The Man from Pin Point Georgia

About a month ago, the Georgia Sociological Association held its annual meeting in Savannah.  Prior to this conference, there was much discussion about what we should do for entertainment.  The Board, therefore, took the advice of one of its members and scheduled an evening at the Pin Point Heritage museum.

Most of us had no idea of what this would entail.  We did not even know where the place was.  Merely getting there turned out to be an adventure.  It was located in such an our-of-the-way spot that our GPS guidance made several errors along the route.

Then after we arrived, we were not sure that we were at the right locale.  The place did not look like museum.  There was no imposing building with Greek columns out front.  All we could see was a series of modest structures.  So far as we could tell, they were private residences.

Nonetheless, the staff of the museum was extremely gracious.  First off, we were served a low country boil.  Our plates were stacked high with crabs, shrimp, sausages, potatoes, and corn.  The setting might have been simple, but the meal was sumptuous.

Afterward we attended a demonstration of how crabbing nets were woven and then were ushered into a small factory building to watch a film about the history of Pin Point.  This was an eye-opener.

Pin Point is a tiny town on the edge of a marsh.  Its population never exceeded three hundred and had now been reduced to about half of that.  Located among the Sea Islands, its inhabitants supported themselves on the bounty available in the surrounding waters.

The men had been fisherman and the women had processed the crabs and oysters their husbands brought home.  Theirs was a tough life, but one in which they had the satisfaction of personal achievement and independence.

Oh, did I mention that these folks were Gullah/Geechee and proud of it.  They delighted in their African origins and unique dialect.  They were also pleased to belong to the supportive community that they had created.

These folks had once been free Negroes.  Then after the Civil War they pooled their assets to purchase the waterfront land they now occupied.  Back then few whites appreciated the virtues of a swamp and so the property was cheap.

The result was a distinctive sense of self-sufficiency.  These were people who relied upon themselves.  The fed themselves, they governed themselves, they prayed for and among themselves.  So comfortable were they with whom they were that everyone had a nickname; one that usually teased them about their personal peculiarities.

But then came the big surprise.  Pin Point had a favorite son.  We were shown pictures of his parents.  There they were standing in front of tables full of crabs and oysters.  These were clearly hard working people who were unashamed of engaging in manual labor.

Who was their distinguished, and much loved, son?  He was none other than Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.  I had known Thomas came from Georgia.  I was also aware that he had grown up in a small town.  But that his origins were with the Geechee came as a complete shock.

Nonetheless, this discovery made sense of Thomas’ politics.  He has been accused of not being authentically black because he is a forceful conservative.  Rather than support a proliferation of government programs, he has championed personal freedom.

Although this might not be the outlook of all American blacks, it is obviously faithful to Thomas’ own roots.  He rose from obscurity to national eminence, not because his parents were wealthy or well-educated.  He had done so because they encouraged him to be his own person.

Some people believe that those with African origins are incapable of taking care of themselves, much less of assuming positions of national leadership.  Clarence Thomas’s story proves otherwise.  Instead of being regarded as a racial turncoat, he ought to be celebrated as a model of what pride and ability make possible. 

African-Americans are perfectly capable of self-reliance.  Were some liberal apologists more aware of Thomas’ origins, they might better understand this.  So might those racists who underestimate what blacks can achieve.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Sam Olen: Welcome to KSU

Sam Olens has been President of Kennesaw State University for almost a month now and I am just getting around to welcoming him aboard.  My only excuse is that this has been a very busy political month and my attention has been elsewhere.

In any event, I am not one of those at the school who has misgivings about his taking over the reins of power.  So far as I am concerned, he is a very good man who is assuming a very demanding position.  I therefore wish him well and hope that he can continue the trajectory of his predecessor.

When rumor had it that Olens would be appointed to run KSU, gossip about what this meant ran rampant through the faculty.  Most of my colleagues knew only that he was Georgia’s Attorney General.  They had no idea of the sort of person he was.  As a result, many came to me to ask my opinion.

As it happened, I had had contact with Olens.  Not only had I met him, but on several occasions had long conversations with him.  My take away from these was that he was a smart and decent human being who was concerned with doing the best he could for the community.

Let me explain a bit further.  First, I found Olens to be a good listener.  He did not seem to have an agenda that he was waiting to foist on me.  Instead, he paid attention to what I said and responded appropriately.

