by Tyler Laws-Mahe

As society asks questions about the importance and place of gender, we can all consider what stereotypes are worth keeping and what are damaging.

Introduction

State bills targeting transgender individuals have initiated questions about gender in sports and the interplay between the religion of healthcare providers and the transgender status of patients. Early actions by the Biden Administration have expanded government support for sexual and gender minority individuals, and they have included the largest number of out LGBTQ+ individuals into a presidential cabinet in history. Recent Supreme Court cases have expanded same-sex marriage and LGBTQ+ protections in the workplace to the entire country. Every year, Pride Month becomes more mainstream and celebrated by a greater number of people.

For many people, these changes and debates are a great source of joy. For others, these changes are a source of concern. Perhaps you have an understanding of sex and gender that doesn’t match what society is now saying, or maybe you’re part of a political or religious organization whose official positions on sex and gender don’t match what you hear from other sources. Both of these reactions are normal. The current movement regarding sex and gender is the result of activism and action from millions of Americans who have felt left behind by society. For them, changes in policy regarding sex and gender are a triumph and liberating. For those who have felt included and comfortable in society’s framework for sex and gender, change can be unwanted or viewed as unnecessary.

I believe that there is good in keeping what has been working for us and examining what hasn’t worked. What goes in each category will be different for each of us, which is part of living in a democracy. I would argue that even if you’re someone who has established views on sex and gender and sees no need for change or debate, there is still space for you to examine what these ideas mean to you and consider if there is room for improvement. With change, there is opportunity for growth and reflection.

The Meaning of the Genders

A big question being asked is, “What does it mean to be a man or a woman?” Think about how you would answer that question for a moment. I’m confident many people would answer the question using chromosomes or genitalia. However, we have all been told that specific actions are for one gender only. We have all been exposed to the phrases “… is for girls,” “A real man does/(n’t) …,” or “Boys will be boys.” What have you been told is only for girls or only for boys? Often, boys have been told that they should be the primary breadwinner for their family, be into sports like football, have rippling muscles, be tall; have an interest in trucks, dinosaurs, and superheroes; have great sexual prowess; and like the color blue. Likewise, girls have been told they should be stay-at-home moms, cook, clean, be into shopping and fashion, have an hourglass body shape, guard their chastity closely, and like the color pink. Some of these things are harmless but not all of them. Do any of these gender qualities stand out to you as potentially hurtful? Do you feel like the qualities listed for your gender describe you well?

One example of harmful gender qualities is those regarding body shape. Women are told that being a woman means having a tiny waist with a large chest and hips, whereas men are told that being a man means having large and imposing muscles. However, we know that bodies come in all shapes and sizes, and individuals who firmly identify with a specific gender identity may not match this “ideal.” For one man, large muscles come naturally, due to genetics, and grow quickly when he visits the gym, whereas another man may have naturally smaller muscles that require a lot of work and commitment to grow in size. Ultimately, all our bodies have their preset ideals and have many internal mechanisms to maintain that preset. Having an ideal tied to gender is damaging. The push for women to be thin leads to anorexia and eating disorders1 and is particularly harmful to women with naturally larger bodies. Likewise, the push for men to be muscular leads to muscle dysmorphia2, a less commonly understood psychological condition that creates poor body image in men and an all-consuming drive to be more muscular. Both of these conditions lead to dangerous, life-threatening behaviors and negatively impact the health of the individuals affected. These conditions stem from social beliefs about what it means to be a man or a woman, and deserve to be reconsidered.

Interacting With Those Who Disagree

Another question we should ask about sex and gender is, “How should we treat people whose way of presenting gender doesn’t match what we expect?” Part of the answer involves looking at gender critically, the way we did in the last two paragraphs. Suppose someone’s behavior or appearance doesn’t make sense to you because of their gender. In that case, it is helpful to take a step back and consider if said behavior is an unchangeable fact about gender. Consider, for example, the expected gender roles in the household. If you encounter an opposite-sex marriage where the woman makes the most money, and the man spends the most time cooking and taking care of the kids, is that bad? Some people may not like this arrangement in their life and choose to avoid it. For others, however, this arrangement makes sense. Women are just as capable of having a good job as men, and men are just as capable of raising kids as women. As long as the family’s needs are being met, a situation like this is not harmful and doesn’t deserve condemnation from others.

It is also essential to be empathetic. Whereas chromosomes and genitalia may fit into two cleanly defined boxes for you, that may not be the case for everyone else. Creating a body in the womb is a beautifully intricate process, and each step is an opportunity for the process to go in a different direction. Individuals who reject your idea of gender may do so because their body doesn’t reflect the truths you see in your body or because they don’t fit very well into the two boxes that gender provides. Falling outside of the “gender boxes” can be very difficult and lonely, and showing empathy to these individuals can significantly help their mental health and self-image.3 When you see or meet someone who doesn’t look like you, remember that they’ve lived a different life than you and are likely happy with the way they are presenting their truth.

Conclusion

The United States is a dynamic country. We have seen more extensive changes in all aspects of our lives in the last two hundred years than we have seen in the two thousand years before that. Many of these changes have led to significant improvements in equality, health, engineering, leisure, and so forth. This race forward means great change, and what was common and unquestioned years ago may come up for debate. As we debate and determine what direction we are going, always be curious and ask questions. When it comes to sex and gender, it is good for us to ask if we have been viewing sex and gender in the healthiest and most accurate light. As with anything else we do in our lives, our goal should also be improvement, refinement, and building a better nation for all of us.

1. Sharan P, Sundar AS. Eating disorders in women. Indian J Psychiatry. 2015;57(Suppl 2):S286-S295. doi:10.4103/0019- 5545.161493.
2. Leone JE, Sedory EJ, Gray KA. Recognition and treatment of muscle dysmorphia and related body image disorders. Jathl Train. 2005;40(4):352-359.
3. Research Brief: Accepting Adults Reduce Suicide Attempts Among LGBTQ Youth. The Trevor Project. https://www.thetrevorproject.org/2019/06/27/research-brief-accepting-adults-reduce-suicide-attempts-among lgbtq-youth/. Published June 27, 2019. Accessed June 30, 2021.
   

by Zachary Beyler

When I first sat down to write this article, its focus was on the free exercise and establishment of religion. I had almost finished it, but I felt that it lacked weight and significance even to myself. And, if such was the case for me, the author, then surely it would be so for you, the reader. Instead, I have chosen to open a discussion on a topic which has been the focus of my own thoughts this week, and a regular presence on my mind for a long time. Though here at the Civility Initiative, we focus more on political discussions, this one is more religious in nature. I find that the principles which we try to explore here have particular application on this topic, however. Though the events discussed here are specific to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, they have general application to all people of faith, and so I invite all to read and participate in the discussion. I wish to explore the dilemma faced by both members of the LGBTQ community and orthdox Christians with respect to active religious life.

Earlier this week, an address by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the faculty of Brigham Young University (BYU) in Provo, Utah, caught national attention. For those who are unfamiliar with either the situation specifically or the dynamic of the Church and University, I will briefly explain. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a worldwide Christian church with some 16.5 million members. Members of the Church pay tithing (ten percent of their monetary increase) to the Church in order to fund church buildings, temples, etc. One of the major benefits of tithing is private universities, the tuition of which institutions is subsidized by the tithes of church members. This makes the tuition for students of the university extraordinarily affordable, especially in an era of rising education costs. Students sign and live by an “honor code,” committing to live their life by a pre-determined set of standards, including the Church’s “law of chastity,” which prohibits both extra-marital sexual relations and homosexual relationships.

As the consensus in the United States moves towards equality for people of all creeds, races, and orientations, BYU has seen an increase in pro-LGBTQ activity, particularly among its student body. In an address to the BYU faculty on the 23rd of August Elder Holland discussed the future of BYU. I advise everyone to read or listen to the address in its entirety in order to have an unfiltered or predisposed bias entering into this conversation. Elder Holland pointed out that both faculty and students are bound to their commitment to live the honor code and the doctrines and beliefs of the Church:

If we are an extension of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, taking a significant amount of sacred tithes and other precious human resources, all of which might well be expended in other worthy causes, surely our integrity demands that our lives be absolutely consistent with and characteristic of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

He also mentioned that many parents and members of the Church have written to the leaders of the Church (who are also the university’s trustees) and expressed concern with the recent pro-LGBTQ demonstrations on the campus. Elder Holland’s remarks suggested the necessity of maintaining the principles of the Church at the university, and fulfilling its mandate of being a consecrated university committed to educating disciples of the Savior.

However, Elder Holland’s remarks were at best controversial, and at worst harmful to many people who experience same-sex attraction. Quoting both President Dallin H. Oaks and the deceased Neil A. Maxwell (fellow leaders in the Church), Elder Holland referred to those members of the Church early in its history who, under duress of outside persecution, built their temples with a trowel in one hand and a musket in the other. Elder Holland’s intended message is clear: those students and faculty of BYU must build up the university while protecting it from those things which are contrary to the Church’s teachings. To members of the Church, BYU is a university where education and spiritual exaltation meet, and it is to be a place which is separate from the world.

The unintended effect of the “musket analogy” does not take a stretch of the imagination for even the most devout of Elder Holland’s supporters to perceive. My conversations with friends who are members of the LGBTQ lead me to believe that the employment of the musket analogy names them as enemies, sinners, and destructors and disturbers of God’s kingdom on earth. Many members of the Church will undoubtedly take Elder Holland’s message that way as well. The use of the musket analogy by Elder Holland proved to be such a controversial inclusion in his remarks that much of what else he said has been overshadowed and ignored. For example, he discussed the fact that “[. . .] I and many of my Brethren have spent more time and shed more tears on this subject than we could ever adequately convey to you this morning, or any morning. We have spent hours discussing what the doctrine of the Church can and cannot provide the individuals and families struggling over this difficult issue.” He acknowledged the difficulty of the situation and his own sorrow for those who sorrow. But here we stand, yet again, at a point of division and sadness.

The intent of our words in any situation is very often not delivered with tact, or, even when it is, does not alleviate the hurt which the recipient feels. My understanding of Elder Holland’s intent in his address cannot – it does not – diminish the very real fact that people are hurting because of his comments. And more harmful by far, I think, than Elder Holland’s address has been the vitriolic response which has been moving around social media these past few days. These responses include derisive names, calls to arms against LGBTQ community members, and derogatory memes. So much arguing. So little empathy.

Though I cannot possibly comprehend the depth of emotion experienced by members of the LGBTQ community, I am certain that at the very least, they are struggling so much because they feel that their dignity and value have been stripped from them. By being, as I mentioned, labeled as enemies of the Church and of God (even if that was not the intent, that is still how the message is often received), they feel as if they are hated and downtrodden. We cannot invalidate those feelings. When same-sex marriage was legalized, it was done largely on the basis of preserving human dignity.

By statute, they [Obergefell and Arthur] must remain strangers even in death, a state-imposed separation Obergefell deems ‘hurtful for the rest of time” [. . .] This couple [DeBoer and Rose] seek relief from the continuing uncertainty their unmarried status creates in their lives [. . .] their [DeKoe and Kostura] lawful marriage is stripped from them whenever they reside in Tennessee [. . .] Dekoe, who served this Nation to preserve the freedom the Constitution protects, must endure a substantial burden.

Those plaintiffs who appeared before the Supreme Court felt they had been robbed of their dignity. They felt they were lesser beings. They felt ostracized and hurt. We could not invalidate the feelings of the plaintiffs, and we cannot invalidate the feelings of the LGBTQ community now. I cannot invalidate those feelings.

Thus we come to the dilemma that many prthodox Chrsitians face. For  just as much as I cannot deny the struggles of the LGBTQ community in orthodox Christian religions, I do not believe that I can decry the Church’s teachings as false. It is not my prerogative to challenge Church doctrine, and I believe that God has given us commandments which cannot be set aside. That is the dilemma that I face.

To all members of the Church, to all Christians and people of all faiths, I ask the following questions. Is it possible to love those who are LGBTQ and support the teachings of the Church? How can we do that, if so? To those who are LGBTQ, I would ask, what can we do to help you in your times of difficulty? And is it possible for us to find a middle ground on this topic? Is it possible for those in the Church to defend its teachings and still befriend members of the LGBTQ community? How can it be done? I can start by empathizing with those people who feel ostracized. I believe empathy, compassion, and charity are the great keys to friendship and love. As I have stated, I do not have the answers. I am willing and eager to listen to suggestions, to complaints, and to learn. I wish for peace among all of us, and for goodwill and love to abound. I have spent many hours over the last few days dwelling on this topic. I wish to have an honest and open discussion on it. I welcome your comments below. I would ask, in the spirit of our Civility Initiative, that we refrain from demeaning words, from logical fallacies, from harsh language. I hope that this is a profitable moment for us.

