Publishable Articles

What I would offer for a religion or education column

by

To Kill an Adaptation

I am confident that you gentlemen will review without passion the evidence you have heard, come to a decision, and restore this defendant to his family. In the name of God, do your duty.  Atticus’s voice had dropped . . . .Atticus Finch in closing arguments to the jury in To Kill a Mockingbird (Warner Books Edition, p. 205)]

At the beginning of the closing argument in the assault trial of Tom Robinson in the novel To Kill a Mockingbird, the defense attorney, Atticus Finch, addresses the jury “as if they were folks on the post office corner” (203).  Harper Lee, wanted to portray Atticus as a country lawyer with a conscience, but one who did not hold himself above the common people of Maycomb. He taught his children to respect every person, even the angry, fatally prejudiced Bob Ewell or the furiously demented Mrs. Henry Lafayette Dubose (who calls Atticus a “nigger lover”).

The first attempt to bring To Kill a Mockingbird to drama was the Gregory Peck movie in 1962, two years after the publication of the novel. The movie had profound reverence for the novel, quoting large portions of the original dialogue and portraying the Scout, Jem and Dill characters with child actors. Mary Badham, who portrayed Scout, was the youngest ever to be nominated for Best Supporting Actress to that date. In the most recent production at the Fox, she returned as the bitter, unbalanced Mrs. Henry DuBose, more of a bit part than the character in the novel. Horton Foote’s adaptation won the Academy Award for Best Screenplay – Based on Material from Another Medium

Using child actors and a mild-mannered Gregory Peck gave the movie a sweet innocence and a remorseful conclusion to the courtroom drama, rather than the fiery outbursts of the successor renditions on Broadway and most recently at the Fox.  Peck won an Academy Award for his philosophical Atticus, a country lawyer without pretense.

In the Broadway play, what the audience most remembers is the closing argument in the courtroom from Jeff Daniels, as he challenges us to rise against prejudice wherever we find it. The final words of the play are the same as those we hear at the beginning when the judge enters the courtroom, “All rise.” Aaron Sorkin is less committed to understatement and empathy than Harper Lee.

I love Jeff Daniels, so it pains me to say he was not cast correctly to play an aging, frail attorney, who keeps many of his opinions to himself, and who reveals his sharpshooting skills only in a desperate emergency.  Daniels cannot conceal his broad shoulders and more solid build, so he cannot faithfully represent the more lanky Finch, who constantly asserts he is too old for physical activities in the novel.

The actor I have always considered for Atticus is “Law and Order’s” Sam Waterson, who played a similar character to Atticus (Forrest Bedford) on a television ripoff of Mockingbird “I’ll Fly Away.” Waterson has the shaky voice and lean build needed for the character of Atticus, who is superficially weak, but powerful in conviction and determination. Daniels is good with the wry humor, but he is an imposing figure, no matter how you dress him, a character it is hard to underestimate.

So my hopes for Atticus were sunk by the passionate attorney Aaron Sorkin depicted in his adaptation of the novel. Jeff Daniels played a mercurial Atticus on Broadway and reached heights of righteous anger in his closing argument. In one segment of the argument Daniels steps to the front of the stage and urges us in the audience to oppose racism in our midst. It is a tirade against passive neglect. In an interview Daniels said that the contemporary Atticus could not wait for racists to find their “better selves.” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfsFeMRF7CU).

I wondered if Richard Thomas would play a different Atticus when he took To Kill a Mockingbird on the road. I saw him sear the courtroom with his fury at a Thursday evening performance (March 9) at the Fox in St. Louis.

If anything, his closing argument was even more over the top than Jeff Daniels. He dramatically tossed his closing argument script aside and exploded about the gross double standards we hold about race. It is Richard Thomas at peak ferocity, scorching the dialogue so it was barely understandable.On the apron of the stage he declaimed about how much work we have to do, not in Maycomb, Alabama, but in our own communities.

In the history of dramatic productions the passion of Atticus Finch has grown exponentially from Gregory Peck to Jeff Daniels to Richard Thomas, the contemporary versions making Atticus louder and more desperate than the country lawyer of the novel. He is more like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, if you want to add Jimmy Stewart to the mix. There is no understatement in the contemporary portrayals, because Mockingbird has become a message performance, perhaps a needed message, but not what Harper Lee had in mind when she wrote the novel.

Is it just the medium of theater that urges more and more passionate portrayals of heroic figures or have the writers and actors rendering this novel decided that the loudest voice gains the most respect?  That is what I wonder, having read the novel and seen two theatrical performances.  I am not a purist, who insists dramatic performances must be faithful to the novels they portray, but I am mindful of the unique heroic figure we grew to love in the original Mockingbird.

What I miss is the heroism of the Everyman character, who surprises us with his determination against overwhelming odds. He takes a stand the way most of us hope we would, if we had the courage of our convictions. He shows us what ordinary people are capable of,  a nerve, a “grace under pressure”– Hemingway’s definition of courage.  That is what I miss in the elevated portrayals of Atticus by Daniels and Thomas.

Atticus Finch has survived as an American hero by his nobility of character. He is not so much heroic, as he is steadfast. But that is why we admire him.

by

Now Playing–Spring!

