Racism?

On one of my commutes up the hill today, I passed a car with the following bumper sticker plastered across the rear window:

"It is just as racist to vote for a man because he is black as it is to vote against a man because he is black."

I firmly disagree, and here is the reasoning, in brief, behind my disagreement:

-There are two reasons why somebody's race will affect your support of their candidacy: (1) Either you are racist (defined as: you assume people have certain characteristics/qualities, whether positive or negative, simply because of their appearance and heritage), or (2) you believe that their experience of race has colored (ha ha... no.) their growth and point of view.

-I heartily concede that the sticker slogan applies to cases of (1). That is, it is equally racist to vote for a Black person on the assumption that simply being Black makes an individual better than, say, an Asian or White candidate, as it is to not vote for her on the assumption that Blackness, on its own, makes one worse than the alternatives.

-However, the sticker slogan fails in its consideration of (2): that is, that being Black grants a candidate a particular experience, for example, growing up as an ethnic minority in a very racially-charged (if not outright racist) society.

-In the case that (2) obtains, I see no reason that being Black - along with the experience of being Black in America that this brings along - is not a perfectly good (albeit yet insufficient) reason to vote for somebody. It is not racist to think that possessing the experience of being an ethnic minority in America will increase somebody's ability to serve as President.

-The opposite is not true, however. To not vote for somebody solely because of his or her status as a minority in America connotes an evaluation of the minority experience that settles on it as insufficient or detrimental to one's ability to serve as President.

Thoughts? There are arguments above that are highly undeveloped, largely due to time constraints and general laziness regarding rigorous thought post-graduation. Anyone want to push me on this?

Holla.

CSW affairs: An Alumnus Viewpoint

A Public Letter to the Charter School of Wilmington Community.

The high school from which I matriculated, the Charter School of Wilmington ("CSW"), has recently been going through some highly public issues, stemming - as I understand - from personal and professional conflicts between the president (our principal figure), Mr. Ron Russo, and members of the school board. It is a matter that strikes deep into the heart of a community within which I struggled, grew, and lived for four of my most formative years, in which I still feel invested, despite having long since departed.

Background:

These are some of the pertinent details (feel free to skip to section 2, below, if you are familiar with the situation) that I have gathered from second- and third-hand sources (primarily here and here), a vague, if lengthy, public statement by the school board (here), and local newspaper reporting (here and here):

-Some time in the past few years, Russo had an affair with a fellow school employee.

-In February 2008, a complaint over repeated sexual harassment was filed against Russo.

-In July 2008, the school board held a poorly-publicized meeting, one of the purposes of which was to determine Russo's future role at CSW. However, he retained his position: sources disagree as to whether this result came from overwhelming student and parent support or because he agreed to change "inappropriate behaviors" at work.

-The board called another meeting for February 10th, the stated purpose of which was to allow Mr. Russo "an opportunity to meet with the Board in Executive Session to present his responses". The board also released a public statement further explaining this action (the harassment complaint, and noncompliance with the terms of his continued employment), as well as intimating to its intended audience that Russo presents a certain persona to the parents and students of CSW, and another entirely to faculty, board members, etc.

-After the closed Executive meeting, a public meeting was held, at which the board publicly voted to terminate Russo's presidency of CSW, with 7 for, 1 abstaining, and 1 (the parent representative) against. The board remains evasive about the particulars of Russo's transgressions.

Those are the salient facts, so far as I understand. For the moment - beginning tomorrow - the school's daily affairs will be under the guidance of another senior teacher and staff member, serving as interim president until a new president can be found, and this whole mess sorted out.

That's the background, setting the stage; now, for my personal thoughts on the matter.

My thoughts: the Board.

First off, I am not interested in judging the merits and injuries of Russo's particular actions. Indeed, I have to confess my own ignorance of the situation: I have not visited Charter for several months, and I know few, if any, remaining students. This is not about the veracity of the allegations against Russo: this is about the rather messy way that the community - students, parents, faculty, and board - has gone about addressing this whole matter.

