Charlottesville: The Last Straw

Last weekend, the stench of racism that’s been simmering below the surface of the American landscape bubbled to the top for all to see and smell. The white supremacist movement that’s been building, waiting for the right time to wreak havoc, showed up in Charlottesville, Virginia with tragic consequences. Three Americans senselessly lost their lives as a result and 19 others were injured.  In the process, President Trump showed convincingly why he lacks the moral authority and statesmanship of a President and why the American people and their other leaders must find a way to remove him from office.

The loss of life in Charlottesville should sadden and concern every right thinking American.  In terms of a response to Charlottesville, we first, as we think the President should have, honor and mourn Heather Heyer, the young woman killed in an act of domestic terrorism by an apparent misfit now charged with second degree murder and other crimes for ramming a car into a crowd, and Lt. H. Jay Cullen and Trooper Berke M. M. Bates, Virginia law enforcement officers killed in the crash of a police helicopter patrolling the area.  None of them would have been where they were but for the wretched, despicable acts of hate mongers who converged on Charlottesville to protest that city’s effort to come to grips with America’s original sin by removing a monument to Confederate General Robert E. Lee.

It’s Not the Statues: After Charlottesville, no longer should anyone entertain the fiction that opposing removal of confederate monuments and statues merely reflects dedication to cultural heritage, separate from its racist underpinnings. Nor should the argument fly that removing the monuments represents a misguided attempt to rewrite history.  The white supremacists demonstrated the monuments constitute an integral part of their campaign to thwart the efforts of decent Americans of all colors to recognize slavery’s stain on our nation’s history.  The monuments aren’t recordings of history to the white supremacists. They are essential tools in conveying their message that this should remain a “white country” in which white people call the shots and out groups – blacks, Jews, Muslims, immigrants -- remain just that.      

Trump Speaks: It was the response of Donald Trump that produced the real outrage and presents the test his Republican Party must meet, along with the rest of the nation. Trump initially appeared, uncomfortably, on camera, making a statement that (1) failed to specifically and unequivocally call out the white supremacists whose presence precipitated the Charlottesville tragedy and (2) made a disappointing try at equating those who protested the white supremacists with the hate mongers themselves. Trump said he condemned “this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides, on many sides.”  This attempt at equivalency made no moral sense to us.  The fact he felt compelled to say it suggested Trump believed he had to do so to avoid alienating white supremacists, many of whom openly admit Trump’s election emboldened them and claim he’s on their side. Trump’s tepid, misguided response to Charlottesville brings the country face to face with a fundamental question:  Having elected Trump on a promise to make America great again, will America say to him, “Mr. President, you aren’t great, you aren’t even good.  In fact, you’re harmful to our national aspirations?”

To their credit, some Republicans called out their party’s leader. Utah Senator Orrin Hatch’s Tweet seemed particularly appropriate.  He said, “My brother didn’t give his life fighting Hitler for Nazi ideas to go unchallenged here at home.” That’s a good start, but the GOP has much more work to do if it’s to avoid being tarred by the brush with which Trump and his supporters in the white supremacist universe paint.  Until Republicans, both the leadership in Congress and the statehouses, and the rank and file, say out loud they will not tolerate support for or from white supremacists, we have more difficult days ahead.  We’ve already seen that. Trump, under pressure, Monday made a more Presidential sounding statement about the evils of racism, but undid it all Tuesday by equating the counter protesters with white supremacists. “There’s fault on both sides,” he claimed.      

A Perfect Storm: Charlottesville may have been inevitable,  given Trump’s election and the strength the white supremacy movement claims it gave them.  A similar event was going to happen somewhere. The city’s decision to remove the Robert E. Lee statue became an excuse for the white supremacists to gather there.  Charlottesville’s reputation as a college town (home to the University of Virginia) and a relatively liberal place (Hillary Clinton won 80% of the vote there in 2016) probably assured pushback against the intrusion by a large group of outsiders spewing an ideology at odds with the predominant community ethic.