Despite not having all of the answers, I can at least make this promise: That I as a straight member of the Church, cannot possibly comprehend the pain and sorrow which those members who feel same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria experience. Neither can I put that pain aside, or ignore it, because as a Christian who believes in a loving God, I am bound not just by my religious beliefs but by my own conscience to stand with those who mourn and to comfort them as best as I can. I will talk with them, laugh with them, cry with them if they need it, and love them still the same. In my commitment to love God and keep His commandments, I will likewise remember His second commandment: to love my neighbor as myself. Although I am not in the same position as members of the LGBTQ community who may feel torn between their faith and their identities, I do know that I would want someone to be my friend if I were. I would want someone to be there for me. And so I will do that. I will listen without judgment or disdain. It does not matter to me what people wish to do with their lives;  all may do as they please without fear of my condemnation, and with a surety that I will love them still the same.

To all my acquaintances, friends, and especially to those who feel they cannot name me as a friend, I wish to express my love. To think of your pain, even in as inadequate a way as I am capable, makes my heart heavy and my stomach churn. I wish you the best, my thoughts are with you, and I pray that you will find peace. I wish for us all to have more compassion for and empathy with each other, even in our disagreements. May these conversations be the first steps.

In the last two weeks, there have been countless articles, social media posts, and news releases on the situation that has unfolded in Afghanistan. I think every type of shock, outrage, regret, and sorrow has been expressed throughout the world wide web.

The initial shock centered around the fact that America’s military withdrawal was so poorly planned, especially since our nation is supposed to have one of the most powerful militaries in the world. Then came the distress that the country of Afghanistan could fall apart so quickly to a terrorist organization, which the Afghan armed forces largely put up so little resistance too. (not all the forces, if you want to be truly depressed, look up what’s happened with the Afghanistan special forces) Then came the sorrow for the Afghan people who desperately were trying to get out of the country. I know I watched with morbid fascination as C-17’s flew out of Kabul filled to the brim with refugees and sometimes even with people clinging to the wings or landing gear of the planes.

In particular it was interesting watching people I know talk about the various issues and crises that have arisen across the whole Afghanistan situation. The most interesting discussion to me was what should be done for the people of Afghanistan, by the US, by surrounding nations, and by themselves.

Watching the narrative be told was fascinating. Initially it seemed to be one of wanting to help, people were incredulous that so little help had been done for those who had helped the American forces in the country for the last many years. As it sunk in that these countless Afghan refugees were fleeing the country and would need new homes, the tune seemingly changed instantaneously from one of what can be done to it’s not our problem. The narrative abruptly turned into an anti-refugee one from multiple major news outlets. In particular, one news outlet put out stories within days of each other, one calling for someone to aid these fleeing people, one decrying the dangers of allowing refugees into the states. Literally, the story changed within 48 hours.

The most disheartening thing to me though has been seeing how fearful people are. Why are so many Americans afraid that these many refugees pose such a great threat to our way of life. These Americans are threatened for a variety of reasons such as nationalistic beliefs, fear of future potential terrorists attacks, or simply the unknown. I like to believe that our society is strong enough to withstand the sudden influx by people not familiar with this way of life. It’s not like the Chinese, German, Irish, or the other immigration waves came to the country and were immediately able to integrate. America, at least in the past, was the country built on immigrants and refugees and it seems like we have a great opportunity now to uphold the promise of the Statue of Liberty. It’s commonly said that America is a great mixing pot of all cultures, ethnicity's, and peoples, so why does adding some Middle Eastern flavor strike so many people with fear?

I think the answer to that lies in what the average American has been consuming. That is the creed of America first, which is a disgrace to the countless men and women who have sacrificed so this country can be filled with those “yearning to be free”.

America’s citizens and politicians should realize by now that we can’t just prop up countries and force them to live and follow the ideals that we’ve set and follow. It didn’t work in Vietnam, it didn’t work in Iraq, and it didn’t work in Afghanistan. (and it didn’t work in the countless dictators we propped up during the Cold War) Democracy doesn’t work in every culture and society.

Simply put, America’s form of democracy does not work everywhere in the world. (some say it doesn’t work here either but that’s an entirely different discussion) What America can do though is be the best example of itself possible. We can live up to the bold words on the Statue of Liberty that seem to speak about what this country’s policies should be towards refugees.

This past week I was surprised and proud of how Spencer Cox, the governor of Utah responded to the plight of Afghanistan’s refugees. Gov. Cox is a Republican, he leads a very conservative state. (It hasn’t had a Democrat governor since 1985, and hasn’t voted for Democrat presidential candidate since 1964) In recent years, republicans have largely become the America First party, and often that includes anti-immigration as well as anti-refugees stances. Yet, Gov. Cox turned away from the Trumpian (really nationalistic beliefs) beliefs that have taken over that party and essentially told President Biden, that Utah wants to help these Afghanistan refugees and is willing to help refugees as needed.

Not exactly a sentiment that seems to be shared by many of the popular conservative talking heads. While no significant action (to my knowledge) has been taken yet to accept or help actual refugees in Utah, the signal of wanting to help is massive, and we’ll have to see in the coming weeks whether Gov. Cox holds to his word or if it was just, “nice” sentiment.

Being from Utah, I know a lot of Utahns. (not on the grand scale, but most of the people I know, do tend to have lived in the state) I regret to say, a significant portion of those I know don’t seem to share Gov. Cox’s belief that Utah is a good place to settle refugees, Afghani or not.

One man I know posted on a social media account a picture of a C-17 filled with Afghani citizens with the caption, “Do you want a plane of these people coming to live in your state?” Then in the comments (the post had a highly spirited political debate) he expressly stated how he did not want these people in a city near him, or even his country. Many people defended them, or simply answered his question with some resounding “Yes” responses, but there were still a number of people who agreed with my acquaintance. They made comments that these people “wouldn’t appreciate our way of life”, or they “could be plants from the terrorists”, or simply “they don’t belong”.

Thankfully, Utah’s elected governor has more compassion and empathy than any of the callous individuals who were commenting on this post. At its core, America has always been a country of peoples who have become displaced. From the earliest settlers, the immigrants and refugees fleeing to the US have largely come from wars, persecutions and natural disasters. While unfortunately the US has created their own refugees, most notably our treatment of the Native Americans, this country should be the land that welcomes those who are wanting to find a better life. If there’s any real takeaway from this article I’d hope it’s this: America is a land of people who are free and who just want to live. There’s not a single “American lifestyle” because this should be the land of any lifestyle (with the obvious exceptions of when a lifestyle creates harm in others or for oneself), even those we don’t necessarily understand.

Not only is this country a home and safe haven for countless refugees and immigrants  (as well as their descendants), it also has benefited enormously from these travelers. Bringing in individuals from around the world means bringing the strengths and abilities from all the various cultures of these refugees. America certainly has benefited from immigration (most notably, Einstein was a refugee and made significant advances in science to the benefit of all)

So maybe instead of focusing so much on how big of a disaster the withdrawal was and how much went wrong, it’d be nice to focus on how we can make it better. The first step should simply be getting those in danger at the Kabul airport to safety, and allowing them to simply go back to living their lives. It’s up to Americans to be the example and show the merits of democracy, of our culture, and our way of life and allow others to join us in it (via all the various importing of people process’s). The Afghanistan situation is still unfolding, but hopefully we’re able to learn the lessons for good from this situation, and become a little bit wiser in policy decisions for the future.

Disclaimer: This article was written prior to the attack on Kabul on 8/26/2021

Recently, I was visiting some friends in Eastern Idaho for the 4th of July. While on our way to celebrate and enjoy the day's festivities, we piled into the back of a pickup truck. As I got in I noticed on the back of the truck was a red, white, and blue bumper sticker that read “Freedom Isn't Free.” As I reflected on this saying, I realized that although this phrase reads fairly straightforward it is widely misunderstood.

The reality is that many of the freedoms we enjoy in the United States today did not come freely. They came about as the result of individuals sacrificing some level of individual freedom in order to promote and advance our communities and our nation. From Independence Hall to the sandy beaches of Normandy to the release of the life changing polio vaccine, millions of Americans have made tremendous individual sacrifices to create the best future possible for their posterity and for the United States. Once again, America finds itself in the middle of another decisive moment as the COVID-19 pandemic rages on. Americans are being asked to assist in ending the pandemic by getting vaccinated. However, unlike many of the previous battles our country has faced, health and political leaders have faced an unusually high amount of antagonism from Americans who refuse to get the COVID-19 vaccine.

Why Do Americans Push Back Against The Vaccine?

Concerns regarding the different forms of the COVID-19 vaccines and whether people should get vaccinated have mostly centered around one belief: the United States government and American businesses should not force Americans to be vaccinated.

There are certainly many valid concerns that fuel this belief, but here are a select few I have observed.

First, forcing people to follow a regimen or policy that they’re not naturally inclined to follow tends to increase hostility between opposing sides on the issue and is very likely to reinforce the beliefs (here’s an interesting article that touches on this concept) of those who are scared of getting vaccinated that there is a malicious intent behind pushing vaccinations.

Second, there is no such thing as a perfect vaccine—no matter how hard vaccine developers work or try, there will always be a potential (however small or big that may be) for side effects. As a result, many Americans (myself included) will face or have faced some level of anxiety about getting vaccinated. Recent incidents that coincided with the administration of the COVID-19 vaccine, such as blood clotting that was found in 6 recipients of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, have further fueled the vaccine debate.

Third, the increased use of social media and the increase of political polarization have made it almost impossible to have civil dialogues about COVID-19. As a result, when legitimate questions or concerns come up that are controversial, the average American tends to remain silent on critical issues and never get their questions answered because they want to avoid politically charged conversations. The rise of polarization and dehumanization has been touched on extensively in previous Civility Initiative articles, but this cannot be understated in the role it’s played in COVID-19! One other important side note on this point, whatever the intentions of censorship in regards to COVID-19, censoring messages that do not coincide with the mainstream thinking (such as the controversial Plandemic documentary or the press conference held by physicians from Texas about hydroxychloroquine being the cure for COVID-19) is arguably more harmful than good according to this article by Pew Research.

Four, above all else, most people who are against the vaccine believe that forcing or requiring vaccination invades individual freedoms. If we allow the government to have too much of a say in personal matters such as vaccinations, we could potentially create a situation where the government is given too much power that we, the American people, can never take back.

Why Do Americans Push For Getting The Vaccine?

As millions of Americans push against vaccines, it’s important to acknowledge that there are millions of Americans who are pushing those around them to get vaccinated. Naturally, this creates a divide as both sides are seeking support from the government for their cause. As of early August, almost 60% of eligible Americans have completed or begun the COVID-19 vaccination process. However, according to herd immunity statistics, the number of vaccinated Americans must get much higher in order for COVID-19 spikes to no longer be a reoccurring issue. This is what the pro-vaccine group of Americans hang their argument on—the only way for the U.S. to collectively move past the pandemic and protect those with comorbidities and immunocompromised systems is for Americans to get vaccinated.

There are dozens of reasons why this belief is supported. I’ll only list four here.

First, COVID-19 resurgences are bound to happen. For example, as the news has covered, the state of Georgia is having significant issues with COVID-19 shutdowns right now. Just recently, the Talbot County School District closed within the first week of opening. Add that to the current outbreak of COVID-19 being seen in the southeast part of the United States (such as Florida), the possibility of hospitals and medical workers becoming overwhelmed again is very possible. The more stressed and overworked our healthcare providers are, the more all patients are affected by the pandemic.

Second, as seen over the past 18+ months of analyzing the coronavirus, it seems there is only one thing we can safely say about it. It’s unpredictable. It’s unpredictable in who it’ll affect and how long each outbreak will last. Furthermore, additional items remain unclear, such as how long does natural immunity last and how many times can someone catch COVID? As the virus mutates and adapts and as vaccination levels remain mostly the same in many states, the chance for the effectiveness of the vaccine to be reduced increases.

Third, getting the vaccine allows society to return to pre-COVID conditions at an accelerated rate. Several studies by health groups around the globe are finding that the COVID-19 vaccines not only protecting those vaccinated from the virus but also prevent and reduce the asymptomatic spread of the virus. As more and more people get vaccinated, the coronavirus could literally become the new afterthought in the world of medicine, much like polio now is in today’s modern medicine.

Four, while those against the vaccine focus on individual freedoms, those for the vaccine are focused on collective freedoms. For example, by getting vaccinated, individuals will be able to visit other states and countries with a substantially lower risk of bringing COVID-19 back home. This idea of collective freedoms and vaccines lines up well with the philosophical concept of the social contract, or the belief where members of a society sacrifice individual freedoms for state protection. Examples of this could include getting a driver’s license or registering your vehicle to help create a more accurate vehicle database for your state, or paying taxes to help pay for critical infrastructure needs. The overwhelming principle of this belief is that a small sacrifice brings about a significant freedom that one could not achieve or reach individually.

What’s The Solution To Overcoming COVID-19 & The Vaccine Debate?

The debate between individual freedoms versus collective freedoms is tricky. Whatever solutions we pursue for ending COVID-19 must acknowledge that. Besides that, it’s critical to acknowledge that any sort of vaccine mandate by the federal government will be met with skepticism and will further antagonize those who are against or uncomfortable with getting the vaccine.

