But) the attacks on her are misplaced. ”
While Tilghman’s career hangs in the balance, her Southern roots have become fodder for critics and supporters alike.
Tilghman is a daughter of a prominent family in North Myrtle Beach, S.C., prompting speculation as to why the term “lynch” would pop into her mind ahead of others. Her experience also has been questioned; her promotion to the anchor role 13 months ago marked Tilghman’s first foray into live “play-by-play” announcing.
Tilghman, meanwhile, has remained silent, declining to respond to phone calls or e-mails sent to her by Golfweek. Woods has commented only through his agent. He is sure to be asked about the matter when he makes his first 2008 Tour start Jan. 25 at the Buick Invitational.
“Accept the apology and move on. We all say dumb things,” said Dr. Harry Edwards, a consultant of the San Francisco 49ers and a sociology professor at the University of California-Berkeley.
Edwards was a prominent civil rights activist in the 1960s who urged sprinters Tommy Smith and John Carlos to give the clench-fisted “black power” salute as the “Star Spangled Banner” was being played during their medal presentations at the ’68 Olympics.
“If we stopped the train every time somebody made a dumb remark that is potentially offensive, we’d never progress as a society. We’d be in big trouble.”
“Lynch him in a back alley.”
That retort, intended to be a back-door compliment for Tiger Woods, required about three seconds to tumble from Kelly Tilghman’s mouth during Golf Channel’s Jan. 4 broadcast of the Mercedes-Benz Championship.
Two days passed before she apologized on air for the remark and five days went by before Golf Channel handed down a two-week suspension without pay, and then only – whether related or not – after it had drawn the ire of a well-known civil-rights activist. But as drawn out as the process was, there is little doubt the ramifications of that off-the-cuff comment will linger. Golf rarely contends with controversy, and the few flaps that do occur usually are limited to the insular world of golf.
Tilghman’s remark escaped golf’s biodome and slipped into the mainstream where it is fair game to everyone with a microphone or a computer. Change of some sort – major or minor, right or wrong – was bound to result.
Golf Channel already has revised a scheduled management training session to include sensitivity education on diversity issues in an effort to prevent and react to similar instances. It also is questioning internally why it took so long for a public apology to materialize and the suspension to be doled out.
That investigation could result in punishment for other Golf Channel employees, particularly the on-duty producers of the Mercedes-Benz.
“There were a number of factors that came into play,” Golf Channel president Page Thompson responded via e-mail to Golfweek. Thompson is a former senior vice president and general manager of video services for parent company Comcast who took over as Golf Channel president last spring. “But the bottom line is we need to look at our process and see how we can move more swiftly in the future.”
Thompson said no discussions had been held with regard to firing Tilghman. He would not speculate whether Golf Channel might scale back the number of events Tilghman works as lead anchor upon her return.
As of Jan. 14, Tilghman was slated to resume her duties 10 days later for the first round of the Buick Invitational. However, there had been conjecture by Golf Channel insiders that Comcast will order Tilghman fired before her suspension is up and that fill-in Rich Lerner will take over permanently. Tilghman, 38, who has risen through the ranks in 11-plus years at Golf Channel, also could be assigned to other duties. Before taking on anchor duties for Tour telecasts, Tilghman was a host of Golf Channel’s “Golf Central” nightly news show.
“It was a horrible analogy, and she will be kicking herself for a long, long time to come,” said Michael J. Whelan, a former Golf Channel executive who hired Tilghman. “That’s live television; people do make mistakes. . . . You have to think about what you are about to say and the ramifications of what could be said. What sounds so cute and funny in your mind comes out horrific. That little line in Kelly’s head was a cute little idea. Once she said it, everything stopped.”
Other sportscasters’ careers have been damaged or destroyed by spontaneous on-air comments. But Tilghman’s situation is unique, as she is the first female lead anchor in PGA Tour history and is as much the face of Golf Channel in its landmark 15-year deal with the PGA Tour as is six-time major winner Nick Faldo.
