Star Wars and Our Common Language for Doing Politics

In today's Akron Beacon Journal there is a great commentary from a theologian arguing that as our common language for doing politics--for public debate--is eroding, Star Wars stands as one counter-example worth thinking about,  because that story continues to bring people together.

Here is a link to the commentary at the ABJ.  

First, I like using pop culture texts like Star Wars to help us sort out real world challenges. And I enjoyed reading this one very much.

Second, there is data showing that the divide Camosy points to here (polarization causing us to lose our common language for talking about politics) can be seen as a much more significant gap at the elite level. Average Americans still tend to be more moderate and pragmatic.  See Morris Fiorina for more on this.  This matters because framing this problem as an elite leadership failure directs us to very different solutions than framing it as a culture-wide problem (which Camosy at times seems to suggest is a problem with democracy--here I could not disagree more).

Third, the author's comment abouy sensitivity to race and gender undermining our capacity to use the ideas from our founding era seems wrong to me.  Yes, we can now see our framers were wrong on slavery, but our greater sensitivity to race and gender subordination today is (in my view) a reflection of how authoritative these founding ideas remain today--too often as more aspiration than reality, but that is a different point.

Fourth, the law is one of our most important common languages for 'doing politics.'  While we have always disagreed on the precise meaning of due process, equal protection, and free speech and religion...we still (following our founders) argue about these using the language in the Constitution, Supreme Court decisions, and laws passed by Congress and States.  

Our disagreement is certainly deep in some cases, but we are still using a common language...at least enough to wonder if the central argument in this piece requires us to look at some data before we conclude that "our growing commitment to freedom" is driving a "disintegration of our political culture." As much as I like this piece, the central claim might be more a 'vague sense' than an actual observation.  

So, in this sense, watching (and discussion) Star Wars is yet another public sphere where we are all doing politics, participating in the ongoing struggle over the meaning of the law.  I do wish that the previous Star Wars episodes had included women and non-whites of the stature of Yoda or Obi Wan, but perhaps the new one will take a step from our founding era to today and beyond.  

Don't miss the movie as yet another opportunity to come together over the holidays!

Being Assertive Without Being Aggressive or Avoidive is the Best of the American Way

"OK, there you are, waiting in line to get into the football game, and some guy from much farther back in line charges up to the man near you, demanding to know if he's "a refugee." How do you (safely) tell the aggressive so-and-so to get back in line and let the (embarrassed, frightened, native-born) man know that you're on his side? I'd like some suggestions because I'm likely to step forward and respond w/o thinking...."

This is an interesting scenario in a recent FB thread. I may use this in class, but even if I do not…I have learned a lot reading it, because the thread is filled with insight.  Here is an incomplete culling from the thread…in search of the core guiding principles we might use.  I apologize for typos or incomplete thoughts; I have a stack of papers to grade today, but still wanted to reflect on this anyway.

Certainly everyone deserves dignity and respect, so we want to be the change and enact our vision for a better world (and resolution to this conflict) in our response.  As Tucker put it, whatever we say or do we need to ‘be kind’ to everyone involved.  As Sherry put it, one key part of being kind and effective here is to ‘remain calm.’

And the audience often determines the outcome of a conflict.  In this case, a productive response would include expanding the scope of the conflict to include the audience.

But expanding the scope with escalating the hostility is a challenge.

I like Maura’s idea (for anyone with language skills, as a fellow Irish) with one modification informed by Keith.  Perhaps stand next to the victim and look another spectator in the eye and say something firmly but gently like Carl’s suggestion: “leave us alone.”  Janet’s Target story hits on this: stand between them, let the victim take your place in line.

Because Maura’s is a bit less inciting and we want to avoid Rene’s scenario where the intervener is now seen by the audience as the problem.  On the other hand, it is important to be fully present in the moment, and it is possible that a stronger statement like Maura’s would be needed to bring the audience in against the attacker.

In this sense, Nick’s post is (like others who agreed or shared similar regrets over staying silent in the past) on point:  we cannot know for sure what we might or should say ahead of time, but we do need to be prepared to say and do something. 

The preparation we can do is think through the dynamics as we are doing here, and work on language that feels like our own voice, and prepare to be both assertive and respectful, to both step in (in between) to protect victims and invite the attacker to see his words/actions as outside the crowd/community without feeling attacked himself.

This is where expanding the scope can help in other ways, because once one person intervenes it is more likely for others to do the same and this creates a dynamic where the attacker might see the value in claiming he was joking or just walking away.

