©Wendell Griffen, 2010
Little Rock, Arkansas
I may be the only person in the world who senses a connection between Clint McCance, Tea Party nationalism, and neo-fundamentalist notions about Christianity. Mr. McCance is the Vice-Chair of the Midland School Board in Pleasant Plains, Arkansas who posted hateful comments about gay youth on his personal Facebook page. His were uttered in reaction to people wearing purple in support of recent gay victims who committed suicide after they suffered bullying.
Among other things, McCance stated, “Seriously they want me to wear purple because five queers killed themselves. The only way I’m wearin [sic] it for them is if they all commit suicide. I cant [sic] believe the people of this world have gotten this stupid. We are honoring the fact that they sinned and killed thereselves [sic] because of their sin.”
Since the time those and other hurtful statements were circulated over the Internet and drawn intense reactions ranging from a planned peaceful protest at a local school in his community to a public rebuke by the Arkansas Commissioner of Education, McCance has retreated into a reclusive silence.
I see a similarity between McCance and Tea Party nationalism. Like McCance, Tea Party activists have demonstrated intolerance and hostility. Although they deny being motivated by racial animosity toward President Obama and profess that they are displeased by his policies, many Tea Party activists have publicly challenged his citizenship, his religious faith, and his patriotism in ways that are hateful and racially-biased.
McCance and Tea Party nationalists appear to share one other feature—a neo-fundamentalist notion of Christianity that strikes out against people because they are considered "strangers," meaning different. In McCance's case, the "strangers" are gay people, particularly gay youth. For the Tea Party, President Obama is the "stranger." Ever since Obama won the Democratic Party nomination during the 2008 presidential campaign, people have been showing up at public events bearing signs and wearing clothing depicting him as a Nazi, socialist, witch doctor, and threat to the United States. Some have even worn T-shirts with Biblical references calling for his death.
Somehow McCance, Tea Party nationalists, and neo-fundamental Christians (who in many instances self-identify as "Christian conservatives") have come to believe that people who are different are dangerous. They reject the idea that human diversity is valid. For McCance, Tea Party nationalists, and neo-fundamentalists Christians, safety, security, and salvation require sameness.
This mindset is fundamentally wrong-headed. Reasonably intelligent people understand that human diversity is a fact to be accepted as part of a healthy world, not a harmful condition from which people and a society can or should be cured. A worldview that defines difference as threatening contradicts reality. After all, we are constantly learning about new species of plants and animals. Variety in people is no more ominous than it is in anything else in nature.
McCance, Tea Party nationalists, and neo-fundamental Christians embrace an arrogant and self-glorifying anti-intellectualism. I doubt I am the only person who detects irony in the fact that McCance, a leader (Vice-Chair) of his local public school board, was so arrogant as to demonstrate his incompetence with English grammar and spelling in his Facebook utterances that have prompted such an outcry. McCance brings Sarah Palin (former Alaska governor, 2008 Republican Party nominee for Vice President of the United States, and now leading promoter of Tea Party ideology) to mind. Palin's anti-intellectualism has become her calling card. We should not be surprised that American children are falling behind children in other societies when we deliberately elevate and celebrate people such as McCance and Palin as the exemplary leaders.
McCance, Tea Party nationalists, and neo-fundamentalist Christians aren't merely wrong-headed about human diversity. They're wrong-headed and wrong-hearted about the religion of Jesus. The Gospels present Jesus as someone who embraced people, especially people who were otherwise shunned because they were lepers, women, children, religious, political, and social outcasts, and sick. The Christ of the Gospels did not inspire the "Christianity" proclaimed and lived by McCance, Tea Party nationalists like Sarah Palin, and other neo-fundamentalist Christians who condemn people because of their sexual orientation, religion, language, and ethnicity.
There is as much difference between the religion of Jesus and McCance, Tea Party nationalists, and neo-fundamentalist Christians as there is between noon and midnight. As a follower of Jesus, I intend to show McCance, Palin, and the people they mistreat as "strangers" that I know that difference and am determined to live it.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Monday, August 2, 2010
Calling Out the Hypocrisy of "Fiscal Conservatism" in Current U.S. Political Discourse
Media commentators and U.S. elected officials at the highest levels of government are expressing concern ranging from apprehension to alarm about the federal deficit. Several members of Congress and people who share the Tea Party ideas about government are complaining about federal spending.This concern supposedly was why Congress allowed unemployment benefits for people who had been unemployed for six months or more to expire on June 2.
If the Tea Party, Blue Dogs, and other so-called "fiscal conservatives" such as Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Steve Forbes, and others are truly concerned about integrity—fiscal or otherwise—they should be complaining about the billions of dollars spent to wage war in Iraq. According to the National Priorities Project (www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home), the United States allocated $747.3 billion—almost 3/4 of a trillion dollars—for the war in Iraq since 2003. Here is what the same amount of money could have done for Arkansas, my home state:
- 2,080,756 people—more than the entire population of Arkansas—could have been provided low-income healthcare for one year; or
- 155,419 police or sheriff's patrol officers could have been employed for one year; or
- 166,758 firefighters could have been employed for a year; or
- Scholarships for 1,083,707 university students could have been provided for one year; or
- 1,261,201 students could have received Pell Grants of $5550 each to attend college; or
- Head Start could have been funded to cover 1,103,815 children for a year.
Mind you, the $747.3 billion allocated to wage war in Iraq does not include any money that must be spent to treat thousands of wounded and disabled service members. If the Department of Defense website is accurate, 13,982 service members were wounded in action and not returned to duty and 17,915 others were wounded and returned to duty. The Iraq war cost tally also does not include what the nation owes to survivors of the 4417 military and Defense Department civilians killed in Iraq as of August 2, 2010, 10 a.m., EDT (see www.defense.gov/news/casualty.pdf). We should have long ago confronted the hypocrisy of people who profess to cherish human life but never challenge a war that has claimed almost 4500 American lives, perhaps hundreds of thousands more in Iraq, and permanently scarred countless others.