Second, he impressed me as a pragmatist.  He evidently wanted to do the right thing, but, at least as importantly, he wanted to do what worked.  This meant that he considered a variety of options and contemplated their implications.  The objective was not merely to address a problem, but to solve it.

Third, this was a man who was obviously respectful of others.  There was no bragging, no bullying, no holier than thou posturing.  From what I knew about his earlier tenure on Cobb County’s Board of Commissioners, I understood why he had not alienated his associates.  No doubt, he showed them the same consideration he did me.

From my perspective, there was consequently no reason that such a person could not work well as an academic administrator.  Some KSU professors, as is widely known, did not come to this conclusion.  They were especially upset with the way Olens had been selected.  As they saw it, this was a violation of shared governance.

Although I am not exactly sure about the nature of the behind the scenes maneuvering that produced Olens’ appointment, the scuttlebutt is that Governor Deal orchestrated it.  He is said to have wanted one of his own men to succeed him in office.

Whatever the truth, Olens is more than qualified to lead a major university.  Some KSU faculty members worry that because he is not an academic, he will not be sensitive to academic needs.  This strikes me as an unnecessary concern.  Any college president has to be alert to the requirements of subordinates from differing backgrounds.

The fact that Olens is a lawyer should not matter.  In my department, three of our professors are actually lawyers.  As for Dan Papp, our previous President, he was a political scientist.  Did this prevent him from appreciating the needs of the chemistry department or the school of music?

The job of a college president is largely political.  He (or she) must balance the demands of many competing constituencies.  Given the limited resources and the huge differences in priorities, there will always be conflicts that must be tamped down.  This ability, thus, counts for more than the character of his advanced degree.

Some of my KSU peers are still unhappy with what occurred.  Despite Olens efforts to be conciliatory, they are distressed by the politics that led to his selection.  For some, the fact that he is a Republican is also not irrelevant.  They are convinced that conservatives, in general, are too inconsiderate to run a university.

But most of our students are just fine with what occurred.  As for me, I say Sam Olens needs to be given a chance.  Indeed, I am rooting for him to succeed.  If he does, I believe this will redound to the benefit of even those who continue to harbor doubts about him.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Institutionalized Dishonesty

The left has been decrying “institutionalized racism” for some time.  These partisans say that even though overt racism is less common, a deep-seated brand of bigotry is built into our nation’s traditions and psyche.  Although this bias is often unconscious, it is alleged to be vicious.

Once upon a time, it was undoubtedly true that racism was part of our country’s fabric.  Blacks were not allowed to vote.  They were lynched if they were too assertive.  A host of jobs were completely closed to them.  What is more, the media invariably portrayed them as simple-minded criminals.

That has obviously changed.  To engage in this sort of blatant discrimination would cause more problems for the racist than his target.  Paradoxically, this is why the institutionalized racism charge has become prevalent.  It is a way of decrying bigotry without having to prove its presence.

On the other hand, we are besieged by a torrent of institutionalized dishonesty.  Starting with a flood of untrue accusations about race, gender and political bias, we find fraudulence in a variety of venues.  Thus, we encounter it in the government, the media, and education.

The ubiquity of liberal deceit is one of the primary reasons that Donald Trump was elected president.  Many ordinary voters were fed up with politically correct cant depicting them as low-life boobs.  They realized that all they have to do is hint that some black person in the wrong and they will be vilified.

Likewise, anyone who has been paying attention to the propaganda coming out of the State Department, the Department of Justice, or the White House knows that dishonesty has become normal operating procedure.  The folks doing this may call it “spin,” but it is a way of disguising the truth and implying what is false.

We saw the same thing during the recent political campaign.  Both sides habitually made impossible promises.  Although we expect exaggeration from political candidates, the cascade of lies was over and above what we are accustomed to hearing.

But then there were the media.  They have always been partisan, but seldom as transparently partisan.  Time and again, they misrepresented what a candidate said.  Actually, this was almost always directed at Trump.  Journalists were so dedicated to a Clinton victory that they felt justified in distorting her vile opponent.

The New York Times, which was once considered the newspaper of record, openly violated its boast to publish all the news that’s fit to print.  It routinely failed to mention WikiLeaks revelations that were damaging to Hillary.  Either that or it buried them in the back pages.

Meanwhile CNN richly earned the sobriquet of the Clinton News Network.  Like MSNBC, and the mainstream television networks, it editorialized in what amounted to the front page.  Commentators and news anchors alike made it obvious where their sympathies lay.

