Pronouns and Social Awareness or Playing Foolish with Grammar

                     Pronouns and Social Awareness or Playing Foolish with Grammar

                                                                      Published in Marietta Daily Journal Dec. 13, 2015

  Today’s lesson is on pronouns.  It’s all about how colleges and universities are using grammar to achieve a particular social goal.  Warning to taxpayers: you might get angry.

            It’s also a lesson about the extremes to which academia is going in order to be sensitive.  I for one have just about had it with sensitive.  Why aren’t educational institutions content to teach things that are needed?   Things like mathematics and science that put us on the moon, gave us a high standard of living, and alleviated much human suffering.       

            Yes, pronouns are being abused and even put to death in order to advance a social agenda. 

            Let’s start with a few questions.  If you are female, are you bothered by the expression, “To each his own”?  How about the word “freshman”?  Do you fault the psalmist for writing, “What is man that thou art mindful of him?” even though you know he was referring to the human species and not just to males?  How about the happy exclamation, “Man alive!”? 

            If you’re a male, has it bothered you that countries have always been referred to in the feminine gender, or that Lady Liberty, not a Mr. Liberty, stands tall on Ellis Island?

            You may not be bothered, but many colleges are.   In fact a growing number of college students and their enabling professors have begun to insist upon PGPs.  That’s preferred gender pronouns. 

“Huh?” you say.  So did I a few months back when I first learned about this.

            My range of emotions went from laughter to despair.  Laughter because I thought it was one more innocent college caper.  Despair because I soon learned that it wasn’t.

            No, colleges hither and yon – mostly yon from where I live – are announcing that, as a matter of policy, they will begin to ask students at registration which gender pronoun they prefer.  The purpose of this laughable practice is to “make our campus welcoming and inclusive for all.”  Or at least those are the words of the director of the Pride Center at the University of Tennessee.  (UT?  That’s just up I-75 apiece from where I’m sitting and typing.  That’s not yon; that’s hither.)

            Other institutions of so-called higher learning are also in on the act.  Little but prestigious Cornell College of Mount Vernon, Iowa ( Iowa?) puts their policy this way: “A preferred gender pronoun is a consciously chosen set of pronouns that allow students to accurately represent their gender identity in a way that is comfortable for them.”

            All the fuss, of course, is in the interest of “the fluidity of sexuality.”  If one is transgender, or is simply male or female but prefers “no pronouns,” then professors will know not to say Mr., Mrs., or Ms. when calling the roll.

            Of course Harvard is in on this kick.  So are the University of Wisconsin, the University of Vermont, Boston University, the University of Massachusetts, and many other institutions of higher sensitivity. Some of these institutions have been told by students that they prefer “shem” to “she” or “him,” again out of deep respect and concern for all students who don’t want to be “captive to gender.”

            People, the world is in strife, our nation is in an emotional slump, and we’re getting this kind of drivel from academia.  Besides, what’s an old English teacher like me to do?  For years I’ve taught that pronouns, like prepositions and conjunctions, are a closed class of words, a snooty bunch that, unlike nouns and verbs, does not admit new members.  I shall wait and see if the pronoun family admits these concocted new pronouns, but given the power of the homosexual and transgender lobby and the way academia fawns over them, I suspect we will soon see dictionaries with some new pronouns.

            There’s good news, though.  When the Tennessee legislature heard about the UT Pride Center’s policy and made noise about it, UT’s president removed the policy.

            Good for him. He has inspired me to make a bumper sticker that reads, “Keep your hands off my pronouns.”

            Now, if only some other state legislatures will get tough as well and ward off such foolishness.  Otherwise, “sensitivity” will continue to lead us to even more denial of reality.

            Incidentally, there’s a new book out that undergirds the foolishness, the movement’s manifesto, if you will.  Melvin Konner, anthropology professor at Emory University, has produced “Women After All: Sex, Evolution, and the End of Male Supremacy.”  The blurb of the book states that Konner “explores the knotty question of whether men are necessary in the biological destiny of the human race.”

            I simply don’t know what else to say.

