No Limits, No Consequences, No Way!

Remember that kid who seemed to have everything, that kid whose parents never said, “no”? Maybe you met on the playground, in class, at camp, or in the neighborhood. Were you jealous of that child? Did you think that child was spoiled? Some of these kids were aware of their wealth, while others seemed oblivious.

Did you also encounter the kid who behaved as if the rules were only for other people? This child acted as if nothing was out of bounds. Some of these kids really didn’t get the idea of consequences, but some didn’t care. Some of them were right! Their parents never said, “no.” Did you have a classmate, work colleague, or neighbor who was able to break the rules and always get away with it?

Sometimes, these kids without limits ruled recess. They gathered a group who would join them on their exploits and pick up their leavings. These followers were wannabes, flatterers, and fans worshiping someone who lived the life they wanted.

What would it be like to have limitless resources? No price would be too high. Nothing would be forbidden. What would it be like to be able to do whatever you wanted, regardless of any rules or results?

If everything is available and disposable, does anything have value? If I am never held accountable for my choices, do I believe the ideas of right or wrong apply to me? These kids certainly understood that the way the world treated them was not true for everyone. That made them special – and they knew it and exploited it.

At a reunion or in the grocery store or sometime later in life, have you run into those special kids? How did they grow up? What kind of adults did they become? Did they embrace limits? Did they become law-abiding good citizens? Or did something else happen?

Although I swam in wealthy waters as a child, my eyes were really opened to this phenomenon in college. It was the first time I met people whose resources were unlimited – and knew it. Although I knew more than a few rebels without a clue in high school, college was also the first time I heard someone refer to laws as “guidelines for idiots.”

What happens when nothing has value because everything can be replaced? What happens to our sense of responsibility when we know we are above the law and no one will dare to call us out? What do we become?

As a teacher, I saw the results of parents who provided limitlessly. I dealt with students whose parents worked very hard to prevent their children from ever feeling the negative results of their choices. Many times, these students had long-term negative ramifications. I was not going to imitate those parents and I didn’t want my children to be like theirs.

Who are those people? I remember exploring the idea of the golden rule with a group of students. One student complained that when he treated another student harshly, it would NOT have bothered him. The other student was just a sensitive wimp. He was treating someone the way he wouldn’t mind being treated. In other words, he projected his values onto the other person: if it isn’t wrong for me to do it, then someone else shouldn’t perceive it as wrong. He couldn’t see it from the other person’s perspective. It wasn’t his problem; it was the other kid’s issue. He, of course, was beyond reproach.

It was this experience that led me to develop what I called the platinum rule: treat others BETTER than you would like to be treated. I don’t know if this would have had an impact on that particular student, but I hope it might have opened up a new way of thinking.

We might wish for limitlessness and far-reaching power, but our inner voice quickly whispers “Monkey’s Paw” warnings. Yet, if the genie always gives you unlimited wishes, why would you wish for world peace? You have never seen a world of strife or need. Would you instead keep wishing to be the biggest, baddest, best, and most powerful person that walked on the planet? More, more, more! Would you care about (or even be aware of) the suffering and unfortunate or would you focus on retribution against anyone who ever dared to burst your bubble?

If I can get whatever I want, very little has value – including relationships and people. If I can do whatever I want, then any obstacle, rule, or restriction is a personal offense. It is a slap in the face from a disrespectful and offensive person and cannot be endured. Yet, if I can purchase anything and get away with everything, then what do I strive for?

Power. You might seek to fill an increasingly deep cavern of desire for satisfaction, novelty, and control. You can have anything anyone else can have and will never be limited by the restrictions that hold back mere mortals. You want what the average folks could never have. You buy politicians, public office, celebrity, and notoriety.

Most of us don’t live in that world. Our limits are all too real. If we really had no limits or consequences, we hope we’d would not become the spoiled and self-centered brat. We might be right. But if you have any real integrity at all, your little inner voice might express doubt and concern. That’s a good thing! That says you have a functioning conscience and some degree of empathy.

Let’s make sure that those who lack that inner voice, who have been disfigured by wealth and power, who see no limits and feel no consequences are never in positions where the rest of us are their pawns and playthings. They will not treat us well.

Reading For Treasure: ChatGPT Goes To School

I have written about how I think teachers, and especially teachers of the Humanities, might incorporate ChatGPT in the classroom. TLDR: I think teachers must embrace new technology and help students use it ethically and well. Not everyone agrees with me. Some teachers are clinging to dubious ChatGPT detectors, insisting that all writing be handwritten in class, or attempting to forbid its use completely. Good luck with those approaches. 

