Here is a post that has appeared on my blog before. Because I have decided to devote a number of post to one of my favorite students and to those looking for a teaching position –especially one at an independent school, I thought I would repost this one. There are two lessons here: 1) do not assume too much about those that are interested in you, 2) and seek a post at a place in which there is a community willing to embrace you for being you; it can be difficult if you land in an envioronment that centers its focus not on your brillances and gifts, but on making you like them. Not all places are “really” committed to diversity. As the book the Excellence of Color: Hiring in Independent Schools Noted:

People of color, be they African American, Native American, Asian, Middle Eastern or whatever ethnic group, have spent years discovering their roots, developing a keen pride in their heritage, and accepting who they are. So don’t expect the current crop of prospective faculty to fit into your conservative profile. Many of them will not, and, frankly, I don’t think they should even try! Is that shocking? Is that unacceptable to you and your clientele? Then, perhaps, diversity is really not for you. If a turban or a dashiki pants suit offends, then so will diversity! Diversity by definition implies that the status quo will be upset.

Many of you may recall this post from before and this book being on my reading list in an earlier post too; I found the early historical approach of this work to be very good and wanted my current students to start thinking about race and communities; I have driven through a number of sundown towns as noted in Loewen’s book. One challenge many minorities face is choice of residence. Educated and well-credentialed Americans are blessed with a greater range of choice when looking for a job, a place to settle, and a community to raise a family; however, this is not true for minority groups. When I finished graduate school and started looking for a teaching post, or a position in publishing, I had to be mindful of the environment my wife and I would be moving to. Questions like this emerged:  Would my neighbors and the rest of the community be receptive of my presence, regardless of my academic credentials?

Two examples that come to mind when I entered the market were Cabot, Arkansas and Memphis, Tennessee. My greatest concern when finishing graduate school was the lack of teaching positions available for history instructors. Moreover, this was compounded by the fact that I limited myself to particular courses I wanted to teach and certain types of schools I wanted to join, primarily elite and/ or mid tier level independent/ private schools. At first I limited my search to very prestigious New England boarding schools; however, those types of options only recently (past few years) became an option. Many of those boarding schools are located in very rural white communities. Thus, I naturally wondered if I would be accepted. Well, I was blessed with a number of teaching options. One such option was in Cabot, AR in the public school system. A year before entering the market, I had agreed to at least consider Cabot. Of course this was before more options were available. I clearly backed out when an upper administrator told me that I would be the Jackie Robinson of Cabot. Essentially he was saying that Cabot educational leaders had to select the right African American for this particular community. I was scared; I was scared because of the bad racial reputation Cabot had (it is on the sundown town list here). Rumors of cross burnings and various other tactics were known throughout Arkansas about this community.

In defense of Cabot, much of this is probably historical; however, it is such rumors whether a perception or reality that limits the options for minorities. Here is my Memphis example: I sent my curriculum vitae (or résumé) to a very elite private school that was conducting a national search. Let us call this school elite school X. Well, one of my teachers in college made elite school X aware of me. This teacher also encouraged me to apply. The great thing about a number of private schools is that you do not have to spend hours completing applications nor do you have to be a licensed teacher. They just want your CV. A few weeks later elite school X scheduled for me to interview with the department head and dean of faculty via phone. I was a hit. Later, I drove 2 hours to Memphis for a campus tour, departmental lunch, tons of interviews, and a nightcap with the headmaster.

I did not discover this until later, but the dean of faculty and dept. head at elite school X had no clue I was black. Better yet, they were so surprised that one current member of the faculty would later tell me how often they brought the topic up. I did suspect it was a surprise by their response to my entrance. Elite school X did offer me a position, although I would later reject it for the opportunity to start my teaching career off by teaching advanced courses at a private school in Little Rock. Please keep in mind that most students at elite school X are very advanced, which means I would have been teaching such courses anyway, just without the title. There reaction to me was scary – although not offensive.

A former student of mine is preparing to enter the market and is seeking a teaching position at a few independent schools. I have done the market thing in the past. It is exciting, stressful, and exhausting. I was telling her that the process, if it is done correctly, could be more of an endurance test. I have hit homers in the past during a campus visit, but like any good ball player, I have struck out too. My best advice is not to be nervous. I have found during my experiences that nerves can be a killer; I have seen my nerves force me into a state of uneasiness. Though I have not always accepted jobs that have been offered to me, my best campus visits have been for positions that I would have wanted, but was not going to kill myself for. Hence, you become very relaxed. On the other hand, there have been positions I really wanted that I did not get; often times, I tried too hard because I really wanted it. Thus being one’s natural state was difficult.

For those of you who have real jobs (non-academic jobs), the process is very interesting. From my own experiences, private schools like to test a candidate’s endurance. For example, on my last campus visit, the agenda had me interviewing with 6 – 7 people between 8:00 – 3:30: Speaking to the dean of faculty, dean of students, department chair, headmaster, and having lunch with the department is common. We, as do many schools, ask candidates to observe a class then teach a class later that day. Of course, candidates know in advance what they are teaching; the course is usually in their area of expertise. I do not know about the experiences of others, but I always hated the last part of the interview — meeting the headmaster. This takes place during the last hour of the endurance test. By this point, you have no more questions to ask. You are thinking about your flight or drive home as well as the number of bad questions you asked. Teaching a course is a must for many places, but tends to be a poor way of evaluating a candidate. Classes operate best once a natural rapport has transpired. This takes time.

