Racism vs. Sexism... Is that all there is?

This has been a very interesting political season, especially on the democratic side of the ballot box.  2008 is really turning into a historical year in presidential politics.  The Democrats have a heated battle for the nomination with former First Lady, Hillary Clinton (and New York Senator) and Senator Barack Obama being the last two nominees standing.  Beyond the typical political excitement of a presidential election, this one will have either an African-American man or a woman at the head of a major party ticket for the first time ever, so the diversity spices up the pot as well.  Unfortunately our politics and emotions have turned this election cycle from a celebration of American political progress into a grade school squabble over blacks versus women, and fighting over who is more oppressed.

First off, we all learn in the second or third grade that we cannot compare unlike objects.  The historical systematic oppression of black people in this country and the historical systematic oppression and separation of women from several avenues of influence and power in this country are BOTH real, but they are not one in the same.  This is not apples to apples.  This comparison is not even apples to oranges.  At least with apples and oranges, both of the objects are fruits.  The comparison of racism versus sexism is apples to bicycles!  

There was a time in this country when black people were property in this country, and during that same time white women were married to those powers that be, some possibly slave owners, some were not.  It is understood that women have not been treated equally by men or provided them the opportunity to participate in many of the processes of government via voting rights or homeowners rights, or in the workplace, I can keep going on. I don't see how that could be considered similar, especially when this does not account for all women.  Are Latino or African-American women exempt from feeling this way, because their experiences are definitely different.

Why are we spinning our wheels on trying to decide who has it harder?  Is it African-American people or Caucasian women?  The answer is, it does not matter.  We all have to work with the cards we are dealt, and play our hand.  The citizens of this country should think really hard about how far we have come as a nation in just the last forty years.  No, things are not perfect here and they will never be, but that doesn't mean that the way we improve one segment of society is to tear the others down.  We are a complex nation of complex people and to limit the discussion and frame the argument to just racism versus sexism is cheating everyone.  This argument is not all there is in American politics.

More than fate in 08

A new year brings a sense of reflection, hope, and the opportunity to measure how far we have come in society through the years.  One sign in the Obama camp may have put it best: "GOT HOPE?"  2008 provides a very special chance to do all of these things, as a presidential election year, american society from all walks of life will rally around issues of governance and politics.  In this year's election for president history will be made, with the withdrawl of John Edwards from the democratic nomination process, leaves the last two contestants standing.... Hillary Clinton (the first woman presidential candidate nominee) and Barack Obama (the first African American presidential candidate nominee).  Whether either of these candidates wins the national election for the presidency that is another thing, but for just this moment, we can can look back and see the progress of our society.  As I see it, it has been long overdue to have a woman or an African-American in the White House.  This article is not about the president, I want to put some attention on a few other things that have been missing in contemporary American Society for a long time like health care for everyone regardless of financial situation, equal schooling for every child, and a way to initiate immigrants into society so they can fully take advantage of the American dream.

Politicians slide from one side of the isle to the other on healthcare.  It is time for people to stand up and say that making national healthcare a priority is IMPERATIVE for the wellbeing of future generations in this country.  We can no longer thwart the lives of people just because we think having a national healthcare system is the gateway to communism.  As we see with things like presidential elections in this country, change may take a long time in the United States, and this change from old conventional wisdom needs to happen now.  Look around everyone, we won, communism is not a threat to the American way of life.  How long will it take to get caught up with our allies like England and the rest of the developed world?

The public education system is a joke in this country.  How can the education of the next generation of leaders be subjected to the political pandering of rich families from state to state. As I see it, your education status shouldn't depend on whether your mother and father bought a house/condo in a well to do suburb or pocket of a city.  What happens to the children that were not given the opportunity to learn from the best teachers or given the resources to succeed developmentally?  They get left behind, and cannot compete for scholarships and college entrance.  If a student graduates from high school and goes to Harvard, Yale or Stanford its not because he or she is the brightest but had parents that put him or her in the position to succeed.  If we were in the Olympics and two runners got to start at the 50 meter mark and the other 6 had to start at the starting line, the two runners with the head start wouldn't be awarded a Gold or Silver metal.  In this country we are building and maintaining a permanent underclass and that has to stop!