Instead, here are some articles that go into both the how and the why of confronting and dealing with our new educational environment. Most of these are by teachers who are reporting from the front lines. 

First, here are two great articles by teacher Daniel Herman published in The Atlantic. In the first, Mr. Herman contends (and I agree) that “High-School English Needed a Makeover Before ChatGPT: I used to make my students write essay after essay. There was always a better way.” The second one is even more direct, “The End of High-School English: I’ve been teaching English for 12 years, and I’m astounded by what ChatGPT can produce.”

Wired Magazine reports on how teachers and schools are using AI tools that repackage ChatGPT for both students and their teachers: “Teachers Are Going All In on Generative AI.” 

For those of you who want to detect students’ unauthorized use of AI, I have bad news: the research reported by KQED suggests that it is far from perfect, “How easy is it to fool ChatGPT detectors?”

If you are not reading, “Free Technology for Teachers,” you are doing more work than you should. This blog is outstanding! Richard Byrne provides a cornucopia of online and computer-based ways to make teachers’ lives better and improve student learning. In this piece, he provides,  “Some Thoughts About AI in Education.”

David McGrath in the Chicago Tribune takes a more traditional approach. He rightfully points out some of ChatGPT’s shortcomings and how this tool might be better suited to places other than the classroom. I agree with Mr. McGrath today. I am not sure his point of view will still be valid in a year or two. What do you think? “How teachers can defeat ChatGPT-using students.”

Finally, here is a different kind of “article:” High school English teacher Kelly Gibson makes TikTok videos about her experiences. She talks about far more than ChatGPT, but many of her videos discuss not only how and why she is using it, but gives very specific information about how students respond. What is also fun is that, if you view these short videos in chronological order, you get a wonderful view of a master teacher figuring things out lesson to lesson and challenge to challenge. Click here to see all of her videos and use the titles to select the ones you want to watch. 

 I am currently reading the Hugo nominated short stories, novelettes, and novellas. 

PT in DC

Step right up, folks, and pay close attention! You’ve been fooled, hoodwinked, and beguiled -but it isn’t your fault, no, it’s not! The fault is not in our stars but in our politicians! That’s right! That’s what I said! Those so-called elected officials, they are doing you wrong, yes, they are! They are spewing lies, keeping you from the truth, and then taking it all for themselves! They don’t care about you, not at all. They care about power, riches, and keeping themselves on top! 

But you don’t have to take it! You don’t have to stand idly by and let yourself be abused, misused, and confused. I am here to open your eyes, clean out your ears, and purify your mind! You always suspected these things, am I right? It all didn’t really make sense, did it? You knew that in your secret inner heart! You knew that this country was meant to be another way. I am here to take your hand and lead you to that better way, a righteous way, the way the founders meant it to be! 

I know what you read in the papers. I know what you see on the screens. Those lewd, filthy, and obscene lies should be banned! Yes, they should! How these reporters go home to their families and sleep at night is beyond me! They should be racked with guilt and contempt! They’ve been fooling you – and they know it! 

You can’t trust them, but you can trust me! I’m telling it like it is and you are discerning and wise and can tell the difference between me and those money-hungry purveyors of poppycock! Our country is in danger! Our country is under attack! You knew it, didn’t you! Down in your bones in the pit of your stomach, you knew bad things were happening. Why wasn’t anyone ringing the bell? Where were the people who should stop this? They are the problem, my friends! They made this mess and they love it! 

It is up to us! Yes, you and me! Ordinary, moral, and upstanding citizens to take back our country. Take it back from those who would sell it out to every pauper and lazybones, every criminal and crook, every blasphemer and heretic! They are turning our clean country into a dirty dump of dung! Stand against them, friends! Stand with me! 

They’ll say you have to change the way you speak and use different words so not to hurt anyone’s feelings. They’ll tell you we should teach our kids history that is best forgotten. Well, it is not okay! I can say what I want to say the way I want to say it and so can you! I can teach my kids history the way I want it! 

When you pull back the curtain, friends, what you see in the dark is frightening and disgusting. It is cosmically horrible! The men behind the curtain, the people who are pulling the strings, are quietly and quickly turning us into their chumps and dupes, yes they are! You suspected there was a secret group making all this happen – and you’re right! I am here to reveal that secret! I am here to put light on the people running the show! 