But Charlottesville didn’t have to become the tragedy it did, not if we had a President who understands and appreciates the America so many of us long for – a place that’s imperfect, that has many sins to atone for, but one brimming with promise for becoming what it has always had the chance to become – a beacon of hope and opportunity for anyone willing to help it achieve its highest aspirations and, therefore, share in its bounty and blessings.      

Sound off in the comments below to share your thoughts.                            

Parenting 102: More Advice on Parenting or The Legacy We Can Leave Our Children

We wrote last time about leaving a “legacy” for our children and grandchildren, a capstone on our look at parenting.  Woodson detailed his desire to bequeath to his offspring a legacy of “character” and “financial freedom.”  Now, Rob and Henry weigh in.  Both view the issue differently from Woodson and from each other.  Still, we see commonality in our three approaches to this concept.  Judge for yourself the particulars.

Rob’s Thoughts  Woodson’s insistence on leaving a “legacy” for his children forced me to think about what I will leave mine.  I find his “character” and “financial freedom” objectives laudable goals.  I don’t use the same words, but I see similarities in what I want to leave my children and what he seeks to leave his.

I look at this issue along an intangibles-to-tangibles continuum. What intangible qualities and attributes did I try to instill and what real assets can I leave?  I’ve tried to give my children a lengthy list of intangibles, but much work remains on the tangible part.

I have five children from two marriages.  At the intangible end of the spectrum, my wives and I sought to provide our children experiences and education that promoted good judgment, developed analytical and  problem solving capacity, taught writing, speaking, and computational skills permitting high level professional performance, and inspired intellectual curiosity leading to freedom of thought. We also tried to inculcate moral, ethical, and spiritual values that enhance justice and equality in a free society.

My wives and I devoted substantial time and treasure to these objectives. We spent significantly on travel, sports experiences, books, cultural activities, and, of course, formal education.  Each child earned a degree from a reputable university.  With considerable evidence now in, it appears we succeeded.  All five demonstrate, at some level of competence, the listed skills and generally adhere to the values we promoted.  It seems I am leaving my children a meaningful legacy of intangibles.

The tangible side of the ledger is another matter. Given where I started in life economically – no real wealth, just an ability to earn a good income – leaving a financial legacy of real assets required a level of saving and investment success I never achieved. In truth, I have little wealth to leave my children. The money got spent giving them the experiences and education needed to acquire the intangibles.  I sometimes regret spending, saving, and investment decisions I made that, if decided differently, would likely have changed this situation.

Woodson reminded me the fat lady hasn’t sung yet.  He’s pointed out that I retain an ability to acquire financial assets I can leave my children.  Time will tell if he’s correct, but his assessment offers hope and a reason to keep working.  I have, in fact, heard many stories of people achieving late life economic success. Because opportunity remains, I get up every day and keep trying.   

Henry’s Thoughts  The consideration of a gift to leave my children and grandchildren leads to an intense examination of what I value most.

I believe I have moved toward recognizing the beauty and glory of existence in this world and the beauty and glory of this world accompanied by an appreciation and gratefulness for this recognition.

Because we perceive life as so short and fleeting we seem to look toward what lies ahead and spend time preparing for where we wish we were. We always seek a better place--we crave what we do not have.

I believe we can push and plan for a better world while appreciating and enjoying the present--valuing each breath and what it brings. I believe this leads to appreciating each life on earth and working every day in whatever big or small way to enhance the lives of others, even if only to make one individual smile.

Overwhelmingly wonderful peace can come from these realizations. I would like to leave my children a path toward this peace.

It may lead to an "ordinary" life as some see it, or to fame and fortune, but to exist without regret and at peace with that existence could represent the ultimate life can offer. I wish to leave my offspring a legacy of daily life that causes them to examine this path. I suppose I want to leave them balance.