In newspapers and from politicians we hear about immigration reform, but what we really need is a more comprehensive change to the way we look at people coming in to this country. Throughout American history, immigrants have been detested and opposed by the masses. Why? Are we so afraid that we will lose our jobs to illegal immigrants that we spout off secondary racism?  The way I see it, the American public needs to rise above the fear of a stagnant job market or looking at the world through the lenses of a hunter-gatherer.  We need to evolve, and I know these changes take time, hopefully they will be made in our lifetime.  As spoken in the movie the Great Debaters, "the time for justice, the time for freedom and the time for equality is always right now!"  We can make these things happen, and remind our hearts and minds that there is more than fate in 08.  

The Pink Elephant in the Center of the Diamond

Politics and sports go hand in hand. If it wasn't for politics, who would care about the Olympics? There is another side to politics and sport, the side that leaves an ugly reflection upon society, and asks questions about the very fabric of who we are. An issue in sport has divided the nation in this way the past 3 - 5 years, and that issue is steroids, which Barry Bonds being the figurehead for cheating in baseball. Now, through the Mitchell Report, we have come to learn of many others (ex. Roger Clemens) using similar performance enhancing products in the same time frame as Barry Bonds, but without the same anger as we saw with Bonds. Is that fair? Why does society point out one person, without the other, and who is to blame for this behavior?

Fairness is a tough thing to tackle, because life is not fair, and the world of sports is no different. We get lost in the ambiance of sport. Everything within the white lines operates in such an organized manner, that the games have the ability to take us away from our everyday lives and for three hours get lost in the joy of a children's game. The simplicity of the rules provides balance and order that we do not find in the other sectors of our lives.

Now I am not convicting Roger Clemens, or any other player named in the Mitchell Report guilty of anything, besides being mentioned in the Mitchell Report. Just being named in a report does not correlate to guilt in any court, besides the court of public opinion. Barry Bonds has been convicted by the court of public opinion a long time ago. So I ask, what makes Roger Clemens or any other player so different from Barry Bonds. We all know Bonds has been vilified by writers, reporters, fans, and even a book, as the monstrous face of the steroid problem in baseball. Now we see it was a systemic problem with more monsters than Richard Matheson's "I am Legend" novel, with no one in the baseball front office willing to play the Robert Neville character.

Who is to blame for the horrific injustice in the arena of sport? The politics for king-makers are not created by the diamond. The sportscasters, radio shock jocks, and even sports reporters have decided long ago Barry Bonds is public enemy number one. And other the other side of the spectrum Roger Clemens always got a pass, the golden ticket as you will to play the white knight that represents baseball and America at its best. Clemens played the symbol of the product of hard work. While the diamond creates stars and even legends amongst peers and fans, the villains are created somewhere else. In our need to jeer or boo. We feel the need to put some, like Clemens on the pedestal, while we let the monsters feast on players like Bonds. Here is the catch, we are the monsters!

In Political News, Where is THE ISSUE?

If you have read the newspaper or the headlines for online news feeds in the last few days, most of the major United States domestic news has been aimed at providing coverage of the superficially over-hyped, presidential race for 2008. The way major news headlines have told us everything we have ever wanted to know about the candidates lives, views on issues and more, but my dissatisfaction is not with the amount of candidate coverage. My dissatisfaction lies on the notion that the most important domestic/international topic is no longer getting covered in today's news, and that is the war in the Middle East. Maybe everyone is tired of talking about and reporting on a war that doesn't seem like it is on the road to resolution anytime soon, but that is the exact reason why we need to continue to make this front page news! As long as the United States continues to send 18 and 19 year old men and women to a region of the world to enforce a political agenda, the war in the Middle East should continue to remain a front page headline.

Higher Education Indoctrination

Last week (November 1st) a discussion topic on Glenn Beck (CNNHN) was debated on the state of higher education, and if modern universities are not educating now just indoctrinating.  The topic that was up for debate, and venomously opposed by Mr. Beck's program was the orientation of new students into the university housing (dorm) system and the accepted university definitions of several life terms and experiences.  The terms that were taken exception to were the definition for what/who is racist, and understanding sexual identity.  Now these are very complex issues that could be discussed as dissertation topics, but they chose to give an editorial commentary on Mr. Beck's television program.  Mr. Beck's conclusion stated that the universities have gone away from institutions of higher learning, and now are houses for left-winged, pro-socialist, anti-American professors attempting to indoctrinate young minds.  In response to these claims I will discuss these assertions to the best of my ability.

