Back in the late 40s as a freshman and sophomore at Columbia college. I was in several classes with football players who hooted and made distracting noises.They were particularly offensive in Humanities MB1 the music course.One day I asked the music teacher why he didn’t make them leave the course. He shrugged and said something like they need the exposure too.The facts were that he was slight and frail and they were big and beefy.The facts also were (unknown to me at the time) that they were bringing in relatively big dollars to the campus(although for the most part Columbia’s teams were a joke.)Fast forward to this year at the University of Missouri where campus protest over racial slurs and abuse backed by the threat of not playing a non conference game (with the loss of over one million dollars)brought down the president and the chancellor.Several months ago a lower court decided that the athletes were entitled to compensation for their efforts but the NCAA got a reversal.The history of athletes protesting injustice is rife with defeat for the athletes with highly paid coaches not in their support.The LA times revealed the tension in the UCLA 98 squad which went from 10 and 0 to two inglorious losses and the end of the Bob Toledo era.Race themed issues were at the root of this
problem and the coach did not respect the sentiment of most of his team and all of his
black players.Of course in the current environment of political jockeying, the candidates are speaking out.Trump and Carson,Fiorina and Cruz have come down heavily on the athletes
and their fellow students.Rubio somewhat more restrained.Christie,Jindall,Santorum,Kasich only JEB saying hold up a minute there is something that has to be heard.Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee also strongly disapproving.Clinton and Sanders appear to be respectful of
the student protest and belated recognition of the power of collective bargaining.
Tonight the world contemplates the massive coordinated attack in Paris.(making the presumed end of Jihadi John trivial by contrast)our would be next commanders in chief need to understand that by not dialoguing with dissent we will produce our own “Jihadists”.



  1. Yes, it is a critical issue. The President’s responsibility to all the people means that the tools of dialogue should be enforced (which means controlling disruptive, tantrum-like emotions). Otherwise some will not be fairly heard (the better-use-of-time and property too, are often damaged). But more critical is the requirement that all the players make their best effort to structure their emotional sense of “righteousness”, or “disaffection” such that they are built upon accurate premises. Also, “Is the individual justifiably wronged?” and, “Is the group justifiably wronged?” create two frameworks that (with some overlap) lead our best answers in different directions. Why will the closing of (some) abortion clinics NECESSARILY be interpreted as an attack directed against any culture, race, class or gender? At its core the issue has to do with how, when, and to what degree ALL humans are to respect life so as to benefit most surely that process of life in which we are ALL engaged. So, what agendas are advanced by ignoring this probable reason and substituting something else, such as an ill-intended group wishing to do harm to other groups? One answer: Love for some ideas can be advanced over others. For instance, love for group-defined diversity can be projected as being more important than the unification under equal law the myriad forms of individual diversity (E. Pluribus Unum). No matter all our differences, every citizen is unified when treated equally under the law. And the “closing of (some) voter registration credentialing offices”, is presented as if the main reason could be some dastardly deed designed by one group to disenfranchise another group. This strikes me as more likely an example of distorted information designed to unify one group by fomenting the belief that it is hated by other group(s). In America, a land originally devoted to protecting by law individual rights regardless race, class, and gender, these as rigid categories exist mostly as imaginative abstractions that can too easily morph to destructive, mob-like form. These abstractions may be interestingly helpful in the academic study of social trends, but when it comes to comparing individual rights to group-defined rights the founders understood that it is a government’s focus on individual rights that distributes the greatest equity of opportunity (and maximized output) for ALL its citizens. Consider too, a focus on Individual rights diminishes the likelihood that we will experience big conflicts. Sometimes individuals fight, but groups war.

    1. I see no evidence that the country was designed by the founders to provide equal protection under the law based on a nationally defined set of indvidual rights.All the evidence is to the contrary.If one cannot see the significance of the denial of equal opportunity to former chattel and commodities then one is suspended in a cocoon defined by the present and a hoped for future and cannot learn from a past that is so thoroughly distorted.

