The New Jim Crow

Last night I watched a televised lecture given by Michelle Alexander at the University of Tennessee. Alexander is the author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.

Alexander is an accomplished civil rights attorney and advocate on a mission to radically change the way we think about the criminal justice system. Her website states, “Today an extraordinary percentage of the African American community is warehoused in prisons or trapped in a parallel social universe, denied basic civil and human rights—including the right to vote, the right to serve on juries, and the right to be free of legal discrimination in employment, housing, access to education and public benefits.” Alexander posits that the “war on drugs” has disproportionately and unjustly affected young men of color and that the criminal justice system “functions more like a caste system than a system of crime prevention or control.”

When Alexander speaks about a system that has marginalized some as not worthy of basic human consideration I have to say, it sounds good. It sounds real good. And when I read that one in every fifteen African American men versus one in every one-hundred-and-six white men is incarcerated, I’m open to being persuaded that something systemic is amiss.

But then Alexander said, “We’re all criminals,” as evidence of why the system is unfair, and I’m sorry, but she lost me right there.

She lost at least one member of the audience, too, a young black man who said he’d be remiss if he didn’t discuss his “cognitive dissonance” surrounding this topic, which he said caused “a lot of internal conflict” while listening to Alexander. What this young man wanted to know is—where does personal accountability fit within this movement? He continued  “… I have a lot of family members and friends who know better and continue to not do better.” And I realized this was my problem, too (not the family member part, per se), but the whole idea that somebody other than the individual engaging in the criminal activity is responsible for the result. So I thought, “Great question! Maybe Alexander can win me back with her response,” because you see, I really wanted to be won over, but she’d lost me, and I feared I wasn’t coming back.

And I was more or less correct about that.

Alexander thanked the audience member for his question and responded by saying—

“You know, I think personal accountability plays a role in it for all of us …We all have to take responsibility for the choices that we make in our lives. But we also have to take … responsibility for the choices that we make collectively. And … it seems to me that we have been willing to heap an enormous amount of shame and blame on the poorest, the most vulnerable in our society and accept no responsibility collectively, for having set people up to fail and then keeping them trapped. So, yes, yes, of course everyone has got to take responsibility for their own actions … there is absolutely a role for personal accountability in the conversation. But I think we’ve got to expand the conversation beyond personal accountability, and ask the question, ‘Okay, so you’ve made a mistake. Now what?’”

Well, that’s a fine question to ask, but I can’t help feeling that she pulled a fast one with the response. Personal accountability is important, but it’s not important? Heaping shame and blame on the most vulnerable … what? The criminals are the victims, and the rest of us are their oppressors? What the heck? Okay, maybe there is a segment of the prison population that we’ve inhumanely tossed aside, people who could be rehabilitated or should never have been imprisoned in the first place, but you can’t convince me of that with this argument.

And then it got worse, when she offered Barack Obama as an example of what’s wrong, since he smoked weed and admitted to “experimenting” with cocaine and here he is President because he was raised by his white relatives in Hawaii while someone else is rotting in jail for a relatively minor first-time drug offense … and I don’t know, it just sounded like Alexander is a big old softie, and a little irrational. Are we supposed to believe that the prison system is overcrowded with recreational marijuana users? But Alexander is so well-spoken and so learned, and the NAACP awarded her book an image award, so clearly it’s me, and I’m just ill-informed and mean.

Listen, I’m no stranger to racism or bias, and there’s no reason for me to think that these bugaboos—which infect every other facet of society, as far as I can tell—don’t affect the criminal justice system. But, something in Alexander’s message didn’t translate for me. Sure, let’s examine the system. Sure, let’s demonstrate compassion and devise real ways to help people walk upright again after they stumble. But, goodness, Alexander makes it sound like nobody in jail actually deserves to be there, because “we’re all criminals,” and even President Obama smoked weed. And, sorry, but I’m not buying it.

What Do I Owe You?

