Sober Holidays

     Next week, I can look forward to the following: apathetic attitudes toward school work, repeated requests to watch Christmas films, quarrelsome questions about failing grades and a persistent preoccupation with the two weeks between Friday, December 16, 2011 and Tuesday, January, 2012. I will respond to all of these questions with the universally befuddling response: “I'm sorry, the computer says no...” But next week is really inconsequential, a symptom of a larger problem, that problem is that when the bell rings on Friday and my students leave the school, they will return to me more or less unchanged. Let me state clearly that I am not against Christmas as a religious or cultural holiday. But I am against the possibility of its acting as a giant “weekend” of relief for both my students and society at large in this nation.

     Economically, this nation is on the precipice of disaster. Our government has failed to address the real issues of our time, a few of which are: our nation's growing debt which we have no plan to repay, the completely disregarded impact our nation's industry has on the climate as well as our failed education system which public policy has failed to address. Americans have a tendency to behave like imperial citizens, many of us resign our responsibility to others who will “figure it out” but America is no empire, though its citizens often behave that way. Political discourse in a republic such as our own goes both ways: leaders shape public opinion and the public tells leaders what it wants to hear. The public has failed in its duty on these issues. On the left, politicians pander to the public on the dole which cares more about its benefits than the nation's economic prosperity. On the right, politicians pander to a public willfully blind toward climate change, which is symptomatic of the right's refusal to accept the conclusions of modern science.

     Underlying the first two problems is the third problem, one which I confront daily, our failed education system. Unless we first fix our education system, we cannot hope for a public discourse which meaningfully interacts with the real issues of our time in an effective way. The blame lies as much with parents, students and families as it does with teachers, principals and the system. If parents and students became more interested and involved in the educational process, we would be one step closer to a solution.

     This nation has not earned a vacation. We enter this holiday season with unresolved issues both at the societal and political levels and no one should forget that this Christmas. There are no bombers flying overhead or armies waiting to invade, but the same apprehension which loomed over London in December of 1940 should loom over us as well. The threat is not the same. The threat is that we habitually fail to recognize our own problems and often allow them to go unresolved to the point of crisis. So when you leave your job to celebrate Christmas, whenever that may be, ask yourself if you have earned the break, if you have accomplished anything worthy of reward. If your answer is yes then by all means have a merry Christmas relaxing with your family. But if not, I hope you accomplish something over the break and wish you the most sober of holidays.  

An Open Letter to Society

Humanity,

Forgive my melodrama, but I must confess a crime I committed against you. On May 14, 2011 I accepted a rather large bribe from the President of William Carey University. In exchange for my silence which began much earlier in the academic year I received one copy of a degree which I earned both through my academic achievements and through my silence.

It is to my eternal shame that I accepted the degree. To this day, it means nothing to me save what it signifies that I actually learned.

Some of you will not understand my confession, some of you could not care less. But to explain it, I must return to December 8. 2010, when I first came into open conflict with William Carey University's administration. Quite a few of the articles published on my blog (then rhaetor.wordpress.com) were critical of the university's policies and those that formulated them. I criticized the funds expended on founding the D.O. school, the University's censorship of the press and their poor logistical planning skills amongst other things.

--> If you linked here from facebook, start reading here <--

In an unpublished letter to the editor of The Cobbler, since lost, I advocated the dissolution of one man (Dr. King) ruling William Carey University. It was this letter which set events in motion. I was summoned to speak to Scott Hummel about the matter. At this point, I made my first mistake. After what I believed was an earnest conversation with him, I agreed to remove an article criticizing the D.O. school from the blog (this article has since been completely lost). I did so because he offered assurances, which could not be checked, that I had the facts wrong, I was naïve and stupid to bargain with such a one.

It was not long after this that I was ordered to remove two other articles from the blog, one which was critical of the university's censorship of The Cobbler (the irony!) and one which criticized the university's poor planning for parking. Both of these can be found republished for historical benefit at rhaetor1.wordpress.com. The orders were accompanied by a threat that the university would remove my scholarships if I did not comply. I was then summoned before Dr. Marilyn Ellzey who attempted, in a very brusque manner to persuade me to remove them, I was not impressed by her methods which seemed to run roughshod over the ideal of free speech. 