Long before now, ethically sound people should have dismissed the hypocrisy of people who opposed spending money to help unemployed working people survive the current recession but who have never opposed the seven-year-old war in Iraq. And we should have dismissed as moral cowards or moral frauds those who said "I want my country back" when the nation debated enacting national healthcare insurance reform, but who never thought the country was at risk morally, intellectually, socially, militarily, and geo-politically because of the quagmire called Operation Iraqi Freedom.
When almost ten billion dollars of the money allocated for the war in Iraq cannot be accounted for, people who understand the difference between integrity and hypocrisy owe God and each other much more than hand-wringing and head-shaking about the nation's budgetary woes. We should be outraged about the hypocritical conduct and conversation surrounding it.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Missed Opportunities--A Commentary on the Cambridge Review Committee Report on the July 16, 2009 arrest of Professor Henry Louis, Gates, Jr.
©Wendell Griffen, 2010
On June 15, 2010, barely a month before the first anniversary of the notorious July 16, 2009 encounter between Sergeant James Crowley of the Cambridge, Massachusetts Police Department and Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. of Harvard University, a report was issued by the Cambridge Review Committee, a volunteer panel of individuals selected by the City of Cambridge "… for their knowledge of issues in policing and criminal justice, law, race, community relations, organizational behavior, and conflict resolution, as well as their knowledge of the City of Cambridge." The Report, titled, "Missed Opportunities, Shared Responsibilities," asserts that the Crowley-Gates incident was "avoidable" and occurred because "Sergeant Crowley and Professor Gates each missed opportunities to 'ratchet down' the situation and end it peacefully."
Even assuming the best intentions of the Cambridge Review Committee and anyone else responsible for their effort, the report missed the opportunity to state the obvious. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. should have never been arrested for disorderly conduct outside his own home merely because he accused Sergeant Crowley of behaving in a racist manner. Crowley's decision to arrest Gates for disorderly conduct—nothing else—made the incident notorious.
The 64 page report reads as if Gates somehow was obliged to not express his displeasure about being suspected of being a thief in his own residence even after proving his identity and lawful right to be there. The report makes much ado about procedural legitimacy, police discretion, and other concepts, but says nothing about personal liberty to protest how a police officer behaves. For all its words, the "Missed Opportunities, Shared Responsibilities" report missed the opportunity to unapologetically declare that in the United States a person does not forfeit freedom of speech when confronted by law enforcement.
Sergeant Crowley had no discretion to arrest Professor Gates for criticizing his presence or loudly accusing him of behaving in a racist manner. If the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States means anything, it means that the government cannot prohibit someone from complaining about how its officials behave. There is no discretion for any police officer to arrest someone from complaining about how the officer is performing. The fact that the officer is investigating a burglary call does not render the First Amendment pointless, useless, or void.
Had the Cambridge Review Committee desired to honestly address the Crowley-Gates episode, its report would have made this point. The section of the report that deals with "Police Discretion" would have said that while the police have discretion about whether to make an arrest when they observe unlawful conduct, there is nothing unlawful about protesting police conduct that one considers racially discriminatory, insulting, or otherwise demeaning. Disorderly conduct laws exist to punish civil disturbances, not curb civil liberty. Those laws do not justify arresting anyone for criticizing official behavior, whether by the police or anyone else.
The United States is a free society, not a police state. Strangely, the Cambridge Review Committee missed a clear opportunity to say so.
On June 15, 2010, barely a month before the first anniversary of the notorious July 16, 2009 encounter between Sergeant James Crowley of the Cambridge, Massachusetts Police Department and Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. of Harvard University, a report was issued by the Cambridge Review Committee, a volunteer panel of individuals selected by the City of Cambridge "… for their knowledge of issues in policing and criminal justice, law, race, community relations, organizational behavior, and conflict resolution, as well as their knowledge of the City of Cambridge." The Report, titled, "Missed Opportunities, Shared Responsibilities," asserts that the Crowley-Gates incident was "avoidable" and occurred because "Sergeant Crowley and Professor Gates each missed opportunities to 'ratchet down' the situation and end it peacefully."
Even assuming the best intentions of the Cambridge Review Committee and anyone else responsible for their effort, the report missed the opportunity to state the obvious. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. should have never been arrested for disorderly conduct outside his own home merely because he accused Sergeant Crowley of behaving in a racist manner. Crowley's decision to arrest Gates for disorderly conduct—nothing else—made the incident notorious.
The 64 page report reads as if Gates somehow was obliged to not express his displeasure about being suspected of being a thief in his own residence even after proving his identity and lawful right to be there. The report makes much ado about procedural legitimacy, police discretion, and other concepts, but says nothing about personal liberty to protest how a police officer behaves. For all its words, the "Missed Opportunities, Shared Responsibilities" report missed the opportunity to unapologetically declare that in the United States a person does not forfeit freedom of speech when confronted by law enforcement.
Sergeant Crowley had no discretion to arrest Professor Gates for criticizing his presence or loudly accusing him of behaving in a racist manner. If the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States means anything, it means that the government cannot prohibit someone from complaining about how its officials behave. There is no discretion for any police officer to arrest someone from complaining about how the officer is performing. The fact that the officer is investigating a burglary call does not render the First Amendment pointless, useless, or void.
Had the Cambridge Review Committee desired to honestly address the Crowley-Gates episode, its report would have made this point. The section of the report that deals with "Police Discretion" would have said that while the police have discretion about whether to make an arrest when they observe unlawful conduct, there is nothing unlawful about protesting police conduct that one considers racially discriminatory, insulting, or otherwise demeaning. Disorderly conduct laws exist to punish civil disturbances, not curb civil liberty. Those laws do not justify arresting anyone for criticizing official behavior, whether by the police or anyone else.
The United States is a free society, not a police state. Strangely, the Cambridge Review Committee missed a clear opportunity to say so.
Friday, June 11, 2010
We Aren't Your Field Hands!
Ben Smith writes for Politico.com. On June 8 after Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas won her runoff election with Arkansas Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter, Smith received a phone call from an un-named White House staff member.
"Organized labor just flushed $10 million of their members money down the toilet on a pointless exercise," the official told Smith. "If even half that total had been well-targeted and applied in key House races across this country, that could have made a real difference in November."
