Speaking Freely

 

I just read an article in USA Today about Salmon Rushdie deciding not to speak at a college commencement because of opposition against him from Palestinian supporters. He had recently commented on the protesters here in American believing that it’s “problematic” for student movements to support Hamas, a known terrorist organization. Because of this, the supporters at this university shut him down. Rushdie has been a long-time advocate of a Palestinian state. He’s also spoken out against what’s happening in Gaza. He’s not the enemy of these protesters. But he feels they are on shaky grounds when support turns to Hamas.  In the past, people of differing opinions could come to universities and share their opinions without fear of reprisal. If all views are aired, people can form an educated opinion. Today differing opinions are strongly, even violently, discouraged.

America’s Freedom of Speech used to mean all opinions could openly be shared. As long as the speakers were not pushing violence (and sometimes even when they did), they were free to share their views. Certainly not everything we wish to say can be shared freely. We cannot yell “fire” in a crowded space. Hate speech can be shut down. But most of what we wish to say is covered by our right to freedom of speech, or was. 

With the rise of social media, under the opportunity to not be face to face, people have become bolder and bolder at pushing their agendas, often at the expense of their opponent’s humanity. We wish to erase all things we disagree with, and label the people who speak dissent as dangerous or bad or stupid. Today people are deciding not to weigh in with their opinion for fear of losing their job, friends, family. We don’t have to agree to disagree anymore, we just have to censure those we disagree with. May the loudest voice win.

The current administration leads the way. Harvard University is standing its ground regarding the government’s demand they toe a certain line or lose their funding. Harvard drew a line in the sand. This over diversity, equality and inclusion. Apparently the government sees finding ways to even the playing field for people who are not white, middleclass Americans, as racist.  So speech and practices that wish to help less fortunate Americans, often people of color, get equal opportunity is squelched. White people are being prejudiced against. Oh my, how awful.

I say that because I believe there is such a thing as “white privilege”. Statistically in America, white people hold the most of everything. Heaven forbid anyone else would get a fairer share of the American dream. White America feels afraid they might lose some of their privilege. More and more you hear comments about seeing more people of color represented on TV or in movies. Instead of celebrating that our country is being more diverse, we call it “racism” and seek to stop it. 

Whatever racism and discrimination white America has experienced pales in comparison to what every non-white (and often times non-white-non-male) have experienced. So when organizations seek more equality for people of color, white America shouts “racism”.  Diversity, equality and inclusion programs, created to equal the playing field for non-white Americans, are now deemed racists and wrong. Support of those programs is punished by removal of funding, or loss of employment.  Speaking out in favor of equality for all is shut down. The right to even speak one’s opinion on the subject is in jeopardy.   

What happened to our right to speak our mind, express our opinion? Why am I to be censored if my view doesn’t agree with yours? What made your opinion weigh more than mine? Why can’t we both share what we believe? If what you believe is what you believe, what difference does my disagreeing make? If you are “right”, my expressing my “wrongness” shouldn’t bother you at all. But apparently it does.

So a college graduating class missed out on the experience of hearing Salmon Rushdie because he’d expressed an opinion a loud group of protesters didn’t agree with. No one was stopping them from protesting and sharing their opinions. But they made Mr. Rushdie feel afraid (after all, he has experienced a physical attack by someone who disagreed with his beliefs. Who can blame him for choosing to not put himself in that position again). Why were the protesters threatened by Mr. Rushdie? Whatever he planned to say at the ceremony might have shown he agrees with them more than he disagrees. We will never know, because a group of people felt it was better to stop him from speaking then take the risk of hearing his words. 

 

Labels

 

When I was in college we visited an institution for children with a wide variety of disabilities. Two areas haunted me out of majoring in special education. One was a room full of deaf and blind children, the other had a group of autistic kids.  This was in the 1970’s, and institutionalizing these children was still fairly routine. Researchers were just beginning to understand learning disabilities, and autism still had years to go to be better understood.  Helen Keller had shown the world what blind and deaf kids could do, yet here they were, still in an institution. To me, both groups of children were so helpless. They were magic boxes waiting for someone to unlock the key so they could communicate. The autistic children all were wearing helmets and were in various modes of self-stimulation, including banging their head on the wall and floor. I was terrified.

Years later I read an essay by one such young person, who found a way to communicate. One statement he made broke my heart, “I beat my head to prove I was alive.”  Both groups of children in that institution were trapped in their heads, most normal or highly intelligent children but no one could know that because they hadn’t found a way in (and sadly, in many cases, didn’t care to look beyond their presuppositions).