Roger Hines

12/9/15

Ich bin ein Richt supporter

                          Ich bin ein Richt supporter

                                                                           Published in Marietta Daily Journal Dec. 6, 2015

            Hey, ya’ll, I’ve had my picture made with him, too.  But so did every other member of the Georgia House of Representative’s Retirement Committee.  Yessir, University of Georgia Coach Mark Richt appeared before the committee to argue for a retirement plan for assistant coaches throughout the state, not just for those at UGA.

            The year was 2003, so the young coach was still fairly new to Georgia.  I was impressed by his concern for his lieutenants.  For the hour or so he spent with the committee, plus the extra half- hour the committee members spent fawning over him and taking pictures, Richt appeared untouched by all of the attention.  In fact, he seemed uncomfortable with his celebrity. 

            Unassuming, unfazed, with not an ounce of  self-importance, the coach eloquently stated his case to the Retirement Committee and then kindly tolerated our fawning.

            I love the guy.  But since football is the tail that wags the dog of so called higher education (“Higher than what?” columnist George Will is now asking.), and since Richt is a $4 million plus man, his boss has a right to expect $4 million results and to delineate what those results are to be.

            But so do bill-footing taxpayers who believe college football has become the be-all and end-all of college life.  Even if college athletic budgets contribute to non-athletic, academic departments, the average college student probably doesn’t know it.  He or she only knows that from the office of the college president on down the line, the football program is the supreme value.

            It’s all a male thing, of course, and it’s casting a shadow over intellectual pursuits … you know, the pursuit of learning and human advancement, of research, history, law, language, science, the arts, mathematics, and all of those other old-fashioned subjects that most certainly did excite college students back in the day.  Back when football didn’t wag education, when five months of the school year were not spent anticipating the weekend game, playing it, and then arguing about it until Tuesday.

One reason I admire Coach Richt is that from all accounts he has sought to raise up men, not just football players. He loves the game for what it can produce, which when taught properly, can produce men.  He hasn’t leaned toward the legendary Bear Bryant whose fabled remark was “My players are athletes first and students second.” 

And for that he paid a price, unfairly so.  A 145-51 record isn’t good enough?  How many other great coaches produced a national champion within 15 years as Richt was expected to do?  Bear Bryant didn’t; it took him 17.  Tom Osborne didn’t; he needed 22.  Joe Paterno, like Bryant, took 17. Lou Holtz labored 19 years for the dream, and Bobby Bowden, Richt’s mentor, took 18 years.

But that was then and this is now.  Longfellow’s line, “Learn to labor and to wait,” isn’t good enough for today’s athletic directors.  Or fans or alumni.  Instant gratification infected all of us some time ago.

While a coach’s boss has the right to fire him, exercising that right isn’t necessarily the wise or right thing to do.  The boss man may have been responding in part to those who think Richt didn’t snort and stomp and wave his arms enough on the sidelines.  But very few of the nation’s greatest coaches have conducted themselves in that manner.  

I have often faulted Richt for his leniency with his athletes’ off campus conduct.  Too often he was too forgiving.  But his record remains, the testimony of his athletes is compelling, and his commitment to coaching and winning is unquestionable.  By the time of this writing, Coach Richt may have made a decision about his future.  Whatever that decision is, I only hope that at some college, some day, some more young men can be around him and learn about character.  Fundraising and glad-handing for UGA will not make this man happy.  He’s a coach.  As a classroom teacher, I owe much to so many coaches like him.

On June 26 of 1963 in West Berlin, President John Kennedy uttered what is probably his second most memorable sentence.  Aiming his words at the Soviets who were responsible for the divided city, Kennedy declared in German, “I am a Berliner.”  Though the dividing wall didn’t come down for a quarter century, the initial step was taken.

Citizens who believe coaches should still build men as well as win trophies need to assert, “Ich bin ein Richt supporter,” thereby declaring that if college football is not supposed to educate and grow men, it doesn’t belong in an educational institution.

Dinosaur thinking, I know.  But what a need exists for it.