COLLECTIVELY SPEAKING   Our three approaches to legacy offer a window into the practical and the ideal on parenting.  All of us want to leave our children something practical (i.e., “financial freedom”) and something that addresses higher ordered needs and dreams (i.e., “intellectual curiosity”).  But, because we see the value in both, Henry’s concept of “balance” ultimately could serve as a touchstone for what we want to leave our children.  They will lead better lives if we can leave them both the practical and the ideal.

YOUR TURN!                     

Parenting Advice 101: Know When to Hold 'Em, Know When to Fold 'Em

Earlier we discussed our attitudes on corporal punishment in parenting.  That issue arises most often with younger children.  Now, we want to address our interaction with children becoming young adults.  Our experiences helped teach us the need for flexibility in parenting.  No one best way to parent exists and what works one time may not at others.  Parents need rules and principles, but they also need situational awareness.  Sometimes rigidity and preconceived notions must give way to understanding a child’s personality and predisposition.  In the words of the old Kenny Rogers hit about gambling, a parent must know when to hold ‘em and know when to fold ‘em.

Rob’s refereeing assignment.  Having a second family as he did with children born in the 80s and 90s, Rob faced modern issues his parents didn’t see − drug use, weak commitment to education, aggressive insistence on reasons for every rule and decision.  One of Rob’s daughters forced him to mediate between her and her mother.  The daughter demonstrated little interest in adhering to many of her mother’s expectations about academic performance and general demeanor.   They frequently ended up in shouting matches and the daughter absented herself from home for long periods, spending many nights with friends.

Old school parenting mandated requiring that the daughter conform to her mother’s wishes about grades, homework, partying, and boys.  Rob surmised that such an approach would fail with this daughter, given her personality, and trying it might produce more turmoil and, potentially, risked permanently losing her to bad behavior.  He opted to let the daughter “punch herself out” by ignoring her rages against her mother and settling for adherence to minimum standards of conduct.

The strategy worked.  Gradually, the daughter’s bluster subsided.  She cleaned up her act enough to finish high school with a credible academic record, graduated from a major state university, and now works in her chosen field.  Trying to make her conform wasted energy and insufficiently credited her creativity, resourcefulness, and entrepreneurial potential.  This more flexible approach recognized the value in finding a way to get the daughter to do the things she needed to do to set herself up for a successful life, not just make her conform.

Woodson calms down. The Walker family reports a not dissimilar experience. Uncompromising disciplinarians about academics, Woodson and his wife saw academic excellence as the best avenue for African American children to escape the limitations imposed by a racist society. Being subjected themselves to segregated education, in largely inferior schools, then required to compete with white counterparts unhindered by such drawbacks, forged an enduring belief in education as a pathway to success.

One son, as early as eighth grade, expressed a desire to attend Howard University, one of the nation’s top historically black colleges. Upon graduation from high school he applied to Howard, but hedged his bets by also applying to Atlanta’s Morehouse College and Hampton University in Virginia. When Howard did not initially accept him, he said, “I guess it’s not God’s will that I go to Howard.  It must be His will that I go to Hampton.”

Woodson took the comment as violating the family commitment to academic excellence, which he thought Howard offered above the others, and a commitment to making no excuses. Woodson went ballistic.  He admonished the son about making excuses and reminded him, forcefully, that if he wanted something as badly as he professed to wanting to go to Howard, quitting at the first sign of resistance was not an option. 

Upon further review, Woodson realized the fallacy in responding as he did.  This son always showed a thoughtful and sensible side.  He reacted well to reason and exhibited perseverance in most of his endeavors.  No reason existed for getting in his face to convince him he need not give up on his Howard dream.  Careful reasoning and encouragement that he exhaust every possible avenue should have been, and ultimately was, the way to reach him.

Through persistence, the son eventually got into Howard and succeeded there.  In hindsight, Woodson recognized that the screaming was not necessary.  A better approach would have been a calm explanation of the virtues of never giving up on a dream.

