Teaching Management Skills?

I saw this coming but harbored secret hopes that the Booth School of Business and the Becker Friedman Center at The University of Chicago could resist, but alas their resolve is collapsing.  From what I can gather, only tiny Hillsdale College has been able to stand firm and not kneel before  the BLM forces.

As a prelude, a few years ago, I attended a program at the Becker Friedman Institute, chaired by then director John List to hear economist Casey Mulligan speak.  In his introductory remarks, List spoke about building the pipeline for Chicago, how it is attempting to recruit top notch faculty, and how difficult it is to hold on to talent as other schools constantly attempt to poach Chicago faculty.  I noted then that I heard only words of “academic excellence,” “intellectual rigor,” “creativity” and the like.  List uttered not one word about “diversity” and “inclusiveness.” But that was then and this is now.

Last week, Dean of the Booth School of Business Madhav Rajan sent out a blast email to alumni with the subject line “Strengthening Diversity and Inclusion at Booth” (reprinted below).

In it, Rajan outlines a major push purportedly to improve “diversity and inclusion” at Booth.  Rajan, who hails from India (I’m never sure where Indians fit into Woke culture of whites versus brown and black people) dispatches a missive that could have come from any progressive liberal arts college in the country.  Booth is consistently ranked among the top 5 business schools in the country and is known for its top flight economists, and quantitative rigor, yet Rajan felt compelled to worship the diversity gods in a very pedestrian and ordinary way. 

Here are my responses to Rajan’s missive:

-        Rajan is compelled to invoke George Floyd in his opening paragraph.  While Floyd’s death sparked a great deal of unrest and it appears to have been a case of terrible police brutality, that single incident should not be sufficient to require a wholesale shift of focus of the school.  Among other things, Floyd’s death has not yet been adjudicated, the facts have not been fully heard (Floyd had fentanyl in his system) and there is not a shred of solid evidence to show that his death was racially motivated, or even whether he was killed by the officer. To be clear, Mr. Floyd himself was a very bad man—so bad, in fact, that society determined that he had to be removed from it for five years—a long sentence.  It does not appear that Mr. Floyd hadn’t learned his lesson and was not very repentant as he was still engaged in illegal activity.  So to invoke George Floyd as an impetus for a major initiative at a business school seems misplaced, to say the least.

-        Rajan blindly accepts the term “inclusion.” What does that term mean, exactly?  For its entire history, the Booth School of Business stood for something quite the opposite—it was “exclusive.”   This is a school with Nobel Prize winners on its faculty.   It is an intellectually ELITE school.  It boasted average GMAT scores of 730 or better, which is in the 95^th  percentile.  Additionally, Booth’s emphasis on mathematical ability will skew admissions even further.  The Booth School is, and should be, exclusive, not inclusive.  It screens out applicants that do not have the quantitative aptitude to handle the rigor of its curriculum.  Its faculty is even more elite, and its stated goal has been to attract and retain faculty members that are the equivalent of academic Olympic athletes, regardless of skin color. 

      

       Astonishingly, as part of his “diversity and inclusiveness” push, Rajan proposes to include “unconscious bias training.”  Much has been written about the ineffectiveness of such training in corporate America.  There is no definitive empirical evidence that it does anything much.  The very institution most known for its ability to empirically test hypotheses now proposes to include mandatory training that its own management that has no quantifiable effectiveness.  It's almost as if Rajan had Ta-Nehisi Coates as an advisor.

-        Most importantly, minorities (Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans)  make up 27% of the student body at Chicago Booth.   The latest census shows that such minorities make up 30% of the U.S. population.  Unless I’m missing the point, it looks like the Booth School of Business is awful darn close to reflecting the general population in its student body.  Rajan appears to be investing an awful lot of time and resources into a problem that does not seem to exist.  The numbers don’t break out percentages among minority groups, and if Rajan is focused on African Americans, he needs to say that.  Otherwise, the numbers don’t support his assertion.

Dean Rajan’s email is troubling on a number of fronts.  This is a school that relentlessly challenges its students to identify and solve the right problem and utilize quantitative tools to marshal resources and to measure progress.  Yet, Rajan puts forward scant evidence that the Booth School has fallen flat in its minority representation.  Moreover, if not enough minorities (especially African Americans) have the quantitative skills to perform at Booth, that is not a problem Rajan can solve.  Those skills are acquired much earlier in life.  By the time someone is 21 or older, it’s too late.   That is the job of primary, secondary and universities to tackle, and not a graduate school.   

The leader of one of the top business schools in the country misidentifies a problem, allocates scarce resources to solving it, proposes steps that are known to be ineffective, and doesn’t appropriately measure any of it.  That’s all the elements of poor management.  Rajan missed an opportunity to bring a uniquely Chicago approach and voice to the conversation and instead opted to send a message that could have been written by any other college president or dean.

