Temperance May be an Answer

My wife, Colleen, my mother, my sister and I recently spent two weeks on a tour of England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland. It was a wonderful, if exhausting tour, and the last thing on my mind was my monthly column; that is, until my sister, willing to buy a copy of The Independent just to find out if the Packers had won the day before, asked me if I wanted the paper's section on education. At first, I was intrigued that the paper would carry an entire section about education. It seems in the USA that education articles are often limited to labor disputes and state budgets (or the lack thereof).
Once I started reading The Independent's articles, I realized that it is, indeed, a global village. Britain struggles with the same problems as we do: dealing with immigrant children who speak little or no English, providing financial aid for bright but poor students who deserve to further their education, and, most significantly, teenage drinking.
Studies exist that suggest that European teens do not have the drinking problems of their American counterparts. Other studies claim the opposite. From the little I was able to learn while in England, I lean toward the second group. Many of Britain's teens, it seems, are indulging in "binge drinking," consuming a significant amount of alcohol in a short period of time. A teen who was interviewed used one of the oldest excuses around: "It's part of our culture."
We all know that our kids are drinking, some at an alarmingly early age. Forget marijuana; alcohol is the gateway drug because it's cheaper than pot and easier to get--and many kids regard its consumption as acceptable because their parents consume it.
Educating children about alcohol begins in the home. Parents model behaviors for their children from the time they're born. Your children walk into school on their very first day having been given many lessons on such things as anger management, violence, addiction, compassion, tolerance, prejudice and love. If alcohol is consumed in your family, how does that consumption affect your child? If adult gatherings in your house result in drunkenness and boorish behavior, that's the model your kids will use as a benchmark. If alcohol is consumed responsibly, if children are shown that drinking carries a responsibility to oneself and others, then they will see excessive drinking as not "normal."
The schools do not teach or encourage kids to abuse alcohol. Health classes continually emphasize the dangers of drinking. To some young people, this reinforces what their parents have been telling them. For others, the warnings fall on skeptical ears. After all, who is a young person more likely to emulate, parents or teachers?
While it may sound like educational heresy, I think temperance as well as abstinence should be part of the curriculum, always under the proviso that underage drinking is illegal. It is a noble, yet impractical, goal to convince every student not to participate in an unwise activity. Common sense tells us that it is in the nature of young people to experiment, to push the envelope, even in the best of families. If a student's family does not provide a model for responsible drinking, shouldn't someone? It seems to me that teaching temperance might save more young lives than teaching abstinence alone.
Finally, the law needs to be more aggressive in dealing with adult offenders. I suspect that more teen deaths occur from driving under the influence than from drinking alone. What message does society send when someone is picked up on his fourteenth DUI? Parents who are unwise enough to host drinking parties for their kids and their friends under the assumption that they can keep the kids "safe" should be subjected to severe fines and probation. There can be no worse lesson for parents to teach than it is appropriate to circumvent the law for one's own pleasure and convenience.
That underage drinking in our society is a serious problem is obvious. Parents, teachers and law enforcement people are capable of great creativity and resourcefulness. Perhaps it is time for them to take a fresh approach to this problem, one that better addresses reality as well as idealism.

It's Good To Be Back

Colleen and I returned on October 7 from a trip to England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. On the first day we arrived in Britain, we had a chance to visit with one of my former students. Heidi is one of those people who makes life "interesting" for everyone around her. As her sister insists, "Mom and Dad saved the most unique one for last." Her picture is below.

You Can Tell She Was One of My Students

Self Esteem Should Be Earned

In August I traveled to Baraboo to cover their school district's first annual New Teacher Academy, a two-day conference designed specifically for people new to the profession. The keynote speaker for the event, Paul Gasser, a counselor for Mayo/Franciscan Health Care and an instructor at UW-Platteville, has some strong opinions as to why many students do not succeed in school.
"Many of our children are not learning how to struggle," insists Gasser. "They come to school with a sense of entitlement. They believe that kids who are successful are either lucky or rich." Gasser insists that the best way to address this situation on the home front is to give them chores. Gasser was brought up in a fairly well-to-do family, but his parents insisted that he learn the value of hard work.
I was gratified by Andrea O'Laughlin's comments regarding my August column about trendy parenting theories. Particularly, I was struck by her comment that many students receive "incessant praise for simply being." A recent piece by conservative columnist Betsy Hart revealed that many companies are showering their young employees with praise, giving them "kudos just for coming to work on time." If we have produced a generation of young people who expect and receive praise for accomplishing little or nothing, then the blame lies not only with the family structure, but in the way our schools have reacted to societal pressures.
I remember one professor in my undergraduate days issuing a warning: "If you don't get the material the first time you read it, then I guess you had better read it again. And again." In my own classroom, I would admonish my students that I was reluctant to help them with a difficult assignment unless I could tell that they had studied the material thoroughly enough that they could at least ask me intelligent questions. Teachers hear "I just don't get it" all the time. There are very few assignments given these days that are so abstruse that a student can't understand any of them. What would be the point? Most students are capable of understanding the material they are asked to study. Many are unwilling to put in the time to do so.
One of my favorite classes to teach was Composition 12, Honors. That class was challenging not only for the students, but also for me. Even though the majority of the students were pretty good writers by their senior year, thanks to their previous instructors, they were not ready for the rigors of the most demanding college courses, and it was up to me to get them there (something that was easier to do when we were on regular scheduling as opposed to block--but that's another column). Many of them who were used to getting A's on their papers suddenly found themselves receiving C's, D's, or even F's when being graded on a strict college scale. They struggled and I struggled with them. At the end of many school days, students would be lined up ten or more deep seeking the extra help they needed. And they knew enough not to come to me empty-handed or show me a mediocre effort.
Finally, for most of these kids, the day would come when I could hand back an assignment with an "A" for a grade. Their reaction would usually be to give me a big smile; some would even get teary-eyed. Those tears were tears of pride. Those smiles were the outward manifestation of their newly-found self-esteem. They had struggled and persevered. They had achieved a skill that no one could ever take from them. That's how self-esteem is taught, not doled out like candy.
The value of something that is simply handed out is not as great as the value of something that has been earned. Struggle builds character, it fosters a sense of competitiveness, and it teaches that not everything in life comes easily, nor should it. Our teachers should be encouraged to push their students to their limits, not confined to teaching to a lowest common denominator for the sake of some students' self-esteem. No teacher worthy of the title is unwilling to go the extra mile for his or her students, as long as those students walk that extra mile themselves. Instruction, not meaningless pats on the back, is the primary function of our schools. Instruction that challenges students and teachers produces rewards far greater than hollow praise.

