The Passing of Silly American Notions

I watch and read the news.  I read books.  I sit and think.  I write.  I know; these may not be typical male Texan behaviors.  Regardless, it occurs to me that we have abandoned some notions of what it means to live in this democracy and what democracy really means.  No matter how you feel about the passing of these notions, they merit identification as they are put to rest.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  OK, a bunch of revolutionaries signed a document back on July 4^th, 1776 with this as the lead phrase of the second paragraph.  What were they thinking?

All men are created equal?  Birthright doesn’t count?  Race doesn’t count?  Wealth doesn’t count?  Zip code doesn’t count?  Sexual identity and sexual preference does not count?  Religious belief does not count?  What was wrong with these guys? 

 

Clearly we believe the following today: 

All men of wealth and power and prestige and who are of the Anglo race are equal as long as they think like the majority of men of wealth and power and prestige, and practice an appropriate religious belief.  (For the sake of brevity and because I am an educator, “men of wealth and power and prestige” will become an acronym:  MOWAPAP, pronounced mo wap ap.)  All men of little wealth, power and prestige are equal, but they are not equal to the MOWAPAP. 

Women are all equal.  Equal to each other.  But, they are not equal to men, and definitely not to the MOWAPAP, unless they have inherited a lot wealth like the Walton women. 

African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians are all equal, but they are not equal to the MOWAPAP. 

All sexual orientation is equal.  Heterosexuals are equal to each other, and homosexuals are equal to each other.  Homosexuals are not equal, however, to heterosexuals.  All men are created equal, but a relationship of all men is created evil.  Relationships of all women are more acceptable because the MOWAPAP find such relationships titillating, but such relationships are not so acceptable as to allow single sex marriages and property rights, etc.  The Arizona Legislature has announced that they believe it is legal to discriminate against such people.  It’s about time.  MOWAPAP’s celebrate.

All men are created equal if they chose wisely where they were born.  All men who were wisely born in the US of A are equal (at least under the ground rules outlined above) and all men who foolishly were born within the boundaries of another nation are not equal.  In fact, we will declare them illegal people if they come here without the approval of the MOWAPAP.  They are so illegal that some refer to them as aliens even though they were born on planet earth.  If such folks come here without permission, even if they come here to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, they may still call them illegal.  At best, they call them undocumented people despite the fact that they clearly are not some other species.  It does not seem to matter that other than Native Americans most of the MOWAPAPs were at some point undocumented immigrants.

The Creator endowed all men with these rights?  What was the Creator thinking?  We all know the song, “Red and Yellow Black and White, they are precious in His sight.” but we know that is not practical.  To provide services to the other races that are in need would require MOWAPAP to take some of their wealth and share it.  We cannot take money from the rich to help the poor.  That is blasphemy.  It is now un-American.  The wealthy somehow deserve their wealth and should have the right to accumulate even more because one can never be too wealthy.  One can be too hungry, or too much in need of mental health services or too much in need of education or too much in need of clothes and shelter, but those needs are minor compared to the need of the wealthy to accumulate more wealth.  The Creator was just wrong on this one.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the MOWAPAP may give as much money to politicians as they want without accountability, disclosure, etc.  That’s exactly what we need, more power and influence for the people of power and influence.

Goodbye to the notion that all men, all humans, are created equal.  It becomes increasingly cumbersome to protect those who were not of the correct race, wealth, sexual orientation, religious belief, and zip code.  The awkwardness is telling the MOWAPAP’s that they can not disenfranchise the rights of others, and the MOWAPAP’s do not like to have their right to discriminate limited.  If one accumulates enough wealth one should be immune to basic democratic principles.  Let’s put those American notions to rest and move on.

The Bill of Rights has a host of truly unnecessary prohibitions that simply inhibit the right of the wealthy and powerful to practice what they want to do.  Many of these rights must go as well. 

How dare the founding fathers include the notion that the government may not respect, recognize or support any religion?  We are Christians and should be able to have Christian icons wherever we want, and require kids to learn about Christianity in schools, and teach that the Bible is literal truth.  We must ignore this prohibition so that the government can promote Christianity.

People have the right to confront the evidence against them and respond to that evidence?  Really?  How in the world will MOWAPAPs wield power if they have to come clean with the reasons they want so-and-so gone or put away?  I know.  I have been judged by folks who never told me the evidence against me, but convicted me anyway.  Of course that did not bother me.  I am not a man of wealth and power, a MOWAPAP, so I do not deserve to know.  Why can’t others simply accept the fact that to wield true power we should not encumber the wielders of that power with silly limits to their secret judgments and sentences?

