Posted on

Schools or Students? Education Reform in Alaska

It sounds really altruistic and selfless to forgo a PFD in favor of education. I mean, after all, it’s all about the children. And a cut to education seems very much like an affront to children everywhere. How could Governor Dunleavy be so cruel? 

But let’s calm down and take a step back for a moment. When we use the word “education” what are we really talking about? As a former public school teacher, “education” brings to mind to a myriad of activities— only a fraction of which were devoted to actual learning. I used to think, “If I only had enough time to actually TEACH as a teacher, I could accomplish so much more.” I realized that teachers like me were doing the best they could under the circumstances. It was the circumstances that bothered me. There were extra-curricular responsibilities, there were very detailed expectations, there was school spirit, there was new technology, new school wide initiatives, meetings, the inevitable behavioral issues— the list went on and on. I realized that much of the theory I had been taught in my college courses was very difficult to actually accomplish in this type of environment. 

The problem I found was that the educational system I was a part of had become somewhat of a beast. You know how it is. Most of you have attended public school at some point in your life. School is generally all about the system. All about getting to your class on time, all about getting the assignments in, all about the grade, understanding expectations, surviving socially. Only precious few moments was it about your interests, your capacity, the rate you needed to learn, or who you were going to become. I know it sounds like I’m dogging on schools, but I’m not. I’m sure there are many great public schools and maybe some of you are part of them. We should reward thriving schools, and I’ll get to that in a bit. 

In industrial age of our nation, public schooling was patterned in such a way that its purpose was to train people to work in factories. Everyone learned the same basic skills and were put into neat little rows with cookie cutter expectations. Today, as much as we try to spice up the system, the system (as systems do) has remained largely the same. The more the system grows, the more money we feed it— the more of a beast it becomes. Subtly the children, and even parents, are there to serve the beast and not the other way around. 

I know we don’t like to talk about it, but there is very real politicking that goes on in schools, such that it makes it hard for educators or parents to make bold changes in favor of student outcomes. As the monolith beast grows, more rules and red tape gets rolled out. In order to put all those directives in place, more support staff are hired. The more support staff are hired, the larger the beast grows. 

I am a valley girl— from the San Fernando Valley in LA county, California. For my first four years of school, I attended the LA Unified school district. A school that poured tons of finance into their schools. And yet, you wouldn’t know to look at it. We had short blue pencils with no erasers. There was one eraser on a rope that 5 desks of students shared. The soap in the bathroom was grainy and rough—they couldn’t even afford liquid hand soap. The playground was more like a war zone and I was terrified to enter the bathrooms during recess. This was not a place where I could thrive. I realize that this is extreme, and not at all what schools are like here.

My point is that I’ve seen firsthand how more money does not equal better education. We have seen that we as a state that have invested more money into our education than most states in the union— with very little to show for it. If you hired a mechanic to fix your car and saw no change, but actually left your car worse off than when you handed it over to him. You wouldn’t agree to give him more money, you’d take your money elsewhere. 

It’s time that we parents and citizens alike stop falling for the line that funding “education” is the same thing as funding learning. Let’s call it what it is. What we are really talking about is school funding, and in many cases “beast feeding.” And it’s not that we should halt all funding to all schools, but we should begin thinking about new strategies for student success. We should be funding the schools where parents see their kids thriving. Yes, I’m talking about school choice. I know we have great school choice options in Alaska. Great! I am thankful. But we can do better. We can leverage school choice to solve our educational crisis. 

What do we have to really measure public schools? Test scores. Test scores have their place, but test scores are limited. Who knows whether their kids are thriving in their environments? It’s the parents. When we move toward school choice options, parents get to put their money where the learning is. 

Instead of blindly relying on the failure of the beast, it’s time for us independent Alaskans to roll up our sleeves and begin opening our minds to creative possibilities for how we are to train the next generation of thinkers. I applaud Governor Dunleavy on his commitment to empowering students and their parents with school choices. Maybe now is the perfect time for a radical overhaul of the system that has become the beast. 

In Alaska we spend upwards of $20,000 per child for one year- the second highest in the entire US. Parents, can you imagine what you could do with that money if you had the choice to educate your children the way you saw fit? Or even half of those funds?

Instead many of you are made to feel guilty if you don’t seem as though you are “supporting the school.” Never feel guilty for putting your child’s learning concerns ahead of the school system. Alaskan parents of public school students need to rise up and say, “Enough is enough. We should have the rights as individuals to decide where and how our kids our educated, regardless of our resources.” 

We know that Alaska is very supportive of homeschooling. If you register with a homeschool charter, you can get funding for your child’s education. It’s only a few thousand a year (a mere fraction of what the public school spends), but it’s very helpful for struggling families. A few years ago a study followed Alaskan homeschoolers who were low income and what they found was that, compared to higher income families, the low income students gained the most from those homeschool funds being directed right into their homes. Think about it. They are surrounded by books and curriculum that hasn’t been there before. The results are particularly pronounced in reading, which is the area that has been our biggest educational deficit. Maybe parents opt to use the funds to take an online class or get a tutor. Maybe it’s just peace and quiet that they need away from all the school drama, to get a chance to get more rest in the mornings— that they are really able to thrive. We don’t have all the reasons for why they excel, but the data is clear that they do. 

And it’s not just homeschoolers. All over the nation, we find that the more school choice options there are, the better lower income students fare. See this simple slideshow for the data. Countries around the world are benefitting from the success of schools who are competing for the privilege to educate each child. Many families cannot put the time into educating their children at home, but they could be empowered to choose any school they desired that was the best fit for their child. 

Now, let’s join that conversation with the one about PFDs. The fact that PFDs are given to every person in the state is rare but wonderful part of our way of life here in Alaska. It celebrates the empowerment of the individual. In Alaska, the PFD empowers families. Some families put away their PFDs for their child’s continuing education. Some families use the PFD to go to work right away to pay bills and put food on the table. PFDs benefit families, benefit the economy, and give power to the individuals INCLUDING the children of Alaska. 