Four All-Too-Common Parenting Myths

I was raised in the era of Dr. Benjamin Spock. Dr. Spock advocated radical changes in child-rearing. Thank God my parents paid no attention. Over the past forty years, society has placed much of the responsibility for the socialization of its children on the public schools. Often the result of that trend, as I see it, has been for too many parents to abdicate too many of their responsibilities to their children as their first and primary educators in life. I would like to dispel some of the myths that seem to permeate the current theories of parenting.
Myth #1: Consistent and reasonable disciplining of your children stifles their personalities and lowers their self-esteem.
I read recently that some parents subscribe to the nonsensical idea of never saying “no” to their children. If my sister and I heard that word once, we must have heard it thousands of times. Hearing that “negative” word did not stifle our emotional growth or cause us to suffer any psychological trauma. Quite the contrary, that word taught us the basics of right and wrong and gave us a sense of comfort. That's right, comfort. Children are constantly exploring their boundaries. A world without boundaries is a scary place. A teenager who has been raised without boundaries often causes problems at school. Ironically, when the schools then attempt to “socialize” these students, much too late, the parents complain that the teachers are “picking” on their kids or that the schools have no right to dictate rules to their children. Yes, the schools do have that right and, more importantly, that responsibility, especially if parents refuse that responsibility.
Myth #2: Your child's version of what caused him or her to get into trouble at school is always the gospel truth.
My parents waited to hear both sides of the story on the few occasions I got into trouble, although I was usually guilty until proven innocent. I have witnessed parents adamantly defend their children even when shown overwhelming evidence of the children's wrongdoing. One teacher I know was called into a parent meeting with a mother because her son insisted that the teacher had humiliated him by tearing up his assignment in front of the class. When the teacher produced the paper, intact, the mother defended her son by saying, “Well, he must have imagined that you tore it up.” How does one combat that lack of logic? A parent once berated me in front of other parents for not sending her a progress report regarding her son's failing work. I had sent the notice and suggested she ask the guidance office to show her the copy that was kept in their records. It was there; her son had intercepted it in the mail. Sometimes teachers do the wrong thing, but at least give both sides a chance to be heard
Myth #3: Middle school and high school kids always have the common sense to make their own decisions.
No, they don't. Kids make wrong decisions for all kinds of reasons, social and peer pressure being the most prominent. There would be no need for dress codes or rules governing the use of phones and electronic devices if all students were making good choices. There would be no call for truancy laws if kids were making good choices. Socialization requires the setting and enforcement of rules. And, since the schools are trying to educate children and maintain some standards of behavior and dress at the behest of the public, why do so many parents side with their children when they break the rules?
Myth #4: Parents should be “buddies” with their children.
A parent is his or her child's advocate, not a buddy. Parents who choose to put themselves on the same authoritative level as their children's usually end up regretting it. Being a parent takes love, but it also requires strength and perseverance. Enforcing rules is often not pleasant. Waiting up past a curfew and smelling a child's breath is not pleasant. Making sure that one's child is keeping up with his or her studies is work, and that's what a large part of parenting is: work. I know; I've been there. My boys and I had many disagreements over their behavior. None of them were pleasant. Now, many years later, both of them love their mother and me for sticking to our guns. And that is pleasant.
In one of his last interviews, Dr. Spock said, “Children can be taught any set of values that their parents...believe in.” He did get that right. What set of values do your children follow?

People Want Religion in the Public Schools--As Long As It's Theirs

White Pine Elementary was remarkable in many ways. Built in the 1800's, it housed eight grades taught by two teachers. The “facilities” were two privies, one for each gender, and an outdoor hand pump for fresh water. It was my first school. But it isn't just the physical nature of the school that I treasure as I think back to 1952, it's the memory of many of my classroom activities, lessons that could never be taught in the same way now.
Our music education happened rather randomly, when our teacher would occasionally ask one of us to pass out the song books. One of the songs we sang was Stephen Foster's “Old Black Joe,” a song about a dying slave written by a white man. As an adult, I deplore the bitter irony of the song's creation, but I am not sorry we sang it.
We also sang a song called “The Church in the Wildwood,” written in 1857 by Dr. William Pitts. The line I remember best goes “no place is so dear to my childhood as the little brown church in the vale.” As children, we never gave any thought to the denomination of the little brown church; the song was pleasing to sing and hear. Our parents didn't object to our singing the song. No one threatened a lawsuit. I suspect that many parents today would rather their children sang those harmless lyrics than the ones they hear booming from their kids' stereos.
And, in 1954, when Congress added the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance, I don't recall any adult of my acquaintance being bothered in the least.
Some people believe that the so-called “separation of church and state” means that no mention of religion can be made in a public school. That is just not so. The government cannot promote or endorse a specific religion, but nowhere does it state that religion cannot be mentioned, studied or discussed. Atheists contend that no whisper of religion or God belongs in public schools. My response is that belief in nothing still constitutes a belief system, and the atheistic philosophy has no more right to exclusivity in the schools than any other.
For years I taught “The Inferno” by Dante, a fascinating fictional account of the author's physical journey through Hell. The kids loved it. Some parents did not. So that my students could understand why Dante constructed Hell the way he did, I had to give them some details of 14th century Catholicism. I also had to instruct them in European history and Greek and Roman mythology. Nearly every semester I would receive an angry phone call from a parent demanding to know why I was teaching the kids to be Catholics. I learned that the easiest way to handle these complaints was to offer to teach their children an alternate work of literature, subject to their approval, of course. Their response to the book was not entirely unexpected. In the early 70's I taught a course called Literature of the Supernatural and was more than once accused of peddling witchcraft.
I think that many people confuse moral and ethical lessons with religion. Morality and ethics are components of religion, but they're also valued by many people of no faith. What bigger lessons do literature and history have for us than the moral and ethical consequences of human decisions? Sin and redemption are at the heart of many American classics such as The Scarlet Letter, Huckleberry Finn, and Their Eyes Were Watching God. Without those underlying themes, the books are just so much plot and unworthy of consideration.
I learned my catechism in the Methodist faith. In the second year of our instruction, our minister took the class to a Catholic cathedral where a priest instructed us the in the significance and importance of relics. We also visited an Orthodox Temple and listened attentively as the rabbi explained the dietary rules his faith observed. Our minister taught us to learn, not to fear or distrust. The thought that we might lose our faith if exposed to others would have seemed as ridiculous to him then as it does to me now.
A school is supposed to be a place of discovery. Why should some people be upset when a set of beliefs other than theirs becomes a topic of discussion? Why does a student carrying a Bible, or a Torah, or a Koran or the Vedas constitute a threat to someone else's civil liberties? It's time to abandon personal agendas and allow the schools to do what they should. It's time for a return to the common sense that permeated White Pine Elementary.