That remark demonstrates so much cultural and political insensitivity that it begs for a response. I'm responding as a native Arkansan, an unapologetic Halter supporter, and someone who believes that in a free society people are entitled to choose the people and causes they consider worth supporting.
Bill Halter received almost 48% of the votes in the June 8 runoff election because working people and progressives in Arkansas want a Senator who respects us as equals, not her hired help. Working people and progressives in Arkansas encouraged Halter to run for Senate. We knew it was an uphill fight, and gladly accepted help from around the country.
Workers and progressives are not field hands for Senator Lincoln, the White House, or anyone else. We support candidates whose records and values square with what matters to us. We're concerned about seniors who can't afford their medications. We're concerned about families who can't afford to help their children attend college because government policies helped corporations move jobs out of the country and favored banks over students concerning student loans.
Workers and progressives disagree with politicians who agreed to loan money to Wall Street banks and Detroit auto manufacturers to keep the economy afloat but were unwilling to loan money to working families trying to avoid foreclosure of their homes. We disagree with politicians who realize the need for federally-funded crop insurance for the nation's farmers—a public option that Senator Lincoln has never opposed—but who don't believe that what is good policy for the farm crop should be good policy for the farm workers who produce the crop.
On these and other issues, a Democratic label alone no longer will earn our support. As Jesus said, people are known by their fruit. We supported Halter because Lincoln's voting record doesn't square with our needs and aspirations. That wasn't flushing money down a toilet. It was acting to replace an insensitive politician by supporting someone whose aspirations and values matched our core values.
Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination and the 2008 presidential election because we were willing to "flush" our money and energies this way. Ned Lamont defeated Senator Joe Lieberman for the Democratic primary in 2006 because we were willing to "flush" our money and energies this way. Senator Claire McCaskill was elected to the Senate from Missouri because we were willing to "flush" our money and energies this way.
We didn't toilet our money and energies in those efforts or for Halter. We invested in candidates we embraced. In the Halter instance that investment didn't produce the desired result. Still, it was our investment to make. That's freedom.
If the White House wants to invest its energies more effectively, it shouldn't treat the people who supported Halter's senatorial bid like field hands by talking and acting like plantation owners. That attitude won't help Lincoln win her fall election against Republican Congressman John Boozman, whose campaign coffers will undoubtedly be "flushed" with donations from business tycoons from Arkansas and elsewhere.
Instead, Lincoln and her handlers should ponder how to re-habilitate her in the minds of Arkansas voters who supported Halter. Lincoln can't win the general election without our votes. Treating us like field hands isn't the way to get them.
Thanks to the White House staffer who spoke with Ben Smith, we know what Lincoln's White House cheerleaders think of us. We're not your field hands. If you want to lose Lincoln's seat in the fall, continue talking and acting like we are.
"Organized labor just flushed $10 million of their members money down the toilet on a pointless exercise," the official told Smith. "If even half that total had been well-targeted and applied in key House races across this country, that could have made a real difference in November."
That remark demonstrates so much cultural and political insensitivity that it begs for a response. I'm responding as a native Arkansan, an unapologetic Halter supporter, and someone who believes that in a free society people are entitled to choose the people and causes they consider worth supporting.
Bill Halter received almost 48% of the votes in the June 8 runoff election because working people and progressives in Arkansas want a Senator who respects us as equals, not her hired help. Working people and progressives in Arkansas encouraged Halter to run for Senate. We knew it was an uphill fight, and gladly accepted help from around the country.
Workers and progressives are not field hands for Senator Lincoln, the White House, or anyone else. We support candidates whose records and values square with what matters to us. We're concerned about seniors who can't afford their medications. We're concerned about families who can't afford to help their children attend college because government policies helped corporations move jobs out of the country and favored banks over students concerning student loans.
Workers and progressives disagree with politicians who agreed to loan money to Wall Street banks and Detroit auto manufacturers to keep the economy afloat but were unwilling to loan money to working families trying to avoid foreclosure of their homes. We disagree with politicians who realize the need for federally-funded crop insurance for the nation's farmers—a public option that Senator Lincoln has never opposed—but who don't believe that what is good policy for the farm crop should be good policy for the farm workers who produce the crop.
On these and other issues, a Democratic label alone no longer will earn our support. As Jesus said, people are known by their fruit. We supported Halter because Lincoln's voting record doesn't square with our needs and aspirations. That wasn't flushing money down a toilet. It was acting to replace an insensitive politician by supporting someone whose aspirations and values matched our core values.
Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination and the 2008 presidential election because we were willing to "flush" our money and energies this way. Ned Lamont defeated Senator Joe Lieberman for the Democratic primary in 2006 because we were willing to "flush" our money and energies this way. Senator Claire McCaskill was elected to the Senate from Missouri because we were willing to "flush" our money and energies this way.
We didn't toilet our money and energies in those efforts or for Halter. We invested in candidates we embraced. In the Halter instance that investment didn't produce the desired result. Still, it was our investment to make. That's freedom.
If the White House wants to invest its energies more effectively, it shouldn't treat the people who supported Halter's senatorial bid like field hands by talking and acting like plantation owners. That attitude won't help Lincoln win her fall election against Republican Congressman John Boozman, whose campaign coffers will undoubtedly be "flushed" with donations from business tycoons from Arkansas and elsewhere.
Instead, Lincoln and her handlers should ponder how to re-habilitate her in the minds of Arkansas voters who supported Halter. Lincoln can't win the general election without our votes. Treating us like field hands isn't the way to get them.
Thanks to the White House staffer who spoke with Ben Smith, we know what Lincoln's White House cheerleaders think of us. We're not your field hands. If you want to lose Lincoln's seat in the fall, continue talking and acting like we are.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
ARROGANT, INCOMPETENT, AND UNCHECKED
By now most of the nation recognizes that the risks associated with offshore oil exploration are more real than the oil industry, lawmakers, and government regulators have ever admitted. U.S. and state lawmakers and regulators either failed to understand or consciously chose to place blind and unjustifiable trust in oil industry claims about the safety of offshore oil exploration. The same lawmakers and regulators chose to blindly believe oil industry claims that devices to prevent deep sea oil well blowouts will work, or can be effectively repaired before a devastating oil leak occurs following a blowout. Now, almost two months after oil began leaking from the April 20 blowout of the Deepwater Horizon offshore oil well more than a mile beneath the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, we know how wrong those claims were.
