The Purge & Donald Trump

So I only blog about once a year, but I write when I feel compelled to write. Tonight will be my first blog inspired by a movie. I just finished watching The Purge - the original movie, not the sequels (nothing against those, I just haven't watched them ...YET!) This movie was one of the most disturbing films I have ever watched, and I think that may not have been as true if I had watched it when it first came out. The basic premise is that, in the United States, we keep peace by scheduling in a 12-hour period, once a year, when there are no laws. Everything is legal, most importantly for the plot of the movie, murder. I wonder if there would be more economically oriented crimes if this were an actual event, but for the sake of the film, it focuses on murder. 

I have heard about this movie for a long time but didn't get around to watching it until tonight. I have always interpreted it at face value, that we are inherently violent creatures that need to get that out of our systems for one night a year. In the movie, they advertise the Purge as the night when we get out all of our aggression and violent tendencies so that we can have a peaceful country the rest of the year. It got really interesting, though, when the main character was looking at a news story which speculated that the Purge was really about ridding society of its lowest members. Those who could not afford expensive security systems and such tended to die on the night of the Purge. The economy was booming since the start of the Purge and those opposed to it speculated that it was really an opportunity to rid society of the unfortunate to make sure that overall everything was great. 

The film focuses around an affluent family (the father sells home security systems, so he definitely profits from the existence of the purge) who locks down in their home for the night of the purge. Early in the night, the young son in the family notices a homeless man begging for help on their security camera. He shuts down security and lets the man into the home for protection. Later in the evening, a group of young, affluent people (yes, they are white and the homeless man is black) come to the house, looking for their worthless prey that has sought protection in the house. Their argument is that the homeless man is a worthless drain on society and if they purge him from existence, our entire economy will be better. (Hence the economic motivation of the purge.) This group threatens the family who is protecting the homeless man and much action/tension ensues. 

There are so many questions that arise, especially for me as a 40-something father. The dad in the movie (Ethan Hawke) decides to protect his family and turn over the homeless man to the killers. The family helps him in the process of doing that, although they do not succeed. In the end the homeless man saves their lives, but I don't want to go into too many details of the movie. What would I do in that situation? Would I put my family before the other guy? I have to admit that I think I would. It has nothing to do with his being homeless, just with his not being part of my family. I also fully believe that if I told my family that we were going to offer him up as a sacrifice to protect the family, then my family would revolt and unanimously say no. They would rather fight for his life at the risk of theirs than give him up to certain death. Maybe I overestimate my family, but I fully believe that would be their reaction. (Yep, they are better people than I am.) That's not an easy question, though, and I think that's what the movie presents so well. You have the option of giving up a stranger to certain death or exposing your family to the possibility of death and certainty of a horrible fight. Does your family merit more consideration than a stranger? Even if you believe that to be true, does the stranger's life merit enough consideration to risk your lives for them? What would you do in that situation? 

Finally, I find this movie most compelling during this presidential race. Watching the videos and descriptions that have come out of the Trump rallies, I can completely see The Purge as being a feasible reality. When somebody taps into the base hatred and distrust of a large group of people, it makes it possible for people to commit acts they would never conceive of otherwise. Trump has woken the Purge element in out society, and I worry where this might be leading us. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail, but I'm worried. 

Inadvertent Role Models

This is going to be a short one, I just have a random thought rolling around in my head and wanted to get it out on paper. My question is - how much responsibility do the inadvertent role models in life bear? The vast majority of inadvertent role models are celebrities. They may not want to be role models, but due to their celebrity status, kids emulate them whether they like it or not. Do they have a responsibility to alter their behavior because of that? Is that part of the responsibility of celebrity? Do they deserve the same anonymity and privacy as the rest of us in order to make normal human mistakes without harsh judgement? I am not sure where I fall on this issue and would love to hear others' thoughts. This topic is on my mind because of a soccer game I helped coach yesterday. My son plays in a rec league, and I help coach the team. In yesterday's game, one of our players was shown a yellow card because, after a whistle was blow, he picked up the ball and nonchalantly tossed it out of play to delay the game. We pulled him from the game and talked to him about sportsmanship (we had a big lead at the time). He seemed legitimately upset about the situation, and his argument was that, when he watches soccer on TV, he always sees players do that, so he thought it was the right thing to do. This 12-year-old boy has a legitimate misunderstanding of sportsmanship because of the poor examples he sees on TV. Do the high-paid professionals have a responsibility to model sportsmanship because of their celebrity status, or are they paid only to play a sport? It is an interesting question, and I am not completely sure how I feel about it. What are your thoughts?