When Did Cheating Become Acceptable?

Did you cheat when you were in school? Odds are you did, and if you're older, odds are you got punished if you got caught. I remember cheating twice, once in high school and once in college. I chose The Agony and the Ecstasy for my independent reading project as a senior in high school, not realizing what a ponderous volume it was. I read the first half and skimmed the last. As it happened, in my oral book report session, Charlie Hardy, my English teacher, asked me only questions to which I knew the answers. In college, I wrote a short story that closely paralleled one I had read. My instructor had read that story too. He let me off the hook, choosing to believe that I was merely trying to write a story like the one I had plagiarized. He was wrong: I was being dishonest. Although I escaped being punished both times, I felt bad enough about my behavior to stop after the second incident.
In June, 2002, the Josephson Institute of Ethics conducted a survey among 12,000 high school students. Their finding was that 74% of those students admitted to cheating on an exam. Any teacher knows that most kids are going to risk a “short cut” occasionally. It is the rest of the survey's results that are truly disturbing. Thirty-eight percent of the students admitted to retail theft. Thirty-nine percent admitted they would lie to get a good job. Eight-one percent admitted they lie to their teachers.
The traditional beliefs about who cheats and who doesn't have been shown to be false by the survey. Student athletics are believed to help shape moral young people, but more varsity athletes cheat than their non-athletic classmates. Parochial schools pride themselves on teaching moral values, but parochial students are more likely to cheat in school and lie to their parents than their public school counterparts.
The sad truth is that when students cheat it's because we let them. By “we,” I mean teachers, administrators and parents. In many public schools, students who are caught cheating are allowed to do the assignment over, usually for reduced credit. An acquaintance of mine who teaches as an adjunct for a college told me that if a student there is accused of cheating, the instructor must prove it and find two other students who will corroborate his findings. Many parents, mistaking covering up for their children for protecting them, will protest vehemently when their son or daughter is accused, threatening legal action.
The cynicism shown by students is alarming. In 2002, 43% of students surveyed agreed with the statement, “A person has to lie or cheat sometimes in order to succeed.” Ironically, 76% said, “When it comes to doing what is right, I am better than most people I know,” and 95% felt, “It is important to me that people trust me.”
How did this “blurring” of what is right and wrong happen? Part of the problem is that many people won't use the words “lie” or “cheat.” Some of us remember when Richard Nixon “misspoke” himself. Bill Clinton weaseled around the concept of infidelity. Athletic heroes are in the news often for steroid abuse. Paris Hilton is hauled off to jail (for the second time) screaming, “It's not fair.” Public officials take bribes, clergymen hire prostitutes and abuse children, and parents brag about cheating on their taxes or “getting away” with something.
The result is that most students see cheating as “no big deal.” Students don't seem to understand the importance of education or even know what it means. Grades are the means to the ends: a diploma or a degree and a good job. Of course, once the students who cheated and lied their way to those jobs cannot perform the tasks required of them, the real fallout from cheating becomes apparent.
Teachers can help stem the problem by constructing assignments that make it difficult for their students to cheat. When I taught composition, my students' papers had to be accompanied by their notes, a rough draft and a first revision. Administrators need to get tough on cheaters. Students should not get a second chance. Believe me, if you have to swallow a “0” on an assignment, you'll think twice before you cheat again. Parents have to admit that their kids can make mistakes and back up teachers. Threatening to call your attorney is not going to make your child's dishonesty disappear.
Finally, it is up to all schools, public or parochial, to teach students moral values. The concepts of honesty, fairness, integrity, and industry need to be reinforced in our curricula, since they seem to be dying out in our society.

Scott Zimmerman 1959-2007

On Saturday the ninth of June, I led the celebration of Scott Zimmerman's life. Scott was a friend and the son of a friend, Al Zimmerman, and both died much too soon. It is my belief that Al, Scott, and Scott's mother, Judy, are reunited in Paradise. Ave et Vale.

