We are taking another step into the world of video-dialogues this week by having our first conversation with students at a university in Iran. 
The students are excited to speak with Penn State students about their lives, their ideas, and their perspectives on the world. We are equally excited to host this important cultural exchange and to learn about this nation from the inside. Even though our respective governments can’t seem to find the will or the way to talk to one another, we’re just gonna jump on Skype and see what happens.
THIS WEEK @ WinC
THIS WEEK @ WinC
In the many years I have been listening to people talk about their views of the world, the one thing I hear over and over is, “That’s your truth and this is my truth.” Or some version of that statement. Whatever it is, the statement implies that we can all live in harmony not by questioning ourselves or “unpacking” our views, but by maintaining the belief that there are multiple truths that can easily co-exist. It reminds me of the “celebrate diversity” mindset that leads to little more than continued segregation without the outright meanness.
This week, as Joe Paterno’s death brought the Sandusky scandal back into the center of our discussions, I noticed that this “your truth and my truth” phenomenon doesn’t seem to work too well when it really matters–as I think it does now.
Taking a one-sided position and refusing to consider the other side is not unique to post-Paterno Penn State. It is the most common formula for what makes an argument. And the remedy is the same whether it’s a fight about cleaning the bathroom or the entrenched conflict of a war: Consider the other side. For a moment. Just consider it. Imagine what it might be that would lead someone to continue to feel affection and praise for Joe Paterno–even in light of the belief that his inaction may have led to or supported abusive situations. Use your imagination. Or even better, ask someone who feels that way. And on the other side, what might make it impossible for another person to feel that way? Or, what might lead someone to feel resentment and bitterness toward anyone who would feel affection for Joe Paterno or Penn State? Listen to what they have to say.
I know this sounds simple. But it is. What makes it difficult is our widespread failure to learn that “truth” is less likely to exist in either my way or your way, but in some difficult blend of both. And I say “difficult” because when we consider another position, when we really consider it, the process usually leads to some shift in ourselves. And that means we usually can’t hold on to our righteous positions. That’s difficult.
I’m NOT suggesting that there are not complicated issues to explore and to wrestle with. But I am suggesting that drawing battle lines and moral high grounds instead of allowing ourselves to listen is more likely to be self-righteous and self-indulgent than a step toward justice, understanding and constructive critique.
“I’ll eat a taco.” Thanks, pal.
We’ve been talking in class about immigration and I was making the point the other day about how immigrants are so often viewed not simply second class people, but just as often as not fully human. I regularly read comments to articles on web sites in which people reference Mexican immigrants by using words such as “scum” and “animals.” It doesn’t take much empathy for any of us to see people who migrate as simply trying to build a better life for themselves, much like the immigrant ancestors of the people making the bigoted comments. And even if we want to “send them all back home,” why words such as “scum”? But people often follow their leaders and here is a story of one leader that doesn’t seem to be setting a very positive example for his constituents and employees. While I don’t know the entire story, and so far be it from me to weigh in on this very heavily as though I do, it does seem as though he’s not really interested in the livelihoods and well-being of the Latinos in his community.
Check out the article: “Connecticut mayor apologizes for ‘taco’ comment”
Post from Staffer Brenton Joo Mitchell
The Pensyltucky Korean’s Korner: “Send them back to Mexico!”
There’s a quote that hangs in the lounge of our office and it reads “I don’t like that man. I must get to know him better” ~Abraham Lincoln. I came across this video last night. After watching it, I wonder how can I, someone who thinks very differently and holds a different understanding of the role migrant workers play in America, try to understand this? I think about the people in my life I struggle to “like” or befriend and I shudder at the thought of offering that kind of energy to them. Yet, if my ultimate goal is to bring peace to that relationship, or peace to that part of our world, how can I not offer that energy?
What keeps me from understanding that person more?
What keeps you from understanding that person(s) more?
How could I “steer into that curve?”
How could you “steer into that curve?”
For me, what are the benefits of understanding vs. not understanding?
For you, what are the benefits of understanding vs. not understanding?