My first, and somewhat lesser, concern lies in the general lack of credible information presented to substantiate the board's position: it seems that the board are perfectly willing to make allegations of Russo's indiscretions, but the stated facts do not match up with faculty, student, or parent response. The board, in its statement, claims that

"Mr. Russo presents very different behavior to students and most parents than he does to faculty, staff, and parents. This is very much an adult issue in which his behavior is materially and adversely affecting the workplace of the adults who spend significant time with our students."

First of all, this is confusing: Russo presents different behavior to most parents, than to parents? Perhaps this is true; but, if so, why does my only primary source say that there was "not a single speaker against [Russo]" present at the public meeting of February 10th?

Second, the board is setting itself up as an independent, impartial investigator of Russo's workplace conduct: if so, why is the staff member with whom he had an affair present on the board? Ethics demand, if not outright require, that she recuse herself on this matter. It is no surprise that the board warns parents that Russo is interested in a campaign of disinformation: that is precisely the tactics that have, thus far, been utilized by their side. The effect is a two-horned confusion on the part of outsiders who would otherwise grow involved: we cannot trust the board (they are too invested in this situation), but neither, apparently, can we trust Russo. And, in the absence or open undermining of outside support for Russo, the board possesses the power to make unilateral decisions. There is no check, and no balance.

Also potentially concerning is that another, less-well-publicized conflict in the school term immediately preceding the first attempt at ousting Russo was predicated upon his investigation of one of the board members for an unauthorized (and thereby illegal, according to the titular CSW Charter) expenditure of money. The expenditure? For a PR firm. It seems neat coincidence, then, that the Board's strategy on this current removal of Russo was founded upon a nice bit of public relations work to distance parents and students from Russo, by insinuating his untrustworthiness.

Also interesting is firsthand information that claims conflict between Russo and the Board is no new matter: "this all began three years ago when the board voted to cut all teacher bonuses without cause. The faculty and Russo strongly challenged the board and were shot down. It is only after his challenges that all the trouble began."

But, perhaps, the School Board is right, and Russo has acted unprofessionally (perhaps), immorally (likely), and unethically (?). However, the proper remedy to a bad headmaster is not deposing him by hook or by crook, but to do so professionally, morally, and ethically. The Board's actions may be moral; I do not think they have been either professional or ethical. With regards to ethics, my primary concern is that full disclosure of the history between Russo and certain Board members, and the ethically requisite subsequent recusion of Board members, has not happened. Russo's concerns about the board not only go unanswered, but unaddressed.

With regards to professionalism, the board says they want to keep the school running smoothly. Very well: but a smooth school requires relationships of trust between the guiding body of the school (whether a Board or a head), and disregarding parental and student requests for information is the precise opposite of such a trust. Must they disclose further information? I doubt it. Ought they? Indubitably.

Very well. This, then, is my response to the Board, at least that which I have composed in my few spare moments since this matter has begun: I beg, urge, plead with you to be transparent, for your own good, for the good of the school, and for the good of the students whose education you have chartered. If this requires the sacrifice of some personal dignity, of some of the Rights that the Board holds, still, for Heaven's (or not) sake, be open! It will be best, if likely humbling, and the school community can finally feel comfortable with, and not lorded over by, your corporate body. Ultimately, if or when a new choice for school head is brought in, the community will inevitably consider him or her to be "on their side": the more certain they can be that their interests lie not so far from ours, the smoother the whole deal should go down for all involved.

My thoughts: Student Responses.

On the part of the students, I have seen several sorts of responses, coming via various forms of public discussion. Some sympathize with Mr. Russo; others demonize; and some admit that they cannot know the entire story. All these responses, I must admit, resonate with me to some degree. But I would like to address, primarily, the discussion currently centred around the idea of some sort of "student protest," the most immediate and obvious of which is a "Sit in for information on the termination of Mr. Russo" being organized, at the time of this writing, for the first period tomorrow (Wednesday) morning.

I'm not interested in recounting my personal feelings on the matter at hand (whether the board has been forthcoming with information) - that is covered in the section above. What I am pleasantly surprised about, however, is the proposed reason for this sit-in: not in support of Russo, not in defiance of the Board, but in the interest of acquiring information, so as (I presume) to come, as a community, to a more fair and right-minded understanding of the situation. This is, I think, highly commendable. In fact, it illustrates one of the most valuable and crucial skills that Schools hope to impart: reasoned, objective thinking based on values applied in a real-world test.