A Trip Down Memory Lane, or, A Love Letter to Bawl-mer

Today was a good day. My wife and I drove up to Baltimore to ride the Tour du Port. We chose the 50 mile Raven Challenge. While that choice of route was based more on the length than the actual course, the loop we rode was ideal.

We were married in May (many years ago) and spent the first summer in Charlottesville, VA. Those three short months were awesome, but we were subletting an apartment full of somebody else's things, so I don't really think of that as our first home together. That fall, we moved to Baltimore, where we spent the next five years. We moved a couple of times, and owned our own home for the first time (and only time so far) there. In the process, we fell in love with Baltimore, which all natives know is more correctly pronounced "Bawlmer".

Today's ride led us past many of the highlights of our time in Charm City. We started at the waterfront in the Canton neighborhood and rode north through the city. First we passed GBMC, the hospital where our first child was born. That was a harrowing night saved by quick thinking by my wife and a doctor who was willing to actually listen to suggestions from a patient.

Next we rode through the Johns Hopkins University campus, right past the lab where my wife earned her PhD. For me the highlight was riding past Homewood Field and the Lacrosse Museum, but the PhD is much more impressive. :) Continuing north, we followed strangely color-changing chalk arrows through the campus of Loyola University in Maryland. It was called Loyola College when I got my MEd there years ago. That brought back many memories of two of the greatest professors I have ever had, Dr. Erford and Dr. Vinson. They were about as different as possible, but both really made me think in different ways.

The next few highlights of the ride are a little less specific. We rode through beautiful neighborhoods in north central Baltimore filled with houses that I will never be able to afford, but I love the fact that there are still such nice neighborhoods that close to the city's center. Crossing over the Beltway, we rode through horse farms, vineyards, and across the Loch Raven Reservoir. All of them were absolutely beautiful. Again, it is shocking that such incredibly bucolic scenes are within a few miles of the city center.

On the way back through the city, we rode past the first apartment that my wife and I shared on our own (other than the Charlottesville sublet). We debated taking a detour to ride through the complex and check out our old place, but decided there wasn't time. I kept picturing the small hill next to our back patio that we covered with pansies that first year.

We even rode past the animal shelter where we adopted one of our first cats - the earliest editions to our family.

Finally, we rode through Morgan State University. On our way to work for that first year, we drove past MSU every day and never stopped to get to know the campus. Riding through today we realized that it is a beautiful school with an incredible library.

Today I fell in love with Baltimore all over again. I realize that my feelings are completely tainted by nostalgia, but that's okay. Were there bad things about our time in Baltimore? Of course! The magic of nostalgia is that those things fade away and I can focus on the positives. I fully believe that this would not happen if the positives didn't heavily outweigh the negatives, though.

I remember Baltimore as a beautiful city full of friendly, down-to-earth people and it holds so many happy memories for me. Today's experience solidified those impressions. I have been very lucky to live a charmed life and a visit to Charm City was a terrific reminder of just how lucky I am!

Risk vs. Reward

Risk versus reward is one of the fundamental questions of life and possibly one of the most telling personality tests out there. Where is your threshold where the potential reward of attempting something outweighs the risk involved in that trial? Obviously it depends on the individual situation. I thought about this question tonight while watching The Fault in Our Stars. Both the book and the movie completely blur that line of risk. The reward of a loving relationship is obvious, but the risk changes during the story. At first the risk seems to be for Augustus, who is risking losing somebody he loves by pursuing his relationship with Hazel. In the end, it was actually Hazel's risk, because Gus's sickness was more immediate than hers. (I apologize for the spoiler, but I think the very few people who actually read my blog posts are probably already acquainted with the story.) Through most of the memorable parts of the story, Gus knows that he will die before Hazel, but does that reduce his risk? Sure, he is not going to have to deal with the loss of his love, but at the same time, knowing that he is going to leave her and that she will have to deal with his death may be an even greater risk. I don't think you can decide that one character is more courageous than another. Their courage is different, but equal. One thing I enjoy about reading YA books in my own middle age is that I am able to identify with the parents as much as with the main-character teenagers. In a lot of ways, I think Hazel's parents are the most courageous in the entire story. In a literary world inhabited by so many unlikable characters, it is refreshing to have a book full of realistic, but engaging personalities.