Crafter of Sazerac, Dave, in the background

Not only are we entertaining spring a bit early in Chesterfield, we are entertaining Wendell Ohs, Victoria’s brother, on the occasion of his birthday-March 8. Here’s to you, Wendell, direct from New Orleans! That’s a Sazerac in my hand, mixed by master bartender, Dave, seen in the background here.

Musclemouth Performance (Click twice)

Sazerac at the Ice House, Hotel Provincial, New Orleans

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Below our daffodils are bursting out two weeks before the calendar welcomes spring. The less brazen purple flowers are Lenten roses in our backyard and side yard.  Heedless of the sudden drop in temps to the thirties and forties here, the early bloomers are shaking their heads with laughter. We welcome them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Faces of Dred Scott Exhibit – Opening on March 7

March 6 was the darker 166th anniversary of the Dred Scott decision, which consigned Blacks to chattel slavery – slavery in which an individual is considered the personal property of another–  until the Thirteenth Amendment in January 31, 1865. The occasion was commemorated by a new exhibit of Dred Scott artifacts displayed in the Law Library in downtown St. Louis. The library is a magnificent room on the thirteenth floor of the Civil Courthouse of the 11th District.

looking up at the statue of Dred & Harriet Scott with the Old Courthouse\'s classical columns behind

Dred and Harriet Scott statue outside the old courthouse, St. Louis

Featured speakers included the great-great granddaughter of Dred and Harriet Scott, Lynn Jackson, and Judge David Mason,  judge for Division 17 of the Missouri 22nd Judicial Circuit Court.  Lynn pointed to some of 28 exhibits on display for the first time, e.g. a poster of a 3-D Printed Maquette 14″ Fine Art Piece, a replica of the Dred and Harriet Scott statue displayed outside the Old Courthouse, where the decision was handed down.

Another featured exhibit shows both Abraham Lincoln and Dred Scott aging over a very short time during the expanse of slavery. The top image of Scott is a modern rendering of the younger Dred Scott– the bottom two the only other known photographs.

Above right is a proposed stamp to honor Dred Scott. We signed a petition to create this stamp on our way into the reception. Another image shows Dred and Harriet Scott pulling against a chain together in a representation for a proposed statue of the couple. Their lawsuit for freedom was a joint suit on the grounds that they had previously traveled to a free state, Illinois, where emancipation was expected, once having left a slave state, Missouri. Harriet is believed to a prime mover, not receiving the credit she deserved for initiating the suit. This image is a proposed design for a statue in Alabama.

A final image shows a design for a Dred Scott mosaic created by Green Hill  Detention  Center  School  group  project, Art  Class  in Washington  State.  The  design  is  incomplete,  but  was  sent  to  St. Louis  for  the  opening  of  the  exhibit.

Judge David Mason gave a keynote address after Lynne Jackson spoke. He has researched the so-called “Freedom Suits” that preceded the Dred Scott case in which hundreds of Black slaves had petitioned for their freedom.   He spoke passionately about the need for contemporary citizens to understand the dark history of slavery, as well as the subsequent period of the “Black Codes” and the Jim Crow laws.   The  heroism  of  Dred and Harriet Scott remind us not to take our freedom for granted.

Judge David Mason

 

by

ARCH for Justice

When President Biden announces a federal initiative to reduce crime with mental health and community policing methods, St.Louis should step up with an optimistic proposal that “engages the entire region,” as Mayor Lyda Krewson has said. Not with a stingy allocation of resources. Open the coffers and pave the way for young people to assume a new generation of Advocacy, Reform and Community Health (ARCH) for Justice. 

Two of the biggest projects in St. Louis are the construction of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the demand for a multi-service police department, one better adapted for community policing. The NGA has the advantage of start-up funding beyond imagination and a curriculum called STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) designed to turn out graduates to work for the monolith of technology under construction. The funding and the jobs are ready and waiting.

Less defined, but just as significant are the needs of social justice reform, dramatized by the murder of George Floyd at the hands of the Minneapolis Department this summer. The slogan “Defund the Police” as a solution was calculated to go nowhere–without a constructive goal.  President-elect Joe Biden has tried to redefine the needs of police departments to include social and psychological services, the stingiest-funded services in most cities.

Recently I wrote about the potential of Sumner High School as a magnet for social services occupations (https://wtucker.edublogs.org/2020/12/18/social-justice-education/) Recently I wrote about the potential of Sumner High School as a magnet for social services occupations (https://wtucker.edublogs.org/2020/12/18/social-justice-education/) and it occurred to me that the social services lacked the career map that STEM occupations have boasted for decades. The demand for STEM professionals has been its own financial magnet to draw students into the supply chain, and there is no shortage of money to pay young people who want to enter STEM professions.

Not so true of social service occupations.  Resources for these jobs have always been in short supply, and students seem to enter these occupations more by accident than design. In fact, until now, criminal justice and mental health education have run on parallel tracks, intersecting by accident in occupations like parole officer or youth counselor.

If the Biden administration makes good on its goal to expand policing services to include the social and psychological, there will be start-up funding from Washington, both for police departments and university programs in criminal justice and mental health.  Grants will be temporary magnets for students to choose jobs that emphasize justice reform.  Then we will need local resources to sustain career tracks that will support students from high school to job recruitment in community policing and youth services.