First, Mr. Beck had two guests on the program to discuss the state of modern universities and the educational practices thereof, but neither contributor to the program was a higher education professional nor were they a higher education researcher of any kind.  What type of adequate debate can take place when only one side of the argument is represented?  There was an independent film maker and the President of FIRE (The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) on dare I say a panel.  The university in question was the University of Delaware, and their housing practices, but this isn't really about them.  This is about the way they are dissecting a program to single out the parts that they don't like.  Glenn Beck made a statement "that as tuition paying parents we've got to change that. (That being the composition of university faculty and staff that as he put it were pro-socialist, anti-Americans going unchecked.)"  What about writing a tuition check for your son or daughter makes you entitled to the hiring practices of that institution? If I go to Best Buy to purchase a television, I do not get to comment on their corporate structure.  I can complain about poor service.  I can start shopping at Circuit City, but I cannot tell Best Buy who they can and cannot hire.  Maybe this is for another discussion?  The state of American money and the entitlement people feel by spending it, I just want to remind everyone that no one makes you go to a certain school or store.  If you don't like what you are getting in one place, you can go to the next.

So some parents feel uncomfortable that their children have to learn about some difficult topics when they get to college, but isn't that what college is for?  To make the point that some people are offended by the definition of a racist, should be moot.  In the resident training program from the university in question (Delaware), a racist is a person who resides in and profits from a racist society.  So by this definition an African American, in America, cannot be a racist, because African Americans do not and have not profited in any form of the American racial hierarchy.  This may be an uncomfortable topic of discussion for many, but that doesn't make it untrue.  In our modern society, we like to embrace our 'oneness'.  We celebrate our diversity, by having unity weeks and diversity pride parades (gay pride, black family reunion, Latino pride, etc.), but we don't discuss how the wealth of our society has been unevenly distributed throughout the history of this country.  If you happen to be someone who came from a group of people that could not own land or had to be subject to Jim Crow laws until recently, your outlook on racial disparity has to be different from the people who are trying to live it down.  

Also on this topic, we must understand the difference between a racist, and a person who is prejudice.  They are discussing being racist.  Someone can be ashamed of a system in which a hierarchy had been created, that they themselves had nothing to do with and not embrace it, but that does not make that person exempt from profiting from the history of what was created.  To be or display prejudice, would be the thinking or acting on preconceived beliefs about one's race, gender, sexual orientation.  That is different from racism, and we all know the power is in the definition.  It is a weird thing in American society to discuss race, because for so long it was broken down into two groups.  You were either white or black.  One was acceptable, and the other was not.  Now, as a society we have come a great distance from that time in history, but we must not forget that the era of civil rights was just 40 years ago.  You cannot just wash away a history of behavior in one generation, and a society that is still operating on terms that have been in place for hundreds of years.  He want to forget the mistreatment of people in our society.  We want to relieve ourselves of the guilt that we feel for this American holocaust, by saying things are different now, and they are, but that doesn't change the things that took place.  Just because we feel guilty, doesn't exempt someone from it.  That is the purpose of a university is to challenge thoughts, that you may not embrace or accept, but that does not make them any less real.

The university experience as a whole, IS AN INDOCTRINATION, but that does not make it negative!  It is the indoctrination for young adults into adulthood.  Many of the ideas that circulate around in institutions of learning are not parallel to the ideas that the average high school student take for granted, nor are they always the accepted ideas that would be thought at your home.  Why do you think that universities are their own entities with university villages or college towns?  It is because you are not at home anymore in your suburb that made you so comfortable.  University is about expanding your mind, not just expanding your wallet.  So many people believe that college is simply about earning a degree to get a job.  It is not!  It is a place of learning on many levels, and in some cases learning some things that are not so comfortable for you to talk about.  Now the university experience is not perfect, but nothing in life is perfect.  If we are at a place in society that we are complaining that our children are forced to hear things we are uncomfortable with, we as a society are doing a lot of things wrong, and that does not start and stop with the university system.