They think you’re stupid! They think you will believe what any powerful person tells you because it comes from them! We know they have it wrong! They think if they give you some sexy candy, you’ll melt in their hands, but you are tougher than that! They think if they drum up some scary story of sickness, you’ll cower in the corner and put your head in a bag, but they have it all wrong! They can’t get you to shoot yourself full of their lies! No way! You’ll shoot yourself and everyone else before you’ll ever fall for such two-cent stage foolery! 

No, they can’t make a fool of you! They may make all sorts of claims! They may say they are Jewish; they may say they are rich; they may say they helped puppies and vets and orphans and royalty, but you know it for what it is: a pack of lies! Don’t say hooray! Don’t back away! Just say no to their evil ways! 

I stand with you, my friends! You won’t have to worry in the bathroom, bedroom, or boardroom! They want to tax the rich to feed the poor, but I say every man for himself! Fair is fair and right is right and I won’t pay for others’ problems! Hell (sorry for the strong language), you shouldn’t even have to pay for your own problems, should you? No, you shouldn’t because you didn’t make those problems. You aren’t to blame, no way, no how. You are blameless and pure as the driven snow and no one has a right to say otherwise! 

I’m a humble man, yes, I am. I didn’t have much schooling, but I didn’t need it and neither do you! I may not know much, but I am wise enough to see the way things are going and know they are moving in the wrong direction! You are right to be alarmed and angry! 

Every minute, my friends, every second, we are sinking deeper into muck and mayhem.  As the hands of the clock fly around, we are dragged down, my friends, further and farther. There is only one way back! There is only one way back to our glory, our grandeur, our God-given greatness that we will not let them destroy! 

So stand with me, my friends! Give me your money! Give me your minds! Give me your votes! Give me everything you have! Because, every minute, I’ll give you what you deserve!  

When You Say You Are Voting Based on the Economy, What You Are Really Saying Is…

Saying you are voting on Tuesday based on your concerns about the economy is really really a way to avoid saying you are voting for other issues that you might not want to admit because voting for Republicans is not going to improve the economy. 

How could you vote for people who condone political violence? The attack on Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband was an attempted political assassination. Countless Republicans have made light of it, spread absurd conspiracy theories, and even openly celebrated it. This is more than a lack of empathy, it is an acknowledgment that they approve of political violence. Since January 6th, that should not be a surprise. 

Aren’t they supposed to be the anti-crime party? They have done nothing to ensure the safety of kids in classrooms? They have prevented legislation that would stop dangerous people from getting guns and defended people who used them to kill. They protect people who kill as long as they didn’t like those who were murdered. Violence is never good for the economy. 

The real reasons for our economic issues are more complex than our current political leaders. One major driver is the continuing effect of the COVID pandemic. Did the Republicans handle COVID well while they were in office? How much of our current situation is due to their choices while in power? 

Another major economic issue is the current war in Ukraine. The war’s effects on energy and food prices are being felt all over the world – but most powerful in Ukraine itself. Republicans have made it quite clear that they think we are doing too much for Ukraine and want to reduce our support. We know that some Republicans have a crush on Putin. Would further war and bloodshed in Ukraine make everyone safer and more prosperous? 

How could people vote for candidates who are unqualified for the positions for which they are running? Candidates who can’t answer questions, recently moved into the areas they are running to represent, and have problematic and disturbing pasts will not make strong leaders. Please judge a party by the company it keeps. If these weak candidates are elected, will they have the skill to move the economy forward – or move anything forward? 

What about the hate speech, racism, Anti-Semitism, phobias of all kinds, white nationalism, and religious extremism? When asked to wear a mask to protect their neighbors, they cried, “my body, my choice,” and now they will not extend that “right” to women. A race-based theocracy will not create more jobs or reduce costs, although it might make the trains run on time. 

And will these candidates concede if they lose? What about their allies who are now running some of these elections? Many still cling to the lie that the last election was not legitimate, even though the same ballots they contest for one office, they accept for others! This kind of election denial could create dangerous chaos! 

Of course, voting based on personal (selfish) economic interests is an American tradition: “It’s the economy, stupid.” Nope, let’s rephrase that, in 2022, it is stupid to believe that people are really doing that. They are condoning and supporting a party that continues to threaten our economy, democracy, and way of life.  However you read the economic tea leaves, it is clear that those who say that the economy is their main issue are really supporting a dangerous agenda: it will worsen the economy –and it will diminish and degrade America.   

Reading for Treasure: Consider These Articles and VOTE!

Reading for Treasure is my list of articles that are worth your attention. Click here for an introduction!