Local resources include expanding the budget for education and recruitment of these positions by the city itself,  with funding from professional units such as the police unions, from the business community (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fHTi9HThGE&list=PLtxwUv5r5kpUtJv9jXUmzu3tLhQ8_loVc), from professional organizations, from local schools, and even from churches providing mentors and scholarships for promising young people.  There will be no magic spring of funding from the desert of social service professions; it will be local pocketbooks opening to make something where there was nothing before.

Collaboration is the lynchpin of this model of orientation, recruitment, and apprenticeship. We need a model of education that reaches from ninth grade to on-the-job training. I’ll call it ARCH for Justice. ARCH stands for Advocacy, Reform and Community Health.  Yes, it is an idea forced into an acronym, but it is indeed an arch of progress for service-minded young people to prepare for jobs that may not exist yet, but must evolve from the need to humanize police departments.

A very flawed model for this kind of recruitment was “Teach for America,” which attracted bright young people to teach in urban settings with the prize of tuition partially paid.  The model was flawed from the point of view of training and sustainability– meaning the training was poor and the rewards were insufficient. The incentives kept new teachers on the job for three years at maximum. Teachers are not even proficient until after three years of service, so most of the recruits left the profession about the time they were getting good at it. The methodology preparation was so superficial that teachers were handed few tools for success. It was not a program to develop career teachers.

——————————————————————————————————————————————-

In ARCH for Justice students could receive from 25% to full tuition remission if they remain in the profession for 3-5 years. Or they could receive an education savings account for future study whether undergraduate or graduate. The goal is to reward commitment beyond three years activity in the profession. An education savings account could accrue from 1-10 years to accommodate the growth and promotion of the student.

——————————————————————————————————————————————-

Secondary Level: ARCH for Justice would start with basic classes in criminology or mental health at the high school level.  A liberal high school curriculum could include at least four classes in English, social science, health science and mathematics that orient students to problems of social justice reform. In the case of a magnet school, such as the model I proposed for Sumner High School, you could offer as many as eight courses that meet core requirements as well as professional introductions to criminal justice and public health with job shadowing (https://wtucker.edublogs.org/2020/12/18/social-justice-education/).

Post-secondary:  we need programs that cross over between criminal justice and the health sciences. Local universities, like SLU and WashU, have strong departments in criminology and mental health, but no cross-over majors. These disciplines are traditionally complementary. If Washington D..C. has any influence this could change.  How are students prepared for community policing, family interventions or youth mentorships? Even alternative education can be adapted for offenders on parole or finishing their GED while caught up in the legal system. At this level we can plan summer internships for secondary or post-secondary, who are exploring social justice professions.

Professional: In teaching there are always mentor teachers who take a special (often humane) interest in the induction of new teachers. I don’t know how this ethic plays out in other social professions, but it should be an essential professional standard. Interns could be any age from 14 to 25 and their level of participation on the job and can vary as well. It might be valuable to hold weekly seminars with participants from diverse careers, from community policing to alternative education, to broaden the perspective of social justice reform.

In the future grants and budget proposals should reward connecting one level of education with another, such as secondary with post-secondary or undergraduate with professional internships.  These are always the Achilles heel of professional education, so providing funds to target connections is essential. Unlike the STEM professions, the progress from one level to another is not self-explanatory. That’s why we need an ARCH for Justice framework.

If the devil is in the details, I have not given the devil his due.  The goal of increased collaboration for the levels of education and the profession needs illumination, and I am glad to shed some light.  It is time for all levels of secondary, post-secondary, and professional schooling to conceive of education as meeting a social need and conscientiously collaborating to address it.

Ultimately the commitment and resources St. Louis brings to this goal will show young people that we want motivated and talented people for this cause.  We can’t build a monolithic structure like the National Geo-spatial Intelligence building, but we can construct professional highways that provide both direction and resources for social justice reform.

To editorialize a little, we need the business community and universities to step up their funding and focus on induction of young people to a worthy cause. When Michael Neidorff pointed out it was hard to recruit talent because of the city’s reputation for crime, he addressed an issue he could remedy with funding part of the career path to social justice occupations. If he led local businesspeople in funding part of the professional highway, he could become part of the solution.

Universities play a critical role in developing students for the crossover professions of criminology and mental heath. They could develop majors, minors and certificate programs to recruit teenagers to the causes of low visibility and high-stress. They need to raise the visibility and fund scholarships to go where no recruit has gone before. To develop programs, fund scholarships, and work hard in the fields -both secondary and professional, where the real learning takes place.

Social justice funding and promotion is on the horizon. As we prepare, think about creating magnet schools at the secondary level (https://wtucker.edublogs.org/2020/12/18/social-justice-education/), inter-departmental majors and minors at the post-secondary level, and pilot programs for policing/ mental health positions in the police department. Let ARCH for Justice  be prepared for social reform.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advocacy, Reform, and Community Health.