Henry’s contract.  At one point Henry’s older son's interest in girls and in having fun exceeded his interest in school. The son had been an exemplary student until this funfest behavior appeared.  The situation presented a parenting dilemma because it brought Henry face to face with a challenge to the norms he’d learned himself as a child and had always enforced as a parent.  Instinct, training, and tradition dictated coming down hard on the son to force him to change his ways.  Henry opted not to do that.  He and his wife proposed a contract with the son.  That agreement included precise behavior requirements, goals, and penalties. Instead of imposing rules from on high, the parents engaged the son on a rational level.  By knowing when to back off and find a solution that really could solve the problem, Henry diffused the situation and kept his son engaged and interested in his education.  The son understood both the purpose and necessity of this approach and within a year was back on track.

So, we’ve learned from our experiences. We present these stories, not as templates but as examples of how we diffused volatile and troublesome situations in ways that produced positive outcomes. Parents should have principles, but good results depend on multiple factors. We’ve come to believe flexibility counts for a lot.  Give us your story.

The Politics of Impeaching Donald Trump: How It Might Happen

As they say in radio, “The Hits Just Keep On Coming.”  That’s been American politics since May 15, when President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey.  Space doesn’t permit listing all the blockbuster stories absorbed in news cycles since then. Increasingly, the media and the public speculate whether the end game to all this is the “I” word – potential impeachment of the 45^th President of the United States.

One of us, Woodson, already is on record in suggesting Congress will impeach Trump this year.  The other two of us, as much as we’d like to see that, argue it won’t happen, if at all, until after the 2018 elections when Democrats could recapture the House of Representatives and control of the impeachment process. We realize impeachment implicates legal and political concerns and we ignore either at our peril. Now, we focus on politics. 

Some History   Three American presidents -- Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton – have faced impeachment proceedings.  No U.S. President has been removed from office by conviction following impeachment, though Nixon resigned in anticipation of certain impeachment and conviction. 

“High Crimes and Misdemeanors” represents the constitutional standard for impeaching a president.  Historically, a debate has raged among the political class and legal scholars over whether the term means an indictable criminal offense or merely political or practical misconduct.  The record in the three cases shows a combination of the two.  In reality, “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” means whatever Congress says it means.

The House impeached Johnson in 1868 over his violation of a likely unconstitutional statue -- the Tenure of Office Act.  Johnson tried to replace Secretary of War Edwin Stanton with General Lorenzo Thomas.  Congress passed that law to protect Stanton and when Johnson wouldn’t follow it, the House approved 11 articles of impeachment. Three conviction votes in the Senate each fell one vote short of the required two-thirds majority.  The Johnson impeachment, therefore, was blatantly political and Congressional Republicans, angry with Johnson over dealing with the defeated Confederacy after the Civil War, didn’t worry about finding a criminal charge against him.

The House Judiciary Committee adopted three articles of impeachment against Nixon in 1974, two of them essentially political – abuse of power and contempt of Congress.  But, the June 23, 1972, “smoking gun” tape in which Nixon and his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, plotted how to use the CIA as a cover for stopping the FBI investigation into the Watergate break-in, would have resulted in a conviction on the third article, obstruction of justice, had Nixon not resigned.

The impeachment articles against Clinton that passed the House in 1998 involved criminal charges -- perjury and obstruction of justice related to lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.  Because the charges against Clinton concerned sex, the Senate was never going to convict.

It’s Politics   So, the impeachment record shows it’s as much about politics as about criminal wrongdoing.  Impeaching Trump would constitute a political act as much as a legal one, with wide ranging consequences, making considering the politics of impeachment necessary.  Republicans control both chambers, so Congress wouldn’t likely impeach Trump until GOP members believe it in their political interest to do so or think they can’t afford to resist.  Assembling evidence against Trump and his associates remains important, but we must at least partly view that evidence through a political lens.