Your vote is critically important. The polls are probably wrong. Here are some articles to think about as we move toward the November elections. I present them without introduction or commentary: 

Mother Jones (Video): “If Republicans Retake Congress in November, Here's What Their Agenda Will Look Like” 

NewsOne: “2022 Midterm Elections: Filibuster, Senate Control And The Importance Of Black Voters” 

Reuters: “Pro-Trump conspiracy theorists hound election officials out of office”

Financial Times: “Ukrainian officials ‘shocked’ as Republicans threaten tougher line on aid” 

The Guardian: “Republicans aim to pass national ‘don’t say gay’ law”

The Bulwark: “Attack Ads Are Darkening the Skin Tone of Black Candidates”

Atlantic:  “We need to take away children” 

New York Times: “Voters See Democracy at Risk, but Saving It Isn’t Priority” 

Wired: “The US Needs to Recognize Intimate Privacy as a Civil Right” 

The Washington Post: “Trump charged Secret Service ‘exorbitant’ rates at his hotels, records show”

CNN: “What could happen if an election denier is running elections” 

NBC: “Johnson's campaign is paying the law firm of a Trump attorney allegedly connected to Jan. 6 fake elector plot”

NPR: “Borrowers who were cut out of student loan relief describe 'a gut punch'”

CNN: “'I'm my own man': Colorado Republican Senate nominee fires back at Trump” 

Scientific American: “U.S. Lost 26 Years Worth of Progress on Life Expectancy” 

I am currently reading Gods, Monsters, and the Lucky Peach by Kelly Robson

The Kind of Person You Are!

You are a good person. You are a person of integrity and strong beliefs. You are a person who is thoughtful and emotionally aware. Sometimes, you get angry. Sometimes, you are disappointed and feel like this country is heading down the wrong path. 

You are not racist, sexist, or any of those things. You work hard to be fair and keep an open mind. You admit that you sometimes judge people, but that is a normal human response. What counts is how you judge - not based on skin color or wealth or religion or any of those things, but on how people function as human beings. 

While you are subject to the whims and impulses that flesh is heir to, you consider yourself logical. You may not be Mr. Spock, but you are reasonable and rational. You consider a situation carefully and look closely at the details, facts, and history before rendering an opinion. 

You are not afraid to admit when you are wrong or to change your point of view when you learn new things. Like many of us, you dislike changing your opinion, but you see it as a sign of growth. 

You see disagreement as a way to discover more about other people and enhance your understanding of them and the world. Such conversations are opportunities to deepen both the relationships and your own perceptions. 

Fairness and consistency are critical. While there are rules that are wrong, for the most part, rules should be obeyed and those who do not obey them should face consequences. Although there are people who feel like they are so special that they should have the right to walk over everyone and do whatever they want, rules should apply to everyone the same way. You have worked hard to be an evenhanded person when dispensing this kind of justice and, although sometimes begrudgingly, accepted it when it was your turn to receive it. 

The only way any of us moves forward is to help one another. You believe in charity, giving, and being your brothers’ and sisters’ helper. People have reached out to you when you needed it and you do your best to pay that forward. 

You stand by your promises. You do what you say you are going to do. You have little respect for those who talk a lot and do very little. You believe that there are obligations that we must fulfill, whether it is to our family, community, nation, or the world at large. Sometimes, you have had to remind people that everything is not just about them! 

Your sense of yourself is not bound up in any one particular thing. You have strong philosophical beliefs, but you are more than that. Your family connections are very important, but that is not all there is to you. You are complex. 

You do not respect people who take advantage of the weak, old, or vulnerable. You will not be scared into decisions or let fear drive your choices. You do not like cheaters, spoiled sports, or bullies. Those who work hard should reap the fruits of their labor while the lazy, entitled, and selfish should not be allowed to profit from others’ efforts. 

You work hard to be honest with yourself. Sometimes, you excuse bad behavior of those you like or are critical of good acts of those you find objectionable, but even as you do this, you realize it is not consistent with how you see yourself. You would not want to be judged that way. 

You are practical. You rarely engage in flights of fancy, except perhaps as a mental exercise or an occasional lark. You believe that the simplest and most straightforward explanations are usually correct and when people have to twist themselves into pretzels to justify or explain something, you are suspicious. 

Sometimes you have trouble trusting people. You want to believe that people are naturally good, but that doesn’t fit with all you have experienced. You agree that most people want to be good, but don’t always make good choices for a variety of reasons. You can forgive some of them, sometimes. Forgiving is one thing, but it doesn’t mean that you allow yourself to be duped or conned. 