Social Justice Education

by

Lighting a Light, Cursing the Victim

This started as a letter to the editor, then evolved into an Op-Ed piece, and now lies dormant on the blog. I will open this to public view once the Post-Dispatch has rejected it for publication.
I see that Arne Duncan is pretending to know a lot about education again. The appointing of an experienced Secretary of Education ( Dr. Miguel Cardona) , one who has worked his way through the ranks of public education, emphasizes the contrast between a bureaucrat and a lifetime educator for leadership of our public schools.  Mr. Duncan, who has no extended teaching experience, led a forced march of reform for eight years under the Obama administration.
In his Op-Ed of December 23, he makes two reasonable, but obvious critiques of public education:
  1.  We lack the broadband coverage for 10 million students to learn remotely
  2.  We need to understand why students don’t engage with teachers during remote learning.
He praises his home city, Chicago, for “lighting a torch instead of cursing the darkness” by paying for broadband providers to connect with every household in the city. He admits that other cities need financial aid to accomplish this. We know that insufficient aid to states is forthcoming, so that the problem will not be soon solved by less affluent states, who are painfully aware that too many households cannot receive education during the pandemic. Thanks for embarrassing the victim, Arne.
Mr. Duncan makes a valid point when he says “But most of all, we need to promote cultural change in our communities– engaging students’ minds and curiosities in online learning. Nothing will work unless students willfully engage from home.”
He could point out that Sesame Street  and Mr. Rogers Neighborhood already figured this out for the pre-school set, and the problem lies with the intermediate and secondary grades more than our youngest students.
I wish the former Secretary of Education had broken down the solution he calls “changing the culture.”  You could accomplish changing the culture by psychological brainwashing, by paying students to get good grades, by setting up an apprentice-learning system of secondary education, but I don’t think Mr. Duncan would advocate any of this. You could change the culture dramatically by lowering student- teacher loads and reforming teaching into large group- small group- one-on-one variations. That might work, but it would cost “beaucoup bucks,” as my wife would say.
I am not encouraged to hear Mr. Duncan’s tired solutions for saving public education, and I am least encouraged to see the Post-Dispatch enabling them. The editorial space might be better used by the commentary of the Network for Public Education on the recent choice for Secretary of Education [https://networkforpubliceducation.org/npes-thoughts-on-the-selection-of-miguel-cardona-for-secretary-of-education/]
Mr. Cardona’s impending nomination is an encouraging sign for improved leadership, yet the NPE mentions goals educators should hold him to.
If education is the subject, teachers should be consulted, whether currently or formerly teaching. That would be a useful editorial policy for the Post-Dispatch.
William Tucker (Ph.D.)
1895 Schoettler Valley Drive
Chesterfield  MO  63017
by

Restorative or Reparative?

The “reparations movement” has inspired the resolve of the Episcopal Church and the Minnesota Council of Churches, according to an Associated Press article today (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, December 23, 2020, A14). I know my local Presbytery, the Giddings-Lovejoy Presbytery, has begun to consider reparations high on its agenda.

The term “reparations” will receive pushback among Christians for many reasons, but one of the sticking points for me is the notion that our actions can truly repair the sins of the fathers. According to Merriam-Webster “reparations” is the act of making amends, offering expiation, or giving satisfaction for a wrong or injury.” It is the height of presumption to believe we can make amends for the enslavement of human beings brought by brutal force to this country and often treated with less decency than we have given to animals.

PHOTO: An illustration of a slave auction published in the Illustrated London News, Feb. 16, 1861.
Corbis via Getty Images:   An illustration of a slave auction published in the Illustrated London News, Feb. 16, 1861
Reparations is associated with the settlement ending a war. It is a way to assess and limit the amount of damages caused by the losing side. It is arbitrary and imposed by the winners. The metaphor itself suggests a dominant race and a subordinate race.
Reparations suggest that a settlement will be final and the offended will be satisfied.  This is why the races who constitute the offended parties will often claim the reparations are token and insulting. You can not put a number on damage of historic racism. The mere act of reparations becomes an act of oppression, because the dominant race sets the limits to kind and amount.
More viable and less pretentious are the acts of “restorative justice.” This concept comes from prison reform, the idea that criminals are best served by understanding their offenses to the community and acting in ways that will restore trust between them and the community. It gives meaning to incarceration and justice, and it does not pretend the offender has “paid enough” to be restored to the community.

restorative justice…

  • is a different way of thinking about crime and our response to crime
  • focuses on repairing the harm caused by crime and reducing future harm through crime prevention
  • requires offenders to take responsibility for their actions and for the harm they have caused
  • seeks redress for victims, recompense by offenders and reintegration of both within the community
  • requires a cooperative effort by communities and the government

http://restorativejustice.org/restorative-justice/about-restorative-justice/tutorial-intro-to-restorative-justice/lesson-1-what-is-restorative-justice/#sthash.6kLxnFIj.dpbs

The final two elements are “cooperative” and a key difference to “reparations.” It means that the offender and offended are working together, not to pay back or compensate, but to restore the broken bonds.  It reduces the adversarial  elements of the offended vs. the offender, which seem more pronounced in “reparations.”

The restorative justice model suggests that the dominant culture of the White and powerful is inverted to become the obligated and the incarcerated. Is there a sense that the dominant culture is truly a convicted and subservient one? Can the privileged assume the place of the criminal as regards race and justice? That is the difficult pill for the White and the powerful to swallow.

