Guns & Poses

Strong character and leadership are in that category of things that are difficult to define but you know it when you see it. And you know it when you don't see it. I don't see it around the subject of guns in America.

There are certain moral imperatives anyone claiming good character and the role of positive leadership must acknowledge. A test for this is whether your decisions are for the good of the majority of people or only for a powerful minority. As the philosopher Kant's second imperative states: "Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your person or that of another, always as an end and never as a means only." Kidder and Born identify ends-based thinking for resolving ethical issues with the question, "How many people will benefit from this decision compared with other options?".

The international relationships of the United States have suffered because of distrust arising from a dichotomy: we preach the sanctity of human life but as a nation we take lives at a great pace. We say 'Do as I say, not as I do'.  The lesson we teach is those with power are entitled to set the bar for morality, an oxymoron if ever there was one.  The proliferation of weapons in this country and employed by this country grows even as we sanctimoniously proclaim to root out inhumanity around the world. We are posers. 

That a restriction of guns in the United States would save thousands of lives annually is not a debate; it is fact. That lawmakers should accept the moral responsibility to limit gun sales in this country is not a question; it is an imperative. That the presidential candidates should take a stand against gun proliferation is not a random idea; it is a moral obligation.

Consider this question with ends-based thinking: a.) Thousand of lives will be saved each year if the number of guns in America is decreased. b.) If guns become inaccessible to the majority of Americans they will experience no discernible harm as a result. The choice, it seems to me, is clear.

Guns are designed to take a life, no more, no less. The purpose of this machine is intrinsically harmful, there is no benign construction that can be attributed to it. The purpose of a gun is to kill. It is People attempt to defend their homes, but it is the guns that kill. People go to war, but it is the guns that kill. People are often careless, but it is the guns that kill them.  People become anxious or depressed or frustrated or psychotic., but it is the guns that kill others. That's what they do.

Times have changed and we need to change with them. The second amendment was written in a climate of real threats to individuals and to our young nation. Then there was a frontier full of dangers, hunting was a necessity, not a sport. States still regarded themselves as independent colonies potentially under threat not only from foreign nations but from their own newly formed central government as well as . 

No more. Today, the proliferation of guns has created dangers, not alleviated them.  And guns have evolved too. They are more efficient, more deadly. 

I write this not to engage in debate nor to present facts and figures that will prove this or that; such articles have been written many times. The issue of guns won't be swayed by statistics, it won't be determined by persuasive language. There are those who will always cling to their guns as long as law permits. And there are those who will die from them. 

This piece is about clarity. It is about putting form to what, in our hearts, we already know. To take a life is wrong. Guns take lives.  Thats what they do.

* * *

I am re-posting this piece originally published in my blog "Thoughts from Under the Palm" in awareness of the tragic and deadly school shooting today in Newtown, CT.  Its time for leaders to stand up.