Assigning a man to that position immediately after Tilghman’s gaffe could be seen as a setback for other women looking to move into the 18th tower. On the other hand, reinstating her as if nothing had happened could stain Golf Channel’s – and Comcast’s – image.
“That was a totally unacceptable choice of words. I’m actually surprised that she’s only getting two weeks’ suspension,” said Rosie Jones, a former LPGA player and Golf Channel commentator. “You wouldn’t want someone to lose their job or their career, but I thought two weeks was a short amount of time.”
The incident in question began harmlessly enough.
During their usual post-round banter as they wrapped up Day 2 at the Plantation Course at Kapalua, Tilghman and co-host Faldo discussed young players who might challenge Woods. Faldo jokingly said perhaps the youngsters should “gang up (on Tiger) for a while.”
The pair chuckled before Tilghman responded by saying, “Lynch him in a back alley,” and turned back to the camera smiling broadly. Golf Channel said it received a limited number of complaints regarding the comment. Tilghman explained the incident during the final-round broadcast after having already reached out to Woods herself.
She later sent out another apology in a written statement saying she “used some poorly chosen words. I have known Tiger for 12 years and I have apologized directly to him. I also apologize to our viewers who may have been offended.” Mark Steinberg, Woods’ agent, called the matter a “complete non-issue” and said he considered the “case closed.”
But the Internet and mainstream media wheels kept turning, resulting in the Rev. Al Sharpton calling for Tilghman to be fired during a Jan. 9 interview on CNN. He said his National Action Network would picket Golf Channel headquarters in Orlando and boycott the station if action were not taken. Golf Channel issued a statement later that evening saying Tilghman had been suspended for two weeks “for offensive language.’’
“While we believe that Kelly's choice of words were inadvertent and that she did not intend them in an offensive manner,’’ the statement read, “the words were hurtful and grossly inappropriate.” One source inside Golf Channel said the decision to suspend Tilghman had been made shortly before Sharpton appeared on CNN. A PGA Tour spokesman said the Tour didn’t weigh in on Tilghman’s fate, describing Golf Channel’s action as “an internal decision.’’ The Tour says it plays no role in choosing or rating the performance of on-air talent.
Regardless of the decision process, some observers argue even suspending Tilghman is overreacting despite the negative connotation of “lynch.” Context and intent, they say, is more important than the words used.
A recent comparison involves radio host Don Imus, who last spring spouted racial and insensitive remarks regarding the Rutgers University women’s basketball team. After one week of a growing outcry from civil-rights groups, including Sharpton’s, Imus was fired from WCBS. He returned to radio late in the year.
“Imus has a long history of making nasty, vicious, bigoted comments usually at poor people or oppressed people, people who can’t fight back,” said civil rights lawyer and radio talk show host Ron Kuby. “Kelly’s comment was about a very powerful person who also happens to be her friend and she was praising him. She was using mind-boggling offensive phrasing, incredibly stupid phrasing, and that’s the way broadcasters get themselves into trouble. . . . (But) the attacks on her are misplaced. ”
While Tilghman’s career hangs in the balance, her Southern roots have become fodder for critics and supporters alike.
Tilghman is a daughter of a prominent family in North Myrtle Beach, S.C., prompting speculation as to why the term “lynch” would pop into her mind ahead of others. Her experience also has been questioned; her promotion to the anchor role 13 months ago marked Tilghman’s first foray into live “play-by-play” announcing.
Tilghman, meanwhile, has remained silent, declining to respond to phone calls or e-mails sent to her by Golfweek. Woods has commented only through his agent. He is sure to be asked about the matter when he makes his first 2008 Tour start Jan. 25 at the Buick Invitational.
“Accept the apology and move on. We all say dumb things,” said Dr. Harry Edwards, a consultant of the San Francisco 49ers and a sociology professor at the University of California-Berkeley.
