RSS

Tag Archives: Brenda Tobias

College Affirmative Action

Higher education affirmative action is in the news again. It’s not all that surprising that in recent years people are more comfortable discussing its merits. It has been (almost exactly) fifty years since Ole Miss first integrated and fifty years is a long time. It’s enough time for people to forget and it’s enough time for generations to come of age free of the first hand effect of segregation. Add to that a shift in our collective attitude about college being for everyone; and it’s no doubt the subject of parity crops up. The continued need and efficacy of affirmative action is often discussed in academic circles. Lately, it is also often played out in the courts and media.

The lawsuits (or protests) that bubble up often have to do with a perceived lack of fairness. Thwarted students compare their own applications and numbers (i.e., test scores, grades, rankings) against those who were admitted. The would-be (white) students compare their own larger (or equal) numbers to that of a non-white student and feels there has been discrimination. All issues of affirmative action aside, that understanding of the admission process is deeply flawed.

Straightforward scorekeeping is the determinate in plenty of endeavors. When you play sport, or lose weight; numbers are all that matter. But most of life’s external accomplishments are much more subjective than a numbers game. The skyrocketed costs, four-star amenities, and assumption that college is for every high school graduate, has created a sense of a transactional relationship. There are thousands of four-year colleges/universities in this country. Before a student applies he/she has presumably poured over websites and determined; “Yes, I’d be a good fit.” The student knows the requirements for admission, knows the average SAT/ACT scores and class rankings, and knows they fit the bill. Rejection stings, and many struggle with trying to get past the hurt. Parents and children will rattle off admitted high school classmate’s rankings, and GPAs in their struggle to understand the rejection. Resentments and overall icky behavior often ensues. No one wants to be told; “Thanks but no thanks” particularly when the rejected was set to pony up (potentially) over six-figures for the privilege of acceptance.

But what these parents and their children might not realize is that those numbers are simply how one gets to be considered. Creating an incoming class involves much more than comparing numbers. The goal of creating a class is generally two-fold; the students should be able to succeed and the students should be able to add to their classmates’ educational experience. “Succeeding” can mean many things and varies according to schools and programs. What a student can add to the experience is dependent upon the historic nature of the school, the location, the discipline, and many other elements.

Whether our country is in need of creating equal opportunity for all based on ethnicity and race is a subject for another day. When we do engage in that conversation we should think long and hard about economic class and first generation students when we talk about equal opportunity. But until then let’s be crystal clear about college admissions. It is not simply a numbers game; (hint: that’s why there are essay components and pages of extracurricular activities on the application.)

 
1 Comment

Posted by on October 10, 2012 in Education

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Kramer vs Kramer vs Consumerism

There are films that never lose their emotional wallop, despite how many times you’ve seen them. Steel Magnolias, The Color Purple, Stella Dallas and An Affair To Remember come to mind. There is no element of surprise in the viewing; in fact the memorized dialogue and outcome are part of the pleasure. But the way in which the stories are crafted pull the viewer in for the punch. Of course there are reasons to revisit a dramatic film besides an opportunity to use tissues and visine. Films can tell us an awful lot about how we lived or thought. A film is fantasy of course, but it is a reflection of a director, screenwriter or producer’s viewpoint. Attitudes portrayed about gender, race, sexuality and religion are often an accurate reflection of the time. A film shot in the early 1970s will not only look very early 1970s but sound it too. Women might be referred to as “girls” or “honey,” bottoms might be patted. Generally, if non-white actors appear it’s to make a point. The storyline probably has nothing to do with any of these details, but the details are telling nonetheless.

You might remember the film; Kramer vs Kramer. (For those who don’t; it was a cutting-edge tale of divorce and custody starring Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep, set in New York City.) The emotional wallop of the film doesn’t diminish with time. Much of what will rip you to shreds is the incredible performance of (8 year-old) Justin Henry. You’d have to be made of stone to not crumble at the raw hurt and anger on his face. Meryl Streep’s eyes do most of her talking. She has perhaps twenty lines and expresses pages and pages of dialogue with her eyes. The viewer understands everything about these people and their anguish. But there is also (now) a story on the periphery of that story. The year is 1979 and times were decidedly different. The family is middle class (daddy works in advertising.) They are educated people living in a two-bedroom high-rise apartment uptown. The child attends a neighborhood school and they frequent Central Park. Sounds rather timeless, no? It’s what you don’t see that is so telling. The family (before they weren’t one) is living comfortably on one salary. There is no car, there is no private school and there is no luxury. The child’s bedroom has been hand-painted with clouds by the creatively frustrated mother. (In 1979 this was considered somewhat decadent.) However, there is no Pottery Barn kid’s furniture or matching bedding and window treatment. There are some books, some toys, and later a framed photo of mommy. The chaos that ensues with mommy’s departure is linked to the time period. There are no babysitters or nannies on call or even in existence. (Nannies were still for the posh or the British.) Daddy must master grocery shopping and food preparation as take-away was not ubiquitous and children did not dine out. Luckily for daddy there are no play-dates (there is only play) and there are no enrichment programs or team sports for a first-grader.