Roger Hines

12/2/15

An Era That Won't Die ...A Movie We've Seen Before

An Era That Won’t Die … A Movie We’ve Seen Before

                                                          Published in Marietta Daily Journal Nov. 29, 2015

            We should have expected it.  The rise of the emboldened, spoiled college student protestors, I mean.

            When a university football team threatens to strike unless the university president steps down, we can say that campus protesting is back in vogue.  When that president steps down 2 days later, we can say the football team scored a victory, though not the kind the university had in mind when it granted the athletes a tuition-free education.

            Yes, the spirit of the 1960s is alive and well at the University of Missouri, but not only there.  From coast to coast college students are feeling their oats once again.  And instead of challenging them, college presidents are rolling over, big time.

            At the University of Missouri the problem was that the president, in the eyes of the protestors, failed to deal with incidences of racial discrimination.  At Yale, President Pete Salovey displayed great cowardice while addressing protestors who complained that free speech was getting out of hand.  Salovey’s response was “We failed you.”  He promised to do better.

            “We failed you”?  Why not “We’re expelling you and are calling up some of the applicants we rejected.  Maybe they will come to Yale for the right purpose.  Maybe they believe in free speech.”

            Princeton protestors recently demanded that the university remove from all buildings and plaques the name of Woodrow Wilson since the former president of the USA (and of Princeton) was, for a short time in his life, a segregationist.  The University of Michigan canceled the screening of “The American Sniper” because of Muslim student protests.

            At least 100 college campuses have boarded the bandwagon that was hitched up by the Missouri athletes.  Although each band of protestors has cited concerns relative to their own campuses, there have been two common complaints at virtually all campuses: racial/sexual discrimination and the need for “safe space.”

            By “safe space,” students are not referring to physical safety or security but to “an environment free of offensive ideas and words.”  At Smith College “capitalism” is a bad word; it means greed.  One wonders if students there know about Andrew Carnegie, the greedy capitalist who funded so many public libraries and gave away 90% of his fortune. 

            But why do I say we should have expected this recent wave of college campus protest?  One reason is that the past is never over.  It has a way of popping up again.  The 1960s college chant, made in reference to Vietnam, was “Make love, not war.”  Today’s chant is “Safe space.”  The latter chanters are the grandchildren of the former.

            No, the 60s children did not and will not go away.  Their poster child, who said he “loathed the military,” served two terms as president.  His very 60s wife is a candidate for president.  Our current president has governed from the 60s playbook: continued animus for the military, egalitarianism, big government, and executive tyranny.  His Secretary of State, who after serving in Vietnam, came home and appeared on every late night talk show to revile his former comrades, now shuttles around the globe sounding his uncertain trumpet.

            Let us say, then, that the spirit and philosophy of the 60s seized the day.  It penetrated American politics.  It reached the White House, therefrom to spread its ethos across the land.

            Another reason we should not be surprised at the recurrence of college protests is that parents of the last 40 years have shamelessly coddled their children.  We have taken to “parenting” instead of fathering and mothering, to saying “Please, kinda, maybe, can you at least consider doing what I just asked you to do?”  Sheer capitulation.  Like parents, like college presidents.  Seems we’re all abdicating our rightful authority.

            But hope springs eternal.  When the liberal American Association of University Professors takes issue with protesting students and labels them infantile and anti-intellectual for seeking “safe space,” there is real hope.  Another ray of hope lies in a statement from the University of Chicago.  There a committee was formed to discuss the legitimacy of the nation-wide campus protests.  Its report reads, “It is not the proper role of the university to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find offensive.”

            Shall the pot command the potter or the college president obey his or her students?  Purdue University in conservative Indiana says no and has voted to adopt the Chicago statement.  Even liberal Princeton has recently followed suit.

            Maybe college presidents will cease to grovel before students and commence to educate them.  Maybe an era that has clung to us politically and educationally so long will begin its last gasp after all.  We should hope so, lest the affliction of academia become the incurable affliction of the nation.

Roger Hines

11/25/15

The Dictionary Past and Present: The Work of a Drudge?

  The Dictionary Past and Present: The Work of a Drudge?

