Teachers on TV
                                                                                                  Part Two
 
         In case you didn’t read “Teachers on TV – Part One” here’s a sentence that appears toward the end of that essay that provides a bridge to this one:

What’s most notable is that the Sixties programs begin to recognize student-teacher interaction --- and create a view that “idealistic” teachers care about their students above-and-beyond their classrooms, a notion that became the new focus for Seventies shows.

            I began my career as a classroom teacher in the early 1970’s, so the tv shows about schools, students, and teachers held more than a “passing interest” for me.  There were three from 1974 to 1981 I still remember clearly: Lucas Tanner, Welcome Back, Kotter, and The White Shadow.  A number of people “of a certain age” probably recall Kotter and The White Shadow but I’m guessing few ever heard of Lucas Tanner.  While this essay is from my perspective, I believe there are general observations that can be made about the portrayal of teachers & schools on these shows telling us about how the greater society views schools, teachers, and, in a greater sense, education in the United States --- both then and now.
            Lucas Tanner was a short-lived  program that appeared on NBC.  The only sites, beyond Wikipedia, providing information about Tanner were “Worst TV Shows” and “TV Obscurities,” so that gives you some insight as to how the program is seen in retrospect.  Wikipedia says this:
 
Lucas Tanner is an American drama series aired on NBC during the 1974–75 season. The title character, played by David Hartman, is a former baseball player and sportswriter who becomes an English teacher at the fictional Harry S Truman Memorial High School in Webster Groves, Missouri, a suburb of St. Louis. He changed professions following the death of his wife and child. Episodes often deal with the resistance of traditional teachers to Tanner's unorthodox teaching style. (bold, mine)

            The accounts from “Worst Shows” and “TV Obscurities” both note that Tanner is “idealistic” and has “a  fresh and friendly approach to teaching, which makes him beloved by students, but not so liked among teachers who have an old-fashioned way of teaching.” (bold, mine)  In mid-year of that first (and only) season, Tanner shifts from classroom teaching and becomes a Guidance Counselor, so he can, apparently, apply his “fresh and friendly,” “unorthodox teaching style” in a more (appropriate?)one-on-one setting.  I don’t have clear memories of Lucas Tanner to describe what his fresh, friendly, unorthodox methods were but I’m guessing it’s that he focused as much (or more) on his students than he did on content.  As the last waves of the Sixties --- and America’s latest school reform movement --- were receding, Lucas Tanner did represent, however slightly, a shift that was actually happening in schools.  The idea of student-centered education had gained momentum starting in the late-Sixties/early Seventies and, while it didn’t become a widespread national movement, it was the beginning of a conversation about school reform that is still making waves in education circles.  Luckily for me, having gotten my Master’s in Teaching from Colgate in August, 1973 --- and full of progressive education philosophy looking for a landing site --- I was hired to work at a brand-new, open-space (read: few interior walls) Art/Humanities public high school.  I was brimming with ideas about student-centered education so, when Lucas Tanner appeared on NBC I think I identified  with his “fresh and friendly approach to teaching.”  That Tanner #1 – only lasted one season, and #2 – was shifted to a Guidance Counselor’s office by mid-year should have told me something about how much the wider world appreciated someone with an “unorthodox teaching style.”  Luckily for me, Blind Brook High School was more willing to renew our program (for almost a decade) while television devised new ways to portray teachers.

            As I noted earlier, most folks who lived through the 1970’s pretty clearly remember Welcome Back, Kotter, and The White Shadow.  For those not old enough to be familiar with the shows here are the Wikipedia summaries for each.

Welcome Back, Kotter is an American sitcom starring Gabe Kaplan as a high-school teacher in charge of a racially and ethnically diverse remedial education class nicknamed the Sweathogs. The series aired on ABC from September 9, 1975, through May 17, 1979.  Stand-up comedian and actor Gabriel "Gabe" Kaplan stars as the main character, Gabe Kotter, a wise-cracking teacher who returns to his alma mater, James Buchanan High School in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, New York City, ten years after graduating to teach a remedial class of loafers known as the Sweathogs. The rigid vice principal, Michael Woodman (John Sylvester White), who was formerly Kotter's social studies teacher, dismisses the Sweathogs as witless hoodlums. Woodman only expects Kotter to contain them until they drop out or are expelled or arrested. Kotter had been a remedial student and a founding member of the original class of Sweathogs. He befriends the current class and stimulates their potential. Kotter forms a rapport with his students. They begin visiting his Bensonhurst apartment, sometimes via the fire escape window, often to the chagrin of his wife Julie (Marcia Strassman).
 
The White Shadow is an American drama television series starring Ken Howard that ran on the CBS network from November 27, 1978, to March 16, 1981, about a white former professional basketball player who takes a job coaching basketball at an impoverished urban high school with a racially mixed basketball team. Although the lead actor Howard was white, the series broke new ground as the first television ensemble drama to feature a mostly African American cast, with African American actors playing the high school principal and vice-principal, the majority of the teenage basketball players, and other supporting roles. The White Shadow also dealt with controversial subject matter such as sexually transmitted disease and gay sexual orientation among high school students. Although The White Shadow was not a big ratings hit, it drew praise from critics and helped pave the way for later realistic dramas such as Hill Street Blues.

            What do Kotter and The White Shadow reflect about teachers, students, schools, and our society’s interpretation of them through the art of television?  Certainly, they mark a significant shift from Mr. Peepers, Miss Brooks, Mr. Novak, Room 222, and even Lucas Tanner.  Set in what were then called “inner-city” schools in New York and Los Angeles, Kotter  and The White Shadow both presented viewers with students they had only  encountered in Room 222 --- and, certainly, both Kotter and Shadow  were far grittier settings.  That said, the portrayal of Buchanan and Carver High Schools played into certain stereotypes about “inner-city schools” --- classrooms in disrepair, disheveled hallways, and a general sense that these old buildings were on their way out.  In both settings, though, we do see similar stories playing out.    

            Even though Kotter  was a broad comedy and Shadow  a serious, dramatic program, their settings and students share commonalities beyond stereotypes.  Kotter’s core crew --- Vinnie Barbarino (John Travolta’s launchpad role) the group’s leader & school heartthrob, Juan, Epstein, the half-Jewish, half-Puerto Rican wise guy, Freddie “Boom-Boom” Washington, the cool basketball-star, Black “dude,” and Arnold Horshack, the lovable class clown --- provided a perfect Ship of Fools cast to play off the affable and wise Mr. Kotter.  While there are poignant moments between Kotter and each of the crew, there are also numerous comic foibles which set Kotter up defending the Sweathogs and standing up to Principal Woodman (subtle symbolism in the name).  In all, while broadly comic, Kotter did present a very human and humane picture of a teacher and his students.  And, while Mr. Kotter is the ostensible “star” of the show, it’s really about the students, in all their foolish but lovable adolescence.  It also showed that city schools weren’t necessary the Black Holes suburban America imagined them as.

            In much the same way, The White Shadow provided a unique look at urban America through the well-known landscape of a high school basketball team.  Using this  context --- in one way or another, everyone who’s gone to high school is at least passingly   familiar with the institution’s basketball team.  In The White Shadow’s case, that team represents George Washington Carver High School in South Central Los Angeles.  Using a ”fish out of water” premise, a former professional basketball player, who is white, is recruited by the school’s principal (an old friend/college teammate of the athlete) to coach the school’s boys’ varsity basketball team.  In a few short seasons, The White Shadow accomplished quite a bit.  It brought an honest sensibility to problems plaguing cities: alcoholism, gang violence, domestic violence, drug use, racism, teen-age pregnancy, and being gay.  And it did it in the context of a school, through a coach and his players --- each of whom, or all of whom, were affected by one or more of those issues.  What struck me then, and still resonates, was the relationship between the coach and his team.  As a young teacher and basketball coach (180 degrees away from The Shadow, on the surface) what became apparent was not only that the coach cared about his players but that, over time, working together to become the best team they could, they developed into a virtual family. 

            Closing the curtain on the Seventies, then, we find students at the center of the story, with the teacher or coach more a guide on the side, who develops a sense of cohesion among the class/team/group, becoming a “second family” for each other.  Another note is that the students, even the “Sweathogs,” learn from each other --- and learn about honesty, integrity, trust, and other bedrock values.  In all, the School shows in the Seventies are a rather honest portrayal of the world  they represent and a relatively positive picture regarding students and teachers.

            After the Seventies, with the advent of cable television, and my own interests drifting from broadcast television, I was less aware of shows about schools or teachers.   I did know about Freaks and Geeks, Head of the Class, Saved by the Bell, et al, but it seemed the audience for “high school” shows was more and more aimed at the teens who were now primary consumers.  Thus, Dawson’s Creek, Beverly Hills 90210,  My So-Called Life,  and Saved by the Bell were aimed at teen-agers and reflected their concerns --- without making significant (“grander?”) statements about students & teachers or education.  It’s only lately that I’ve encountered a couple of shows about students/teachers/schools that attempt to comment on issues in the current education landscape.  So stay tuned to Teachers and TV --- Part Three.