Making cuts in school funding is not hurting children— not unless we let it. Sure, it might hurt administrators and superintendents and all those who’ve come to rely on the school for its financial reason for existing, but it won’t harm our students unless parents decide it will. It doesn’t need to hurt teachers, unless teachers buy into the line that it will. As a teacher who cared about real education and real learning outcomes for students, I longed to get out of “the system” and work in a place that was on the cutting edge of educational strategies. I longed to leave the establishment and embrace a long overdue step forward in educational advancement for a new generation. 

It doesn’t have to be all about the government or the school board or even about test scores unless we want it to be. It’s about educational outcomes for each individual student. Some students thrive on competition, while others loathe it. Some students are made for engineering while others are made to stand on a stage and perform. If we continue to feed the voracious beast, who knows what genius we will have left untapped? Who knows what passions will be silently snuffed out? Let’s feed our kids what they need instead.

We are in both an educational and a financial crisis in Alaska. Perhaps this is a great opportunity for the government to agree with our willing Governor to step back a little and give power back to Alaskans and watch us solve each of these crises for ourselves. 

Posted on

Blacklisted

Show notes for Season 1, Episode 1.

Click the link above to listen to this episode.

Or Koran 4:47 “O you who were given the Scripture, believe in what We have sent down [to Muhammad], confirming that which is with you, before We obliterate faces and turn them toward their backs or curse them as We cursed the sabbath-breakers. And ever is the decree of Allah accomplished.”

In 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 The Apostle Paul says this, “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. …” 

James Walpole says it like this: “Public shaming enforces outward compliance, not internal change.”

To learn more about my guest, Gene McConnell, visit his website, authenticrelationshipsint.com.

Click above to listen to the entire interview with Gene Mc Connell.

For more on Jack Dorsey eating at Chick-Fil-A, click here.

“Neuroscientists have found that social rejection is experienced much like physical pain — connected to the same neural circuitry. People who perceive that they have been rejected or excluded by a group are more likely to harm multiple persons if they become violent.”

The study finds that when we ostracize others, we suffer a similar degree of pain as the person being ostracized. While those being ostracized felt more anger, the one who did the ostracizing felt more shame, lack of connection, and especially loss of autonomy. So when we inflict pain on others, we ourselves suffer too. 

“The imposition of silence is a power play that expresses the ultimate contempt for the target: as George Bernard Shaw put it, “Silence is the most perfect expression of scorn.” The one giving the silent treatment — whether it’s not answering email, turning away in the middle of a conversation, or pretending not to hear a question — gets to feel control. In not explaining the cause, the perpetrator delivers particular pain. The message is loud and clear: “You do not matter.”

Janice Harper says it this way, “Shunning is a non-action — to shun is to avoid, not to interact.”

To quote James Walpole again, “Shaming galvanizes opposition and makes people dig deeper into their own positions (to defend their egos, of course).”

Posted on

Talk is Expensive

Show Notes from Brave Conversations Episode 1

If you didn’t get a chance to listen to it, check out the podcast here.


Seinfeld Episode Clip: “Yada Yada“

7 English Words that Nobody Uses Anymore

According to dictionary.com, more than 300 new words (*correction: the actual number is closer to 1,000) are added to our vocabulary every year. Unfortunately the article I used is no longer available. However an updated list is here.

Here are just a few: woke, mom jeans, lumbersexual, manspread, intersectionality, and ghosting. 

There are 50 Eskimo words for snow.

The language you speak changes the colors you see.

How this tribal culture discovered a new emotion. Here’s a link to the explanation. In the article, you’ll find a link to the Invisibilia podcast episode.

Lera Borodiski’s Ted talk on how language shapes the way we think.

Michael Knowles: Control the Words, Control the Culture

Closing Thoughts to Ponder:

Words are the currency of the information age. He or She who creates the language gets to create the rules. Whatever your politics, think about this. What gets talked about and written about and tweeted about gets heard.

  • Which words are erecting unnecessary cultural walls and which are tearing them down?
  • Which words are persuasive and which words are ineffective?
  • Church leaders, educators, and bloggers, are the words you use really working?
  • Are you in control of your words or are you a victim of the words you hear?
  • Are they working to point out truth or to soften a lie?
  • Are there new terms or phrases we need in order to bring clarity where there is now confusion? 

Notice the words that you see or hear today. Do they make your blood boil or do they draw your attention? Could it be that those “trigger” words for you don’t even mean the same thing to another person who uses them? 

Chris and Liv talk about the word “privilege.” View the entire conversation here.

If you’re ready to participate in our private Brave Conversations group, join us here!

Thank you to Chris Mellen and Live Davis for entering into this brave conversation.

Special thanks to Dan Jurusz, Portia Noble, and Jake Sloan for helping me get this first podcast off the ground!

Posted on

The Identity Game

If you’ve ever studied the art of argument, you’ll know that there are very specific ways we get it wrong when we engage in an argument. There are specific ways that our logic becomes, all of a sudden, not so logical. Among these are the fallacies of ad hominem (or being a jerk and name calling), straw man (mischaracterizing the opposite side), slippery slope (assuming that one thing will necessarily lead to another and another), circular argument (this one baffles me in that it seems to ignore all logic), or the red herring tactic (What I like to call the “Squirrel!” tactic. It’s the art of distraction from the issue at hand by drawing attention to something else.) There are many of these, but the one I see most often in society has not been articulated clearly enough in my opinion. You could make the case that one of the other 6-15 fallacies covers it, but for the sake of clarity, I suggest on giving this one a category all its own. 

I’m going to call this the “identity fallacy.” You may know where I’m going with this. You may have heard the phrase “identity politics.” It is mostly used by moderates and right leaning people to disparage what I think of as the identity fallacy. Even though people who are concerned about this have a right to be concerned, I think we have some work to do in defining the issue. We have a tendency in today’s culture to just slap a label on something when it feels out of bounds without using logic to underpin what we are doing. Not clearly defining terms allows us to maintain our hypocrisy because we cannot effectively judge ourselves by the same standards if we don’t know what those standards are. 