When you were younger, you would sometimes say and do things to get the approval of your friends or authorities, even when you did not agree with them. You recognize that this is also a normal and human thing to do, but as an adult, you do not conform with the majority when it is not authentic. You are willing to champion an unpopular view when you believe in it and you resist yielding to social pressure.

You would make a good judge. You weigh facts before making decisions. You are slow to anger. You try to see things from the other person’s point of view. The world is not just good and bad, near and far, rich and poor, but is far more complicated. 

When your heroes and leaders reveal their feet of clay, you are disappointed, but not surprised.  You feel uplifted when they make things better, and like a disheartened parent, are saddened when they behave badly. But they, like all of us, should face the consequences of our choices. You strongly believe that no one is above that. No one has the right to get away with misdeeds. No one, you insist, is above the law. That would be unfair and would cause or society to collapse. 

Of course, there are people who think the rules do not apply to them. You have encountered these people too frequently. You pity them as much as dislike them. While it isn’t usually your job to remind them that they are human, too, you have taken perhaps too much pleasure in knocking some of them down a peg or two. 

You vote. You pay your taxes. You obey the laws. You go to the courthouse when you are called for jury duty. You are a good citizen. You believe that we all should support our communities. 

You are charitable. You give to the poor, sick, and those who have had bad luck. You hope you will never be on the other side of that, but you hope that, if you were ever in need, people would help you. 

You could never support a candidate for office who you knew to be cheating, lying, or hurting people. That would not be consistent with who you are. You would never give your backing to someone who was selfish, spoiled, or hateful.  You would not turn your back to all you are and all you hold dear to follow a seductive smooth-talking charlatan! You are not a sucker or a hypocrite! You wouldn’t be able to face yourself in the mirror if you did. 

Impossible Doublethink Before Breakfast

In Alice’s Adventures In Wonderland, the Red Queen believed at least six impossible things before breakfast. George Orwell’s 1984 gave us the concept of doublethink: being able to believe two completely contradictory ideas, acknowledge that they are incompatible with each other, yet fully endorse both of them. Doublethink was the critical component in maintaining 1984’s totalitarian state. Although there are more literary examples, recent events move these concepts from fiction to frightening reality. 

I don’t understand how someone can fervently support the police, believe that “blue lives matter” and yet want unlimited and open access to guns. Likewise, if one wants to be “tough on crime,” how does one accomplish this if guns are more accessible than cigarettes or allergy medication? And the police in Uvalde? 

How can one condemn violence after Black people are killed by police, but then condone violence against our own elected lawmakers who are certifying an election? How can people threaten and intimidate local election officials when they disagree with the results of an election? If violence is bad, shouldn’t it be bad no matter who commits it? 

How can someone claim that the 2020 election was riddled with fraud when it comes to the election of the president, but make no objections to all the Republican candidates who won on the very same “rigged” ballots? If there were issues with one race on the ballot, wouldn’t there be problems with the other races, too? And where is the evidence of all these irregularities? If there were so many, wouldn’t some have led to criminal charges, successful lawsuits, or altered election results? The only verified instances of election fraud I could find were people voting for the former president! 

Some people say they want to honor the past and thus preserve confederate statues, monuments, or symbols, but when discussing historical aspects of the civil war that deal with enslaved people and systemic racism, their discomfort trumps honoring and remembering other shameful aspects of the past. Could this perhaps maybe possibly be about race? 

Many of these same people are eager to protect the unborn, but do not give any protection to already-born children sitting in schools. Some of these folks also refused to protect anyone by wearing a mask or getting the COVID vaccine. Is life only worth protecting when it is not yet here? Do children have to protect themselves – from guns and illness? Is it only embryos who deserve protection? Why? 

If people don’t want teachers discussing the racism of our past and present, the diversity of gender identities, or any subject that might make some (white) kids (and/or their parents) uncomfortable, who decides what is or isn’t included? Wouldn’t the exclusion of this content make other students uncomfortable? Wouldn’t its inclusion eventually create understanding and thus bring more comfort? How are people evaluating this harm? How is repressing some people’s ideas and history not just another form of bullying and bigotry? 

Some of these folks claim to be religious people acting on precepts from scripture. However, they worship people who are adulterers and bullies whose behavior is the opposite of the religious figures they claim to revere. They take minor biblical passages out of context and hold them as more important than the Ten Commandments and key statements from Jesus, Moses, and other key figures. Whatever happened to “love thy neighbor as thyself” and “thou shalt not murder?” 