As much as it may hurt, it is time to admit the truth. The oil industry and government regulators gambled that offshore oil exploration would not pose a problem to the environment, or that any problem would be manageable. Americans joined the bet. We lost.
It is important to realize that the gamble was not necessary. It is certainly true that the United States is overly dependent on oil and other fossil fuels for energy needs. President Jimmy Carter warned about that over-dependence during his one term in office, a factor that probably played a role in his unpopularity and eventual defeat by Ronald Reagan in 1980 thirty years ago. Had the U.S. population chosen to believe President Carter, heed his urgent call to refocus our lives around conserving energy better, decrease how much we rely on petroleum and other fossil fuels, develop new energy sources and supply systems, and rethink the way we travel (such as by relying more on mass transit), the chances are good that offshore oil drilling would not have been permitted so much and managed so poorly.
But national and corporate arrogance combined with political and corporate opportunism led Americans to reject Carter's assessment of the situation and his plan for energy management. Ronald Reagan, with an easy grin, familiar voice, and rosy projections of national life built on distrust for government and blind trust in the supposed virtues of free enterprise, defeated Carter in 1980. Reagan's election ended the fledgling steps taken during the Carter administration to shift the United States away from its addiction to oil. Reagan's vice presidential running mate was George H.W. Bush, a longtime friend of the Texas oil industry. James Baker, the Texas lawyer whose clients included major petroleum companies, served as chief of staff, Secretary of the Treasury, and Secretary of State during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush presidencies (1980-1992). Although the United States worked with other nations to craft the Kyoto Protocol calling for global reduction in greenhouse gases caused by use of fossil fuels during the presidency of Bill Clinton, the United States refused to join the Kyoto Protocol after George W. Bush became President in 2001. Then Vice President Richard B. Cheney and oil industry apologists crafted energy policies favoring increased offshore oil drilling as well as drilling on federal land. One of their most bitter complaints was that they were unable to persuade Congress to permit oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And during the 2008 presidential election contest, Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona chose Alaska Governor Sarah "Drill, Baby, Drill" Palin as his vice presidential running mate.
Even now it is interesting to observe how journalists, political historians, and the American public have ignored or pretended to forget this history. The Deepwater Horizon offshore oil well was placed into service in 2001. Oil industry leaders and political leaders from oil industry states downplayed the risks associated with offshore oil exploration and production long before then. As late as March 23, 2010, President Obama signaled his administration's approval of continued offshore oil exploration despite objections by environmentalists. Whenever environmental and safety concerns were raised, oil industry officials and their political friends would confidently assert that the risks associated with offshore oil exploration are rare and manageable. The world now knows that the risks are tragically real, that the oil industry, governmental regulators, and our lawmakers cannot manage the damage associated with them, and that we have no reason to expect that to change in the foreseeable future if we continue business as usual.
All of this should point the nation back to its rejection of President Jimmy Carter's effort to redirect the way we use energy and the sources for our energy. Carter was defeated in 1980 by Reagan, whose distrust of governmental regulation helped chart the course for U.S. energy over the past thirty years. Dead birds and fish increase and more land, water, and people are threatened with each passing day because of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Yet the oil industry remains unwilling to admit its environmental arrogance and incompetence and is still somewhat unchecked by governmental lawmakers and regulators. This is the "small government" reality Americans chose with Reagan in 1980, along with Reagan's affable invitation that we embrace what we should now realize was free enterprise idolatry.
American energy policy, one result of that idolatry, now has tar balls washing ashore along the beaches of the Florida Gulf Coast. The families of killed and wounded workers on the Deepwater Horizon platform struggle with tragedies that will never be undone. We face years—if not decades—during which the waters of the Gulf will be unsafe for fish, water fowl, and humans. In the words of the Hebrew prophet Jeremiah, "the harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved."
It is not unfair to wonder how things might have been different had the nation listened to and trusted Carter's prophetic efforts instead of following Reagan's path.
As much as it may hurt, it is time to admit the truth. The oil industry and government regulators gambled that offshore oil exploration would not pose a problem to the environment, or that any problem would be manageable. Americans joined the bet. We lost.
It is important to realize that the gamble was not necessary. It is certainly true that the United States is overly dependent on oil and other fossil fuels for energy needs. President Jimmy Carter warned about that over-dependence during his one term in office, a factor that probably played a role in his unpopularity and eventual defeat by Ronald Reagan in 1980 thirty years ago. Had the U.S. population chosen to believe President Carter, heed his urgent call to refocus our lives around conserving energy better, decrease how much we rely on petroleum and other fossil fuels, develop new energy sources and supply systems, and rethink the way we travel (such as by relying more on mass transit), the chances are good that offshore oil drilling would not have been permitted so much and managed so poorly.
But national and corporate arrogance combined with political and corporate opportunism led Americans to reject Carter's assessment of the situation and his plan for energy management. Ronald Reagan, with an easy grin, familiar voice, and rosy projections of national life built on distrust for government and blind trust in the supposed virtues of free enterprise, defeated Carter in 1980. Reagan's election ended the fledgling steps taken during the Carter administration to shift the United States away from its addiction to oil. Reagan's vice presidential running mate was George H.W. Bush, a longtime friend of the Texas oil industry. James Baker, the Texas lawyer whose clients included major petroleum companies, served as chief of staff, Secretary of the Treasury, and Secretary of State during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush presidencies (1980-1992). Although the United States worked with other nations to craft the Kyoto Protocol calling for global reduction in greenhouse gases caused by use of fossil fuels during the presidency of Bill Clinton, the United States refused to join the Kyoto Protocol after George W. Bush became President in 2001. Then Vice President Richard B. Cheney and oil industry apologists crafted energy policies favoring increased offshore oil drilling as well as drilling on federal land. One of their most bitter complaints was that they were unable to persuade Congress to permit oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And during the 2008 presidential election contest, Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona chose Alaska Governor Sarah "Drill, Baby, Drill" Palin as his vice presidential running mate.