This is why I worry about responses - whether from students or recent alumni - that condemn such actions as counterproductive, claiming, in the words of one message board post,

"If this is how we show our support to russo [sic], by rebelling against all he helped to build, even when new leadership takes over, all he work [sic] for seems in vain, no?"

No.

Now, such forms of protest would be in vain if what Russo "helped to build" was an institution simply established to pass on knowledge, to produce competitive students, and to garner a list of acceptances to A-list universities. If so, then, yes. So long as academics continue unimpeded, then, yes, we ought to be pleased with ourselves, and, yes, allow this transition to proceed on its way.

But academics cannot be equated with Learning, and facts and formulae are not the only goals of Education. The purpose of a School is not equal to its rank in the nation, to its college acceptance lists, or even to its students future pursuits. A School, at its best, is in the business of teaching life skills, among whose number we must count both values and virtue, both ethics as well as morals. And what pleases me so about much of the student and alumni response to the executive board's obtuse and occluded process is that it is an ethical response: protesting what seems to be an injustice done, while remaining humble and open to convincing otherwise.

Yes, it is difficult, often, to be ethical; it is certainly inconvenient; it is possibly even wrong to support Mr. Russo in this matter. But this protest, it seems, is not a partisan action: this is not about liking a president, or disliking a man. This is about due process, transparent governance, and proper polity. This is why I, both publically and personally, am in support of this sit-in, and any other future actions carried out in a similar spirit. This is precisely the sort of Test which schools cannot prepare, and only Life can offer: a test of character.

I will not discuss at length other historical protests. But I do not think it ludicrous to draw parallels between this action and those such as the boycotts, the sit-ins, the hunger strikes. It is not ludicrous because, despite the scale of this particular situation's effect being quite different from those others, the Ethics at stake knows no scale: If what has been done is wrong, is Unjust in any meaningful way, then this course of action is unqualifiedly proper. If one hopes to one day practice great virtue, then one must today discharge her or his duty in small ways.

So, to the students, to any alumni who may choose to take part in this: Go. Go! and do not leave, do not stop going, until this matter has been drawn up to the utter satisfaction of your conscience or rational understanding of what the Right Thing is in this instance. It will be inconvenient; it may be difficult; it may even be a little embarrassing, if, as it may turn out, there are many who are not so conscience-stricken as you. But, Go!

-Jason G.L. Chu (CSW '04, Yale '08)

Something I don't quite understand

How is it, according to conservative minds, that welfare - supporting individuals who have failed in the marketplace, who can't take care of themselves and need the government's help - is a dirty word and an execrable practice, while large-scale bailout - supporting corporations who have failed in the marketplace, who can no longer handle hteir own affairs and need the government's help - is a necessary, requisite, and even noble part of the economic machine?

Man beaten in Shreveport, LA, for wearing an Obama shirt

This shit is ridiculous... I could comment or say whatever, but the pictures and his account below bear witness on their own. All I have to add is that this story needs to be told... the word needs to be spread. Right now, a google search for "Kaylon + Shreveport" turns up no stories on major news outlets. Go here for more and the latest info, and blog, IM, email, and otherwise share what's going on.





















Local Man Wearing Obama Shirt Beaten By Group of White Men

information from Mr. Johnson's family:

Kaylon was on his way home around 11 p.m. Saturday night (12/6). He was returning from a trip to the Natchitoches Christmas Festival where he was selling items from his newly opened Obama Shop.

Kaylon stopped at the Citgo station off I-20 and W. Bert Kouns (near Greenwood) to fuel up. A witness says the truck drove then came to a stop. The occupants of the truck were White men who shouted at Kaylon "F*** Obama" [I note: other accounts report racial epithets also being used] after noticing his Obama shirt.

The men got out of the truck, approached Kaylon and proceeded to attack him ... breaking his nose and seriously injuring his eye. Kaylon will have to have surgery later this week as a result of these injuries.