                                                         Teachers on TV
                                                                                                   Part One
 
            If you haven’t watched ABC’s Emmy-winning Abbott Elementary or FX’s English Teacher, I’d highly recommend both.  They are comedies, in the classical sense (“Comedy is a genre of dramatic performance having a light or humorous tone that depicts amusing incidents and in which the characters ultimately triumph over adversity” – Wikipedia), and often pack thoughtful content into their half-hour (22minute) format.  The protagonists are bright, reflective, caring --- but flawed --- characters and their colleagues (sometimes broadly painted) are interesting, amusing, and, at times, touching.  Watching these shows as a retired educator led me to reflect my own history of seeing Teachers on Television, starting in the 1950’s.  I, of course, began to research the whole “teachers on tv” phenomena and immediately ran into this question raised by former Stanford Professor Larry Cuban in December of 2023:
Why Do Teachers Portrayed on TV and in Hollywood Films Have to Be Either Heroes Or Losers?
            Introducing the topic, Cuban writes:
 
In television shows like “Those Who Can’t” and “Teachers,” the schoolteacher as clueless wag or inappropriate role model is getting another workout this spring.
 
These tropes, immortalized in movie portrayals from “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” to “Bad Teacher,” are nearly as common as the saintly sages who unlock the hidden creativity of their students or rescue downtrodden minority children.
 
Neither cliché has much connection to reality. And yet they frustrate those trying to attract more talented people to teaching.
            As one who spent more than 40 years in classrooms, I am not only sympathetic to what Cuban is highlighting as a problem for the profession, but I’m also interested in investigating my own “interaction” with TV Teaching over the years --- going back to my childhood.  This essay will focus on Television’s portrayal of teachers, as I remember it, saving an investigation of Hollywood’s treatment for a later day.
            As further introduction to my own state of mind regarding this topic, though, I believe it’s important to set the frame of this investigation.  Robert Bulman, a professor of sociology at St. Mary’s College of California and the author of “Hollywood Goes to High School: Cinema, Schools and American Culture,” says:
On the one hand, we expect them to be competent and heroic, and after all, our children are in their hands for a big part of the day, so it makes sense that we would like them to be heroic. On the other hand, there is a certain cultural belief that teachers are poorly trained and apathetic, and they are the scapegoat for any crisis that exists in the public school system. We tend to assume that teachers are to blame, so we often get representations of these buffoonish characters. Stereotypes of teachers have remained remarkably consistent. What’s more,  the portrayals correspond roughly to the economic class and race of the students in the movies. In middle- or upper-middle-income suburban settings, educators are likely to appear as lazy fools, petty tyrants or, at best, genial sidekicks offering an occasional word of wisdom (think Paul Gleason in “Breakfast Club,” Jane Lynch in “Glee” or Ken Jeong in “The Duff”). Yet when fictional classrooms are filled with lower-income minority children, the teachers tend to be superheroes who triumph over poverty and racism by sheer force of personality and perseverance. If pedagogy has anything to do with it, these teachers come off as renegades who deploy tactics never before tried by their colleagues. (Cue “Freedom Writers,” “Dangerous Minds” and “Stand and Deliver.”)
 
            That’s a lot, I know, but the points that jump out at me are these: teachers are poorly trained, they are the scapegoat, buffoonish characters, and are lazy fools, petty tyrants, or genial sidekicks. It’s only in the most desperate situations that teachers by sheer force of personality and perseverance become superheroes.  It’s important to recognize the power that television (and now, any screen) has on creating images that are believed at face-value by the general public (I won’t go off on a Trump tangent here but his riding The Apprentice and then capitalizing on tv stereotypes to fuel his racist and misogynistic politics is a prime example of how tv can corrupt our society).  That many people have, of course, encountered less-than-stellar teachers during their educational journey, helps reinforce the negative images projected about teachers.  Going back to  Washington Irving’s 1820 Legend of Sleepy Hollow and his portrayal of the shallow and awkward schoolteacher, Ichabod Crane, teachers have been subject to negative stereotypes.  With the advent of television, we have seen a steady stream of teachers, starting in the 1950’s.
            Our family was definitely a TV Family.  My Dad particularly liked watching TV, so I have early recollections of that early “Golden Age of Television.”  I remember Milton Berle and Sid Caesar, as well as Lucy and The Goldbergs (the 1949-1957 version) and other, early TV shows.  Two I recall, regarding the topic of teachers on TV are Mr. Peepers and Our Miss Brooks.  I was too young to really understand much but I do clearly remember they were shows about “school” and that made them interesting to me, even at that early age.  Here are the Wikipedia summaries for those shows.
Mister Peepers is an American sitcom that aired on NBC from July 3, 1952, to June 12, 1955. Wally Cox starred as Robinson J. Peepers, Jefferson City's junior high school science teacher. Others in the cast included Tony Randall as history teacher Harvey Weskit; Georgiann Johnson as Harvey's wife, Marge; Patricia Benoit as school nurse Nancy Remington; Marion Lorne as oft-confused English teacher Mrs. Gurney; Jack Warden as athletic coach Frank Whip; and Ernest Truex and Sylvia Field as Nancy's parents.
IMDB describes “Mr. Peepers” as a “shy science teacher . . . always faced with problems but never outwitted.”
 
Our Miss Brooks is an American sitcom starring Eve Arden as a sardonic high-school English teacher. It began as a radio show broadcast on CBS from 1948 to 1957. When the show was adapted to television (1952–56), it became one of the medium's earliest hits.
IMDB describes Miss Brooks this way: Miss Brooks is an English Teacher who has a low paying job, a lousy boss, has a crush on a teacher and whose student drives her to school.  She lives in a boarding house.
 
            Ah, where to begin?  In some ways Mr. Peepers fit the Ichabod Crane stereotype (being socially awkward) but he was, at least, clever.  As I recall, there was little interaction with students on the program --- Peepers mostly dealt with colleagues and other adults outside of school  Miss Brooks, on the other hand, was a popular teacher, driven to school by her student Walter Denton ( a very young Richard Crenna).  I do remember Brooks butting heads with, and outsmarting, her buffoonish Principal, Osgood Conklin (played by Gale Gordon) on many occasions.  The depiction of teachers in the ‘50’s, then, was primarily comic and fit the cultural stereotypes of educators in that era.
            Then came the Sixties.  The two “teacher” shows I recall from the ‘60’s (one of which I watched regularly, the other, far less so) were Mr. Novak and Room 222.   I’ll let Wikipedia and other sources provide the background.
Mr. Novak is an American television drama television series starring James Franciscus in the title role as a high school teacher. The series aired on NBC for two seasons, from 1963 to 1965. It won a Peabody Award in 1963 (wiki)
IMDB notes that “Mr. Novak” chronicles “the experiences of a young, stubborn, and idealistic English teacher in his first job. Novak is a symbol of the earnest optimism of the early 60's and his handsomeness and youthful idealism suggest President Kennedy.
 
            Linda Pinnell, writing in the January 1, 1993 issue of Education Week, noted she (like I) had been a regular viewer of Mr. Novak and now, as an English teacher herself suffered from MNS (“Mister Novak Syndrome).  As she describes it:
He was the quintessential high school English teacher, always in command of his subject, his students, and his audience. Every week, this paragon, who never lost his cool, managed to save at least one student from self-destruction while teaching the rest of the class an important lesson about life.   It’s no wonder I’m afflicted with MNS. I’m trying to live up to TV classroom standards while teaching in the real world. The guilt is overwhelming. I’ve fallen far short of the mark.
            So, we see that in the early 1960’s there’s a shift in the way the classroom teacher is portrayed --- but in keeping with tv mythmaking, the Teacher now fits Robert Bulman’s “superhero” category.  Later in the Sixties, this characterization is reinvigorated in Room 222.  I didn’t watch 222 as much as Novak (because I was in college, graduate school, and starting my own teaching career) but I saw it enough to know it, too, fulfilled Bulman’s  “superhero” character.  Again, according to Wikipedia:
Room 222 is an American comedy-drama television series produced by 20th Century Fox Television that aired on ABC for 112 episodes, from September 17, 1969, until January 11, 1974.  While the series primarily focuses on an American history class in Room 222 at the fictional Walt Whitman High School, in Los Angeles, California, it also depicts other events in and outside the school, such as the home lives of the racially diverse student body and faculty.
            The history class is taught by Pete Dixon (Lloyd Haynes), an idealistic African-American teacher. Other characters featured in the show include the school's compassionate guidance counselor, Liz McIntyre (Denise Nicholas), who is also Pete's girlfriend; the dryly humorous school principal, Seymour Kaufman (Michael Constantine); the petite and enthusiastic Alice Johnson (Karen Valentine), who is initially a student teacher, later full-time teacher whom Pete mentors; and Principal Kaufman's secretary Miss Hogarth, played by Patsy Garrett. Additionally, many recurring students are featured from episode to episode.
            A breakthrough in 222, of course, is that the main character is African American, and the show began to touch on “sensitive” issues (race, class, gender).  Mr. Dixon, like Mr. Novak, is beloved by his students.
            What’s most notable is that the Sixties programs begin to take note of student-teacher interaction --- and create a view that “idealistic” teachers care about their students above-and-beyond their classrooms, a notion that became the new focus for Seventies shows.
            By the Seventies I was a real-life classroom teacher, so my view on TV Teachers had a distinct perspective.  Reflecting on Mr. Novak and Room 222, I will say that, while my personal interactions with teachers, as well as the literature I was consuming about teaching in the Sixties/early Seventies (Herndon, Weingarten/Postman, Kozol, Kohl, et al) had the most profound impact on who I would become as a teacher, I can’t totally dismiss the idea that those two TV “models” did influence what I began to think a “good teacher” should be like.
            The next BoomeRant! will explore TV Teachers from the Seventies to the Present.
            Stay tuned.
 