The university had wanted to contact my parents, even questioning whether my so called rebellion was the result of my coming a broken home. I am forever grateful that as a freshman I had not waived the rights guaranteed me by the Family Educational Rights Privacy Act. Nevertheless, I called my parents, who I thought would encourage me in such a black hour. They did not, in fact they discouraged me from continuing to resist. I was encouraged at times by dear friends and mentors, none of whom could provide me with the tangible support I needed to stay in school.

But this is my shame, that in tears I gave up. I surrendered and was complicit in silencing my own voice. This voice, the fire that burns inside every one of us should not be doused by the waters of religion, set adrift on a sea of social pressure or even covered by a veil made by money. I have kept my silence heretofore because I wished to disavow what I had done and to let the past be the past. I am equally content to allow the ghosts of the past the silence of sleep. I want no vengeance nor do I bear any malice but I must purge myself of my crime. I want no forgiveness or validation, only condemnation for my error.

I want no degree, I would rather have my fire back so that it might burn the more brightly now. I know that it will return to me, but it will be many years in the returning. Ayn Rand puts it best in her preface to the twenty-fifth edition of her book The Fountainhead:

“It is not in the nature of man--nor of any living entity--to start out by giving up, by spitting in one's own face and damning existence; that requires a process of corruption... …Some give up at the first touch of pressure; some sell out; some run down by imperceptible degrees and lose their fire, never knowing how or when they lost it. Then all of these vanish in the vast swamp of their elders who tell them persistently that maturity consists of abandoning one's mind; security, of abandoning one's values; practicality, of losing self-esteem. Yet a few hold on and move on, knowing that that fire is not to be betrayed, learning how to give it shape, purpose and reality. But whatever their future at the dawn of their lives, men seek a noble vision of man's nature and of life's potential.”

I seek such a vision and if in finding it my losses are more tangible than my gains, my only hope is that I never grow bitter or forgetful of the importance of the fire. 

Yours, 

Thomas Duke

An Apology for my Methods

I recently taught a lesson on "Abraham and the Patriarchs" in my World History class. I chose to refer to the stories of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as myths, which I told the children were "enduring stories told to convey ideas." This lesson drew considerable controversy, with many well-educated friends weighing in on my decision. But to all of you who did weigh in, I welcome the chance to respond to your thoughts and concerns. There are three arguments in my apology. The first concerns academic values, the second the why certain cognitive models are inapplicable with the final argument demonstrating why this method is best from the Christian perspective.

1. 

One of the very first arguments devised against my methods was that children are not cognitively developed enough to understand how a myth can be empirically false and yet true in a more abstract sense. I do not think this applies only to children, there are many adults who cannot make such distinctions. 

If therefore, people (children or adults) are incapable of making those distinctions should we merely let them proceed believing that events which are "regarded as historical although not verifiable" are grounded in the empirical reason used in academic settings. I should say not, in the absence of evidence which explicitly supports the existence of the patriarchs we can draw no conclusion about their existence based on reason and logic. It does no good to ignore the stories as they already know them. Therefore, we ought to teach such stories in school as 'myths' or possibly 'legends' but certainly not history. Even if people cannot grasp the distinction, secondary schools are designed to reinforce the individual's ability to reason not to reinforce cultural or religious values. Ideally, a teacher should also consider the various religious backgrounds of students in their class, though mine are quite uniformly somewhat christian.  

2. 

Bloom's taxonomic model, created in the 1950s and introduced to me by one of my critics, suggests that children start out learning by remembering, understanding and applying before proceeding to analyzing, evaluating and creating as represented in the following diagram taken from: edorigami.wikispaces.com.   

This seems simple enough but it fails in two ways. First, it fails to take into account the complex environment in which children learn. Children in High School are frequently asked to design projects and compose essays or other assignments. Categorically, these skills belong to the highest level of thinking - creating. By neglecting to teach them how to analyze and evaluate before creating we are by default reducing the quality of their creations. For a more detailed criticism of this model see: http://www.utechtips.com/2007/01/08/blooms-taxonomy-revisited/. In my case, it would be unfair for me to allow my students to construct a poster about the patriarchs if I had not offered them the information necessary to analyze the story and distinguish between important and unimportant "facts." 