Here is a description of a school conducting a national search for a candidate. My best advice dear student is this: Do not over prepare for the interview. Walk in knowing that hey if I get it 00 cool — but if not oh well. Assure you that it will force you to relax.

Each year, after identifying our teaching, coaching and other needs, the Dean of the Faculty along with department chairs or administrative officers will review all the appropriate resumes and schedule interviews with candidates. Interviews consist of a day-long visit to the campus to meet with all relevant school personnel (the Dean of the Faculty, the department chair, Dean of Students, Athletic Director, etc.). A tour of the campus with a student is part of the process. A class visitation and lunch with department members is scheduled. Candidates are called upon to teach a class.

I am writing this post from 30,000 feet in the air; at the conclusion of my last class Tuesday, I jetted off to the airport in order to catch a flight to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma… where I spoke to a great  group on social progress and European course construction. As the invited guest speaker, I do believe the engagement went well. When I get invitations to speak at history related conferences or offer a paper of historical interest to an attentive group, I try to stay as real with the audience as I do with my students. The great thing about my students is that they are far more forgiving of my many flaws.

Those of you that read this blog know that I have a fear of flying. I do think I have grown moved beyond this fear. I can trace my slow progress beyond this anxiety to a conference I spoke at in New Mexico two years ago….This trip was three months after I had brain surgery to remove a tumor.

Below is the original post that launched me past my fears:

This weekend Republican Representative Anh Cao, a Vietnamese American from Louisiana, voted “yes” for the recently passed health care reform bill; I am proud of Cao and others that realize just because I have health insurance, or they have health insurance… that does not mean that we should not help the many that do not have health insurance. Mr. Cao stated that he represents a poor district in which many of his constituents do not have health insurance. What is impressive is that Cao’s district is largely lower-income blacks — a population that does not vote for a party that traditionally has been anti-poor. However, Cao’s passion for doing what is best and what is right escapes both ideology and political affiliation.

Blue dog Democrats and conservative Republicans do not favor this bill. Why should they? This group represents a population of upper middle-class whites that can afford health insurance. I want the wealthy and middle class to set aside the notion of rugged individualism for a second and evaluate the day-to-day fears of driving in a car without health insurance. If one hit another car in a collision, how would that person afford the thousands it will cost them in rehab? Former American president and Constitutional framer James Madison warned against majority factions dictating the way of life for all; in this situation, the majority is made up of those who can afford health care and who are against this bill. In Madison’s Federalist Paper number 10, contends that the Constitution should guard against what he calls majority rule, hence stating that direct democracy is dangerous, thus ruling in favor of representative democracy; still, the fallacy is that a majority still lives in a representative democracy; I suspect we will hear commercials that liberals are evil, un-Christian, immoral, and communist.

But the reality is this: Liberals are not negative adjectives. In essence, we advocate for the working class, the poor, and minorities against big business. Moreover, we are  supporters of civil rights for blacks, women, and ethnic minorities against the repression of government and business. Thus we see ourselves as defenders against what Madison might call a ” direct faction.”

This post was written by a dear friend and great colleague from Arkansas. She teaches at a well-respected school and has become a star in her field of late. She teaches courses in AP European and World History, and has offered her expertise on topics related to the teaching of history at national conferences. We are in conversations about writing a paper on point of view and the teaching of world history for future conferences.  In reading this post, note her unique experience in Eastern Europe at a time in which the question of stability was a question mark. When Ronald Reagan famously challenged Mikhail Gorbachev, in June 1987 at Berlin, to “tear this wall down”, just about nobody could have guessed that the wall that separated two armies, two cultures and, more tragically, one people would indeed be brought down very soon, on 9 November 1989.

Tomorrow, the 20^th anniversary of the fall[ing] of the Berlin Wall will be celebrated.  It is amazing how quickly our world has shifted from fighting the communists to now fighting the terrorists.  In 1989, I was 14 years old, and quite oblivious to the major changes occurring in the world around me.  However, it would become much more real to me.  In the summer of 1992, I was asked to go on a mission trip to the newly transformed Russia.  We were going to spread the Good News to the “godless” people of the newly freed Russia.  Our group consisted of four adults and eight other students.  I spent countless hours memorizing the verses we were asked to learn so we could share the gospel effectively.  It sounded like a great plan and I was incredibly excited to see what changes God could make in the hearts and lives of these people.

The morning our plane was to leave, the newspaper presses were shut down in Moscow.  Panicked, we secured a row-boat and a fisherman in Helsinki that agreed to help us get out if the borders were to be closed while on our trip.  So, armed with verses and $200.00 cash for the boatman in Helsinki, we were off.  We arrived in St. Petersburg, though the signs and most maps still referred to it as Leningrad.  As our plan descended,   I quickly noticed the difference communism makes on a country.  Large pieces of planes and debris were scattered along the run way, and soldiers were strategically placed around the runway.  As we deplaned, we were required to walk through a maze of 10-12 feet high concrete walls- so as to confuse- I was told.  We emerged into a world that looked like time forgot.  Modernization that occurred after 1950 seemed to be nonexistent.  We were greeted by our Russian guide, and I was quickly told two things:  quit smiling and don’t look people in the eyes.  I was informed, “if you want to look Russian, you should behave as though you have the weight of the world on your shoulders”.

Our job was to meet up with other young students our age, and share the gospel.  I learned very quickly that this was going to be more difficult that any of us had realized.  Everyone could understand the concept of hell—they had lived that.  Yet, few could grasp the concept of heaven.  How can one accept and love God without being able to understand his rewards?  Conversion is not as was not as easy as I thought.