I see both people on the right and left and in between committing this identity fallacy. Let me explain now what I mean. 

In this new millennium, we are less focused on facts and figures and more and more interested in stories. This is not a bad thing altogether. It helps us understand each other in a more culturally diverse society. If you know the stories of another person, it’s a great way to quickly and effectively understand them. So, while this may be a good practice for enriching the fabric of society, it can cause a logical breakdown in our ability to reason and argue effectively. 

As our culture gets more interested in cultural differences, we can tend to judge everything that comes out of that persons mouth through the lens of their most obvious characteristic. After all, we are accustomed to reading the opinions of people we’ve never met over social media. Rather than chatting with the guy down the street and becoming familiar with his particular story, we have to make assumptions about people from what we see. The first thing we see is the color of someone’s skin or that person’s physical attributes. We see the type of clothing that they wear. We hear the type of language coming out of their mouths and the accent with which they speak. Then we make assumptions about his or her (or some androgynous “them”) based on all of these assumptions. I’ve written before on the caution against labels and assumptions, and I think we are all aware of those to one degree or another. But how do we break the wrongheaded cycle of assumption when we have no mechanism to catch ourselves in the fallacy of it? 

Let me first define the identity fallacy. Any time someone takes into account the personal attributes of the person who is making the statement to judge the validity of the statement, that is an identity fallacy. To be sure, The practice of jumping to conclusions about what a person says based on what we know about them is actually helpful in our everyday lives. I mean it’s natural and even wise not to put a lot of stock into what someone says if we don’t trust them or if they have less knowledge about a topic, etc. However, in a logical argument, the person’s background has nothing to do with the truth value of what they are saying. 

We pride ourselves on the pursuit of equity in our nation. Just think about how much the principles of logic contribute to this sense of equality. Any person (young/old, rich/poor, famous/unknown) should be able to come to the table of conversation with something valuable to offer. But these wonderful ideals begin to break down when we engage in the identity fallacy. 

Let me start with race. As of late, there have been some brave African American individuals who have said some things that have questioned the stereotypical views of their culture. We all are well aware that there are things that a black person can say that a white person cannot. The fact that this is true is evidence that we have an epidemic of this identity fallacy. 

Take sexual orientation or gender expression, or take income levels. We know that people who have a more traditional expression feel that they have very little voice to speak into issues of sexual identity. Those with more money feel that they cannot speak to issues of poverty (at least not out loud). We are finding ourselves with a soft cultural form of censorship. We are censoring ourselves out of fear of being disqualified and judged according to our outward identity. And by doing this, we are having weaker and fewer conversations. 

You’ve seen evidence of the identity fallacy on those “gotcha” videos in which statements from Hitler’s speeches were attributed to Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Depending on the person’s politics and who they thought said it, they would praise whatever was said without really stopping to consider the logic or thought process behind what was being said. 

On the right, people may be silenced for not knowing anything because of their youth or their lack of experience and so we stop listening. On the left, people are silenced because they are not a member of the oppressed population. On the right we stop listening to a person because they are “entrenched in politics.” On the left we stop listening because a person has been irrevocably labeled as some kind of “—phobe.” 

In days of old, our labels may have looked different. They may have been slave and freeman, aristocrat or commoner, clergy or layperson. We think we are more sophisticated now. Now we prize ourselves on a sophisticated web of terms that we lay one over the other, to describe one another. And as I said, these have some value. But when engaging in a logical argument, we need to work hard to put these aside. Laziness will cause us to always shift toward a more identity oriented approach, but this will lead us down a path that leads to more and more ignorance, fewer and fewer productive conversations, and ultimately toward less and less understanding. 

The easiest way to test how much you are being influenced by identity is to ask yourself, “What would I think if this argument/logic was coming out of another person’s mouth?” What type of person would have to say this in order to make me okay with this? If your answer changes based on the identity of the speaker, you need to question the way that you come to conclusions. You may have an identity paradigm that needs to shift. You never know when the wisest insight you need in the moment may come out of the mouth of a person that you may at first reject by simple virtue of their identity. 

What is more important to you, who said it or what is said? 

Posted on

What We Get Wrong About Politics

Here I am, 1:24 am. Just 3 days ago my husband announced that he was throwing his hat in the ring for our State Legislator, representing our Anchorage District 15 as a write-in candidate. Never did I think this would happen. Never did I imagine the circumstances that would lead up to such a nail-biting race as this. If you’re interested and want to read more, you can google it or go to his campaign page. 

But in all the whirl of activity, I catch a quiet moment and I have to think about the why questions. I have this incessant need to draw deeper to understand what is really happening as the external world around me is spinning. 

It’s hard to keep up with the world, national and local news cycle— all the controversies, the boycotts, the people who are “incensed” about something or other. Not saying there’s nothing to be incensed about, but it can get overwhelming after a while. We can get fatigued from being expected to care about everything. 

There are a lot of normal people walking around who are just trying to mind their own business and get on with their peaceful lives. These are what I call the “white gloved” citizens. They don’t want to get into an argument and risk hurting someone’s feelings. Seeing all that is happening can put us on overload— the passionate pleas of people around us to share this thing, get involved in this other thing, or participate in one campaign or another. 

On the other side of the spectrum, politics can be a little addictive. We could call these people the “boxing gloved” citizens. You’re getting involved, you’re uncovering bad guys and fighting for the good. You’re feeling like you identify with the significance of what you are doing. You feel the triumph and defeat. You feel a little scared, yet a little more “woke” and alive. People get involved in politics for different reasons. You get a little of the good mixed with the bad, not usually in equal portions. 

Politics is messy because it involves people. So you may lean more white gloved or more boxing gloved naturally. I know what it’s like to be the former, and now I am learning to ride the wave of the latter.

I want to use this opportunity to clear up some things I think we get wrong about politics. Those places where the mud turns into quicksand.

One big thing we need to keep at the forefront of our minds is that the government isn’t everything. 