Now no one would suggest that the late 1970s were halcyon times. The demise of the marriage in question hinged on the fact that the wife felt marginalized. She left her husband and child to “find herself” (aka get some analysis and a job.) But had the marriage worked, and had she felt able to go out and get a job, their lifestyle wouldn’t be that much different. There’d be an after-school babysitter no doubt. But the minimalistic consumption wouldn’t alter. Sure, she might need some work clothes, but shopping wasn’t a legitimate hobby in the 1970s. New appliances would’ve only been purchased if every attempt at repair had been exhausted. There were no strollers being sold for the same price as a moped. In short, they would have had more money and more time (not running from expenditure to expenditure) than they would today. Something to contemplate while watching the film and choking back the tears

 

 
 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Protecting Those Who Serve

 

Congress is poised to enact legislation to make it legal for military mental health counselors (and commanders) to discuss personal firearms with soldiers considered at risk for suicide. That’s right, it is currently illegal to discuss ownership (and any use of) personal firearms with soldiers identified as potentially suicidal. 6 out of 10 military suicides are by firearm (similar to the rate of non-military suicides.) Now before we all collectively smack ourselves on the forehead and exclaim a universal; “Duh” let’s think this through.

The military is acknowledging that there are mental health issues that need to be addressed. The Pentagon and Congress are willing to even consider wading into “don’t you come near my gun” political territory. The military culture is showing signs it is willing to change. Culture is not easy to change. A culture whose very existence is based on rules, regulations, defense, solidarity, and yes; firearms, is showing some flexibility. They seem to be willing to admit that there is a problem that needs to be addressed holistically.

At first blush discussing (personal) gun ownership with someone who may be a danger to him/herself seems rather straightforward. No one is confiscating the gun(s) or demanding they be relinquished (perhaps that will come with time.) The potentially lifesaving measure being considered by Congress is merely a conversation about guns. But this is the military we’re talking about. There are people who consider personal gun ownership to be a very important part of who they are and of their patriotism. Knowing that the subject may not be private could have an effect on a soldier’s willingness to discuss mental health issues. Living in a closed environment (a military base) one might guard his/her privacy. Living on a base (with a gun store!) surrounded by people openly carrying guns, it could feel very stigmatizing to have your gun ownership questioned.

All of this is not to suggest that there should ever be any gag rules around mental health and safety. But it is worth noting that military+mental health+right to bear arms= a minefield. Any move towards open and direct conversation about military mental health and safety should be encouraged. Could this step (of removing the speech restraint) be the first of many necessary steps? Will soldiers identified as being at risk have all firearms confiscated? Could we someday live in a world in which people with mental illness do not have access to guns? Why not? Think of all the changes in safety and in illness awareness in just the last thirty years. Seat belt use was once optional (if they existed at all,) the words “breast cancer” were whispered (if uttered at all,) the intellectually and physically challenged were definitely not mainstreamed, and many people with mental illness suffered in silence. As a culture we’ve demonstrated we are capable of change. If an organization defined by tradition and rigidity can take this first step, just think what the rest of us could do!

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 8, 2012 in Cultural Critique, Well-Being

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

We Are Family

There are many ways to make a family and some of them involve legality. The broadest definition of a family is that of more than one person committed to building a life together. You can imagine the many variations that live within that parameter; parentless siblings, romantically connected adults, friends, one adult and children, generations of the biologically related. Within those examples are even more variations; adopted siblings, romantically connected adults of varying genders, religions, races, ages, abilities, one adult and adopted children, donor/surrogate children, foster children. Generations of the biologically related can include any or all of the categories just mentioned. That’s a whole lot of variation.

Yet for all of our ‘we are the world”liness we are not all that comfortable with uniqueness. It’s not necessarily a shortcoming on our part. We can only process so much information. We are wired to take in information quickly and make instantaneous decisions (‘is that a friendly lion coming toward our cave or a hostile hungry lion?’) We have room for subtlety and idiosyncrasy with our friends and family; but the world at large is just too large. So we look for categories, boxes, and classifications to avoid a mind that would thrill a hoarder. And it wouldn’t matter a smidge until something goes awry.