The school I taught in had several autism spectrum students over the years. My avoidance of a special education degree, somewhat because of that experience with autism, came rushing back. I’ve taught autistic students English and History in group and individual settings. They all have been my best teachers, helping me to become better at my job. I certainly don’t think of myself an expert on the subject, but I have spent a lot of time with autistic students, albeit at the higher end of the spectrum. I know something about the categorization. 

Initially, my preconceived notions raised fear. I was uncomfortable thinking about these kids. I didn’t have a special education background. What did I know about autism beyond the horrifying field trip? And these kids can be odd, walking around the school or curled up in corners, or barging through your doorway. But once I met them, they were just kids, and the preconceived notions began to fall away. Like I said, I learned so much from them about just being human, let alone autism. And, as one student said to me, as we were rocking away on our chairs, “all of us are probably on the spectrum”. For sure.

So I read the discussion going on today about an “autism epidemic” and finding a cause so we can eradicate it, and I get agitated. Difficult as it may be, living with autism, I do not believe any of my students are looking to be “cured”, nor should they. I heard Robert Kennedy Jr. listing all the things autistic kids will never be able to do (hold a job, get married, go to the bathroom by themselves) and I want to scream, “Have you ever met someone with autism?”  Of course there are extremes along the spectrum, but research has found so many inroads into helping people live with autism. In my experience there was very little those kids couldn’t do, about the same as any other student, sometimes more.

Temple Grandin responded to some questions about all this new uproar. She holds a PhD in animal science, teaches at university, has written many books, and is autistic. Hmm – she didn’t let the term “never” stop her, and she survived those years when the popular course was institutionalization – not to learn but to be shut away. Fortunately that was not her history. She agrees that autism needs further research, especially to help people with autism deal with sensitivities (which drove many of them to bang their heads). She also sees a need to research how children developing in a normal pattern begin to regress and would classify as “autistic”. What caused the regression?  But beyond that, she wasn’t asking anyone to find a cure for her, and she believes, as is common wisdom today, that autism is genetic.

When you work with a lot of autistic children you begin to see the pattern. One of the parents will present on the spectrum as well. If that isn’t genetics, I don’t know what is.  I am sure, as with all of us, environmental issues play a role, but not as a cause. My students were good students, and many were brilliant. Many struggled with social skills, but not all. Put them to a task and you get results. Help them find ways to bolster their strengths and accommodate their weaknesses and they succeed. Most of my students went on to college and graduated to move out into the work force. College wasn’t an option for all, and some struggled with what to do going forward, but “never” wasn’t a word to describe what they could do. The bigger point is that they were all individuals, not a one size fits all category.

Like so many issues today, I just wish people (especially people in power) could meet and spend time with these kids. Autism isn’t an issue, autism is people, (like LGBTQ+) - people not labels. If you meet and spend time with the people, you get a much stronger perspective on the label. You might have to ditch some of your preconceived notions (like I did), but you will meet some of the most amazing people around.

The Danger of Banned Books

 

I love books. I have been reading for as long as I can remember. My mom said she was reading Charlotte’s Web to me, and one moment she was reading and the next I was. I was around 4. We shared books together for a long time. In first grade I felt a bit like Scout in To Kill A Mockingbird, everyone else was learning to read from some insipid primer reader, and I was odd man out. Fortunately, my teacher was more understanding than Scout’s and just gave me more interesting books to read.

I also had a wonderful public librarian who led me from children’s books to more mature reading. Only once did she hesitate, and actually came by my house to take back the book. But I had already self-censored and decided it wasn’t for me. The book was The Magus by John Fowles. I was in Junior High. Being given the liberty to read whatever I wanted, I was good at self-censoring. I could tell when a subject was over my head, too disturbing, undiscernible, uncomfortable and age inappropriate. I learned to skim through many of those sections (as well as lengthy descriptions of things I didn’t care to know about), and even just not finish the book (although, like cleaning my plate, not finishing a book I started seemed somehow wrong).

I have especially enjoyed reading books people have tried to ban/censor. The beloved To Kill A Mockingbird would be one such novel. I taught that book for 20 years to my junior English class, and over that time have reread the book at least 10 times. I loved teaching that book for many reasons, but especially to talk about censorship. I even shared a letter from a parent asking me not to assign the book. I shared the letter not to disparage the parent, but to show that censorship most often was the knee jerk reaction to fear. Parents fear a book might hurt sensitive hearts, might introduce a topic they think inappropriate for their child, might influence their child in a direction they disprove. In the case of Mockingbird the most feared topics are racism and rape. But in talking about these issues, in hearing the student’s reactions to them, we build structure about these issues. Yes, they develop opinions. Yes, they often are moved to tears. But never did a student feel it wasn’t age or subject appropriate to them. They see and hear about much worse on the internet and in movies. In fact, more often than not, they had read the book in Jr. High and disliked it. Some even believed the issues raised in the book had long been taken care of. Racism was a thing of the past. Making them read the book again at an older age, they learn that first impressions can be off, because when they first tried the book it wasn’t the right time. Or they liked the book, but reading it again can reveal things they never saw before (like how Mockingbird isn’t just about race).  Reading Shakespeare can be like that too.