The best hope for ending the pandemic is to: 1) continue encouraging those who are unvaccinated (except for those with significant medical conditions) to get vaccinated, 2) let businesses decide for themselves what they’ll do to handle COVID-19, and 3) lean on the federal government to create incentives to encourage businesses and individuals to get vaccinated.

Regarding encouraging those that we know to get vaccinated, it’s totally understandable that it feels easier to avoid the subject than confront it when there’s a sense of disagreement. Finding the courage to tell friends and family members to get vaccinated is difficult and can sometimes be very uncomfortable. Considering my personal experience of being part of a group - known as Crush The Curve Idaho - I have had many conversations with close friends that have been very, very painful. I have personally been confronted by those who have told me that I was helping to kill people by assisting with them getting the COVID-19 vaccine, I have had friends who no longer talk to me because of our disagreements on the pandemic and I have had many moments of feeling incredibly discouraged because I feel my contributions are not moving the needle in increasing vaccine rates to end this pandemic. Despite those feelings, I do my best to focus on the fact that I’ve personally been able to help tens of thousands of people get critical access to COVID-19 testing, assisted with vaccinating over 5,000 Idahoans, and helped give critical COVID-19 health information to hundreds of Idahoan businesses. Wherever you may be and whatever you may be doing, please continue to encourage those around you to get vaccinated. Avoid those feelings of anger, frustration or discouragement and focus on the lives you’ve helped to improve and potentially save. Because if you don’t, who will?

Besides the efforts of individuals encouraging friends and family members to get vaccinated, businesses can also be incredibly instrumental in increasing vaccine rates. For example, recent policies have been enacted by medical groups across the country to require all of their staff to get vaccinated. This was not a decision forced upon these hospitals by the federal government but rather a choice made by their business leadership due to customer concern about the COVID-19 virus. As the most vulnerable get vaccinated, they receive an increased level of protection from the coronavirus. However, this won’t be enough to protect them sufficiently from becoming ill due to COVID-19 and if vaccine levels are low enough among hospital employees it could affect whether or not their customers will come in for check ups and medical procedures during the pandemic. From a business standpoint, requiring or heavily encouraging employees to get vaccinated will increasingly become the best strategy for allowing businesses to stay open.

Furthermore, the quicker businesses can get their employees vaccinated, the quicker conditions in the workplace can return to pre-COVID conditions (let’s be honest, I think most of us have grown tired of the Zoom experience). When possible, the federal and state government should allow businesses to make their own choices for their employees and customers because they’ll be able to determine the best course of action for vaccine recommendations. Perhaps more importantly, business owners have personal interaction and interest in their customers, their employees and their community. Not to mention, the contemplation of insurance companies to charge higher premiums to unvaccinated customers will act as additional encouragement to employers for promoting vaccination of their employees.

Although the previous two suggestions are important in increasing vaccine rates, the best and perhaps most effective means for increasing vaccination rates would be incentives provided by the federal government. There’ll definitely be those that disagree and advocate for vaccine mandates to be put in place, but forcing people to do something that they’re unwilling or fearful to do hardly ever works out well. The federal government should seek any and all options available to encourage Americans to get vaccinated through the “carrot method” (ie the reward method) and only use mandates as a last resort. The government has literally allocated billions, even trillions at this point of the pandemic, on COVID-19 testing, information campaigns and vaccinations. It’s not unreasonable for the federal and state government to examine ways to encourage vaccinations through financial incentives.  For example, some recent financial incentives  from state governments include the Vax A Million lottery in Ohio held for those who got vaccinated to the $500 incentive for Department of Corrections employees in Colorado to get vaccinated (you can find more examples of ways the government is incentivizing getting vaccinated by clicking here). Perhaps the most intriguing idea presented I’ve heard so far, what about looking into a potential one time tax incentive ranging between 3-5% tax waiver for federal and state taxes? None of these solutions are perfect but if it helps our society get closer to the herd immunity threshold, it should definitely be pursued.

Final Thoughts

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a challenging experience in different ways for each American. It has pushed many to their breaking points and has further divided the nation in ways that may never quite be undone. Sacrifices will need to be made if our country is to move past this pandemic. To be clear, making personal sacrifices is not something that should be done lightly. But, there are times for the sake of the collective good and collective freedoms that it’s absolutely worth it. History shows us that time and time again Americans have accepted that challenge to lay their individual sacrifices on the “altar of freedom.” That moment of sacrifice comes to each of us where we must decide whether we will put ourselves first or our country first. The rights of individuals are important. However, so are the collective rights of our community. The pandemic has pitted these two ideas against each other. But in the end, getting vaccinated and moving past this pandemic will only enhance and increase all freedoms we seek to enjoy (the recent breaking news in Moderna moving forward on their mRNA HIV vaccine trial is a great example of this). Regardless of personal feelings about the pandemic or vaccines, we must remember: “Freedom Isn’t Free.”

By Adam Miller

What Are Reparations?

Reparations take on a different meaning for different people. One prevalent interpretation is a lump sum of cash or series of payments to African Americans to compensate for slavery and other injustices perpetuated by society. Is this the only way to repair the damage brought on by slavery and other acts that harmed Black people throughout history? I think we have to start with some baseline definition to come to an answer. New Oxford American Dictionary (yes, I'm an iPhone user) defines reparations as "[t]he making of amends for the wrong one has done by paying money or otherwise helping those who have been wronged.” Next, Webster defines it as "[t]he act of making amends, offering expiation, or giving satisfaction for a wrong or injury.” The American Heritage Dictionary suggests reparations are “[t]he act or process of making amends for a wrong," or "something done or money paid to make amends or compensate for a wrong.” For good measure, I also consulted the trusty Black's Law Dictionary which gives a similar definition, "Compensation for an injury or wrong.”

Of the five definitions, four include the idea of making amends. This doesn't do a lot except lead us to the question, how? Only two of the definitions offer any insight. One suggests either paying money or otherwise helping. The other, from Black's, requires compensation but does not describe how the compensation should occur. Clearly, any form of reparations considered in the U.S. is an attempt at "making amends" or "satisfying" the Black community for the wrongs of the past. Using the definitions found, it seems the way to do this is through compensation of some sort. There is no explicit requirement under any definition I can find that requires reparations be direct payments of cash or the equivalent.

According to these definitions, from my perspective, we are paying and have been paying reparations for decades. These payments began at least as early as 1961 with Executive Order 10925. President Kennedy ordered at that time the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission be formed and that affirmative action be taken to close the gap on employment differences between whites and minorities. This was followed soon after by quotas which favored minorities in hiring and education placement. The result of affirmative action plans was higher employment and pay for Blacks. Additionally, it resulted in college admissions at a higher rate. In a study of 68,000 organizations, University of Chicago’s Jonathan Leonard found that affirmative action programs between the years of 1974 and 1980 increased minority employment share by approximately 36% compared to their white male counterparts.

In Tulsa, the city has set up multiple substantive programs aimed at helping the Black community to heal and rebound from the events in 1921. Some of these programs aim at housing issues minorities in the Greenwood area face, while others are aimed more toward making amends for past wrongs (recall nearly every definition of reparations included making amends), such as grave searches for potential additional victims and studies of the tragic event itself. However, it seems these things, whether national attempts at reparations or local, fall short of what most people view as reparations. For this reason, we need to explore some of the reasons why cash payments are not feasible and, additionally, how they are prohibited under our constitution.

How Much Should We Pay?

In Blinn v. Nelson a person’s property was appropriated. The court ruled in this 1911 case—pre-Tulsa events of 1921—that where a person had failed to make a claim and the legislature had set out a limitation of one year, the limit was constitutional. In its opinion the court said that even though statutory limits may, in some cases, have unjust outcomes, "In the great majority of instances, no doubt, justice will be done." For this reason, we need to look at reasons why the Supreme Court ruled the way it did. That is, we need to understand the purpose of the statute of limitations and why it applies to a situation that occurred 100 years ago; a situation that is now being held as a reason for reparations to be paid.

In a Santa Clara School of Law faculty publication, Judge Wistrich of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California lays out seven purposes for the statutes of limitation. Below are two of the most relevant purposes:

1. Promote repose

2. Minimize deterioration of evidence

3. Place defendants and plaintiffs on equal footing

4. Promote cultural values of diligence

5. Encourage prompt enforcement of substantive law

6. Avoid retrospective application of Contemporary standards

7. Reduce the volume of litigation

One of these is especially relevant in the context of reimbursing Tulsans for the losses incurred during the events of May 31, 1921. If we could all agree that direct cash payments should be made, then the next question would be, how much? Is it $25 per Tulsan? $25,000? $25 million? Is the payment for all Tulsans? All Black Tulsans? Only the Black Tulsans who were actually harmed by the events? Typically, in order to collect payment for some damages incurred, a plaintiff would need to show that damages occurred to them beyond some casual connection to the loss. That is, it needs to be shown that the person's actions that caused the damage are the proximate cause of the loss and that the alleged injured party was actually injured. Then the person who suffered the loss must show what it is that they lost. But who in Tulsa today can show they lost something in 1921?

The residents of the city that existed in 1921 are not the same residents in 2021. A city is little more than its residents, structures, and boundaries. We can’t hold structures and boundaries to pay damages. That leaves only the residents. For this reason, even the city itself cannot be held liable. Additionally, even if the city made decisions that harmed people, the city is but a group of people acting under a charter. We can't ask for a piece of paper with words to pay damages. So what we are asking is for the people in charge to pay damages. We are asking them to pay damages from funds received from citizens of a city that, as previously mentioned, is not the same city it was in 1921.

Even if someone feels they could show such a loss, we end up on point number two from Judge Wistrich on deterioration of evidence. Even in normal circumstances, 100-year-old evidence is badly deteriorated and most witnesses are deceased. In the context of the events of 1921, it's even worse. A recent Hulu docuseries on the events suggests there was a concerted effort to cover up the events including a lack of reporting on the incident. Indeed, if you speak with proponents of reparations in Tulsa, you're likely to find agreement on this theory. So, if it's true that evidence was either destroyed or never created through lack of reporting or teaching, then the case against reparations for deterioration of crucial evidence of the harm done becomes stronger. If it’s impossible to calculate the damages from the loss of life and property, then it’s impossible to come up with an equitable remedy. Additionally, if we cannot trace the decedents’ heirs, if we were somehow able to quantify any given loss, then it’s not possible to find the rightful payee of any damages that may be awarded. Tracking who is eligible to benefit from the losses is equally as difficult as quantifying the loss itself for all the reasons already described.

Litigation and Injustice

This leads directly to point number seven. The volume of litigation it would take to uncover scant evidence is mind boggling. Not only would our courts be overwhelmed with claims for reparations, the likely outcome, because of deterioration, would be an inability to adequately show a loss, show the proximate cause of that loss, or show that the plaintiff has suffered harm as a result of the loss.

Another important statute of limitations consideration is retrospective application of contemporary standards. Societal norms change over time. This is especially true of the U.S., where we are consistently pushing toward living the values and principles set forth in our constitution. To look back a century to a time when we were less apt to uphold the values enshrined in the constitution and then hold to account the modern-day citizens who adhere much more stringently to them would, in itself, be an injustice. Of course, the argument from Whiteness as Property would be that the payments should be viewed as distributive justice rather than corrective justice. That is to say that the reparations should not be viewed as inflicting some kind of punishment on an individual or group but rather distributing an equitable outcome. That’s nonsense of course, and a misnomer. Resources are finite and when resources are taken from one group and given to another, no matter what you choose to call it, this is inflicting harm on the group taken from. Calling it “distributive justice” doesn’t change the fact that the resources taken from a given group immediately push it back to the realm of corrective justice (which it always was).

Legality

Given that it would be nearly impossible to litigate tens of thousands of reparations claims locally in regard to the 1921 events in Tulsa and millions of claims nationwide for past harms, the only solution would seem to be legislation which allocates blame for the harms suffered to a certain group and awarding the harmed group some compensation for those harms. However, Article I §3 Clause 9 reads, “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” What does this mean? U.S. v. Lovett helps clarify, “a bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without a judicial trial. If the punishment be less than death, the act is termed a bill of pains and penalties. Within the meaning of the constitution, bills of attainder include bills of pains and penalties.” The court also describes what is a bill of attainder, “Legislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply to an individual or to easily ascertainable members of a group [read: non-black people] in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without judicial trials are bills of attainder prohibited by the Constitution.”  Put simply, even if money is taken from a community or country as a whole, from all races, but that money is then returned to only one race, then everyone outside the group that received compensation has been punished for the wrongs of their group. Unlike programs funded by taxes where members of an economic class are entitled to funds collected from the taxation, direct payments to Black Americans would single out a group based on a protected class, race.

So, we find ourselves with no legal option to address the wrongs of the events of 1921. Individual litigation is a futile proposition and inflicting punishment (let’s not kid ourselves, taking money from a group of people and giving it to another group of people is punishment) on a group without litigating the issues in court is prohibited by our constitution. And keep in mind that the constitutional prohibition is the second block. We still haven’t changed the law to allow for a conversation to take place on the topic because our statute of limitations bars any claim on its face. It’s thus a moot point anyhow.