 For Republicans to desert Trump, must Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller develop an airtight criminal case against him?  Nixon’s political support didn’t collapse until his criminal culpability became clear. Since Trump’s sins, and those of his colleagues, involve national security and foreign policy matters, what will it take for enough of the public to support impeachment that Republicans get on board or get out of the way? The public saw the Johnson and Clinton impeachments as mostly political.  Americans didn’t think Congress should impeach Johnson over a personnel matter and they didn’t want to run Clinton out of office over sex. Nixon’s overt criminality, however, sufficed and he resigned in the face of the inevitable. What will the public require for getting rid of Trump?

Afterwards   Then there’s the fallout from impeachment.  What happens if enough shoes drop this summer that Congress does impeach Trump, making Mike Pence President by early 2018?  We see two possible scenarios.  Republicans could, of course, suffer a similar fate as in the aftermath of Watergate and Nixon’s resignation.  Democrats cleaned up in the 1974 mid-terms, picking up 49 seats in the House and four in the Senate. Jimmy Carter arguably won the White House in 1976 because of Watergate and Gerald Ford’s pardon of Nixon.

But, for those who oppose the Republican agenda, there’s also a nightmare scenario.  Suppose Pence puts the GOP back on track by doing things like picking a woman, say former South Carolina Governor and current UN Ambassador Nikki Haley or Iowa Senator and hog farmer Joni Ernst, as the new Vice President?  Suppose Pence cajoles his majorities into passing a big tax cut, makes Democrats a deal on infrastructure spending they can’t refuse, and cobbles together a health care deal that mollifies the firebrands in the House and blunts moderate Senate opposition to repeal of the Affordable Care Act?  Such a political resurrection might hold Republican losses in the House in 2018 to the norm for the party holding the White House and make Pence a formidable incumbent in 2020.

When thinking about impeachment, a chilling phrase for this scenario comes to mind: Be careful what you wish for.                      

       

        

Unimaginably Immoral: Trump Fires FBI Director James Comey

President Trump’s May 15 firing of FBI Director James Comey unleashed a string of events the nation may feel for years.  By the end of that week, the Justice Department, under mounting public and political pressure, named a special prosecutor to pursue the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia in interfering in the 2016 presidential election. Published reports soon indicated investigators were targeting a “person of interest” working on the White House staff.  Those reports described the unnamed individual as “close” to the President. It’s now apparent that person is Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.  Cable news stories, editorial pieces, and blogs suggested Trump’s personal actions constituted obstruction of justice.  A few Congressional Democrats, and more than a few people around the country, openly began using the “I” word and Trump in the same sentence.

Facts aren’t in yet   We know some of the facts of Trump’s conduct, but not everything.  We know he has offered public statements that, on their face, seem like an effort to shut down or impede the FBI’s Russia investigation. He told NBC’s Lester Holt he fired Comey because of that investigation, despite the pretext of dissatisfaction with Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton e-mail matter. Published reports indicated Trump asked Comey to stop investigating his fired national security advisor, General Michael Flynn.  Comey supposedly wrote a memo shortly after that conversation, contemporaneously memorializing the President’s effort to get him to drop that investigation.  The Comey memo hasn’t been released and Comey hasn’t testified about that meeting. Reportedly, he’s agreed to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee in early June. Until everything comes out, we can’t know the exact facts. What we do know has the odious smell of obstruction of justice

We can’t say if the special prosecutor will conclude Trump’s actions constitute obstruction of justice. As Henry, the one of us who’s served as a judicial officer charged with applying the law of obstruction of justice, points out, federal obstruction statues are complex and subject to differing interpretations. As legally trained individuals, we recognize the importance of basing conclusions on complete factual development of the record and a full understanding of applicable law.

Woodson, however, has seen enough.  He says, “The President encouraged Flynn to plead the Fifth, though Flynn remains under investigation for operating as a foreign agent while serving as National Security Advisor and for colluding with the Russians in interfering in our national election. Trump fired the FBI director for not conducting the Russia/Trump investigation in a manner that suited hm.  He asked the heads of the National Intelligence and National Security agencies to declare that they found no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia when they made no such finding. If those actions don’t constitute “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” I don’t know what does.