 
 
 
 
 

                                                                   Glancing Blows / Potpourri
 
            I’m hoping this will be the first of a weekly BoomeRant! feature --- a take on a variety of items that have occurred in the past week or so, as well as observations or questions that have been raised.  There isn’t necessarily a theme or focus.  It’s a random kind of grab-bag of thoughts, ideas, provocations that have caught my attention.  This week we’ve seen Bruce Springsteen turn 75, we’ve heard a lot about “undecideds,” and there has been usual amount of bluster and bullshit from Donald Trump that the media, somehow, treats as “campaign talk” rather than bluster and bullshit.  So, these glancing blows are focused on that potpourri of items, events, observations, and questions.

            The “Boss” is 75!  Yes, September 23rd was Bruce Springsteen’s 75th birthday, which, of course, elicited a reaction from me (and many members of the college class of 1971, I’m sure), as this year marked the 75th   anniversary of my birth, as well.  It brought back a flood of memories and, what I marveled at most (in retrospect), was how rapt I was with Springsteen’s music while being oblivious (as I recall) that we were the same age!  I first learned about The Boss in the summer of 1974 in Hamilton, New York while working at Colgate University for the summer.  One of the graduate students I was “advising” was my now long-time friend, Del Shortliffe, and he had recently seen Springsteen and the E-Street Band and gave them a rave review.  Even though I was just becoming friends with Delbert, I knew he had impeccable taste in music, so I duly noted his endorsement of Springsteen and, in short order, purchased a copy of The Wild, the Innocent, and the E-Street Shuffle.  I immediately understood why Del was so impressed and, a year later, when Born to Run was released I agreed with Jon Landau that this was, indeed, “the future of rock’n’roll.”  That Springsteen has remained an icon over the years is all the more impressive and, reviewing his discography, I took note of where he was in his musical evolution and where I was in my life at the same time.  I read his autobiography when it came it out (aptly titled Born to Run 2016), underlining passages along all 509 pages!  I was struck by how intensely focused he was on becoming a professional musician and equally struck by how, in describing his life in the late Sixties and early Seventies, there is no mention of the political turmoil the country was embroiled in.  No Civil Rights, anti-War, Women’s Rights, Gay Rights discussion at all.  Given how Springsteen has become so politically active in his “older” age, it leaves me wondering when his political awakening occurred.  Noting that Bruce turned 75 this week led me to take a look at what other “notable people”  turned 75 this year.  I knew Archie Manning, the father of two Super Bowl MVP quarterbacks and a notable NFL quarterback himself, turned 75 because his birthday is my birthday.  And I had learned, along the way, the Piano Man, Billy Joel (also a Long Island boy) was now 75, too.  Other notables who have reached the three-quarter century mark include Samuel L. Jackson, Meryl Streep, Richard Gere, Pam Grier, Bill O’Reilly, Ted Nugent, Ozzy Osbourne, Lionel Richie, Elizabeth Warren, Greg Popovich, and Dusty Baker.  There are more, of course, but that’s enough of a list to adequately represent the Boomer 75 Class.

            Who are the “Undecideds?”  And some videos you need to see!
            It’s hard for me to believe there are actually “undecideds” in this Presidential election race.  I certainly don’t know any and, to be honest, don’t really know many Trump supporters --- which makes sense, given the “siloes” most of us live in, literally and digitally.  The Trump supporters I’m aware of are mostly former students whom I occasionally see online --- and they fit the profile we hear non-college educated white men, marginalized, antagonistic to the “educated elite.”  Indeed, the former students were on the margins in high school --- not particularly academic (I taught in NYC suburban high schools for a number of years), resentful of “achievers” and those they perceived as the “haves,” and not particularly invested in school (non-academic, non-sports, non-extracurricular).  But those people are certainly not “undecideds.”  If you haven’t seen the clip of MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle with the New York Times Bret Stephens on Bill Maher’s “Real Time,” it’s worth a look because it’s a great take on the “undecided” issue.
Here's the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMPykdxOYZA
 
            Given the preponderance of CONTENT that’s out there, no one can possibly catch all information (and disinformation) on cable news, various internet outlets, and various newsfeeds.  As a result, you may not be aware that Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg has taken to appearing on FOX News to counter their propaganda.  Here’s a clip that’s representative of how Buttigieg dissembles the pathological liars on FOX.
 
https://youtu.be/OQnVwOq8WF0
 
            And, finally, late night hosts Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel (and, much less so, Jimmy Fallon), relish skewering Donald Trump in their opening monologues --- to the point where Trump has felt it necessary to single them out with childish retorts.  I thought this Kimmel clip was particularly fun and worth a look.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XoqttCWIMY
 
            If you are aware of other fun and/or interesting video clips that are out there, please feel free to note them and share!
 
Finally:  Could we stop the False Equivalency Bullshit, please?

         After nine years of Trump’s incessant lying and bullshit you’d think someone in the American press corps (looking at you, New York Times and Washington Post) would stand up and ask the former President to actually provide facts or demonstrate he actually knows anything he’s talking about.  David Muir, of course, fact-checked Trump on his outrageous claims that dogs and cats were being eaten in Springfield, Ohio (and, quickly referencing my last BoomeRant!, his “explanation” was “It’s on tv.  They showed it on tv!”) to no avail, of course.  But consider when Trump says something like this, trying to explain that his bizarre word salads (which he calls “the weave”) are a thoughtfully executed strategy on his part:

When I do the weave...I’ll talk about nine different things and they all come back brilliantly together,” he said. “Friends of mine that are English professors, they say: ‘It’s the most brilliant thing I’ve ever seen.’”

         As he so often does, Trump claims he has “friends” who are “English professors” (like all those people who approach him and say,  “Sir, how  . . . ).  Will someone in the Press Corps stand up and ask this guy, “Could you please give us the names of those English Professors, so we could actually interview them about this?”  But the “objective” press corps simply “reports” Trump’s bullshit statement as if there’s any connection to reality!

            In the same way, when Trump goes off on an attack of Kamala Harris and refers to her as a “radical left, Marxist, communist, fascist”  could someone please ask Trump to explain what, if anything, he knows about the political spectrum?  Of course, when appealing to a non-college-educated audience, any totalitarian (aka dictator) is the same as any other:  therefore, a “communist” and a “fascist” are the same.  Not only does this illustrate Trump’s (and his followers’) gross ignorance it reflects poorly on news outlets that don’t: #1 – inform their readers/viewers about this ignorance and #2 – actually attempt to educate the public as to the differences between Communists and Fascists and explain what totalitarianism is, so they can see why they are ignorant, confused, and believe an ignoramus like Trump.  Is that asking too much?  Is it asking the media too much to actually serve a public function and correctly inform viewers/readers as well as, god forbid, educate them?
​
            If this race is as close as the polls indicate (and I don’t particularly believe them, either) it’s because the Media reporting it have abrogated their responsibility of accurately informing the public about facts.  That Trump’s egregious lies are simply “reported” without fact-checking is a disservice to the public and it (borders) on criminal negligence reporting it as the “news.”
 
 
 
 

                                “American Carnage:” Explained
 
            As we continue to listen to Donald Trump lie about reality --- an economy that is failing (it isn’t), where crime is rampant (it’s not), and where undocumented immigrants are overrunning our cities and suburbs (they’re not) --- we would be right to question: “What America is Donald Trump looking at?”  I think I have actually, finally, figured that out.

            Coming home from lunch with the ever-thoughtful Del (“Delbert”) Shortliffe Thursday, we began talking about “popular” television.  I brought up the new Don Johnson vehicle, Doctor Odyssey --- a show set on an elegant cruise ship and, apparently, focusing on the Cruise ship’s Doctor saving lives on a weekly basis (amid a bit of comedy, drama, and various on-board liaisons).  Noting that I wasn’t aware of an abundance of Cruise ship medical emergencies since the cessation of Covid, I also noted that, before NCIS was on the air I didn’t realize there was so much Naval Crime!  At that point, Delbert pointed out that he found many of the situations on Law & Order: SVU must surely surprise members of the NYPD, what with Olivia Benson being kidnapped and tortured as an example of a “plot twist” that demands an extremely liberal suspension of disbelief.  And that’s when I realized how Donald Trump has come to the conclusions he has about the state of our Nation.