Rethinking What Constitutes "Work"

As Americans, we have been taught from the time we are children about the positive values of hard work. History lessons for children emphasize the work ethic of our national heroes, Lincoln splitting rails, Grant valiantly working to finish his autobiography while dying of throat cancer, Mark Twain hitting the lecture circuit to pay back his debts from bad investments. Indeed, until recently we honored the “workaholic,” the person who never seemed to tire of labor, who put in voluntary overtime and forestalled retirement as long as possible. What we failed to pay attention to was the “holic” at the end of the word. Anything, whether it be drugs, alcohol, gambling, or work, which takes a person away from his or her duties as a parent or spouse cannot be good.
Furthermore, many adults have insisted that their children work part-time jobs to teach them responsibility and the value of labor. I have nothing against this concept. I was a lifeguard in high school and picked up other odd jobs here and there. But, the one thing that my father would never allow a job to do was take time from what he considered to be my most important responsibility: school. My father was determined that I would have what he never had, a college degree, and he would allow nothing to detract me from that goal. So, while the part-time job was a way to pick up spending money, it was never the most important responsibility I had.
How that has changed. We have parents who insist that after their kids reach sixteen, they will provide all the money for any clothing they might need as well as any other necessity. In my youth, parents were responsible for housing, clothing and feeding their minor children, not forcing them to become financially independent. These parents are extreme, no doubt, but there are far too many parents who turn a blind eye while their children put in far too many hours at their jobs. These kids are losing sleep, failing to complete homework, sometimes not even showing up at school because they are tired and unprepared. Students will tell you that they work to save for college but that excuse is ludicrous. What part-time job will make a significant dent in a five or ten thousand dollar yearly school bill, let alone cover the fees for a private college? No, they’re working for their cars, their car insurance, their gas and oil, their social lives, and to buy things that they want now. These things have replaced study as the primary focus of teenagers’ lives. And they’re allowed to continue on this path by their parents.
Adults complain about the failure of schools. It’s easy to fail when many of the students and their parents do not value education. You may want your child to do well, but will you monitor his work hours and regularly discuss his classes with him? I heard a parent complain to a teacher about the work load that she was assigning her class, but when the teacher pointed out that the woman’s son had four part-time jobs and inquired whether it might be wise to insist he quit some of them, the parent refused, saying, “That’s his decision, not mine.” Who is running that house? Where’s the responsible parenting that should be taking place?
My father taught me many things but one of the most important was contained in two words: “not yet.” “Dad, can I have a car?” “Not yet.” “Dad, can I have a stereo (or any other thing which seemed to be a necessity at the time)?” “Not yet.” He taught me that you can’t expect to get immediate gratification in life. Some things are worth the wait. In fact, some things should wait. But for many adults, it’s easier to knuckle under and let their children take time away from studies and buy things they really don’t need instead of letting them get those things gradually on birthdays or Christmas or not get them at all.
This is a labor town and we have a proud tradition of hard work to look back on and maintain. We recovered from the loss of AMC and rebounded at a time when everyone else said we would crumble and fail. But work, like everything else in life, has its time and place. Work as a focal point in life belongs to the world of adults. Children can and will learn responsibility by applying themselves to their studies, keeping the long range goals of life in mind. They will learn very little spending far too many hours in a low-paying dead-end job that will allow them to buy the trinkets they want, but not prepare them to become successful adults, spouses and parents.

Re: A Little Quiz

Fundamentals. Fundamentals. Fundamentals. How many of the sentences in the quiz can you correct? I'll publish answers if the quiz gets any "hits.

A Little Quiz

GRAMMAR AND USAGE
Each of the following sentences is incorrect. The mistakes concern grammatical agreement, correct verb forms, correct pronoun use, parallel structure, formal vs. informal English and other problem areas. Rewrite each sentence making the proper corrections. Make only the corrections required. Be ready to justify your answer.
Each of the many different varieties have a unique history.
Neither his secular music nor his religious compositions appeals to the public.
Are you one of the boys who was tardy?
Who's purse is lying on the floor?
Where is my book and my pen?
The sled's runners slid smooth over the ice.
Have either of the orders been sent?
Neither of the remaining contestants know the answer.
Everyone accept you likes peanut butter.
Cottage cheese and cream cheese ranks high in popularity.
The vessel, along with its entire crew, were lost.
I own a large number of campaign buttons.
Take your cousin with you when you come to my house tonight.
The players and the coach wants a better bus.
There are less students enrolled here than last year.
Hitler prosecuted people who he felt were inferior.
Neither of her maternal grandparents are living.
Every one of the campers were hungry.
There's too many selfish people in the world.
This is one of those pens that writes underwater.
Either the tigers or the lion are growling furiously.
Good speakers adopt their messages to their audiences.
He resented his parents' frequent illusions to his poor grades.
We hadn't but one choice to make.
Leave me give you a little good advice.
College life and high school life is vastly different.
Fifteen minutes are enough for this exercise.
She was not only industrious, but she could be depended upon.
Radio reception on the top floor is usually clearer than the ground floor.
We watched the big massive cloud cover the afternoon sun.

Decline of Debate Background

One of the columnists for the local paper decided to give me some grief over a column I wrote. I took my revenge.