Edwards was a prominent civil rights activist in the 1960s who urged sprinters Tommy Smith and John Carlos to give the clench-fisted “black power” salute as the “Star Spangled Banner” was being played during their medal presentations at the ’68 Olympics.
“If we stopped the train every time somebody made a dumb remark that is potentially offensive, we’d never progress as a society. We’d be in big trouble.”
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Don't Think About It
Years from now, when the story of our corporate age is told with the clarity of hindsight, I'm guessing one of the phrases scholars will keep coming back to is "plausible deniability." The tale will capture our era's wide disparities in wealth, and its almost universal indifference to the rampant mistreatment of workers from countries less fortunate than our own.
After all, when we buy a product -- a piece of fruit, a new suit, an iPod -- how many of us really comprehend what was required to bring that product to our tables, our backs, or our pockets? The expanding global economy demands that corporations seek out the cheapest possible labor to maximize profit, and stimulate growth and innovation. With free trade has come an explosion of global inequality that has left more than 2.8 billion people living on less than $2 a day. We in the wealthy West, living and dining off the fruits of their labor, can honestly say we are unaware of the devil's bargain we bought into. Or that if we do know, the problem is simply too great to comprehend and beyond our means to do anything about, save changing our lifestyles entirely. Best, in other words, not to think about it.
--Josh Rosenblatt
After all, when we buy a product -- a piece of fruit, a new suit, an iPod -- how many of us really comprehend what was required to bring that product to our tables, our backs, or our pockets? The expanding global economy demands that corporations seek out the cheapest possible labor to maximize profit, and stimulate growth and innovation. With free trade has come an explosion of global inequality that has left more than 2.8 billion people living on less than $2 a day. We in the wealthy West, living and dining off the fruits of their labor, can honestly say we are unaware of the devil's bargain we bought into. Or that if we do know, the problem is simply too great to comprehend and beyond our means to do anything about, save changing our lifestyles entirely. Best, in other words, not to think about it.
--Josh Rosenblatt
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
The Problem With Christmas
by Bill Mckibben
The problem with Christmas is not the batteries. The problem isn't even really the stuff. The problem with Christmas is that no one much likes it anymore.
If you poll Americans this time of year, far more of them regard the approaching holidays with dread than anticipation. It has long since become too busy, too expensive, too centered around acquiring that which we do not need. In fact, it's the perfect crystallization of the American economy -- the American consumer experience squeezed into a manic week, a week that people find themselves hoping will soon end so that on Jan. 2 they can return to the mere routine hecticity of their lives.
From that central truth, a few propositions follow:
* Replacing regular stuff with green stuff isn't getting very close to the root of the problem. If for some reason you need to give someone a motorized spice rack, then a motorized spice rack with a more efficient motor is quite clearly better. But it's also quite clearly beside the point.
* Stuff itself is a problem less because of its environmental toll (though that is quite high) than because it's increasingly meaningless. Think of your friends. Are many of them lacking in stuff? Or is the first question that forms in their minds when a new gift arrives from under the tree: "Where am I going to put this?"
* But this pleasure gap allows for a concentrated opportunity to begin rethinking our economic life. If stuff isn't valuable anymore, what is? Time, clearly. A gift of time -- a coupon for a back rub, or a trip to the museum, or a dinner prepared someday in the future -- is a gift whose exchange rate is figured in a stronger currency (if you're an economics major, think euros vs. dollars). Or gifts can come embedded with time already spent: a jar of homemade jam, a stack of firewood in the back yard.
* Gifts can also be reconfigured to remove some of the hyperindividualism that marks our consumer society. Ask yourself what you'd rather receive: another thing, or a homemade card saying that, say, a cow had been purchased in your name and was now providing milk for a Tanzanian family that hadn't had milk before. (Note: this line of reasoning is probably especially strong for those of us who are Christians, and recall that the occasion we're celebrating is the birth of a man who said to give all that we had to the poor.)