I know it sounds too simple, but if more people knew this, we’d have far fewer problems. I say this knowing that the government may be my life’s focus over the next two months or more. I say this knowing that people live and die based on some of the governments actions or inactions. The government is important, but it cannot be everything. 

Most of the “white gloved” people who “stay out of politics” understand this principle. These people know that their families matter. They know that their churches, schools, and communities matter. They know that they can make a difference at their job or right where they live. I believe that these people make up the vast majority of people. They are just people trying to make their lives work the best they know how. 

We have this handy dandy little doc called the Constitution that spells out exactly why the government exists and what it should not do. The Bill of Rights outlines the freedoms that the government should always protect. We know that the three branches of government are supposed to stay in their lane and do their best to make sure that the government keeps doing what it is supposed to do and not doing what it’s not supposed to do. 

What we don’t always talk about enough is this the softer side of politics: the people. We have a government that is BY the people, OF the people and FOR the people—but the government does not replace The People. The People are the People. We so often forget this very simple but profound component of any good society: What the government does not do, we as individuals are supposed to be doing. All activity that surrounds and supports this principle is what I call “cultural cultivating.” We could call this the “green glove” of society. Many kinds of institutions participate with us as individuals in the cultivating of our culture. Arts and entertainment, media, education, business, religion— all of these enterprises shape and mold our culture. Each and every one of us, what we do in our everyday lives, from minute to minute shapes and cultivates something within that culture. Every dollar we spend promotes something and de-emphasizes something else. Every click on a website, or like on social media is like a chisel exposing the cultural edifice we are creating together. 

And here’s where we sometimes get mixed up on the dance we do between us as citizens cultivating culture, and the relationship with have with our literal or “hard” government. The culture is the “soft” governing force that is actually much more powerful than the brute strength of elected officials. So often we want our government to reflect the art of what we are creating with our lives. We want the government to  look like us, act like us, and talk like us— to be a mirror image of ourselves. But our particular government was never designed to do that. In fact, when we look for cultural ideals for our government to implement, the original intention of our government is thwarted. It’s like trying to expect a boat to fly us to the moon or the family dog to cook our meals just like Mom. Only in Neverland, my friend, only in Neverland. 

Often, our attitude toward government can reflect the responsibility or lack of personal responsibility we take to cultivate our own culture. For example, if we want something done, we scream for a law to be made to make people conform to the culture we want. Instead of taking time to cultivate it ourselves, we want to legislate it. When we have a problem that needs to be solved, we automatically look to the government to fix it effectively and efficiently. Because that idea has worked so well for us in the past…right… 

Or, we can err on the other side: we don’t trust the government to do anything at all and so we withdraw our support from all government related issues and stand on the sidelines, mocking and shaking our heads. We conclude that politicians are all a bunch of liars and power mongers. We push off the responsibility for the state our nation is in to all the bad politicians and conveniently away from ourselves.

Sometimes we think we are “rising above” all the muck of politics, when we are really just abdicating our own important role. Instead of “rising above,” I suggest going underneath. The fruit on top of the tree is obvious. When we rise above, it’s easy to see the fruit. But it’s what’s underneath that makes the fruit rotten or sweet. Up above, we may enjoy a little more fresh air and distance from the mess, but we will not impact the tree unless we get underneath. It is only by going into the soil and cultivating our culture in active ways, will we begin to see the fruit begin to change. 

How is it that we can so categorically shift all the blame for what’s in our culture to a political figure or a celebrity or a corporation? The cultural cultivating is ours to bear. If a tweet from a political figure can rip your community apart, then the individuals in the community have abdicated their role of cultivation a long time ago. 

Our communities need to look away from the government and empower ourselves. Once we can empower ourselves to bring solutions to the problems we face in the here and now, then we can enter into this dance with the government as a strong partner. 

Let me spell it out a little bit clearer. Some things the government can do, other things you and I are especially equipped to do. Here are just a few. 

The government’s job: Protecting speech, making laws, protecting religious expression and diversity of thought, promoting security and tranquility, spending the money we allocate to spend to benefit the people. 

Our job: cultivating speech that is beneficial, choosing our own beneficial religious expression, choosing to think and educate ourselves, helping provide safety to ourselves and those around us, and holding elected officials responsible for handling our money well. 

Neither list is exhaustive. What would be on your list? I want to get you thinking, not to do your thinking for you.

Our relationship with public servants is going to have to change for things to get better. I know that sometimes it takes a crisis to get people to get out and get involved. Maybe instead of reacting to crisis, we need to change our value system to always being mindful of our communities and the part we play in them. Our representatives need us to help them think and ask the right questions and have the quality conversations. As we demand more of them, we also need to demand more of ourselves: to put more into our role as cultivators and curators of thought, to educate one another and our children— to seek truth and clear the way for the truth to be heard. 

Next time you have a political conversation, stop and think. Is this the job of culture or is the this the role of government or both? Now go put on your green gloves. You can start by engaging in a brave conversation. 

Posted on

We’re Not Fighting, We’re Discussing! (How to recognize the difference between a debate, a discussion, and a fight.) 

We’ve all avoided conversations or steered it another direction because we were afraid that the conversation would get out of hand and become destructive to the relationship. Many of us have heard our parents getting heated over something and we’ve said, “Why are you guys fighting?” Then we hear back, “We’re not fighting, we’re discussing!” 

All of us have different thresholds for intense conversations. But what are the real markers of whether or not a conversation is going “out of bounds” and no longer moving the people towards understanding and connection? After all, we don’t want to pursue brave conversations if we think they are going to be destructive or a waste of time. 

I’m convinced more and more that an understanding of boundaries is key to our ability to have not just debates, but real, productive dialogues and discussions.

The goal of the debate is to “win” which means that the conversation partners are, by definition, opponents. In a debate, each partner is trying to defeat the other by means of a combination of logic and rhetoric. Debates are common in American culture. So common that we believe that it is impossible to have a conversation about something controversial without a debate. It is common to see debates among people who presumably should have extended knowledge and expertise on a subject. Politicians, religious leaders and other public figures can debate in a public place to represent the views of many and to rally people to their cause.  They are challenged to produce valid information to prove to everyone that they know their stuff. 