The Decline of Debate

Monty Python fans are familiar with “The Argument Clinic” sketch in which Michael Palin purchases an argument from John Cleese. Palin is disappointed, however, when Cleese simply negates every proposition Palin puts forth. Unfortunately, what society calls debate these days is often not a series of points and counterpoints meant to establish the more reasonable position. Instead, today’s “debates” are rhetoric-laden, propaganda-ridden attempts to attain victory by any means possible.
Take, for example, the argument that if one has problems with anything the current administration has done (gone to war, dropped the ball regarding Hurricane Katrina, gathered the phone records of thousands of citizens, well, you get the idea), then one is “for” the terrorists. This is called Drawing the Line, or drawing sharp distinctions where they should not be drawn. It is possible to be against the terrorists and still have objections to things that the government does in the name of anti-terrorism. Wasn’t one of the reasons this country was founded was to give everyone a voice?
In much the same vein, people of various religious persuasions try to shout down opponents to their views by accusing them of “doing the devil’s work” or some such tripe. It’s so much easier to demonize your opponent than argue with him. Oh, I’m not talking about just Islamic Fundamentalists; there’s plenty of Drawing the Line going on in pulpits all over the good old USA. Whatever happened to embracing the diversity of religious expression?
On a recent long drive back from Georgia, I took the opportunity to tune in Rush Limbaugh, just to see what particular burr is under his saddle these days. (That was a propaganda technique called Metaphor—it may be inappropriate to compare Rush to a horse.) I listened to Rush for hours and was assailed by so many propaganda techniques that I lost count. Rush, like so many talk show hosts, is guilty of Attacking a Straw Man, misstating his opponent’s position and exaggerating the consequences of that position. Since Rush’s previous stance against drugs has somehow widened to embrace his own drug addiction, he’s guilty of Victory by Definition, defining one’s position in such a way that it cannot be attacked. Of course, whenever Rush does those clever imitations of Bill Clinton’s or John McCain’s voices, he’s guilty of Appeal to Ridicule, making fun of one’s opponent to influence one’s audience. To all you dittoheads out there: Rush is an ENTERTAINER, not the savior of Western Civilization.
Pleasant Prairie’s most recent election brought out a rash of Ad Hominem propaganda, attacking one’s opponent instead of his arguments. This used to be called mud-slinging; now, it’s called business as usual.
I, too, have been the target of faulty thinking. A few months ago, I wrote a piece in which I complained about long waits in the doctor’s office, among other things. Evidently, I set off some nuclear retaliation response in Bill Guida. I believe he referred to my complaint as a “yowling rant” or some such thing. Tsk, tsk, Bill. That’s Emotional Terms, deliberately using language which causes feelings for or against someone or something. In this case, I think it was definitely against. Imagine my surprise, when my position, as Bill saw it, smacked of ingratitude for the insurance plan I enjoy as a retired teacher. There’s that pesky Straw Man again. Then, Bill made a reference to my “heft.” Admittedly, I’ve been a big person almost all my life. I just saw no relationship between my size and anything I argued for or against. Could it be that darn old Appeal to Ridicule (not sophisticated enough to be an Ad Hominem) sneaking into Bill’s logic (or lack thereof)? Now, I could respond to Bill by saying that he’s a typical emotional Italian, but then I’d be guilty of judging a group by a single example (Hasty Generalization). Some might say that such a statement exhibited Prejudice, but I like Italian people whether they’re hefty or not. I could say that Bill’s conclusions don’t follow from the premises (Non Sequitor) but I might be putting too many Latin expressions out there for Bill’s comfort level. (Oops—Appeal to Ridicule—sorry). I could assume any of those things, but I choose to believe that Bill’s “idea well” was a mite dry that day, so he decided to defend the medical profession, insinuate that I eat too much at McDonald’s (that’s called Innuendo, by the way), and cast me as an ungrateful profligate, just because I despise waiting for some overbooked doctor.
Because my heart is just as “hefty” as the rest of me, I was not upset then and I’m not upset now. What does bother me is that too many people govern their lives by believing that something will happen simply because they want it to (Wishful Thinking) or, conversely, refusing to believe in something simply because they can’t imagine it to be true (Inconceivability). People who are addicted to buying lottery tickets are guilty of the first; anyone who bursts a blood vessel at the mere mention of, say, evolution is a victim of the second. (Please, all anti-evolution people, it was just an example). Some would-be debaters cite examples which support their position but ignore the ones which don’t (Selected Instances). I could go on forever.
One of my favorite units to teach centered on propaganda. I wanted my students to go into the world with the ability to think rationally and clearly, since so many others around them wouldn’t. Perhaps the best compliment on this unit came to me in the form of a complaint. “Mr. Lawler,” this student said, “I can’t watch commercials anymore.” “Why not?” I asked. “Because all I can do now is try to figure out how I’m being manipulated,” he responded. I was fairly sure that kid was going to do all right. We all need to be more aware of the ways in which we are being manipulated by others and stop our own manipulation of those around us. Let’s bring back the ART of argumentation (that’s called Emphasis).