However, the dominant are not asked to become the slave. The ultimate goal is less humiliation than “recompense by offenders and reintegration of both within the community.”  Rather than settle or pay back, the dominant culture is asked to “redress and reintegrate.” This is a model created to retain dignity for both criminal and victim. The victim should recognize good intentions and constructive solutions, while the offender should offer good faith effort for the sake of restoration of community, not to “pay back” for their offenses.

I especially like the term “restorative,” because it suggests a need to be healed, rather than a need to pay off.  White people need to get used to acts that restore, and stop thinking in terms of “how much will it take to satisfy you?” We want our community to be healthy and restored above all other goals.Lady Justice circle image

We are in need of healing above all, and probably it will take more grace than we have. Restoration is an act of divine love and mercy. We must begin together in all humility.

He restoreth my soul; He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for His name’s sake. (Psalm 23:3)

Wellington NZ artist, Phil Dickson,

by

Loyalty or Courage?

“Article III federal judges are appointed for life terms by the president of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate per Article III of the United States Constitution.” https://news.ballotpedia.org/2020/11/03/trump-has-appointed-second-most-federal-judges-through-november-1-of-a-presidents-fourth-year/

As of November 1, Donald Trump had appointed more Article III federal judges than any president since Jimmy Carter. He had appointed more Supreme Court Judges, three, than any President since Ronald Reagan who needed two terms to exceed him.US President Donald Trump pumps his fist after speaking during election night in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC, early on November 4, 2020. - The US election was plunged into chaos early November 4, 2020 as President Donald Trump prematurely declared victory and sought Supreme Court intervention to stop vote-counting -- even as his Democratic rival Joe Biden voiced confidence in his own chances.

In mounting 57 cases of fraud to overturn the 2020 Presidential election results, it seems  the President was likely depending more on the loyalty of the judges concerned than the merits of those cases, because they have been dismissed almost with contempt for the lack of evidence. Regarding allegations of election fraud in Pennsylvania voting, a Trump appointee declared:

“Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.” (Judge Stephanos Bibas, on behalf of a unanimous U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals panel)

In a similar case in Georgia,

“To halt the certification at literally the 11th hour would breed confusion and disenfranchisement that I find have no basis in fact and law.”(U.S. District Judge Steven Grimberg in Atlanta on Nov. 19).

This case sought to overturn the results after two recounts which still left the election awarded to President-elect Joe Biden.  The judge was another Trump appointee.

Finally, a Texas attorney general mounted a case for fraud against four states, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia, forcing the Supreme Court to step in.  Here the President assumed he would triumph with his three appointed justices and a 6-3 majority.  The President long-ago began a drumbeat of anticipation that the Supreme Court would finally vindicate his allegations. “I think this (election) will end up in the Supreme Court, and I think it’s very important that we have nine justices.” [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-judges/u-s-judiciary-shaped-by-trump-thwarts-his-election-challenges-idUSKBN28B60O]. Joining President Trump before the Supreme Court were 126 Congressional representatives, who signed up their support of the lawsuit.

Alas, most of the judges would not even hear the case and voted 6-2, while the two dissenters only allowed the case deserved a hearing. The three Trump-appointed justices all voted with the majority.

“Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot,” the court said in an unsigned order.[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-rejects-texas-election-lawsuit-challenging-biden-win/]

Apparently loyalty is harder to demand from judges who never have to seek re-election than from federal legislators who represent more than 60% of the Republicans in the House of Representatives.

But why should loyalty determine what is right in supporting or denying electoral fraud? Should 126 of our elected representatives support the President for fear of losing their seats in the next election? Does it take the security of a judge’s position to identify the merits of fraud cases in a Presidential election in which fifty of fifty-seven of the challenging legal cases have been denied, dismissed, settled or withdrawn? (One was settled)[https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-s-election-fight-includes-over-30-lawsuits-it-s-n1248289].  Shouldn’t we be appalled that more than 60% of Republicans in the House of Representatives are willing to contest an election that was “the most secure election in American history,” according to the Cyber-security and Infrastructure Security Agency. https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/17/politics/chris-krebs-fired-by-trump/index.html.

Loyalty may not be a virtue when the cause is corrupt.  We should be saddened, even sickened to see how many of our elected representatives weigh loyalty more than integrity. It is not a model to carry into the next Presidential administration. You are not trustworthy if your allegiance is for sale or negotiation.

There are still the loyalists we are proud to call “compatriots.” With such language we recall fellow Americans who stood in the breach, especially those in the Justice Department, who did not allow loyalty to prevent them from doing the right thing.  I think of James Comey, Sally Yates, Preet Bharara, Christopher Wray, and most recently Christopher Krebs.  I also think of Mitt Romney, who has called “foul” whenever it was deserved. Their loyalty was to no party or person, but to the U.S. Constitution. We should start expecting that kind of loyalty of all of our leaders.

 

by

Social Justice Education

I am not from St. Louis, but the closing of Sumner High School sounds like a major setback for public education for this city. Not only for sentimental reasons, but for its significance as the oldest high school west of the Mississippi for Black Students. It seems to say Black Lives Don’t Matter in public education.