“I think few legal scholars would conclude Trump’s actions don’t amount to obstruction of justice. Ultimately, an elected Congress must determine the political question of what constitutes “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”  I align myself with Justice Potter Stewart’s sentiments when he explained his determination of pornography. I know “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” when I see them.”                   

No crime needed   Despite Rob and Henry’s unwillingness to now say that Trump has committed an impeachable offense, they have no difficulty expressing their moral, political, and patriotic outrage about what’s happened so far.  We titled this piece as we did because we could find no better phrase than Woodson’s characterization of the President’s behavior. “Unimaginably immoral” sums up our feelings about the potential irreparable harm Trump’s acts continue to do to our country’s political and social institutions. We all agree that if Congress and the courts – the co-equal branches of our government – don’t move systematically against him, removing him from office if the facts and law ultimately justify doing so – it may take years for those institutions to recover.

The political calculus concerning impeachment remains much the same as we suggested in our earlier comments on that subject.  With all due respect to Woodson’s belief that it will happen this year, a sober analysis of the politics still makes that a long shot. Special counsel Robert Mueller faces a potentially long and complex investigation. Criminal charges against Trump’s associates, if Mueller brings them, may take years to prosecute.  While Mueller builds cases against individuals, Republicans retain the levers of power in the House where impeachment must originate. They haven’t abandoned Trump and any honest assessment of the mood of Congress still must give him the advantage. Even revelations that Trump shared with the Russians sensitive American intelligence, probably given to the United States by Israel, didn’t pry Republicans from Trump’s side.

Trump’s conduct, especially this sharing of classified intelligence with a hostile foreign power, saddens and sickens us because we grew up in an America that considered such behavior treason.  We find watching the party of Lincoln hem and haw about Trump’s actions especially troubling, since Republicans so often found it convenient to run campaigns challenging Democrats as unpatriotic. The idea an American President could act in such a way long seemed unfathomable to us, but if holding power means everything, we suppose Republican acquiescence to his behavior follows. Trump’s conduct, if unpunished, suggests we’ve become a nation of men, not laws.

Not over until it’s over   We must admit, however, to borrow another overused sports cliché, the fat lady hasn’t sung yet. Neither Mueller’s investigation nor the probes by Congress have come to fruition. Indeed, Mueller just picked up the baton. He enjoys a reputation for determination, independence, and fairness.  Time remains for good Republicans to step forward and become heroes by putting country ahead of party.                        

            

A Matter of Faith: Three Approaches to Religion

We haven’t spent much time writing about it yet, but as will become evident as this blog continues and in our memoir, all three of us take matters of religion and faith quite seriously.  Though we grew up in traditional, all-black, Protestant (Baptist and Methodist) churches, each of us has taken a spiritual journey that puts us in a different place from where we began all those years ago. With this piece, we start periodic exploration of our journeys in an effort to convey the faith experiences that have taken us to the spiritual spots in which we now reside.

Who we worship with represents one issue we think many may find interesting, given where we started. The issue isn’t insignificant. One of us views the ethnic and racial composition of a congregation as a defining factor in the substance of his faith.  Another of us finds himself torn between an ideal and the practical when it comes to the need for and function of congregations composed of certain kinds of people.  Finally, one of us puts his focus on the theology of his places of worship, sacrificing undoubtedly desirable demographic characteristics for theological purity. None of these approaches is necessarily “right” or “wrong.”  They are just “different” and explain an important component of our religious and spiritual existence.

Woodson’s Mosaic Woodson attends and participates actively in a multi-ethic, multi-cultural, socio-economically diverse church.  Mosaic of Little Rock operates from a decidedly Christian perspective and its members, by and large, strongly profess a belief in redemption and salvation through Jesus Christ as personal lord and savior.  They present varying denominational histories and, most important, arrive at the church from a potpourri of racial and ethnic backgrounds, widely varying economic and social strata, and lacking the homogeneity typically associated with churches in the United States.  If 11 a.m. Sunday remains, as Martin Luther King once said, the most segregated hour in America, Mosaic’s members opted out of that circumstance some time ago.  