For My Mother-In-Law, Eileen Zuehlsdorf--We Miss You

It is very appropriate that this site houses the Memorial Brick Walk since Kemper, itself, is steeped in memories. Many young women and, eventually, men, spent countless hours here, attending classes, forging friendships, and discovering their own potential. For me, Kemper holds many memories from two specific sources. The first memories come from the years that Lakeside Players called Kemper its home and we performed in the auditorium. The second set of memories and those most dear to me are from my wedding. My wife, Colleen, and I were married here nine years ago today. Both of those experiences, memorable in themselves, spin off into countless smaller memories of friends, some still here, some no longer with us.
A Nobel laureate was walking across the campus where he taught, deep in thought. A fellow faculty member stopped him for a chat and they had a brief, animated discussion. When they were ready to be on their separate ways, the laureate asked, “Which way was I headed, east or west?” “West,” his colleague replied. “Oh, good,” the laureate responded. “That means I’ve already eaten lunch.” Memory is a tricky thing. People my age like to joke about periods of forgetfulness, so-called “senior moments.” On the other hand, in my work as a Celebrant, I’ve spoken with families whose departed loved ones suffered from Alzheimer’s, and they have described to me the slow, inexorable descent into that lonely state.
Yet, even those who suffer most from Alzheimer’s cling to certain memories. Often they go back to a time, often childhood, in which they feel safe, loved and secure. Their minds miraculously preserve these times for them.
Many people newly-stricken by grief resist their memories. Remembering times when loved ones were still alive churns up powerful emotions and some of us are afraid to deal with such strong feelings. But as we now know, buried memories fester like hidden wounds. Our emotions must find a way to heal.
And so, we create places which spur and encourage memories, and, if we’re lucky, we do so in a place as beautiful as this one is.
An old monk was once asked why he cared for ancient graves, and why he cleaned the stones to preserve the writings carved there. His reply was simple: “They still have their names. They will always have their names.” A life infused with love has consequences that reach beyond time- ensuring that names, and places, and memories of what was still are, and always will be. They are not dead, can never die.
We have a need, as humans, to create monuments and memorials. I know there are selfish reasons to do so, but I think that, for the most part, we have a desire to connect with our past and we need to make that connection in a special place. For most people that place is a cemetery, the earthly resting places of their loved ones, places which take on a sacredness. This deep need to preserve the memory and honor of our loved ones can be found in burials thousands of years old.
But there are other places which were dear to those who have departed, and we often choose these places to honor our dead. Three years ago on a trip to London, Colleen and I spent an afternoon in Kew Gardens, a magnificent place. Scattered throughout the grounds were benches, many with a person’s name followed by birth and death dates. The most poignant bench memorial, however, had two plaques. The first one read: “To the memory of Kathleen Stella Hughes, who loved these gardens, 1913-1982.” The second one read, “George Richard Hughes, 1912-1999, who always sat beside Kathleen.” Three things were immediately apparent to us. The most obvious was that George and Kathleen were very much in love. Bickering couples don’t spend a lot of time together in floral gardens. The second was that for seventeen years George had to content himself with memories of his Kathleen, memories which were tied inextricably to that place, memories which, perhaps, helped him to visualize her sitting beside him once more. The third was that George Richard Hughes wanted the memory of that love to perpetuate. So, now, thousands of people walk by that bench or sit on it and wonder about George and Kathleen and, perhaps, hope that they will or have found a love as enduring.
All that we can know about those who we
have loved and lost is that they would wish
us to remember them with a more intensified
realization of their reality. The highest tribute to the dead is not to grief but gratitude.
Thorton Wilder
Perhaps you have noticed as I have that the holidays become special times for preserving the memories of our loved ones. I know that the first Christmas without Dad or Thanksgiving without Grandma can be painful. We all have shed tears of remembrance more than once. But as we continue to talk about them, the dead almost seem to be with us, just around the corner in the next room or out in the yard taking some air. Our memories take us to the moments that were special in our past. They help us to relive events which have become seminal in our consciousness and those events are all the more vivid in our memories because we have resurrected our loved ones in the only way we know how. There is a portion of us which houses all who came before us. We have only to open our hearts and allow them to once again be with us, not externally, but inside us where they always will remain.
But soon we shall die and memory of us
will have left the earth, and we ourselves
shall be loved for a while and forgotten.
But the love will have been enough; all those
impulses of love return to the love that made
them.
Even memory is not necessary for love.
There is a land of living and a land of the
dead and the bridge is love, the only survival,
the only meaning.
-Thorton Wilder
The Bridge of Sans Luis Rey
Wilder is right in many respects. The memories of all of us will flicker and die eventually, even the memories of the most famous and infamous. And there is a land of the living and a land of the dead with a gulf between them that we get to cross but once. Love, as Wilder writes, is the only bridge between those two worlds which can allow us to metaphorically cross that gulf whenever we choose. Love is the motivation behind the perpetuation of memories. I choose to believe that love is a powerful force in our universe, an energy which, once released, never ceases to exist. So, even after we are gone, after the sun has turned into a flickering cinder and the universe, itself, is grinding to a halt, that love will still exist. We all will move on; the love will always remain as a bond.
To the living I am gone,
To the sorrowful, I will never return,
To the angry, I was cheated.
But to the happy, I am at peace.
And to the faithful, I have never left.
I cannot speak, but I can listen.
I cannot be seen, but I can be heard.
So as you stand upon a shore,
Gazing at a beautiful sea,
Remember Me...
Remember me in your heart, in your
thoughts,
and the memories of the times we love,
the memories of the time we shared.
For if you always think of me,
I will have never gone.
Look at some of the names on the bricks around us. Who were these people? What were their lives like? What and whom did they love? Did they die at peace and fulfilled? As we read and honor their names, these questions are not important. What is important is that someone cared enough for them to memorialize them here. Someone cared enough to say, “This is my mom” or wife or husband or child. These bricks teach us that it is important to preserve the memories of our loved ones. It is important because those memories give us a context for our lives; they reinforce the foundation of society which we call family. And, as we gaze at these names, we are reminded of those we have lost and so we feel a kinship with those who have helped build this memorial. We are not fundamentally different; we are inextricably alike. The ways in which we choose to honor and remember our dead do not differ significantly from culture to culture or religion to religion. We all suffer loss and we all must go on. Let us pray that some day we can go on in peace.
Please join me in a short responsive prayer.
We Remember Them
In the rising of the sun and in its going down,
We remember them
In the blowing of the wind and in the chill of winter,
We remember them
In the opening of the buds and in the warmth of summer,
We remember them
In the beginning of the year and when it ends
We remember them
When we are weary and in need of strength
We remember them
When we are lost and sick at heart
We remember them
When we have joys we yearn to share
We remember them
So long as we live, they too shall live, for they are now a part of us as
We remember them.
-From Gates of Prayer Reform
Judaism Prayer Book
Amen
I leave you today with the words of Helen Keller:
What we have once enjoyed, we can never
lose. All that we love deeply becomes a part
of us.