As so often happens, it was the people who changed me- not me that changed the people.  The last two nights that we were in St. Petersburg were spent in the homes of the friends we had made.  We were traveling on the subway with all of our gear.  I happened to look up to see a young girl holding a small bouquet of flowers.  I saw her, and smiled at her.  She immediately looked away, and I found myself embarrassed for breaking one of the rules I was told from the beginning.  In an attempt to make amends, I offered the little girl some gum.  She beamed and then took her mother’s entire bouquet to give to me.  We all laughed.  Quickly I remembered I had small gifts in my bag, nothing of any real value- crayons and coloring books, small toys, etc.  I offered those to the young girl.  Her mother wept.  I was later told the value of those small gifts were immeasurable in their current economy.  We then dumped out our bags, and began passing out all we had with us.  Jeans, tampons, house slippers.  Things that were so commonplace to us were virtually impossible to get for many.

I returned home from my trip virtually empty-handed.  We all did.  We went on a journey to try to change the lives of others, but yet, it was we who were changed.  I learned that the communists that I met were people with big hearts with huge needs.  I also learned that something as important as salvation cannot be quickly shared after merely learning a few verses.  Often it takes much more- an understanding of people’s lives- their past and their present condition.  These life lessons could not have been replicated in any classroom or experienced through reading a book.  They came as a result of seeing the world as it changed.  What an amazing gift to learn these things at the tender age of 17.

So, on this anniversary of the “fall of communism”, I must take pause.  It is important to evaluate where we were as a society.  Where are we now?  I hope we might be able to say that twenty years later, if I could go back to those who were newly freed, their ideas of hope have been fulfilled.  Maybe now, they can understand heaven.

It was great talking to a former student who is working on finding an academic teaching position at an independent school; I have no doubt that she will be in high demand as she seeks a history post; she shared with me her teaching philosophy as it relates to historical analysis; it was great talking to a former student that has a similar academic philosophy as I do. Her philosophy relates to mine in that it espouses the notion of social justice vis-a-vis liberation theology. My views reflect the importance of liberation theology as it too, though to a greater extent, promulgates both Christ and Marx. As I have stated here on my web page:

My teaching philosophy is shaped by the tenets of  Pragmatism and Reconstructionism.  It was my reading of Cornel West’s and W.E.B. Du Bois’s works as a high school, undergraduate, and graduate student that shaped my sense of intellectual and practical purpose. West’s synthesis of Christianity and pragmatism promulgated my construction of theodicy that finds its premise in the writings and thought processes of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and John Dewey. My courses look to inculcate the point of view of the oppressed and alienated class, as it is this class that has traditionally been neglected among the privileged and in the literature of study. I find the teachings of Christ and Marx to be synonymous in that both look to eradicate social vice and poverty, racism and hate, as well as greed and materialism.

The writings of Karl Marx, who focused on human oppression and alienation via the effects of capitalism, attracted the attention of academic theologians that shared similar concerns. Thus, both groups saw a combined relationship between Marxism and Christianity. Liberation theology can be outlined as such:

Liberation theologians base their social action upon the Bible scriptures describing the mission of Jesus Christ, as but bringing a sword (social unrest), e.g. Isaiah 61:1, Matthew 10:34, Luke 22:35-38 Matthew 26:51-52 — and not as bringing peace (social order). This Biblical interpretation is a call to action against poverty, and the sin engendering it, and as a call to arms, to effect Jesus Christ’s mission of justice in this world. In practice, the Theology includes the Marxist concept of perpetual class struggle, thus emphasizing the person’s individual self-actualization as part of God’s divine purpose for mankind.

My former student and I concluded that if academics and religious “folk” came to term on reaching a conclusion on how to help the poor and the oppressed, their might not be a need for true liberalism, hence, a large government. However, the reality is that in order to achieve social justice, one must depend on the federal government — as seen in the American south circa 1960 during the reign of Jim Crow.

We have been exploring the topic of Good to Great on my campus. As a faculty, we even read Jim Collins’ book as a central point of what we would like to achieve as a school and a faculty;  in doing so, a number of academic departments have traveled or will travel throughout the country to explore other top departments in hopes of working towards being one of the best schools. Houston Christian’s head of school and the board approved departmental travels for each department. Our Goal: To learn what others do well and what makes them elite at what they do. It is exciting to see that we are continuing to move in an academic direction of distinction. I honestly believe we are on the brink of being one of the more notable schools. Although I am clearly biased here, I do believe the most important quality of academic greatness is having a dynamic faculty. Elite faculty members make a school better.

Below is a note sent out by our head of school:

We certainly have a great deal to be thankful for during this season of the year and I wanted to share with you a brief note of encouragement.

Today I received a letter from the ACT on behalf of the entire school, presenting Houston Christian with the ACT 2009 College Readiness Award.  This award recognizes HC for demonstrating significant increases in ACT composite scores over the past five years while maintaining or increasing the number of students taking the ACT Assessment.  Less than 5 percent of schools across Texas receive this award, definitely a G2G move!

This continued excellence only happens when students are given access to super teachers and instruction.  Thank you for your exemplary service and for enabling HC to fulfill its Mission!

Have a great weekend!

 

We all know how I feel about Fox News. This note was circulated on my very Republican campus today; I love the person that sent it out; she is bright and professional; however, if I sent a pro-Obama and pro MSNBC note like this one — I would be called on the floor for it. As the White House  stated, I too think of Fox as the strong-arm of the Republican Party. I will run poll updates at the bottom of this post.