Five Important Changes for Educators

Can there be any doubt now of the need for leadership and character education in our schools? When teachers and administrators in the Atlanta public schools made the decision to change student answers, to cheat on standardized tests, no more eloquent case for character education could have been made. There is plenty of blame to go around, of course. The "No Child Left Behind" program left many schools in a "Catch 22" - they had no chance to meet the standards necessary to acquire the funding to improve student achievement to meet the standards. But there is no way to tip-toe around the fact that the poor choice, the dishonorable choice, the insufficient character choice was made by those teachers and administrators who decided to cheat - no matter how they justified it.
Role modeling is the most effective teaching tool in the adult workbench. But it can be a two edged sword.
Character is truly defined during difficult times, during those times when making the right choice leads to the greatest sacrifice, when it becomes necessary to contradict the loudest voice or stand against the greatest numbers or tolerate the greatest pain. It is easy to talk the talk but not so easy to walk the walk because to do that requires great conviction and self understanding and yes, education. Like everything else that is done well, it must be taught. And so I suggest as the first most important change for educators that Educators must decide to teach character, every day, and in every class. We can't wait for the school to decide to emphasize this area or to assume it will be taught by the next teacher during the next hour. Character will not become important to kids until they see that it is important to adults in their world, all the adults. Students will be convinced of this only when character must be taught in every teacher's personal kingdom, their classroom. Character education is developmental, it needs to be taught over time in bits and bytes at each level of student readiness. A curriculum to coordinate the effort is very helpful, but then…any effort is better than none at all. But Educators must study the brain. If every teacher is in tune to when developmental doors open and close a character curriculum might almost construct itself. After all, what are teachers teaching if not the brain? And how can we teach all of these young brains if we do not understand how they work? And of all teaching levels,the teachers of preadolescent students most need to understand brain development, how the brain functions, and brain individuality. Teachers must become experts in brain science and current in brain research, always ready to apply new understanding and flexible enough to leave behind those traditional ideas that research suggests do not work well.
And this means that Educators must look at time in new ways. The traditional time frames for teaching specific subjects within the day may in fact not be optimal for best assimilation. Evidence has shown that exercising at the beginning the day, specifically by accelerating and sustaining the heart rate with aerobic exercise before classes transforms the brain for peak performance. And that the time usually set aside for sports, the two pm to four pm period, is particularly beneficial for memory consolidation that occurs during sleep the following night and might better suit classes that benefit most from that. Further, it is established that adolescents experience a change in their circadian clock, one that naturally postpones sleepiness for an additional full hour at night. To prevent a sleep deficit and the accompanying learning impediments, an hour of extra sleep should be added each morning. This seldom happens and constitutes an additional struggle for many teens during the most critical educational period of their lives.
Once attuned to the idea of aerobic exercise preceding the studies for the day, we see that Educators need to promote exercise as a priority over organized competition. Now, there is no doubt that this is a hot button topic. The cultures of many schools, particularly private schools, are seriously invested in competitive teams. But competitive athletics has its place and its limits, particularly for pre-adolescent children. Beyond injury concerns, it devours huge amounts of time and is often not a satisfactory conduit for exercise for all but the best, who get to play the most. Such teams should be voluntary, end of day opportunities for dedicated athletes. The other students should be encouraged to play or pursue individual interests.
Finally, Educators must remember that male and female brains are indeed wired differently. Research has established that boys and girls are wired to behave differently socially, intellectually, and physically or, as researches view it, they have significant genetic, neuroanatomical, and behavioral differences. In brain formation, scientists have found large differences in the prefrontal cortex, the limbic system, and the amygdala (larger overall in men than in women, women functioning with the left and men with the right). Biochemically, men produce far more seratonin than women. Larry Cahill's research has demonstrated that men and women under stress recall memories in very different ways, women in detail and men with the 'gist'. Girls learn in a verbal social context, men less so. Hierarchal status behavior patterns in girls tend to be verbal and persuasive, boys physical and direct. When teaching, the emotional and social underpinnings of class involvement can not be ignored. Certain subject matter might best be taught to mixed genders while other subjects might best be taught by separating genders. Educators must be clever observers and utilize the autonomy and the flexibility to vary from stereotypical, traditional approaches.
By now the reader has observed that the five areas described above are in actuality all part of a symbiotic process in which attention to one part will necessarily stimulate change in another. The much maligned educator of today, restrained by the bonds of unrealistic expectations, time-worn infrastructure, and misguided mechanisms can break free only through an individual effort to understand how they teach what they teach to whom they teach.  

First published in "Thoughts from under the Palm" 

Telling, Showing & Doing

In my piece about character in Independent School Magazine (Winter, 2012) I talk about teaching the values, behaviors and skills for good character in a tribal way, where all role models consider themselves to be a stake holder and thus ultimately responsible in small or large part for the development of the young person in their midst. Once so committed, we inevitably teach a child in three basic ways; 1. by telling, 2. by showing, and 3. by doing.

By far the most difficult of the three is doing. And so it comes as no surprise that this is the most effective method as well. It is difficult because it requires commitment. It is effective because when the student sees that you walk the walk he/she knows you mean what you say.

It has been my experience, and not only in education, that most people can tell…and many people can show…but very few actually do. Beware. You can not fake doing. If you do not believe enough to do, if you do not continually strive to perfect those qualities in yourself that you teach , you become transparent, and cannot gain the respect necessary to teach effectively.

This in essence is why the subject of character is so difficult to teach in a school setting. While teaching math or english, for example, follows a well charted path there is less disagreement about the content of teaching character. When it comes to a hierarchy of values, there can be great division. Further, there is a natural reluctance to seem to impose one's own value structure upon others. Nor should we. What we should be teaching is that personal values constantly evolve and grow, just as relationships evolve and grow, and as empathy and spiritual understanding grow. The important part is to have them - to stand for something beyond yourself.

Doing is the downfall for many. Politicians are particularly prone and attempt to overcome a lack of doing by a greater volume of telling. Some are very gifted tellers. But ultimately, they are transparent.

Teachers can be very effective showers by the nature of their craft, which may involve pointing out individuals who have done or are currently doing that which the teacher is telling. It is doing once removed, effective but not as effective as doing it oneself - that is, role modeling.

In a family you must do what you tell, there can be no deception. Here the relationship with the teller is intimate, therefore what you do is a more effective method of instruction. In the tribes of our antecedents, where each member relied implicitly upon what the other would do for their own personal safety, this was true. Since that time layers of distance have grown between teacher and student that make it more difficult to discern that the teller is doing. In a typical public school a student might have eight teachers and sit in a class of thirty students. Here doing on the part of the teller is not easily demonstrated.  When a candidate for state or national office tells, the many layers of time, distance, and are an impediment to seeing that candidate actually doing.

But now we have Google and Bing and search engines that by the touch of a key can expose doing, for good or ill. Even on a global scale transparency is now a threat to tellers who are not doers. It is why middle east dictators are so concerned about eliminating social media from their countries.

Ultimately, I suppose the best attitude is the one illustrated by those three little monkeys; see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, but in terms of character education, it is best to do it if you intend to tell it.

Commentary by Rich Gamble