                                                                            Published in Marietta Daily Journal Nov. 22, 2015

            In the spirit of merry old England’s most famous dictionary writer, I offer below some more current definitions.  The words defined are not alphabetized but are discernibly clumped according to the broad topics of politics, culture, and language.

            First some background.  In 1755, seventy-three years before Noah Webster composed a simplified dictionary for frontier America, England’s Samuel Johnson penned his massive work titled “A Dictionary of the English Language.”

            The purposes of the American and the Englishman were quite different.  Webster’s purpose was to fashion a language that “men do use.”  He sought to define words as they were understood and used by the majority of Americans.  Webster also wished to introduce a slightly more phonetic spelling system.  For instance he took the “u” out of the British “labour” and “colour.”  With these and other such changes, Webster initiated the distinction between British English and American English. 

            Johnson, famous for his line, “To be tired of London is to be tired of life,” produced his dictionary more out of fun than a desire to educate the masses.  His landmark dictionary was as much a playful display of his prejudices as it was an attempt to codify the vocabulary of English.

An example is his definition of “lexicographer”: “a dictionary writer; a harmless drudge that busies himself tracing the signification of words.”  For a definition of “to blab,” Johnson wrote, “To tell what ought to be kept secret.”  Prejudice is writ large in his definition of “excise”: “a hateful tax levied by common judges, the wretches hired by those to whom the excise tax is due.”

            While speakers of English owe much to these 2 “drudges,” an update of definitions is always in order.  In the following update I will, like Johnson, cast mild judgment on each word or phrase.

Racist – any statement or person with whom a liberal disagrees.  Liberal – any statement or person with whom a conservative disagrees.

Libertine – a libertarian gone crazy; one who gives a good libertarian a bad name; a near anarchist.

Atheist – one who believes there can be a meal without a cook or a design without a designer; a proponent of the religion of atheism.  The New Atheism – the old atheism.  

Evangelism – efforts made to promote a belief, philosophy, or political candidate; today’s most passionate evangelists being atheists and political consultants.

Abortion – termination of an unborn baby presumed not to be a human being (or not yet) and presumed to have no right to be born in the first place.  Family – human civilization’s oldest and smallest unit of government; currently under assault by America’s highest unit of government, the Supreme Court.  Moloch – god of the ancient Phoenicians for whom the Phoenicians “passed their children through the fire,” sacrificing them by burning; akin to the modern American practice of passing unborn children under the knife or burning them with saline solution.

Sanctuary city – a city that grants refuge to lawbreakers; precursor to the “sanctuary state” like unto California and Vermont, the two states furtherest away from Middle America.

Playboy – a womanizing, promiscuous man; also a 62-year-old magazine which, having reached its goal of sexualizing the nation, considers its mission complete and no longer runs pictures of nude women; the initiator of the Sexual Revolution.  Sexual Revolution – a term referring to America’s journey from sexual responsibility and marital fidelity to acceptance of nudity, co-habitation, out-of-wedlock births, free love, and disease often got thereby; a revolution without any winners.

The Great Failure – title of an upcoming book detailing how the election of a black president did nothing for racial healing; a reminder that consistent building of friendships and relationships one by one is the key to social stability and unity.

Contemporary Christian music – a name for extremely repetitive, often wailful, rock-oriented music; good in that it centers on praise; bad in that it is often, though not always, commercially-inspired; lies in contrast to hymnody which emphasizes theology instead of how faith makes you “feel”; always loud, even for worshippers with hearing problems; occasional rhythms not unlike those heard at the local bar.

Think outside the box – a tired expression that needs to be locked up inside the box.

How come? – a perfectly legitimate expression common in the Southern half of the nation; a clipped form of “How do you come to that (conclusion)?”; a phrase often scoffed at by Yankees.

At the end of the day – an overworked, empty expression used by politicians who are at the end of their vocabulary.

Columnist – one who pontificates and aggravates even when his observations are no more worthy than anyone else’s.

Roger Hines

11/18/15

            

Restoring America's Self-image...Is It Too Late?

                                             Restoring America’s Self-image … Is it Too Late?