Or, one of those from the crowd now on the intervention team might bring the most valuable tool—a good sense of humor—to the conflict and deflate the entire situation with a comment that makes everyone laugh and allows the attacker to escape with a bit of dignity by laughing and moving on.

Teresa’s comment (depending again on reading the specific situation) might fit the bill here, if said with a tone that encourages all to laugh:  “Unless you and I are Native Americans, we are all refugees here!”  Or Kevin’s (and Karen’s) “I am also a refugee!  Is there a prize?”  

Or Alternate Julie’s “Excuse me sir, can I see your ID?”  Or Terry’s approach using humor and distraction (yell O-H…).  Or Cindy’s “I'm sorry, dearie, did your poor mother not teach you manners? Because in the United States of America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, we don't make accusations to strangers. We welcome them. So, where are you from, anyway?”

Or as Kimberly suggests: “In a calm voice I'd say, ‘Now, let's all take deep breaths and get to the real heart of the matter.’ I'd turn to the newcomer and ask, ‘Sir, are you a Browns fan (or whoever the home team is) or Steelers fan (whoever the visiting team is)?’ Hopefully, that would get a couple chuckles to defuse the situation. ‘Come on, we're all just football fans right now. Right?’

Another good ‘template’ type of response to keep in mind and practice in less stressful situations so you can get better at it, is the one suggested by Barb:  Ask a question. (But be careful you do not ask a question that invites the attacker to explain or justify or expand his attack. Tone matters here.)

Barb suggests asking “What is the problem?”  This is a good generic question to have in your template box, but in this case a slightly modified version might work better: “How can we tell that this person is not an American?  And no one has to be an American to like watching soccer.  What is the problem here?”  Cindy’s suggestion to ask a question kindly is important.

Asking a question in a situation like this is best combined with Keith’s point above:  Without pause, continue to ask 1-2 others in the crowd, making eye contact, “What is the problem here?

Or we might imagine a dialogue:

“What is the problem here?

She is the problem; she is a refugee.

In America, do we prevent guests from going to soccer games?”

(Making eye contact with 1-2 in the crowd) “Do we?” 

At this point, it is worth repeating:  we cannot know for sure ahead of time and in the abstract what would work, because we need to be present in the moment and read the situation to balance assertiveness with non-escalation, challenging the words/actions without challenging the attacker’s identity. 

We can (as we are here) prepare to do that well, but we cannot (in my view) find one universally applicable statement that will always work, even that will always work in this one scenario, because even this one set of facts can vary dramatically depending on the circumstances. 

And even a perfect question/intervention is not likely the end; we need to see these as conversations, as unfolding over time, and not look for a silver bullet to end the situation in one fell swoop.

Amy’s point is worth reflecting on as well, reinforcing the importance of being present in the moment.  Much of what we have said already is based on the assumption, highlighted by Kelly, that getting the crowd involved will mean that they will join our side. 

As Amy indicates, however, with leadership fanning the flames of racial and religious hatred we have to be less than entirely confident in that outcome—reinforcing the importance of balancing the tension between intervening and still respecting the attacker (and others in the crowd who might ‘agree’ with him).

Assuming what must be achieved (in this case, agreement that attacking a random stranger on the dubious presumption that she is a refugee and even more dubious presumption that being a refugee justifies the attack) will derail efforts to de-escalate and resolve.

Creativity, like humor already noted, is a powerful skill here.  Maureen (and Tina) has a good idea (if it fits your read of the situation):  greet the attacker as if he were an old friend and walk him away from the situation.  I am sure I do not need to note that caution needed in taking this approach, but I will add this—doing this might reduce the chance that the crowd comes to your aid and single you out in the attacker’s mind.

If your read of the situation is imminent danger of violence, then Mary’s idea emerges as worth considering: stand next to the person while dialing 911.  Or Patti’s idea: to stand with the person and invite others to join and surround her.

Brenda’s idea of starting with a gentle and kind but assertive “excuse me?” could also work.

Kevin’s point about no point trying to reason with a moron warrants consideration. 

Not because calling out moronishness will help us here, but because whatever approach we take might get an incoherent response, returning us to the importance of bringing in the crowd (expanding the scope) and respecting the attacker—if his response indicates low intelligence or Fox News Disease than simply separating him and the victim is likely the best possible outcome short of calling 911.

Lou’s idea could work:  “Whoa, whoa. Let’s turn it down a notch here.  Let it go and everyone get back in line.”  (Edy hits on a similar note.)  And then hope that ‘the sane guys in the gym’ or in the crowd here, react as expected and outnumber the attacker.