While direct payments are neither feasible nor appropriate, there are programs that benefit the area of town that was affected and still others that aim to reconcile the questions that remain unanswered. Mayor GT Bynum outlines at least five such programs in a Facebook post, containing links to each of the programs. The events that occurred in 1921 were tragic. Undoubtedly, thirty-six people lost their lives and some more extreme estimates put that number closer to 300 lives lost. Billions of dollars in losses in today’s currency were accrued. All of this from a community who had, against all odds, built a thriving, one-of-a-kind economy in Tulsa. There is no doubt that we all have learned many lessons from this injustice. However, our system simply does not have a mechanism for adjudicating centuries old claims. Some might argue it should. It is, in fact, illegal and in the case of direct payments to one race of people at the expense of another group, unconstitutional.  For the reasons I’ve outlined, I believe the harm of direct payments outweighs the benefit. Apparently, so does our constitution.

About the Author: Adam Miller has a B.S. in Business Management and Leadership. He is a Juris Doctor Candidate at TU College of Law, and he is an insurance agency owner and a start-up commercial cannabis grow. Adam is hoping to run for and, with any luck, win a seat on Tulsa City Council in 2022.

I spent four months in Xi’an, Shaanxi, China, as a volunteer English teacher at the end of 2016. I learned how to haggle, how to say a handful of phrases in Chinese, and how to navigate subways, which (as a Utahn) I’d never had to do before. I often walked the streets of Xi’an waving my hands and calling, “bùyào” (don’t want), rejecting fans, Obama-dressed-as-Mao shirts, Bible verses written with Chinese characters, and rides in tuk-tuks. Often, people would stare at me and ask to take pictures with me; small children would point and say, “wàiguó rén” (foreigner).

About two months into my stay, a few American members of my church’s congregation invited my roommate and me to watch a performance at the Sunshine Lido Grand Theater. The performance was meant to reflect the “grandeur and splendor” of the Tang Dynasty. The performers wore traditional Chinese dress with long flowing sleeves and intricate headdresses. One woman, wearing a soft blue dress, her hair contorted in giant loops above her head, played the guqin. The seven-stringed instrument’s melody carried across the theater, reminding me of the background music in the animated series Avatar: The Last Airbender.

Words were displayed on either side of the stage, describing the performance. One side was in Chinese, the other in English. It read, “From 618AD to 907AD ,Chinese [sic] people realized tremendous cultare [sic] and artistic a chievements [sic]. During this time, Xi’an or Chang’an was the most beautiful city in the entire word [sic].”

By this point, I had already visited several Chinese museums and tourist attractions, including the Terracotta Warriors. Most of the signs displayed at these museums or attractions described Xi’an’s previous prosperous state when it was the capital of China, and at that time, it was the greatest city in the world.

How do they know? I wondered. The signs described Xi’an as a beautiful, prosperous cultural hub along the Silk Road, but still, how did the Chinese know it was more prosperous or beautiful than any other city around 3,000 years ago?

Besides, I thought, everyone knows New York is the greatest city in the world now. I surprised myself with this almost knee-jerk response. I hadn’t even been to New York, yet I was sure it was the greatest. Hamilton knew it. My family, friends, and teachers knew it.

Did the Chinese know it?

When I came back to the US, the number one question I was asked was, “Weren’t you scared?”

In fact, a friend of mine (let’s call her Jen) said, “You’re the only person I know who’s gone to China and come back alive.”

This comment bothered me. How many people did Jen know who’d gone to China and didn’t come back alive?

Usually, my response to these concerns was the same.

While in China, I tried to talk with the locals as much as possible—a difficult task seeing as I didn’t know more than a handful of Chinese phrases. One day, I struck up a conversation with a woman on a bus who spoke English with only a slight accent. I don’t remember how the conversation started. She probably asked me where I was from—that was usually the first question, and I’d always try to respond in Chinese, “Měiguó.”

Somehow the conversation moved to a topic common in the US in 2016: gun control.

“We can’t have guns or…” she searched for the right word then held her hands out, indicating a large object, “long knives.”

“Oh, I see,” I said as she expressed her view that America was dangerous, even scary. Huh, that seems backwards, I thought, but I understood her reasoning. The news constantly talked of shootings. And some people, like her, saw China’s restrictions as good because they were protective.

I began to see Jen’s and others’ views of China (it’s scary) and my own views (the US is better than China) as related. We were outsiders, viewing and evaluating China based on our American perceptions. Until going to Xi’an, I’d never tried to view China (or America) through Chinese eyes.

When I left for China, I expected to learn more about a culture I knew virtually nothing about, but I was surprised how much I learned about my own culture.

I vividly remember sitting on a bus, holding on to a side rail as the driver plunged down the street, weaving in and out of lanes. I watched an elderly woman talk with another woman holding a lot of money. It had taken me a while to figure out that I was supposed to give my bus fare to the woman with the stack of bills, and I was jealous and embarrassed that everyone else knew that but me.

The first woman’s hands were covered in fingerless gloves, and she made a gesture with her hand that I didn’t understand. Clearly the money woman did.

I felt so isolated.

It was like everyone on the bus knew a secret code that I couldn’t figure out. Of course, another name for their secret code was culture. But all I could think about then was how left out I felt. The women’s facial expressions, throaty language, hand gestures, and bus system escaped me.

I felt alien.

But I also knew I had my own nation. I had a culture and a place of belonging. Somewhere there were people who could decipher and share my language, gestures, and thoughts. Despite my momentary self-pity, I knew I wasn’t really alien.

Ultimately, the challenge is to understand how both American and Chinese cultures are flawed yet exemplary, beautiful yet ugly, progressive yet stagnant, and powerful yet weak. It took traveling to China and becoming a wàiguó rén for me to realize I needed to see the nuanced aspects of my own culture as well as others to realize all cities/humans/cultures can be the “greatest in the world.”

“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.’" Have you ever heard these words or some version of this quote from President Ronald Reagon? I know I have. I grew up in a conservative family, with extremely conservative extended family for the most part. I can remember taking vacations to some of my cousins' houses and hearing my uncle say this phrase, or something similar, to my dad while discussing politics. Back then, I didn’t get what my uncle was saying. But I do now, and I find it a childish sentiment.

In order to highlight the problems with this quote, I’m going to share an excellent story that I read this last year that has really resonated with me. This is the story of “The Dog and the Dragon.” (Yes, I will be paraphrasing from Rhythm of War.)

The short version of this story (link for the full story at the end) is that there was a dog on a farm that one day saw a dragon. He, a mutt and the smallest of his pack, decided he wanted to be a dragon to become special. He saw that dragons could fly, had a beautiful coat of scales, and could speak in the human tongue. To fly, he learned to use a rope and swing around the barn on a crane. To have a coat of scales, he got wet and coated himself in corn seed that resembled scales. He was unable to learn to talk as dog jaws are unable to make human sounds, but in replacement, the dog learned to read and write in the dirt.

When he showed his pack each of his three “dragonly” traits, they laughed, said he looked stupid and that he was simply a dog. Ultimately, this dog realized that he was indeed a dog and had failed at being a dragon.

So what’s the point of this story? Why should we care about learning a lesson from a dog that failed at what it was trying to do? Because, for the point of this article, the dog is the government (specifically the US government). I grew up hearing how worthless government is, how much of a waste all government officials are, and how the less government there is, the better it always is. I believe it is too easy to blame this nameless “government” because it is formless and, therefore, simple to blame. But we need government (hopefully, a competent one). Yep, I said it. With that phrase, I just proved to every libertarian and deep conservative that I’m crazy.

But government is responsible for so much that enables the high level of living that we enjoy here in America.

Are you able to read and write? The majority of Americans, 80% of students, are in public schools, learn skills and become proficient thanks to our public school system, which is funded by the government.

Do you have access to fresh fruits and vegetables? If yes, odds are it’s because of America’s freeway and highway system that was built thanks to the government.

Do you have the right to go to court to fight off false accusations or to win reparations because you were wronged? Guess what? That’s thanks to the government.

Do you have electricity, fresh water and enjoy having indoor plumbing? Again, if yes, odds are it’s thanks to the government.

Undoubtedly the government has many things wrong in it, and there are definitely ways it could and should be improved. Regardless, it is important to remember all the good government provides for our communities. Just like the dog. Yes, he failed at being a dragon; he didn’t even come close; frankly, dogs can’t become dragons. Government is the same; people often have this ideal picture of what government should or shouldn’t do, and this is always going to be unrealistic. Everyone's ideal government would be someone else’s worst. A government that compromises and provides to some of the wants of all citizens sounds like a start.

A prime example to me that demonstrates how much of a bad rap government sometimes gets is the state government of  California. For the past ten months, I’ve been living in southern California, in LA county to get specific. Before moving there, I was told all kinds of horror stories about how terrible it’d be there. How expensive it’d be, how many “negative nancies” (yes, that is exactly what was said; when the friend clarified, he meant it as people who’d get offended over everything), how many homeless there’d be, and just how much of a hellhole it’d be.

Guess what? It’s not that bad. In fact, I’ve come to rather enjoy it.

Yes, living costs are more expensive compared to northern Utah, where I moved from, but the rate I’m being compensated is also significantly higher here than I would be in Utah doing the same thing. I’ve had a few people get offended/upset because of things I’ve said, but with so many more varieties of people in California, I’d say that’s to be expected. There is a homeless problem, but it’s not that terrible. LA actually tries to help it’s homeless through some good welfare programs. (In fairness, it definitely has its issues but is not an area I feel qualified to talk about.)

I am not saying, however, that California has it all figured out. I still love my home state of Utah. There is a lot Utah has going for it. It has some amazing national parks and stunning sights in general. (The view from on top of the Wasatch mountains is simply the best.) The (relatively) low cost of living is a huge perk, and in general, the cities of Utah have a great sense of community. The point I’m trying to get at? Despite these two states generally being cast as complete political opposites (in many justified ways), both have some great things going for them. There’s no need to hate on one or the other.

While California undoubtedly has problems it needs to fix, it actually does some things remarkably well, like affordable healthcare for low-income people through their system of Medi-Cal. It’s got a pretty great highway system (speaking for LA county) so you can get around anywhere in this huge population center efficiently (as efficiently as possible in an area with such a massive population). It also has been incredibly welcoming and open, like you can find people of any variety super easily. In such a short period, I have been able to attend a Mexican festival for the city I’m in, go to some pretty awesome museums, and be a part of a research organization that has individuals from over twenty different countries.

In 10 months, I’ve been exposed to so many more experiences (to be fair, some good, some bad) than I ever was previously.

The point is, government is good; it’s the amount of government and how its “influence” is being used that’s important.

The reason I shared the story of “The Dog and the Dragon” is that though the dog is naive and fails at becoming a wise and majestic dragon, that doesn’t mean what the dog accomplishes is worthless. He’s still an absolutely amazing dog. Let me tell you the ending of the story to really drive this point home.

So one day, the family was playing in their yard when one of the children fell down the well. As the family frantically tried to find a way to fit someone into this small well to save the child, this dog, who had failed as a dragon, turned out to be uniquely qualified to save the child. The dog was small enough to fit in the well unlike the humans. Because the dog had tried to fly he knew how to use the rope. He had learned to swim from putting on his scales. Because he had learned how to write he was able to get the farmer to help with his plan. In the end, the dog was able to save the child from drowning, and in gratitude, the farmer allowed the dog into the home, to eat at the dinner table, and to sleep next to the fireplace instead of out in the cold with the rest of his pack. Because the dog was special.

Just like the dog, government is special. Because of government, at least early forms of it, humans have been able to build civilization and, ultimately, grow from simple hunter gatherer lifestyles into what we have now. Yes, it makes mistakes and fails, but my whole point is that decrying the government as some great evil, opens the door to allowing something far more nefarious than what we currently have to take its place.

(If you’d like to read the actual story of the Dog and the Dragon, feel free to contact the author or go read Rhythms of War (RoW). You can read the story as written in RoW as an excerpt here )

In a bizarre and intriguing sports news development,  the Jacksonville Jaguars, a professional football team, made the decision to sign former NFL quarterback Tim Tebow. After nearly a decade away from the league, head coach Urban Meyer and his staff intend to potentially “resurrect” Tebow’s career by using him as a tight end—something that didn’t work out so well the first time around in the Big Apple. Tebow’s return to the league has brought about a heated discussion in comparison to how former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick was treated after his decision to take a knee during the national anthem of each game in the 2016 NFL season. Since then, Kaepernick has been unable to get another chance at playing in the NFL. As detailed in many recent articles by sports news networks, there is a belief that Tebow’s ability to navigate the “Good Ol’ Boy” network and his popularity among Christians allowed him the opportunity to get the second chance that Kaepernick is still seeking. However, the differences between both athletes in accountability and knowing how to handle their messaging is really the key differentiator in why Tebow is back in the NFL, while Kaepernick is not.