                                                                          Published in Marietta Daily Journal Nov. 15, 2015

            Multiculturalism, one of America’s obsessions for at least two decades, is currently producing its harvest, and the fruit is bitter.  In perhaps what was a sincere effort to enlighten students and to teach respect for other cultures, education at every level has de-emphasized our own. 

            It’s reasonable to study other cultures.  In fact, we had better.  However, when we neglect our own, inject moral equivalency into the picture, and argue that western values are no better than anyone else’s, we have become blinded by a fuzzy notion of cultural equality. 

            Are the ideas of Lenin and Mao “equal” to those of Jefferson and Madison?  Is radical Islam “equal” to Judeo-Christian values?  Some better questions are what has been the fruit of Lenin and Mao’s communism? Of Jeffersonian and Madisonian thought?   Of Islam?  Of the Judeo-Christian ethic?  What does each of these world views say about individual freedom?  How does each view women?

            Americans have allowed their schools and colleges to shift from celebrating and promoting the best of western thought to honoring all thought.  Schools shy away from some of our most cherished traditions.  Consider how skittish school systems are regarding any mention of Christmas.  Fearfully and foolishly, they try to ignore or deny a centerpiece of American culture, all in the name of sensitivity, multiculturalism, diversity, or … whatever.  Is this crazy?

 Academia says emphasize openness and tolerance.  Tolerance, that is, for everything except our own values.  I know because I have been in the middle of the fray for over 4 decades, particularly at conferences around the country.  I and many others have done our best to counter academia’s anti-western, anti-American bias but have been terribly outnumbered.

            How so?  Because so many educators believe we should “teach all cultures and let students decide what is best.”  Because “if we stress so-called ‘Americanism,’ students will come to believe that Americans are superior to other nations.”  (I got those 2 gems at a conference of the National Council of Teachers of English over 2 decades ago.)

            The conference presenters who gave the above arguments need to ponder this question: From what did western culture, particularly America, spring?  The answer is it sprang from Judaism, Christianity and the best of Greco-Roman ideals.  And what has been the fruit of these 3 philosophical systems?  The fruit has been more individual freedom than in any other culture in the world, more alleviation of human misery and more opportunity for the pursuit of happiness.

            In a recent column titled “In Defense of Christendom,” the Wall Street Journal’s Brett Stephens began with the startling sentence, “The death of Europe is in sight.”  Asserting that Europe has already forgotten the roots from which she sprang, Stephens writes, “What is Europe?  It is Greece, not Persia; Rome, not Carthage; Christendom, not the caliphate.  Having ignored its inheritance, Europe wonders why its house is falling apart.”

            Strong words.  But do they not apply to America’s college English departments that argue there is no British or American literature, but just “literature,” or “world literature”?  To a growing number of English departments the names Shakespeare and Twain are embarrassments.  Shakespeare was “nativistic” because he loved “this blessed plot, this realm, this England” too much.  Twain was a crude frontier comic, nothing else.  Longfellow is a forgotten, dead white man.  C.S. Lewis?  Too Christian.

            Stephens says Europe “needs a new self-acceptance.”  So does America.  Because like Europe, we are allowing our religious and cultural heritage to slip.  In the interest of pluralism and multiculturalism, we are surrendering our very cultural identity.  Helping “the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free” is one thing.  Changing our culture to be “sensitive” toward them is another. 

            Since the 1960’s, pop psychology has touted self-awareness and self-acceptance.  Much of this emphasis has been pure narcissism, but it contains a grain of truth.  Just as an individual must have a measure of self-love, so must a nation.  To love America and claim that she is exceptional is not to claim that we are superior.  It is to say, as Stephens puts it, “This is us and that is you.” 

            The character of America is changing, however, and changing fast.  Could we survive the massive influx of Muslim immigrants that Europe is now experiencing?  We could not and should not if those immigrants come demanding that we cut ourselves off from our western Judeo-Christian/Greco-Roman roots and become modern Persians.

            If immigration trends continue unchallenged or uncontrolled, Stephens’ fears will be confirmed.  The West will die.  America cannot be America if she is not true to her inheritance – religiously, culturally, and linguistically.