            Given that Trump’s entire political career was based on the (illusory) notion that he actually was the protagonist of The Apprentice --- for real!  Mark Burnett’s creation, Donald Trump, the brilliant entrepreneur, and real estate mogul, was, of course, a fiction.  But Donald Trump, the failed businessman (see: Trump Airlines, Trump Steaks, Trump University, Trump Ice/Water, Trump Fragrance, Truth Social, et al) and convicted (for fraud) felon, is someone who believes his own lies and, therefore, bought Burnett’s fiction as a reality.  And being the salesman he is, Trump managed to convince a huge swath of the U.S. voting public that The Apprentice’s fictive Donald Trump, is, in fact, a reality.  And, if Trump believes that himself it does not take a great leap to understand why he creates his word salads about how America is overrun by crime and violence.  He sees it on television!

            We know Trump does not (and never has)read books, magazines, newsfeeds, blogs, etc.  But we also know that Trump watches television --- lots of television.  Between “broadcast” tv (CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS) and the cable networks (we’ll leave streaming out, as that might be too complicated, given Trump’s small hands trying to manipulate the remote), we can gain some insight into why Donald Trump sees the world the way he does.  Let’s take a look at what it is that Donald Trump might be watching --- believing it’s the reality of American Life.

            Let’s also remember that Donald Trump is always the Hero of his own narrative, so we can easily see who, on tv shows, he identifies with --- and how that helps shape the public persona we see making speeches.  So, what’s he watching?  If we start with Dick Wolf’s police procedural empire, we find the following programs on the broadcast and cable channels --- available almost any hour every day.  Wolf’s shows are the Law & Order franchise (Law & Order, Law & Order: SVU, Law & Order: Criminal Intent, Law & Order: Organized Crime), the Chicago franchise (Chicago Fire, Chicago Med, Chicago P.D.), and the FBI franchise (FBI, FBI: Internaional, FBI: Most Wanted).  Needless to say, the violence and mayhem are rampant --- and happening Coast to Coast, with the heroic police, firefighters, and doctors trying to keep it all under control.  Then, of course, we get to the aforementioned Naval Crime.  Starting with the show J.A.G. (the Navy’s Judge Advocate General office), Donald Bellasario discovered naval crime was a bottomless source for criminal activity --- not only here in the U.S. but well beyond our borders.  Bellasario’s franchise includes NCIS, NCIS: Los Angeles, NCIS: New Orleans, NCIS: Hawaii, NCIS: Sydney, and now, NCIS: Origins.  Then, too, we’ve had the CSI franchise: CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, CSI: Miami, CSI: NY, CSI:Vegas.  Add to these franchises the ever-popular broadcast (and now, cable) programs Blue Bloods, The Closer, Major Crimes, Castle, The Rookie, S.W.A.T., Criminal Minds, Bones, East New York, Elementary, Unforgettable, In Plain Sight.  I’m sure, at this point, you get the idea.

            Add to this list shows like Breaking Bad, Sons of Anarchy, and Bosch, and we see non-stop crime, violence, mayhem, and madness.   If we beamed all these shows into outer space and aliens watched them, their conclusions would be the same as those Donald Trump has come to:  American Carnage.  Gangs, terrorists, “dirty” bombs, political and criminal conspiracies, organized crime, disorganized crime, kidnapping, rape, abuse, and murder abound --- it’s everywhere you turn (on tv).  And, if you are sub-literate and believe shows like The Apprentice are, in fact, “reality,” then the world is, indeed, a horrible and dangerous place.  Looking at it from this perspective, it’s easy to see where Donald Trump’s vision of America comes from.  His reality has never been genuine “reality.”  He is the product of Reality TV, and his vision is that TV is Reality.
​
                                                                                       American Carnage.
           

                                                            Here We Are
 
            I’m happy to report I was wrong about Tuesday’s debate.  I predicted it would be a “nothingburger” and it was anything but.  If you were one of the 67.1 million folks who watched the event, you saw a bravura performance by VP Kamala Harris and the further disintegration of the cognitively declining Donald Trump.  There’s no doubt this will be remembered as the “They’re eating the dogs!” debate in the media (and maybe in history?).  Quickly followed by the endorsement of Taylor Swift, the Harris-Walz ticket continues to build momentum and sail with wind at their backs --- despite the media constantly reporting that the election is a toss-up and that seven states will determine the outcome in November.  I don’t necessarily dispute that notion but, given the 337,000 newly registered voters after Swift’s endorsement, I tend to believe the polls are lagging behind what’s happening on the ground among young people and women --- particularly in those “swing states.”  And after watching Trump’s performance it’s hard to imagine how anyone could think about entrusting this man with the highest office in the land --- but we know otherwise.
 
            The questions that persist are who are Trump’s cultish supporters and why do they swear their allegiance to man who is  so morally bankrupt?  Reflecting on those questions, and reading some opinion pieces on the subject, has led me to some ideas about where and how Trump’s support comes from.  I believe there is a constellation of factors that span the last quarter & half century that may help explain how Trumpism was created and persists.
 
 
            Historically, there are several elements of American culture that feed into Trump’s mythology.  One has to do with the appeal of  the “outlaw,” the gangster, and the anti-hero.  There has been a sustained fascination, going back to “settling” of the Wild West, with people like Billy the Kid and Jesse James.  Popular media --- starting with 19th century dime novels and then evolving with the film and  television industries --- have promoted that mythology up through the present day (who didn’t love The Sopranos?).  And certainly, some of Trump’s support is generated from people who find his blatant disregard for rules and the law appealing.  He’s standing up to the “coastal elites” and the “ruling class” that has victimized them.  He’s “gotten away with” grifts and scams.  Shockingly, many of his cons (Trump University, for example) were perpetrated on the people he claims to champion!  Nonetheless, this is a group Trump appeals to.
 
            Another historic strain Trump has successfully tapped into is a distrust of the government and the media.  Since the late 1960s the US Government  has earned the voters’ distrust.  Conspiracy theories about JFK’s assassination still abound (government cover-up?) but more significant were the prosecution of the Vietnam War (The Pentagon Papers) and the Watergate scandal, followed by the Iran-Contra affair, Bill Clinton’s scandal(s),  and then the Iraq & Afghanistan Wars.  Throw in Ruby Ridge and Waco and what may have been a “healthy skepticism” about the government for some, proved to be total distrust for others --- particularly concerning firearm ownership and “personal freedom.”  With the advent of Social Media, a distrust in “mainstream” media has expanded exponentially.  Conspiracy theories and misinformation challenging mainstream reporting increases daily and feeds into the Trump/Fox News/NewsMax silo, reaching millions of people who are already inclined to believe what is being sold to them as legitimate “real news.” 
 
            Yet another historic factor comprising the Trump “base” are Reality TV and the WWE viewers/fans.  We know Trump appointed the WWE’s CEO Vince McMahon’s wife, Linda, to his Cabinet, and that was not coincidental.  The combination of the WWE’s operational blueprint and Trump’s own popularity on The Apprentice created much of his mythology building the foundation of his base.  As noted in a Washington Post review of Vince McMahon’s biography:

The history of professional wrestling is a story of fixed matches, false narratives and the bloodthirsty consolidation of power. Standing at the heart of this uniquely violent hybrid of sport and entertainment is WWE majority owner and executive chairman Vince McMahon, the (uncooperative) subject of Abraham Riesman’s revelatory new biography, “Ringmaster: Vince McMahon and the Unmaking of America.”
In fact, it may be wrestling’s insistence on an alternate reality built on fakery that makes it feel so essential. As Riesman puts it, “There is no art form more intrinsically and blatantly American — in its casual violence, its bombastic braggadocio, its virulent jingoism, its populist defiance of respectability, and its intermittently awe-inspiring beauty — than professional wrestling.”
Looking back 40 years later, the rise of McMahon as a prototype for Trump’s eventual transformation into a political powerhouse is difficult to ignore. (bold, mine)
                                                                                                Zack Ruskin, WaPo 03/24/2023
 
        Using McMahon’s playbook, applied to “business,” Trump’s British producer, Mark Burnett launched The Apprentice  in 2004.  Trump signed on after experiencing financial calamity throughout the 1990s, as he began focusing on licensing his brand/name as his main source of income.  Trump was credited as a co-producer.  The show was particularly successful in its first three years (7th – 11th- 15th in the ratings) but  declined in the ratings in its final four seasons (38 – 51 – 75 – 113).  More revealing is this note:

After his non-disclosure agreement expired in 2024, Bill Pruitt, one of four producers of the first two seasons of the show, reported that the sequences involving Trump were heavily edited in post-production. While filming on location, "he could barely put a sentence together regarding how a task would work" or remember the contestants' names. The additional dialogue that was fed to him line by line in post-production made him sound "articulate and concise". Trump's offices were too cramped and the furniture too shabby a backdrop for a show purporting to "demonstrate impeccable business instincts and unparalleled wealth", so the show rented the empty Trump Tower retail space from Trump and built the illusion of a luxurious reception area and boardroom.
                                                                                                            (Wikipedia)
 
Like so much of what we know about Trump, his “reality” is actually illusory and manufactured to fit an image.  While much of the popularity that propelled him politically came from The Apprentice,  Trump’s image, created for the 2016 campaign, drew heavily from that original WWE model.  As noted by Chris Kelly in the November 11, 2016 Washington Post:

In pro wrestling, Trump found a world where his particular skills come in handy. Pro wrestling is a morality play where the hero (the “babyface” or simply “face”) battles the villain (the “heel”). The heel gets “heat” — a negative reaction from the crowd — by insulting his enemies and his audience, cheating at every turn and claiming that the game is rigged against him. The audience boos the heel and eagerly waits for the face to give him his comeuppance. Throughout this presidential campaign, Trump relished his role as a heel, and nearly every one of his positions, statements and actions had an analogue in the annals of pro wrestling.