Yesterday, a friend and I were talking about family relationships and how difficult it can be when they become abusive. We weren’t talking about domestic violence in the sense that you normally think of it—physical abuse perpetuated by a spouse or significant other—but instead we talked about verbal and sometimes psychological abuse perpetuated by “first-family” members, such as a parent, grandparent, or sibling.

I told him what a difficult patient my mother was during the last days of her illness, and he told me about his mentally ill sister.

Unfortunately, I could have shared a bunch of other stories with him. Not my personal stories, but the stories of other friends, coworkers, and neighbors. Stories of troubling relationships with sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers. Some of these loved ones are mentally ill, like my friend’s sister, but others aren’t.

My friend and I found that we’d both struggled with the answers to these two questions while managing our relationships with our difficult loved one—What do I owe you? and How can I best love you?

My friend told me that he’d made the decision to limit his time with his sister, which meant he would not be present at family functions. I know this decision was hard for him. I remember deciding that I simply would not talk to my mother unless something in our relationship changed, because I’d come to the conclusion that allowing her to hurt me with her words wasn’t good for either of us. Not confronting her prevented us both from growing, dealing with our stuff, and transitioning our relationship from minor child/parent to adult child/parent, which is where it desperately needed to go.

I was helped along with this decision by Henry Cloud and John Townsend, authors of the book Boundaries, and their discussion of the notion of stewardship—that we each are stewards of the time, talents, and money that God has gifted us, and we need to take care in deciding how to use those gifts. Later, this notion was given greater depth when I was introduced to the concept of being responsible to someone without being responsible for her. Generally speaking, adults are not responsible for other adults, but sometimes people try and make us feel guilty about what we won’t do for them, causing us to forget that. So, if my brother is irresponsible with his money and now can’t pay his rent, I may choose to help him, but I am not obligated to help him, regardless of what I have or can afford. I don’t owe him in that way. I am not responsible for him, regardless of what manipulative tactics he may use to convince me otherwise. And, it may be that the best way I can love him is to confront him about being irresponsible and then help him (if he chooses to accept the help) find a way to solve his problem that does not involve my simply doing for him what he should be doing for himself.

Of course, when your family member is mentally ill, these issues are compounded fiercely, and I don’t pretend to know what any particular individual should do when faced with this painful and complicated problem, except perhaps seek professional help. But I do know this—ultimately, no matter what decision is made, the individual will wrestle with and must answer these two questions that I’ll ask again. What do I owe you? and How can I best love you?

Michelle Obama’s Butt, Chris Christie, and Fat Bias

I fell asleep with the television on again (such a bad habit), and I woke up to hear the panel of Fox News’ Red Eye discussing whether, if Chris Christie were a woman, we’d be hearing all this stuff about his weight. 

Each panel member said, no, of course not. If Chris Christie were a girl, it’d be completely unacceptable to talk about her appearance. As proof, somebody mentioned that coach who was suspended for saying that Michele Obama has a “fat butt,” and I don’t remember much else because (a) it was nearly 3:00 AM and (b) I’d already written this conversation off as stupid because … hello?? If Chris Christie were a girl, I’m pretty sure her large self wouldn’t have been voted Governor in the first place, okay? But that possibility had apparently escaped our panel’s attention, so I was done with them.

Hardy har har ...

(And by the way, that coach commented on a heck of a lot more than Michelle Obama’s behind. While his sidekick chimed in by calling Ms. Obama “a big fat gorilla,” the coach talked about how the country “is going in the wrong direction” and how he “[doesn’t] like being around queers.” 

Hmmm … well, I’d rather have a big ass than be a dumb ass, so how you like them apples, coach?)

But where was I? Oh yeah—bias against large women. 

So, I was totally taken aback that no member of the Red Eye panel considered the bias against large women during the commentary. Sigh. Exactly where have these people been?

For example, a recent Yale University study found that thin male jurors are more likely to convict a large woman than a large man, a thin man, or a thin woman. 