Many people do not like debates because they don’t feel qualified, equipped, or invested enough in a topic to engage in it at that level. They are rightfully afraid of being defeated and shamed. Therefore, many steer clear of all conversations that might become a debate.

But there is a different way to engage in important, though controversial topics. And that method is called discussion. Unlike the fighting parents who insist that they are “discussing,” real discussion has some key elements that move us forward in culture and in relationship. When you know the elements of discussion vs. debate, you can follow these ground rules and bow out when the discussion becomes more of a debate or an outright fight. 

By contrast to a debate, with the goal being to win, the goal of a discussion is connection and understanding. Whether this conversation is being done one on one or in a group, the goal is mutual understanding of the other person’s stream of logic and the meanings of the words and phrases that they use. You will know someone is ready for a discussion when they have a value for you as a person as much as they have a value for their own opinions. Common ground is sought and built upon. Often, new ideas will spring forth from a discussion as possible solutions to the problem at hand. 

While debates may be appropriate for politicians and other public figures, discussions should be the preferred mode in day to day life. Discussions make up the fabric of a peace loving society and can help provide solutions to very real and troubling dilemmas. Discussions can also involve high emotions. Discussions can be quiet or loud, so don’t judge a conversation by it’s volume. People have different cultural ways that they engage in discussion. Another important element of a discussion is that it acknowledges the human dignity of each individual no matter what level of education, racial background, or experience. 

There is a third ugly type of conversation that we should be willing to acknowledge. Sometimes, without realizing it, our conversations devolve into verbal fights. Debates can easily sink to this level through tactics such as name calling, threatening, and devaluing the humanity or dignity of individual. When people stop listening, debates and even discussions can sink into the territory of verbal altercations. Fights, though some forms are and should remain protected under the first amendment, are rarely productive. Any time we see fights ensue in the media or in our own lives, it is time to call “foul.” I am incensed when I hear fighting language such as the dehumanizing of an individual in a so called “intellectual debate” and then I hear the audience respond with applauding. No matter how much we agree with the offender of the cheap shot, applauding behavior like this does nothing to help society or to encourage serious thought. We should require our political pundits, politicians, and other thought leaders to work harder to maintain our respect in the public arena. In the same way, when we choose to rise above such tactics ourselves, we can slowly create a better world. 

So the next time you feel afraid that you’re getting swept into a debate, don’t run away or put up your dukes. Instead, ask the person if they are willing to engage with you in a respectful conversation. If you are unsure how to navigate such a conversation, bring along a friend who knows how to disagree peaceably. Then feel free to end the conversation if it becomes disrespectful or if your partner stops listening. Don’t let your voice be silenced just because of fear. Your perspective, your voice, your opinion matters. 

Posted on

Empathy is the New Compassion (and why that’s not a good thing)

Everywhere I go I hear about the need for empathy in our society. Empathy has this sort of wide appeal to almost everyone. It is used in popular social psychology. It has been wielded by politicians, religious clergy, fundraisers and salespeople. 

But where did this word come from and why did it become so widespread? 

The word comes from Greek roots, literally meaning “in feeling.” It was coined by a German philosopher in 1858, more widely translated in 1909. It was first applied to the way a person views artwork. It was applied to anyone with the ability to project his or her personality into the artwork. Thus, “feeling in” the piece. 

Today, the concept of empathy has morphed. We have heard the contrast between sympathy and empathy. Sympathy is said to feel FOR someone. Empathy is to feel WITH someone. Obviously, the latter is preferred as a mode of connection with a person. No one wants to be pitied or felt FOR. They want to be felt WITH. 

And so, our infatuation with the word “empathy” has grown over the last hundred years. 

Empathy is very engaging. That is why we watch movies. We want to enter into a character’s world, to feel what it is like to be them, to experience the things they experience and to have to make the choices they face. 

When people raise money for charities, the smart ones don’t only rely on big picture facts and figures. They will inevitably pull out a single story, one that showcases the plight of a single individual. The communicator knows that if he or she can get you to enter into someone’s story— to engage and project your own experiences on to the story, you will be much more likely to engage your emotions and, in turn, your pocketbook. 

Politicians play to empathy when they talk about their own life experiences and those of the people groups that they want to fight for. 

Empathy is part of the human experience. It is a very important part. People who have no capacity for empathy are not healthy individuals. We feel with people. Even little babies will cry when they hear another baby crying. Empathy stretches our intellect. The ability to see outside of our own skin and put ourselves in someone else’s shoes is very helpful. Children who are avid readers can experience greater empathy than those who read less. It can lead to greater levels of compassion and altruism. 

However, new research has come to the surface to suggest that empathy has a downside too. A recent paper published in the Personalty and Social Psychology Bulletin states that people who felt empathy toward another person were more likely to engage in aggressive behavior when they thought that the person they felt empathy towards was threatened. 

Prabarna Ganguly writes, 

“Participants were, to a surprising degree, willing to inflict pain on a certain person to help a distressed individual they felt empathy for. What’s more, it can be activated even “in the absence of wrongdoing or provocation from the target of aggression.” That party doesn’t have to be doing anything wrong; he or she simply has to pose a problem for the person you empathize with.”

Did you read that correctly? It says, “That party doesn’t have to be doing anything wrong; he or she simply has to pose a problem for the person you empathize with.” 

So it seems that empathy can cause scary ethical problems for us in its real life application. 

Well, as a Christian, I would like to use the Bible, particularly the example of Jesus, as my standard for character, virtue, and morality. We just learned that the word empathy was not circulated until 1908, so it would stand to reason that the word is not used in the Greek text of the New Testament. However, a comparable word is used— compassion. The word compassion is an emotional word in the Greek. It means to have an altruistic feeling in your gut toward someone. 