Risk vs. reward is the main question of so much of our lives. I am a huge football fan. For both my wedding and my 10th anniversary, my wife gave me a Dallas Cowboys jacket as a gift. I enjoy football games at all levels, from high school the the NFL, and I have a hard time imagining the fall without the sport. BUT, does the risk outweigh the reward? There has now been so much research into the long-term damage caused by playing football, that I think the risk is just too great. I'm selfish enough to keep watching and cheering as long as the sport exists, but if I had to vote, I would end football at all levels. That opinion is completely biased by the inconvenience of having so many students at different levels of concussion treatment throughout football season, but the increasing number of diagnosed concussions each year makes me think it's just not worth it.

I am teaching a section of Precalculus this year, along with two colleagues who have decided to experiment with flipping the classroom. I love the idea of the flipped classroom, and have heard far more positive reviews than negative about their attempts, which is impressive in a school that puts such a huge value on "tradition." That is an area where risk and reward are not clearly defined. I actually think you could say that about every classroom innovation. For the teacher, who is looking at a half-century of teaching, the reward of experimenting clearly outweighs the risk. One less-than-optimal year of teaching is virtually meaningless when compared to 49 years of teaching that benefited from the lessons learned during the one sub-par year. Try telling that to the parents of the child who is struggling during his one year in the new, experimental system though!

The last reason risk vs. reward is on my mind tonight is because I am sitting in my den, typing on my computer instead of what I would prefer to be doing at this time of year. By far my favorite thing we do at my school is called the "Burch trip." Without boring you with the story of how it came about, I'll explain the basics. We send the entire ninth grade on a 5-day backpacking trip on the Appalachian Trail each fall. We break them into groups of 12 students with 1 faculty member and two Outward Bound Instructors. I try to go on this trip every year, both because I love the hiking and camping involved in the trip, and because I learn something every year either from the students or from the incredible Outward Bound instructors, or, usually, both. On the trip I develop a bond with a group of students that lasts forever, and helps me to work with them more effectively in the classroom. This year I chose not to go on the trip, and that was a very difficult decision. About a month ago I had my first ever serious reaction to a bee sting, which resulted in an IV in the hospital and their crashing an epipen because they didn't think they would be able to get the IV set up before I reached a critical stage in my reaction. The doctor told me that I really needed to avoid exposure to bees for six months. Since I have been stung on half of the Burch trips I have taken, I decided that the risk outweighed the reward in this case. It is clearly the right decision, especially to people who have not experienced the trip themselves. For a teacher who has witnessed the incredible awesomenity (my daughter's word, and I love it!) of kids adapting to the unfamiliar and sometimes terrifying conditions on the Burch trip, the risk versus reward balance is not necessarily as clear. Fortunately, tonight the reward of keeping myself safe and healthy was made very clear at the end of the movie. TFiOS has brought me to tears four times. The first was when I read the book. If you haven't read it, you should! The second was when I saw the movie in the theater. (A great adaptation, although no movie can ever do justice to a great book!) The third was tonight while re-watching the movie. The fourth was when my son finally lost it at the end of the movie tonight. He is so open and sensitive emotionally, but able to maintain a balance at the same time. I learn so much from his ability and willingness to show emotion without embarrassment, but still maintain a healthy outlook. As much as I am dying to be out on the trail right now, the risk just doesn't outweigh the reward of a lifetime of these moments with my son. The world would be such a better place if our concept of "manliness" required this level of sensitivity. Augustus embodied that very well in TFiOS, and I am so proud that my son can do the same!

End of year musings

I don't know where this post is going, but I feel like writing something tonight. Right now is probably my favorite time of the school year. Tomorrow morning I give my final exams to my students, and I just finished my last tutorial session to help them prepare. Actually I finished about an hour ago, but I've been thinking about it since then. I love that time after everybody has left and I am alone on the math hall on this last night. The previous two hours have been a frenzy of questions and nervous energy, and suddenly all is quiet and calm. I feel good about the questions the students were asking and I believe they are ready for tomorrow. Another frenzy of work is coming up in a few hours as the students take the exam in the morning and grades are due in the afternoon but for a few hours there is a very satisfying quiet.

