June 29th: No Disenting Opinion, Just a Descending One

In the wake of the Charleston shooting that left 9 church members dead last weekend, a fierce debate has started up against the Confederate flag, most notably the one that flies over the statehouse in South Carolina. Dylann Roof, the shooter at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, was infatuated with the Civil War flag, and was diabolically devoted to starting a race war with the flag as his symbol.

The debate has raged on for the last several days, gaining steam with each passing day that the flag isn’t removed. Many reference that the flag is a symbol for hate, that it represents a similar meaning to what the Swastika stands for in Germany (it is an illegal image in the country now), and that white southerners continue to use it as a symbol of oppression and malice.

As I’m watching the debate unfold, two things strike me as inherently troubling about the conversation. The first is to ask the question, why is this such a huge issue this week? Why hasn’t there been a raging debate or argument before, and why did we pick today to finally get insulted.

There is an easy answer to that, of course: we feel bad for what happened in South Carolina. More than that, we feel helpless to actually do anything about the atrocities that occurred in a place of worship, a place of peace, and are looking for some small way that we can bring comfort to those who lost loved ones.

This isn’t the way to honor these fallen friends and loved ones, though. It is a small way, a token way, a way to signal that yes, in fact, we NOTICED something terrible happened, but are unable to make the changes that would have actually saved their lives.

Look around. Very few are arguing with the idea of taking the flag down. Many southerners have said “let’s do it.” The South Carolina governor has called for it’s removal. A great may politicians, from all sides have spoken on the necessity for action. So why are we dedicating so much time, energy, and effort to fighting the subject when we are one swift and unilateral action from taking the thing down?

The answer, of course, is that it feels like action. We feel like we’re standing up for something, making bold and daring action against a horrible evil. What we really need to be doing, though, is standing up against the violence that caused this attack. We need to be creating laws and initiatives that make it harder to murder one another, rather than spending an entire week (if not more) eliminating a flag that most agree should be removed anyway.

The second piece of this debate that is so often ignored but so important to maintaining a thoughtful dialogue is to understand that Southerners aren’t inherently racist for being slow to want to get rid of the flag. We need to differentiate between the ideas that the flag encourages from what the people actually believe.

Someone raised in the south was not necessarily taught that the flag was a symbol for hate and oppression. What they were taught is that it is a part of their cultural heritage, a reminder of their loved ones who fought in the Civil War. It is a part of their southern identity, and therefore is incredibly important for regional pride. They have been taught this since an early age, and it will take explanation and patience to change that way of thinking.

Now, this position is wrong. The flag isn’t a symbol of valor and heritage. It is a reminder of a horrible time in our country’s history, and a symbol that needs to be relegated to the museums of the south, rather than the state houses. Rather than assaulting southerners with accusations of racism, though, we need to explain why the flag is received as it is by so many, and help others to understand.

The flag needs to be taken down. Frankly, it needs to have been taken down a long time ago, for reasons that many other writers have done plenty to explain. The flag is a reminder of a terrible portion of our country’s past, a reminder of a time when brother fought against brother, our country was divided, our people were oppressed, and animosity was as prevalent in American life as it has ever been before or since. We have no need for a symbol of oppression or hate.

As we engage in the conversation, though, we need to make sure we know WHY we’re talking about it, and recognize environmental factors that helped to get us here. Taking down the flag won’t bring those who lost their lives back to us. It wouldn’t have prevented their deaths if it was to have been taken down a week before the incident either. Taking the flag down will prevent racial anxiety that has been present for decades, and will, most likely, take several years to forget. The faster we get that process started, the faster we can begin to heal.

We need to take the flag down because it is the right thing to do. But we also need to take the flag down quickly, so that we can return our attention to matters that will save lives quickly, immediately, and dramatically.

If you enjoy the work of the Zoot Perspective, please visit my GoFundMe page, to help support me on my journey. Thank you very much.

For more content from ZPMedia, visit www.zootperspective.com.

June 22nd: The Fight Against Hopelessness

The two greatest issues in American society collided in the ugliest way possible this week. Gun violence was used as the catalyst for what the gunman hoped would be a race war.