Repeat. Thin male jurors are more likely to convict a large woman than a large man, a thin man, or a thin woman. 

The abstract for the study, which appeared in the International Journal of Obesity, states, “The results of this novel study indicate that both weight and gender of a defendant may affect juror perceptions of guilt and responsibility.”  

The pretend female jurors in the study didn't display this bias, so that’s some good news. Why this bias exists in thin men is anyone’s guess, but it’s commonly perceived that obese people are slothful, greedy, and lacking in self-control, so of course they’d commit more crimes, right?

But this is nothing new. A 2008 study found that “society is less tolerant of weight gain in women” and that a man has to gain a lot more weight than a woman does before he experiences the same level of fat discrimination. 

And, a 2012 study found that some women still experience fat bias even after they lose the weight.

But if all that’s not bad enough, numerous studies suggest that many doctors don’t like fat patients in general, and guess what? They like fat female patients even less than fat male patients.

So, I’m sorry, but I think a conversation about whether Chris Christie’s weight critics are sexist is just silly. Christie may have to fend off rude comments about his weight, but he’s doing it from his Governor’s seat, and I doubt that a woman as large as he is would even have that option.

What’s Happening To 'Scandal?'

I watched Scandal last night, and as I told my cousin, I feel cheated. This show is getting out of hand, and I’m not sure I like it.  It’s true I have a preoccupation with justice, but I can handle my “good guys” getting their hands a little dirty. But Fitz a cold-blood murderer? Not good. Sure I like my characters complex, but not so complex that their actions aren’t making any damn sense.

Denzel’s Washington’s character in Training Day? Good complex. Fitz snuffing Vera’s lights out, then giving a rousing eulogy at her funeral? Icky, bad complex.

And, speaking of Vera and her dying confession, what was that? This is the woman who betrayed her friend only to keep her seat on the bench, and now she’s all, “I gotta clear my conscience,” but then comes clean in what I’d call a downright mean-spirited fashion, not what you’d expect from someone racked with guilt. And then there’s the kicker, of course—she hired Fitz’s shooter? What? Why? To protect her legacy? Sorry, this isn’t hanging together for me.

Here’s the thing. I’m beginning to believe that Shonda Rhimes or whoever’s responsible for the story line has a clinical aversion to decency and that the only thing we can count on with this show is people behaving badly. At this point, the only consistently decent character is David, and he keeps getting his ass kicked. What are we supposed to make of that? Plus, I wouldn’t be surprised if David starts acting up too, although I may not be around to see it.

Something is wrong when a man kisses his wife, and my stomach turns—that’s how I felt at the end there, when Fitz tells Mellie that she’s the only one he can trust, or some dumb stuff  (sounding like a silly, naïve fool) and then he kisses her, yuck—but he can embrace his mistress, and it seems right. We’re being manipulated here in a disturbing way. I mean, okay, look, I can’t claim complete innocence about this, as I knew it was wrong to cheer Fitz and Liv from jump, but last night some really creepy corner was turned.

So you say, well, Crystal, in real life people are complicated. They’re not all good or all bad. And I say, fine, but this is not real life. This is an art form, a dramatic construct, and there are rules, and I think some of these rules are being violated, here.

I watch a lot of television, and I understand the notion of turning expectation on its head and surprise endings, and all that jazz, but there has to be a level of consistency, or a surprise ending (or any other twist) doesn’t feel like a clever move but instead a lame ploy by a lazy writer.

Abby pulling the Cytron chip from her blouse? That felt authentic. Cyrus (everything he does lately)? Brilliant. These people are hard-core believers, and I don’t quite get it, but I understand it. But the principal characters are suffering. Fitz, never perfect to be sure, has always at least struggled with trying to do the right thing. Now all of a sudden we’re supposed to believe he cares so much for the Presidency that he’s willing to kill for it? Hmmm … And so help me, if this is explained away because he’s suffering personality changes as a result of his traumatic brain injury, I’m going to scream.