Even after the election was over, the bias remained.  As a consequence, the Times, when writing about the Trump victory, framed it in terms of how the losers would react.  Instead of featuring Trump’s efforts to be conciliatory, it was its own constituents hard feelings that mattered.

As for CNN, it highlighted purported instances of where Trump supporters had violated minority rights.  Middle schoolers were described as bigots for chanting “Build the Wall.”  Graffiti at Louisiana State University about “safe places” was denounced as despicable.  Similarly. a man who yanked at a Muslim woman’s hajib received national attention.

On the other hand, a Trump voter being stomped in Chicago was virtually overlooked.  So were Hispanic Americans who encouraged their children to beat a piñata of Trump.  Worst of all, violent anti-Trump riots in Portland Oregon were given short shrift.

As an academic, I can also assure readers that our universities have not been even-handed in teaching about politics.  There was precious little joy on campus when Trump prevailed.  Nor were there many approving lessons taught about his potential policies.

The fact is that government agencies, the media, and academe are riven through and through with partisans.  As a result, these folks reflexively transmit untruths, as well as withhold abhorrent information, because they want to win.  They may not believe they are doing so, but this practice has become institutionalized.  It is just who they have become.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Liberal Cowardice

Liberal Cowardice

Perhaps you saw it on television.  A gaggle of students at Cornell University engaged in what they called a “cry-in.”  They sat on the steps of one of the school’s buildings and blubbered away about the horrible news that Donald Trump had won the presidential election.

Entertainers, such as Miley Cyrus, were equally distraught.  They too could not hold back the tears.  Cyrus was especially concerned by the psychic damage that might be done to Hillary Clinton.  After all, Hillary worked so hard and she deserved to win.  Her loss was thus a tragedy.

I have myself been privy to some of the anguish that liberals experienced.  Hence, when I suggested in one of my classes that Obama’s actions might have fanned the flames of the racial discord that motivated many Trump voters, several students stood up an walked out.

While I did not say this in class—and probably will not—I regard their behavior as example of liberal cowardice.  When people will not stay put to hear opinions with which they disagree, this shows a lack of courage.  When they publicly weep after sustaining a political loss, they are scarcely demonstrating bravery.

Consequent to publishing my latest book (Unlocking Your Inner Courage), I have sought to explain how people can become more courageous than they usually assume.  I have further sought to clarify why courage has become more necessary in a world where we must make independent choices about our occupations and personal relationships.

One way I attempted to do this was by organizing a courage workshop on the Kennesaw State University campus.  Unhappily only two students showed up.  When I inquired as to why the turn-out was so low, the answer I got was that many were afraid of what they might discover.

Now I am busy putting together public presentations about the need for courage in the modern world.  By the time this column is published, I will have done one of these at KSU.  It is anybody’s guess about whether it will be successful.

I do know this; when I offered a workshop on courage for the Georgia Sociological Association, the room was full and the feedback I received was uniformly positive.  There thus seems to be some recognition that we, as a society, could use more courage.

Many liberals, however, think not.  Not only are they unashamed of public displays of weakness, but they would disperse this attitude as widely as possible.  They believe it is evidence of their sensitivity.  It supposedly proves that they care about others.

What these folks do not seem to understand is that genuine concern cannot exist in the absence of courage.  If people are unable to stand up in the face of adversity, they cannot nullify it.  If all they can do is emote and complain, then what has gone wrong will continue to go wrong.

I saw this when I worked as a counselor at a psychiatric hospital.  Each year bright-eyed recruits came on board dedicated to providing relief for our mental patients.  But each year, just as regularly, most of them decided to drop out.  Because they could not endure being exposed to the pain of their client’s diseases, they left for less challenging endeavors.

The same applies to those distraught liberals who cannot contemplate a government in the hands of someone they regard as the devil.  If all they can do is wring their hands and insult those who defeated them, they are setting themselves up for additional losses.

If they want to win in the future—or exercise influence in the present—they have to suck it up and deal with reality.  The election, as Barack Obama once opined in his own case, is over.  It is time to deal with it or get out of the way.

Courage is not about a lack of fear.  It is about grace under pressure.  It entails being able to think clearly, and act decisively, despite one’s fears.  Snowflakes of the world, if you melt, you will only leave behind a puddle that will soon evaporate.  If your cause is just—in any respect—you should defend it as bravely as you can.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University