As our Headmaster often says in faculty meetings, our profession is one of the few where we have an endpoint when we can step back and reflect on a job hopefully well done and how we can do it better next year. For me, that reflection really begins tonight, between the last tutorial and the exam. Seeing how far these kids have come this year gets me so excited about the next year. What will I be teaching? Who will my students be? What can I do differently to get them more excited about the class? What was the best part of this year that I need to make sure I repeat next year? Will these kids be able to focus tomorrow and show what they really can do on the exam or will they be distracted by the last day of school? Did I connect well enough with that kid who's struggling with a tough home life to actually make a lasting difference?

Teaching combines the best of two different kinds of professions, I think. There is a repetitive routine, which is comfortable and gives you the chance to work on something and tweak it year after year in the hopes of some day perfecting it. At the same time though, everything is different every year because the classroom is full of a different group of students with different backgrounds, interests, and learning styles. We teachers get to enjoy the benefits of a repetitive task on which we can continually improve without the monotony that comes with such repetitive tasks in other jobs. When the ennui of teaching the same thing every year sets in, we can switch to teaching other classes or supervising other activities in the school. Every day teaching teenagers is completely different and new, exactly like the day before.

Education versus Schooling

When I was in school getting my M.Ed. in Curriculum and Instruction, I was struck by a discussion in class of the difference between education and schooling. This discussion of educational philosophy came up somewhat unexpectedly in a class on Psychoeducational Assessment, which you would think would be all about data, not philosophy. We were discussing what the common standardized tests really measure, and so many of the tests dubbed "intelligence" tests actually measured "school skills" that it led to a much deeper discussion. Belated thanks go to Brad Erford, one of the two best Education professors I've had along with Kevin Vinson. Tonight, while grading assignments, this distinction between education and schooling has been on my mind. (The next paragraph is a self-righteous rant of sorts, so feel free to skip it entirely. Having typed it out now I feel like it's not as much a rant as a self-indulgent review of a very good day when I felt useful and important.)

Before I get into that distinction, please indulge me as I give a brief description of my day. This is intended for those who insist that teachers only work short days for part of the year. Today's day involved actively teaching from 8:30 until 3:30. Planning periods? Once students discover that you have a planning period at the same time as they have a study period, you no longer have planning periods. My two planning periods were filled with one-on-one tutoring of students who struggled on the quiz I gave last week. Lunch? Everybody gets a lunch break, no matter what job they do, right? No. At lunch, I supervised a table of students. That time eating with students is invaluable because we get to know each other as people rather than just as teacher-student, and that deeper bond significantly enhances teaching. It's completely worth it, but it is still time that we teachers are "on". My last class ends at 3:30, so the day is over, right? Nope. Now it is time for a meeting of the editors of the school newspaper. We are putting out our first ever April Fool's Day issue in the 175 year history of our school tomorrow and need to plan out distribution so that the surprise is not spoiled early. Around 4:00 I get home, check in with my son and chat for a while before starting to grade assignments. 6:45 and it's time to go supervise a table of students at dinner (still in the coat and tie I put on this morning). After dinner is the math department meeting from 7:30 to 8:30, followed by dorm duty. At 8:30, I head to the dorm, make sure all the students are where they are supposed to  be then have a long talk with a student who is struggling this quarter. Next come room inspections and motivating around 80 teenage boys to clean their rooms. I get home around 9:40 because I'm on "short duty" tonight, help my daughter with her homework, then head back up to school at 10:15 PM to distribute the newspaper into all student and faculty mailboxes in the hopes that nobody will spoil the surprise until the morning. Finally around 10:40, the work day is done and I can get back to grading, because quarter grades are due tomorrow. Deep breath.