            Is this issue insignificant? Only if we believe Jefferson is no better than Lenin or that Christendom is no better than a caliphate.

Roger Hines

11/11/15

Music is Mother's Milk for Today's Youth

                                        Music is Mother's Milk for Today's Youth

                                                                   Published in Marietta Daily Journal Aug. 2, 2015

          “I am Music, I Write the Songs.”  So crooned singer Barry Manilow throughout the seventies and well into the present decade.   Manilow’s #1 hit and Grammy Song of the Year for 1975 was written by Bruce Johnston of the Beach Boys.  When Manilow expressed fear that the word “I” would make both  writer and singer appear to be egomaniacs, Johnston explained that “I” referred to God and/or the creative spirit that indwells all of us.

            Johnston’s thinking about music wasn’t too far from that of British essayist Thomas Carlyle: “Let me have the nation’s music and I care not who makes her laws.”  That strong statement was written long before i-tunes, i-pods and free music websites.  In fact Carlyle wrote it in the late 19^th century.

            Was Carlyle right?  Is music that powerful? I don’t doubt that it is. Even if our national anthem is virtually un-singable, we still know how “God Bless America” can make us feel.  Even if we don’t particularly like music, there is still probably a song of some stripe somewhere that speaks to us no matter how deeply in our past it may be buried.

            If Carlyle’s assessment of music’s power in the late 19^th century is correct, how much more pronounced and ever present is music today?  Whether blaring from the car sitting beside us at a red light or grating our ears while we are on hold on the telephone, music is inescapable.

            The moral relativism in which the western world is now wallowing has certainly reached our music.  Decades ago Johnny Cash sang the words, “The lonely voice of youth cries, “What is truth?’ ”   Today adults as well seem to have doubts about even the existence of truth.  Why else are we hearing the expressions, “my truth” and “your truth”?  Those who use such expressions apparently believe in no truth.  Music is now reflecting this loss of meaning.  Tune in to your local hard rock radio station or head to Phillips Arena if you want to check out musical nihilism.

            One who doesn’t think music collectively shapes us should consider the following questions.  Why do we have military bands?  What is it about the very nature of music that bolstered plantation slaves through their misery?  How effective were the mournful but musical words “We Shall Overcome” to the civil rights movement or the plaintive song “Where Have All the Flowers Gone” to the war protest movement of the sixties?  Why, for decades, was the Grand Ole Opry the weekly refuge of so many poor, Southern people?  How is it that highly poetic hymns from 18^th century England could cradle and buoy evangelical Christianity across an ocean and sustain it in North America for several centuries?

            If nothing else, these questions confirm Plato’s claim that music is far more than pleasure and recreation.  It is a tool that can inspire a revolution, encourage an individual and re-ignite a loveless marriage. It is also a drug that can induce peacefulness or throw off restraint and self-control.

            Everything has a history and music has a rich one.  Elvis Presley may have revolutionized rhythm and added stage antics, but at least we could still understand his words.  Not so after rock ‘n’ roll became electrified.  50 years ago on July 25^th it was folk singer Bob Dylan who started all the noise that drove many a parent crazy.  This past week most of the nation’s newspapers have chronicled how Dylan “went electric” by forsaking his Peter, Paul and Mary folk sound and strapping on a Fender Stratocaster electric guitar.

            The place was Newport, Rhode Island.  The event was the Newport Folk Festival.  But what Dylan gave his audience wasn’t folk music or even the current rock ‘n’ roll.  Instead he birthed the deafening volume and the distorted sounds that characterize rock music today.

            Schools and many churches long ago adopted the distorted sounds that Dylan birthed.  Schools pipe it in while students eat in the cafeteria and while basketball teams are taking a time out. Cafeteria workers and parents in the gymnasium can only cringe because after all, “it’s for the kids.”

            As for the churches, their abandonment of hymns for the distorted sounds of post-Dylan rock is the greatest sin of the church since the Inquisition.  Electrification has just about choked out “the still small voice.”  At church, Martin Luther and Charles Wesley are so yesterday.  At school, the same is true of Mendelssohn, Handel and Tchaikovsky.  Instead of cultivating and forming our youth’s tastes we have adopted their tastes.  Now all of us are forever young.

