Our Tolerance

Scribbled on my yellow Post-It note are the following words:
     Our tolerance for everything has produced an unwillingness to restrict anything.

     I have no idea where I stole that from or when I stole it, but I do know that it certainly strikes a chord for me. As I am prone to do, when I encounter a news article, a quotation, or a picture that intrigues me, I cut it out and put it into a file--might sound boring, I realize, but from time to time I encounter situations that trigger a response connecting to one of those cutouts. Today I am sharing one that relates to many situations alive and well in our society.

 

     With each passing month, I suppose my resistance to change lessens just a bit. My occasional "anal-retentive" drive to do so much the right way occasionally shrinks to a "so what" approach. Desiring to follow a set routine marked by a daily to-do list is more frequently reduced to an "I'll do it tomorrow" approach. People tell me I have earned the right to do so, yet I remain somewhat unconvinced. I have routines that I enjoy because they provide me satisfaction at day's end, so forcing me to break away is sometimes a struggle. In short, I do not "tolerate" change simply for change's sake. What I am observing, though, is that it often is easier to simply surrender and accept . . . a task I find difficult to do.

 

     The world is whizzing by faster than I sometimes can understand. Morals, styles, laws--so much, so fast--frequently leave me shaking my head in amazement and often amusement. Do we say "whoa" to anything, or do we just accept the world as it is changing?

 

     As I am writing  and re-reading my words, I sense that I am sounding like an old codger saying that the world is going to hell. In truth, I am struggling this afternoon trying to make my point. Perhaps it would be better if I just dropped the lead-in and got to my focus:

 

*We accept swearing in so many diverse situations that it almost seems natural to hear what many may consider offensive; in particular, the "f-bomb" is treated like an acceptable word; trust me when I tell you that I am no angel, but I do understand parameters of what is and what is not acceptable. However, our guards have dropped, and that is life today.

 

*We accept a society where we find it perfectly acceptable to criticize our country's leaders; in a time where we desire cohesion and loyalty, we instead feel so free--thanks to the ease of social media--to blatantly criticize, ridicule, and demean those same people who were elected to represent us. Our guards have dropped, and that is life today.

 

*We accept the bandwagon jumping that goes along with people's criticism of police, and we are so often guilty of following the loudest critic in the room--whether that voice has any logic to it or not. Our guards have dropped, and that is life today.

 

*We accept that public decorum is left to the individual rather than what is acceptable to others; wearing pants way low in the back, showing as much skin as possible,  . . . the list goes on. To say something, of course, is considered by many to be an act of invasion, so we just go about our way. Our guards have dropped, and that is life today.

 

*We accept the apathy toward the English language, considering it to be no big deal that our writing skills are deteriorating at a rapid pace. Our guards have dropped, and that is life today.

 

*We accept that walking with headsets on limits conversation with others in a world where interaction is needed more than ever. Eye contact and personal conversation suffer . . . , and we often wonder why. Our guards have dropped, and that is life today.

 

*We accept that eating in a restaurant or even in our homes has no bearing on whether we are checking our cell phone or interrupting conversation . . . the "so what" attitude seems to prevail. Our guards have dropped, and that is life today.

 

     More examples could certainly be provided, but the snowball rolling down the hill analogy seems to fit. Because of our almost-blind acceptance of practically all behavior, I sense an unwillingness to restrict much of anything. At what point do we step up and say, "Enough!" It is so easy for us to criticize, yet it is so hard to actually combat deteriorating behaviors. Certainly, I am not advocating physical confrontation, but I am stressing that if we--the adults--do not occasionally point out flaws,  this tolerance will continue to worsen . . . and that, my friends, scares the hell out of me.

To read all my blog entries, please go to michaelagunther.blogspot.com.

"A Sign of an Intelligent Person Is . . ."

"My kid is not reading that book; there's swearing in it!"    

 

As formal academic progress once again resumes, along with it comes the opportunity to assess the learning that occurs in our children's classrooms. Many, of course, welcome the educational opportunities presented to today's kids, yet, somehow, a certain percentage question the motives behind change and intellectual discussion. Before the "attack" season begins, though, I would like to offer my two cents regarding an issue dear to English teachers' hearts: teaching controversial literature.

 

     Many feel that a public school is not the place for discussion of controversial matters. I, however, vehemently disagree. A classroom is a center of intellect, a place for intelligent discussion about a variety of matters--some controversial, some not. By teaching a novel, a teacher and the school are not endorsing the topic; rather, they are providing a forum for mature conversation. My experiences have shown me that my students shine when given the opportunity to present their views; although not all are in agreement, that is the beauty of the discussions. Those who hold differing views are provided the opportunity to voice their concerns, their opposition, their reality . . . without the fear of being ridiculed or humiliated. That is what education is: learning!

 

     My classroom has been the center of tremendous discussions, ones that have made my students think . . . and that is exactly what I have attempted to create. I do not want today's students to be programmed to accept only one perspective; instead, I want them to listen, to process, and to rationalize. It is not of importance to me that in literature discussions that students are merely reiterating the basic elements of literature. Literature is meant to make one think. Many parents, I realize, are threatened by that. Their opposition is usually based upon three key triggers: swearing is present, the Lord's name has been taken in vain, and sex is mentioned. I hear that argument, but I must counter by asking if those same parents think that is what is being discussed in class? That the teacher is encouraging the teenagers to swear, to take the Lord's name in vain, and to have sex? If so, that thinking is quite shallow and way off the mark.

 

     So often, the reaction is immediate: we do not want our children to think on their own. Rather, we want them to be staunch advocates of our own selves. As a parent, I recognize this, but I also recognize that my wife and I could protect our daughters only so far. Our children grew up in the Catholic faith, and we would like to believe that with their moral upbringing that we laid a strong foundation for their adult lives. However, my wife and I wanted our daughters exposed to so many aspects of life including the realities of "the other side of life." They realized that exposure did not warrant endorsement. I share this personal story only to make my point: we wanted them to think on their own; they knew our family values, and they understood what was acceptable and what was not. We did not expect them to be like my wife or me; of course, we privately hoped that they would share a few of our attributes, but we trusted their maturity to develop their own views. That is what life experiences are like. Reading controversial novels is no different. Without a doubt, I would much rather have had my own children intellectually discuss a controversial matter in a structured environment being led by a trained professional than I would have on their own with their peers  . . . and, believe me, they did . . . and their conclusions may have had no rationality to them at all!

 

     I will conclude my explanatory comments by making what I perceive to be an extremely relevant point: I would ask all critics of any novel to perform one task before attacking a book: Read the novel! Those who evaluate the novel based upon looking at a few pages and forming a rock-solid opinion are missing the point: As decreed by the Supreme Court in 1973, a piece of literature cannot be considered "obscene" if only select pages are scrutinized. Rather taken as a whole are the key words that dictate a writing's value. It is impossible to discuss the merits of a book if only a few pages have been reviewed. Again, I stress that a critic must read the entire book. Until that happens, intellectual discussion cannot be held . . . and that is exactly what we expect from our students. We want them to intellectually judge the novels and their lessons . . . but that cannot be done if only part of the book has been read!

     The answer to the question posed in this entry's title is quite simple to me: "The sign of an intelligent person is one who is able to view all sides of an issue before voicing an opinion." Do I expect conformity with my thoughts? Of course not, but what I hope is that our high school students recognize the importance of critical independent thinking. As their adult lives unfold, that thinking becomes their moral and intellectual guide!