Even now it is interesting to observe how journalists, political historians, and the American public have ignored or pretended to forget this history. The Deepwater Horizon offshore oil well was placed into service in 2001. Oil industry leaders and political leaders from oil industry states downplayed the risks associated with offshore oil exploration and production long before then. As late as March 23, 2010, President Obama signaled his administration's approval of continued offshore oil exploration despite objections by environmentalists. Whenever environmental and safety concerns were raised, oil industry officials and their political friends would confidently assert that the risks associated with offshore oil exploration are rare and manageable. The world now knows that the risks are tragically real, that the oil industry, governmental regulators, and our lawmakers cannot manage the damage associated with them, and that we have no reason to expect that to change in the foreseeable future if we continue business as usual.
All of this should point the nation back to its rejection of President Jimmy Carter's effort to redirect the way we use energy and the sources for our energy. Carter was defeated in 1980 by Reagan, whose distrust of governmental regulation helped chart the course for U.S. energy over the past thirty years. Dead birds and fish increase and more land, water, and people are threatened with each passing day because of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Yet the oil industry remains unwilling to admit its environmental arrogance and incompetence and is still somewhat unchecked by governmental lawmakers and regulators. This is the "small government" reality Americans chose with Reagan in 1980, along with Reagan's affable invitation that we embrace what we should now realize was free enterprise idolatry.
American energy policy, one result of that idolatry, now has tar balls washing ashore along the beaches of the Florida Gulf Coast. The families of killed and wounded workers on the Deepwater Horizon platform struggle with tragedies that will never be undone. We face years—if not decades—during which the waters of the Gulf will be unsafe for fish, water fowl, and humans. In the words of the Hebrew prophet Jeremiah, "the harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved."
It is not unfair to wonder how things might have been different had the nation listened to and trusted Carter's prophetic efforts instead of following Reagan's path.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
RE-THINKING PEACE
When it refused to endorse a statement expressing regret that the racial composition of the Arkansas Supreme Court in 2010 will be no different from what it was in 1910 during the heyday of Jim Crow segregation, some members of the Faith Caucus of the Democratic Party of Arkansas and the deputy chief of staff of Governor Mike Beebe expressed regret that Democrats were arguing among ourselves. They were displeased that conflict and tension was introduced into the Faith Caucus by my request that the Caucus endorse the statement of regret. They were uncomfortable with appearing disharmonious toward Governor Beebe. A respected black member of the Caucus even contended that the issue was outside the jurisdiction of the Caucus, whose stated mission is to promote education about the role of religion in public policy. The prevailing sentiment was that the proposed statement expressing regret and the publicity surrounding Governor Beebe's refusal to integrate the all-white Arkansas Supreme Court was contentious, unseemly, and disruptive.
Since the Faith Caucus meeting, I have reflected about how people accept injustice in the name of "peace." Then I remembered a sermon titled "When Peace Becomes Obnoxious" during which the preacher said that there is a kind of peace that is a stench to the nostrils of God. The preacher concluded the sermon with these words: "If peace means accepting second-class citizenship, I don't want it. If peace means keeping my mouth shut in the midst of injustice and evil, I don't want it. If peace means being complacently adjusted to a deadening status quo, I don't want peace. If peace means a willingness to be exploited economically, dominated politically, humiliated and segregated, I don't want peace. … Peace is not merely the absence of tension, but the presence of justice."
That sermon was delivered in 1956, weeks after a black woman named Autherine Lucy was asked by the president and trustees of the University of Alabama to leave the school's campus for her own safety and that of the University in the face of vicious threats and acts of violence directed toward her. The preacher mentioned in his sermon, "The day after Autherine was dismissed, the paper came out with this headline: "Things are quiet in Tuscaloosa today. There is peace on the campus of the University of Alabama."
In 1956, Tuscaloosa, Alabama and the University of Alabama were quiet and peaceful communities. The University of Alabama president and trustees were relieved, perhaps even satisfied. Meanwhile, Autherine Lucy had been denied her right to be included. Injustice often masquerades under the veneer of that kind of peace.
Last week, black lawyers in Arkansas were professionally and politically slandered as not being sufficiently competent, ethical, or deferential to serve on the Arkansas Supreme Court for a year. A tenured law professor at the UA School of Law (Carlton Bailey), a seasoned assistant attorney general (Valerie Kelly), a former attorney general (Leon Johnson), the dean of black lawyers in Arkansas (Christopher Mercer), and a host of other lawyers must accept second-class citizenship, keep their mouths shut, complacently adjust to a deadening status quo, and be willing to endure the humiliation of being considered unfit, to keep peace.
Things are quiet in Little Rock today. There is peace in Governor Beebe's office. The legal profession is quiet. The bar association is quiet. Voters and legislators are quiet. There is no regret. No discontentment. If this is peace, I don't want it. I don't want a peace constructed from injustice, exclusionary practices, and defended with blithe rationalizations and sanctimonious absurdities.
Neither did the other preacher. You may have heard of Martin Luther King, Jr. Yeah. That guy who is only remembered for saying "I have a dream."
In "When Peace Becomes Obnoxious," King said that unjust peace is a stench in the nostrils of Almighty God. King rejected such an obnoxious, cancerous, deadly, insidious, polite, courteous, diplomatic, and politically convenient peace. I suspect you won't hear people quoting the "When Peace Becomes Obnoxious" sermon next month during their King Holiday ceremonies.
Perhaps this explains why the faith caucus refused to endorse the statement of regret. Perhaps this explains why people in Arkansas, including some black people, wish the issue would simply go away. Obnoxious peace, not justice, is what passes for race relations in Arkansas in 2009.
That was not what Dr. King dreamed. King was not wrong in rejecting obnoxious peace. We are wrong in preferring it. We should re-think the dream, and re-think peace.
Since the Faith Caucus meeting, I have reflected about how people accept injustice in the name of "peace." Then I remembered a sermon titled "When Peace Becomes Obnoxious" during which the preacher said that there is a kind of peace that is a stench to the nostrils of God. The preacher concluded the sermon with these words: "If peace means accepting second-class citizenship, I don't want it. If peace means keeping my mouth shut in the midst of injustice and evil, I don't want it. If peace means being complacently adjusted to a deadening status quo, I don't want peace. If peace means a willingness to be exploited economically, dominated politically, humiliated and segregated, I don't want peace. … Peace is not merely the absence of tension, but the presence of justice."