            Surprisingly, Trump actually won that 2016 election --- and has continued to elaborate on his “heel” persona over the last eight years.  In today’s New York Times Michael Hirschorn (How a Naked Man on a Tropical Island Created Our Current Political Insanity) notes that shortly before The Apprentice made its debut, another important reality show hit the airwaves and provided Trump with another lesson.  Hirschorn’s article describes  what Richard Hatch’s victory in the first season of Survivor introduced was “most shocking of all, he broke the golden rule of network television: You don't have to be likable.”    And, like that, the landscape of televised entertainment shifted.  As Hirschorn further notes:

Reality TV soon emerged — hear me out — as a cultural form in its own right. Drawing on such over-acty “lowbrow” genres as Kabuki, commedia dell’arte, British panto and professional wrestling, reality flowered into its more mature incarnation: a fully self-referential cinematic universe, artfully levered between the authentic and confected, a winking co-creation among players, producers and audience that gleefully showcased narcissism and other antisocial character traits. Its rules no longer needed to be explained.
In the process, that hulking beast known as the modern reality star was born. The canniest knew how to command and control attention, how to extend their moment in the spotlight and build their brand.
​
           And, out of that bubbling cauldron of Reality TV, professional Wrestling, historic fascination with outlaws and a half-century of distrust in the government, accelerated by the growth of Social Media, Donald Trump emerges and captures the United States Presidency.  He has never won a majority of votes and was, in 2020, soundly defeated, despite his refusal to accept Reality.  In Trump’s world, he is still producing a Reality Show and he is the Narcissistic Heel at the center of the program.  And all those invested in believing his Apprentice persona was real, and all those who distrust the government, and all those who believe conspiracies and misinformation on the internet, and all those fascinated with outlaws and gangsters --- they have found their Leader, their Hero, their Star.  And some, I’m sure, are good people.  But it’s Season Nine of The Presidential Apprentice and, like the original show,  the ratings continue to decline.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

                                                            The “Debate”
 
            Here’s what I’m wondering on the “day of” tonight’s debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump:  what, exactly, are we going to see?  My first question is for David Muir, Linsey Davis, and ABC.  Will they, in fact, really ask the tough questions (my guess is “no”).  By “tough” questions, I’ll refer to David Leonhardt’s column in today’s New York Times.  Here are just a few they could (but probably won’t) ask Trump:

• The signature legislation of your presidency was a tax cut that disproportionately helped the wealthy. Now you want to make this legislation permanent — and expand it. How will a tax cut geared toward the rich help most American families? 
• You have called for the mass deportation of illegal immigrants. Whom exactly would you deport — everybody who’s in this country illegally, including children and people who’ve been here for years, or only some groups? And how would you identify and apprehend people? 
• You’ve suggested that Vladimir Putin should have a freer hand to do what he wants in Europe. Would you try to withdraw the U.S. from NATO? You have criticized U.S. military aid to Ukraine and pledged to end the war there in a single day. Isn’t this effectively calling for Ukraine to surrender and accept a peace deal favorable to Putin? 
• Middle East policy during your presidency often followed the wishes of Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister. His unwillingness to compromise on big questions appears to be an obstacle to peace. Do you disagree with him on anything? 
• You tried to overturn the 2020 election result after Biden beat you. Do you believe in American democracy? 
• A jury found that you had sexually abused E. Jean Carroll. Another jury convicted you for falsifying records to cover up an affair. And you have a long record of demeaning women. Do you regret any of this behavior?

 

            In the same way, will they ask VP Harris questions like those posed by MSNBC’s Ryan Teague Beckwith:

• As Joe Biden's vice president, you were present for many of the decisions he made over the last four years. Can you name an example of a time when you disagreed with his decision? How would you have handled it differently if you had been president?
• Even in a best-case scenario for Democrats, you would have a narrow majority in the Senate to pass your agenda. Would you support repealing the filibuster in order to pass laws by a simple majority?
• As a local prosecutor, you vowed never to seek the death penalty. But as California attorney general, you changed positions, successfully defending it in court. Why did you change your position? And what is your current position on the death penalty?

 
            Or some of the questions proposed by The Hill :
​

• What regrets do you have on how you handled border issues?
• What did President Biden get wrong on Gaza?
• You supported a ban on fracking in your 2020 campaign. Now you said you wouldn’t seek to ban fracking if elected. What changed?

            As important, will Muir and Davis provide timely fact-checking during the debate?  Will they correct either candidate when they know a statement is obviously and clearly not a fact?  Given the timeline until Election Day, this will probably be the only debate between the two candidates and, as such, is being billed as crucial to the potential outcome.  I’m not sure that’s entirely the case.  The first Presidential Debate led to Biden’s withdrawal, an unprecedented occurrence.  It’s unlikely this one will be as dramatic as that and, given the media hype, it’s quite possible that this will ultimately be a  “not-much” or nothingburger.            Given the way networks like ABC and the others cover these events, there will be lots of sound and fury prior to, a plethora of pundits dissecting the event  immediately after, a few days of analyzing and re-analyzing the event, a few choice sound bite clips being shown again and again in the next few days and then . . . . ?  Back to the campaign trail, etc.  A larger question is: will the “mainstream” (“fake news”) media ever start to cover the reality of Trump’s candidacy?  The “childcare is childcare” word salad, incoherent statement at the Economic Club of New York September 5th is only the latest of his rambling, nonsensical meanderings.  Why do the major media outlets continue to treat Trump as if he is a “normal” candidate when he is clearly  declining cognitively before our eyes?  They had no problem jumping all over Biden about it --- what makes Trump untouchable?  And that’s my concern with Muir and Davis this evening.  Will anyone finally sit up and look at Trump and just ask: “What the f&k does that even mean?  Do you, “sir,” hear what you’re saying?  And, who, exactly, are these “English Professors” who say your garbled discursive statements ‘weaves’ are ‘brilliant?’”  No one calls Trump on his bullshit, and he’s allowed to continue as if he’s any other candidate.  And, I fear, so it will be this evening.  Nonetheless, wouldn’t it be nice if the ABC moderators actually get around to asking both candidates some difficult questions? 
 
 
 
 

                                                       Inflection Points
 
            If you’re a sports fan, or a music fan, there are those moments when you see (or hear) an athlete or musician and think, “Now, that’s special.”  That moment when the athlete or artist does something that is so unique you can’t help but take note.  It may be something you remember years later.  For me it was things like  watching black and white tv and first seeing Jim Brown run with a football.  Or sitting in the back of the freshman basketball team bus with a transistor radio and a group of us doing syncopated clapping to the Beatles I Want to Hold Your Hand.  Or watching Muhammad Ali (then Cassius Clay) dance around a boxing ring.  The same can be said about politics.  As we begin the final push in this year’s Presidential campaign it has led me to reflect on some personal inflection points, I have observed as I have watched American history unfold during my lifetime.  From a personal perspective, the events I am referring to as “inflection points” led to my believing a certain candidate would win the election.

            I was eleven years old during the 1960 Presidential campaign.  My political consciousness was embryonic, but I was familiar with  who the candidates were and at least some of the issues.  Nixon, of course, was Dwight Eisenhower’s Vice President, so I was more familiar with him.  Kennedy was the handsome, young Senator from Massachusetts and I clearly remember the Republicans claiming JFK was too young and inexperienced to handle the Presidency.  Then there was the inflection point: the first-ever televised Presidential debate – September 26, 1960.  What I remember is impressionistic and colored not only by the time that has passed but also by how many times I taught about that debate over my many years in classrooms --- not to mention being able to view it (again and again) on YouTube.  Kennedy was made for television: movie-star handsome and articulate, with that distinctive Massachusetts accent, --- the perfect tv package.  Nixon, even upon present viewing,  has excellent policy chops but as is so often reported, his five o’clock shadow and abundance of perspiration on his upper lip and chin were not made for television.  The election, as we know, was very, very close with JFK winning by a little over 112,000 votes (out of 68 million cast).  It was the election that jumpstarted my interest in politics and that tv debate was definitely the inflection point.