Before diving into this debate, it’s important to clarify that this is not meant to drive a discussion on whether or not Colin Kaepernick should be in the NFL. Also, any comments made in this article are not meant to undermine or belittle the discussion regarding Black Lives Matter, police brutality, or racism. These issues need to be addressed in our country and Colin Kaepernick deserves considerable credit for the efforts he made to bring each of them into the national media spotlight. Instead this article is meant to focus on WHY Colin Kaepernick’s personal actions, in combination with several other factors, have made it difficult for him to get back to the NFL. Whereas, Tim Tebow made the necessary adjustments to get his chance of coming back into the NFL.

Their Rise in the NFL

When analyzing both Tim Tebow’s and Colin Kaepernick’s careers, it’s tempting, in hindsight, to brush over their accomplishments. It’s also easy to believe that the reason both athletes found their way out of the NFL is because of their drop-off in play. However, both players accomplished fairly unique achievements ranging from their days in college all the way to the pros.

For Tim Tebow, he’s practically considered to be a football super star in the state of Florida, perhaps an additional reason why signing Tebow made sense for the Jaguars. Having attended and played football at the University of Florida, Tebow was able to work with college football coach guru Urban Meyer (the current head coach of the Jacksonville Jaguars). Together, the two men accomplished great things, such as Tim Tebow winning the Heisman Trophy, winning two National Championships, one against the OU Sooners—thanks for breaking many of my friends’ hearts!—and breaking dozens of records in the NCAAF and SEC record books."

Although Tebow never “wowed” audiences with his ability to throw and was considered to be just a runner with no real arm, he was still a highly sought NFL prospect. Surprisingly enough, the Denver Broncos would take him in the first round of the NFL draft. Just two years after being drafted, Tebow would lead his team to their first AFC West Title and playoff victory in six years! Tebow’s immediate success gave him nationwide recognition in the forms of a humorous “appearance” on SNL as well as recognition for the Tebow kneel. Perhaps more importantly, in terms of comparison with Colin Kaepernick, Tebow used this fame to champion his belief in Christianity—a message that was warmly received by most NFL fans.

As for Colin Kaepernick's rise to the NFL, his journey was much more difficult and lacked the dazzle that Tebow experienced with the Gators. Coming out of high school, Colin received only ONE football scholarship offer from a Division 1 college, The University of Nevada. While there, Kaepernick accomplished unbelievable collegiate achievements by amassing 10,000 yards passing and 4,000 yards running, obtaining WAC Offensive Player of the Year recognitions in 2008 and 2010, and helping Nevada win a claim of the WAC title in 2010. Perhaps this is too bold of a statement, but without Colin Kaepernick and Nevada’s high octane offense in football, the University of Nevada may have been on the outside looking in after NCAA’s massive conference realignment. (Something I believe Colin Kaepernick deserves much greater credit for from his old school.)

After completing his senior year, Colin declared for the NFL draft. His stock was majorly boosted by his collegiate accomplishments and beating Boise State in a shootout in his senior year. He would be drafted by the San Francisco 49ers in the 2nd round. For his first season, Colin sat behind quarterback Alex Smith. But the next season, an unfortunate injury occurred to Smith that presented an opportunity for Kaepernick to demonstrate his skills, and he didn’t disappoint. He would help the 49ers secure a respectable record and qualify for the postseason. During the playoffs, Kaepernick would set an NFL record for rushing for the most yards in a single game (181 yards rushing!); he’d outduel quarterbacks such as Aaron Rodgers and Matt Ryan; and he would help lead his team to the Super Bowl. Ironically, though, as Kaepernick achieved these goals, he never seemed intent on being vocal on public issues because of his celebrity status. But that would soon change.

Choosing Their Messages

As Colin’s career in the NFL began to take shape, there was a social movement that was also taking shape. Black Lives Matter. Colin’s career and the Black Lives Matter movement were almost taking place simultaneously. Black Lives Matter became a nationally recognized movement after the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner and the protests that occurred thereafter. Like many Americans, Colin closely followed the movement and often participated in public discussions on social media about BLM issues in the forms of racial discrimination and police brutality. However, leading up to the 2016 NFL season, Colin felt greater action was needed to take place on issues such as racism and police brutality. He sought to take action but in a way that would be perceived as being taken “out of the playbook of Dr. King..."

Seeking to follow Civil Rights Activist Martin Luther King’s example, Colin chose to first sit and then later kneel during the National Anthem. The decision was widely perceived as being selfish and detrimental to the state of his team. However, Kaepernick did receive the help, support and admiration of dozens of professional athletes such as Michael Bennett, Malcolm Jenkins, and Anquan Boldin. Because of Kaepernick’s protest, a necessary discussion about police brutality and racism was beginning to take place. Sadly, though, much of the discussion surrounding Colin Kaepernick failed to ever focus on these issues since most Americans instead focused on whether or not it was within Kaepernick’s right to kneel (refer to pg. 55 in the link).

While Kaepernick attempted to do something daring in the form of kneeling to promote his message on racism, Tebow ironically chose a very similar gesture to promote his devotion to Christianity. Tebow was the starting quarterback for the Denver Broncos; he was known for “Tebowing,” or taking a knee after completing a big achievement. Whether that was throwing a touchdown pass (which, let’s be honest, with how rarely that happened, each of us would be happy too) or winning a game, Tebow would take the time to kneel and pray to God.

Though “Tebowing” wasn’t necessarily something new when Tebow entered the NFL, he was in a much bigger spotlight than he was during his time at Florida. As a result, the greater the spotlight, the greater the support AND the scrutiny. As written in a journalistic article, entitled “The Trouble With Tebowing,” Tebow received significant backlash for choosing to be so open and transparent about his Christian beliefs. Perhaps some of it was due to the fact that people felt his level of play did not match his spotlight, or perhaps it was because sports analysts and spectators felt that Tebow represented the stereotypical white Judeo-Christian demographic too strongly. Despite the pushback, Tebow received far more adoration and support than he did scrutiny for his eager devotion to Christianity.

When reviewing what has occurred with Kaepernick’s and Tebow’s forms of kneeling, it’s interesting that both were met with such different overall reactions to the general public. However, perhaps it is because one was done out of gratitude, Tebow’s Tebowing, after successful football plays, and the other one was done out of frustration and dissatisfaction, Kaepernick’s National Anthem protest, with the racial inequality existing in the US today. Regardless of the opinion of either form of demonstration, it is fair to say that both the actions were met with scrutiny from the media and the American public.

Their Decline In The NFL

Although Tebowing brought at times excessive and unhealthy attention to him and his football team, it was ultimately a far different problem that led to his NFL demise. The ability to competently play quarterback. For all of Tebow’s great achievements in his career with the Florida Gators and the Denver Broncos, he simply could not make up for his sporadic throwing. For example, through 35 games in his NFL career, Tebow only completed 47% of his passes and had only 17 touchdowns compared to 9 interceptions. As a result, Tebow would find his way from Denver to the New York Jets where he would need to attempt to revive his career.

In New York, his new team would transition Tebow’s role to tight end and take on a more “jack of all trades” approach. However, such an attempt would last only one season as Tebow resisted the idea of leaving the quarterback position behind. As a result, Tebow would soon find his way out of the NFL due to an inability to perform at an NFL level.

As for Colin Kaepernick, his decline was more complicated. Through the first three seasons of his career, Colin was playing outstanding football. He had a much greater arm than Tebow ever did and he was much more mobile. However, injuries soon caught up to Kaepernick, and he had suffered three significant injuries by the start of the 2016 season. Kaepernicks’ injuries combined with now playing under his third new coach and starting his take a knee protest put Kaepernick and the 49ers in a tough predicament. Not to mention, the 49ers record from 2015 to 2016 made Kapernick’s uninspiring play that much more difficult for the team to back him as their starter. After the end of the 2016 season, Kaepernick agreed to mutually part from the 49ers. Upon being released, Kaepernick was unable to find another team to give him a second chance like Tebow had gotten with the New York Jets, New England Patriots, and Philadelphia Eagles.

Communication, Communication, Communication

Although it seems clear that most sports writers believe that Colin Kaepernick was blackballed for his decision to take a knee, that isn’t the whole story. While Colin Kaepernick should be commended for taking a more MLK-style in his public demonstration, it’s important to recognize that his rhetoric did not match his peaceful protest. For example, when Kaepernick first began to kneel, he chose to wear a pair of socks with “pigs and police hats” on it to draw attention to himself and to the fact that there are cops who abuse their power and authority. Furthermore, he garnered even more attention for choosing to wear shirts such as one with a picture of Malcolm X and Fidel Castro on it. Actions such as these led many in the general public to believe that Kapernick’s intentions were not purely focused on systemic oppression. Fair or not, Kaepernick assisted, along with the media, in leading the general public away from the main discussions about police brutality and racism.

Combining Kaepernick’s off-the-field antics with his decreased competent level of play and his protest put NFL teams in a difficult spot about whether or not they wanted to add Kaepernick to their football team. To make matters more difficult, polling by the mainstream media showed, as of 2018, that at least 53% of the general public did not agree with kneeling in any way, shape, or form. These factors combined created the perfect storm that would make it, at best, complicated and, at worst, unfeasible for Kaepernick to get a second chance on a different NFL team.

As complex as Kaepernick’s NFL status was as of 2017, it’s important to recognize that he DID receive a second chance at continuing his NFL career. Several months after his departure from the 49ers, Kaepernick was contacted by the Baltimore Ravens about potentially signing with them. The two sides were within reach of signing a deal, but then another roadblock emerged. During negotiations, Kaepernick’s girlfriend, Nessa Diab, tweeted a controversial picture depicting one of the Raven’s organizational leaders, Hall of Fame linebacker Ray Lewis, as being a slave to the white owner of the football team. In an interview after the tweet, Ray Lewis said regarding Kaepernick, “We were going to close the deal to sign him… Then, his girl goes out and put out this racist gesture and doesn’t know we are in the back office about to try to get this guy signed. Steve Biscotti has said it himself, ‘How can you crucify Ray Lewis when Ray Lewis is the one calling for Colin Kaepernick?’”  After reconciling a relationship with Ray Lewis and the Ravens was no longer an option, Kaepernick, for all intents and purposes, became untouchable to NFL teams.

So Why Is Tebow Getting Another Chance?

Although it is fair to argue that, to some extent, the treatment that Kaepernick received from the NFL was unfair, there are some key elements that we should keep in mind when seeking to compare his situation to Tim Tebow. First, the way we communicate and approach the issues we’re most passionate about will absolutely affect the way people perceive us and receive our beliefs. For example, although Tim Tebow can be perceived as being preachy or over the top with his Christian beliefs, his character has never been questioned by his coaches or his teammates. From a locker room standpoint, Tebow is the kind of person you want to build a team around even if that player is not the most talented athlete. There are those that would also argue that Kaepernick fits that same mold as players like Eric Reid and Daniel Kilgore. However, recent tweets and actions such as Kaepernick’s July 4th tweet of 2020 don’t echo the idea that Kaepernick would be someone you can build a team around.

Second, humility opens doors that would otherwise be closed. This is one of the main reasons why Tebow has received up to five chances to salvage his career and Kaepernick has not. It is well documented that the kinds of contract offers that Tebow got from the New England Patriots and the Philadelphia Eagles were NOT eye popping. Instead, he was playing for the chance to prove that he still had something left in the tank. As for Kaepernick, recent news articles about his discussions with spinoff football league, the Alliance of American Football, state that Kaepernick was seeking an annual salary of $20 million per year!  Not to mention, he was reportedly seeking $9 to $10 million per year when seeking a new job in 2017 in the NFL. Kaepernick was absolutely within his right to seek out these kinds of salaries for his services, but he also risks incurring the consequences of not being employed.

Third, familiarity is key to opportunity. For Tebow, much of his chances have come due to connections in the forms of Josh McDaniels, Chip Kelly, and Urban Meyer. Because Tebow knew these coaches' systems and his unique skill sets were something these coaches wanted to utilize, he was a relatively cheap, enticing option. For Kaepernick, he was unfamiliar with most of these coaches and his price range made this kind of conversation impossible to have.

Fourth, Colin’s decision to speak out on police brutality and racism was a far more volatile topic than Tebow’s devout Christian beliefs ever were in the eyes of the public. For the most part, most team executives' main goal is to do that which can increase their team’s revenue. Considering the unpopularity of Kaepernick’s protest in combination with the other factors previously mentioned, it was and still is difficult for Kaepernick to find a clean way back into the NFL.