That sermon was delivered in 1956, weeks after a black woman named Autherine Lucy was asked by the president and trustees of the University of Alabama to leave the school's campus for her own safety and that of the University in the face of vicious threats and acts of violence directed toward her. The preacher mentioned in his sermon, "The day after Autherine was dismissed, the paper came out with this headline: "Things are quiet in Tuscaloosa today. There is peace on the campus of the University of Alabama."
In 1956, Tuscaloosa, Alabama and the University of Alabama were quiet and peaceful communities. The University of Alabama president and trustees were relieved, perhaps even satisfied. Meanwhile, Autherine Lucy had been denied her right to be included. Injustice often masquerades under the veneer of that kind of peace.
Last week, black lawyers in Arkansas were professionally and politically slandered as not being sufficiently competent, ethical, or deferential to serve on the Arkansas Supreme Court for a year. A tenured law professor at the UA School of Law (Carlton Bailey), a seasoned assistant attorney general (Valerie Kelly), a former attorney general (Leon Johnson), the dean of black lawyers in Arkansas (Christopher Mercer), and a host of other lawyers must accept second-class citizenship, keep their mouths shut, complacently adjust to a deadening status quo, and be willing to endure the humiliation of being considered unfit, to keep peace.
Things are quiet in Little Rock today. There is peace in Governor Beebe's office. The legal profession is quiet. The bar association is quiet. Voters and legislators are quiet. There is no regret. No discontentment. If this is peace, I don't want it. I don't want a peace constructed from injustice, exclusionary practices, and defended with blithe rationalizations and sanctimonious absurdities.
Neither did the other preacher. You may have heard of Martin Luther King, Jr. Yeah. That guy who is only remembered for saying "I have a dream."
In "When Peace Becomes Obnoxious," King said that unjust peace is a stench in the nostrils of Almighty God. King rejected such an obnoxious, cancerous, deadly, insidious, polite, courteous, diplomatic, and politically convenient peace. I suspect you won't hear people quoting the "When Peace Becomes Obnoxious" sermon next month during their King Holiday ceremonies.
Perhaps this explains why the faith caucus refused to endorse the statement of regret. Perhaps this explains why people in Arkansas, including some black people, wish the issue would simply go away. Obnoxious peace, not justice, is what passes for race relations in Arkansas in 2009.
That was not what Dr. King dreamed. King was not wrong in rejecting obnoxious peace. We are wrong in preferring it. We should re-think the dream, and re-think peace.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Why Cultural Competence Should Matter to Leaders in Arkansas
Why Cultural Competence Should Matter to Leaders in Arkansas
©Wendell Griffen, 2009
Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe is, by all well-informed accounts, an affable person. He has a long record of victories in political elections. He has a compelling personal history of being raised by a single mother, embraced by nurturing people during his youth, and having worked hard to attend Arkansas State University and later obtain his law degree from the University of Arkansas. He was a successful trial lawyer, and is a devoted family man. He served in the Arkansas legislature and became known as a leading moderate voice about public policy. As Attorney General of Arkansas, Beebe led the largest firm of lawyers in the state, including several lawyers of color whose experience, temperament, and other attributes qualified them to fill an interim position on the Arkansas Supreme Court—a fact that Governor Beebe's staffers and apologists can neither deny nor refute.
In his campaign for election as Governor of Arkansas, Beebe garnered support from all elements of the Democratic Party of Arkansas, including people of color. As Governor, Beebe has appointed people of color to numerous political positions—a point Beebe's deputy chief of staff has emphasized in response to criticism of his failure to name a person of color to the Arkansas Supreme Court despite two opportunities during the almost three years he has been in office.
How could any leader with so many favorable attributes be considered "culturally incompetent"? If Beebe can be culturally incompetent, what does "cultural competence" mean, and how does one avoid "cultural incompetence"? Why does "cultural competence" matter so much, if at all?
The answer to the first question (how any leader such as Beebe could be considered "culturally incompetent") is unsurprisingly simple, and points to the second question (what does "cultural competence" mean). Cultural competence does not depend on affability, political popularity, the touching appeal of one's personal history, success in winning lawsuits, family devotedness, experience leading a law firm that includes people of color, or political standing with people of color. None of those attributes makes Governor Beebe or anyone else competent concerning cross-cultural interactions, relationships, and inclusion. The fact that Governor Beebe's staff and apologists point to those attributes demonstrates that they apparently share Beebe's poor knowledge about what cultural competence means. It is always wise to understand what something is before professing to know what it is not.
Cultural competence involves integrating and transforming knowledge about individuals, situations, events, and groups of people into congruent standards, policies, practices, and attitudes and applying that knowledge in appropriate cross-cultural settings to achieve effective results. As such, cultural competence involves four principal components: cultural self-awareness (awareness of one's own cultural worldview); attitudes concerning cultural differences; knowledge of different cultural practices and worldviews; and skill (ability to achieve effective results in cross-cultural situations and encounters).
Cultural competence focuses on results, not intentions, for an obvious reason. Good intentions do not make one competent. One can be an incompetent motorist and affable, educated, industrious, devout, and even politically progressive. None of those factors makes one competent to operate an automobile on a six-lane metropolitan thoroughfare. Saying "I meant well" after causing a collision on such a highway does not make one a competent driver. Standing alone, the statement is merely an excuse for not driving competently.
That is why it is immaterial whether Governor Beebe has acted with benevolent or malevolent intent in maintaining the all-white composition of the Arkansas Supreme Court despite having two recent opportunities to make the state's highest court racially inclusive. Competence is not measured by what one intends, but what one does. Otherwise, no student would ever fail any course unless he intended to fail.
Cultural competence is measured in terms of a six-point continuum that focuses on results ranging from cultural destructiveness to cultural proficiency. The specific aspects of the continuum are:
1. Cultural destructiveness—policies, practices, attitudes, behaviors in cross-cultural situations deliberately produce destructive results. Think of genocide, slavery, rape, intentional disenfranchisement of women and people of color.
