August 27th: Stand Up, Not On

During the first week of classes, everyone is trying to sell something. Coupon books are popular, textbook vendors are enthusiastic, and sidewalk chalk offers a seemingly endless choice of opportunities.

Most emphatic of these sales spokesmen are the Christian religious organizations, looking for participation in their programs. Young representatives of the Christian Crusade for Christ, Christian Religious Union, and others stand guard at academic buildings and street corners, offering food and pamphlets to help welcome students and assist with their adjustment into college.

While I personally don’t believe in proselytizing, I do understand the need for recruiting. I appreciate the fact that the religious organizations are actively seeking out new membership, and are trying to make their product as appealing as possible. Hillel does it; we offer free food and fun programming to help make religious observance more enticing. The difference is the force with which ideas are pressed upon a perspective attendees.

Walking down the street this afternoon, I saw an all-too-familiar sight: a pair of preachers standing under the iconic Indiana University clocks, discussing their views on Jesus and today’s society. A group had gathered, and at first I thought it was a collection of interested, engaged listeners. It was only upon getting closer that I realized that this was a hostile audience. The students were asking questions, either mocking the preachers or snapping at them. The preachers, meanwhile, were attempting to answer all of the questions as they arose. They tried to answer honestly and passionately.

As I passed, I could only hear bits and pieces. What I did hear made me pretty sad. Again, I don’t support the content that these men were preaching. Their form of Christianity is one of rigidity and fear. I don’t believe that anyone who does not accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior is damned. I don’t believe that God is a vengeful deity, who will smite the sinners.  I do, on the other hand, believe that a man should be allowed to stand in the designated location for protests and petitions and present his ideas. I do believe that he should be able to say what he wants, free of ridicule and disrespect. And I do believe that the students who are trying to prove how worldly they are by embarrassing him and belittling him are actually proving how immature and ignorant they truly are.

Frankly, by arguing with these guys, you are actually playing into their hands. More than anything, these proactive religious recruiters are looking for a conversation. They want you to stand there as long as possible, so that they can get more words in. They would rather you staying to put up a fight than to walk away quietly. Which means that is exactly what you should do. If you don’t agree with their beliefs or their way of spreading it, simply walk away. Don’t talk. Don’t listen. Just walk right on by. It is much harder to do, but it is the strength of walking by that directly combats what you are opposing when you see those who are pushing their beliefs. Standing up for what you believe in does not necessitate standing against the beliefs of others.

August 20th: Separation of State and Stupid

The limits of ignorance and ridiculousness are boundless. In this week’s example of “You SO can’t do that,” we visit Newport, Tennessee, where we see a judge taking a totally new direction in regards to fair decision-making.

A man and a woman are getting a divorce, and in the process, need to decide whether their 7-month old son should share his father’s or mother’s last name. They take it to court and are met by Judge Lu Ann Ballew.

Here is where things get out of hand. When the judge is hearing the trial, it comes to light that the son’s name is Messiah. Subsequently, in her decision, the judge declared that not only must the baby change his last name, but also his first name. The boy had to change his name to Martin, because the name Messiah “is a title and it’s a title that has only been earned by one person and that one person is Jesus Christ.”

The parents are, of course, livid. They didn't go to court to come up with new problems for their son, only to solve the last name debate. To be told that your name isn’t acceptable because you stole it from Jesus is, to say the least, a formative moment in an infant’s short life.

It would be easy to blast this woman for her inability to separate Church and State, which is an imperative part of the judicial system. The courts are meant to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the laws of whichever state in which they preside, and this most definitely falls outside the limits of those laws.

What is potentially more ignorant and disconcerting is the part of this that is totally arbitrary. The judge simply heard the name and got offended. She didn’t have any legal basis upon which to change this boy’s name. Her only defense was that, living in the county in which they did, the boy could have been subject to marginalization or bullying. First of all, wouldn’t that be interesting. “What did you do today, Jimmy?” “Oh, not much, Mom, just bullied Messiah.” On a more thoughtful level, though, this act of emotional response rather than calculated rationalization brings to light a scary idea. If the American people are to be living their lives according to the laws set forth by not only Congress but also the judicial system, we need to have some degree of faith (no pun intended) in those individuals to do what is right, despite their own personal issues with it. Nobody was going into this court room to hear what Lu Ann thought about things. They were there to see how Judge Ballew would rule in accordance with rationality and legal code.