The slogans of the state in 1984 were: “War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. Today, many people are holding a complementary set of commandments: 

Morality is Indecency

Honesty is Deception

Bigotry is Equality

Freedom is Selfishness

Cruelty is Compassion

Rage is Virtue

Hypocrisy is Integrity

I don’t see how we can move beyond our current political impasse without civil discourse, common ground, a shared sense of right and wrong, and a moral commitment to improving the conditions for everyone (not just a few).  Instead, so many are practicing deadly doublethink before, during, and after breakfast – and it is not only unhealthy for them, as Orwell predicted, it is poisoning all of us. 

In Search of Media Integrity: What About Openly Affirming It?

We need a news source for everyone! 

Remember when there was a rule that, if a news story quoted one point of view, they had to provide the opposing viewpoint? The Fairness Doctrine was a rule from the Federal Communications Commission that stated that, if an organization is using a publicly held resource, the airwaves, to share news, that news must be “honest, equitable, and balanced.” 

Cable TV and relaxed regulations made the Fairness Doctrine a thing of the past. Suddenly, every point of view had a news source that was the opposite: unbalanced, biased, and sometimes stretching the truth beyond recognition. Spin and news were indistinguishable. 

Newspapers have frequently been allied with specific political points of view, but these leanings were only supposed to be seen in their editorials and opinion sections. The goal for their news stories was to be as factual and unbiased as possible.

We know that there is a limit to news neutrality. Students studying to become journalists learn about the myth of objective journalism. There are too many factors that can taint objectivity and a writer’s choices about which points of view to share may not be complete. 

Add to this the attempt of strong forces to purposely spread disinformation. Beyond advertisement and opinion, our recent elections have been plagued by powerful forces, both inside and outside the United States, creating propaganda that attempted to change people’s voting behavior. 

If voters can’t figure out what is true, how can they make good choices? If voters rely on sources that have specific agendas or points of view, a feedback loop is created that prevents growth, learning, and change. If voters are overwhelmed by so many different versions of the news, they may retreat to a mindset of choosing which is most comforting or consistent with their points of view rather than making a careful evaluation of the facts. 

Facts are the issue here. What are the facts? Over and over, we hear people debating if something is factual and often the response is, “I don’t believe that.” A fact is true regardless of any person’s belief in it. Denial of fact is not debate, but delusion. 

So how do we know what is factual? Therein lies the rub! 

At first, I was going to suggest a Wikipedia style crowd-sourced and checked news source. This way, all the interests would have the ability to both be represented and a reader could look at them side by side. 

Aside from articles becoming too long to digest, this idea also requires the creation of another news source and that news source has to reach people. There might be a way to achieve the same goal with our current media outlets. 

Instead, could we create a clear statement of integrity that news sources could endorse, a kind of pact or promise? A media source that signed on with this promise would be saying that the news they presented followed a set of ethical guidelines; it would be a kind of commandments of fair media. 

One doesn’t have to look far to find such a set of values. The Society of Professional Journalists  (https://www.spj.org/) publishes a code of journalistic ethics (https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp). In it, they state that 

“Journalists should: 

• Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.
• Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy.
• Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.
• Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story.
• Be cautious when making promises, but keep the promises they make.
• Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.
• Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.
• Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.
• Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.
• Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.
• Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
• Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government. Seek to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open, and that public records are open to all.
• Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate.
• Boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience. Seek sources whose voices we seldom hear.
• Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting.
• Label advocacy and commentary.
• Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information. Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.
• Never plagiarize. Always attribute.
• Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.
• Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.
• Recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast.
• Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.
• Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.
• Balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know. Consider the implications of identifying criminal suspects before they face legal charges.
• Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication. Provide updated and more complete information as appropriate.
• Act Independently
• Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
• Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and avoid political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality, or may damage credibility.
• Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; do not pay for access to news. Identify content provided by outside sources, whether paid or not.
• Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage.
• Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.
• Be Accountable and Transparent
• Explain ethical choices and processes to audiences. Encourage a civil dialogue with the public about journalistic practices, coverage and news content.
• Respond quickly to questions about accuracy, clarity and fairness.
• Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.
• Expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their organizations.
• Abide by the same high standards they expect of others.” 

How would voters find out if their news source were trustworthy? The news source would openly state that it agrees to abide by this universal code of journalistic ethics. If a news source did not make this promise, that, too, would be a message. Much like the UL logo on a product says that Underwriters Laboratories’ tests have found it safe to use, we would know we could trust a media outlet’s promise of integrity because we would clearly know what that means. 