Vote For Fox News On  NPR  Poll
If  you do not agree with this, please disregard.  If you keep up with Fox, you will know how the White House has been at odds with them.  Please take the time to read this short note, and vote  if you are prayerfully led to do so.

If you haven’t heard this, the White House is accusing Fox News of not
being a legitimate source of news, calling them biased, etc.  They
have tried to block Fox reporters from news conferences, etc., but the
other news networks are fighting back (in favor of Fox) and caused the
White House to back down.  NPR has put a survey online for us to voice
our opinion.  If you want to vote in this survey, go to the link below
and cast your vote.  Currently it is 71% in favor of the White House,
but there are not that many votes ……… less than 2,000 all
together.  Let’s show them how we feel about honest conservative news
reporting.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/10/in_white_house_vs_fox_news_war.html

11/01  at  10:30 AM

While on a recent trip, I had to make a connection at the Memphis airport; I came across this large picture in one of the terminals while navigating my way to my next flight. I took a second to read the caption and fully look over this piece; I am a bigger supporter of Malcolm X than Martin Luther King, Jr; however, I have long grown to admire the intellectualism of King that is often lost among many. King’s complexities are at times subject to a mere conversation about his great speeches, but I believe it is his thoughts on the economy and war that are more impressive. King is heavily criticized by the Right for being an advocate for the distribution of wealth; I am not sure why that surprises so many seeing that blacks encompass a large body of the poor. King believes that the plight of  poor whites and poor blacks will create a unified construct that will push society pass the element of race and class and closer to a more egalitarian society.

Like King, Ernest Withers captured the above picture with his eye, while Robert Warsham captured the moment with his pen. Unfortunatly, as Memphis ministers and political leaders organized to end the janitorial strike, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. became the target of an unknown shooter. Thus, this pictures shows the impact of both race and class, I feature that King addresses in his writings. But, some can only see the evil and eception of King because his works are critical of wars and the exploitation of capitalism. Hence, the essay below looks at King as a mere Marxist, discounting his true contruibutions to the intellectual climate of the Academy:

We’re supposed to venerate Martin Luther King, Jr., but that’s not easy for a believer in economic liberty. Time and again, King called on us to “question the capitalistic economy” and “restructure America.”

“You see, my friends,” said King, “you begin to ask the questions, ‘Who owns the oil?’ You begin to ask the question, ‘Who owns the iron ore?’ You begin to ask the question, ‘Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that is two-thirds water?

Privately owned oil and iron ore mean rational use, whereas government-owned resources, as in the U. S. S. R., mean chaos and poverty.

Although America’s water systems – municipalized or regulated – are not exactly free enterprise in action, we have to pay for water for the same reason we have to pay for anything valuable. Fresh, clean water is scarce, and the price system ensures that it will not be squandered, while encouraging further production.

When government intervenes in the price system, as it does to sell water to agriculture at below- market rates, the result is waste, and shortages elsewhere.

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, they didn’t collectivize agriculture, but they did collectivize agricultural water distribution. Within months, there was no water at all, as centuries-old private distribution channels silted up.

Only a capitalistic water system – with private property rights in water and freely adjusting prices – can ensure that there is enough water for all who want it, instead of allocation through non-price political battles with the most powerful pressure groups winning out.

King had no use for the price system, calling it “violence” responsible for blacks paying “higher consumer prices” than whites. “Do you know,” he asked, “that a can of beans almost always costs a few cents more in grocery chain stores located in the Negro ghetto than in a store of that same chain located in the upper-middle-class suburbs?”

This led, said King, to black “disillusionment and bitterness. ” But why, unless – as a recent New York Times poll tells us is more and more the case – blacks believe their plight is the result of a white conspiracy?

In a free market, prices are set by consumers when they buy, or don’t buy, a particular product. If storeowners set prices too high, even by a few cents, competitors will make a profit by undercutting them.

The ghetto has far too little of the “cutthroat competition” King so often denounced. Non-black businessmen can be greeted with hostility; rampant street crime is a barrier to entry; widespread welfare blunts the desire to work while encouraging a short-term orientation; and government holds sway to a degree found elsewhere in this country only on Indian reservations, which are also poverty stricken.

King, however, believed in government sway, calling capitalism a system “permitting necessities to be taken from the many to give luxuries to the few. ” The “profit motive” has “encouraged smallhearted men to become cold and conscienceless.”

What was his alternative? The loss motive?

The profit motive means that resources are not systematically wasted, as under the political motive, and that innovation, entrepreneurship, and hard work are rewarded. Surely this, rather than the reverse as under socialism, is the moral system.

King claimed that the “good and just society is neither the thesis of capitalism nor the antithesis of communism, but a socially conscious democracy which reconciles the truths of individualism and collectivism.”

In fact, the good society, upon whose back big government sits like a succubus, is composed of cooperative endeavors from the corporation to the church, from the family to the university. Bureaucratic intrusion weakens and destroys these endeavors, whether it’s justified in the name of “socially conscious democracy” or any other high-sounding but low-acting construct.

King favored a “higher synthesis” – part individualism, part collectivism – as in Sweden. But one of the least-known aspects of the anti-socialist revolution has been its effect on Sweden, which has been getting poorer and poorer thanks to decades of redistributionism. Today, the people are demanding lower taxes and less government, much to the consternation of the Swedish establishment. As Ludwig von Mises demonstrated, the mixed economy is inherently unstable. It must tend towards either statism or the free market; there is no economically rational way of reconciling the two.

