Two good ones

I've been reading Inside Higher Education more regularly of late. (I used to read The Chronicle of Higher Education, but they have both gone to a more clickbaity-title format that I find offputting, and have more and more stuck all meaningful content behind a paywall, and it's not *quite* worth a $100 annual subscription to me. If I really *need* to read a story, I can wait a month - we have a time-embargoed access through one of the databases the library has).

But some of IHE's commentary....well, it's uneven. Some of it is good, some of it makes me roll my eyes ever so slightly.

But today, two pieces that resonated with me, both with a pop-cultural slant.

First, another encomium to Caroll Spinney (And, more generally, Sesame Street). And yes, the writer's comment about 'when I was a kid, we had four channels" resonates with me; I remember watching PBS programming perhaps later into my tween/teen years than the actual age targets because there wasn't a lot else on. And honestly? Some of the early Sesame Street bits were clever, there was humor in there that even appealed to a (maybe-unsophisticated?) tween like me.

And you know, in some ways, Big Bird is kind of the best of us: he's curious and kind and innocent and trusting.

And Oscar is maybe....maybe he's more what we THINK we should present to the world,. because the world seems like a hard place and maybe being a little grouchy or misanthropic is a way of protecting ourselves from getting hurt. (But Oscar had a kind side, too, despite all that: kids wouldn't continue to come and knock on his trash can if that weren't true.)

I also wonder if kids like me - who grew up in a town that was almost 100% white - if maybe we didn't develop *slightly* better attitudes about people of different ethnicities after seeing Luis and Maria and Gordon and Susan and all of them on the show, and how everyone was friends, and the differences seemed trivial in comparison to the similarities? That the idea that having friends of different races was normal  and expected was something that was quietly presented without fanfare?

And then the second one, another mention of Mr. Rogers but also Dolly Parton: How to be Progressive Without being Divisive.

And I like the idea presented there. All too often what I "hear" is that in order to 'do right' in this world today, you have to be loud and confrontational and always in people's faces, and there are even some corners of the Internet that seem to think if you are NOT, you are essentially colluding with whatever group is being opposed and that sort of thing makes me so tired.

I am not confrontational. I do not like conflict. I almost throw up before having to confront a student about plagiarism, even when I have clear proof (a printout of what they copied) and the student handbook is clear on the penalty. And I don't have the energy or personality to be in people's faces.

I am much better at just loving people, and maybe trying to help the people who are a little downtrodden. I am not always comfortable doing, as the phrase goes "speaking truth to power" because in some cases, that "truth" actually winds up being a bit of an oversimplification of things and....well, everything is complicated.

I also sometimes wonder how much effect yelling at people you believe to hold wrong beliefs HAS. I've seen too many cases of people doubling-down when harshly confronted over something. And I also agree with this quotation from Fred Rogers: “Other people may be accusers if they want to; that may be their job. I really want to be an advocate for whatever I find is healthy or good. I think people don’t change very much when all they have is a finger pointed at them. I think the only way people change is in relation to somebody who loves them.”

I like that. I like that he's making the point we all have different talents, and we should use THOSE talents. One thing that makes me tired a lot is the implication that only a small subset of "gifts" are "good gifts" and get anything done.....which actually....well, Paul had something to say about that:

"There are different gifts, but the same Spirit.There are different ministries, but the same Lord. There are different ways of working, but the same God works all things in all men... For the body does not consist of one part, but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be?" (I Corinthians 12, Berean Study Bible translation)

I see this in a lot - the idea that there is only one way of teaching (be it "active learning," or "flipped classrooms*," or whatever the current fad is) that is any good, and everyone else should conform to that method, even if they are good at some other one.

(*Also, flipped classrooms REALLY only works if you have a student body that has (a) 100% reliable at-home internet access and (b) is NOT working full time plus raising a family. A colleague of mine tried flipped classrooms here one semester and it went badly, because so many of our students don't really have the TIME outside of class to do the "watch online lectures" thing)

And there's also the 1970s-era story of The Animals' School, which is somewhat similar to Paul's talk about the parts of the body, though there, the pressure is external ("Ducks need to be good at climbing trees!" say the squirrels) than internal ("I'm just a stupid ear, why can't I be an eye instead?"). But again: the idea of valuing your own strengths (and maybe not listening to the people who choose to DEvalue your strengths, though that can be difficult).

Anyway. I agree with Mr. Rogers here - other people may be good at very vocally calling out bad behavior; I'd rather sit with or advocate for the people who are a bit downtrodden instead, or maybe do something *active* to help. (I'd rather stand behind the counter of a food bank, making up boxes of food to hand out to people, than march on Washington to protest hunger; I suspect my choice in the short run does more good even if we maybe need people doing that other thing for the long run).

But also, as someone who was harassed/teased/yelled at by peers a lot as a kid, I do tend to question just how much yelling at someone that they're wrong helps them to change. (All the crap I took in gym class did not make me one bit more coordinated, and it didn't even motivate me to practice on my own to BECOME more coordinated).

Dolly Parton is also mentioned there, an instance where she was apparently interviewed and the interviewer tried to get her to jump on the run-down-Trump bandwagon....and Dolly went a fully different direction, saying she'd like people to pray for the man. And yes. Praying someone will change their heart is still praying for them. (The former minister of my church, even though I KNOW he strongly disliked Trump and his policies, still sometimes mentioned his name in prayers....usually the "grant our leaders wisdom and compassion" kind but still, it counts). And yes, there's also Biblical precedence for praying for EVERYBODY, even people with whom you strongly disagree.

And maybe? Maybe love really is the answer after all? I keep saying that, and I hope some day more people turn to thinking that. 

One of my concerns with "hating," is that there's a danger in you becoming the thing you hate. Better to ignore what you dislike, I think, or work in ways to build up the opposition to that person or that thing.

But one thing I have noticed about people who are Extremely Online - a lot of them believe there is only one correct way to be, and you have to be with them on that 100%, or else you're a Bad Person and are as bad as the worst person with whom the Extremely Online person disagrees. And while perhaps those kinds of purity tests allow one some feelings of superiority, and allow one to insulate oneself from disagreement....I also find them kind of tiring and frustrating and I'd rather talk about the things I love and that are good, and focus on those things, than rant about the things I dislike.

I suspect the "purity tests" make me uncomfortable because I also see the shadow of the schoolyard in them, where if you didn't have JUST the right brand of clothing or JUST the currently popular toys or if you liked a cartoon that was deemed "babyish," you were cast into the Outer Darkness of pre-teen ostracization and that was a very cold and sad place to be. And I do worry as an adult I'll say something deemed Slightly Wrong or whatever, and will find myself losing most or all of my friends. (And so, I do tend to adhere to the Homer Simpson's Rule of the Schoolyard #3: "never say anything unless you're sure everyone feels exactly the same way you do." So I talk about the weather a lot in random company. And was once discombobulated to find I was talking to someone who wanted to argue that the "nice spring day" was actually evidence of impending anthropogenic climate collapse and I never noped out of a conversation faster...)