Category Archives: Social Policy and Politics

Free Speech…I’m a fan.

free speech cartoon image

As someone who values our Constitution specifically the 1st Amendment,  some trends and news as of late have been alarming to say the least. Where do I begin, well lets start with “microaggressions” and “trigger warnings”.

First, I want to give credit where credit is due.  I had no idea about microaggressions until I read the shockingly fascinating article “The Coddling of the American Mind” by Greg Lukiano and Jonathan Hardt which appeared in The Atlantic. I have attached a link to the article and of course, I highly recommend that you read it.  (

Their article has permanently caused facial damage as my jaw kept dropping as I read.  In short, some Universities have found it to be sound practice to make students aware of statements that they have labeled as microaggressions.  Microaggressions are statements which may be interpreted as violent, racist or offensive even though the words on their surface or standing alone, don’t seem harmful.  Some Universities are even policing the use of these microaggressions through their rules and polices.  The article provided a great example when the authors said it may be considered a microaggression to ask an Asian American or Latino American, where they were born, which then implies ‘they are not a real American’.

My fear as an educator and a human being is that this erects an unnecessary brick wall against conversing as a whole.  In teaching philosophy, history, or any social science for that matter, it is important to be able to have honest conversations, and ask real questions.  As an educator, I may avoid subjects which historically are true, worth knowing, and enlightening all because I fear using the wrong term.  The result may then be constantly fearing if I use the wrong term, phrase, or example; What will be the consequences?  Do I need to memorize the ever-changing politically correct lexicon in order to communicate ideas that I know are not racist or bigoted but may be construed to be so?  Even as I write this post, I find myself constantly reviewing and asking if the last written statement will cost me a job.  This is no way to educate, as a fear of microaggressions may come to cripple our ability to connect on real issues that need to be discussed.  A healthy, honest, civil, discussion is what a democracy needs to not only thrive, but survive.

The second term that I learned from The Atlantic article was “trigger warning”.  This is the practice of college professors, who will provide a disclaimer for their students about the potentially offensive subjects in their curriculum, literature, lectures etc.   Once again I ask;  Should I avoid teaching specific material out of fear that some special interest or group has declared it to be violent, offensive, or capable of inciting post traumatic stress disorder? If this is the case, then higher learning is in danger as is our democracy, because the strength of any democracy rests on the proper education of its’ citizens.  The premises behind these trigger warnings is to provide an emotionally safe environment.  Once again, to restrict human responses or emotion inhibits the human experience as a whole and can serve as an obstacle to authentic learning.  I believe being offended doesn’t necessarily have to be a negative experience but rather one can use this emotion as a catalyst for response and a call to action.  I am confident that Martin Luther King Jr. was offended by the segregation that existed in his community and nation. But rather than sheltering himself from the situation; he was immersed, even uncomfortable, and at times found himself in life threatening situations.  I am sure that this experience and environment proved to be the motivation that generated change.  Great things do not happen in a safe, comfortable, environment.  Rather than omit, or declare something as a transgression, we should acknowledge information for what it is then possibly confront, debate, analyze, whatever we may need to do in order to enlighten those around us on the validity or invalidity of the issue or comment.  For another example, albeit not as grand of a scale, I know a student who was offended by Donald Trump’s recent comments concerning Mexican immigrants coming across the border.  He did not want to discuss Trump as a candidate at all but to simply dismiss him as a racist, ignore all of his policy statements, label him as offensive and move on.  He believed discussing Trump and his policies would create an uncomfortable environment and would trigger some negative emotional responses, so therefore it should just be avoided.  My suggestion to the student was rather than simply blocking out Donald Trump, why not confront, analyze, and in this scenario, prove his statements to be ultimately false and ridiculous.  To simply label Trump, therefore refusing to address or confront his statements, does nothing for the learning experience and can really retard a person’s intellectual growth.

We must remember that people in this country have the constitutional right to be offensive and I rather have an open conversation because at least those statements or opinions are out in the open with ownership to hold people accountable to their opinions and positions. After all, we ultimately have the power to choose whether or not we are offended because it is a reaction. So now I find myself being offended by the words; microaggressions, trigger warnings, and even the word “offensive”.   All of these terms represent censorship, hinder our first amendment right, and represent a threat to the heath of our democracy.


Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater


baby and bathwater

On to Princeton…..a group of Princeton students participated in demonstrations demanding that Woodrow Wilson’s name be removed from the buildings that bore his name on their campus.  Their reasoning goes something like this; Woodrow Wilson was a racist and for the students to see his name being honored on the physical buildings of their campus was to remind the black students of racism and segregation (which are not honorable), therefore Woodrow Wilson should not be recognized and his name should be removed.  First, yes Woodrow Wilson was indeed a racist, no doubts about it.  He was a southerner, grew up a southerner, and was a product of his environment.  The entire United States in the late 19th early 20th century was a racist, segregated society.  During this time in American history, if a white American was not racist, or if they did not endorse some sense of white racial supremacy, they were in fact EXTRA-ORDINARY in every sense of the word.   There was not only segregation in the south but many northern states in private businesses, public facilities and our government.  If consensus public opinion was not racist, or did not endorse some false sense of white supremacy, then it would have been reflected in the organization of American society in the late 19th early 20th century, but that was not the case.  The unfortunate fact is many, if not most, white Americans during that time in American history would be considered racist.  Woodrow Wilson just happens to be on a public, much grander stage, where it is much easier to identify and document his racist beliefs rather then your everyday “Joe Schmo” white guy from 1906.  So then the question becomes; Do we judge and label Woodrow Wilson as a racist then remove his legacy from the annals of American History?  Do we throw away his honorable political accomplishments such as winning a Nobel Peace prize for establishing the League of Nations and serving as our President during WWI? Do we dismiss Woodrow Wilson because he held views which many if not a majority of white Americans held during that time? Of course not, that is ridiculous.  Our human experience is marked by flaws, inaccuracies, and imperfections.  Should we remove the legacy that is Martin Luther King Jr. because some can make the argument that he objectified women as an adulterer?  Of course not, he was an inspiring charismatic leader that generated a movement that has forever improved our nation.  All people have their imperfections, should we allow their imperfections to blemish what may otherwise be a positive historical legacy? To do so is indeed throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Immigration: The same but different (a true you Yogi-ism)

1892 immigration

“The culture of poverty has some universal characteristics which transcend regional, rural-urban, and even national differences…..

-Oscar Lewis, “The Culture of Poverty” in Four Horseman

The United States has always been a nation of immigrants.  Immigrants like the Irish in the 1840’s who left to escape starvation and would later in the 1860’s welcome the Civil War as a job opportunity with guaranteed meals and a roof over their heads.  Whether it is the Italians, Scandinavians, English, Scottish….you name it, let’s face it, they were not “European nobility”  upon their arrival by any stretch of the imagination. Immigrants were struggling, often times impoverished. Now, we are faced with what has been labeled our current “immigration crisis”.  Numerous immigrants are arriving from our southern borders and they are coming to America for the same reasons Immigrants have always arrived here; opportunity.

A lot of people are motivated by the American dollar. In many Latin American countries the American dollar is one of the main sources of income with remittances accounting for up to 15% of some Latin American countries total G.D.P. ( These immigrants actually provide a weapon against inflation.  The value of the dollar has remained strong because of these immigrants coinciding with the fact that American’s wages have decreased as a percentage of our total G.D.P ( This pinch on the blue-collar middle class has unfortunately helped restrain inflation and the remittances from immigrants have helped as well. The immigrant contribution is the siphoning of the American dollar outside our borders which serves to help maintain the value of the dollar by making it more scarce within our borders.  In addition to their resource as an anti-inflation tool, these siphoned American dollars then also provide an important source of income for countries just south of our border.  These countries are often impoverished, in desperate shape. These exported American dollars not only provide a restrain on inflation, but serve as an aid package to countries close to home and their political/economic stability is in the best interest of the United States.  Therefore without a doubt, Immigration is good but….

…I do understand the need to document and regulate immigration.  What was once the land of opportunity remains as such but unfortunately the bureaucracy and guidelines for immigration are not the same.  The process has now become lengthy, clumsy, and inefficient (  There is a definite need to streamline the process for those immigrants whose primary reason is to work, while exporting their dollars. Documentation would also provide these immigrants with a level of protection allowing our law enforcement to share information on the identity of these workers  (although sharing information seems to be a huge obstacle at all levels of government which is bewildering in and of itself in this day an age of cloud computing and shared data bases).

I also sympathize in part with Arizona, specifically regarding their struggle to identify who is responsible for immigration as our federal government and state responsibilities are not clearly defined.  Regardless if you support President Obama and his latest efforts to reform immigration, or if you are a conservative who believes that immigration is the responsibility of congress, or a conservative who is a state’s rights advocate in regards to immigration; one thing remains the same and that is we would all benefit by the clarification of our immigration policy that would ultimately refine the process making it much less cumbersome.

We were all immigrants and at one point the system did work for our ancestors.  Our current system needs fixing, so let’s get beyond partisan politics and do something but beware… it will involve compromise.