“When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered,” said King.

Aside from the fact that “The Giant Triplets” sounds like a companion film to “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes,” there are enough false dichotomies in that one sentence for a Congressman. Suffice it to say that it is people who build and use machines and computers, which have much im- proved people’s lives; that property rights are the most important people’s right, with their absence leading to economic fiasco; and that there’s nothing wrong with people desiring material improvements in their lives.

Naturally King disliked that engine of capitalism, the entrepreneur, whom he called responsible for “thousands of working people displaced from their jobs with reduced incomes as a result of automation while the profits of the employers remain intact.” Automation, he said, is “skimming off unskilled labor from the industrial force. The displaced are flowing into proliferating service occupations.”

The “individual capitalists of the West” also invest “huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries. “

But King was advancing a left-wing myth. Foreign investment in the third world has put bread on the tables of millions impoverished by socialist governments. That is real “social betterment.” And automation, i.e., improved technology, raises standards of living.

Electric clothes washers save homemakers much hard labor, and “cost” the jobs of laundry workers, but so what? Homemakers, and society as a whole, are much better off. And so are the laundry workers, who can get better jobs in a more prosperous society.

If automation were evil, we could ban all motorized transportation between New York and Los Angeles, and “create jobs” for drivers of horsedrawn wagons. Does anyone think we’d be better off?

Nor are service jobs less desirable than industrial, although socialists have always been partial to large industrial entities which seem easier to centrally plan, and to unionize.

“The Negroes pressed into these services need union protection, and the union movement needs their membership to maintain its relative strength in the whole society,” said King. Yet unions are organized rip-offs, using their priveleges to enrich themselves at the expense of non-union workers and businessmen. By helping bring about a centralized labor market (through minimum wages and closed shops), unions have deliberately injured unskilled workers, many of them black, by shutting them out of the market.

But King had far more in mind than unionism: “If a city has a 30% Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30% of the jobs in any particular company, and jobs in all categories rather than only in menial areas.”

To bring this about, he wanted “preferential treatment” – a racial test for hiring and firing, promotion and transfer, and all other personnel decisions. How this squared with his dream of a society based on “the content of a person’s character” rather than the “color of their skin,” he didn’t say.

Whether people were working or not, said King, there should be a government-guaranteed “minimum – and livable – income for every American family” as part of a “radical reconstruction of society itself ” Nothing else would cure America’s “interrelated flaws of racism, poverty, militarism, and materialism.”

What good can come of taking the earnings of some families by force, skimming them in D.C., and bestowing the remainder on other families? As we have seen all too clearly, welfare makes the economy less efficient, the recipients less independent, the taxed less productive, and the government bigger.

King also advocated massive federal compensation for blacks because “for two centuries the Negro was enslaved,” although “all of America’s wealth today could not adequately compensate its Negroes for his centuries of exploitation and humiliation.”

He didn’t mention that the people who would be getting the money were not the victims and the people paying it were not the perpetrators.

Race-based public policies create social conflict, and King knew it. But his answer was more government: a “federal program of public works, retraining, and jobs for all.”

The received wisdom on the Right these days is that King would have rejected the excesses of the modern civil rights movement. But that clearly isn’t the case. Indeed, David Garrow in his Pulitzer Prize-winning biography says that in private gatherings King endorsed “democratic socialism,” while making “it clear to close friends that economically speaking he considered himself what he termed a Marxist.” (Source)

The University of Mississippi has shortened its fight song, hoping to discourage fans from responding to the song with a traditional chant of “the South will rise again,” the Associated Press reported. The student government has been trying to change the chant to “to hell with LSU,” citing the way the phrase about the South rising again is offensive to some. At last week’s football game, some fans stuck wit the original chant.

I have been very busy of late finishing college letters of recommendation; I actually enjoy writing them; it gives me time to reflect on why I like teaching students. A former colleague, Joy App, sent this to me after a recent conversation we had about this topic. By policy, I do not write negative letters; however, if I cannot write one for a student, I will tell that student to seek another member of the faculty. Case in point: A few years ago I had a student that earned the highest marks on both my AP US and AP European history exam; she was bright and did good work. But, she never engaged herself  during class discussions, nor did she take time to visit me or chat with me outside of class. Because of these factors, I told her I could not write her a letter. If I did, it would say the exact same thing as her resume.

Do’s:

• Make the recommendation as specific, personal, and anecdotal as

possible

• Qualify your adjectives

• Provide specifics but not as much related to the paper he wrote on the

civil war, but rather about how he bounced back after a bad test or helped

out a sick student

• Make the recommendations more evaluative than descriptive

• Tell us what the student is like outside of class as well from your

observations

• Feel free to add a hand-written note at the bottom of the letter,

specifically addressing the candidacy for Middlebury

• Tell us how the applicant stacks up in the class or in your teaching career

• Relay the student’s involvement in class discussions and the role that s/he plays—does s/he take discussions

to the next level or play the devil’s advocate?

• Give us a reason why we should admit the student

• Maintain your credibility by not going overboard

• Include a couple of weaknesses (to make him or her sound real!)

• Take the time to write at least a page

Don’ts

• Spend half your letter telling us about your course or your credentials

• Mention the physical appearance or attractiveness of the student

• Send the same letter for many kids

• Merely provide a list of adjectives

• Write us three pages

• Report a list of the applicant’s activities since we know them already from reading the application

• Make sweeping generalizations that you do not substantiate

Remember, writing can always be misinterpreted. We leave you with some humorous one-liners we have seen

in past letters.