In Charleston, South Carolina, Dylann Roof opened fire at the end of a Bible study meeting at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, killing 9, including Reverend Clementa Pinckney. Americans are left wondering, yet again, what to do and how to think after yet another act of violence tears apart our people.

We identify them by the names of the communities torn apart forever. We call them “Newtown,” “Aurora,” now “Charleston.” We use the names of these towns to remember the locations of terrible acts of hatred and violence, each leaving us with tears in our eyes and despair in our hearts. We can’t identify them by the names of the victims; that would be too long a list and too heart-wrenching  to bear. The worst part for our country: the feeling of hopelessness, that we are at the mercy of those who choose to use weapons of death to terrorize our families, schools, churches, and homes.

Unlike Newtown or Aurora, though, this act of violence includes an unavoidable race element. Roof was a known racist, and attacked a church that is a monument for African American living in the south. We now face not only the terrible challenge of gun violence prevention, but also have to confront the deep and troubling racial tensions that are so prevalent, yet ignored in our culture.

It seems that Americans are at a loss. We’ve tried making bold statements of protest against those who use guns to violently make a point. We’ve tried to lobby our politicians to enforce stricter gun laws to prevent criminals and extremists from getting their hands on weapons of mass murder. We’ve tried writing blogs, articles, columns, and manifestos declaring our need for more attention to race issues and violence awareness and prevention. None of it has worked.

In fact, we have the feeling it is getting worse. There is a general sense of despair, of issue-related fatigue. We are tired of fighting against violence when it so clearly isn’t working. We aren’t making any progress. The world is getting more violent, not less. The world is more racially divided, not more united. And Americans are losing hope that we will ever see a change for the better. Even our comedians (like Jon Stewart) aren’t able to do their jobs, because we are so overcome with grief by the horrors that are becoming commonplace in our communities.

My deepest hope is that things are getting worse as a precursor to them getting better. Racists are feeling the world changing around them, and feel the pressure to act against the new found tolerance and patience. We are seeing more violence because these psychopaths are afraid that they are losing their grip on the world. My most sincere wish is that this terrible string of violence will be very soon overthrown by a time of peace and understanding, that the world is fixing itself and slowly, painfully purging itself of those who need to be taken out of the conversation.

I know this is a dream. I know it is most likely not the case. But we need to find something to drive us forward. We need some kind of hope that allows us to continue to work for the betterment of our society, and that continues to demand that those in power reevaluate how we allow citizens to protect themselves without arming violent criminals. We need to come together, to know that regardless of our understanding of racial tensions in our country, we can unite under the simple an unalienable right, that we must, as one country, pursue life for all, liberty for all, and an opportunity for happiness. Most importantly, we need to continue to make it abundantly clear that this kind of intolerance and hatred is no longer acceptable in our country.

I have yet to hear a single argument in favor of keeping guns in the hands of private citizens that makes even a lick of sense. There are those who argue that gun possession acts as a deterrent, that if everyone is armed, someone up to no good will be less likely to attack. This sounds like an opportunity for more violence, rather than scaring criminals into submission. Others say that gun laws don’t stop criminals from getting their hands on weapons. Several recent shootings have been attacks using guns that were purchased legally by others and then seized by the perpetrator. This doesn’t consider, though, that we are refusing to acknowledge that allowing citizens to own killing machines doesn’t have any productive value to our country, and we need to take drastic action to prevent such acts of terror from continuing.

The time for conversation is over. We can’t keep talking about these problems when those with the guns aren’t sitting in on the conversation. They are using the weapons faster than we can talk about getting rid of them. We need drastic and immediate action that will prevent further destruction of American life, thus leaving us able to have an active and thoughtful dialogue about the racial tensions that challenge our country’s unity. We can’t have that conversation, though, until we remove the threat of violence.

Once we remove the imminent violence that looms large and dangerously over our heads, we can engage in a conversation worthy of this great nation. Until then, we are being held hostage by those too afraid to be exposed as the terrorists that they are.