      1. There is no need to distort the past. The evidence is the Federal Constitution itself. Its rights are easily seen to be directed primarily to the citizens. The founders created a document ahead of its time. Society had to evolve (painfully) to an understanding that those who possess more skin pigment should not be property, but be included as citizens.
        That people have unequal opportunities is undeniable. We need to understand that an existence of equal rights under the law and the existence of unequal opportunity in life are two very different issues. The Constitution can make us equal only under its laws. Nature and random luck impose variables that with very few exceptions are beyond government’s capacity to equalize. A hundred years of psychometric studies have consistently demonstrated that nature did not distribute important aptitudes equally among individuals or equally among groups among populations. A wishful desire to make amends for nature’s “lack of fairness and compassion” leads us to engage in many misunderstandings, many futile and costly endeavors. For those enamored with this cause (today’s progressives) there is a FEELING that if government can be made powerful enough it can and should forcefully impose equalities that nature denied us.
        To what degree do these equalization efforts diminish, or ignore other values that might serve better the overall needs of humanity? Here is a short list: If various “groups” perform less well, there is a tendency to unjustly blame society or other groups. Employers are pressured or forced to hire not on the basis of merit, but by group-defined quotas thus diminishing efficiency. Top universities admit students not on merit, but on favored group status thereby subjecting many fine minds to failure having to compete against the best of the best. Free enterprise and capitalism thrive on merit being rewarded. The rewards of productivity accrue both to the producer and to those who acquire more easily that which is produced. Forced redistribution introduces forces that counter these good activities. Success tends to be penalized and failure rewarded.

        1. The trail from declaration of independence through articles of confederation and finally constitution is well documented (Bill of Rights in Action:ConstitutionalRights Foundation);the many twists,turns and revocations to accommodate commonwealths,entities that were not,and in particular owners of slaves and other chattel can be followed by any with eyes to see and ears to hear.The protection of interests is as clear as it is in the many manifestations of the Magna Carta.(see elsewhere on this site.)

  2. “Dialogue” works only for those whose goals are not written in stone. Certitude as to one’s “righteousness” shifts dialogue to an impossibility. For instance, the idea of “separation of church and state” clearly is incompatible with the idea of Islamic sharia. With fair certitude we can postulate that one will be better for the future of humanity than the other. Ever-expanding probabilities linked to empirical and logical evidence may be the basis for your belief, or faith in a sacred book may be the foundation for your belief. If a faith demands that unbelievers be converted or killed, the faithful will not waste much time engaging in “dialogue” (indeed, deeply devout factions of Islam understood this conflict and declared physical war on us decades ago). We strive to establish conceptual tools that guide our survival into the future. If we do not understand why the idea of intellectual freedom requires us to subdue the idea of sharia, intellectual freedom (and its important component, dialogue) may fall prey to that and other beliefs that would destroy or weaken it.
    Dialogue works only for those who believe in dialogue. Confronted by those who don’t, we must be prepared to protect our (dialogue-loving) values with physical force. The truth is – some wars save lives.

    1. I agree that dialogue with Dash,Isis,Isl or radical Islam is not practical .It is our own dissenters(students,poor etc ) pre radicalization ,that I refer to.

      1. I was referring to Daedal2207’s last sentence where it was stated that our “would be next commanders in chief need to understand that by not dialoguing with dissent we will produce our own ‘Jihadists’.” Our next commander in chief will not be all that involved in student dissent (I hope). If we find ourselves rigidly divided by categories of income without the freedom of individual fluidity among them our President may indeed need to address the issue.
        But, let’s address some essentials of “dialogue”. Dialogue at any level of relationship requires each side to adhere to those disciplines that RESPECT the voicing of the other point of view. No matter how divergent the views, it is these disciplines that are COMMON to the goal called “dialogue”. To the degree that these disciplines are violated communication is diminished. If not learned at home, one would hope that they will be DEMONSTRATED and taught at our schools. For example, shouting off the stage those with differing views is the antithesis of respectful dialogue. If our school administrators understood this fundamental role of education they would not tolerate, let alone reward, this kind of destructive behavior. The emotions of self-righteousness run high. Love of feelings is fashionable, particularly among youth. The stronger the feelings, the stronger the need to apply those disciplines that guide them to healthy goals. Such as learning what another mind is thinking.

        1. Well said,but this is a critical issue.the next commander in chief will also be the President of all the people.His(her)adaptability in hearing and dealing with American disaffection including gathering support from an alliance of the tolerant may determine the future of the world.I believe that to be related to a truly strong America.The application of discipline is a double edged sword.Closing abortion clinics,closing voter registration credentialing offices etc. will from hereon be seen as suppression and will send the decibel count of dissent through the roof.Europe’s malaise shows the cost of not learning what other minds are thinking.Leading now, as always,is by example.Too many of the statements made are dependent on presumptions about the prerogatives of power.Apparently DS does not believe that the ranks of Dash(Daisha)can be swelled by Americans.(think Jonestown,better yet look at our pariahs and the message of most!)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.