And, do not even get me started on public education!  Some have such a hard time recognizing that Anglo billionaires should have the authority to control public education, reduce the funding, redirect tax dollars to private sector enterprises, and hurt the kids who are not equal, i.e., poor kids, minority kids?  If we could just accept that even public services should be directed to help the men most equal, the MOWAPAP’s, we could all live with less conflict.

It is high time we simply accept that the best form of government is an aristocracy where those of wealth, power and prestige get to make all the decisions, influence all policies, and accumulate even more wealth.  These silly American notions of democracy and equality must be abandoned to achieve those ends.  We are well on our way to securing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all the MOWAPAP’s. 

 

God Bless the USA, just not all the people in the USA.  Just the MOWAPAP‘s.

“All men are created equal” RIP.

Confederacy, Nugent, Ice Skating, Hockey and the Dalai Lama

Very interesting news this morning:  Georgia has issued a new license plate “celebrating” the sons of the confederacy complete with a confederate flag.  Yep, controversy.  Ted Nugent is campaigning for Greg Abbott, a Texas Republican gubernatorial candidate.  Yep, controversy.  Women’s ice skating concluded yesterday with the gold going to a Russian.  South Koreans and Americans believe the judging was either rigged or biased.  Yep, controversy.  Women’s hockey lost to Canada in overtime, partly due to a referee call.  Yep, controversy.  And China has warned President Obama not to meet with the Dali Lama or it will seriously impair US - Chinese relations.  Yep, controversy.

I see the same pattern in all these issues.  The end of tolerance and the my-way-or-the-highway mentality.

Should the sons of the confederacy be able to celebrate their historical role as promoting slavery and state’s rights and losing to the north?  Sure, if they want to.  If I were the son, or grandson, etc. of a confederate soldier I would not join such a group anymore than I would join a sons of the Nazis group.  Both ideologies included no tolerance for diversity and the assumption that some races are superior to another.  That is an assumption I reject.  However, if such groups wish to exist in the land of the free and the home of the brave then I believe they have the right to exist and even proselytize.  I would not wage war on such groups.  I would, however, make clear judgments about a state that issues license plates honoring such a group and citizens of that state who opt to display such a plate.  I think they are fools.  But, in the US of A people have the right to be fools, even if it offends someone else.  Those offended by such decisions should accept the fact that it is the promoters of the philosophy who are in error, supporting a lost cause.  Were I a citizen of Georgia I would politically engage an effort to cease and desist the production of this license plate.  I am not.  So I sit safely in Texas where much of the same sentiment exists and watch a national debate on a topic that cannot be controlled.  Tolerate diversity.  Even fools.

Ted Nugent is a rock star from Detroit.  He is campaigning with and for Texas gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott.  His remarks regarding the second amendment (no limits to gun ownership) and Obama (labeled a subhuman mongrel) have stirred controversy chiefly because a candidate for governor seemingly not only endorsees such comments, but recruits support from the man who makes them.  Again, the end of tolerance and the my-way-or-the-highway mentality.  Nugent has no credentials as a constitutional expert or a political analyst.  He is a northern boy who has made money as a rock and roll performer.  Why anyone would listen to him in this arena is beyond me.  However, I do believe it is very indicative of the level of thinking of one of our possible, even likely governors.  So sad.  However, if Abbott wants Ted Nugentisms as part of his campaign then that reflects on Abbott.  If Abbott wants Lady Gaga that is a reflection on Abbott.  It should come as no surprise to anyone in Texas that Greg Abbott is a very conservative politician.  Nugent’s presence confirms that in oh so many ways.  Let Abbott pal around with anyone he wants to.  This is America.  Learn from who he chooses to pal around with and, hopefully conclude that Abbott is not a man who should be governor.  But even if you do vote for him, I absolutely support your right to vote for whomever you choose.  Tolerate diversity.  Even fools.