When a family breaks up there can be a lot of rubble. If the latter part of the 20th century taught us anything; it’s that families can dissolve. For better or worse (pun intended) and for the most part, people no longer need each other for survival. However, through the beauty of human nature; new families can be created. Complicated? Not really, or not until the 5th grade teacher assigns the archaic “family tree” assignment to her class. Family is what you make it and its level of fluidity is what you choose.

Lovely sentiment but what about those step-children left behind in the prior marriage? What of your child’s step-grandparent who is now not? Who gets invited to what? Who gets to see photos or updates? What if the ex-spouse has remarried and there are new steps? Do they get invited? The first step is to drop the label maker. I’m not going to get all Carol Brady and suggest that the only steps in this house are the ones in the living room. But I will offer that when it comes to determining what and who is important to us; labels only obscure. What matters is how you feel, how the children feel and how a new spouse/partner feels (and NOT necessarily in that order.) What we want for our children is for them to have the love of as many people as they possibly can. We want them to have consistent and reliable relationships with people who are not necessarily related to them. It’s one way they grow strong roots. If there has been heinous behavior (i.e., violence, or criminality) by any ex-family member it should be taken into consideration. But overall whatever works for everyone* most involved is just plain okely dokely. (By “everyone” I do not mean the child(ren) are allowed to insist their parents behave as if they never split up and spend all holidays and recitals as a unit.)

Life can be messy, chaotic and at times horrific. Having people who love you and feel obligated to take you in is what makes it all manageable. Yes, the broader we define something the more complex it gets. And no, there isn’t a greeting card to send on Mother’s Day to the woman who is now partnered with your ex-step-parent. But that’s a good thing isn’t it? Do any of us (in our heart of hearts) want to think of ourselves as able to be reduced to a mass market sentiment?

 
3 Comments

Posted by on October 4, 2012 in Childhood, Marriage/Wedding, Well-Being

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Well Seasoned Style

When it comes to style and presentation what possibly could be left to say? We all know by now that fit and flatter are essential ingredients and attitude is an asset. But yet. But yet. If you live in a four season kinda town, you’ve no doubt witnessed the “Autumn? I am not familiar with your ways.” style that abounds. People who only weeks ago had managed to reasonably dress themselves now stumble squinting into the outdoors like a newborn colt. They’ve grabbed last year’s something, purchased this year’s new thing and found their way out the door. Sometime before Thanksgiving it will all come together, but why wait? If you’re doing any of the following; stop:

  • Weather – there are apps for this; use them
    • A down jacket on a day reaching 75 degrees paints a dwelling optional portrait
    • Rain happens, and no one looks good wet (with the exception of the Man from Atlantis and Esther Williams)
  • Hemisphere Dressing
    • If it’s cold enough to wrap that 4-foot piece of cloth around your neck (a look previously only seen in desert regions) it’s too cold to wear shorts
    • Wearing a jaunty felt fedora is fabulous; but not if it’s worn with a sundress
    • Have your top part and bottom part appear to be going to the same place
      • Farm boots or chef shoes paired with a dress looks cuckoo
      • Leather jacket and flip-flops? What’s that for; a biker beach?
  • Season as an after thought
    • Throwing a fur jacket over a micro mini skirt isn’t so much seasonally appropriate as it is ‘working girl’ appropriate
    • Linen pants and suede boots together are oil and water and there might even be a biblical prohibition
    • Layering is lovely; piling on every lightweight sweater you own gives the impression that you’re fleeing a house fire

Starting anything new takes a bit of thought. But you’d be surprised by the muscle memory lurking below your recently chilled skin. When you have a moment (oh, hush; you have a moment) dig out all of your cold weather apparel. It’s like shopping for free! Take a good look at what you’ve got (and do make sure it fits.) Then just think of these easy guidelines:

  • Tone is everything
    • Pieces shouldn’t match they should look happy together
    • Everything you have on should look as if it could be displayed in the same section of a store
  • Add a layer
    • How exciting is a jacket? No really. Blazers, cardigans, outerwear magically transform clothes into an Outfit!
  • Make friends with your mirror
    • Relearning how to dress takes a few days (or severe weather shifts) a mirror will help this process along
      • Before leaving the house (that’s right; After your jacket is on!) take a good look. Does your whole body look as if it’s off to the same destination? Are you wearing a down vest with a party dress and heels? It’s not a good look on a sorority pledge, and it’s not a good look for you.

It’s a gorgeous time of year filled with golden and vibrant color. Our foods and feasts become more simmered and lingering. We reclaim our root system and hunker down around the hearth. We are cozy and covered and profoundly grateful for the generosity of an oversized sweater and leggings. Happy Autumn!

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 3, 2012 in Style

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,