No other description is given other than they were "large" White men. The clerk in the station apparently was able to get the truck's license plate number.

Kaylon was not only assaulted, he was robbed as well. The suspects took his wallet before they fled.

***

"Kaylon was a key coordinator in the Shreveport for Obama campaign."

***

Gender in Judd Apatow's Superbad

"have you ever seen a vagina by itself? Not for me." - Seth [Jonah Hill] to Evan [Michael Cera]

This quote, uttered in the closing lines of Superbad's opening dialogue by Jonah Hill's foul-mouthed libidinous child-man, points toward the underlying framework that Judd Apatow establishes for his sprawling discussion of gender roles and relations contained therein. The film creates and attempts to resolve a tension between two age-old rite-of-passage premises: that (1) it is desirable to relate to females, at least from the perspective of the movie's three pubescent male protagonists (and, by implication, the movie's pre- mid- and post-pubescent male audiences [the question of what and how a female audience is to relate to the movie is an interesting, and ancillary, issue]), and (2) relating to females is confusing, irreducibly so. In essence, Apatow is asking his audience: is it worth it? Does pursuit of the feminine define masculine coming-of-age, thereby validating such impulses, or is the essence of maleness (as Socrates, Plato, and Wilde might support) to cling to obtuse, crotch-grabbing masculinity, placing "bros before hoes" and rejecting the physiological and biological mystery of the female?

To complicate matters, the line quoted above is followed immediately by Jane, Evan's mother, emerging from their house to thank Seth for "taking care of [Evan]". The irony is palpable: thoroughly virginal as Seth and Evan are, despite their vulgarities acting as desperate protestations to the contrary, emergence from their mothers' vaginas has been their only first-hand experience with the female genitalia. Seth's sexualization of Evan's mother is expected, and telling: if Seth and Evan form a twin-headed protagonist (whose story throughout the night moves in counterpoint to the second protagonist, Fogell [Christopher Mintz-Plasse] a/k/a McLovin), then Seth is Evan's Freudian id acting out, in a way that Evan cannot himself vocalize or otherwise express. In essence, Seth is the opposite of a Jiminy Cricket: an anthropomorphicized anti-conscience, expressing the base desires that would be unthinkable - but not wholly unpalatable - for Evan.

Interestingly, in this scene, there is also a transferral of parental roles taking place: Jane, largely absent for the rest of the film, is asking Seth to take care of Evan. Seth's response to her is not that of a preadolescent, but rather a budding post-adolescent sexualization of the feminine. This brings to mind the Freudian stages of male maturation and development: while the female grows into womanhood by clinging to Mother, the male grows into manhood by rejecting - or being rejected by - Mother, and instead embracing a characteristically-male Society. Anything less results in crippling neurosis: and, while Evan may be awkward, I have no sense that he is supposed to be viewed by the audience as sexually repressed. Sexually desirous, yes, of a seemingly-unreachable goal (putting women on pedestals, and thereby objectifying and ironically denigrating them, is another theme of the film) but unfulfilled desire is a far cry from sexual repression.

Cera's character is himself a study in tension: quirky and callow in worldview and experience, he is oddly youthless in mannerism and speech. He is the anti-protagonist, the opposite of what society says is Cool and Teenage. While he wears a hoody - as iconically Mid-'00s Teen as tight white tees were in the Arthur Fonzarelli/James Dean era - it covers a boring, beige-striped polo shirt; Evan is a man concealed in the body of a child, and while his longings are awkwardly and childishly expressed, they are not awkward and childish longings (compare them, for example, to the musings of Hill's Seth, which are garishly explicit and thereby come off as a good deal more undeveloped than Evan's quiet romanticism and the muted sexuality of his courtship).