With understanding,
Onwards & Sideways
THIS WEEK @ WinC
I make a lot of navigational decisions every week about what we should do and not do as a Project. And I make a lot of the same decisions for myself. This has led me to a position where I’m both directing the Project, and I’m on the ground, doing the work of facilitating dialogues. Sometimes I wrestle with being in both positions. Sometimes I think I should just do one or the other. And other times, I think I should be willing to leave behind the work of facilitating for the work of directing. But I read a Chinese parable tonight (on a website called Fast Company–which is ironic when you read the parable) that shines a light on this dilemma: Zhuang Zi was a brilliant philosopher and strategist who lived in ancient China. His abilities were many and several rulers sought his services. One of them, King Wei, sent his courtiers out to Zhuang Zi’s pastoral home to invite him to come to Wei’s court and be the leader’s chief counselor. They found him there fishing by the river bank. Seeing his poor situation, they thought Zhuang Zi would jump at the chance for status and reward. Yet when they made their proposal to him, he said, “Once upon a time there was a sacred turtle, which was happy living his life in the mud. Yet, because he was sacred, the king’s men found him, took him to the royal palace, killed him and used his shell to foresee the future. Now tell me, would that turtle prefer to have given up his life to be honored at the palace, or would he rather be alive and enjoying himself in the mud?” The courtiers responded that, of course, the turtle would be happier in the mud. To which Zhuang Zi replied, “And so you have my answer. Go home and let me be a happy turtle here in the mud.” I guess I have to admit it: I’m happiest on the ground…in the mud.
Why am I sharing this? Because this kind of thinking is larger then me. Because I think the world tempts many of us into positions and experiences and rungs on some ladder that do little to expand us or the world we serve. Instead we mistakenly follow an implicit script about career or success or value–which often has little to do with our real mission or talents. And, of course, this makes us unhappy, ineffective and probably sick. So I’m simply making note of this process and suggesting that each of us beware of the shiny opportunity that may have a hollow center.
Do I really need to learn Spanish?
posted by Sam Richards
Do you have any idea how many times you’ve been lied to and didn’t know it? Really…think about it. How often does your silly, gullible self accept something as true because…well…because you believed the source? And how often have you passed on the lie to others? It’s painful for me to even think about it in my own case.
So I recently received an email from a friend that contained a video of a story that Fox News broadcast a while back. The tag line said that I needed to watch it to understand a terrible injustice brought about by liberals, illegal immigration, and political correctness — not necessarily in that order. It was one of those emails that I receive once or twice per week. Take a look at the video for yourself (it’s only a 36 second clip):
If your first response is to tilt your head to the side and scratch the back of your skull while having a dazed and confused look on your face, then you know exactly how it affected me. The thought that went along with said reaction, however, was “this simply sounds too crazy to be true.”
Being the skeptic that I am, I decided to conduct an investigation to see if I could get to the bottom of it and find out what really happened. I started by reading some of the comments that were being made on YouTube. They were pretty scathing: “Round ‘em up and send ‘em home,” said one patriot. Another brain surgeon in the making chimed in, “This is what happens when we elect a black man as president.” (The politically correct violation that is referenced in the video occurred a couple of years ago, by the way, long before Obama entered our national spotlight.) Clearly, these blockheads were not searching for the real story and so I would not find it there.
So I plugged some combination of words such as “Oregon Mexican firefighter fired” and quickly found what I wanted: a statement from the State of Oregon’s Department of Forestry that explained the matter in considerable detail. It took me all of about 45 seconds to read, but what it revealed was very depressing (given the number of people who watched and believed the original story). I’ll summarize it for you here:
Oregon’s Department of Forestry contracts private fire crews. (Remember conservatives, privatization = cost savings = free market capitalism.) If these companies choose to hire non-English-speaking firefighters for a crew, then they must have bilingual crew leaders because while English is the official language of firefighting in the U.S., crew leaders MUST be able to communicate with their crews for purposes of safety. If a private company hires Mexican firefighters, then English only speaking crew leaders can’t lead that team. If they hire only English-speaking firefighters, then the crew leaders need only have the ability to speak English.
It makes sense that so many people hate liberals and Mexicans and political correctness with stories like this floating around on the WWW. Who wouldn’t be clamoring for the microphone to add to the shouting chorus of red-blooded citizens who want to preserve the United States for the “real Americans” (not to be confused with Native Americans, of course).
So how many times have you been duped by such an email or a rumor? How often do you find yourself saying, “No way. This can’t possibly be true. I have to tell everyone I know so this outrage will stop.” And how often do you follow that up with, “This sounds fishy and so I’d better explore it before I pass it on down the rumor mill.”?
This stuff cuts both ways, mind you, because misinformation enters the public discourse from both the right and the left wings of the political spectrum. (This story originally aired on Fox News, but left-wing blogs and web sites picked it up and carried it as though it was true, by the way.) My gut inclination tells me that the right is slightly better at putting out misinformation than the left, but only because the left does it in a way that it doesn’t sound like misinformation.
An addendum: One respondent, who is a firefighter, noted the utmost importance of communication while fighting fires and pointed out that non-English speaking firefighters would be problematic on English speaking crews. I absolutely agree and would maintain that Mexicans who do not speak English should NOT be on crews with U.S. firefighters who only speak English. That’s a problem that is pretty easy to solve.