Moved by compassion, Jesus was about to go about his business, but compassion moved him to stay a little longer teaching the crowds. Compassion moved him to heal their sick. Some translations will say, “he had pity on them” because they were like sheep without a shepherd… But we don’t like that word, pity! It makes us feel too… well, pitiful.

Compassion differs slightly from empathy in that the person having the emotion remains distinct from the object of the emotion. When Jesus had compassion on the crowds, he felt their emotions, but he wasn’t consumed by them. He remained himself, a distinct person who was presumably, not one of the sheep, but in that moment, the shepherd. Of course, he would go to the cross as a lamb, fully identifying with us in his death, burial and resurrection. He felt all the feelings of humankind, and yet he did not succumb to our moral weaknesses. 

Part of the problem with empathy is that it can only be directed specifically. While logic can be applied to all people under all circumstances, empathy can only feel for one person (or people group) at a time. After all, looking at the original use of the word, it’s pretty hard to engage in multiple pieces of art all at one time. Compassion, then, is that unique ability to feel for multiple individuals or groups of people at the same time. Jesus was able to see the big picture. He saw his overarching mission and he was headed in the direction of his mission. However, when his compassion moved him, he stopped what he was doing and he met that need. He didn’t instantly take on every problem that the particular group faced. He didn’t lose sight of his mission for the whole of humanity just to “feel with” that one group. I’m sure there were many who wanted him to stay and fight every battle for them, but he didn’t. Because his compassion allowed him to see both emotional suffering and big picture logic simultaneously. To understand the plight of the poor, while allowing the woman to “waste” her expensive alabaster box of perfume preparing his body for burial, to risk offending a woman by calling her a dog but then healing her daughter anyway, to having compassion on his mother at the cross while forgiving his murderers saying, “They know not what they do.” If Jesus’ goal was empathy (rather than compassion) he might have gotten swept away in the problems of others and not been able to offer them a way out of the messes they were in.

It is conceivable that a person full of empathy for unborn babies could place a bomb in an abortion clinic. They so over-identify with the poor little babies that they lose their powers of reasoning and big picture principle that all life is valuable. It is conceivable that the statistics of illegal immigration could get lost on someone who has their empathy directed toward only “undocumented immigrants” or only toward “legal Americans.” Empathy is insufficient in that it can cause a person to lose their big-picture critical thinking skills that are needed to solve big societal problems. Suddenly, the person who serves the poor begins resenting the middle class or upper class for just “not getting it.” The businessman who begins identifying only with other wealthy businessmen no longer has any patience for someone who cannot “pull himself up from his bootstraps” and make something of himself. Immature forms of empathy can have a tendency to pull us to the lowest common denominator. We allow our own experiences to get jumbled up in the experiences of others and it clouds our logical thinking. I believe that compassion is the mature and full expression of the more underdeveloped emotions of empathy. 

Logic and emotion do not have to be enemies. We just have to know where to place them and the reasons they exist. In the meantime, I would encourage you to pursue, not empathy as your ultimate goal, but compassion— the ability to feel for another deeply, and and to yet remain distinct from. Can you help me bring compassion back in style? 

Please share and engage in our conversation. I plan on discussing this topic more in my soon to be released podcast. Also, you can join a real face to face conversation on this and other interesting topics at Brave Conversations on Facebook! 

Posted on

The Rise of the Underarchy

It is part of the common human experience to feel rejected, to feel on the outside, to feel as if we don’t belong. Even, Jesus, the God-man had a very poignant experience of the rejection of people, even his closest friends and relatives. When we feel rejected, it becomes common to seek out others who understand our pain. We don’t want friends like Job who just say, “Get it together, man! There must be some hidden sin in you, which is why you are suffering so much.” No, in those moments of fierce rejection, we tend to find misfit companions just like us. Like the young David, running from his father in law, King Saul…who should come to him, but the outcast, dissatisfied and disenfranchised young men of his day. The knew that David could identify with their pain and so they ran to him. They fought for him. They were willing to risk their lives for him. It is natural and human to want to band together according to the common experiences of rejection that we share. 

But there is something that concerns me about the way modern society is choosing to band together. There has been much said in recent days about the merits and woes of what we have come to label “identity politics.” It’s this idea that we tend to frame our political conversations around the groups that we identify with. Most of these groups are characterized by their felt levels of disenfranchisement by mainstream culture. Examples of such groups can include: women, minority groups, LGBTQ individuals, etc. Because many people in these groups have felt rejected by the rest of society for different reasons, they feel that their identification with these groups gives them an authority in the conversation that others do not have. To a large extent, that is true. It’s hard to talk about a social experience that is not your own. Your group identity, especially if you appear noticeably different from your peers, gives you a unique voice. 

However, there is a subtle danger here that can shut down conversation and it can shut down the process of moving us in a positive and unifying direction as a culture. “Intersectionality” has been introduced as a fairly new concept on college campuses, though it was first coined in the 1980s. It describes the layers of societal barriers that arise when someone belongs to more than one of these disenfranchised groups. For example, a black American woman would presumably have more to contend with as far as barriers to her success than a white American woman. I understand the logic behind this concept completely. We are trying to figure out and grapple with what makes some people lag behind and other people more successful. We are trying to even the playing field as much as possible, which is very noble of us. 

The problem comes when we begin to view “The Hierarchy” as an inherent problem— that people in power, only by virtue of their power, are inherently the problem. Instead of having the burden of pointing out the specific ways in which the hierarchy has been a problem, we jump to the conclusion that the hierarchy is a problem just because they exist. Many people have risen to the higher ranks of society, not because they were a problem, but because they are actively solving problems. If we have no hierarchy at all, we have no values, we have nothing to do, and nothing to strive for— no goals to improve our current state of being.

We know that the problems of the hierarchy will always be something we need to guard against. We know that the human experience of absolute power has the risk of corruption, which is why we need to be watchful of people in power and to hold them accountable. At the same time, I see an equally suspicious class pop up, and that is what I’ll call the rise of the Underarchy. I am giving this group a name because we cannot notice something we do not name. 