* Since Christmas has long been in the business of baptizing consumption, it's a good place to start eroding consumption's allure. Newfound pleasures from a simpler holiday -- some silence, some companionship -- suddenly start to seem attractive. Maybe that attraction will remain with us even unto February.
That would be good, because our environmental problem, at root, isn't that the stuff we're buying uses too much energy or too much plastic, or that its paint has lead in it, or that it's been shipped too far. Our environmental problem is that we consume way too much because we've agreed to try and meet basic human needs -- status, respect, affection -- with material ends. And no time more so than at Christmas, when Santa rides in on a Norelco razor. It's a kind of joint conspiracy that few of us dare break out of, even though we all understand at some level that it's not working. What if you don't give your kids a "proper Christmas"?
But the second you do break out of it -- the second your family becomes one of those that exchanges used books at Christmas, or decides to follow St. Francis' Yule tradition of wandering the park and throwing seed so that the birds too could celebrate, or makes it an annual custom to serve turkey dinner at the homeless shelter -- then you start sharing in the deep human secret that consumer society is set up to obscure: the things that please us most are almost always counterintuitive. We need to be out in the cold air, we need to think about others, we need to serve.
There are, of course, some who will say that a course like the one I'm describing here will damage the economy -- that anyone who proposes a different Yuletide is a "grinch." (This, by the way, is a major literary faux pas. Close reading -- even cursory reading, or even viewing the annual television special, will remind one that it was in fact the grinch himself who believed that Christmas came in a box. He turned out to be wrong, as the Whos of Whoville, those communists, made clear.) You could answer those people by saying, "Well, it won't all happen at once, and the economy will have time to adjust." Or you could answer by saying, "Maybe you're right. And maybe the economy isn't therefore quite as rational and as obvious as we would like to believe, if in fact it depends on a corrupted celebration of Jesus' birth to stagger on for another year."
The second answer appeals to me. We need a kiss to break our enchantment, and a kiss (a coupon for a kiss! Or a dozen!) is a perfectly fine gift to give for Christmas.
The problem with Christmas is not the batteries. The problem isn't even really the stuff. The problem with Christmas is that no one much likes it anymore.
If you poll Americans this time of year, far more of them regard the approaching holidays with dread than anticipation. It has long since become too busy, too expensive, too centered around acquiring that which we do not need. In fact, it's the perfect crystallization of the American economy -- the American consumer experience squeezed into a manic week, a week that people find themselves hoping will soon end so that on Jan. 2 they can return to the mere routine hecticity of their lives.
From that central truth, a few propositions follow:
* Replacing regular stuff with green stuff isn't getting very close to the root of the problem. If for some reason you need to give someone a motorized spice rack, then a motorized spice rack with a more efficient motor is quite clearly better. But it's also quite clearly beside the point.
* Stuff itself is a problem less because of its environmental toll (though that is quite high) than because it's increasingly meaningless. Think of your friends. Are many of them lacking in stuff? Or is the first question that forms in their minds when a new gift arrives from under the tree: "Where am I going to put this?"
* But this pleasure gap allows for a concentrated opportunity to begin rethinking our economic life. If stuff isn't valuable anymore, what is? Time, clearly. A gift of time -- a coupon for a back rub, or a trip to the museum, or a dinner prepared someday in the future -- is a gift whose exchange rate is figured in a stronger currency (if you're an economics major, think euros vs. dollars). Or gifts can come embedded with time already spent: a jar of homemade jam, a stack of firewood in the back yard.
* Gifts can also be reconfigured to remove some of the hyperindividualism that marks our consumer society. Ask yourself what you'd rather receive: another thing, or a homemade card saying that, say, a cow had been purchased in your name and was now providing milk for a Tanzanian family that hadn't had milk before. (Note: this line of reasoning is probably especially strong for those of us who are Christians, and recall that the occasion we're celebrating is the birth of a man who said to give all that we had to the poor.)