See, maybe I’m dumb. But I started watching Scandal, and it seemed fresh, and slick, and smart with some pretty interesting characters doing some pretty interesting things, and now it’s just devolving into this cheesy, lame-o, soap opera with characters behaving out of character, and there’s nothing to believe in and no one to root for. The show’s central character, Liv, is looking like a sad, little masochist right about now, and that speech about how she wants difficult and painful, and all that crap? Come on girl! Get it together! We know Fitz is your Achilles heel, but enough already.

I expected more, damn it. I just expected more.

You Might Want To Keep That To Yourself

Do you have a big dream? I mean a really big dream? Something you want to be, or do, or aspire to? Something that makes you think, “Dang! Who do I think I am, that I could even think I might be able to achieve this?” even as you’re forging steadily ahead, seemingly unable to turn back?

Well, you might want to keep all that to yourself.

Not because someone might steal your idea and claim it as his own, but because, well … some people have a way of really raining on your parade. They tell you what you can’t do. They look at you with a disapproving expression they couldn’t hide quite fast enough when you share your latest plans with them, and you don’t need that right now. You need encouragement, and hope, and practical advice from someone who believes you really could do that fabulous thing that is your heart’s desire. You don’t need a naysayer (no matter how well intentioned) telling you that what’s good enough for her should be good enough for you. To each his own and all that—you’re not judging. But you want something different, and that ought to be okay, too.

Hear me clearly. I’m not talking about something completely, not-a snowball’s-chance-in-Hades, out of the question—like a five foot nine obese middle-aged woman becoming a ballerina and performing the principal role in The Nutcracker at the Met—although, heck, maybe that could happen, I don’t know. I’m talking about something you really could do, something you’re qualified to do, something you’re actually gifted at, and finally, you’re ready to go for it, but damn! You shared your dream with the wrong person, and now it’s all can’ts, shouldn’ts, shoulds, uncomfortable silences, and a marked lack of enthusiasm on her part.

Well, I want you to take heart. Sometimes people just don’t have your vision. They don’t have your confidence. And I don’t mean a lack of confidence in you and your abilities, although that may be part of the issue. I mean they don’t have your confidence in God, and they certainly haven’t seen him do some of the things you’ve seen him do. So, really, it’s to be expected that they don’t think you can do what you think you can do, and again, it’s okay. Time will tell. In the meantime, keep praying, keep hoping, keep the faith, and keep your more imaginative friends close at hand.

Three Cheers for the Cult of Character

Today I attended a webinar that explored the ways in which good character contributes to academic success in school-aged children.

During the webinar, participants were introduced to the work of Christopher Peterson and Martin Seligman, authors of Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification. In the book, Peterson and Seligman classify twenty-four character strengths under six virtues. For example, the Character Strength of “kindness” is under the Virtue of “humanity.” Click here for a complete listing.

The organization hosting the webinar, a national network of charter schools, integrates character development within its academic program, hinging its approach on eight of the character strengths and their corresponding behaviors.

I considered the timing of this webinar particularly fortuitous, as just earlier today I’d had lunch with a friend and we’d debated (okay, mostly I’d debated) how it’s possible for a business leader to consistently behave in ways distinct from his character. For example, let’s suppose a business leader says he values collaboration, cooperation, respect for others, and so on, but at every opportunity refuses to halt the behavior of his abusive managers when he has full knowledge of the behavior and full authority to end it. What can we say about this leader’s character? "We can say he's a wimp," my friend responded. And I say, okay, but let’s not rule out the possibility that he’s an abusive bully, too, albeit vicariously, because how else to explain his seeming indifference to others’ suffering?

I’d written earlier about Susan Cain’s book, Quiet: The Power of Introversion in a World That Can't Stop Talking and how comforting this introvert found Cain’s text. One of the most interesting chapters in the book is “The Rise of the ‘Mighty Likable Fellow,’” which is about the cultural shift from an emphasis on a person’s character to an emphasis on his “likability.” Cain writes, “In the Culture of Character, the ideal self was serious, disciplined, and honorable. What counted was not so much the impression one made in public as how one behaved in private…but when they embraced the Culture of Personality, Americans started to focus on how others perceived them. They became captivated by people who were bold and entertaining.”