“I look forward to John’s final term at the school.”

“This young lady has no problems to speak of.”

“No one wants to play soccer worse than he does.”

…but are they happy, caring and well-adjusted human-beings?

My advanced Placement European history classes are examining the age of reason and the processes of political change during the Enlightenment. Though paradoxical, it is safe to say that the term Enlightenment is not for all. For all of their talk of liberation from conservatism and oppression, many philosophers such as Rousseau and Spinoza do not extend such change to women. This is said of the enlightened founding fathers of the United States, who did not extend Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence to blacks. During the Enlightenment, articles found in the Encyclopedia placed limits on women. Essentially, women were pictured as the ideal looker to please the sexual desires of men, as well as a great domestic housewife. However, there were such folks as Montesquieu and Hume that believed in the equality of  the sexes.

In class today, we read a primary document entitled The Natural Inferiority of Women, in which Spinoza contended that: “For there has never been a case of men and women reigning together, but wherever on the earth men are found, there we see that men rule, and women are ruled.” Beyond the political perspective, there is a sexual perspective, too. That is, women use sex to control men; it is here beauty and physical features that empower them to a point that men fear. Thus, in order to tame and balance the sexual prowess of women, men instituted norms and customs — such as accusing women of being witches. In The Hammer of Witches, two Dominican monks address this type of misogyny:

All witchcraft comes from carnal lust, which is in women insatiable. See Proverbs xxx: There are three things that are never satisfied, yea, a fourth thing which says not, It is enough; that is, the mouth of the womb. Wherefore for the sake of fulfilling their lusts they consort even with devils. More such reasons could be brought forward, but to the understanding it is sufficiently clear that it is no matter for wonder that there are more women than men found infected with the heresy of witchcraft. And in consequence of this, it is better called the heresy of witches than of wizards, since the name is taken from the more powerful party. And blessed be the Highest Who has so far preserved the male sex from so great a crime: for since He was willing to be born and to suffer for us, therefore He has granted to men the privilege.

Furthermore, the document states that God created women to be submissive and inferior to men, as noted again by the early teachings of the catholic Church:

But the natural reason is that she is more carnal than a man, as is clear from her many carnal abominations. And it should be noted that there was a defect in the formation of the first woman, since she was formed from a bent rib, that is, a rib of the breast, which is bent as it were in a contrary direction to a man. And since through this defect she is an imperfect animal, she always deceives . . .

But this type of inferiority can still be felt in a modern contexts. Here is a post I wrote some time ago addressing religionand gender:

Years back  there was a publication on the role of women as teachers at seminary schools. The publication stated that Sheri Klouda, professor of religion at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, was a leader in the field of Old Testament languages. Things were looking good for her seeing that she was about to earn tenure, close on a new house, and finish a paper for publication.

In 2004 president Paige Patterson of the school called Mrs. Klouda into his office to inform her that she would no longer be employed at the school. According to Paige, “only men should teach in the school of Theology.” His rational, according to the article, was drawn from this:

For Christians, the question of whether women can teach men often comes down to a single verse: 1 Timothy 2:12. The King James Version translates this way: ‘But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be silence.’

Many Christians believe this verse is instructing the church not to allow women to teach the Bible to men. Although Mrs. Klouda teaches at an institution of higher education, the Southern Baptist Association still sees it as a body of the church; however, a number of Christians believe this verse illustrates a personal preference by the author, thus it is not communicating a decree by God. Moreover, some biblical scholars contend that

Certain passages in the New Testament seem to contradict the more restrictive reading of the verse. In the book of Acts (Carson’s favorite book), a woman, Priscilla, is said to help explain the ways of God. Elsewhere, passages refer to women prophesying. In addition, Jesus’ own treatment of women appears to argue for equality in God’s eyes.

In the year 2000, the Southern Baptist Convention adopted a new statement of belief saying that only men could serve as a pastor, as stated by scripture. The president of the convention in 2000 was that of Paige Patterson, the current seminary president. This article caught my attention for a number of reasons:

1. The Church of Christ, for which I am a part of, interprets scripture very literally. The CoC does not believe that women should hold leadership positions in the church. This means they cannot teach the Bible or religion to men. I find this to be a very narrow and closed minded view. I do not support this. When I interned as a Youth Minister at Richland Hills Church of Christ, I would often ask young ladies to serve as prayer leaders — even in a room full of men. This is seen as a no…no…among members of the Church of Christ. Of course, Richland Hills CoC has a reputation for being a very liberal church. Not only does Richland Hills allow women to teach Bible classes, they have employed women to serve as ministers.
2. This is why I like teaching at Houston Christian High School. Sure, I find HCHS to be a bit conservative on a number of academic topics, but as a religious school with no connections to a denominational church, we are free to move in a number of spiritual directions. Our Bible department is chaired by a woman — Jennifer Taylor. We encourage young ladies to be leaders. They often serve as campus leaders when it comes to matters of faith. With the exception of the Foreign Language department, all of our department heads are women. I do not know much about the school’s board, but I do not think we have any females there. I am sure that will change soon — one would think.

Mrs. Klouda did leave the school. However, she has filed a lawsuit against the school seeing that her firing created a number of medical issues (no more health insurance) and relocation costs. And because there is a question regarding motive for this “no female teaching” policy, the school is also being investigated by its accreditation agency. Here is the argument:If this is a spiritual matter, why did it just emerge in Southern Baptist Seminaries? Klouda’s supporters agree that they understand why women are not and cannot serve as pastors, but it is unclear as to why they cannot teach men.