            Carlyle got it right.  And Barry Manilow is probably more correct than he realizes.  Music is the mother’s milk of youth today.  Its power far outstrips parental influence.

Roger Hines

7/29/15

A Primer for Principals: Tips for Educational Leaders

                               A Primer for Principals: Tips for Educational Leaders

                                                                            Published in Marietta Daily Journal Aug. 9, 2015

Dear Principal,

            School is in and both the stress and the joy are back.  Since for school age children the American summer is becoming a thing of the past, you no doubt have less time than ever to look ahead.  Most people don’t realize you had to start thinking about August last January.

            When I think of educational leadership, my mind runs to principals.  To me the pivot of educational leadership is the school principal.  Essentially you stand between the policy makers and the practitioners.  You also serve parents.  This takes communication skills that are too often unappreciated.

            I’ve never walked in your shoes, so far be it from me to give you advice.  However I have worked for, worked with, and observed closely 11 principals, all of whom were effective educational leaders.  These 11 principals had different talents and gifts, but the important thing is they gave their gifts away – to their students, their faculties and school communities as well.  All of what I suggest below is what I saw in these 11 principals.

            I hope you haven’t lost the glory of looking into the face of a child or a youth.  I hope you are still intrigued by the innocence, the hungry eyes, the anticipation of adulthood and the bright hope for tomorrow that most children and youth possess.  I also hope that you are saddened by the growing number whose hope has been crushed by conditions and circumstances they had no control over.  They, more than anyone, need the help that you and your teachers can give.

            Please consider the following actions as the new school year gets underway:

Walk the fences.  Most likely, administrivia prevents you from visiting classes as much as you would like, but students need to see that you enjoy learning.  Please don’t visit only to evaluate your teachers but to sit and participate in the lesson.  Cut up just a little bit.  Lean over and whisper (but only once) to a student while the teacher is talking.  This is not for making you cool, but making you human.  There is little wonder that students don’t know you care.  They don’t even know you.  But they should.  Tell Central Office that next week is for visiting classes and that you really don’t need to be in meetings.  Knowledge excites students.  Self-esteem pablum doesn’t.  Let students know that learning excites you and that they are there to get knowledge.

Choose your weapons. You are in a fight, you know, so fight the good fight against mediocrity and casualness.  Fight for excellence.  You need neither a bullhorn nor a stern countenance; just your sincerity and omnipresence.  Don’t overdo this business of “identifying with students.”  Do you think the parents of the Greatest Generation gave a lot of thought to “identifying” with their children?  Heavens no, and that’s one reason their children did well.  They were not coddled and their favor was not sought.  The best weapon of a leader is concern for those he or she is leading, not a desire to be liked.

Remember your history.  The truth is you were an adjective before you were a noun.  Schools started out with no administrators, just teachers.  The teacher chosen to light the fires, clean the room and secure materials was called the principal teacher.  When the tasks of readiness became too numerous and time-consuming, the principal teacher ceased teaching, assumed the operational and supervisory tasks fulltime and was then called the principal.  Your role and your title were born out of service, out of menial tasks that were necessary for a good learning climate.  The lesson from this history is clear.

Watch your language.  The field of education has cluttered the culture with vague, insipid words.  Please don’t ever say “facilitate,” or “sibling,” or “pupil station” when you really mean “make easier,” “brother or sister,” and “desk.”  You know what all of the other trendy words are.

Trust your instincts.  If you’ve got the job, you’ve already been vetted, so cling to the common sense that brought you this far.  The world has changed but human nature hasn’t.  Beware of all the romanticized educational literature that tells you today’s students are the sharpest generation ever.  It ain’t so.  I was told the same thing 50 years ago.  Students are no more or less capable of mischief than they were then.   But the same is true for excellence and achievement.

Finally, I suspect you are appreciated far more than you realize.  You’re a cultural leader.  Your role is most significant.  I wish you the best.

Roger Hines

8/5/15