At the same time public education should be integrated and progressive, not longing for the good old days that could be an illusion. How can we revive declining enrollment in a school with an historic past and a dim future?

Despite my outsider status, I am bold to suggest a magnet high school with a Criminal/ Social Justice emphasis and strong connections to university programs and the local police departments. Not a technical school with career emphasis, but a general education school with a socially responsive curriculum. It could be renamed:

  • Dick Gregory High School for Social Justice
  • Margaret Bush Wilson Secondary School for Justice Reform
  • Arthur Ashe High School

Any one of these names would evoke past graduates while focusing on professional needs of the future. The need is for police departments to expand their community policing program to include specialists in mental health, public health, social work, and alternative education.  If any occupation needs specialized assistance in U.S. cities, it is the police department.

We need young minds to think about how policing can be humanized and proactive, especially students of color who have suffered mistreatment or who want to be part of the solution, instead of the problem. We need white students who want to use their privilege to promote social justice. Probably not students who are thinking of wealth and prosperity first. Let the STEM schools recruit them.

We can start by recruiting excellent teachers and principals with ideas for a socially responsive curriculum. Look for forthcoming grants from the state and federal government to develop courses that integrate literacy, the social sciences and health sciences. Consult with specialists at St. Louis University and Washington University on preparatory classes for their programs. Provide incentives for teachers and administrators to work with these specialists or visit secondary schools with nascent programs in social justice. The best incentives are released time from teaching and stipends for planning during the summer.

Do not try to hatch this plan in a central office without participation from teachers or students. This would destroy both the buy-in for,  and the relevance of, the curriculum. Learn from the endless failures of educational reform!

Some tried-and-true approaches include core subject teams, where four teachers share the same students and planning time, and reduced class load–probably 25 per class with four classes.  Team-taught humanities or social science/ psychology classes often generate great ideas for the new curricula.  Field trips, job shadowing, joint programs with university credit, all improve collaboration with outside agencies.

Is it getting too expensive? Then forget it. You are not interested in real education reform, and Sumner High School is doomed. If you want invested teachers and students, then invest in the school. Schools that show financial commitment attract the best professionals and the best students. That is what “Social Justice Education” should have.

Martin Luther King, Jr. reminded us that “Justice delayed is justice denied.”  Sumner High School might invoke and respond to his warning by focusing its curriculum and its community on the need for social justice.

Just a thought from a newcomer who never went to high school in Missouri.

 

 

 

 

 

by

Loyalist: How the Word was Lost

Every Sunday School child remembers how Daniel survived a night in the lions’ den, because he would not renounce his faith in YAWEH, the God of the Hebrew people.

Later in life Daniel became an early conscientious objector for me. He knew the law that “whoever prays to anyone, divine or human, for thirty days, except to you, o king, shall be thrown into a den of lions.” Still he prayed to YAWEH with his windows open so he could be seen in full view.

Today I see Daniel as one who maintained his loyalty to God under the intense pressure of an autocratic king to do otherwise. He held his faith above loyalty to an unjust ruler.

Are you a loyal person?  Do you think of loyalty as weak-minded?  Is loyalty something that should be earned, like “respect”? Or is loyalty an end in itself, like “faith in God”?  We have faith in “things unseen.” Should we have loyalty in people unproven? Are people who change their loyalty more like “traitors” or “principled supporters”?

Faith and loyalty do not require the same burden of proof. Faith in God often depends on riding it out under challenging circumstances. Loyalty to a person means considering whether the person still deserves loyalty under challenging circumstances. Daniel made such as choice when he refused to bow down to his benefactor-king. That lesson has stuck with me for half a century.

One measure of the great divide in our country is whether you equate faith and loyalty, whether you consider patriotism larger than loyalty, and whether your loyalty can be changed by credible evidence of corrupt character in the person you are loyal to.

The term “loyalist” has begun to lose its luster during the Trump administration. We might once have thought of Cubs fans, supply-side economists, or people who prefer four seasons over two as “loyalists.” They were a lovable bunch who did no harm. Oh, maybe the supply-side economists were dangerous, but they meant well.

At some point a “loyalist” changed from

a person who loves his or her country and supports its interests and policies (Merriam-Webster) to

a person who loves the person who put him or her in power and supports his interests and policies (Handbook  of Loyalty, Trump – Corleone)

At the point loyalty drifted from an ideal to a person, it began to lose its luster.  Has the very term “loyal” become a term of derision, rather than a chivalric value?

The Trump-card for the current campaign against the certification of the Presidential election was the test of loyalty of some judges appointed to the bench by the President himself.  In Pennsylvania the judge was one of 53 judges appointed by the President to appellate courts, Stephanos Bilbas, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, with jurisdiction over Pennsylvania and two other states. Judge Bilbas flunked the loyalty test when he asserted:

Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. . . .  Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here. [https://www.voanews.com/2020-usa-votes/trump-appointed-judges-balk-presidents-efforts-overturn-election].