* Since Christmas has long been in the business of baptizing consumption, it's a good place to start eroding consumption's allure. Newfound pleasures from a simpler holiday -- some silence, some companionship -- suddenly start to seem attractive. Maybe that attraction will remain with us even unto February.
That would be good, because our environmental problem, at root, isn't that the stuff we're buying uses too much energy or too much plastic, or that its paint has lead in it, or that it's been shipped too far. Our environmental problem is that we consume way too much because we've agreed to try and meet basic human needs -- status, respect, affection -- with material ends. And no time more so than at Christmas, when Santa rides in on a Norelco razor. It's a kind of joint conspiracy that few of us dare break out of, even though we all understand at some level that it's not working. What if you don't give your kids a "proper Christmas"?
But the second you do break out of it -- the second your family becomes one of those that exchanges used books at Christmas, or decides to follow St. Francis' Yule tradition of wandering the park and throwing seed so that the birds too could celebrate, or makes it an annual custom to serve turkey dinner at the homeless shelter -- then you start sharing in the deep human secret that consumer society is set up to obscure: the things that please us most are almost always counterintuitive. We need to be out in the cold air, we need to think about others, we need to serve.
There are, of course, some who will say that a course like the one I'm describing here will damage the economy -- that anyone who proposes a different Yuletide is a "grinch." (This, by the way, is a major literary faux pas. Close reading -- even cursory reading, or even viewing the annual television special, will remind one that it was in fact the grinch himself who believed that Christmas came in a box. He turned out to be wrong, as the Whos of Whoville, those communists, made clear.) You could answer those people by saying, "Well, it won't all happen at once, and the economy will have time to adjust." Or you could answer by saying, "Maybe you're right. And maybe the economy isn't therefore quite as rational and as obvious as we would like to believe, if in fact it depends on a corrupted celebration of Jesus' birth to stagger on for another year."
The second answer appeals to me. We need a kiss to break our enchantment, and a kiss (a coupon for a kiss! Or a dozen!) is a perfectly fine gift to give for Christmas.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Smoke and Mirrors
What seems to be happening now is that working Americans, and that includes the middle class, have exhausted much of their capacity to tread water. Wives and mothers are already working. Mortgages have been refinanced and tremendous amounts of home equity drained. And families have taken on debt loads — for cars, for college tuition, for medical treatment — that would buckle the knees of the strongest pack animals.
According to Demos, a policy research group in New York, “American families are using credit cards to bridge the gaps created by stagnant wages and higher costs of living.” Americans owe nearly $900 billion on their credit cards.
We’re running out of smoke and mirrors. The fundamental problem, the problem that is destroying the dream, is the extreme inequality pounded into the system by the corporate crowd and its handmaidens in government.
--Bob Herbert
According to Demos, a policy research group in New York, “American families are using credit cards to bridge the gaps created by stagnant wages and higher costs of living.” Americans owe nearly $900 billion on their credit cards.
We’re running out of smoke and mirrors. The fundamental problem, the problem that is destroying the dream, is the extreme inequality pounded into the system by the corporate crowd and its handmaidens in government.
--Bob Herbert
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Christmas Rush
It might be easy to run away to a monastery, away from the commercialization, the hectic hustle, the demanding family responsibilities of Christmastime. Then we would have a holy Christmas. But we would forget the lesson of the Incarnation, of the enfleshing of God—the lesson that we who are followers of Jesus do not run from the secular; rather we try to transform it. It is our mission to make holy the secular aspects of Christmas just as the early Christians baptized the Christmas tree. And we do this by being holy people—kind, patient, generous, loving, laughing people—no matter how maddening is the Christmas rush.