Bill’s idea has merit: “Sir, please calm down.  This person does not need to prove anything to you.”  And as he adds: ‘hopefully others would join me.

Ruth adds a good idea—moving to stand next to the victim and not addressing the attacker at all, only speaking with the victim.  Add Keith’s point about bringing in other bystanders with eye contact and this is likely to be a strong and safe response.

Jenn’s “How dare you?” is to the point and accomplishes the goal of asking a question—to put the burden of explanation on the attacker.  I like this one for its simplicity as well, as long as we are prepared for next steps—stand next to victim (ala Ruth) and/or bring in additional bystanders (ala Keith).

Cyd’s “Stop it!” And/or “Get back in line; you’re embarrassing yourself!” while seeking to expand the scope and saying to the victim “I am sorry this happened” both have merit. (Maxine hits on this idea as well.)

Jeannie has a creative idea: “This person is my guest, so please get back in line.” Rebecca makes a similar point.

Brian’s “Pardon me, but who are you to question this person?  Have you seen some official status?” has merit.

Pat’s “In America we do not treat people this way” could be an effective response.

Singing Tom Petty, like yelling ‘O-H!’ could be brilliant.

I also like Peter’s idea, speaking to both attacker and victim but with the point of bringing in anyone within ear-shot: “What in the hell are either of you doing in line for a Browns game?  Don’t you have something better to do with your time?”

Or as Pamela put it with more humor: “This is a Brown’s game.  We’re all refugees in this line.  The team might win one of the last few games, or maybe they can unload Johnny Football to another team.”

Cy’s “Excuse me but what business is it to you?” might work.

Reviewing these ideas is a great way to prepare.  Then practice using one or more of the ideas here in low-tension situations, so you make it your voice and learn how to use it.  Then, keep in mind that no one statement will always work, but trust your instincts because you are prepared:  speak up with kindness to all, humor if you can, to de-escalate.  Usually a question is a good start, as long as it is not an accusation and that is helps you expand the scope of the conflict.

As Bruce Lee says “master the principles without being bound by them.”  We prepare by considering scenarios like this and imagining how we might respond.  Talking with others as we are here, to clarify the core principles to keep in mind and sharpen our awareness of what is more likely to actually work.  Then remember that the principles only guide us, we still have to be fully present and humble and assertive.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and experiences on this important question.

There is no war on Christmas



A war on Islam alienates our potentially most powerful ally in the war on terror



But our leadership has been infected by the ugliest underside of American culture

We are sick.  Parts of our body politic are eating away at our remaining healthy flesh.



And it is not by accident.



And there are voices in leadership who could help.

JT and Johnny Football

Two stories in today’s Akron Beacon Journal intersect in instructive ways.  

I am a life-long athlete and sports fan, using illustrations like these requires me to examine these stories as a scholar—not as a fan or fellow athlete (or if you hate sports, to examine these as a scholar and not a sports-hater). 

We want to use these stories because they are so familiar that we understand them and their contexts without much effort.  At the same time, we want to use them to deepen our analysis of law and politics, we want to abstract out from these stories lessons about the relationship between official discretion and the rule of law that are hidden in plain sight.

JT Barrett was suspended by the team for Ohio State’s next game, against Minnesota, for a misdemeanor charge of driving under the influence.  The OSU starting quarterback was stopped at a Columbus check point early Saturday morning.

First, we all know (and any athletes among us often know from personal experience) that star quarterbacks are subject to a different set of rules—the law means something different when applied to them…Behavior that is illegal and worthy of zero tolerance for an inner city thug is ‘just a good guy sowing his wild oats’ or ‘making the same mistakes we all made at that age,’ and deserving of our understanding and assistance so he can stay on the straight and arrow (read: on the field on Saturday).

This does not surprise anyone.  It frustrates many, but that fact that the law changes meaning when the person breaking the law is a football star is so commonplace as to not be news.  

We want to start by highlighting this, because this is only possible when cops, prosecutors, judges, coaches, school officials, journalists, university presidents, powerful alumni, and others work hard to influence the ongoing struggle over the meaning of the law…and those who are government agents do this in the way they choose to exercise their official discretion.

With that, let’s turn to these two stories from today’s paper.  First the JT Barrett story.

“The school’s drug and alcohol policy would have required a two-game suspension for the 20-year-old Barrett if he had been charged with a felony. The misdemeanor charge gives coach Urban Meyer the discretion to pass down the punishment.”