This of course comes in the same week that a Louisiana Republican came forward and publicly stated that she didn't know that when she voted for religious school vouchers, that this didn't only include Christian schools. It has been a tough week to be, oh, I don’t know, rational in the United States.

August 12th: Comedy and Tragedy

This week, I had the opportunity to see a musical that was, to say the least, creative in its analysis of society’s ability to laugh at itself. To say the most, it was downright heinous.

“The Book of Mormon” was as raunchy and insensitive, insulting and affronting as could possibly be. And you know what? It was hilarious. It was fun, it was clever, and it allowed almost everyone at some point or another to feel like they were the butt of the joke, and that that was OK.

The timing of things couldn't have been better. I happened to have seen the play just a few weeks after having a very interesting conversation with several individuals of different backgrounds who were discussing, for lack of a better way to describe it, the difficulty of living in a world with so many social and environmental challenges. We discussed everything from sexuality and gender stereotypes to obesity, from socio-economic environments to the educational system. While we covered an incredible array of material, there were two major concepts that I found interesting and challenging.

First of those challenges was the frequency with which we allow people to pass the buck. It is so easy to blame obesity on food producers or genetics or a wide variety of outside sources. And while that may be totally valid, it fails to get to the root of an important issue: anyone can, if presented with the opportunity, change their circumstances. I think we are writing blank checks that we can’t cash if we allow too many different groups of people to say that they have no control of themselves because they are in challenging circumstances. While I appreciate the fact that many are in extremely challenging circumstances, that is not to say we, as people, don’t have an obligation to better ourselves. Plus, some of the statistics are a little skewed.  One of the major arguments for the obesity issue is that it costs an incredible amount of money to eat healthy foods, while fast food is cheap and easy for low income families. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, though, 35.7% of Americans are obese, with an individual of minority background actually having a higher chance of obesity as income increases. It also goes on to say that obesity became more prevalent across all educational and economic scales from the early 90s to 2007. That clearly means that, while obesity may more difficult to monitor at lower incomes, it is something that is becoming a wide-scale issue, and one that does require some degree of control and restraint.

We cannot continue to blame “society” for the reason women wear bikinis. As much as women wear them because men want to see them, most women want to be seen, whether by men or by their peers. We cannot continue to blame the government for our obese who don’t take advantage of their environment to get their weight under control. We have an obligation to start evaluating not just what someone else can do for me to better my life, but how hard I’m willing to work to make my life better.

Second of all, it dawned on me how difficult it is to navigate these conversations for fear of insulting someone. I have no idea what the political correct term is for a black person in America is. I've heard from some that “African American” is the best bet, while others say that there is nothing “African” about many black people. I've heard thousands of options, and it seems that someone is always insulted. This gets even more complicated with those with developmental disabilities. I have difficulty with what I have heard as “differently abled,” because it fails to get to the root of the need for personal care and attention that these individuals need. With all that in mind, it would be a tragedy if certain groups of people were left out of important conversations not because of their need to be involved, but rather because it is such a mine-field for a neurologically typical white guy to find a way not to insult, well, everyone.

This was one giant rant, all spurred on by a funny musical, and meant to be a satire. But with that satirical comedy, we have the opportunity to look at the world around us and make it better. I can’t claim that I’m doing a good job, but I’m going to try. We need to take ourselves a little more seriously and, at the same time, laugh at ourselves a little more. It’s all about finding the balance.

August 6th: Punishment Befitting the Crime

For the first time in almost 10 months, Alex Rodriguez’s name appeared in the lineup for the New York Yankees. It just so happened that his 2013 debut came the same day that his 211 game suspension for his alleged steroid use.

Alex took the field to a chorus of boos from the Chicago crowd, and proceeded to go 1 for 4 with a bloop single and a strikeout. If I were the starting pitcher for the Chicago White Sox, though, things would have gone very differently.

I believe that the game should be played with integrity. I've always been very outspoken about the fact that professional athletes are, first and foremost, entertainers, and therefore are expected to be public servants, in a sense. That being said, athletes also have the expectation of being held to the standard that viewers set for them.