Ah, the Sochi Olympics, the thrill of victory the agony of defeat.  We support our kids in these games.  We want to win.  We pour out our hearts to those who lose and grow protective if one of our athletes is pressed by media at a time of sorrow.  Yes, these are our kids.  When our kids lose we accept it.  If our kids claim the loss is unfair, or rigged, or biased we grow incensed.  How dare they?  Don’t they know that the Olympics should be fair?  That the best man or woman or team should win?  That the bias of judging should not determine outcomes, only performance?  Well, those ideals have never been met because human beings are judging human beings.  It is one thing to judge an event by a stop watch.  No real controversy there, just thrills and heartbreak.   But when winners are chosen by humans using subjective criteria there is always room for criticism by the losers, real or not.  American female ice skaters and Korean female ice skaters feel that it was unfair for a Russian to win the gold.  The American female hockey team feels that their loss to the Canadians was unfair due to the judgment call of a referee in overtime.  I hate that our gals lost.  But, in every Olympic competition only one person wins the gold.  Challenges to the subjective decision making of judges in every competitive activity always come from those who lose.  Praise the winners, support the losers.  The losers are not really losers after all as they made it to the Olympics!  Tolerate human imperfection, human errors, and human diversity.  Even the diversity of fools.

President Obama announces plans to meet with the Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibet.  China sees the Dalai Lama as a fomenter of unrest in the Chinese area of Tibet.  The Dalai denies such accusations.  Once more, the Chinese lack a tolerance for diversity, and insist on a world view that is their own, in other words, my-way-or-the-highway.  Is it reasonable for a sovereign nation to dictate to another sovereign nation the people that are acceptable to meet?  Should Obama not meet with our allies regarding Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc. because any of those nations oppose such a meeting?  No, that is ludicrous.  Again, this complaint by the Chinese is more a reflection of the Chinese mentality than it is anything else.  Are we surprised to learn that China does not support diversity, does not support freedom of speech or freedom of the press or freedom of religion?  Nope.  If you doubted it before, here is more evidence.  The world cannot live in peace if the prevailing view is opposition to people different from me and it is my-way-or-the-highway.  That thinking has led to countless wars and devastating loss of life, liberty and happiness. 

I accept diversity because I love freedom, even if the diverse perspective offends me deeply and I see it as foolish.  I accept that I am a flawed human being so the rules do not have to be my way or the highway.  Winning is not my triumph over others.  Winning is mutual growth, respect, and improvement of the human condition. 

I am an educator because I support that kind of winning for a highly diverse student body.  Wish our legislators would stop acting like Ted Nugent and the Chinese while admitting that Olympic type scoring in schools does not even work always in the Olympics! They should promote a culture of real learning in the schools based on something other than my way or the highway.  Yet, I must tolerate those fools as well.

Do you support freedom?  If so, I would argue that you must by definition support the reality that humans are diverse in their physical attributes, their values and their beliefs.  There is no way to insist that we all view the world as you do and claim to support freedom.  However, we must tolerate those who do not get that.

School Systems Open or Closed?

Chances are the public school system in your community is the largest employer in your area.  Chances are the public school system in your community serves more meals and transports more people and cleans more square footage than any other organization in your community.  Chances are there is no other place in your community that houses so many people on a day-to-day basis than the public schools, and most of those in attendance children and minors.  Chances are there are more degreed, licensed professionals in your public school system than any other operation in your community.  And, there is no other system in your community that is funded by tax dollars and serves the children of the community.  Taxes and children; what could a community value more than that? 

And yet, one of the most interesting phenomenon I have observed in my career as superintendent is the consistent disregard of the public school system by the public.  I am not talking about athletic events, musical performances, spelling bees or county youth fairs where the community is involved only as spectators.  I am talking about the climate, the operational decisions and the organizational style adopted by the system, not to mention the actual decisions made by the system.  Typically, no one attends board meetings save the administrators who have to be there, or small groups of parents and patrons disgruntled by some decision or lack of decision by the district.  Are school systems that boring?  Clearly I do not think so.

One of the variables that determines public, parent and staff involvement in the system is whether the system is an open system or a closed system.  Though each of the social sciences has ways to describe these two systems, the way I think about the difference is via the answers to several simple questions:

Does the system provide feedback loops and input from a variety of constituencies, or do leaders operate independently without input and in fact, discourage input via fear and intimidation?

Does the system engage in efforts to keep the constituencies informed of the operation and issues of the system, or does the leadership keep the decision-making process and the decisions made closed and undiscoverable?

Does the system make day-to-day decisions based on prescribed practices in an open and published format, or does the system make decisions based on title, position, authority, control and an invisible cadre of friends of the leaders?

I understand the need for closed systems.  I do not want the NSA or the FBI or local law enforcement to operate as an open system.  Those folks have a host of operational procedures and make a variety of decisions that by their very nature must be held in confidence.  I do not want my doctor to function in an open system allowing feedback and discovery of my personal ailments and treatment.  I understand that for each of the closed systems there exists oversight by someone outside the closed system and channels to express concerns and grievances.