2. Cultural incapacity—policies, practices, attitudes, behaviors unintentionally produce results that are destructive or counter-productive in cross-cultural situations. Think of a physician who does not take the medical history of a woman with insulin-dependent concerning her social practices regarding tobacco, when the woman regularly chews tobacco, a product made using molasses.
3. Cultural blindness—policies, practices, attitudes, behaviors are insensitive to the results of cross-cultural situations. The cartoon character "Mr. Magoo" never intended to cause collisions. He could not even recognize that he caused collisions because his near-sightedness was disabling. Blindness is a disability, not a skill.
4. Cultural pre-competence—policies, practices, attitudes, behaviors demonstrate effort, but ineffectiveness, in cross-cultural situations. Typical examples of cultural pre-competence involve affirming that a person or organization is culturally competent by pointing to token or symbolic achievements. Stating that "we have appointed more people of color than any previous administration" may be accurate. The statement does not make a leader better at any cross-cultural interaction. It merely means that the leader has better numbers and is better at counting than previous leaders (whether they cared about the numbers or not). Pre-competence is not competence. A host of pre-mature infants are not mature infants.
5. Cultural competence—persons, organizations, and institutions that perform at this level incorporate five basic skills into ongoing policies, practices, and processes (cultural self-awareness, awareness and acceptance of cultural differences, understanding the dynamics of cultural difference, knowledge of the culture of clients, and skillful adaptation and application of that knowledge in accommodating cultural differences to achieve effective results).
6. Cultural proficiency—persons, organizations, and institutions that perform at this level effectively handle the five skills involved with cultural competence, but also are leading forces, trend-setters, and proponents of "best practices" regarding cultural competence and inclusion.
Whether one views Governor Beebe's decision to maintain the all-white composition of the Arkansas Supreme Court as intentionally destructive (cultural destructiveness), unintentionally destructive (cultural incapacity), insensitive (cultural blindness), or merely ham-handed (culturally pre-competent) can be reasonably debated by people who understand what cultural competence means. At best, however, Beebe's action demonstrated cultural pre-competence. Pre-competence is not competence. Otherwise, the prefix would not be necessary.
People who do not know what cultural competence means will not understand that bragging about being pre-competent is, in itself, glaring evidence of cultural incompetence. The same is true of people who would brag about how well Beebe wins elections, how successful he was as a trial lawyer, or how much he loves being Governor. Culturally incompetent politicians can win elections and culturally incompetent lawyers can win cases when cultural competence does not matter. The history of Arkansas clearly proves that our political officials and lawyers have not cared about cultural competence, and that not caring was not harmful to their aspirations. Orval Faubus was politically powerful and effective because he was culturally destructive. Most Arkansans liked it, and watched as other states advanced over the past half-century.
Cultural incompetence, however popular, comes with a cost. In a world of many cultures where goods and services are increasingly being marketed and acquired on a global basis, being culturally incompetent makes no economic sense. Other states are thinking about cultural competence in terms of how they conduct and market themselves. How will the recent Supreme Court appointment allow Arkansas to be measured? How many opportunities will be lost because of cultural incompetence?
As matters now stand, Governor Beebe has defended his culturally incompetent conduct by claiming that his administration is better at being culturally pre-competent than previous administrations, by saying that he could not find a black lawyer qualified to serve a one-year appointment to the Supreme Court after three black lawyers turned him down. His deputy chief of staff—a black lawyer--effectively lobbied the Faith Caucus of the Democratic Party of Arkansas last Saturday to not endorse a statement expressing regret that the racial composition of the Arkansas Supreme Court in 2010 will be no different from what it was in 1910, at the heyday of Jim Crow segregation. Notice, cultural incompetence is not race specific.
So, Governor Beebe has decided to maintain the all-white composition of the Arkansas Supreme Court. Beyond that, he does not regret that the racial composition of the Arkansas Supreme Court in 2010 will be no different from what it was in 1910. Of course, Governor Beebe is a fine fellow. He has won many elections. He loves being Governor. He has black lawyers on his staff. He just does not regret that the racial composition of the Arkansas Supreme Court in 2010 will be no different from what it was in 1910. Otherwise, he would have acted to make it different, or at least express regret that he failed to do so.
Governor Beebe's performance—after all, that is how competence is always measured—does not demonstrate cultural competence. Rather, it demonstrates how little Beebe and his staff understand about cultural competence, assuming they know enough to care about it.
©Wendell Griffen, 2009
Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe is, by all well-informed accounts, an affable person. He has a long record of victories in political elections. He has a compelling personal history of being raised by a single mother, embraced by nurturing people during his youth, and having worked hard to attend Arkansas State University and later obtain his law degree from the University of Arkansas. He was a successful trial lawyer, and is a devoted family man. He served in the Arkansas legislature and became known as a leading moderate voice about public policy. As Attorney General of Arkansas, Beebe led the largest firm of lawyers in the state, including several lawyers of color whose experience, temperament, and other attributes qualified them to fill an interim position on the Arkansas Supreme Court—a fact that Governor Beebe's staffers and apologists can neither deny nor refute.
In his campaign for election as Governor of Arkansas, Beebe garnered support from all elements of the Democratic Party of Arkansas, including people of color. As Governor, Beebe has appointed people of color to numerous political positions—a point Beebe's deputy chief of staff has emphasized in response to criticism of his failure to name a person of color to the Arkansas Supreme Court despite two opportunities during the almost three years he has been in office.
How could any leader with so many favorable attributes be considered "culturally incompetent"? If Beebe can be culturally incompetent, what does "cultural competence" mean, and how does one avoid "cultural incompetence"? Why does "cultural competence" matter so much, if at all?
The answer to the first question (how any leader such as Beebe could be considered "culturally incompetent") is unsurprisingly simple, and points to the second question (what does "cultural competence" mean). Cultural competence does not depend on affability, political popularity, the touching appeal of one's personal history, success in winning lawsuits, family devotedness, experience leading a law firm that includes people of color, or political standing with people of color. None of those attributes makes Governor Beebe or anyone else competent concerning cross-cultural interactions, relationships, and inclusion. The fact that Governor Beebe's staff and apologists point to those attributes demonstrates that they apparently share Beebe's poor knowledge about what cultural competence means. It is always wise to understand what something is before professing to know what it is not.