Conclusion

As Tebow prepares for this next opportunity in the NFL, it is fair for some NFL fans to be frustrated that Kaepernick is also not being given an additional chance. Those feelings are understandable, but it’s critical to acknowledge that Kaepernick helped to create the messy situation he’s in right now. His unwillingness to lower his expectations for salary compensation, his dropoff in play, his reckless communication on social issues combined with his desire to protest during the national anthem made Kaepernick’s wish of staying in the NFL almost impossible to accomplish. Again, this isn’t to say that black lives don’t matter because they do. My friend, Logan, wrote a phenomenal piece on Black Lives Matter and on how important addressing this topic is to our nation’s future. But in regards to Tim Tebow and Colin Kaepernick, the reasons why Kaepernick is OUT of the NFL whereas Tebow is IN the NFL (for however long that may be) are far more complicated than any accusations such as “white privilege” or “blackballing” could ever explain.

Have you ever been in a situation where people start talking about immigration and you get uncomfortable talking about it? Have you ever felt uncomfortable talking about it because you have some formed opinions about immigration but don't feel confident in your bank of knowledge on the topic to have a discussion about it? Well, this article is for you and anyone who would like to get an understanding of how the immigration system generally works. The goal of this article is to just explain how things work and not to advocate for a specific political stance or policy. Also, this article should not be taken as legal advice or a roadmap on how to come to the U.S. because it will not take into account all the nuances an applicant or immigrant will face depending on their situation. The intent is only to describe the system so that no matter your political stance you can know what someone else is referring to when they use terms like citizenship, green card, permanent residency, visa, TPS, or DACA. You will have a general understanding of what the differences are from a green card and citizenship and DACA. I will also explain generally what kind of people these statuses refer to. If you or a family member need immigration law advice, please consult with an Immigration attorney.

Many times I have had a conversation with people who ask questions like: Why don't people wait in line? Or why don't people just apply for citizenship? What is the difference between green cards and permanent residency or citizenship? If you have these questions, great! Now if you are a citizen of the US and have never had to apply for any immigration status or benefit, then having these questions is completely normal because you have never had to apply for these immigration benefits. If you have had to apply for immigration benefits and wonder about these questions, it's completely normal because you probably only went through one segment of the immigration system.

So let's start talking about immigration. The first thing I would like for everyone to understand is that the immigration system is not a gate or a door. It is a filter.

It is a filter where people enter at one end and can end up with no status or some type of status on the other end. We will start by ranking immigration statuses or benefits in order from the highest benefit and protection to the lowest. Keep in mind that a status is an immigration term saying you have permission to be here. Benefit is saying that there is a benefit that you have been granted through the government.

1. U.S. Citizenship
2. Permanent residency/ Green cards (They are the same thing.)
3. Asylum or Refugee (There is a difference between both.)
4. Visas
5. TPS
6. DACA (No STATUS, meaning they are still undocumented.)
7. Undocumented or Illegal immigrant
   

U.S. Citizen

Let's start defining what a U.S citizen is. A U.S Citizen is someone who has the right to live here forever. They have the right to vote and enjoy all the privileges and protection the U.S. offers. Now how do you become a U.S. citizen? Well, one way is you are born in the U.S. Another way is by being born to U.S citizen parents. This means that if your mom and dad were on vacation in Mexico while pregnant with you and suddenly gave birth, then your parents can still ask for you to be a citizen. This also applies to adopted children who are adopted by U.S. citizens. The other way is to recieve citizenship is by applying for it. This is called Naturalization and only if you are a Permanent Resident (people with a green card) can you apply for Citizenship outside of what I already described above. To apply for citizenship as a permanent resident, you normally have to wait 3-5 years depending on how you became a permanent resident.

Permanent Resident/Green Card

The next immigration status below citizenship (and I’d like to emphasize that this status is the one right below citizenship) is permanent residency.  As mentioned above, this status is what everyone talks about when they say green card.  So when you hear someone say, “I have a green card,” they are saying that they are a permanent resident.  A permanent resident has the permission to live in the United States.  Notice that it is different then the right to live in the United States.  They are not the same.  That permission can be revoked for many reasons.  A permanent resident has permission to live in the United States indefinitely but is given a card (which is normally called a green card) and it has an expiration date of 10 years. The green card holder must renew the card every ten years

Now, there are several ways to get a green card.  There are two primary ways that I would like to discuss, and one is through work or employment opportunities; the other, family-based immigration. Now, family-based immigration is what some people like to refer to as chain migration.  One thing I would like to clarify about chain migration is that, normally, it is discussed in politics. It seems like chain migration is something that can happen fast and you can bring over a bunch of people and they all of a sudden become permanent residents.  That is not the case.  It takes a very long time for people to become permanent residents, except for in very particular cases where it is the immediate family member of a U.S. citizen.

So, let’s talk about how you become a permanent resident. In terms of receiving permanent residency through employment, what happens is that the immigrant would have to find an employer that is willing to hire them and pay all the application fees. This could be in the thousands. They also have to certify that by hiring the immigrant that no American worker would be displaced. Meaning, an American wont lose their job because of the immigrant. Now keep in mind that this is an investment the company is making. It is a big risk because there is a limited amount of green cards available for employment-based immigration. Also, keep in mind businesses have to wait a long time, even years, for the immigrant to get a green card. The whole idea is to provide a way for companies to hire essential workers that are immigrants but also incentivize companies to hire Americans. Basically the immigrant better be worth the time and money for the company to spend on them getting a green card.

The other way the system provides someone to get a green card is family-based migration. Now, understand that a relative in the U.S. would have to ask the government to give the immigrant a green card. How fast the immigrant receives the green card is dependent on whether the relative of the immigrant is a U.S. Citizen or a permanent resident. If you are a spouse of a U.S. Citizen or an unmarried child of a U.S. citizen under the age of 21 or the parent of a U.S. citizen who is 21 or older, then you are given priority. This means no wait time other than the time that USCIS (the agency that processes applications) takes to process your application. This is the fastest way to get a green card. This process could take 6-12 months in the most basic case during non covid times. Some cases take longer because of the immigrant’s past immigration history.

If you are the unmarried child or spouse of a permanent resident, your relative can ask for you to get a green card, but you will have to wait in line for years before USCIS will process the application. This is where it gets complicated. Basically, depending on where the immigrant is from and how they are related to the green card holder, they are assigned a priority which results in how long they wait until their application is processed. Right now, the average wait time for some people is 23 years. Now, remember, this is dependent on where the immigrant is from. When discussing the application wait times this is what people refer to when they say it takes forever to apply for a green card. Please understand this. If you have a U.S. Citizen spouse or a parent or child above the age of 21 or even if you are undocumented, you can get a green card. But this does not mean that people in line that have been waiting 23 years will have to wait more. Why? Because they are going to wait anyways and not because of illegals getting a green card but because they are not related to a U.S. Citizen. They are related to a permanent resident. Thus, they have, by force, a wait time. Think about it this way, it works like a fast pass at Disney World, where if you are related to the U.S. Citizens, you can go on rides without waiting in line. Whether people use a fast pass or not while you are in line, you still have to wait in line for a long time if you don't have a fast pass. Why? Because the U.S. prioritizes the needs of the U.S. Citizens more than permanent residents who are immigrants.

If you are a visual person here is a chart of how to get a green card.

Refugee and Asylum

Refugee status and Asylum status work similarly to each other. The difference between them is where the person is located when they apply. Asylum is something an immigrant applies for when they are already here in the United States. Refugee status is when they apply outside the United States. Under United States law; a refugee is someone who is located outside of the United States; is of special humanitarian concern to the United States; demonstrates that they were persecuted or fear persecution due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group; is not firmly resettled in another country and is admissible to the United States. Asylum is very much the same, but again, if the immigrant is already in the U.S., they are asking for asylum. Asylum and refugee status are more limited than a permanent resident. They can still receive financial support, but their status can be revoked as soon as their home country is no longer a threat. This means that a refugee or asylee can be removed from the country at any time. It is very hard to become a refugee or asylum because it is a very high bar that one must meet. Being a victim of violence is not enough. It has to be one of the categories I mentioned above, and one's home government must not be able to help resolve the situation. Very few immigrants out of the thousands that apply are given asylum or refugee status. If they are, then they are eligible to apply for a green card.

Now onto visas. Visas are different from anything explained before. They are just temporary permission to be in the country for a very limited amount of time. They can be given for tourism, employment, or educational purposes. There are few paths to a green card from a visa, and those are reserved for very few people (fiancé visas or people who invest a lot of money in the U.S). You are hardly given any financial benefit like assistance. They can expire quickly and not be renewed in some cases. Now, here is where we are seeing illegal immigration. It is estimated “that people who overstayed their visas accounted for 62 percent of the newly undocumented, while 38 percent had crossed a border illegally.” Because some visas are hard to renew, a lot of people end up overstaying their visa.

Moving on to TPS, which stands for Temporary Protected Status. All this means is that because your country is in so much turmoil, we will not deport you. Only if you are from the countries on the approved list can you apply, and you have to apply within a certain window. This is a status that will prevent your deportation. This will also allow you to work in the U.S. Downside is the list changes all the time. Usually presidents, depending on their political leaning, will add or remove countries from the list with just their say so. Once your country is removed from the list, you are out of luck.

Moving on to DACA which stands for Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals. Heard of the Dreamers? Or Obama's executive action to help Dreamers? Well, this is it… sort of. DACA is NOT a status. It does not prevent deportation like TPS does. Have you ever seen a lawyer or prosecutor show where, because the criminal deserved leniency, the prosecutor decided not to press charges? DACA is similar to that. All it says is that kids or young adults whose parents brought over illegally or made them overstay their visas when they were younger than 16 and were present in the U.S. in June of 2012 and have been continually present in the U.S. since 2007 will not be the focus of I.C.E (Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or the people who deport people in the U.S). So it's basically saying if you have DACA, we won’t focus on coming after you to deport you, unless you commit a crime, but other than that, we won't try to deport you. This does not guarantee protection. DACA recipients can be deported if caught. DACA recipients can work and pay taxes, but DACA provides no other benefit. To make this abundantly clear, if you have DACA, you are still undocumented or illegally in the U.S.

This leads us to the final section: undocumented. Most people do not have a path to a green card and when they don’t and cross the border illegally or overstay their visa, they are considered undocumented or without status. This means they are not allowed to work, be in the U.S., or receive any financial aid from the government. Ironically, they are allowed and encouraged to pay taxes. If an undocumented immigrant is caught and deported, they are banned from ever coming back to the country for ten years. If you are wondering why people don't just leave and come back legally, well there's your answer. They would have to wait ten years just to even apply if they even could.

The immigration system is a filter not a door. Unless one fits the categories given above for any status, chances are you are out of luck in coming to the U.S. Even if you do, you need the money to pay for the application fees (except for asylum or refugee applicants—we know they are probably poor so they don't pay). Even if you got the initial money, green card holders have to prove that their sponsor (the U.S citizen or permanent resident asking for them) can provide for them. If you want to sponsor someone to get their green card this means there is a certain amount of money you need to make in order to ask for someone to get a green card. Then you go through a rigorous background check. You then get fingerprinted which adds fees. Then and only then, if you pass, are you given an interview. If you pass the interview, which is used to prove your familial status or your story, then maybe it gets approved and you become a resident. But as explained above you need to wait twenty-something years to bring over family unless you become a U.S. Citizen which takes three to five years. Then you have to be able to afford to petition to bring people over. If you are not related directly to a U.S Citizen or a Permanent Resident, chances of you staying in the U.S. as a green card holder are really slim in the first place. The immigration system was designed to keep most people out and only allow certain people in.

A quick google search for ‘the most influential news anchor of all time’ will quickly lead one to Ranker @ ranker.com.  The person that fills the top slot on this list is Walter Cronkite, who served as the CBS evening news anchor from 1962 to 1981.  For those old enough to remember, he always finished his news broadcast with “… and that’s the way it is.” A quick look at the list on Ranker will leave one with the impression that there are no credible news casters still practicing their craft in 2021.  The youngest of the ‘credible’ group listed is Jane Pauley and the majority are deceased.  Instead we’ve migrated to a point where Lester Holt, on several rankings, leads that pack of credibility with only 32% of respondents stating that they ‘trust him a lot.’

Author’s note - As a personal rule I don’t watch televised news sources as I’ve found them to be more theater and entertainment than I do factual.  I go out of my way to avoid anything related to FOX News and/or MSNBC.  If someone uses peripheral news sources, such as MSNBC and / or FOX or something even more extreme like the Palmer Report or Newsmax, then I discredit their claim almost immediately and question their general paradigm of how the world functions.  If someone tells me that a news agency in the general middle is either liberal or conservative, then that statement tells me more about them and their thinking than any other point they’ve brought up.

So, what has caused this decline in the perceived trustworthiness of our news anchors and ergo our news industry?  Why do we place such poor confidence in those in whom we turn for information?  Isn’t information the life line of solid understanding and awareness?  Isn’t understanding and awareness required to maintain a correct paradigm of how our society works and functions?  This shift from having trustworthy news sources that told it ‘the way it is’ towards what we have now isn’t accidental and wasn’t at random.  There have been systemic changes in our laws coupled with proliferation of information that has contributed to our situation.