Discipline Is Not a Four-Letter Word

Let’s take a look at a common ten letter word which has become greatly maligned in many of our local public schools: discipline. Its main definition as a noun is training expected to produce a specific character or pattern of behavior, especially training that produces moral or mental improvement. As a verb it means to train by instruction and practice, especially to teach self-control. There now, those don’t sound so bad, do they? Additionally, the word has its roots in the Latin word “discipulus,” meaning a pupil. This seems to imply that from the very first students in history, young people were expected to learn discipline if they did not already possess it. How do they learn it? That’s simple: by being instructed as to correct and incorrect behavior. If students practice discipline in their studies and their social interactions, they should be praised. If they violate common-sense rules and responsibilities, they should be corrected. If they continue to violate these rules and responsibilities, they should face consequences for that behavior. And that’s the rub. Imposing consequences for negative behavior appears to be on its way out, at least in upper grades, particularly high school. The policy of the school district is “student-friendly” which I as a former teacher and many current teachers translate as “enabling.”
I found it interesting that the school board got all fired up over imposing a dress code on its employees but in many instances won’t enforce its current set of rules for students. For example, regarding electronic devices, the district’s own web pages explain, “Beepers and cellular picture phones are not allowed in school by Wisconsin State Law.” Yet, teachers tell me that students carry these things with them in school, even receiving calls while in the classroom; but, very little, if anything, I’m told, is done to curb this situation. Why? “We’re student-friendly.” Some parents insist that they have the right to call their kids at any time of the school day. Doesn’t this fit the district’s explanation that electronic devices are “disruptive in the educational experience”?
Supposedly iPods are forbidden also, but I’m told that they’re not only worn in the hallways during passing time, but students have to be told to remove them in the classroom. Isn’t this also “disruptive”? One teacher who told a passing student to remove his earpieces described to me this student taking them off, only to put them back on again, and he made his way down the hall taking them off and putting them back on as he passed by the teachers standing outside their rooms. Why was this student not disciplined? I guess it’s not student-friendly.
Using proper language is also something that students should have the discipline to do, but many do not. One high school instructor I spoke with wishes that parents would take the time to sign in at a senior high and listen to the language being spoken in the cafeteria and commons during lunch. “They would be shocked at what they hear and confused as to why nothing is being done about it.” We can’t do anything about it; we’re student-friendly.
The problem, as I see it, is that administrators are afraid of parents, teachers are afraid of administrators (one teacher was reprimanded for reminding his students that he was the “boss” in the classroom), and the students aren’t afraid of anybody.
So, now we are raising a generation of students who believe that the rules don’t apply to them: that there are no rules. What a shock they’re in for once they leave KUSD’s “friendly” environment.
I have other horror stories: multiple fist fights per day in one building and students verbally and physically assaulting staff members and being allowed to return to the classroom. Teachers are hired to deliver the curriculum, not tolerate misbehavior and disrespect at the expense of crucial class time. It’s time for responsible parents to demand that responsible behavior be rewarded and that bad behavior be punished (subjected to a penalty for a fault). Otherwise, the quality of instruction will decline in our schools as teachers must surrender valuable instruction time to deal with increasingly bad behavior, all in the name of being “student-friendly.”

Another Profession

Below is a photo of my Celebrant class of April, 2006. A Celebrant is a lay person who plans and conducts funerals for families who have no religious affiliation or who wish a non-traditional service. I am fortunate to have a sponsoring funeral home, Piasecki-Althaus of Kenosha, Wisconsin.

Diversity Training Isn't Working

The other day I Googled the word “diversity.” As I expected, I was regaled with pages of Internet sites, many touting diversity programs and strategies designed to improve interaction between students . The way to make this improvement, say the experts, is to educate one segment of the student population as to the ways in which another segment differs from them. Diversity means “difference,” and a synonym, “heterogeneous,” identifies the quality of “not being comparable in kind.” Diversity training is also employed in the workplace. However, companies are starting to discover that diversity training is accomplishing exactly the opposite of what it is intended to do. I believe the same result is evident in our schools.
Columnist Kathleen Parker recently described the plight of a teacher in a Charleston middle school. The teacher was subjected daily to racist and sexist insults too graphic to print. The administration of the school refused to address the teacher's complaints, telling her that “racially charged profanity” is part of the students' culture and that if she couldn't accept that, she could take a hike. I am curious as to what workplaces, neighborhoods and families this school believes it is preparing its students to enter. I am amazed that we have come to such a state in our schools that any and all student behavior and language must be tolerated in the name of cultural diversity.
As with many trends in education, the concepts of cultural awareness and political correctness have been interpreted in an inflexible and uncompromising way. Classroom teachers have long known what educational theorists never seem to grasp: educational theories are like a smörgåsbord. Take what works from each one and leave the rest behind. Unfortunately, in their zeal to find educational panaceas, too many administrations insist that “old” techniques be discarded, even if they work. It's ironic that diversity training and cultural awareness often lead to fragmentation and resentment.
At least that's what's happening in business. In an article in the Harvard Gazette, Ryan Cortazar writes, “A new study shows that diversity training programs have roundly failed to eliminate bias and increase the number of minorities in management.” Cortazar goes on to note that “diversity training aimed at reducing managerial bias may actually increase it.”
What is it that you appreciate about your friends? Their uniqueness? Their special talents? What is it you love about your friends? Deep down, don't you love the ways in which you are alike, your shared values, shared morals, and shared sense of responsibility for each other and the world in general?
Why are we spending so much time, money and energy constantly pointing out to our students the ways in which they differ? Why are we not teaching them first that they are remarkably similar?
I was fascinated by Terry Flores' experiences with the Human Race Machine last April at UW-Parkside. After seeing how she would look if she were of a half-dozen ethnicities, Flores concluded: “I was also struck by the fact there are so many representations of human within these invisible boundaries we call race, yet they are so visible they affect the way we think and treat each other and ourselves.” Flores goes on, “While we may be different, we are all shades of human.”
We are all shades of human. That's what we should be teaching our children. Yes, it is good to honor those customs and beliefs that make any ethnic group unique. And while this can be done in the schools to a certain extent, I believe the primary arena for these celebrations lies in our communities. Festivals, museum exhibits, and other community events are positive ways to educate everyone , not just young people, about cultural uniqueness.
Right after the tragic death of Officer Frank Fabiano, Jr., Ben Ortega, the Spanish Center executive director, felt it necessary to explain that all Hispanics are not like murder suspect Ezequiel Lopez. “People like to lump us all together as one man,” explained Ortega. I find it tragic that we find ourselves in such a fragmented society that Mr. Ortega felt compelled to tell us what our common sense should tell us—that there are good and evil people in all ethnic groups, another way, unfortunately, in which we are all alike.
Perhaps one day we will have an education system which turns its considerable resources and talent to teaching our students to see the ways in which they mirror each other and highlights the reasons they should treat each other as brothers and sisters. Once you care for someone, his or her uniqueness becomes a place of sharing, not a barrier to understanding.