Then the Supreme Court justices’ loyalty was tested when the attorney general of Texas filed a suit aimed at the voting procedures of four states: Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia. But the Court flunked their first loyalty test, with the three Trump-appointed justices voting with the 6-2 majority:

“Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot,” the court said in an unsigned order.[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-rejects-texas-election-lawsuit-challenging-biden-win/]

Were these unceremonious dismissals of lawsuits an abandonment of loyalty to their benefactor?  Or does it mean that the judicial branch is still taking its orders from the U.S. Constitution, unlike the Legislative Branch? (There were, after all,  106 legislators from the Republican side who signed on to this lawsuit.)  Is loyalty absolute or conditional? What does it mean to be a “loyalist” in a regime ruled by an American strongman?

Words are malleable objects and quickly gain or lose favor merely by their use in the media or among interest groups.  What we used to call “nice” no longer seems nice to us. “Nice job,” “nice friend,” “nice behavior.” No one wants to be called “nice” anymore, partly because it sounds ironic or archaic, a term your parents used to describe the boy or girl they preferred you to date.

The same shift has occurred with the term “loyalist.” Look at the synonyms below arranged, by my judgment alone, on a scale of “negative” to “positive.”

Negative——|———-|———|——————|——-|———|——-|———|—————|————-|—–Positive

———–jingoist  chauvinist   flag-waver super-patriot  nationalist loyalist   countryman compatriot  patriot—-

Three of these words have shifted from positive to negative over the last half century: “nationalist,” “super-patriot,” and “flag-waver.”  In the Thesaurus more synonyms of “loyalist” are now negative more than positive (again by my estimate).  Most interesting is the shift of “super-patriot,” a higher degree of “patriot,” shifting to the negative. This is a little like the falling from grace of the word “nice.” It used to be nice “to be nice.” It used to be noble to be a “loyalist.”  The term “Trump-loyalist” has contaminated the word itself, because there are so few politicians among his followers who inspire loyalty.

——————————————————————————————————————————————–

Many will see the term “Trump-loyalist” as a true compliment, and those are probably the same people who still support “flag-waver” and “super-patriot” as positive labels. They see the flag, patriotism and loyalty as unconditional values. You are either loyal or not. If you abandon somebody because of their bad behavior you are disloyal. Loyalty per se is more important than the facts that inspire loyalty.

If you are loyal, you are not embarrassed by the President accepting the word of an acknowledged adversary of your country over the word of the CIA. You are not even embarrassed by a President insisting that he won an election a month and a half  after the popular vote showed him losing by seven million and the Electoral vote by 74.  You are not embarrassed to support his “election fraud” campaign after the Electoral College has sustained this unofficial vote. That is what loyalty currently means: defying the evidence.

The expression “feet of clay” usually means that a hero or admired leader may appear strong, but at his base is weak. The hero’s image will collapse because of its foundational weakness. The original story refers to a dream of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar as interpreted by Daniel in the Hebrew Bible. Yes, the same Daniel of the lions’ den. Daniel must be the longest term advisor who never gave his boss good news.

The king dreamed of a statue.  “This statue was huge, its brilliance extraordinary,” revealed Daniel.

The head of that statue was of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its middle and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay. As you looked on, a stone was cut out, not by human hands, and it struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and broke them in pieces. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold were all broken in pieces and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth. (Daniel 2: 31-35).

What we remember from this story is how such a mighty kingdom could be undermined by a single unrecognizable flaw, the feet of clay mixed in with the iron. The story intends, I think, to warn us that what appears minor could become a fatal flaw destroyed by unexpected force (the stone).

The decay of a value, such as “loyalty” could be like iron mixed with clay. It appears to be the real thing, but the “loyalist” is no longer admired, because of the people the loyalists are connected with. The loyalist is reduced to a “super-patriot” and later to the more negative”jingoist” (“Jingoists really dislike people from outside their own borders.” Merriam-Webster). Yet it is not merely the language, but the people who decline and become vulnerable to attack. We are the people with “feet of clay,” no matter what our many admirers may say.

Daniel was less famous as a prophet than for speaking truth to power.  He never seemed to have good prophecies to deliver to Nebuchadnezzar. Yet the King always honored him for speaking the truth, because he was smart enough to heed the warnings of God. Daniel was less a “loyalist,” than a principled official with conditional loyalty.

Daniel is the character we need to emulate. In our historical context that would be Stephanos Bilbas, appellate judge, or Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska, who said the Supreme Court has “closed the book on the nonsense”  when he heard the Court would not hear the suit initiated by the attorney general of Texas.  Such defiance of Donald Trump has been rarely heard.

There are still the loyalists we are proud to call “countryman,” “compatriot,” and “patriot.” With such language we recall fellow Americans who stood in the breach, especially those in the Justice Department, who did not allow loyalty to prevent them from doing the right thing.  I think of James Comey, Sally Yates, Preet Bharara and most recently Christopher Krebs, who fatally reported, “there is no evidence” any voting systems were compromised and that the 2020 election “was the most secure in American history.” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/13/us/politics/christopher-krebs-election-security-trump.html

If there is any hope for the term “loyalist,” these successors to the prophet Daniel must bring it back.

 

 

 

by

Lame Duck?