And if a media outlet violated this code? Well, that would be a news story for other sources to carry. 

How about a Consumer Reports for Candidates?

Beyond their party affiliation, how much do you know about the candidates for whom you vote? Who is funding their campaigns? Have they been in trouble in the past? How do you assess candidates’ integrity and trustworthiness? 

For most of us, we have relied on various forms of media to help us make informed voting decisions. Groups like the League of Women Voters will sometimes provide candidate’s answers to basic questions and stands on issues. We see lawn signs and read newspaper articles and endorsements. Yet, we are swayed by commercials, social media, and simplistic sound bites. 

What if there was another way to assess candidates? What if an independent organization, unaffiliated with any political party (and not taking money from them), could provide us with a report card on a candidate that would let us know what the candidate has done in the past, things about the candidate’s character and background, thus serving as a neutral credentialing source? 

There are several models for this; The Better Business Bureau serves as a vehicle for consumers to assess the trustworthiness of local businesses. They state their mission and vision on their website: 

Similarly, Underwriters Laboratories, which I think now only goes by UL, tests products to ensure their safety. Companies pay UL to put their products through rigorous testing both to improve their design and assure customers of the safety and integrity of what they are purchasing. UL states its mission on its website: 

While one of these is non-for-profit and the other commercial, they have significant similarities. They are both credentialing entities. Their purpose is to give a seal of integrity to products and businesses. They do not compete against these organizations or advertise for them. Rather, they are an independent impartial entity whose sole job is to help consumers make good choices.

Another example: Consumer Reports magazine tests products and services to help consumers make educated buying decisions. Their magazine is entirely funded by subscriptions and takes no advertising. They are a trusted source of impartial information about almost everything on the market. 

One more: Charity Navigator uses a straightforward rating system based on a charity’s financial health and its accountability and transparency. From that, they determine an easy-to-understand star rating. When looking up a charity, they provide a clear explanation about why the charity received the rating it did. 

While there is no news source that everyone can agree upon, could a group of people whose political backgrounds span the range of our current landscape come together and find a way to evaluate all candidates? Could they create a rubric upon which candidates would be evaluated that might include: 

Where and how they have received money with which to run their campaigns and how they are spending it. 

Their educational, political, and job histories; their resumes. 

Prior scandals or other issues and their resolutions

If this new organization listed its mission, it might sound a little like the missions of the Better Business Bureau or UL: 

• Help create an ethical election where voters and candidates trust each other
• Set standards for election trust
• Encourage and support best practices by engaging with and educating voters and candidates
• Celebrate election role models
• Calling out and addressing substandard election behavior
• Creating a community of trustworthy candidates
• Promote safe, secure, and sustainable election process
• Support candidates who demonstrate integrity by demonstrating respect and ethical behavior, intent, and working toward a fair, inclusive, and equitable election process.
• Improve elections through research and investigation
• Make voting safer, easier, and more trustworthy
• Work with integrity and focus to enhance the trust conveyed by this certification 
• Be a good example of election ethics and evaluation. 

Our democratic process could benefit from this kind of organization. Yes, building trust would be challenging. Yes, getting buy-in from both candidates and voters would take time and persistence. But the payoff would be massive. 

Anyone up for the challenge? 

Without Reason and Rationality, There is No Responsibility

“I didn’t cheat!” 

The student is not looking me in the eyes, “I wrote that. Those are my words. It is just a coincidence that they were similar to another source. I never saw that source. I came up with that paragraph, just like someone else did.” 

Plagiarism was my least favorite student issue. It came in many flavors. Some students took things from the internet and passed them off as their own. Some used quotations or parts of published sources. Others would try to pass off another student’s work as original. Most of the time, their parents made no attempt to defend them. Most of the time, these students came clean and admitted what they had done. 

When they owned their mistake and when their parents stood beside me in holding them accountable, we moved forward. They learned a lesson. I never ever called a parent or sat down with a student to talk about this issue unless I was 100% certain that what they had turned in was not their own. There were times I suspected. There were times I had evidence, and there were times I advised students that what they had written was too close to another source. 

When I confronted a student and their family, I knew what had happened. I knew that they knew it, too. If the student denies what they had done or their parents look at the theft of the writing and excuse it, the student is reduced back to that child inventing excuses for the broken vase. It turns a teenager into a toddler and their parents into patsies. 