Language Police

“The Last of the Language Police”
It’s been hard these past several years to see my life’s work crumbling around me. Let me explain. I’ve always been an “English geek.” In sixth grade, I got a note from my mother to give to the bookmobile lady giving me permission to check out books from the “adult section.” I assure you, those words in the 1950’s held none of the connotations they hold now. English was my best subject in high school. I became an English teacher. It was tough enough to fight what I perceived as a general societal prejudice against my chosen profession, but then you, well, many of you, made English teachers’ lives more difficult by giving all of our students misinformation.
How many times have I walked into a restaurant only to see that the daily specials included “hot dog’s” or “strawberry’s” or “brownie’s”? It is maddening, I assure you, that so many people can’t remember that, in general, an apostrophe shows a possessive noun, not a plural noun. There are a few exceptions, but don’t worry about those.
And, as long as I’m harping about apostrophes, would the people responsible for the title “America Your Beautiful” on the local access channel wake up and smell the contraction? One day I’d like to be channel surfing and see “America, You’re Beautiful.” I could die reasonably happy.
Our language, the language that some would make the official and only language of the USA, is riddled with the blights of ignorance and indolence. In other words, most Americans don’t know the rules of their native language and are too lazy to do anything about it. Consequently, someone writing copy for the plot of the movie Brick on cable TV thought “as he searches for answers he is lead to the town’s crime world” is correct. A billboard gives directions to a subdivision by advising “go two miles and than turn right.”
The designer for a lobby poster for Mel Gibson’s new film, Apocalypto, put these words on it: “No one can escape their destiny.” On the National Geographic Channel, a narrator utters, “If a singer hits the right resonance, they can shatter a glass.”
There is a rule of grammar which states that certain things in a sentence must be in agreement, like pronouns. The poster quote should be: “No one can escape his destiny.” The narrator should have said, “If a singer hits the right resonance, he can shatter a glass.” Why does every person on television, every broadcaster on the radio, and nearly every written publication not exercise agreement between pronouns? The answer is simple: politics.
Back in the 70’s, as the Women’s Movement was feeling its muscle and starting to make positive changes for women in our society, they also got a little too bent out of shape over the grammatical rule of agreement. “The language is gender-specific,” they cried. “It therefore is repressive to women.” Since no one was able to find or invent another word that was satisfactory to all interested parties, society caved in and abandoned pronoun agreement. Imagine trying to teach a rule to people who see and hear that rule being violated everywhere they look every single day.
Oh, at this point I’d like to assure all my Feminist friends and colleagues that I have no more quarrel with their agenda than I have with any other agendas, except mine, of course.
Recently, a school district on the West Coast wanted to let students write in “Ebonics.” And doing that will help them get a job? Go to college? Function in the real world? Another school system proposes that their students be allowed to write their essays in the language of text messaging. R U COOL W/THAT? :-)
The signs of the Apocalypse are all around us. The end is nigh. The Old Testament tells us that God set us back on our heels by inventing different languages at the Tower of Babel. This time He’s being equally creative. He’s fragmenting one language into many. The result will be the same.

They're Public Schools

Recently, I was asked to moderate one of the public forums regarding the use of TeenScreen in KUSD. About two dozen people showed up that night, most of them against the use of that instrument. Personally, I thought all the fuss raised by TeenScreen was overblown. After all, if the parents refused or the student refused, the student would be excused from participating. Consequently, I was surprised to learn that TeenScreen would be dropped from KUSD's suicide prevention plan.
I think it's a fairly safe assumption that most parents were willing to let their children take the survey. Otherwise, those public forums would have been packed with angry, concerned citizens. Why, then, did the District decide to abandon part of its plan? I believe that we have entered an era in which the minority insists it has a right to impose its agenda on the majority.
Before I take that point further, let me say that, in part, I agree with the people who oppose Teen- Screen. When a social problem such as the “cluster” suicides occurs, why does it automatically become the responsibility of the public schools to find a remedy? Over the years society decided that teaching kids how to drive would become the responsibility of the schools. Then, the schools were given the task of teaching students about health and sexuality. Now the schools find themselves strapped with so many societal agendas that they have become deficient in doing what they're supposed to do.
Last fall I addressed a class of secondary education English majors at UW-Parkside. Before answering their questions, I posed one to them: As a teacher, what is your primary responsibility? They offered answers like “to ensure the safety and well-being of my students” and “to provide a stimulating learning environment,” all part of a teacher's responsibility to be sure. None of them came up with the correct answer. A teacher's primary responsibility is to teach the curriculum. Our education students have been so inundated with “methods,” “techniques,” and “philosophies,” that they have put subject matter on the back burner.
But, back to my main point. There's a reason why they're called “public” schools. They're open to everyone. Now, some parents may not agree with everything in the curriculum, but the schools have bent over backwards to accommodate the wishes of those parents. If you don't want your child to study Dante's Inferno, fine, but you don't have the right to dictate that none of the other students should read it. You don't want your daughter to read The Catcher in the Rye? That's all right, but don't march into the library and demand the book be removed from the shelves. It's a public school, remember? Public schools tend to the learning needs of the public, in general, and should not be overly swayed by the wishes of any individual.
Many parents believe that their tax bill gives them the right to impose their wishes on the schools. To those people I say your taxes cover the education of your children. Let the other parents who pay taxes worry about their own kids.
Many of my friends in the education community believe that the schools are the logical place to address social issues. The students are easily accessed through the schools, and my friends assert that if the schools don't solve society's problems, no one else will. To an extent, I agree. If public health or safety issues are at stake, then the schools should be involved to a degree. There is a danger, however, of abusing that accessibility. Just because something is convenient does not make it expedient. As for society's problems, society is comprised of many more elements than schools. Unfortunately, every child does not come from a stable home. Every child does not have parents who will take responsibility for the social, moral, and ethical education of their children. These are the children whom we label “at risk.” We can best lessen their risk by sending them out into the world with as much academic knowledge as they can absorb. Some people think the schools' primary mission is to make kids “feel good about themselves.” I agree. Make as many as you can smart and industrious and I guarantee they'll feel good about themselves.

Common Sense Back in Education

For years I have been trying to convince people to return to some of the more practical and workable methods of teaching that have been abandoned in favor of trends and buzzwords. I will post some of my essays as they are published. I invite any reasoned response.