In 1927 Congress enacted the Radio Act, which laid groundwork in the playing field of public news.  Section 18 of the Radio Act was the precursor to the ‘equal time rule’ and mandated that each news station give equal opportunities to political candidates.  This 1927 Radio Act was reinforced in 1949 with the passing of the Federal Communications Commissions Act which contained a clause called the Fairness Doctrine.   The Fairness Doctrine required that holders of a broadcast license to do a couple of things.  Firstly, it required that holders of broadcast licenses present controversial topics of public importance through their broadcasting and secondly it also required the broadcasters to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced.   This balanced approach remained in place for the next 38 years up until 1987 when the law was repealed.

In 1985 when Ronald Reagan was in the White House and Conservative Radio Shows were flexing their might, the 1949 FCC Act came under scrutiny.  Claims that the FCC Act hindered each broadcaster’s First Amendment rights of free speech were the instrumental driver in this scrutiny.  In a 4 – 0 vote the FCC Board abolished the act.   As a direct result of this legislation, conservative talk radio became more unfiltered, more divisive, and more vicious.   The most notable of these radio talk show hosts was Rush Limbaugh who started using verbiage that was previously banned.   There is no liberal talk show host that fits this description during the 1980s simply because liberal / progressive programs have never been as popular as conservative ones and few liberal talk show hosts had national exposure at that time.

In 1987 Congress tried to pre-empt the commission’s vote with legislation but Ronald Reagan vetoed the bill.  In 1991 another attempt by Congress to reimpose the FCC Act lost steam with then President George H. W. Bush.  Two other rules were eventually dismantled as well: the ‘political attack rule’ and the ‘political editorial’ rule.  Both of these corollary rules being revoked also lead to further extremism in broadcasting. In 1996 Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications act which removed the ‘conflict of interest restrictions on all major media outlets.

As broadcasters were no longer held to ‘truth’ and ‘balance’ in their news broadcasts they then started to seek the news stories that provided financial gain and political dominance.6   The advent of the internet and internet advertising facilitated this shift away from truth also.  Citizens started to look for information sources that reinforced their natural biases and thoughts and then rated whether something was ‘truth’ based upon on how well it met their own personal world paradigm regardless of facts.  A feedback loop was then created, citizens sought sources that validated their world view and broadcaster provided that source to get more advertising dollars.   A report from Yale University titled ‘Fighting Fake News’ states that the most salient danger associated with ‘fake news’ is the fact that it devalues and delegitimizes voices of expertise, authoritative instructions, and the concept of objective data – all of which undermines society’s ability to engage in rational discourse based upon shared facts.

We can see evidence of this today, with the rise of conspiracy theories that are driven by speculation and anecdotal evidence only.  In 2020 we saw rise to many conspiracy theories about the Corona Virus such as it was just like the flu and that masks provide no protection; the rise of QAnon; and a rigged presidential election; anti-vaxxers; vapor trails, etc.   Claims of Fake News have been common catch phrases of leaders in politics to include our former POTUS.   These claims echo from nearly a century ago when Adolf Hitler adopted and proliferated the term Lügenpresse or lying press.   The term fake news is now used to attack factual news sources to further discredit them.   These factual news sources have been delegitimized as was spoken about by Yale University.

Several organizations have been created to combat fake news and provide a source where one can go to fact check.  Sites such as Politifact, Ad Fontes Media, Truth-O-Meter, and Snopes have risen in popularity to combat fake news.  While not 100% accurate, these sources do provide a mechanism for one to seek truth, but these too have fallen under attack as they do not fit the confirmation bias of many citizens which is reason enough, in their mind, to label fact checkers as fake news also.

In 2021 listening to news is not a spectator sport that is safe.  It is a treacherous arena that is difficult to navigate and requires careful thought and research.  Media bias charts are beneficial for helping to filter out bad news sources.  It is generally safe to say that if a news source uses inflammatory or leading language to debase the opposition, always supports one side, and causes emotional responses then it is likely not a good source for receiving news.  If the news broadcaster is controversial and wildly popular then he / she is not likely a good source for receiving news.  All of this is unfortunate and as Walker Cronkite would say – ‘and that’s the way it is.’

About The Author: Lee S. Phillips currently resides in Chicagoland after having been raised in Washington state and having lived in 10 other states.  He is a progressive Republican (a RINO), a reforming bigot, a liberal Mormon, a husband of one, a father of two, an honorably discharged Army Veteran, and a graduate from Utah State University who needed more student loans so also earned an MBA in finance.

We have all had, at one time or another, a major difference in opinion with someone else. Differences of opinion come in all varieties: variance in religious beliefs, in political ideologies, food preferences, and of course, as our poll last week demonstrated, Star Wars movies. While food preferences and favorite Star Wars movies can be explained away by poor taste (I am looking at you Original Trilogy elitists!), differences of opinion in politics and religion can be a bit trickier to comprehend. Where do they come from? More importantly, how do we resolve them to create a more civil society?

In The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Religion and Politics, moral Psychologist Jonathan Haidt discusses three key elements that cause differences in opinion on these subjects. First, Haidt argues that intuition comes before strategic reasoning. This means that our own moral judgments are the first instinctive response we feel when confronted with a situation, and our own ability to soundly reason is thereafter inhibited. In a practical situation, this would look like a conservative having a viscerally negative reaction to the idea of unfettered abortion without being able to consider the reasoning behind that practice. On the other hand, it might look like a liberal demanding higher taxes on the wealthy without comprehending why conservatives might be wary of a government-regulated economy.

Second, Haidt believes there is more to morality than the principles of safety or fairness. Those two ideals are basic principles—even fundamental ones. But they comprise only one part of the equation that derives morality’s true nature. For example, and among many other things, the principle of sanctity is a determinate in an individual’s moral outlook. What a person believes is sanctified will directly affect religious and political morality. To illustrate this, let us return to the example of abortion. Abortion can deal with the principles of both safety and fairness – a mother’s safety, of course, could be in doubt due to a high-risk pregnancy. Likewise, many consider government regulation of what a woman can choose to do (or not do) with her own body a violation of fairness. Conservatives, on the other hand, view the life of unborn children as sacred, owing to the common religious background conservatives share. Therefore, abortion—the destruction of that sanctified life—is to them an abominable act of the highest immorality. Then again, on the other side of that same coin, is an argument very similar to the issue of fairness: the right of mothers to decide what they will and will not do with their own bodies is sacred.

Now we begin to see the true issue of morality: it is complicated, and it has a great deal to do with both perception and priorities. In the final principle outlined by Haidt, we catch a glimpse of our current—for want of a better phrase—moral predicament. Haidt argues that morality both binds and blinds. This is a trickier principle to grasp than the other two. Essentially, Haidt argues that human beings demonstrate both chimp-like tendencies and bee-like tendencies. The chimp in us is competitive, aggressive, and fights for survival. The bee in us is altruistic and works for the common good. Bees are marvelous creatures. Despite their minuscule size, they work together to create complex societal structures and create food, shelter, and social “programs” to care for each other.

The chimp and the bee traits combine to create an “individualistic hive mind.” If it is difficult to understand what that means or picture what it may look like, then look no further than religions and political parties. Religions and political parties allow individual people of like minds to congregate, proliferate their membership, and then spread their ideas to the wider world. Groups of like-minded individuals have within them the aggressive-defensive chimp complex of their individual members, which leads to corrosively divisive disputations between opposing ideologies. The conservative-liberal divide which we work so hard here at The Civility Initiative to overcome originates from this principle.

Thus, at last, we come to the question: how do we resolve the spectrum of moral perception? My suggestion, which I humbly submit for your consideration, is simple. We must learn to broaden the “hive” in which we work and live. We must learn to view morality as a wider concept than our instinctive, chimp-like tendency toward self-preservation. We must widen that view even further to include groups outside of our own little hives.

Consider the following example, wherein I speak from my own experience. I was raised most of my life as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, one of the largest and most cohesively organized religions in the world (by cohesively organized, I mean that I could be in Salt Lake City Utah on a Sunday, but what the members of a congregation in Utah are studying the week I am there is the same as what the members of a Brazilian congregation are studying that same day. In this way, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints acts as a more cohesively organized and unified body than members of traditional Protestant Christian religions which have no established curriculum or authoritative organization between different congregations). Even within a church which is so united in the doctrine it teaches, there is a difference of opinion on how to live one’s life. These include issues ranging from how many children a couple should have to the type of movies and food one should consume.  That difference of opinion is owed to the individuality of interpretation, opportunity, and personality.

Notwithstanding this, the members of the Church are united and organized. This principle continues outward. Members of the Church stand united with many different Christian denominations on a myriad of issues both political and social, notwithstanding the differences between those Christian denominations and the Church on major doctrinal and theological issues. Those denominations, in turn, stand shoulder-to-shoulder with a number of non-religious organizations to ensure equality and fairness for all people. In short, the individual “chimps” (I promise I am not trying to call anyone a monkey) are learning to temper their passions to become chimp-bees, and those chimp-bees are learning to become bees for the greater good.

I believe human beings are righteous. When I say righteous, however, I wish to be clear that I do not mean righteous in its religious connotation. I mean that human beings have within them the desire to improve as a community. I believe that they have the capability to make sound, moral judgments. I believe they have infinite capacity to do good. But to be righteous involves evolving beyond our narrow worldviews. We must expand our altruism to consider other points of view, and I am confident that as we do so, we will find that we have much more in common than we ever thought we did.

By Grant Collins

Posting about politics on social media is a step into the boxing ring. Regardless if you are the creator, you’ve probably observed the unfortunate outcome all too common in today’s polarized political arena. Friends, family, and complete strangers take off the gloves for a fight, and rarely is the outcome pretty, let alone productive. So what is it about social media that transforms normal people into raging, gloveless keyboard fighters, and can we do anything about it?

If you take a few steps back it’s fairly intuitive to see why social media has become the equivalent of a street fight arena for politics. Short text dialog strips out much of the context and non-verbal padding that normally keeps some resemblance of civility in other communication (FaceTime, phone calls, in person exchanges). Without such padding in place, it is far too easy, even human, to superimpose our context and emotions on top of what we are reading—which, when it comes to politics, is normally a little heated, biased, and stereotypical. Additionally, the short nature of conversations promoted on social platforms can create an even greater divide between reality and our ideological misinterpretations. Context breeds empathy, so the less we have of it, the more polarized and judgmental we can become.

With so many inherent communication obstacles in place, it can seem naive to believe that interactions on social media can ever lead to civil and productive conversation in politics (or any hot topic for that matter). I felt much the same way until I had an experience that shed some positive light on my own personal negative paradigm.

A few weeks before the 2020 presidential election, I wrote a politically themed post on my Facebook and Instagram feeds. I knew the content had potential to stir the pot because of the politically charged climate it was being introduced into, but I believed in my message; so I pushed on and posted the content. Within minutes the comments began to stream in. After a couple days of heavy engagement, I was shocked to see that nearly all the interactions had been both civil and productive. Not only that but several people reached out to me privately over DM, where wonderful exchanges regarding our differing viewpoints occurred. I was completely perplexed. What had made this experience so different from the other negative interactions I had seen on other political posts? I re-examined my original content and the associated responses, and I made four key observations.

When you treat people like humans they typically respond in kind

Without realizing quite what I was doing in the moment, I began each response to my post’s comments as if I were talking to the individual in person. In almost every case, the friend, family member, or stranger responded in kind. This created space for us to agree or disagree while still maintaining respect for the human virtually seated in front of us.

Set clear communication boundaries

At the end of my post, I included the following expectation: P.S. I look forward to the civil discussion that can take place in the comments. While I am happy to hear other opinions/points of view, I will not be responding to keyboard warriors who believe that a screen somehow gives them the right to belittle or degrade others who think or feel differently than they do. This set up a clear boundary for people to follow while interacting with me and others around the topics I presented. If needed, I could easily reestablish this later on if things got out of hand. It’s your conversation, so you can create the guardrails that promote constructive conversation and then moderate when necessary.

Acknowledge that establishing opinions is a journey NOT an endgame

Too many times during a conversation I look only from my side and don’t, as Stephen Covey suggested, “seek first to understand, then to be understood.” Acknowledging that I was still in the journey of discovery around the topic I was speaking about dispelled the winner-loser mentality that often fuels the competition aspect of politics. Leading with ignorance is not weakness; it's reality for everyone who doesn’t know everything (which, I would argue, is all of us).

Know when to stop

Sometimes for one reason or another people will just not be in a headspace where productive conversation can occur. It is totally okay to stop the interaction by either not responding to or respectfully transitioning away by using phrases such as, “I can see we are probably not going to agree about this, but thank you for your thoughts.”

Creating civil and constructive conversation takes both effort and intention. Let’s face it, though, things of value rarely do. While it may seem easier to interact blow for blow, what is the cost? From my perspective, it is democracy itself. Conversation between individuals of differing opinions is the foundation of America, so if we don’t create space for this in the technology we use, we are in essence taking away our own freedom.

Technology has granted us the opportunity to be the most interconnected version of humanity to this point. Instead of becoming increasingly polarized, we can promote disciplined discourse that uses our God-given energy to move the conversation forward instead of to one side or the other. So let’s be brave and be a part of the creation of an America that is truly free.