May the memory of all those who have lost their lives to gun violence be for a blessing, and let their memories serve as a force for change in this country. May we honor them by making the world better in their name.

If you enjoy the work of the Zoot Perspective, please visit my GoFundMe page, to help support me on my journey. Thank you very much.

For more content from ZPMedia, visit www.zootperspective.com.

June 16th: Getting College Bang For Your Buck

As we cross the 50 yard line in June, high school graduations settle into the rearview mirror, and families begin to turn their attention to the next big adventure. This fall, hundreds of thousands of freshmen will descend upon colleges and universities across the country to begin an academic journey that is just the beginning of a very exciting four (give or take) years.

Yet, as the excitement of admissions letters and new t-shirts with school names emblazoned across the front wears off, the reality sinks in: college is expensive. Like, REALLY expensive. In fact, college tuition costs are rising at alarming rates from year to year, leaving many scratching their heads as to how to make the finances work.

In-state costs for public schools are sitting squarely at or around the $10,000 mark, with costs rising from year to year. You want to go out of state? You should expect a doubling of that number.

At the same time that parents and teens begin to scramble to come up with lunch money, candidates for president have begun to discuss the possibility of education subsidies, giving help to those who are willing to take their education to the next level. As 2016 approaches, it appears as though this will be an issue both in the Obama administration as well as in the debate between the Republicans and Hillary...errr...I mean the Democrats.

One such candidate, Chris Christie, just gave his two cents on the subject (although two cents won’t cover much). In a response to a democratic push to create debt-free graduates, Christie said “if college graduates are going to reap the greater economic rewards and opportunities of earning a degree, then it seems fair for them to support the cost of the education they’re receiving.”

On this front, Christie makes a very sound argument. A college graduate is going to receive opportunities and experiences that those without an education could only dream of, and thus should have to pay the cost of such an experience. This combats the notion that the government should help students pay for college. In that regard, his view is quite reasonable.

A much better argument for all sides of the argument is to take one step back and reevaluate whether or not the cost of tuition is at an appropriate level to begin with. As an alumnus of Indiana University, I was responsible for over $30,000 per year (before scholarships). What exactly does $120,000 per student over the course of a four year degree get them? Where does that money go?

While there is some level of transparency, students generally have to work pretty hard to see a full breakdown of how their tuition dollars are allocated. It isn’t as simple as paying for a student’s own professors’ salaries and the dorms and food that they utilize. In most cases, that money is spent as a collective unit, going into a larger pool to work toward the university’s general upkeep.

Let’s look at an example. Student A lives in a dorm that was built in 1940, and has, over the last 75 years, maintained its status as a monument to college living, receiving updates periodically, but rarely seeing an overhaul of the amenities. Central air conditioning is laughable, while communal showers are old and dank. At the same time, across campus, Student B is living in the brand new dorm, with gorgeous new carpeting, clean and unused furniture, and a new cafeteria in the basement that serves kale and quinoa and all sorts of other hipster foods that liberal college students claim to enjoy. Yet, as a general rule, the two are paying the same tuition costs.

Let’s look at a more academic example: students in the Journalism program vs. students in the English department. Both are paying the same amount of money, and both are receiving the same degrees from the College of Arts and Sciences, but one is receiving top of the line resources and educators, while the other trails behind in the field. These two majors can be swapped out for any two programs, depending on the school and level of focus. The bottom line is: with standardize tuition costs, you aren’t paying for the cost of YOUR education so much as you’re paying for the cost of running the school as a whole, an idea that I think most Republicans will have trouble wrapping their heads around.

As we begin the process of reevaluating the cost of a college education, we need to look in a new direction. Rather than finding ways for students to come up with 10, 15, 20 thousand dollars, we should instead be looking at exactly where that money goes, and attempt to find ways that the government can help fund the upkeep of the school, leaving students to pay for the academic resources they actually use. While Governor Christie’s approach is valid, it is a sound opinion based on a failed model.