Mosaic’s big tent character, for Woodson, includes a substantive theological component.  He says, “Worshiping in a multi-ethnic church demonstrates our commitment as co-laborers with God in bringing the Peace of heaven to earth.” He adds, “If the Kingdom of Heaven is not segregated, then why should the local church on earth be? Failure to overcome racial division within the church makes us less credible witnesses to the faith.” He roots in scripture his view that worshiping in a diverse church means something real spiritually. He cites John 17:21-22, quoting Jesus speaking to God: “That all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. [22] And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them: that they may be one, even as we are one.”   An adherent of the multi-ethnic church sees joining together different kinds of people in worship as a way of bringing people together spiritually, economically, and politically and, therefore, to bring God to all people.

That Old Time Religion Mosaic, and fast growing churches like it (many Christian denominations stagnate or shrink now), may represent a new ideal that connects different cultures. Henry, however, still sees a need for “a place that offers rest for the weary.” Despite his hope and wish that congregations “care not at all about skin colors or the diverse cultures within,” a need remains for churches that primarily serve the spiritual and practical needs of particular ethnic populations. Given what he calls “cultural reality,” he acknowledges settling for a place called “the black church,” despite his desire for a different world. In other words, the practicalities of race and racism demand the continuing existence of places that primarily serve the needs of a historically disenfranchised group. These churches, for example, help preserve a history too often overlooked.

Henry prefers “to express my love in a place where diversity reigns and understanding abounds.”  But, he knows, the realities of America, even in 2017, do not always make that possible. Ministries that focus on the black community remain essential to the spiritual needs of many black people.  Community service that black churches render represents a significant part of the continuing need for such places.  So, Henry attends Alfred Street Baptist Church in Alexandria, Virginia, an iconic black church that traces its history to 1803. According to Henry, it serves a need and that’s just a fact.

Purity   Rob, for the majority of his adult life, has attended Unitarian Universalist Churches.  He’s been a member at Northwoods UU in The Woodlands, Texas since 1991. In the last few years, as his interest in and affinity for progressive Christianity deepened and expanded, he has sometimes attended United Church of Christ (UCC) churches.  These UU and UCC churches are overwhelmingly white, raising the issue of how much it matters what one’s fellow travelers should look like. Theology, not demographics, determines his answer.  That theology makes God as an all-encompassing concept with no all-powerful deity ruling the world and envisions Jesus not as savior but as a human, historical figure who walked the earth for an all-too-brief period teaching timeless lessons that remain models for living.        

Having attended Mosaic with Woodson, Rob finds that church’s diversity amazing, almost seductive.  Mosaic “looks like America,” to quote a former President. He admires the ministerial outreach and commitment to social justice at Alfred Street that Henry reports.  But, he knows, he could never attend either on a regular basis because the theology doesn’t match. The theology at his UU and UCC churches defines church for him. Nothing about the color of the people in the pews changes that.

So, there are three ways of looking at this. How do you look at it?        

             

            

                

     

One of Life's Inevitable's: Cheating in College Football

Constants exist in life. Some things seem inevitable -- death and taxes, Wyoming voting Republican, the New England Patriots making the Super Bowl, and, until this year, the Connecticut women’s basketball team going undefeated. In the years we’ve been following sports, we’ve seen one more -- cheating in college football. The NCAA recently passed recruiting changes designed to streamline the process and reduce incentives to bend rules.  We doubt these so-called reforms will change much because none of them – an early signing period, adjustments in the calendar regarding visits and contact with recruits, limits on hiring relatives and people close to prospects – address either major recruiting abuses or the culture of impatience that fuels rampant cheating.

The Major Problem   There always has been cheating in college football.  We think there always will be cheating in college football.  If you can’t un-ring a bell or take politics out of politics, you can’t get cheating out of this sport.  That doesn’t mean fans, media, and administrators shouldn’t think about the problem.