Above: I am displaying my work and campaign support for Gene in front of my Houston home.

It has been a number of years since I last took on an active role in local politics; I am working with the Gene Locke campaign for Mayor of Houston; I find this exciting because it gives me a chance to put my stamp on the current political processes here. Still, I am not in wholly agreement with all of Mr. Locke’s views, but there is something honest about his passion for working to make Houston a more vibrant place to live and work. Furthermore, he did state that he will work  to address the problems of vice and poverty that is a current issue…and one that is close to my heart. Though our current and soon to be candidate for the U.S. Senate race, Bill White, is a Democrat, Houston is a city that supported Republicans heavily at the national level. The 2008 presidential race is a break in which Obama carried Houston. This is a first in 40 years for this traditionally conservative city. I will be working the phones a bit calling on Houstonians to get out and support Locke for the November 3rd election day. Note, early voting started today.

I suspect many believe that Locke will carry the black vote due to his party affiliation and race, however, I am not sure that will be the case. Locke does cater a bit to the more conservative business community of Houston. Such facts, though, tend to be absent in the black community. See his campaign ad here:

The campus lawn outside the performing art center and mustang corral  were empty Friday morning as many students arrived early to meet various representatives from across the country.

As a school that encourages students to find a college that is a fit for them, our reputation with national schools continues to grow. Houston Christian had over 90 colleges and universities visit for our annual college fair. Schools from as far north as Maine and as far South as Tampa. It is great knowing that students are willing to leave their comfort zones and explore schools outside of the state of Texas. This was an issue at my last school in which the campus seemed to encourage students to explore the same three schools; I will not list them.

In an age in which we have seen a dramatic increase in interracial dating and marriage, this article below that I received from a friend today showcases that there are a few living in the dark ages. Read all of it here. Interracial couples in Houston are a normal sight; however, one supporting Obama is not.

HAMMOND, La. – A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have.Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

Neither Bardwell nor the couple immediately returned phone calls from The Associated Press. But Bardwell told the Daily Star of Hammond that he was not a racist.

In a day and age in which over half the population is divorced, to argue that it is any different for interracial couples is laughable.

What does equality mean? Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence purported that “all men are created equal.” However, he was not talking about blacks or the plight of the poor. Jefferson, though he permitted that his slaves be freed after his death, insisted on the matter that blacks were genetically inferior to whites. Furthermore, this international document went on to espouse the basic notion that all individuals are entitled to “inalienable rights” and henceforth are assured of equal rights. It is safe to say that what individuals make of this is “wholly” dependent on their abilities and efforts.

American society, for the most part, does not emphasize equal results or equal rewards; few Americans believe that every person should earn the same wages or hold the same amount of land. In other countries, for example, the government allocates tax dollars in order to assure that all of its members have the most basic necessity of health care. Though I understand why many fear an egalitarian system of property/wealth distribution, I am puzzled why this is a factor when it comes to universal health care. Sure, too much distribution of wages “might” advocate a system that stifles talent and limits opportunity, but such a system also assures the basic needs of those that make up its polity. Much of the American premise as it relates to one’s rights rest in the enlighten philosophy of John Locke, and later borrowed by Thomas Jefferson. Though Americans and western society heavily relate to the optimistic views of Lockean philosophy, Americans might be wiser to seek the more pessimistic writer, Thomas Hobbes… who promulgates that man has basic rights and is equal according to the laws of nature.

Furthermore, Hobbes contends that one cannot base equality according to mere size, seeing that a weaker person has the ability via technology to kill a stronger person.  I am sure we all  recall David and Goliath.Thus instruments are in place to promote equality, much like the common purpose or purported goal  of an American education. Because inequality in education exists, many minorities and rural whites do not receive the proper education needed to attend and be successful in college. Think about the number of elite private schools in the country that have a very small number of black students. Often enough, minorities and rural whites are victims of educational slavery in that they live in low property tax communities.

So, if Americans shy away from promoting absolute equality when it comes to education, it might be difficult to expect universal health care for the many that are sick and cannot afford to make basic payments; I find it interesting that the people most against it are those that can afford it. I just do not see how Americans can buy into liberty and equality on one hand, but take on a conservative action as it relates to class and healthcare on the other hand. This is a paradox to me.

Television’s portrayal of blacks has had its ups and downs, from stereotype-laden comedies like ”Amos ‘n’ Andy” to advances like the late-60’s series ”Julia,” starring Diahann Carroll. It seemed to have reached a new stage in 1984 with the premiere of ”The Cosby Show,” on NBC. The show, about a family of black professionals, the Huxtables, ran successfully for eight years, attracting a multiracial audience, often topping the ratings and spawning another successful show, ”A Different World,” about the Huxtables’ daughter, going to college and rooming with a white woman at a historically black college. The great thing about this show, of course, was that it “A Different World” painted a positive image of black colleges, one that brought about white curiosity towards schools like Hampton or Howard University.