That addresses two out of the three (or one out of the two, given their existence as, essentially, two sides of the same coin) protagonists of the film: there is also Mintz-Plasse's Fogell, better remembered to audiences in his film-stealing performance as "McLovin". In his characterization, we again see Apatow's sense for incisive irony (demonstrated previously in his high school magnum opus, Freaks and Geeks) at work: Fogell, despite his pseudonymous loverboy aspiration, is the least overtly sexual of the three. Fogell's sexual quarry for the night, Nicola, is a cipher, a caricature next to the comparatively fleshed-out Jules and Becca, Seth and Evan's respective crushes. Fogell pursues Nicola not as part of a coming-of-age ritual, but in a muted mimicry of Seth and Evan's ultimately deeper and fulfilling relational desires. While Fogell, Seth, and Evan all begin the movie with the aspiration of Being Cool, their paths diverge in a twinned what-if scenario: as Fogell's creation of his McLovin persona (a meta-device if ever there were one, and likely conscious commentary from the screenwriter of the process of character-creation) spirals out of control into zany wackyness, his exploits growing larger-than-life, Seth and Evan's night falls out in the opposite direction. McLovin is a brand of teenaged wonderchild, a High School student's idea of a good time: shooting guns, blowing up police cars, getting drunk (we can note that, while Evan and Seth were toting alcohol around all night, it is Fogell who seemingly winds up the most inebriated), and so on. Tellingly, the epilogue only addresses Evan and Seth; Fogell, it is implied, has no denouement in this story, because he has had no character development, no arc to speak of. While the fictional McLovin has been created, grew, and climaxed, his experiences have no bearing on the (comparatively) real Fogell.

Evan and Seth, on the other hand, seem to reach a verdict on The Question, albeit a complex verdict within which remains much to be resolved. As the last act of the film draws to a close, Evan and Seth curl up in side-by-side sleeping bags, reaffirming their masculinity as defined by one another: Maleness, in Apatow's world, stands largely on its own graces, a conclusion demonstrated in his other films (particularly Knocked Up), in which men and women seem to operate in thoroughly defined and tangential spheres. However, in the epilogue, Evan and Seth, finally happy and settled into their roles as Men, are at the mall the following day (in what is likely a telling clue, the entire narrative falls neatly into the structure of a single day, from morning through dusk, evening, late night, and concluding on the following morning) when they run into Jules and Becca, also recovering from the previous night's debauchery. The parallels between the Boys and Girls in this scene come as a surprise: Apatow has spent the whole movie telling us that the lines between Men and Women are high, nigh-insurmountable, and affirmation of Self involves, to some extent, rejection of the Other. But Becca and Jules, in this final scene, are a mirror of Evan and Seth, hinting at a complete story, from their points of view, paralleling the journey of our boys (a movie I would be interested in seeing, as much for the technical aspects of how it would be put together as for its narrative), and intimating to the audience that, when it comes down to it, Boys and Girls are not so much different as simply distanced.

In the final moments of the film, Evan and Seth and Jules and Becca exchange their other selves for new counterparts: Evan gives up his libidinous (and vocal!) id - Seth - and stands with Becca on his own, while Seth replaces Evan - his "son" - with Jules, and the prospect of a budding relationship, courtship, and potentially actual fatherhood. This is the first time that they take leave of one another - physically and, implicitly, emotionally - without a sense that this, too, will pass; perhaps, this time, it will not. The boys have finally taken their initial steps into manhood, and they depart - throwing meaningful glances at one another - with their respective love interests. Having cemented their masculine bonds the night before (I do not, as many seem to do, take this film as having homosexual undertones, except in the broadest and least interesting sense possible. Rather, Evan and Seth are, to me, two halves of one whole teenaged Male character), they no longer have to cling to or strive for them, and they are free to go their own ways, secure in Male relationship and ready to explore the grown-up and altogether more confusing world of heterosexual relationship.

Fundamentally speaking

The questions seem to proceed, in rational order:
Am I alone?
Where is the Other, the self, and the other self?
Are they sustainable?

If we cannot - do not - share in suffering, then do we share? (Is it categorically selfishness to share joy and not pain?)

From where does a conception of duty arise, and to what extent are its boundaries self-determined?


Grace must cover it all over.

Authority

"They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach. The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law."

(Mark 1:21-22)

Authority: "The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge", from French, autorite, "book or quotation that settles an argument," (c. 1230), from
Author: "One who sets forth written statements," from Latin, autor, "father", "one who causes to grow," from Latin, augere, "to increase".

So, authority, at least in some vague etymological degree, means the power or quality of the father. ehhhhh