--Fr. Andrew Greeley
--Fr. Andrew Greeley
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Friday, December 07, 2007
Saint Nicholas
Saint Nicholas, the Wonderworker, Archbishop of Myra in Lycia, is famed as a great saint pleasing unto God. From his childhood, Nicholas thrived on the study of divine scripture; by day he would not leave church, and by night he prayed and read books, making himself a worthy dwelling place for the Holy Spirit.
There was a certain formerly rich inhabitant of Patara, whom St Nicholas saved from great sin. The man had three grown daughters, and in desperation he planned to sell their bodies so they would have money for food. The saint, learning of the man's poverty and of his wicked intention, secretly visited him one night and threw a sack of gold through the window. With the money the man arranged an honorable marriage for his daughter. St Nicholas also provided gold for the other daughters, thereby saving the family from falling into spiritual destruction. In bestowing charity, St Nicholas always strove to do this secretly and to conceal his good deeds.
During his life, the saint worked many miracles. One of the greatest was the deliverance from death of three men unjustly condemned by the governor, who had been bribed. The saint boldly went up to the executioner and took his sword, already suspended over the heads of the condemned. The governor, denounced by St Nicholas for his wrong doing, repented and begged for forgiveness.
There was a certain formerly rich inhabitant of Patara, whom St Nicholas saved from great sin. The man had three grown daughters, and in desperation he planned to sell their bodies so they would have money for food. The saint, learning of the man's poverty and of his wicked intention, secretly visited him one night and threw a sack of gold through the window. With the money the man arranged an honorable marriage for his daughter. St Nicholas also provided gold for the other daughters, thereby saving the family from falling into spiritual destruction. In bestowing charity, St Nicholas always strove to do this secretly and to conceal his good deeds.
During his life, the saint worked many miracles. One of the greatest was the deliverance from death of three men unjustly condemned by the governor, who had been bribed. The saint boldly went up to the executioner and took his sword, already suspended over the heads of the condemned. The governor, denounced by St Nicholas for his wrong doing, repented and begged for forgiveness.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Leave Education to Principals, Teachers, Parents
by Leonard Pitts
As I wandered about looking lost, I chanced upon a teacher who volunteered to lead me where I needed to be. When I told her why I was here -- a series of columns on What Works to change the culture of dysfunction that entraps too many African-American kids -- she told me I had come to the right place: KIPP Gaston College Preparatory and KIPP Pride, two charter schools serving 600 kids here in farm country. She said she believes so much in what KIPP schools are doing -- longer school day and year, higher expectations, more teacher freedom -- that she came from Iowa to teach here.
In my last column, I told you about KIPP (the Knowledge Is Power Program), a network of 57 charter schools across the country that are reporting stellar results with their 14,000 mostly black and Hispanic students. Today I want to talk about the role teachers play in that, and all, academic success.
I'm not unmindful -- a handful of readers brought this up -- that parental involvement is also a key ingredient in that success. Some sorry parents never meet a child's teacher until graduation day -- if then. But even the most involved parent is limited in his or her ability to make a difference when teacher quality is, in the words of GCP Principal Caleb Dolan, "a crap shoot.''
''I understand how parents feel,'' he said. ''If my child gets this side of the hall, they're in great shape. If they get that side of the hall . . . '' He doesn't finish the sentence. He doesn't need to.
Having spent the last year studying educational success stories, I find myself increasingly convinced that much of what ails American schools can be traced to a bureaucracy that: a) doesn't pay enough; b) does too little to encourage and reward creativity; c) doesn't give principals authority over who works in their schools; d) makes it nearly impossible to fire bad teachers.
As Dolan put it, "I don't think you can pay a good teacher enough, and I don't think you can fire a bad teacher fast enough.''
''Teachers are generally very optimistic,'' said KIPP co-founder Dave Levin. ``Unfortunately what happens is, you don't have a lot of examples in this country of systemic success and success at scale. You might have a good teacher there or a good teacher here, but you don't get enough concentration within a school or a district to have a cycle of success.''