Moreover, most students from the bible-belt already know the story of the patriarchs from churches and Sunday schools. For me to recite the stories would be redundant. If I offered them a slightly different way to look at and interpret the stories, education would take place. In fact, according to this model's approach we might move out of the lower categories and into the higher ones by basing the lesson on "facts" already in their minds and then offering a new way to look at them. 

3. 

Aside from the academic reasons I have for refusing to teach "Abraham and the Patriarchs" as historical fact, there are religious reasons for doing so as well. The present system encourages thinking about the world in terms of empirical facts and simply put, the Bible was not meant to withstand such scrutiny. Thus Christians who suddenly become aware of the "facts" have a tendency to, out of shock, reject the facts or reject their religion. Neither of these outcomes are desirable. 

Christian children do not need to be taught using a system of absolutes, it is no good in the long run to introduce facts now and introduce qualifiers later especially when it could affect a person's faith. Religious and philosophical truth have abstract characters and should be recognized as such.  

Bertrand Russell, one of Christianity's foremost critics argues that the only reason people become religious is because of indoctrination from an early age. Unfortunately, he is correct in more cases than he is not. That is why it is unconscionable to me to skip over the controversial bits (and so leave students in the dark) merely to prevent challenging their faith. I will not contribute to a system that essentially reinforces children's cultural and religious notions and results in their being good docile adult church members who listen to their priest and sing their mass in Latin... A person's faith is part of their personal journey which ought to be challenged at every turn not coddled and given the weak and unreliable support of empirical evidence. 

I know that many of you may disagree with me and please continue to do so, I find your comments enlightening, but I hope this post has served to justify to you my teaching methods.

On the Capitalist System and Small Business Owners

America has been almost wholly given over to capitalism, a system which enriches few, impoverishes as many as it enriches and which is presently attempting to dismantle our cherished liberties. William Wordsworth in an excerpt from his poem England, 1802, says it best. 


The wealthiest man among us is the best:
No grandeur now in nature or in book
Delights us. Rapine, avarice, expense,
This is idolatry; and these we adore:
Plain living and high thinking are no more:
The homely beauty of the good old cause
Is gone; our peace, our fearful innocence,
And pure religion breathing household laws.


It's very difficult to deny that wealth has become associated with social affluence and status in America, 2011.  We hear wealth praised every day in the media, not directly of course, but what else is all the political pandering about 'making the economy safe for entrepreneurs' about. These entrepreneurs or small business owners who the Republicans (and even some Democrats) pander to are the wealthy or those trying to obtain wealth through the founding of a business, which according to almost all Republicans will always be small and harmless, integrated into the community and owned by your next door neighbor. 


The truth is this, there is not one aspect of being a business owner (small or large) that ennobles a person. As Wordsworth says, "Plain living and high thinking are no more." If anything business ownership makes a person more susceptible to the vices of greed and envy and perhaps other vices such as gluttony and pride. Though I am obliged to credit capitalism with attempting to eliminate sloth by rewarding people for their labor. Yet even then, the capitalist system does not encourage people to take an interest in their work merely for the sake of the work but instead encourages them through the distribution of the filthy lucre we call money. 


Some weeks ago (September 7th) Ron Paul, a candidate whom I respect more than other Republicans, argued in the Republican presidential debate that government organizations like the TSA should be dismantled and the industry deregulated, allowing pilots to carry guns and private security firms to monitor passengers boarding planes. This suggestion received a great deal of applause from the audience. The American public, or at least Republicans, seems convinced in this instance as well as in the bigger picture, that businesses do a better job of providing services than the government. In the sense that they could possibly make the process more efficient, saving time and money, I agree. 


Imagine for me a deregulated industry and a private security firm doing the job of the TSA. Inevitably, these unregulated goons working for the airline would racially profile customers. Free from the oppressive jackboot of government regulation, there would be no incentive to prevent this racial profiling. We have also to think of what this private security firm would do with our data and information. Would they be given access to the no-fly lists generated by the state department, or national security databases? Would they store the naked images taken of us as we passed through a scanner where they could be hacked or leaked? On the whole the only thing which would prevent any of this from happening or offer any redress would be an extensive litigation process which no one wants to undergo. 