There is a debate that, if baseball players are meant to truly entertain, who cares if they are taking steroids to do so. Fans want to see the home runs, and they don’t care what makes that happen. While this may be true, there are rules in place that restrict that kind of behavior, and whether it should or shouldn't be is a moot point. If you are doping, you are saying to the league and to its fans that the rules don’t matter, and therefore demonstrate a lack of respect for the game and its fans.

Rodriguez is not the only player who was given suspensions today. 12 others were handed bans for 50 games, each for violating the MLB drug policy. The reason that Rodriguez’s suspension is so much worse is that not only was he involved in taking the drugs, but also encouraging other players to use and trying to obstruct the MLB investigation when things got bad.

All of that being said, my approach as a pitcher would have been simple: take all of A-Rod’s at-bats away from him. If he is unwilling to take the suspension and get out of the game, do the dirty work for him. Every single at-bat, A-Rod should have either been hit by a pitch or intentionally walked, essentially taking away his opportunity for success.

This is, of course, not the cleanest of strategies, considering it would allow him to get on base every time, but this move is transcendent of the competition of the game. In the same way that his acts tarnished the game, it would be a symbolic gesture of the other team to say that it doesn't matter whether or not he gets on base, but the bigger picture of refusing to allow him to demonstrate success.

This is an extreme sentiment, but one that comes from a serious disdain for cheating in baseball. Bud Selig has done incredible work in the last few months to attempt to clean up the game, and Alex Rodriguez has not only been at the heart of the issue, but been a direct contributor to why the process has been so long and painful. That being said, the man needs to be shown that a lack of respect for the great game of baseball will not bode well for him.

Playing baseball is a privilege, and one that so few people get to experience. Alex Rodriguez has tarnished the game, and deserves a life ban. While that may not be legally realistic, baseball needs to show the player that he is a tiny piece of the game, and can and will be swiftly replaced. The faster the better.

August 4th: Applying yourself

A few short days ago, I noticed a tweet that got me thinking. Indiana University alerted its followers that the application for the class of 2018 was now active. First of all, the class of 2018 was terrifying, considering how long a way that feels. Looking back though, it reminds me of what it was like, not so long ago, to apply to schools.

I remember the hard work of high school, trying to decide what classes a college would think are most appealing. I remember cramming my schedule with as many extra-curricular as I could manage, hoping to strike the most attractive balance. I remember the college essays, trying to put together the most beautiful 500 words that I could to sum up exactly who I was and why they should want me.

What I remember most, though, was the anxiety of the application process. I remember waking up every morning, running to my computer to check if any colleges had decided that I was worthy to be a student. I remember both the excitement at getting in somewhere that fit me, and I remember being told I wasn’t good enough.

There are so few ways that a college can truly evaluate you. Every year around this time we hear a debate about whether or not the ACT and SAT standardized tests are effective barometers of the talent of a high school student. While I agree that a score on a single test is not an acceptable way of evaluating an individual and their intellect, I also appreciate the difficulty of the decision for colleges. Standardization is the only way that colleges can evaluate two students from two completely different backgrounds and upbringings and see how they compare. When you can accept a finite number of applicants, there need to be different standards for admittance. While it isn't pretty, it is absolutely necessary.

That being said, the tests are not nearly enough to gain an understanding of a well-rounded, holistic individual, the likes of which a university wants. The most undervalued part of the application process is the extra-curricular end of things. That is where you best see what kind of person student might be.  A student who is an all-state athlete demonstrates a passion and commitment that, while exemplified on a sports field, seems indicative of determination overall. A teen who has put in thousands of man-hours to a club or organization that they care enough about should be looked at more favorably because of that dedication.

All of that taken into account, it need not be said that the college process is a little out of whack. The stress and pressure that all high school seniors feel is, while a rite of passage, is one that can cause an individual to lose faith in himself or herself. While getting into college is an important moment in the life-cycle process, it cannot be forced. As someone with plenty of experience in that department, it is important to keep in mind that there is a good college opportunity out there for everyone. And while it may be herd, patience can go a long way toward making the decision-making process far less stressful.