Spend enough time pushing boulders uphill, and it wears you out. Enthusiasm becomes indifference, energy burns out like candles, and success is defined down. Said Levin, "What you see in too many neighborhoods when people talk about schools, they want to talk about these tiny, incremental changes -- which are necessary. But for individual kids, when you gain two or three points on a reading test, it doesn't necessarily change your life options. As their teachers, we can't just go blindly celebrating that without saying that we expect more.''
No one becomes a teacher to get rich. You become a teacher because you want to give back, you want to shape future generations, you want to change the world. But the reality of our educational system and the grimy culture in which it operates is that that prime directive often winds up subordinate to the directives of a creativity-choking bureaucracy that seems less interested in educating disadvantaged kids than in warehousing them.
And then, here comes a program that's educating such kids so effectively a woman moves halfway across the country to be a part. The lesson could not be clearer.
You want to fix American education? Step one: Empower principals to hire good teachers. Step two: Require raised expectations.
Step three? Get out of the way.
As I wandered about looking lost, I chanced upon a teacher who volunteered to lead me where I needed to be. When I told her why I was here -- a series of columns on What Works to change the culture of dysfunction that entraps too many African-American kids -- she told me I had come to the right place: KIPP Gaston College Preparatory and KIPP Pride, two charter schools serving 600 kids here in farm country. She said she believes so much in what KIPP schools are doing -- longer school day and year, higher expectations, more teacher freedom -- that she came from Iowa to teach here.
In my last column, I told you about KIPP (the Knowledge Is Power Program), a network of 57 charter schools across the country that are reporting stellar results with their 14,000 mostly black and Hispanic students. Today I want to talk about the role teachers play in that, and all, academic success.
I'm not unmindful -- a handful of readers brought this up -- that parental involvement is also a key ingredient in that success. Some sorry parents never meet a child's teacher until graduation day -- if then. But even the most involved parent is limited in his or her ability to make a difference when teacher quality is, in the words of GCP Principal Caleb Dolan, "a crap shoot.''
''I understand how parents feel,'' he said. ''If my child gets this side of the hall, they're in great shape. If they get that side of the hall . . . '' He doesn't finish the sentence. He doesn't need to.
Having spent the last year studying educational success stories, I find myself increasingly convinced that much of what ails American schools can be traced to a bureaucracy that: a) doesn't pay enough; b) does too little to encourage and reward creativity; c) doesn't give principals authority over who works in their schools; d) makes it nearly impossible to fire bad teachers.
As Dolan put it, "I don't think you can pay a good teacher enough, and I don't think you can fire a bad teacher fast enough.''
''Teachers are generally very optimistic,'' said KIPP co-founder Dave Levin. ``Unfortunately what happens is, you don't have a lot of examples in this country of systemic success and success at scale. You might have a good teacher there or a good teacher here, but you don't get enough concentration within a school or a district to have a cycle of success.''
Spend enough time pushing boulders uphill, and it wears you out. Enthusiasm becomes indifference, energy burns out like candles, and success is defined down. Said Levin, "What you see in too many neighborhoods when people talk about schools, they want to talk about these tiny, incremental changes -- which are necessary. But for individual kids, when you gain two or three points on a reading test, it doesn't necessarily change your life options. As their teachers, we can't just go blindly celebrating that without saying that we expect more.''
No one becomes a teacher to get rich. You become a teacher because you want to give back, you want to shape future generations, you want to change the world. But the reality of our educational system and the grimy culture in which it operates is that that prime directive often winds up subordinate to the directives of a creativity-choking bureaucracy that seems less interested in educating disadvantaged kids than in warehousing them.
And then, here comes a program that's educating such kids so effectively a woman moves halfway across the country to be a part. The lesson could not be clearer.
You want to fix American education? Step one: Empower principals to hire good teachers. Step two: Require raised expectations.
Step three? Get out of the way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