If someone says a book should be censored or banned (for example, Harry Potter, originally by the Christian right and today by the left) I usually have to read it. And here’s the deal, books can be powerful and dangerous. They present us with ideas we have to grapple with. They can make us think. They can challenge our beliefs. But what’s wrong with that? Not every book changed my opinion on major issues, but so many of them changed my opinion about people, and mostly for the better. I could see the humanity in characters very different from me, and develop a more empathetic stand. I could explore complicated concepts in the safety of my home. I could travel to exotic places and walk with extraordinary people while never leaving my room. Censored books just made that more exciting.

Today I read that the Librarian of Congress had been fired. The reason for her firing was that she’d allowed books into the library that have been deemed inappropriate and harmful to children. Deemed by whom is a good question? But really, one purpose of the Library of Congress is to house many, if not most, of the books published in the US. So of course there will be controversial books in the Library of Congress. That is part of the Library’s purpose. That doesn’t mean if you are disturbed by or dislike a book you have to read it. It certainly doesn’t mean your young children have to read it. Just because a book exists doesn’t mean you need to fear it. And often, those “deeming” books as harmful are really letting their fears get ahead of them. My parent who had written the letter with her Mockingbird fears had never read the book herself, because the supposed subject matter was objectionable to her. I think before you recommend banning a book you should at least have to read it yourself.

Banning, censoring, firing librarians, what’s next? Book burnings?  I taught my students that we all need to know what we believe – about all things in life from nutrition to God. Then we need to know why we believe it. If we just take on our family’s values without knowing why and believing the why, we really are not truly sold. So much of the fear and anger we see today is a defensiveness regarding topics, revealing a less confident belief system. If we don't know why we believe what we believe, questions raised by books and other people cause earthquakes in what we thought was solid ground. 

Back to Harry Potter. Christians were afraid because the book, in their minds, taught witchcraft. But why should that worry us? The Bible teaches that “greater is He who is in us then he who is in the world.” Satan and witchcraft are no match for God. So as a believer, nothing in witchcraft has any effect upon me. What about teaching children to be witches or possibly making them desire to be one?  I doubt anyone converted to Wiccan as a result of reading about Harry and his friends. Neither was anyone able to cast a spell using those mentioned in the books. The reality is J. K. Rowling used the fantasy setting to talk about the power of love and friendship and acceptance of differences, amongst many other equally important themes. Very Christian themes, by the way.

That’s the magic of speculative fiction – magical realism, science fiction, fantasy. They take us out of our world, where we might stop listening if things get to close to home, and put us in a totally different world and more subtly get us to see ourselves. Shakespeare did that, like setting books in France or Italy rather than England. Jonathan Swift did that with having Gulliver in all his adventures in strange, new kingdoms that had similarities to those of the readers' but didn’t directly point a finger at the mother country.

This whole obsession with removing DEI from our country to make it “American” again, is crazy. Americans are people of every race, belief, color and gender. We are a bunch of differences. We are not all white, protestant, straight, married with 2.5 children. But we are all Americans. Removing books from libraries that speak of people different from ourselves is a horrible idea. The removal is what does the harm. Certainly you can guide your own children in what they read or don’t read, but no one has the right to make those decisions for others. And reading a book by an LGBTQ+ author, or an author of a color other than white, won’t make your child gay or purple by the reading of it. But it might make your child more accepting and understanding. It might show your child that we are more alike than different. That, like Shylock in The Merchant of Venice, we all bleed when we are cut. And having books like those to read allows so many children to see themselves in literature, rather than only seeing cis white people.

Many historians believe book banning and censorship is the canary in the mine. Yes, books are powerful, words are powerful. They can set off revolutions because they make people think. We need more thinking people today, not less. We need to assist our children to learn to think for themselves. I thank God for my mother, my first grade teacher and my childhood public librarian. I strove to follow their example as a teacher. I challenge all of us to be a voice of truth against power today. Go read a banned book!

What is Truth?

 

I listened to an interview the other day. I probably should just lay off news and interviews all together. Sometimes I leave wondering what planet I’ve landed on, or come from. The person answering the questions was giving answers I could easily Google and see were incorrect. Yet the person answered with such confidence, you wondered if all of the sources on Google were wrong and this one person held the right answer. Apparently “proving” isn’t the point anymore.