The Underarchy are the people who so identify with the disenfranchisement of the groups to which they belong, that they wear their under-privilege as a badge of honor. The more stamps they can get on their  “underprivileged” card the more a sense of entitlement they feel. They use the word “privilege” as a byword to eliminate people from a conversation that they don’t want to engage in. 

There is something very dangerous about over-identifying yourself by your negative experiences alone. It causes your senses to become heightened to the negative experiences around you and you begin living a negative and learned helpless existence. You subtly begin to assume that only people who belong to your disenfranchised group can really understand you. It is very seductive because the wounds we have really do hurt, and the last thing we want to do is to open ourselves up again to someone who identifies with a group that corresponds with the last person who hurt us. It can be a real struggle. 

But in fact, history tells us the danger that this kind of thinking can lead to. In fact, it was the marked success of the Jews that were rising to the economic and academic hierarchy in Germany that first led the Germans to a feeling of jealousy, of rejection, and of disenfranchisement. They felt that in order to feel safe as “true Germans,” they had to push the power of their choice identity: white nationalism—something that the Jews could not fully claim. 

You know that you are in dangerous territory when you begin using your identity group to silence another person in a conversation, when you believe that your identity card allows you to play by different rules of morality and conduct.

These days, those who have more points of “intersectionality” or who have more points in the Underarchy can say things that those who have zero points, namely the white straight male, cannot. When this begins happening in a society, it is a sign that we are getting away from the whole “all men (and women) are created equal” thing. It means that we’ve unknowingly shifted the pendulum too far the other way. The Hierarchy can be corrupted for sure, but the Underarchy can be just as corrupt and can cause damage as well. Maybe the playing cards of the hierarchy are most often money, power, and professional opportunity, but the Underarchy can deal in social and political threat and can even incite violence. 

If you do find that you afford the “intersectionality points” because of the person you happen to be, realize you too have power and you too have influence. Please use your influence wisely and lovingly. Do not be deceived into thinking that you get to live by a different moral standard than others. Do not attempt to climb the ranks of the Underarchy so you can hold it over people’s heads. Do not use your group identity to silence, belittle, or to dismiss anyone who does not share that identity. If you do, you will become part of the problem you hoped to solve. All I ask is that you please, identify responsibly. 

Posted on

Why No One ever talks about Tolerance anymore

Do you remember years ago when the word “tolerance” made its way into the public discourse? There was a lot of controversy around that word I think it was around the time that Brad started dating Jennifer on “Home Improvement,” but don’t quote me on that. I remember a new book coming out at the time written by Dr. Dobson’s son, Ryan entitled, “Be Intolerant, because some things are just stupid.” Many conservatives worried that tolerance was a sneaky way for social liberals to gain a foothold. And so, they rejected the use of the word altogether, proclaiming that they would not tolerate tolerance when it came to things that were purely “intolerable.” Others embraced the word tolerance, Christians and others acceded that the true meaning of tolerance does in fact line up with the values that they hold dear, even biblical values. So what do we do with this loaded word? 

The word “tolerance” originally came from the idea of bearing up under a certain amount of suffering. Over the years it morphed into the biblical idea of “bearing with” those who were different from you in the way that they lived or the way that they believed, or the values they held. The operative meaning of the word was that it implied a clash, a suffering, a struggle, a gap to bridge. 

A society that values tolerance is a very western democratic sort of society. Tolerance becomes very valuable in a society that affirms the right of free speech, for example. Such a society assumes that the best ideas will rise to the surface in the crucible of honest and free thinking men and women who are willing to at least tolerate or entertain a point of view that is different from their own. 

In the gay rights movement, for example, the word was originally used to bridge the gap between those who did not agree with that particular lifestyle in an effort to help those people “tolerate” lifestyles that might be different from the ones they typically affirm. 

But over time, the word was subtly dropped from the narrative because we inherently realized that if we subscribe to the idea of tolerance, we will soon have no choice but to practice this value ourselves. And this is what we do with words—we discard them when they give us a standard by which we do not want to measure ourselves.

Consider the recent case of the baker (Jack Phillips) who went to the Supreme Court because he refused to customize a cake for a homosexual couple. Keep in mind that this man was willing to serve the couple another more generic cake or pastry item, but his conscience did not permit him to violate his conviction in such a way that blatantly affirmed a gay marriage that he did not agree with. 

In order to really see this issue clearly, I’d like to give you a hypothetical, which I call the practice of “moral mirroring.” To demonstrate moral mirroring, you flip the script and try the shoe on the other foot, so to speak. Here’s an example. Let’s flip the script on the Christian baker by considering the rights of an atheist who refuses to decorate a cake with a bible verse because it violates his beliefs. It is the same exact principle, even though in real life, the atheist is never the target of such litigation. Bigotry is refusing to serve someone or treat someone with respect based solely on perceived differences. Think of the bigot who says, “We don’t want her kind in here.” 

Most of the time we contrast bigotry with affirmation….someone who throws flowers and celebrates all that everyone is and all that everyone does. I can tell you that that person exists…nowhere. We think that affirmation is the opposite of bigotry, but it’s not. It’s easy to “allow” someone to be the way they are if you agree with them and celebrate their lifestyle. 

But tolerance is more brave than affirmation. It is more difficult because it is the choice to respect someone when and especially when you do not affirm what they do. Affirmation is easy, but tolerance takes character. It’s the willingness to stand in one’s own convictions enough to draw a line in the sand, but to make every effort to respect the line that another has drawn as well. That baker was practicing tolerance in that he was willing to serve the couple in many different ways. He only made a distinction where it clearly violated his convictions. 

The sad truth of our current society is that we’ve slipped from true tolerance to affirmation as its inferior substitute. This “affirmation culture” is alogical in nature because it doesn’t stand the test of moral integrity or moral mirroring. We cannot in good conscience affirm the choices of every individual on the planet merely because people want to be affirmed. The right to be affirmed is nowhere in the constitution. In the same way that we cannot demand everyone to affirm Christianity, we also cannot demand that someone affirm and celebrate homosexuality, atheism or white supremacy. 