Let us remember that regulations (nasty rules which bind the noble hands and feet of America's entrepreneurs)  conceptually include laws that make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex, race or religion when hiring an employee or selling a product to a customer. The concept of regulation also includes laws which prevent entrepreneurs from firing pregnant women who recently gave birth or paying men doing the same job more than women. Regulation (from the mouth of Ron Paul himself) also includes the minimum wage. Imagine eliminating the minimum wage which is not even a proper living wage. The poor would only become poorer, but businesses, driven by their bottom lines, would thrive as they do in China today.


The simple matter of fact is that the American dream is devoid of moral virtue. There is no incentive in the capitalist system for morality. Capitalists, entrepreneurs, small business owners (by any name) are of necessity driven only by one direct motive, profit. Doing what is right will not always be compatible with making money. It is this role which the government fulfills, to protect the poor and the middle class from the oppressions of the world's new feudal lords, entrepreneurs. 


As Wordsworth says in the most famous stanza of England, 1802:


IT is not to be thought of that the flood
Of British freedom, which, to the open sea
Of the world's praise, from dark antiquity
Hath flow'd, 'with pomp of waters, unwithstood...
...Should perish; and to evil and to good
Be lost for ever...*

Americans, the inheritors and guardians of that freedom, which is by no means exclusively British or even western, might take a note from Wordsworth and not "change swords for ledgers and desert the student's bower for gold." While we yet have the power at the ballot box, we should not exchange our ideals for economic prosperity and our moral virtue for a system that is servant to the bottom line. 

*For the full text of the poem go to: http://rantingstan.blogspot.com/2008/10/english-poetry-england-1802.html

I wish to add that although I initially wrote this in an earnest spirit, it no longer represents the fruit of my thinking in its entirety. I will leave it up because I believe that it conveys to my readers a picture of the progression of my thought.

Moments of Silence

What is a moment of silence?

Is it a response to our “disbelief, terrible sadness and quiet unyielding anger”

Does it demand our introspection,

Or do we know exactly what we feel in that moment?

In that moment of political, social silence,

undefined by the simple parameters of time,

are we fully aware of the empires we make?

Should we accept the silence?

Who does silence honor?

What does it say of a nation that it is

Speechless. Unprepared. Non-responsive. Irresolute.

In that moment we redefine ourselves recklessly.

That moment is stolen time, never to be returned.

It is a child that cannot care for those who occasioned its feeble and uncanny existence.

Its irony is deafening to a race distinguished by speech.

It is a moment of surrender,

To something new and foreign

Not terror but fear.

In that moment, while terror played the fool

Justice removed her blind

To gape at the spectacle

And despair with a tiny prick

Stole her virtue in the street.

So what have we to say of moments of silence

They are imperial bridges across the Rubicon

Assembled by the people working in silence

Why I can Finally Break with the Pied Piper President

It's been a long road, getting from the beginning of the Obama presidency to here. At first, I reluctantly accepted the fact that he was president. I fell for the proverbial snake-charming music of Obama's middle-of-the-road policies and the political ideals embodied in The Audacity of Hope, which if it is a sincere work, may remain one of the most poignant critical works on twentieth-century American poltics.

Unfortunately, unlike books, people change based on the circumstances with which they are presented. President Obama, who once seemed a political dove in a world of rats, has departed from his adherence to liberalism (and I mean classical political liberalism without any connection to modern "liberals"). I am referring to his refusal to seek congressional approval for the war in Libya under the War Powers Act of 1973. Charlie Savage writes the following in the New York Times: "The theory Mr. Obama embraced holds that American forces have not been in “hostilities” as envisioned by the War Powers Resolution..." (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp)

But as John Boehner, who I am loath to admit has a point, argues: "We’re spending $10 million a day. We’re part of an effort to drop bombs on Qaddafi’s compounds. It just doesn’t pass the straight-face test, in my view, that we’re not in the midst of hostilities.” Mr. Boehner is correct, we are clearly at war with Libya. While it is a war that clearly has merit, sidestepping the process of constitutional approval places the legislature in a subordinate position to the executive. The necessary balance of powers envisioned in our constitution and given expression in the War Powers Act is destroyed. This sets a dangerous precedent for the expansion of executive power.

After all, even the cowboy-turned-President George Bush (whose somewhat authoritarian image earned him the moniker King George) sought congressional approval for the military actions he approved as president. The president should not be able to avoid congressional approval and this is one issue over which this rattlesnake is forced to part ways with the Pied Piper President and say "don't tread on me."