            Years passed, elections came and went, and it wasn’t until 1992 that my interest was truly piqued by Bill Clinton’s candidacy.  He was, like me and my friends, a Baby Boomer  running against someone from my father’s generation (George H.W. Bush).  There was deep significance in that for me.  We had been through eight years of Ronald Reagan very consciously trying to undo everything from the 1960s/early 1970s: women’s rights, Civil Rights, gay rights, environmentalism, and so on.  It seemed poetic, almost, to have someone from my Dad’s generation running against someone from mine: Sixties Redux.  It happened that I was friendly with a significant number of teachers from Arkansas at that time and, while supporting Clinton, mentioned (more than once) that he was an extremely flawed candidate.  They introduced me to the nickname, Slick Willy.  Nonetheless, Clinton was not only a Baby Boomer but a Democrat and, especially after choosing Al Gore as his running mate (another Boomer!), there was no question I would be supporting him  The question, though, was would he (and Gore) be able to muster the support to win the Presidency?  An energizing factor for the Clinton campaign was the way it very consciously courted the Youth and African American vote.  Appearing on MTV, Clinton was interviewed by young voters --- clearly putting himself in high relief with Bush (and Ross Perot, a third-party candidate who would go on to siphon votes from Bush).  It was his appearance on Arsenio Hall’s talk show that proved the inflection point  for me.  Wearing black sunglasses and playing “Heartbreak Hotel” on the saxophone, as Arsenio’s walk-on music, Clinton created an indelible impression that this was, in Kennedy’s words, a new generation of political leaders taking the torch of leadership.

            Long before the campaign of 2008, I observed my  inflection point for that election.
The Democratic Convention in 2004 was held in Boston, Massachusetts where their native son, Senator John Kerry, would be nominated to run against the incumbent, George W. Bush.  The opening night keynote address was given by a then-unknown Illinois State Senator, Barack Obama.  According to Wikipedia:
 
His unexpected landslide victory in the March 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate Democratic primary made him a rising star within the national Democratic Party overnight, and led to the reissue of his memoir, Dreams from My Father.
 
The speech was not carried by the commercial networks.  It was shown on cable news, PBS, and C-Span to an audience of about nine million people --- of which I was one.  My reaction, upon hearing Obama’s approximately 20 minute keynote, was: “Why isn’t this guy our candidate?”  The speech was brilliant and electrifying, from my point of view, and I came away from watching that DNC hoping Kerry could best Bush but pretty confident that I had already seen the future of the Democratic Party!  Of course, I had, and the follow up to my 2004 inflection point is captured in my memoir, Right Time, Right Places: One Teacher’s School Reform Journey:
 
 
                                                                                     November 4, 2008
 
It was chilly.  Brisk.  And still dark  when I got in line at P.S. 54, The Samuel Barnes School,  around the corner in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn.  There was a good-sized crowd, and it was festive.  Mostly Black people, with a smattering of white folks, everyone knew we were going to be part of history.  Everyone there was going to vote for Barack Obama and by the time we all got home from work that evening we would begin to hear the network speculation.  Results dribbled in at first, but we knew there would be a flood of States called quickly and,  by nine o’clock, it was inevitable we would have a Black President of the United States.  (p. 219)
 
 
            And now, in 2024, I believe I’ve observed yet another inflection point --- and I hope I’m right.  The Democratic Convention in Chicago in late August had the same energy and excitement of the Obama campaign of 2008.  There would be a great irony in seeing Harris defeat Trump, of course.  Where Obama had defeated the disparaged (by Trump)war hero, John McCain , Harris can defeat the draft-dodging felon who made a mistake similar to McCain by choosing a Vice Presidential albatross to run with.  Like my earlier inflection points, the Harris-Walz ticket represents generational change.  Kennedy succeeding Eisenhower, Clinton succeeding H.W. Bush, Obama defeating McCain, were all instances of a desire of the American populous to move ahead  and leave an older, tired generation behind.  Trump looks older and more addled by the day --- and I believe the debate on September 10th will prove to be the tipping point.  The contrast between the two candidates, the choice the voters will have, will be in high relief and, finally, the naked Emperor will be exposed for who he is --- a lying, abusing, bullying, grifting criminal.  It will be there for all to see, and I believe it will be the final inflection point in this campaign.
 
 
 
 
           

                                              In Threes
 
            Humans have always had a fascination with threes --- a fact I attribute to that very basic family unit (mom, dad, kid) --- and I’m struck today by the passing of three sports icons in the last three weeks.  Bill Walton (May 27th), Jerry West (June 12th), and Willie Mays (June 18th) were athletes who transcended their athletic prowess to become cultural icons.  My memories of each are from several perspectives--- as an athlete, as a fan, as a coach, as a teacher.  Mays and West were the All-Stars of my youth when my passion for sports was growing exponentially, and they represented the pinnacle of greatness.  Walton came a bit later (my younger brother’s age), when, as a college basketball fan and aspiring high school hoops coach, Walton represented the combination of intellectual acuity and athletic excellence John Wooden’s teams epitomized.   I had the good fortune to see each of these athlete’s when they were performing at their peak and what I think was most impressive about each was not that they were capable of executing draw-dropping moments right before your eyes --- but that they performed at such a high-level of superb excellence that it was their norm.  Not only that, they continued, after their playing days, to have a larger-than-life impact on the world of sports and the greater society.

            Willie Mays never played on a team I rooted for, but I could never root against him.  While New York, during the 1950s (when I was just learning to be a baseball fan), roiled over who was the greatest center fielder --- Willie, Mickey, or Duke --- even Yankee and Dodger fans, when pressed, would grudgingly agree that it was Mays.  All three ended up in the Hall of Fame but Willie was clearly the best --- and not just statistically.  As any real fan of the game knows, the statistics did not, in those days, measure those defensive abilities that Mays excelled at.  Tracking deep fly balls in the alleys, throwing out runners trying to take an extra base, making impossible shoe-string grabs --- Mays was the best.  And running the bases --- oh, my goodness.  His signature cap-flying-off-his head sprints from first to third or second to home; his ability to steal bases or turn a single into a double and a double into a triple --- unsurpassed.  And there were also those  24 All-Star game appearances and 12 Gold Glove awards.  He’s remembered for his incredible catch in the 1954 World Series --- his back to home plate in the cavernous Polo Grounds --- not only catching the ball but turning and throwing the ball back in with such velocity and accuracy that Larry Doby couldn’t tag up and score from second base and the runner on first had to hold.  The Giants went on to win that game in extra innings and sweep the World Series.  What statistics don’t reveal is that Mays hit 660 home runs playing in that same cavernous Polo Grounds and then the inhospitable wind-swirling Candlestick Park, on the edge of San Francisco Bay.  Or that Mays missed over 200 games in 1952 and 1953 while serving in the U.S. Army --- with an estimated 60 career more home runs (which would have surpassed Babe Ruth’s record 714) not hit, based on his career averages.  But it was seeing Mays play that was the real thrill because he always played at full speed, top gear, 100% --- and with joy!  Beyond that, he was the first Roberto Clemente Award winner, a testament to his contributions to the community.  It’s probably too grandiose, but it does make me think of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar quote:

“His life was gentle; and the elements
So mixed in him, that Nature might stand up
And say to all the world, THIS WAS A MAN!”
Willie Mays, R.I.P.
 
            Similarly, Jerry West was far more than his statistics would tell --- so much so that his nickname was “Mr. Clutch,” and his silhouette is the NBA logo.  That said,  West was a 12-time All-NBA player and 14-time All-Star.  He was on the All-NBA Defensive team five times and is still the only player named NBA Final MVP while playing on a losing team.  Again, those are only statistics.  As a boy I was more a Celtics fan than Knicks fan (the Knicks, in those years were perennial cellar-dwellers with only Richie Guerin and Johnny Green and Willie Naulls keeping them from total obscurity).  The Celtics, with Bill Russell and Bob Cousy and Bill Sharman and the Jones Boys (Sam and K.C.) and John Havlicek and Tommy Heinsohn were a juggernaut led by Red Auerbach who were all about team play and defense first, which appealed to me.  The NBA was not a presence on television in those days, except for the Finals.  And West was in the Finals nine times --- losing eight.  Basketball, of course, is the consummate team game, and West’s teams were beaten by the Russell-led Celtics and Red Holzman’s brilliant Knick teams (and, yes, my allegiance had shifted back to NYC in the late-Sixties) but not because of West.  He averaged 30.5 points per game, shooting 46% (before the 3-point line existed) from the outside in the NBA Finals.  Watching him, like watching Mays, was incredible --- he was incredibly quick, with and without the ball, and could stop on a dime and launch unerring jump shots from all over the court.  “Steals” weren’t a statistic that was kept until his final year in the NBA --- a season where he only played 31 games because of a career-ending knee injury.  In those 31 games, West had 81 steals!  Again, he was always excellent so if he wasn’t necessarily having a great offensive night, he could still kill you on defense.  But he never quite had the supporting cast to get him all the championship rings he deserved.  He did, in his post-playing career, continue to make the NBA one of the “must-see-TV” sporting events of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.  As a team executive, West built two separate Laker dynasties (the Showtime Team and the Shaq/Kobe three-peat squads) and then helped craft the Golden State rise to the top.  Always a perfectionist, West was a tortured soul in many ways, but, despite his Finals record as a player, he was a winner and a role model.  “Zeke from Cabin Creek” was the real thing, a kid from West Virginia who drove himself to become one of the greatest athletes of all time.