If students’ behavior doesn’t matter, if their choices have no effect or consequence, then they really are children. If students cannot be held accountable for their errors and misdeeds, then their successes and achievements are meaningless. They are ineffectual, lame, and impotent. When parents find excuses for their children’s behavior or try to reason it away, their failure to deal with the reality comes at the cost of their own integrity and their child’s growth.  

Similarly, when we don’t like the reality of a situation, we may sometimes find logical or probably fantasies that replace the bad news we wish to avoid. We have all done it. We rationalize away things we don’t want to accept. We find soothing excuses that feel better than the harsh facts that we want to wipe away. 

A rationalization isn’t a reason. It is an excuse. It is thinking one’s way out of dealing honestly with an unpleasant truth. It is a thin imitation of reason, a shadow lacking the substance of the truth. It is a childish strategy of pretending what you want to believe is true. 

And it frees us from doing what needs to be done. It forgives us, lets us off the hook, and gives us phony peace of mind that, at least temporarily, staves off the guilt of lying to ourselves. We are not responsible. We are victims. We didn’t do anything wrong. 

There is nothing new or shocking about avoiding responsibility. There is nothing revolutionary about putting on blinders to avoid seeing what is in front of us and escaping into an imaginary world of  “what ifs” and “that might not be true” and “someone else is to blame.”  

Without honestly and accurately facing the truth, we avoid responsibility for our actions. That is what denial is all about. Without looking at ourselves critically and as dispassionately as we can, we cannot own our errors and learn from them. Without “fessing up” and learning to acknowledge and own the bad as well as the good, we cannot move forward to repair our relationships, learn from our errors, and be better people. 

The denial of the truth, the failure to accept responsibility, and the refusal to think critically rob us not only of our adulthood but also of the two of the most important parts of our humanity: reason and responsibility.

Vote with Integrity

Recent events have made me think about integrity. Merriam-Webster provides three definitions:

 

1. firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values: incorruptibility.

2. an unimpaired condition: soundness.

3. the quality or state of being complete and undivided: completeness

 

Do I do this? Am I a person of integrity?

 

Can I articulate the code that guides my behavior? Is it an external code, like the Ten Commandments, the Constitution, or some other written set of rules? Have I created my own set of values by which I evaluate my choices?  One can’t be incorruptible if there is nothing to corrupt! What are my guiding values and where do they come from?

 

Is my condition sound? Is my behavior “free from flaw, defect, or decay?” Is it “solid,” “firm,”  “secure,” and “stable?” Do I work to make sure my decisions are “free from error, fallacy, or misapprehension?” Are they “based on thorough knowledge and experience” and “legally” and “logically valid?” Do I show sound and “good judgment or sense?”

 

Am I complete? Is my integrity complete? Do I have all the information and “necessary parts, elements, or steps?” I am being “thorough,” and “proficient?”

Who are people of integrity? How do I know?

 

Some people say one thing and then do another. We call them hypocrites. Others say one thing and then renounce their values when they are no longer convenient or easy. We call them opportunists. Others discard their values when they stand in the way of material or political goals. You probably know what they might be called.  

 

Yet, it can be appropriate to alter one’s values. Can that be done without compromising one’s integrity? We learn. We grow. We change with condition and time. The rules that guided us at four, fourteen, or forty are different. We should not be so rigid or simple to think that the same set of rules will always guide our choices.

 

Or should we? The Ten Commandments don’t change. Perhaps some of our values are unchanging and others need to adapt to current circumstances. How do we know the difference?

 

Does integrity have some basic foundational precepts? Are there some straightforward and direct values that we may bind to our hands, heads, and hearts?

Try these on for a start:  

• Tell the whole truth; be honest.

• Keep your promises and fulfill your obligations.

• Do no harm to others in tangible or intangible ways.

• Actively help those in need.

• Nurture children; support elders.

• Work with other people collaboratively and with their consent.

There are some tools that are necessary to “adhere” to a “code” and remain “sound.”

• I must be able to think critically and reason logically and dispassionately.

• I must be able to tell truth from falsehood –and fact from opinion.

• I must be aware of my desires and how they might affect my thinking and feeling.

• I must listen to others and be able to accept and understand their points of view. 

• I must be able to evaluate others’ points of view dispassionately and with as little bias as possible. I must be aware of that bias and its effects.

• My emotions and my reason must be in concert. While I may have a “gut” feeling, I must pair such feelings with consideration.

• I must acknowledge my own fallibility and own my mistakes when I inevitably make them – and then work to correct them!

Integrity is an active process and more than a state of being. It is a worthy goal. As we go to the ballot box, let us be voters and citizens of integrity.