One part of the equation involves coaches who funnel under-the-table payments to players.  We see nothing wrong with banning coaches, for as much as three years, proven to have engaged in this conduct, so long as the NCAA retains discretion to mitigate penalties under certain circumstances.  Another part of the problem involves the presence on college rosters of players whose character makes them unfit to represent institutions of higher education.      

Anyone who keeps up with the sport knows about the horror stories like the sexual abuse scandal at Baylor. What people who don’t follow the sport might not know is how close to the line many programs operate by taking risks on players who, before they enroll, showed a propensity for bad acts that predict future problems like  sexual misconduct, academic fraud, and drug and alcohol abuse.  Many coaches, especially in their early years at a school when they’re trying to establish a winning culture, know the risks associated with particular players, but recruit and sign them anyway because they see no alternative.  If they don’t take them they likely will never win enough to get or keep a college head coaching job.

Hot Seats   While athletic directors and presidents claim they want things done the “right way,” college football’s dirty little not-so-secret maxim is that doing things the “right way” works only so long as the team wins 8-10 games a year and regularly gets a bowl invitation.  Drop below that and no matter how good the team’s academic record, no matter how many good citizens the program turns out, the coach will find himself on the proverbial hot seat.

Take, for example, Arkansas coach Brent Bielema.  We all follow Arkansas for one reason or another – each of us grew up in the state, one of us went to school there for a short time, two of us have daughters who earned degrees from Arkansas.  Bielema arrived in Fayetteville in 2013 off a 68-24 record and three Big 10 championships at Wisconsin. He followed two major Arkansas coaching disasters – Bobby Petrino’s implosion in a sex scandal and the ill-fated John L. Smith interim experiment that resulted in a 4-8 record for a 2012 team some predicted would win the South Eastern Conference championship.

Bielema faced a major overhaul project at Arkansas.  Aside from the team’s on-the-field shortcomings, Razorback players performed dreadfully in academics and more than a few couldn’t stay out of legal trouble.  The published indicators show marked academic progress among Arkansas players and the number getting into legal difficulties has dropped to almost nothing.  Arkansas appears to now have a team in which the university and its fans can take pride. This progress, however, may come with an expensive price tag for Bielema.

No one other than Athletic Director Jeff Long and a few other top UA officials know if Bielema really is on the hot seat as the 2017 season approaches.  But, read websites and fan message boards and you can feel unrest building.  Last season ended badly for Arkansas. The Razorbacks finished a pedestrian 7-6, suffering a crushing loss to a bad Missouri team in the regular season finale and an embarrassing bowl defeat at the hands of Virginia Tech, despite a 24 point half time lead.  The bottom line: all Bielema’s progress in cleaning up the program won’t mean much if he doesn’t win more games. Fans and media acknowledge that Arkansas plays in the toughest division of any conference in America – the SEC West – but nobody cuts Bielema slack for that.  It won’t save his job if the Hogs don’t get better soon.

Limits   Many college football fan bases dismiss or ignore the limits under which the program they support operates.  Arkansas, for example, sits in a geographic area that makes it unlikely (not impossible, but unlikely) the Razorbacks can compete, year in and year out, for SEC and national championships without cutting corners on players.  Arkansas’s small population base makes recruiting against Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and the like exceedingly difficult.  Arkansas can develop and nurture enough high character players to field an outstanding team every three or four years.  But, without player personnel compromises, the Arkansas fan base shouldn’t count on winning ten, 11, or 12 games every year.  That hasn’t happened since Arkansas joined the SEC in the early 90s and nothing makes us think it’s about to start.

So, what’s reasonable under such circumstances?  What’s wrong with supporting a program that every year produces a bevy of graduates headed for careers as businessmen, professionals, corporate executives, teachers, coaches, community leaders, and government officials? What’s wrong with cheering for players who stay out of trouble, even if they win “only” seven or eight games a year?  Nothing we can see, especially when the program must live with built-in limitations that likely make doing better contingent on cutting corners and compromising its integrity.  Like we said, nothing we can see.