If we put aside how much we want OSU to win (or how much we want to see star athletes taken down a peg)…we can see here that the officers running the check point made a discretionary choice to charge Barrett with a misdemeanor.  There can be no doubt that these law enforcement experts knew exactly what their choice would mean.  Then school officials made a second discretionary choice to apply the minimum punishment required by school policy.  These choices change the meaning of the law:  different choices would have resulted in different sanctions. 

We have seen many non-legal factors matter a lot in this struggle over the meaning of the law (race, personal position on the merits of the voting law, ideological preferences, a teenager’s willingness to admit her mistake, a desire to be an effective problem solver, a desire to avoid a rigid application of law that would undermine the spirit of the law, a partisan failure to even ‘see’ fraud, and more) and now we can add ‘being a star athlete.’

This is an illustrative list only.  We can all imagine additional factors that are also not in the law, but matter (disrespect shown to the officer, personal beliefs about the proper 'place' for women, a bias against Muslims or religions in general, etc).  The precise list is NOT the point.  

The list merely illustrates an insight:  we observe in many different arenas that it is common place for officials to make choices (exercise discretion) in ways that change the meaning of the law on the basis of factors not in the law.

Notice I stated that insight in terms that allows us to further add that this can be done in ways that some see as positive (problem solving, flexibility, taking circumstances into account) or negative (prejudiced, misinformed, partisanship).

And we can go one step deeper here.  If we imagine an 8-0 OSU team that had only one star quarterback…can we imagine the officers at the check point making a different discretionary decision (changing the meaning of the law again) or school officials making a different choice (to, say, challenge the charge so that it ends up in court and is not resolved until the season is over)?

Let’s look at the second, related, story in today’s news, about Johnny Cleveland.

Johnny Manziel is likely to escape punishment from the league or team for being pulled over in Avon on suspicion of driving under the influence and domestic assault.  Beacon Journal columnist Bob Dyer wondered in today’s paper if the officer letting Manziel go without a breathalizer test gave the Brown’s quarterback a gift.

“If I’m a cop,” according to Dyer, “and a witness says a guy was driving 90 mph on the left berm and had his girlfriend pinned to a window, and when I approached him and smelled alcohol on his breath and he admitted to have a ‘couple of’ beers, would I just say ‘OK’ and let him go?”

Good question.  Dyer wants to know how the cop could make this choice, use his discretion in this way, and if he made this choice because the law-breaker is a football star.

Dyer asked the Hudson Chief of Police for some help sorting this out and the Chief said

“The way the law is written you can only administer a Breathalyzer test after somebody has been arrested for OVI.” 

Dyer than summarizes the chief’s explanation as follows: 

An officer won’t arrest unless she observes signs of intoxication (swerving on the road, eyes, breath, speech, answers to questions).

If the driver fails any of these the cop will ask him to take a series of field sobriety tests.

Flunking these triggers arrest.

On the DV charge, the chief explains that after Manziel’s clearly intoxicated girlfriend told the officer that “he struck me twice in the fact,” the officer looks for marks and sees none. Dyer then notes that she ‘retracted her initial claim,’ but we cannot tell from his account when she did that.

The chief concludes with this observation: “I know quite a bit about addictions.  If he was in rehab for 10 weeks and he’s drinking, it’s not a good sign…for him personally—or for a longtime fan of the Cleveland Browns.”

When we unpack Dyer’s summary we see that there are multiple decision points here, with multiple opportunities for this officer to make discretionary choices. 

The officer chooses NOT to see the smell of alcohol on Manziel’s breath as a trigger for an arrest, but she could have.

The officer chooses NOT to give Manziel a field sobriety test, even though it is hard to imagine if it were you or I she pulled over that we would be treated so gently, given the circumstances.

Yet, the ‘circumstances’ include that the law-breaker is a star athlete.

The officer chooses NOT to arrest Manziel for domestic violence, even though he could have. 

The officer chooses see Manziel as ‘worthy’ of going the extra mile, but not worthy enough for the officer to choose to conclude that for admitted alcoholic the choice the officer could make for this citizen-clients own good would be to get him into rehab, likely meaning starting with an arrest.

This is our home
Twenty years ago we came to Akron.  We raised our sons here and have devoted our entire professional careers to strengthening UA and contributing to our neighborhood and city revitalization.

Today we have nearly 80% of UA faculty expressing no confidence in our leadership, those participating in campus visitation days are down 20%, and contributions from our long-time and reliable donors down more than 40%.

A sad time.  It is painful to watch our community in what appears to be slow motion collapse.

Trying to remain positive, work with students, turn this around.