Blood Thirsty

Michael Vick has recently done something he has become very comfortable doing, NO I'm not talking about dogfighting! I'm talking about his ability to create a stir while being altogether unique. Previously when the public would speak on the one-of-a-kind talent of Vick, it was understood that they were speaking of an unquestionably gifted football star. Now they are speaking of an infamous felon, who took the lives of dogs that did not meet his fighting expectations.

What brings us to this point? A debate on the legality of dogfighting? No. The story of a fallen superstar to which society has built up on a pedestal because of his freakishly stunning football talents? No. A discourse from PETA about the treatment of animals in this country? Maybe. The lessons we continue to learn and find out about ourselves, and the gruesome society we live in? YES! Getting down to it, Michael Vick's actions are difficult to stomach, but not as horrible as we make them out to be. Is he the person that many sports fans have come to cheer and respect as a upstanding young man? The answer is not as clear as we would like to think, it is yes and no.

To put a spin on the angry Dennis Green rant "they are who we thought they were", only in this case we feel the hurt and anger in the voices of fans because Michael Vick wasn't the man everyone thought he was. I would argue exactly the opposite.  We as football fans never knew him off the field.  " He was who we thought he was" on the field, an electrifying talent that brought fans to their feet and opposing defenses to their knees.  A young player striving to reach his potential, in a sport very few get a chance to play at the highest level.  Off the field is a different story.  We as fans, invest so much in the sporting experience, we forget some of the most basic concepts that come along with that investment.  

We do not know these athletes as well as we think we do. While we cheer and jeer our sports superstars, sometimes we forget they are just people who live lives away from their game.  We appreciate the passion and remarkable talents they display on their craft every game.  We understand the type of work ethic and drive that one must possess to reach the higher echelon  of professional sports success.  Many of us would have to admit that the level of passion they describe is lacking in our everyday lives.  Outside of the stage known as professional sports, many of the athletes live rather normal lives.  A house with a wife (or husband), several kids, and managing all of the daily tasks that come with those responsibilities.  All of us, that means everyone, has done things that we are not happy with.  Everyone has had to overcome a few disappointments along the journey we call life, and overcoming those disappointments is what measures to be judged upon, not the mistakes, because we all fall down every once in a while.

Everything to Everyone

As most of you know, I work at a mid-sized university of 15 thousand students.  For some, this is a very rewarding experience, but for me I want to bang my head against the wall due to utterly unnecessary initiatives I am subjected to in Director's meetings.  The newest plan of action is to create an Inter-faith council, and give them a large office space on campus in the university center.  I am not against formalized religion, even though I do not subscribe to one, but why would you create that type of group for a university campus?  Beyond the obvious concerns of what faiths make up their Inter-faith council, and the dangers of discriminating the less popular or accepted, it makes one ask, what is the goal of the modern university?  Why are modern American universities trying to become everything to everyone?

The university must ask within itself, "what is our mission?"  If the mission of the modern university is to enlighten young minds with learner-centered teaching, public engagement, intellectual freedom, multiculturalism, why would you promote a one-sided way of thinking by introducing religion?  Religion is not the enemy of higher education by a long shot.  I just feel that introducing "university approved" religions would send the wrong message to the students that did not practice them.  How can you go about spouting off comments of multiculturalism and intellectual freedom, and then introduce old-hat philosophy like a government/school/official set of religious practice on campus?

 People that go to a restaurant and have appreciate a nice bottle of wine would let you know, that if you fill half the bottle with water, the wine will not be any good.  That is how I feel about the modern university structure we are trying to move toward in our society.  We are filling the bottle with water, and not concentrating on what makes the university such a special experience.  A university is an environment with open doors and open minds that provides a platform for social discourse, which creates a learning unique to any other stage in life.  Anything less than that, should not be tolerated, but I guess we can no longer ask for excellence.  In a society that puts more emphasis on convenience over substance, I may just have to settle for the watering down of American institutions that continue to fall behind the rest of the world.