But I love open systems.  Schools cannot be totally open when it comes to individual students or individual employees.  In those cases there is an important level of confidentiality.  However, in virtually all other areas of decision making the process and the product should, in my opinion, be open.  There should be interaction with a host of constituencies, a clear feedback loop, and the sharing of information. 

Perhaps I have been too open.  I blogged about what was happening in the system and staff, parents and community members responded to the blog.  I blog here to share my thoughts regarding public education. I produced a review of each board meeting describing the process, issues and decisions made by the board, and published and shared that review with everyone.  I produced a summary of every meeting of the District Team, an input group promoted to serve an open system.  That group of teachers, administrators, parents, business and community members received all the information in the system and provided important input regarding forthcoming decisions.  I met with each faculty on a fairly regular basis to share and receive input.  I met weekly with the administrators to ensure we were all on the same page and to take steps to head off concerns and issues.  I received dozens of emails from employees and parents and community members with questions and concerns, each of which I responded to personally.  My door was always open unless I was engaged in a confidential conversation with a staff member or a parent.  I wanted an open system based on the core belief that public school systems by definition should be public.  I often said if I became more transparent no one would be able to see me.  Every now and then I even got a laugh.

The processes listed above do not happen in closed systems.  Decisions are made close to the vest.  No one is sure what is going on.  There is no feedback or input loop.  Decision makers do what they do because they feel empowered to do it.  Control and power are more important than service and transparency.  Fear exists in the system, or at the least uncertainty.  Vacancies are filled based on who one knows not talent and abilities.  The group that reviews employee prospects does not include teachers, parents and community members.  Decisions are top down and rationalized with “because I said so.”  No one ventures to try to open the system for fear of retribution and retaliation.  The public schools become more akin to the NSA than an open, public system.

There is an advantage to a closed public school system, but the advantage lies with the leadership and not anyone else.  With the kind of power that accrues to leaders in such a system is a sense of omnipotence and self-aggrandizement.  That is not a sense of service.  That is not public transparency.

So, is your school system open or closed?  There are some simple tests.  Can you discover the outcomes of the most recent board meetings?  Are the actions of the board published somewhere?  Can you discover the personnel selection process and who is involved in the selection?  Can you discover what happens at the meetings of the District Team (a.k.a., district site-based decision making team)?  In fact, is there such a team and does it meet regularly?  Do you know the feedback loops?  Do you know whom to ask about what?  Is there an open door policy on the part of the leadership?  Do parent and community members have a clear understanding of what the board does and what the superintendent does?  Do folks attend board meetings just out of curiosity?  Do parents and community members know where individual board members stand on key issues in public education?  Are principals and teachers confident in their ability to do their jobs with support from the district leadership?  If the answers are mostly “yes” then you likely have an open system.  If the answers are mostly “no” then your system is likely closed.

When my children were very young I made a host of decisions in their behalf.  What to wear, what to eat, when to be where, etc.  My position was I am the father and you will do this because I have your best interest at heart, you should obey me and you do not know enough to make wise decisions.  As my kids got older they participated more and more in the decision making process and their input was honored more and more.  Eventually they made almost all their own decisions and I evolved to providing input.  Now as young adults my kids are great decision makers.  If I still tried to make decisions for them as I did when they were 2 years old, they would revolt.  I argue that any step back from collaborative, open systems is a regression, not an improvement and does not promote quality decision making in a public entity.

The funny thing about public school systems that operate using the closed system model is that sooner or later parents, staff and community members will grow tired of the fortress surrounding decisions and will throw all the rascals out.  If the rascals oppose an open system, they will throw out the employees who support an open system.  Hence we breed instability in public school decision making.

My advice to leaders of public school systems has always been to promote an open system.  Strategies that may work in the private sector will not work in the public sector by definition:  it is public, not private!  Seek and respect input.  Let people know where you stand.  Make decisions openly, in public and share them.  Let the various constituencies be involved and respect their input.  Eliminate fear in the system.  Promote open dialog with everyone.  Come from a position of service, not power or self-service. 

(Too bad our legislature does not understand this as well.  Virtually every legislated public school mandate is the result of closed system decision making.  I gave input, it made no difference, so I was tempted to stop trying.)

Telling employees and parents and community members to simply do as I say, I am the boss, and I know what is best for you is akin to saying, “Let them eat cake.”  We know what eventually happens to such leaders.