The high cost of college is, in and of itself, a learning opportunity. Students learn to budget, to make decisions about what they can and cannot afford, and to make smart choices about how to most responsibly attain their goals. Yet, when students are faced with no good options because the cost of an education has gotten so out of control, we are handicapping the future of America, failing to allow our next generation to reach it’s true potential.

Rather than finding ways to help students fund an education that costs too much to begin with, the government would get far more bang for their buck if they attempted to help pay for the actual infrastructure and amenities themselves, and let students cover their own cost-of-education, rather than forcing students to pay those top dollars and then struggle to figure out how to pay.

If you enjoy the work of the Zoot Perspective, please visit my GoFundMe page, to help support me on my journey. Thank you very much.

For more content from ZPMedia, visit www.zootperspective.com.

June 1st: The Feminism of Tomorrow

I’ve always been uncomfortable with structured feminism. It has always bothered me, because feminism is something I would love to be a part of. Who doesn’t want equality for women, for women to feel strong and empowered? I most certainly do, but something about the currently vocal feminist movement made me uncomfortable. I finally figured out why.

I actually have Meghan Trainor to thank. After the release of her latest song, Dear Future Husband, the feminist movement had a field day, tearing the girl to shreds. Their argument was that, in singing about all the things she wants in a perfect match, she was perpetuating the patriarchal society we currently live in, and was setting women’s rights back decades from the progress that has been made.

(While the music video may be the most challenging part about the song, here it is, so that you can listen and engage in an educated, thoughtful conversation)

My first thought was that, if one woman singing a song could set the entire movement back several decades, then the foundation of the movement can’t be particularly strong. So, as I thought about the challenge of this song, I went to look up the lyrics and do a little research, something many reactionaries must not have done.

As I read over the lines, I was puzzled. There was plenty in here about “taking care of” her man, sure. But, at the same time, there were a number of lines that demonstrated Trainor taking complete control of her relationship, from telling the man in her life that her 9 to 5 job is just as important as his, and by kindly letting him know that they will be spending more time with her family than his.

All at once, I realized what my problem was with feminism. Feminism, as it currently stands, doesn’t want to empower women into taking control over their own lives. Feminism wants to tell women HOW they should take control of their lives.

Many believe that a strong woman is one who “doesn’t need no man,” who wears pantsuits because she can, who has a top notch job and doesn’t stay at home with the kids. What REAL feminism is, and what we should all be striving for, is the power for a woman to be able to choose exactly what her form of empowerment looks like. Some women don’t want what the prototypical feminist wants, and that should be ok. That doesn’t take away from the strength of the movement; it actually adds to it!

Meghan Trainor should be allowed to write a song about what she wants in her perfect match, and whatever she decides should be accepted as feminism in its purist form. All women, really, should know what they want in a future husband (or wife), so that they can find the person that makes them happy without having to follow anyone else’s rules. If that means that the future husband doesn’t exist because a woman doesn’t want to be reliant on a partner, then that works perfectly for her. But don’t tell a woman she is wrong for wanting a man to tell her she looks beautiful, if that is how she will find the most joy out of life.

I have spoken to way too many women who say that they “hate feminism.” Too many fail to identify with a social revolution that is meant to represent all women. In fact, the current wave of radical feminism isn’t representing women at all; it is, rather, creating a new standard that women SHOULD (in their minds) believe in, and any opposition to it is belief in keeping woman from empowering themselves. If we are going to reach true empowerment of women, equal rights and the absolute, unwavering respect that women most certainly deserve, we need to do it not by creating any form of standard that women should buy into, but rather paving the way for women to take complete ownership of who they are and, most importantly, who they want to be.

If we’re going to be truly successful in making the world a better place for women, we need to be listening not to what ALL women want, but what EACH woman wants, and helping each and every one of them to realize their goals. The radical feminism of today is failing because they are trying to standardize female empowerment. The successful feminism of tomorrow will customize to make every woman know that she can call her own shots. That is the feminism I believe in.

If you enjoy the work of the Zoot Perspective, please visit my GoFundMe page, to help support me on my journey. Thank you very much.

For more content from ZPMedia, visit www.zootperspective.com.