About Author: Grant is a super connector and relationship fanatic. He received his bachelor's degree in Accounting from Brigham Young University-Idaho, and he now serves as the Director of Experience and People Operations at Nimbl, a fully remote cloud accounting practice. When he’s not building the business, he’s finding ways to connect with the people around him, form trustworthy relationships, and is always ready for a game of Pickleball. Whether he’s at home, in the community, or at the office, he’s known as a true friend—someone who is willing to invest in the personal lives of others regardless of background or political affiliation.

I had a conversation recently with a dear friend of mine, and we were discussing where the metaphorical public square is in these times.

It’s not at the literal town square anymore; those are only used for mayors or other public servants making special announcements or the like.

It’s not at pubs or bars as talking about politics is a sure way to be ostracized there, not to mention at this particular moment covid has made most social watering wells a thing of the past.

We came to the conclusion that the modern-day public square has moved to social media. Whether that is Facebook, Reddit, Instagram, Twitter, or any of the other various types, this is where we can all “come” and see each other’s ideas, thoughts, and views. Many of us tend to keep our private beliefs sequestered behind our public profiles. I myself am often guilty of that. I sometimes avoid talking about my beliefs for fear of being mis-labelled, misunderstood, or giving offense when none is meant. However, at least for me, staying silent on social media is no longer an option as it feels like my country—our country is set on tearing itself apart, and I want to try and do my part to put some small part back together. That will only come by people openly talking, discussing, and trying to come to an understanding with one another.

It was on one of the metaphorical public square (Facebook) that I came across some interesting and very similar sorts of pictures about the past two US Presidents.

During President Trump's time in office, I frequently saw a post depicting a tired-looking President Trump with the caption, “You may not like him, but you should Respect him for the office he holds.” I remember disliking that picture, though at the time I couldn’t say why. Now, I’ve seen the same type of picture, but instead of President Trump, it contains a tired President Biden. One would think, since I voted for Biden last November, I would happily re-share this picture and call it a day. Yet when I saw the tired president picture with the same caption, I still didn’t like it.

I thought about these pictures far longer than I probably should have. For crying out loud, I legitimately have caught myself thinking about Facebook posts from over a year ago. That is not normal behavior. Yet these pictures struck me wrong, and after thinking on them a lot, I think I can say why.

You see, I was raised to respect the office of the president, to respect the government, and to respect our elected officials. I was raised by amazing parents who made sure I knew that certain behaviors were unacceptable. That if I did X (assuming X is bad), then I surely would face the consequences of my actions. I came to the realization that trusting or respecting, regardless of actions, did not sit well with me, and frankly, I found that I just couldn’t.

You see, respect is earned.

I was reading recently when I came upon this phrase (respect is earned) said by a certain bridgeman (from the fictional series, The Stormlight Archives), that made the metaphorical light bulb click for me. I disliked these pictures of the presidents because they were asking me to respect the presidents regardless of their actions. Why should our standards be lowered because of someone's positions? They should act with honor, and when they do, that’s when respect is warranted. I don’t believe President Trump acted in a way worthy of respect in office, and while I support some of what President Biden has done, he has not been a perfect president. He has certainly made objectionable decisions.

Now, I feel the need to clarify. I am not saying that because I don’t respect these individuals' actions, they deserve to be slandered or treated uncivilly. They are still human beings, still deserving of the same rights and freedoms that our society promises all of us. But do they deserve the type of respect that means they shouldn’t be questioned or held accountable for wrongs? No.

Respect is earned. We as a society seem to mistake respect with civility, and it’s time to learn to make that distinction again. It’s time to hold public servants accountable for broken promises and outright lies. This won’t be achieved by screaming that your political representative deserves respect; it’s by actually acting with honor. Maybe that’s idyllic of me to return to, but it’s a vision I hold and hope for.

About the Author: Logan Longhurst is a graduate student in the Economics program at CGU in Southern California. He's interested in education practices, criminology and knowing a little about everything. He spends his spare time reading about the Cosmere, playing Ultimate Frisbee, and following the Utah Jazz.

When I tell my seventh-grade students we’re reading poetry, their response is usually the same: one long, collective groan. I try not to let it get to me, but it’s still disheartening. Their unenthusiastic reaction is similar to the response I hear from adults when words like “sonnet” and “figurative language” are thrown around.

My parents tell me they both took poetry classes but couldn’t understand what the teacher wanted. “I could never get out of it what the teacher got out of it,” my mom says, “so he’d give me a bad grade.”

Reading poetry can feel like a guessing or mind-reading game where students don’t even try to understand the poem because they're so focused on trying to understand what the teacher wants. This attitude extends beyond the classroom. Adults who don’t immediately understand a poem’s supposed “deeper meaning” can feel dumb or like they’re just not “artsy” enough to get it.

Unfortunately, there’s foundation for apprehension toward poetry and writing in general. In his book A Teaching Subject: Composition Since 1966, Joseph Harris overviews how composition courses have been taught since (surprise, surprise) 1966. Sometimes English teachers have focused more on grammar than content and more on product (the result) than on process (how to get the result). This can lead to teachers covering students’ papers in the dreaded red marks and students feeling that writing (and writing poetry in particular) is subjective. Harris’s book mostly focuses on composition courses instead of creative writing courses, which would more often include poetry. However, I think it’s safe to assume some pedagogical practices from composition instructors bled into the pedagogical practices of creative writing instructors because often teachers of the latter also teach the former.

Students can feel that what constitutes as “good” is merely up to the whims of the teacher. Admittedly, this is partially true. Poetry is an art and, like most art, is amorphous and difficult to define, so when a teacher grades poetry or a poetic analysis, the grade will depend on the teacher’s understanding of and definition of “good” poetry. Fortunately, a good teacher will define her expectations early on. It’s a little more complicated when it comes to published poetry. If you want to publish poetry, you should read poetry that’s currently being published. That will give you an idea as to what’s acceptable. Ultimately, my point is that poetry is and is not subjective. There are expectations and standards for poetry but those expectations are up to the teacher and/or publisher. It’s up to the poet to discover and understand those expectations.

The good news is you don’t have to be particularly clever or artistic to understand and, more importantly, to enjoy poetry. This is noteworthy because poetry can give meaning to the mundane. It can inspire, deepen understanding, and breed empathy and compassion. Poetry can do all the things we hope art will do: capture what it means to be human and give purpose for and to humanity.

How to Read Poetry

It took me until my master’s program to really understand that poetry is meant to be enjoyed as much as a good movie, painting, or culinary dish. In my program, I was lucky enough to work with Michael Lavers, a poet at BYU and author of After Earth, as he constructed his intro creative writing class. Lavers gave his students four steps to understanding and enjoying poetry. I’m only going to list three of them here as I think it’s safe to combine two. These steps are by no means all-inclusive, but for the poetic newbie, they can be helpful.

1. Ignore, for as long as you want, what the poem “means”

Archibald Macleish wrote, “A poem should not mean / But be.”

So often we forget that poetry is meant to be enjoyed that we skip right to “but what does it really mean?” In his “Introduction to Poetry,” Billy Collins writes,

Notice how Collins instructs his students to enjoy the sounds, images, and feelings the poem evokes. Poems are meant to be enjoyed. Read it and let yourself react however you react even if your first reaction is confusion.

2. Notice how musical the poem is

Poems are meant to be read out loud. Often multiple times.

Luckily, poetry can be short, which allows the reader time to sit with the poem. Read it multiple times. Highlight passages you love or confuse you. Look up words you don’t know. Look up words you do know. (You’ll be surprised how many double meanings sneak in there.)

While reading the poem out loud, notice how rhythmic it feels. You inherently know when a poem has rhythm. You’ve been taught this your whole life. Read the following two stanzas from a poem by Jane Taylor and try not to sing! This familiar poem has an inherent rhythm—no additional music needed.

Go on, read it out loud.

Seriously.

3. Notice how poems appeal to the five senses

Poems (like most creative literature) appeal to our sense of smell, sight, touch, taste, and hearing. The poet Federico Garcia Lorca wrote, “A poet must be a professor of the five senses...”

When I first approach a poem, I often think of Vladimir Nabokov, a famous poet and essayist, who described the inspiration for his first poem in his book Speak, Memory.

A moment later my first poem began. What touched it off? I think I know. Without any wind blowing, the sheer weight of a raindrop, shining in parasitic luxury on a cordate leaf, caused its tip to dip, and what looked like a globule of quicksilver performed a sudden glissando down the center vein…

What was his inspiration? Watching a raindrop fall off a leaf.

Nabokov did not necessarily begin his poem with an idea to impart grand ideals or high-minded wisdom. (Whether or not he in fact did impart grand ideals or high-minded wisdom is another matter.) The point being poets often get at the general through the specific. When reading, focus on the specific (language that appeals to the five senses) then the general (“deeper meaning”) will come.

The Power of Poetry

All this talk of how to approach poetry naturally leads to one important question: So what? Why read poetry in the first place?

The best answer to that is, of course, a poem, specifically “The Hill We Climb,” written and presented by Amanda Gorman this year at President Biden’s inauguration.

At twenty-two, Gorman is the youngest poet to present at an inauguration, but she is far from inexperienced. According to People Magazine, Gorman is a former (and the first) national youth poet laureate, a graduate from Harvard, and the author of a forthcoming book Change Sings. A PBS interview with Gorman reveals that, as a child, she had a speech impediment, which she overcame and “at sixteen started her own youth literacy program, One Pen One Page.”

She told the interviewer, “The power of poetry is everything for me. Poetry is an artform, but to me, it’s also a weapon. It’s also an instrument. It’s the ability to make ideas that have been known, felt and said, and that’s a real . . . type of duty for the poet.”

Calling poetry “a weapon” makes it sound dangerous, hurtful, and striking. And it can be—in a positive, productive way. Poetry can change the way people feel and think about themselves, each other, and their environment. It can be a defense—a way to make others hear and understand your story. It’s also, as Gorman says, an instrument or a mode of storytelling and communicating.

With this in mind, let’s dive into “The Hill We Climb.” Observe how this poem begins by contrasting light with dark.

Did you read it out loud?

Did you notice the rhythm created by the rhymes and repetition? Did you notice the concrete language (light, shade, wade, dawn, weathered, and witnessed)? What’s most striking about this poem, though, is the contrast between words and ideas: light vs. shade, quiet vs. peace, just-ice vs. just is, broken vs. unfinished.

We don’t need to worry about meaning right now, but I think it’s safe to say we can deduce that a poem presented at a presidential inauguration is going to be patriotic. And Gorman does not disappoint.

The entire poem has a patriotic tone. Notice how the following lines appeal to our sense of sight to enhance this idea of patriotism.

Gorman gives us a visual description of herself, “a skinny Black girl,” and a description of her personal history (“descended from slaves and raised by a single mother”). This specific example mimics a more universal example. Her poem isn’t just about her personal history and future; it’s about America’s.

Her poem preserves the present, acknowledges the past, and looks forward to the future—everything one would hope for during an inauguration, a new era. Her artwork marks what now is.

What a great contrast between (and image of) lowering firearms and lifting our physical, literal arms to help one another. This is the message a “skinny Black girl” decided to tell a country that lived through a pandemic, protests and counter protests, and an attack on the US Capitol. This poem encourages healing and unity. Gorman reminds us that we’re not attempting to form “a union that is perfect” but build a “union with purpose.” Two little words (perfect and purpose) that look so similar on a page but have such different meanings, and they are two words I never would have considered comparing if Gorman hadn’t placed them so close together for me.

Because she did, I’m reminded that the US isn’t perfect, and it was never meant to be. That doesn’t mean tomorrow is bleak; it means tomorrow I have purpose. I have hope that the future can be better because I’m going to make it better.

What I hope my students understand, what I hope my parents understand, and what it’s taken me years to understand is that poetry is power. Words create images and sounds that stir feeling: empathy, purpose, drive, love, hope, loss, fear, anger—all of them and more. Poetry allows us to attempt to explain and create our worlds, our own individual ones as well as collective.

What better way to celebrate 2020? What better way to mourn 2020?

“The Hill We Climb” succeeds at encouraging and uniting. I know it does because after my class of skeptic seventh graders watched Gorman perform her poem, one student raised her hand and said, “I learned poetry can be inspiring.”

My student had a small taste of the power of poetry, and she felt it.

When approaching poetry, my first suggestion was to ignore meaning, the truth is, if you don’t worry about meaning, you usually find it. If you allow yourself to sit with a poem, “waterski across” its surface, listen to it, and just enjoy it, beauty and meaning and depth come. So, for your enjoyment, here’s the end of “The Hill We Climb”:

About the Author: Ranae Rudd is a native of northern Utah, has earned a bachelors in English from Brigham Young University-Idaho and a MFA from Brigham Young University. Currently she is a junior high teacher and loves having the opportunity to teach America's youth. Being a moderate nerd, in her free time Ranae enjoys the finer parts of the Star Wars universe and watching reruns of the Simpsons.