Cultural competence involves integrating and transforming knowledge about individuals, situations, events, and groups of people into congruent standards, policies, practices, and attitudes and applying that knowledge in appropriate cross-cultural settings to achieve effective results. As such, cultural competence involves four principal components: cultural self-awareness (awareness of one's own cultural worldview); attitudes concerning cultural differences; knowledge of different cultural practices and worldviews; and skill (ability to achieve effective results in cross-cultural situations and encounters).
Cultural competence focuses on results, not intentions, for an obvious reason. Good intentions do not make one competent. One can be an incompetent motorist and affable, educated, industrious, devout, and even politically progressive. None of those factors makes one competent to operate an automobile on a six-lane metropolitan thoroughfare. Saying "I meant well" after causing a collision on such a highway does not make one a competent driver. Standing alone, the statement is merely an excuse for not driving competently.
That is why it is immaterial whether Governor Beebe has acted with benevolent or malevolent intent in maintaining the all-white composition of the Arkansas Supreme Court despite having two recent opportunities to make the state's highest court racially inclusive. Competence is not measured by what one intends, but what one does. Otherwise, no student would ever fail any course unless he intended to fail.
Cultural competence is measured in terms of a six-point continuum that focuses on results ranging from cultural destructiveness to cultural proficiency. The specific aspects of the continuum are:
1. Cultural destructiveness—policies, practices, attitudes, behaviors in cross-cultural situations deliberately produce destructive results. Think of genocide, slavery, rape, intentional disenfranchisement of women and people of color.
2. Cultural incapacity—policies, practices, attitudes, behaviors unintentionally produce results that are destructive or counter-productive in cross-cultural situations. Think of a physician who does not take the medical history of a woman with insulin-dependent concerning her social practices regarding tobacco, when the woman regularly chews tobacco, a product made using molasses.
3. Cultural blindness—policies, practices, attitudes, behaviors are insensitive to the results of cross-cultural situations. The cartoon character "Mr. Magoo" never intended to cause collisions. He could not even recognize that he caused collisions because his near-sightedness was disabling. Blindness is a disability, not a skill.
4. Cultural pre-competence—policies, practices, attitudes, behaviors demonstrate effort, but ineffectiveness, in cross-cultural situations. Typical examples of cultural pre-competence involve affirming that a person or organization is culturally competent by pointing to token or symbolic achievements. Stating that "we have appointed more people of color than any previous administration" may be accurate. The statement does not make a leader better at any cross-cultural interaction. It merely means that the leader has better numbers and is better at counting than previous leaders (whether they cared about the numbers or not). Pre-competence is not competence. A host of pre-mature infants are not mature infants.
5. Cultural competence—persons, organizations, and institutions that perform at this level incorporate five basic skills into ongoing policies, practices, and processes (cultural self-awareness, awareness and acceptance of cultural differences, understanding the dynamics of cultural difference, knowledge of the culture of clients, and skillful adaptation and application of that knowledge in accommodating cultural differences to achieve effective results).
6. Cultural proficiency—persons, organizations, and institutions that perform at this level effectively handle the five skills involved with cultural competence, but also are leading forces, trend-setters, and proponents of "best practices" regarding cultural competence and inclusion.
Whether one views Governor Beebe's decision to maintain the all-white composition of the Arkansas Supreme Court as intentionally destructive (cultural destructiveness), unintentionally destructive (cultural incapacity), insensitive (cultural blindness), or merely ham-handed (culturally pre-competent) can be reasonably debated by people who understand what cultural competence means. At best, however, Beebe's action demonstrated cultural pre-competence. Pre-competence is not competence. Otherwise, the prefix would not be necessary.
People who do not know what cultural competence means will not understand that bragging about being pre-competent is, in itself, glaring evidence of cultural incompetence. The same is true of people who would brag about how well Beebe wins elections, how successful he was as a trial lawyer, or how much he loves being Governor. Culturally incompetent politicians can win elections and culturally incompetent lawyers can win cases when cultural competence does not matter. The history of Arkansas clearly proves that our political officials and lawyers have not cared about cultural competence, and that not caring was not harmful to their aspirations. Orval Faubus was politically powerful and effective because he was culturally destructive. Most Arkansans liked it, and watched as other states advanced over the past half-century.
Cultural incompetence, however popular, comes with a cost. In a world of many cultures where goods and services are increasingly being marketed and acquired on a global basis, being culturally incompetent makes no economic sense. Other states are thinking about cultural competence in terms of how they conduct and market themselves. How will the recent Supreme Court appointment allow Arkansas to be measured? How many opportunities will be lost because of cultural incompetence?
As matters now stand, Governor Beebe has defended his culturally incompetent conduct by claiming that his administration is better at being culturally pre-competent than previous administrations, by saying that he could not find a black lawyer qualified to serve a one-year appointment to the Supreme Court after three black lawyers turned him down. His deputy chief of staff—a black lawyer--effectively lobbied the Faith Caucus of the Democratic Party of Arkansas last Saturday to not endorse a statement expressing regret that the racial composition of the Arkansas Supreme Court in 2010 will be no different from what it was in 1910, at the heyday of Jim Crow segregation. Notice, cultural incompetence is not race specific.
So, Governor Beebe has decided to maintain the all-white composition of the Arkansas Supreme Court. Beyond that, he does not regret that the racial composition of the Arkansas Supreme Court in 2010 will be no different from what it was in 1910. Of course, Governor Beebe is a fine fellow. He has won many elections. He loves being Governor. He has black lawyers on his staff. He just does not regret that the racial composition of the Arkansas Supreme Court in 2010 will be no different from what it was in 1910. Otherwise, he would have acted to make it different, or at least express regret that he failed to do so.
Governor Beebe's performance—after all, that is how competence is always measured—does not demonstrate cultural competence. Rather, it demonstrates how little Beebe and his staff understand about cultural competence, assuming they know enough to care about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