Okay, self-indulgence is finished, I hope. Now on to the real point of this post. (OK, so the real point is that I just finished grading an assignment and need to clear my head before starting the next.) I just graded an assignment for my Advanced Multivariable and Vector Calculus class. Yep, they actually teach that in high school now. Blows my mind too, and I teach the class! These kids have already taken AP Calculus and cannot get college credit for this class, which gives me some luxurious freedom to conduct the class in the way I believe is best. I have chosen to teach this class in the way many of my grad school classes were taught when I was working on my Master's Degree in Mathematics. We have several days of old-school lecture in which we discuss the very basic ideas and mechanics of each unit, then the students launch into a challenging Problem Set based on that material. Anybody who has read an academic journal article in the past few years can confirm that almost nothing is done individually any more. Every scientific or mathematical paper published has multiple authors. Because of that, I believe it is much more beneficial to the education of these kids, who have already proven themselves to be top math students, to allow the kind of collaboration they will find in a future academic career in math or science. My Multivariable class this year is unquestionably the most exciting class I have ever had. (Any of my former students reading this, please do not take offense. This class has just hit the collaborative sweet spot in a way that other classes haven't.) When the students are working on their problem sets, they have the option of working individually or collaboratively, and can work in the classroom or elsewhere. While many students would see the latter rule as permission to skip class, the room is packed with kids during these problem set days. As they tackle ridiculous problems, they are throwing ideas around the room in a staccato rhythm. Exclamations like, "What if we try this?" or "OMG, I think I'm onto something here!" are music to my ears. As the year has progressed, the question, "How did you do #3?" has transformed into the question, "How did you start #3?" That is the best possible sign of developing confidence. Sometimes the arguments about the best way to solve a problem can get a little heated. Awesome! Last week, a student showed me his answer to a problem and asked if it looked good. I said that it looked like a good approximate solution and I would accept it for full credit, but that he actually knew enough to solve it for the exact solution rather than the approximate if he had the guts to try it. The entire class stopped what they were doing and said, "Wait! Which problem is that? We can do it!"

This is all on my mind because I just finished grading one of their problem sets. In a lot of schools, I might have to answer to the administration about why the grades on the assessment are so clustered and similar. "Schooling" emphasizes assessments in order to differentiate between students. I believe I teach at a school that will support the greater mission of education. Because of the allowed collaboration, the students' grades are similar, although they all put their own style on their solutions (for better or worse) and there is some differentiation in the grades. In a lot of schools, that would be unacceptable, but I firmly believe that these kids, at this very advanced level, have learned much more through this collaborative experience than they would have through assessments focused on the individual. They have learned different ways to approach a problem. They have learned how to stand up for themselves and assert their ideas in a discussion of different possible approaches to a problem. They have learned how to listen to others' ideas and suggestions and either accept them as better than their own, synthesize them with their own ideas to form something better than both, or explain why their approach is better. They are students, teachers, explorers, and communicators. They correct their own mistakes and look out for each other, not just themselves. They have solved problems so complex that, when I hand their papers back tomorrow, they will have trouble figuring out how to even ask questions about what they missed because they haven't thought about the problems in a few days. In my opinion, this is true education. I wish I could take credit for it, but the credit goes to the administration that supports this approach and mostly to the students who buy in to it, get excited about the challenge, and discover that they are far more powerful intellectually as a group than they could ever be individually. Our future is in the hands of today's teenagers, and the time I have spent with Sam, Jack, Justin, John, Grace, Will, Natnael, Ike, Greg, Liz, Suzelle, and Gates have convinced me that we are in good shape. The next generation is much better prepared to work together to solve the problems facing our world, and I am one of the privileged few who get the opportunity to work with them in these critical teenage years. I just hope I do a good enough job of getting out of their way and letting them thrive!

Gettin' all political up in here

I am one of those pseudo-political types. I have very strongly held views, but I am confident enough in those views that I don't feel the need to work very hard to back them up. That probably makes me one of the worst types of cancers on the American political process, but so be it. Tonight I took a couple of quizzes on the internet and their results surprised me a little. (Quick disclaimer - I have studied assessment extensively in graduate school and fully recognize all the flaws that make these internet quizzes completely invalid, but I still consider them to be valid entertainment.) I took a quiz about "What political party do you agree with most?" I was not surprised to find the I agreed 96% with the Green Party and 95% with the Democratic Party. I am pragmatic enough, though, to cast my vote with the Democrats in elections rather than to spend my vote on the Green Party candidate who has no chance of winning.