The term lame duck generally describes one who holds power when that power is certain to end in the  near future. In the United States, when an elected official loses an election, that official is called a lame  duck for the remainder of his or her stay in office. https://legaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Lame+Duck

The idea that President-elect Biden is a “lame duck” was reported today in an article reprinted from the Los Angeles Times (November 28, 2020).  The notion that a President serving only four years is a “lame duck” highlights the absurdity that the only goal of a one-term politician is to become a two-term politician. Serving in office is officially over-shadowed by being re-elected in office.Lame duck with pair of crutches

Many voters think of President Joe Biden as a “transition President” mostly because the circumstances of national health, social justice, natural environment and international relations are in desperate need of transition to the preservation of life and alliances. If the President improved these circumstances and bolstered the economy, many of us would consider his four years well-served. None of these goals could be satisfied without also establishing greater credibility and morale in the federal agencies he directs. Such accomplishments should in no way be minimized.

“Transition” President is currently characterized as “Lame Duck” President, completely undermining the President’s credibility and the immensity of the work ahead. In some ways the work requires a President heedless of being re-elected, one who is prepared to offend his own Party as well as the disloyal opposition. When you walk the middle path, it is likely both extremes will vilify you.

When a four-year term can be characterized as “lame duck,” something is definitely wrong. The problem lies in the Congress, who are already preparing their re-election campaigns. They figure if they can outlast the President, it won’t matter what is accomplished over the next four years. Is it possible they, too, need to be one-term officials?

Have we reached the point that no one at the federal level can be entrusted with two terms?  How else can we solve the self-sustaining purpose of holding an office to being re-elected to that office? How much of governing is wasted in the effort to gain another term of governing?

“Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.”― Samuel Johnson, The Life of Samuel Johnson LL.D. Vol 3

A possible remedy is  a two-term limit.  The need for experience in Congressional positions conflicts with the need for term limits, but experience too often degenerates into power-plays. What if the members of Congress were limited in the same way as the President to two terms? At the same time reduce the term of a Senator to four years, so their tenure advantage over the House of Representatives is not extreme. These limitations require that Congress-members have only two terms to make their marks, and thus will not spend them just stone-walling or vilifying the President.

If hanging inspires sheer concentration on the condemned, perhaps term limits could sharpen the minds of the elected. Instead of lame ducks, we’ll have industrious beavers who give a dam!  Or at least give affordable health insurance.

by

Remember the Election of 2020?

Judge Dismisses Trump Lawsuit Seeking to Delay Certification in Pennsylvania Saturday, November 21, 2020 8:00 PM EST

A version of this article appears in print on Nov. 22, 2020, Section A, Page 29 of the New York edition with the headline: In Defeat for Trump, Judge Dismisses Suit Seeking to Nullify Pennsylvania Results.

In a scathing order, Judge Matthew W. Brann wrote that President Trump’s campaign, which had asked him to effectively disenfranchise nearly seven million voters, should have come to court “armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption” in its efforts to essentially nullify the results of Pennsylvania’s election.  But instead, Judge Brann complained, the Trump campaign provided only “strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations” that were “unsupported by evidence.”

The standard for truth in the courtroom is slightly elevated above the standard for truth on social media.  A tweet is just a tweet, a rant is just a rant.  It is sadly appropriate that the President is exiting his office with “strained legal arguments and speculative accusations.”

This is not the “fake media” speaking, this is a federal judge admonishing the First Plaintiff to get his act together and present evidence, not just accusations. But the President who governs by tweets is not concerned with the truth, so much as the taint of rumor and gossip. Even a failed lawsuit smells of something suspicious, and a smell is all he wants.

After all the cases are dismissed, the after-smell will rouse his supporters’ indignation for months and years to come.  The 2020 election will forever be remembered  by Trump supporters, less grounded in “legal arguments and factual proof” than some readers, as a grand theft,

When the 2021 regime is finally installed, a victim mythology will remain to carry the defeated until the next election. Once again, Washington insiders will be the enemy du jour, and the fraudulently defeated will wear the victim’s crown.  Conspiracy theories about how the election was stolen will multiply, and the power of the deep state will be promoted and despised. It will be a reign of paradoxes: losers are really winners, documented truths are lies, allies are enemies.

Unlike most ex-Presidents, this one will not ride into the sunset.  The plan will be to steal the spotlight from new administration.  Faced with a Donald in Wonderland narrative, it will be difficult for the new administration to govern without declaring a resolute counter narrative.  Logical argument will be useless, when the facts are always in question.  2020 will remain, for some, in infamy as “the stolen election,”  along with other facts you thought were uncontested.

How many Republicans will succumb to this fantasy? Apparently more than a few will tie their futures to the good ship Trump, but the Party will have to decide how much delusion it can tolerate.  Already the Lincoln Project has shown a low tolerance, and a few moderate U.S. Senators have  declared the Election over and resolved.  Some survivors are jumping the good ship Trump.

The counter-narrative will continue, so get your story straight. Who won the 2020 election? Are the heroes of 2020 masked or unmasked?  Was the pandemic surging or sagging? Was the economy staggering or soaring?  Was the ex-President pursued by dogged prosecutors or hounded by political enemies?  Did Donald Trump sell his White House stock at a loss or at a “non-zero” figure? It depends on who you ask. So I’m asking you.

TOPSHOT This combination of pictures created on October 22 2020 shows US President Donald Trump and Democratic Presidential candidate and former US...