If we want to bring back tolerance as a value, as I think we should, it has to apply to all people of all persuasions as long as bodily harm is not in question. (In the case of physical danger, that is a different conversation.)

So what does true tolerance really look like? How can we seek opportunities to show tolerance and how can we affirm those who do? Well, first we have to notice when we have a difference of opinion or different lifestyle choice from someone else. That’s easy enough. But the second step is harder. 

Next, we have to make the choice to move toward those people, not away. We need to engage in business, in dialogue with these people, always with a curious posture. But we must never succumb to the tyranny of an “affirmation culture,” feeling like we are pressured into affirming things we cannot in good conscience believe or affirm. Treating someone well while you simultaneously refuse to affirm all their life choices is the essence of true tolerance. 

Lastly, we need to notice and applaud people like Jack Phillips who do not necessarily affirm, but demonstrate tolerance toward groups of people that are different from themselves. We need to do the same for Muslims who bear with Christians and liberals who bear with conservatives. Such people serve where they can and graciously decline where (and only where) their convictions are in violation. 

It’s time for tolerance to make a comeback for real this time. It can be a true virtue, not merely a euphemism. We cannot effectively celebrate diversity without tolerance. We cannot effectively participate in a democracy without tolerance. If we make the mistake of replacing tolerance with affirmation, we will most certainly lose the power of personal conviction. The soul of democracy itself demands that we agree together that true tolerance will be a virtue we choose to practice, to cultivate, and to applaud in others. 

Posted on

5 Ways You Might Be Messing Up Your Conversations

Continuing in our conversation about conversation, I’ll call this a “meta-conversation.” It’s the act of talking about how we talk to one another. It may sound unnecessary, but when you think about it, what could be more important than growing in the art of conversation? Conversations have consequences. Conversations create reality.

The absence of conversation also has consequences. If neighborhoods and communities don’t talk, the culture at large will do our talking for us. When you watch TV a conversation is being had, only the conversation is one sided: you are being talked AT not talked WITH. You are a passive recipient of the conversation– yet the conversation is affecting you nonetheless.

In my last post, I talked about whether you were predisposed toward bravery in your conversations. Today, I want to explore how to think about each conversation you’ve just had. Think about your last conversation. How effective was it? Did you really stayed engaged and “brave” in this conversation?

Here is a little handy acronym to help you remember that after each conversation you can check yourself with these questions “I MUSE.”

As a verb, to muse is to consider something thoughtfully. As a noun, it means a person who is a source of artistic inspiration. In mythology, the Muses were nine goddesses who symbolized the arts and sciences. Today, a muse is often a person who serves as an artist’s inspiration.

When an interaction with a muse comes to mind, it denotes an interaction with another individual that then inspires something new to be formed. If you are engaging as a true artist in the art of the Brave Conversation, you will take whatever muse that is in front of you, whomever you have invited into the conversation, and you will expect inspiration to occur from that conversation. And you will expect that something new and beautiful will have been birthed from that conversation. 

  • Intentional Invitation: Did I intentionally invite the other person into the conversation with his or her whole self? Did I truly begin with the intention of understanding the other person and learning from him/her? Was I looking for “the exchange?” 
  • Maintaining Moral Integrity: Did I maintain intellectual consistency and apply the same moral principles to myself that I do to others? Did I ask questions of clarification when I did not understand?
  • Using my Voice: Was I able to stand in my convictions despite another’s view of me or reaction to me? Was I able to articulate my viewpoints and emotions while remaining respectful? Was I able to stand in my own skin and invite my own authentic voice to the table?
  • Savoring the Exchange: Did we come to new ideas, new concepts, or new revelations together? Was there an authentic spiritual or intellectual exchange? Did I gain something that can never be taken from me? 
  • Engaging Empathy: Was I able to step out of my own perspective long enough to truly hear and enter into their full perspective? Did I realize that I am not as different from this person as I may have thought? 

By contrast, the conversation that does not live up to the brave conversation litmus test might have these pitfalls embedded somewhere within. Perhaps you’ll have more insight seeing where your conversational weaknesses lie.

Intention Fail

  • You felt obligated to have the conversation, therefore you did not fully consider to invite the other person to the table fully. You were not ready to listen with an open heart.
  • You invited the other person, but you had a pre-drawn conclusion of how you wanted the interaction to go. You needed the person to respond in a certain way. Therefore, you were not willing to interact with the authentic person. 

Moral Integrity Fail 

  • You espoused convictions that you did not honestly and equally apply to yourself.
  • You disengaged from the difficulties of the conversation. 
  • You were not willing to allow the conversation to change you.
  • Instead of asking for clarification when you disagreed, you changed the subject, disengaged, or became defensive or dismissive.

Failure to Use Your Voice

  • You lost your voice and did not speak up when you sensed possible conflict.
  • You nodded your head when you did not understand or agree. 
  • You were intimidated by the knowledge, experience or intellect of the person and disengaged because of your own felt inadequacies. 
  • You were not open with the person about how you were feeling in the moment. 

Failure to Savor the Exchange

  • No new discoveries. Very little significant exchange.

Empathy Fail

  • It was too difficult for you to put yourself in the shoes or perspective of your conversation partner. 
  • You became defensive rather than first seeking to understand. 

Failures are not really true failures in that they are opportunities to learn. Some people you may find are not really ready for a brave conversation themselves, and you will find that all you can do is remain open to having one if and when that person is ready. Don’t beat yourself up for ending a conversation and coming short in any of these areas. My hope is that in your pursuit of Brave Conversations, your eyes will be open to more and more people that have the ability to change your life for the better. I also hope that by staying present and fully engaged in your conversations, you will also be one that will bring life, challenge, and understanding into all the people you may engage. Together we can change the world, one brave conversation at a time. 

Continue the conversation with me! Where do you find that you struggle most in your conversations? Where are you strong? What will you do to make your next conversation better?