Our Public Pedagogy of Incivility

Michael Shermer wrote a compelling summary of what the best available data shows about the relationship between gun ownership and violence—at the individual, family, and state levels. 

Laura Bischoff analyzed the struggles surrounding Issues 2 and 3 on the Ohio state ballot for this Fall.

All week we have read about the ongoing Ohio charter schools controversy and the ‘fog machine at the Pentagon.’

In the sports pages we see that Atlanta Hawk’s player Thabo Sefolosha was found innocent by a jury in NYC of obstructing justice, resisted arrested and disorderly conduct charges filed after the police broke his leg. 

Rick Pitino’s NCAA powerhouse basketball program is now under investigation for allegedly providing strippers and prostitutes for recruits and their fathers.

Dana Milbank analyzes how a few dozen far right Tea Party members of the House ‘have plans to bend the entire House to their will,’ no matter the consequences.

And William Hershey notes that incivility in politics resulted in defeat for Republicans in 1964 and then again for Democrats in 1968, when Ray Bliss restored civility within the Republican Party to defeat a sitting VP (before Bliss was fired by the victorious Nixon who then rolled back civility efforts…and was defeated as a result).

What do these stories have in common?

Men with power corrupting civil society and our body politic?  Just the way it is?  Competing echo chambers in the internet era insulating opponents from the need to engage with alternative perspectives?  Far right business groups funding think tanks to provide ‘data’ to support any opinion, no matter how inconsistent with the best available data?

The best available data shows that a gun in your home for protection is 22 times more likely to be used to kill a member of your family (suicide, accidental shooting, homicide) than to be used against an intruder and states with the strongest gun laws have the lowest firearm fatality rates while states with the most permissive gun laws have the highest firearms fatality rates.

As a result, Shermer argues, it is no accident that 1.35 million Americans have been the victims of gun fatalities since 1970 (compared to 1.39 million who have died in all wars since the American Revolution); mass public shootings now occur once every 1.6 weeks (compared to once every 2.6 weeks before 2010); and in 2014 alone 66,019 Americans were killed or injured by a gun…180 per day, 7.5 per hour.  Not an accident; a choice. 

Issue 2 seeks to make the citizen initiative process more restrictive to prevent business interests from ‘using the citizen initiative process to their benefit’ as they did when they got a constitutional amendment passed authorizing four casinos the sponsors of the initiative now profit from.  Issue 3, to legalize marijuana, is being portrayed as another abuse of power by business leaders sponsoring this initiative. 

There was no effort to change the initiative process to stop the casino amendment or after it passed or even now, just as we have seen no effort to reign in the business leaders profiteering on tax dollars as they impoverish our public school system in the charter school scandal. 

And that effort now, targeting Issue 2, depends on a willful misreading of the Issue 2 language.  If the sponsors of Issue 3 really cared about reducing the ability of business interests to exploit tax payers they would widen their scope to include preventing their own business allies already doing just that.

Thabo Sefolosha was assaulted by the police and then charged by those officers with the standard charges used to punish anyone who takes issue with police brutality: obstructing justice, resisted arrested and disorderly conduct charges.  When a jury heard the evidence they found him innocent of all charges. 

Were he not a wealthy NBA star he would not have been able to fight this systematic assault that makes NYC look a lot like the small town politics detailed in the DOJ’s Ferguson Report, where all the power players are in on the ‘conventional wisdom’ that ‘these people’ are unwilling to accept individual responsibility or accountability so it is okay to demonstrate a lack of individual responsibility and accountability in punishing them.  His civil suit may shine a light on this, but for how long?

As a life-long athlete and sports fan I am deeply offended by the Rick Pitino’s and Joe Paterno’s and countless others who feed on our sports frenzy to become role models for misogyny, ignorance, and the blindness of the privileged who insist they deserve to be above the law.

As a life-long political junky I am deeply offended by the Tea Party, Heritage Foundation, Pentagon PR experts, Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter types who feed on our democratic openness to become role models for (see above)…such that a president seeking reasonable restrictions to reduce regular violence is greeted by hate-filled, misinformed, privileged protesters persuaded by the likes of these to see themselves as put-upon victims rather than among the privileged.

“Civility requires practice,” Hershey tells us and I agree.  What these stories have in common is that they reveal elites in our country providing ordinary Americans with repeated opportunities and invitations to be (and become) less civil, to be less skilled in the art of democratic citizenship, and less able to make democracy work for all of us.  

Incivility, like our vigilante tradition and new jim crow, is shown here to be an elite-led form of violence eating away at the great American experiment.