What surprised me in the quizzes I took tonight was my affinity for the Libertarians. They were not included in the first quiz, which was kind of a slight, since they have easily been around long enough to establish themselves as a voice in national politics. My results in the "How Libertarian are you?" quiz stated that I had strong Libertarian affinities and would become more and more Libertarian as I got older. Ignoring the fact that I am already pretty darned old, this surprised me and got me thinking about why. I think my political views can be summed up as, "It is the responsibility of the government to guarantee all citizens a basic level of health care, lifestyle, services, safety, etc., but nobody is guaranteed any luxuries." I believe that private entities have every right to be discriminating bigots, and I trust in the basic good of humanity to put those bigots out of business through boycotts and negative publicity. I believe in the necessity and power of the welfare system, but I also believe that every able individual should be required to work. Over the years, I have worked with several groups dealing with this exact situation. In high school, I chopped wood every afternoon and then on Fridays we delivered the wood to people who had no other way to heat their homes. In that organization if it was determined that somebody in the home was able-bodied, they either had to put in a certain number of hours chopping wood, or go through the job training and placement program in order to receive a second load of wood. I like that model. We'll rescue you when you're in trouble, but if you want to make it a habit, you need to work. In college I worked in a soup kitchen/homeless shelter where I met many people in situations where they needed external help. I think the place where I diverge from many others is in my Humanist belief that very few people want pure charity. The people that I encountered at the wood lot craved the opportunity to pay back the charity they received. They were the hardest workers on the lot and were very vocal about their desire to help me in any way they could. They and I all recognize that I stood out in their neighborhoods as a middle class white man, and they all encouraged me to seek shelter in their homes if I was ever in trouble in their neighborhoods. Growing up in the South, where neighborhoods were still very segregated, by history more than desire, it was comforting to know that I had a safe haven only a few steps away no matter where I was in the city. These were amazing people, craving the opportunity to work hard for their families, and I trusted them completely. The people I met at the homeless shelter in college were very similar - intelligent, hard-working people at the mercy of their surroundings. Could they have done a little more to pull themselves out of the poverty they were mired in? Maybe yes for some of them, but let's be realistic. If you are in a situation where the basic necessities of food and shelter for your family are in question, you are not going to look very far ahead into the future either. When every ounce of energy you have is spent just getting through today, you have no opportunity to work towards a better tomorrow.

I side with the Libertarians in that I believe all private enterprise should have the right to do business with whomever they choose. If a baker does not believe in gay marriage, then he should not be forced to make the cake for a gay wedding. (At the same time, all people who support the right to marry should boycott that baker and make every attempt to put it out of business, as should proponents of "traditional" marriage boycott bakeries that provide cakes for gay weddings.) The marriage is a right and should be protected, but the cake is a luxury, and the rights of the bakers should be protected. I believe we should draw a sharp line between necessities and luxuries. Anything that is basic to human survival and dignity should be guaranteed by the government, including welfare, public education, Social Security, health care, marriage, and laws governing human interaction. Anything that is a luxury and not part of the basic welfare of our society, should be free of governmental restrictions. The ugly result of that opinion is that private discrimination is a protected right, and I believe it should be. You have the right to be as bigoted as you want to be in your private life, and I have the right to try hard to destroy your business through any legal means. In the end, if the majority supports your business and you survive, then so be it, but it is the job of the government to protect us all from the tyranny of the majority. That is why the Judicial Branch of the government exists, because the Founding Fathers recognized that "majority rule" would not always result in the best possible laws.

So where do I fit into the political system? I don't completely know. I am a Pragmatic Green Democratic Libertarian. The one thing I do know for sure is that my fit with the Republican Party was only 7%, so anybody in that party is going to have to be absolutely incredible to get my vote (and in the most recent local elections, I did vote for a couple of Republicans who were just awesome people.) In the end, I think the most important lesson from these quizzes is the reminder that I need to evaluate each candidate based on his or her views of the issues, rather than on his or her party affiliation. At the same time, though, should I spend a vote on a candidate who has no chance of winning when there is an almost equally agreeable candidate with a chance to win? That right there is the main flaw in our electoral system. Maybe it is time to re-evaluate the way in which we vote, but that is a different can of worms!