”The Cosby Show” was criticized in some quarters for depicting a nonrepresentative upper-middle-class family, but others argued that it exhibited positive values widely held in the black community that were too often overlooked on television. It seems that the Cosby Show feared complex topics that denote a sense of realism, especially about matters important to the black community. This might have more to do with its high ratings and general popularity across both white and black audiences. Recent shows that touch on  issues reflective of black communities have not done as well. For the most part, just turn to the WB or CW, stations that portray black shows. I do recall making it a point to watch the Cosby Show every Thursday night as a young grade school student. At that time the element and complexities of race were absent from my understanding. The show seem perfectly normal to me in that it portrayed what I deemed comedy at the time; however, with age and education, one cannot help but reflect on the show, hence noting not so much of what they were doing, but rather the absence of topics that pin point the complexities of the 18980s. My most recent paper showcases an avenue of darkness that plagued black life in the 1980s as seen in the gangster lyrics of NWA and other rappers.

I started renting and borrowing old episodes of the show to see what topics were addressed and what topics were omitted. Thus far, here are a few general things noticed:

1. There was a heightened sense of racial division during the 80s, however, that division did not seem to impact the black middle class.
2. No conversations about the issue of sexuality and sexual identity with the rise of AIDS.
3. The economic downturn that hurt many Americans, especially black Americans thus far did not exist.
4. Though break dancing was a part of Theo’s culture, the complexity of artist that marked the period in a more realist genre was absent. There was talk of Michael Jackson, though.
5. The show did define the significance of religion on a few episodes, but avoided its relevance in the black community altogether.
6. Drugs thus far has not been an issue.
7. Black on black crime was a non topic.
8. Interracial dating was addressed in a positive fashion, though done so indirectly
9. There was no Cold War. Also, the general topic of politics and civil rights so far has not been seen.
10. There was no evidence of popular culture.

North Americans celebrate today, Columbus day, as a mere method of generating a great “sense” of nationalism and to promote Occidentalism via grand herofication of imperialism; I do not celebrate this day due to the historical injustices taught in schools. Thus, I will spend today in my study working as a sign of protest. How can we as historians allow such grand lies to be accepted by a population that wants to be ignorant of historical truths? Only in the United States do they call the truth about Columbus “revisionist history.” Keep in mind that states such as Arizona refused to make Martin Luther King Jr’s birthday a state holiday. Noted North Carolina’s Republican [racist] Jesse Helms once stated that “his state should not accept this federal holiday because King had not done anything important.” He also pointed out that he was a Marxist who opposed the Vietnam War. Why is it that every progressive educated black person must be a Marxist? President Reagan also opposed this holiday, too. But, Americans continue to lie about the purity of Columbus. Sounds more like jingoism than nationalism. Tyler Look, a current student of mine, sent me this article on how some schools are addressing the dark side of Columbus.

Howard Zinn’s People’s History of the United States devotes an entire chapter to this topic. Below is an excerpt stating:

… because of Columbus’s exaggerated report and promises, his second expedition was given seventeen ships and more than twelve hundred men. The aim was clear: slaves and gold. They went from island to island in the Caribbean, taking Indians as captives. But as word spread of the Europeans’ intent they found more and more empty villages. On Haiti, they found that the sailors left behind at Fort Navidad had been killed in a battle with the Indians, after they had roamed the island in gangs looking for gold, taking women and children as slaves for sex and labor.
Now, from his base on Haiti, Columbus sent expedition after expedition into the interior. They found no gold fields, but had to fill up the ships returning to Spain with some kind of dividend. In the year 1495, they went on a great slave raid, rounded up fifteen hundred Arawak men, women, and children, put them in pens guarded by Spaniards and dogs, then picked the five hundred best specimens to load onto ships. Of those five hundred, two hundred died en route. The rest arrived alive in Spain and were put up for sale by the archdeacon of the town, who reported that, although the slaves were “naked as the day they were born,” they showed “no more embarrassment than animals.” Columbus later wrote: “Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity go on sending all the slaves that can be sold.”

As a big fan and supporter and believer in what Obama is doing and will accomplish, even I was surprise to learn that he won this prestigious prize; however, if one looks at this through a different set of lens — why be surprised? He has been working to make the world a far more peaceful place. His international colleagues, even the Russians and Iranians, have nothing but praise for him. It took both Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan years into their presidency before they reached international stardom. The first president to win this was Teddy Roosevelt after negotiating a peace between Russia and Japan following the Russo-Japo War.

Some believe that Reagan should have won this award for the end of the Cold War, however, I suspect he did not due to his continual build up and escalation of nuclear arms during the mid 1980s. There are two books that examine this:

The once widely held view that Ronald Reagan stumbled his way through the end of the Cold War by sheer good luck has been shattered by two recent books—one by a conservative scholar, and the other by a liberal intellectual historian. Together, these two books, building on the work of previous scholars since the collapse of the Soviet empire, catapult Reagan to the forefront of presidential greatness. Paul Kengor’s The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, contends that Reagan’s goal of defeating communism and winning the Cold War can be traced to his early struggles against communists in Hollywood as head of the Screen Actors Guild in the late 1940s. In this fight against an attempted communist takeover of the union, Reagan was, in the words of fellow actor Sterling Hayden, a “one man battalion.”

Peter Schweizer, based at the Hoover Institution, was the first scholar to significantly make the case that Ronald Reagan deliberately set out to win the Cold War. In two books—Victory: The Reagan Administration’s Secret Strategy That Hastened the Collapse of the Soviet Union (1994) and Reagan’s War: The Epic Story of His Forty-Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism (2002)—Schweizer used interviews with some of Reagan’s national security and foreign policy staffers, national security directives, Reagan’s speeches and private correspondence, and documents from several foreign countries, to argue that Reagan intentionally abandoned détente, moved beyond a passive containment policy, and pursued a strategy of victory.