Return to Trinity Homepage
University Homepage
Search
Contact
Campus Directory

Blog Archive » Civil & Human Rights

Culture of Recrimination

Thursday, November 12, 2009

We have become a nation of anger junkies.  If we're not mad — no, outraged — at someone or something this minute, wait another minute and we'll find some cause to stoke the flames of rage.  We don't have reasoned disagreements, well-played debates any more; we go at each other with flamethrowers, and the heck with the collateral wreckage that comes with winning the argument.  Except that nobody really wins arguments any more, we just find new causes to shout about.

Health Care.   Has any topic spawned more overheated, inflammatory, hyperbolic rhetoric in recent memory?  I just finished reading an op-ed column in the New York Times by Kate Michelman and Frances Kissling — "Trading Women's Rights for Political Power." In this column, these two long-time women's rights leaders essentially threaten to tear the Democratic Party apart because they disagree with the decision of the Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives to accept an amendment (Stupak-Pitts) to the Health Care bill that restricts federal funding for abortions.   In a fascinating object lesson in the art of political compromise, the party leaders decided that accepting the conservative amendment was necessary in order to gain the ultimate goal of passing the legislation.   Michelman and Kissling's words drip with venom:  "If Democrats do not commit themselves to defeating the amendment, then they will face an uncompromising effort by Democratic women to defeat them, regardless of the cost to the party’s precious majority." Scorched earth tactics usually wind up burning down the entire house.  Rush Limbaugh is licking his considerable chops.  People who can't figure out the difference between the public option and Blue Cross  go online to pile-on incendiary comments because shouting seems to be the only way we can deal with what we don't understand about the health care package — or just about anything else that's more than a tweet long.

Meanwhile, there's a war on — is anybody paying attention?   We are outraged over Mayor Fenty's use of federal SUVs to transport his bike to races (what was he thinking?) but when we hear the word "Afghanistan" we quickly turn the channel to something we understand and can rant about, like the fate of the Balloon Boy's parents.    Where's the outrage over the war?   We may not even be sure what to be outraged about any more, so we stick to stuff we really understand, like whether Dan Snyder is a "bad man" with a "dark heart" in the words of Riggo. (Ya know, John, "evil" is a good word for Osama bin Laden, but Dan Snyder?  Don't waste a good word on a sad subject!)

I often wonder if the current national culture of anger and recrimination is a symptom of our deeper sense of powerlessness brought on by the endless war that we don't understand and can't seem to stop, and the ever-present fear that another deranged person with a gun (or something worse) is going to let loose any minute.   David Brooks had an interesting column the other day, "The Rush to Therapy," in which he contends that the national reaction to Major Nidal Malik Hasan's murderous rampage at Fort Hood — a reaction that deliberatly tried to reduce anti-Muslim sentiments by making Hasan out to be a disordered person — masks the real narrative of the current war, which Brooks states is the American struggle against Islam, "the central feature of American foreign policy."

I disagree with Brooks' statement in that he makes it seem like America's war efforts are directed against a specific religion, an organization, something akin to a nation-state.    In fact, the central problem of America's war policy for the last decade, since September 11, is that we are still fighting by fairly conventional rules when the "enemy" is asymmetrical — individuals, not nations; ideologies, not ruling parties.  The real enemy is the power of the individual fueled by anger and rage, however inchoate, against anyone with whom he or she disagrees.   Terrorist leaders exploit that rage quite well, banding like-minded individuals together in small cells, stoking those fires so high that the individuals, themselves, become weapons.

Blind rage, destructive goals are not the characteristics of a good society, a resilient nation, a peaceful civilization.   Somewhere along the line, we've allowed the culture of recrimination, anger, blame and outrage to overwhelm common sense, enlightened compromise, and self-less solutions for the common good.   The fretful, unsettling current reality for so many Americans will not improve until we stop shouting, dial-back on the expressions of rage over every disagreement, and learn to give up some of what we want for ourselves so that the community can enjoy peace.

Sphere: Related Content

Who Will Teach? More Faculty Voices

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Yesterday, I met with the School of Education Faculty to discuss the current situation with school reform, teacher education, and ways in which Trinity might take a more prominent role in contributing to new models for educational success in our city.   The faculty is eager to move ahead with genuine transformation of our work in education and counseling — and great ideas abound!  Secretary Duncan's call to action is resonating at Trinity, and this will have a very productive long-term impact on our effectiveness in educating school leaders, teachers, counselors and others.

Dr. Amy Brereton wrote a comment on my previous blog about Secretary Duncan's speech at Columbia, and what she has to say is so important that I'm bringing it forward for consideration here, see below….. And, what do YOU think?   Please join this discussion by clicking on the "comments" link below, or send me your thoughts in an email to president@trinitydc.edu Full Article

Sphere: Related Content

Who Will Teach? Faculty Respond

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

The faculty in Trinity's School of Education have responded collectively and individually to my previous blog on the state of teacher education and Secretary Duncan's remarks.   While they posted their response on the "comments" section of the last blog, I think what they have to say is so important that I'm reposting it here:

Dear President McGuire,

We in the School of Education whole-heartedly agree with your position regarding who will teach! Teacher bashing is entirely unproductive, as is the non-inclusive approach that Chancellor Michelle Rhee seems to be taking as she attempts to implement the worthy goal of improving the District of Columbia Public Schools. We also agree that to address the school problem without addressing the context in which many students live is not a realistic approach to school reform. Pretending that good teachers alone can solve the problems in DCPS won’t get the job done. Schools do not exist in a vacuum; historic, socio-economic, and political factors including the legacies of racism and disenfranchisement have contributed to their troubles. School reform should be a part of a comprehensive plan to address poverty, adult illiteracy, and all the related issues. Full Article

Sphere: Related Content

Who Will Teach?

Sunday, November 1, 2009

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan gave a provocative address on the future of teacher education when he appeared at Columbia Teachers College on October 22.   Everyone involved in Trinity's School of Education — all faculty and students here, our graduates and partners in the field, our colleagues who take continuing education courses — ALL should read Secretary Duncan's speech and think about how Trinity should respond.   I encourage you to post your comments publicly to this blog, comment link below, or send me an email message with your thoughts if you don't want to post publicly. Full Article

Sphere: Related Content

Remembering Sue Ann Shay, SND, '58

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

sue an shay

Occasionally on life's journey, we are fortunate to cross paths with someone so extraordinary that we find ourselves walking along the way with her, heedless of direction but feeling that, somehow, we must be heading to the right place.  Before I met Sue Ann Shay in 1988 — before I became Trinity's president, but when I was first a member of our Board of Trustees and she joined our board — I had never met a Sister of Notre Dame who was also a lawyer.  Or a sailor.  Or such a talented professional woman who had heard the call to her vocation at mid-life.   I knew many Sisters of Notre Dame who were passionate about the congregation's mission in action for social justice, but few left me as routinely astonished with her firey commitment to the world's underdogs as Sue Ann Shay.   We became fast friends, and soon co-conspirators in our belief that our beloved alma mater, Trinity, should embrace new directions for the education of the world's women as a matter of social justice.

When I learned that Sue Ann died last week after a long illness, I smiled at the thought that she was now, at once, at peace after a long struggle, but also probably raising hell in heaven about some injustice on the other side of those pearly gates.  She surely would not sit around for long letting some souls have great mansions while others have only small flats.   She might have a word with St. Peter, or even The Boss, about equalizing housing opportunity up there. Full Article

Sphere: Related Content

  Older Posts »

Patricia A. McGuire, President
Trinity, 125 Michigan Ave. NE, Washington, DC 20017
Phone: 202.884.9050
Email: president@trinitydc.edu