She goes on to say—and this is the really fascinating part, I think—“One of the most powerful lenses through which to view the transformation from Character to Personality is the self-help tradition … Many of the earliest conduct guides were religious parables like The Pilgrim’s Progress, published in 1678, which warned readers to behave with restraint if they wanted to make it into heaven. The advice manuals of the nineteenth century were less religious but still preached the value of a noble character… But by 1920, popular self-help guides had changed their focus from inner virtue to outer charm—‘to know what to say and how to say it,’ as one manual put it.”

So, I for one am happy that some public schools are still emphasizing character, because it’s important, and as far as I’m concerned we’ve been focusing on this “good personality” stuff for far too long. I’m also happy that studies show that nice guys and gals don’t always finish last, at least not in the classroom. 

Shunning—Not Just for Religious Sects

You may have read about shunning in the Amish, Quaker, and Jehovah Witness’ communities, but did you know that shunning is also a common tactic of the workplace bully?

Shunning as a form of church discipline for the purpose of bringing a member of the community to repentance is one thing. Shunning as a form of psychological warfare is something else altogether.

Time out.

Every time I sit down to write one of these pieces about some really bad management technique, I say to myself—where the hell do all these assholes come from? Even Bob Sutton, author of The No Asshole-Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't, doesn’t have any answers for me.

Okay, back to business.

Bullies are masters of self-delusion.

Like most everything else the bully does, shunning is about power and control. By shunning, or ignoring, you, the bully hopes to exercise some control over you by causing you to act or feel a certain way. Let’s say the bully is your boss. Perhaps, like many targets, you’ve survived the bully’s mistreatment by having as little contact with him as possible. With limited contact, you can still get the directions, instructions, and feedback you need to perform while maintaining some level of peace and sanity. But now that your a-hole boss realizes what’s going on, he’s going to raise the stakes and shun you completely—forcing you to place yourself in his sphere from a position of stress and weakness, and that’s what he likes, the jerk. More simply, shunning can also be an immature form of revenge. The bully will cause you to feel isolated, anxious, and frightened, and that makes him feel good, because he’s evil  it’s a demonstration of his power, and oh yeah, he’s evil.

Now, I know I sound a little dramatic, but I gotta tell you, ever since I was a kid, bullies make me crazy. I hate bullies. Perhaps it’s because I’m an independent sort, and I do not like it when someone tries to impose his will on me by force. Even the creator of the universe employs persuasion and not coercion to bring you to his way of thinking, so who the hell do these bullies think they are? Or perhaps it’s my sense of justice, which, granted, is not perfect, but still, I do not believe there is any excuse for going out of your way to make another human being feel like shit. So, I hear stories from friends (and—full disclaimer—one of my good friends is being bullied at work right now) or I read testimonies like this one, and it makes me nuts.

So, what is to be done?

As I wrote in Bullies Need Not Apply, a lot of employers turn a blind eye to this behavior, so if you’re being shunned, you’re probably on your own. Yeah I said it. Even as a human resources professional I’m saying it, because if your HR department had any power, assuming it has the heart, to stop this crap it would have never gotten to this level. That’s my expert opinion. Anyone is free to disagree.

So, my very best advice is—please, please take care of yourself. If you’re a praying person, pray. Surround yourself with loved ones. See a medical doctor. See a therapist. Dust off that resume, because your ultimate goal is to get the heck out of there. Take a class. Document everything your bully does. Everything. Keep as much distance between yourself and the bully as is possible. And, as difficult as it will be, do your job to the absolute best of your ability, and make every effort to take the high road. Bob Sutton’s "Latest Tips for Surviving Workplace Assholes"  will confirm what I’m saying and give you additional information, too.

Godspeed, my friend.