            Bill Walton was not only an incredible player on the basketball court but was also one of the most interesting personalities off of it.  At the tail-end of John Wooden’s UCLA dynasty, Walton epitomized the fundamentally sound tenets of the coach’s approach to the game.  In retirement, as a motivational speaker, Walton waxed poetic about Wooden and often quoted him at length --- reflecting how the coach’s philosophy had become ingrained in his own world view.  Not that they didn’t clash a bit when he was a player at UCLA.  Walton’s anti-war stance during the early Seventies provoked his coach’s disapproval --- but no disciplinary action (Wooden was too principled for that).  Walton was also known as a huge Grateful Dead fan from early on (not my cup of tea but I appreciated his enthusiasm for the music), aligning himself with a group known for endless concerts featuring a wide variety of drug-use.  With all that was Walton the player --- and what a player he was.  Before injuries untracked his NBA career, Walton proved himself one of the great college players of all time (3-time National Player of the Year, 2 Time Final Four MVP, 2-time National Champion) and, ultimately, one of the great “might have been” NBA stars --- winning a championship and accolades  early in his career (1977 NBA Champ & Finals MVP, 1978 NBA MVP) and then again (1986) after injuries had decimated his body (while winning the “6th Man of the Year” Award).  After his playing days Walton became an omnipresent college and NBA broadcaster, known for his sense of humor, unfiltered comments, and undying promotion of the Grateful Dead.  Beyond his professional life on the court and behind the microphone, Walton, like Willie Mays, was a genuine philanthropist and community activist.  As close friend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar noted on his Substack after Walton’s passing:

Whenever we were together at a gathering, he bloomed. His enthusiastic personality and sincere concern for others inspired everyone around him. I marveled that he was never afraid to express his unapologetic love of people. He had wanted to be more like me on the court, I wanted to be more like him off the court.

(After his passing)My initial unhappiness and despair would have saddened him and he would have done everything in his considerable power to lighten my load, to cheer me up, to make me see the bright side. Knowing that a person like Bill existed—and that I was lucky enough to be his friend for so many years—actually does cheer me up. Knowing that Bill is still influencing me and will be a treasured part of my life until I’m the next to fall is the bright side.
​
Despite my grief, there is much joy in knowing that Bill can still make me happy. And always will. In life, that is the only legacy that matters.
 
            In the case of all three of these people, who happened to be brilliant athletes, the genuine legacy is not only how they played the game but who they were, what they embodied.  Mays’s ebullience, West’s perfectionism, Walton’s gregarious intelligence are the greater models we might emulate.  Few of us can match their athletic brilliance but all of us can aspire to their intense commitment to creating a better place to live.
 
 
 

                                                                                       Memorial Day
                                                                                                   and
                                                                           Patriotism v. Nationalism
 
            The Thursday before Memorial Day weekend we had the pleasure of seeing our granddaughter’s Third Grade class perform as a choir, treating  their audience to an array of songs honoring Memorial Day, Flag Day, and the 4th of July.  They started with The Star-Spangled Banner and proceeded to sing: Stars and Stripes Forever,  All American Me and You,  This Land is Your Land,  You’re a Grand Old Flag, Yankee Doodle’s Pony, God Bless America, and Let’s Hear it for America.  Each song was introduced by a student explaining the song’s significance as part of our patriotic heritage.  It was a lovely afternoon, and the students  (particularly our granddaughter) did a great job.  I found it interesting --- and appropriate --- that they noted those three days, and it got me wondering if anyone had discussed the lyrics of the songs with the students --- or provided any historical background as to when they were written, etc.  When I questioned our granddaughter about it, she said they had talked about it a little, but not much.  No surprise there --- the concert was about entertainment, not a history lesson.  And certainly, I remembered learning some of those songs as a boy.  I surprised myself recalling lyrics to songs I recognized from Jimmy Cagney’s Yankee Doodle Dandy movie--- the Hollywood version of George M. Cohan’s life.  But, more deeply, I looked at how young these children are and how “patriotism” is superficially indoctrinated into all of us (and I certainly don’t believe the U.S. is the only place this happens).

            When I was teaching, I often used Socratic Seminars as a teaching strategy.  For those unfamiliar with the Socratic Seminar process, here’s an explanation from the Facing History and Ourselves project:
A Socratic Seminar is a method to try to understand information by creating a dialectic class with a specific text. In a Socratic Seminar, participants seek deeper understanding complex ideas in the text through rigorously thoughtful dialogue. This process encourages divergent thinking rather than convergent.
 
In a Socratic Seminar activity, students help one another understand the ideas, issues, and values reflected in a text through a group discussion format. Students are responsible for facilitating their group discussion around the ideas in the text; they shouldn’t use the discussion to assert their opinions or prove an argument.
Through this type of discussion, students practice how to listen to one another, make meaning, and find common ground while participating in a conversation.
 
               The “text” of a Socratic Seminar can be a piece of writing, a recording, a snippet of video ---- anything that provokes thought and requires analysis.  Seminars are a wonderful method for probing deeply and looking for the “truth” of a text.  The text I would often use to introduce teachers (at workshops/conferences) or students (in classes) to the method was The Pledge of Allegiance.  What I discovered, not surprisingly, is that, while most folks can recite The Pledge, very few had ever taken any time to examine what it is they are saying.

And I believe that’s true of the songs the Third Graders were singing.  The overall sense we get from the words of these patriotic texts (whether songs or the pledge) is that America is a wonderful place, the “home of the free and land of the brave.”  What I would contend, though, is that this subtle, unconscious indoctrination promotes a blind --- and, yes, thoughtless --- nationalism that is often mistakenly called “patriotism.”  And I think it’s worth taking some time to examine the difference between those two concepts and how we need to encourage students --- as well as adult citizens --- to examine what we’re singing/saying when we’re asked to “stand and honor America.”

            The definition of patriotism is:  “the feeling of love, devotion, and a sense of attachment to a country or state. This attachment can be a combination of different feelings for things such as the language of one's homeland, and its ethnic, cultural, political, or historical aspects.”   By contrast, nationalism is: “identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations. “ It’s important to note that patriotism is an “attachment” to your country and may well include “feelings for” its ethnic and cultural characteristics.  Nationalism, in our current context, not only means the “exclusion or detriment . . . of other nations” but also includes many current U.S. citizens (or immigrants) originally from “other” nations.  The Christian Nationalism that dominates the MAGA Republican party is markedly exclusive and promotes the “detriment” not only of other nations but also any citizens who may have hailed from those nations.  It is important to call this out --- this is definitely NOT patriotism.
           
                     The connection between what MAGA claims as “patriotism” and those adorable Third Graders singing patriotic songs is that the MAGA nationalists simply apply the superficial words from those songs (or the Pledge) and claim it’s “patriotism” when, in fact, it is a hollow and self-serving claim.  The MAGA cult believes “liberty and justice for all” only applies to white Christian nationalists --- those they see as “true” Americans.  Listen to Trump’s railing about “vermin” and immigrants “poisoning the blood” of the country and the MAGA notion of “patriotism” is clearly a form of “nationalism,” aimed at the “exclusion or detriment” of the “Others” (Black, Brown, Yellow, Red, et al) in our nation.  The MAGA cult will glibly cite phrases reminiscent of the songs the Third Graders were singing --- with the possible exception of “This Land is Your Land” because, clearly, their belief is that “This Land is MY Land.”
​
            The next time you are asked to stand to “Honor America,” please remember to actively listen to the lyrics being sung --- and connect them to our nation’s history.  I don’t find “The Star-Spangled Banner” to be (musically) very inspiring but when I actively  listen to the lyrics, the story is quite compelling --- and the Battle of Fort McHenry is vividly depicted.  I don’t like the way MLB, since 9/11, has jingoistically asked us to “Honor America” during the 7th inning stretch but, again, if you actively listen to the words (“and crown they good with brotherhood”) the appeal is to patriotism, not nationalism.  The second verse of “American the Beautiful,” by the way, notes “Confirm they soul in self-control/Thy Liberty in Law!”  A nation of laws, not men --- which is what true patriots, not phony nationalists, will have to defend this November by turning out the xenophobic, racist MAGA cult once and for all.
 
 
 
           

​                                      Then and Now
 
            I noted in late January that I was back in the classroom.  It was familiar and revelatory at once.  Teaching for me has always been a fish-in-water situation --- it’s a natural (essential)condition.  But it had been ten years.  A decade.  Here are some facts from the year I retired:

• Barack Obama was President;
• The world health crisis was the Ebola epidemic;
• Robin Williams and Joan Rivers had just passed away;
• ISIS was emerging in the Middle East;
• Russia began its annexation of Crimea;
• Over 2200 people were killed in a conflict between Israel and Hamas;
• Malaysian Flight 777 disappeared over the Gulf of Thailand;
• The Winter Olympics were held in Sochi, Russia;
• The Seattle Seahawks crushed the Denver Broncos in the Super Bowl;
• And  the San Francisco Giants won their third World Series in five years. 