I used to be able to say or believe something was “true” and feel confident that was so.  Like the moon landing, that was a “true” event. I even saw it with my own eyes. “True” was often something provable, and you would think today the proving part would be easy, what with all the opportunities for things to be recorded or researched. But even that doesn’t seem to matter anymore. Those who hold that the moon landing didn’t happen, except on a sound stage, see their view as true.  Today true is only true if I say it’s true; that’s “my truth”.  There is no absolute truth anymore. Truth is all relative.  And I guess that wouldn’t be so bad if others could accept my “truth” and allow me to live it. But often, my truth doesn’t count, even for me, if your truth is something different. All the provable images in the world doesn’t change another’s truth claims. So all of Google’s statistics don’t matter if the person being interviewed says they are false.

Take all the news about immigration. We hear of hundreds of people put on planes and taken to an El Salvador prison because they are guilty of the heinous crime of being “illegal”. We are told that most people who come into our country illegally are already criminals and have been running amok in the country dealing drugs, raping and murdering American citizens. Obviously some have, but so also have full American citizens been dealing drugs, raping and murdering fellow citizens. But really, every single person in our country illegally (whether by crossing the already death defying boarder, or living here with an expired visa) is a criminal?  Well, taken literally, the fact that they are “illegal” makes them a criminal, period. And, I guess, in today’s world all criminals are the same, whether you are a parent, hold down a job and pay taxes or you murdered someone to take their money. And even if there is a distinction to be made, there is no opportunity to make it. People are pulled out of their homes and workplaces, and deported with no day in court. All of this because our current government has definitions for these terms that are different, or less black and white, then what might have been considered true before.

I agree that if there are 11 million people living here illegally* it would be almost impossible to give everyone their day in court. (Our President says it’s 21 million, which if you count lawful permanent immigrant residents it would add up to 21 million, but technically they are here legally).  Surely we know which people have a legitimate criminal record and which have been working to build a legitimate life here.  The focus was to be on the former, but when you paint them all with the same brush, the focus is on anyone who is living here without citizenship (because we’ve seen even people with active student visas and green cards deported).

My research showed that there were about 8.3 million undocumented workers in the United States. You read reports of rising concern from the companies who have hired these workers, especially farm workers. Who is going to pick strawberries for minimum wage? Exactly what jobs have these workers taken from the rest of us?  I picked strawberries when I was a kid. It was back breaking, dirty, and exhausting. I worked alongside people we referred to as “migrant” workers. They traveled from crop to crop to make a living for their families. They could out pick all of us kids – but they were being paid by the weight of what they picked. You have to pick a lot of strawberries to weigh in. That was more motivating to them then to me. But other than kids and the migrant workers, no one else seemed lined up to work those fields.  Once we deport everyone, who will fill these jobs? Summer job kids do not make the best workers in the fields, trust me.

And what about the idea that all of these undocumented (and, unfortunately, some documented if having a green card or school visa still can’t save you today) are criminals. My research also showed that there were 17,048 criminal convictions of illegals in 2024, with DUI’s being the highest convictions with 2,844 people, behind illegal entry and re-entry convictions of 10,935 people. Added together, those two crimes make 13,779 out of the 17, 048 total convictions – making up 80% of the crimes committed by undocumented people in 2024.  Certainly there were assaults, drug deals, and murders, but by much fewer people, part of only 20% of all crimes committed by undocumented people according to this research. So where does the government get the much larger statistics regarding “heinous” crime by illegals? Why are they labeling them all “heinous criminals”?

The President said those of us concerned by seeing these criminals have their day in court are “sick”. But as sick as I may be, it would appear that not all of the undocumented people living in America today are dangerous, in fact they are much needed participants in our workforce, doing jobs most of us have no desire to do. I love eating strawberries, and I am thankful for the people who pick them, but I would not want to be on my knees from dawn to dusk harvesting them for a living. Been there done that.

All of this to say – my research only means something to me. I am thankful for Google. I didn’t have to go to a reference section in the library and look up these statistics I’ve quoted. I enjoy research and crunching numbers. I also understand that not everything I read is true, and even these statistics could indeed be false. But it’s obvious what appears as provable facts to me are not so obvious to others. My truth, and the truth of those researchers who crunched those numbers (many taken from the last Census), do not add up to the truth of those leading our government today.  And immigration is only one small portion of the challenges to my truth I feel every day.

It is obvious we live in a world without any absolutes let alone objective truths.  2 + 2 don’t have to make 4 if I don’t want them to, or believe they do.

In the Bible Jesus said to his disciples, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.” I’ve centered my life on that truth. It’s my North Star that has not failed when all the rest of my world seems to have gone crazy. Or maybe I really am from a different planet. I better check my documents.

 

*all numbers were taken off Google, most from government sources, using search for number of illegal aliens living in America and criminal offenses by illegal aliens.