There are some “the more things change” events there, but also quite a large portion of  “Oh, yeah . . . I forgot about that . . .”  On the cultural scene, it was:

• The year of Frozen,
• Taylor Swift’s 1989,
• Kanye’s & Kim’s wedding,
• The Bill Cosby scandal,
• And Jimmy Fallon began hosting the Tonight Show. 

The students I worked with this semester were 8,9, 10 years old at that time.  When I was that age (8,9,10): Sputnik had just been launched, those San Francisco Giants were just leaving New York for the West Coast (along with my family’s beloved Brooklyn Dodgers) and Dwight Eisenhower  was President (with Richard Nixon his Vice President).  That reflects just the tip of the iceberg  “gulf”  between me and my students.

            And now it’s May 13th and the semester is over.  As an educator, there’s always a question about “What am I learning?” or “What did I learn?”  The answer, at the end of this semester: quite a bit.  But it’s not easy to relate quickly. Time is needed to reflect, cogitate, sort through, and relate.  My impulse is to turn to T.S. Eliot and Prufrock --- so I’ll pull on that string and see what unravels.

            As with every class I’ve ever taught, I read The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock to this class.  And, as with every class I’ve ever read it to, I explained that I first heard it in 11th grade when it was read aloud to me (and my classmates) by Lester Faggiani, my high school English teacher.  Mr. Faggiani had been an actor before becoming a teacher and his dramatic reading of Prufrock was exhilarating and inspiring --- and every time I’ve read it to a class I have tried, as best as I could remember, to imitate Mr. Faggiani’s version of the poem.  Hearing it aloud, as I read it, remains an exhilarating and inspiring experience for me (if not, necessarily, for my students).  After Mr. Faggiani’s dramatic rendition,  first heard in the spring of 1966, we spent days analyzing the poem --- and each day was a revelation to me.  Always interested in poetry, Mr. Faggiani’s reading and careful guidance through the stanzas, not only accelerated my desire to learn more but kick-started my writing life --- as a poet!  So, reading Prufrock  to this class, this Spring released a revelatory weight I’d been unconsciously carrying since early February.  Eliot’s words resonated with greater power than ever before --- and not just the “I grow old, I grow old” phrase. 

            Eliot starts Prufrock with that wonderful invitation: “Let us go then, you and I, when the evening is spread out against the sky . . .”  before he levels you with “like a patient etherized upon a table.”  Can you imagine a more brilliant start for a poem about an elder reflecting upon his life?  It’s sunset and there is a person in the twilight of consciousness, etherized, that state of being alive yet so close to . . . not . . . .  As I stood before these vibrant, talented, energetic students I vividly remembered being their age --- and was also strikingly conscious of my current age.  At once, I could see them absorbing Prufrock’s story --- his dilemma ---and appreciating the artistry of Eliot, yet never thinking they, like I, might someday become Prufrock themselves.  It was a teachable moment for me!  It conveyed the weight of the poem as it never had before --- and that was simply after reading the first lines.  We continued.

Let us go, through certain half-deserted streets,
The muttering retreats
Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels
And sawdust restaurants with oyster-shells:
Streets that follow like a tedious argument
Of insidious intent
To lead you to an overwhelming question ...
Oh, do not ask, “What is it?”
Let us go and make our visit.
 
                Eliot again beckons (“Let us go . . .) and we follow, of course.  For me, the image of cheap hotels and sawdust restaurants with oyster-shells were recognizable images.  Having grown up on the South shore of Long Island, in a town where summering New Yorkers caught ferries to go to Fire Island, I was all too familiar with the hotels (motels, more often) and sawdust-covered floors of seafood restaurants.  My students, less so, given their far-flung and diverse hometowns (in Colorado, Missouri, Virginia, California, Georgia, etc.).  The real focus in this stanza is on the wonderful assonance of tedious and insidious and being led to an overwhelming question --- one which is not confronted until the last stanzas of the poem/journey.  So, there we are, somewhere near a waterfront in our etherized state and Eliot jump-shifts to some women (at a museum?) before bringing us back to those streets --- now as a cat.
 
The yellow fog that rubs its back upon the windowpanes,
The yellow smoke that rubs its muzzle on the windowpanes,
Licked its tongue into the corners of the evening,
Lingered upon the pools that stand in drains,
Let fall upon its back the soot that falls from chimneys,
Slipped by the terrace, made a sudden leap,
And seeing that it was a soft October night,
Curled once about the house, and fell asleep.
 
                Providing us with a familiar image (a cat), Eliot introduces the eerie “yellow fog” and “yellow smoke,” continuing Prufrock’s journey into a world he has not known.  This is a journey my students are just beginning, one which may (or may not) present them with “unknowns” that will challenge, overwhelm, or fall by the wayside.  Looking back, it’s easy to recount my own --- but not something I need to share with them, not while we’re engaging with the energy of this poem.  The next stanza requires more immediate discussion and reflection.

And indeed there will be time
For the yellow smoke that slides along the street,
Rubbing its back upon the window panes;
There will be time, there will be time
To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet;
There will be time to murder and create,
And time for all the works and days of hands
That lift and drop a question on your plate;
Time for you and time for me,
And time yet for a hundred indecisions,
And for a hundred visions and revisions,
Before the taking of a toast and tea.
 
            It is only in your old age that you realize, if fact, how finite time is.  For my students there will be time ahead --- and this is the significance of reading Prufrock now --- at least that’s why I thought they should hear it and reflect on it now.  They are only beginning their journey of preparing “a face to meet the faces that you meet” and, as actors, singers, and dancers, especially so!  Ah, but “time to murder and create.”  Again, as artists, “creating” is their natural inclination but the need to “murder”  --- to edit, revise, to dismiss ideas you love --- ah, there’s the challenge.  How will they respond to those “questions” dropped on their plates?  And what about those “hundreds (of) indecisions/And for a hundred visions and revisions?” Eliot/Prufrock is foreshadowing a young person’s future while reflecting on an old person’s history.  And, after confronting the reader with those ideas, Eliot heads back to the ladies in the museum --- where, perhaps, they are “taking of a toast and tea?”

            But the journey, like time passing, persists.  Prufrock reflects that “indeed there will be time” for wondering (“Do I dare? and, Do I dare?”) but, most significantly, turning back and descending the stair.  The irony of J. Alfred Prufrock’s “Love Song,” of course, is that, as we read on, we discover:

I have seen the eternal Footman hold my coat, and snicker,
And in short, I was afraid.

We are given a series of episodes in Prufrock’s life between his descending the stair and the Eternal Footman’s snickering that account for his fear:  his thinning hair and body, his concern with disturbing the universe,  his wondering about making decisions and indecisions --- as well as measuring one’s life in coffee spoons.  Prufrock has experienced women saying “That is not it, at all.  That is not what I meant, at all.”  Prufrock has recoiled at the eyes that fixed him “in a formulated phrase,” leading him to wonder, again and again, “how should I presume?”   He wonders if “it” would have been “worthwhile” to pursue any number of actions or paths --- or make decisions --- that would have altered his personal trajectory.  And that’s what leads him to admitting his fear as well as leading us to answering the first stanza’s “overwhelming question.”

            When Prufrock exclaims:

No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be;
Am an attendant lord, one that will do
To swell a progress, start a scene or two,
Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool,
Deferential, glad to be of use,
Politic, cautious, and meticulous;
Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse;
At times, indeed, almost ridiculous--
Almost, at times, the Fool.
 
We all know Hamlet’s famous question: To be, or not to be . . . that is, indeed, the question.  And here is Prufrock, not only claiming he is not  Hamlet but describing himself in a series of damning descriptors, culminating in his vision of himself as the Fool.  The irony and impact of this “Love Song” is completed when Prufrock shares with us that he has not only heard the mermaids “singing each to each” but that he believes “I do not think that they will sing to me.”   The final image of watching those mermaids “riding seaward on the waves,” moving away while he has “lingered in the chambers of the sea”  and drowns is, at once,  dramatic and tragic.

            In discussing this poem with enormously talented and energetic young people embarking on their lives and careers, Prufrock, hopefully, serves as a brilliantly woven cautionary tale.  Reading it as a septuagenarian, it provides a balance sheet against which one can assess their own journey.  As a poem I have visited and revisited throughout my life, this recent reading --- particularly sharing it with this group (all born this century!) has had a powerful impact upon me.  The students were, by my measure, suitably impressed with Eliot’s artistry as well as his wonderful imagery and command of the language.  It’s hard to know how much power the message had, in the moment.  The hope is they will return to Prufrock as they progress in their careers/lives and consider their own “decisions and revisions.”  My take, starting with Mr. Faggiani’s reading in 1966, is that Prufrock inspired me on several levels.  It’s imagery and language captivated me as a high school upperclassman but it’s message, over time, provided genuine guidance.  I believe throughout my life there was an unconscious or subconscious voice always reminding me not to feel as Prufrock does when my “arms and legs are thin.”  Indeed, as I reflect on the years between my introduction to  J. Alfred and my most recent encounter, I can honestly say I won’t wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled and I will dare to eat a peach.  To borrow from another favorite poet, Prufrock’s Love Song “has made all the difference.”