________________________________________________________________________

Dear Chicago Booth Community, As you may have seen, the University of Chicago recently announced its plans to address Diversity and Inclusion across the university, in response to recent events including the killing of George Floyd. Chicago Booth welcomes these steps and reaffirms the school’s unwavering commitment to diversity and inclusion, and rejection of racism. Over the past several weeks, I and my senior leadership team have been in conversation with many in our community of students, alumni, faculty, and staff to evaluate and strengthen our work to address racism and create positive change across Chicago Booth. I am thankful to those of you who lifted your voices and demonstrated your deep concern for your school and community. Inspired by the discussions with our full- and part-time MBA community, this week we shared with the students our initial Plan of Action to strengthen diversity and inclusion at Booth. These near- and long-term steps cover a broad range of areas, including student admissions, curriculum, faculty and staff, communications, employer relations, and engagement. The important work articulated in the plan is currently under way, but this is just the first step. We continue to consider ways we can do more and measure our progress going forward. We recognize that diversity and inclusion is a dynamic issue that affects people in different ways, and we understand this will be experienced differently among members of our global community. While we developed this plan with input from our MBA students, these conversations are also taking place across various facets of the school. I would like to express my gratitude to our MBA students, and in particular the students of the African American MBA Association and our student leaders, for sharing their stories, feedback, and ideas to effect meaningful change. Our students’ honesty, passion, and commitment to seeing the school excel have been and will continue to be crucial to our success in making Booth a more diverse and inclusive institution and community. Best wishes, Madhav

Tainted Warrior?

In a chaotic world starved for leadership, I thought we had a solid leader in Jim Mattis.  Indeed, when he resigned as Secretary of Defense in December, 2018 over troop withdrawals from Syria and Afghanistan, I, along with many, felt a sense of loss.  The conventional narrative was that Mattis brought respect and a sober timbre to an administration that seemed to be at sea on the world stage.

We were wrong.  Dead wrong.  And let me explain how my views on Mattis did a 180 degree turn.

It turns  out that Mattis had a carefully cultivated public image.  He seemed to be a warrior from another era, almost Patton-like.  In a time when we have mostly fought wars to a stalemate or an inconclusive outcome, his pithy quotes captured our longing for a simpler time:

“I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery.  But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes:  If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all.”

“Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”

“There are some people who think you have to hate them in order to shoot them.  I don’t think you do. It’s just business.”

How could he not stir up the warrior spirit in you?

So I eagerly signed up to hear him speak last September at the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. And as I do with most of these events, I brought my notebook with to take notes in case that I want to blog about it.  I’m glad I did.

Mattis spent a good deal of time in his opening remarks about his leaving the administration his post administration duty.  He simply said that he had left over “policy differences,” which was the appropriate thing to say.  But Mattis went on to outline the set of principles for leaving.  He said he did not want to talk about his personal relationship with Trump.  More importantly, he emphasized his “Duty of Silence” and said that there is a long held tradition in the military about not passing political judgments. He said that the country is dealing with difficult issues, that he had a “duty of quiet” to allow the administration to continue.  He asserted, “It is vital not to give our adversaries the appearance of weakness.”

That was the backdrop of Mattis’s betrayal of President Trump a few weeks ago, when he renounced Trump in a most harshly written statement.  Breaking his “duty of silence,” Mattis considered Trump a “threat to the Constitution.”  As the barbarians were literally at the gates of the White House and threatening to overrun the place, Mattis wrote off the mob, saying “we must not get distracted by a small number of lawbreakers.”  He apparently did not see---or chose not to see--- the people throwing bricks and Molotov Cocktails at police and the hundreds that smashed small businesses and storefronts in cities across the United States.  He did not see the storekeeper murdered by the mob or the security guard killed in Oakland.  Instead, Mattis chose to excoriate his former boss by stating, “Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—he does not even pretend to try.”

I don’t know about you, but I’m disinclined to try to unite with folks that would throw bricks at cops, no matter what their beef, or burn and loot the stores of small shopkeepers.

Mattis’s statement doesn’t even sound like it was written by him.  It sounds like it was written by some editor at the Washington Post or the New York Times.

  https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/james-mattis-denounces-trump-protests-militarization/612640/

But this is not the only lapse in judgment by Mattis.  He himself admitted that he did not persuade the right people of his plan to close on Osama bin Laden and that led to his escape at Tora Bora (with terrible consequences for which we are still paying).  As a commander in Iraq, he made a terrible judgment in ordering the bombing of a “safe house” that turned out to be a wedding party, killing 42 innocents.  Mattis was also on the board of directors of the notorious Theranos, the company run by Elizabeth Holmes and her lover, Sonny Balwani.  Not only was Mattis on the board while Holmes and Balwani were perpetuating the fraud described in John Carryrou’s book, Bad Blood, Mattis actively pushed to have the fraudulent equipment adopted by the military.  Like former Secretary of State George Shultz, Mattis was star struck by the charismatic Holmes.  While the board of directors has not been named as a defendant, Mattis apparently did not take a very skeptical posture as a board member and as a representative of the military with respect to Holmes and her company.

I am loathe to criticize someone that has spent a career serving the country.  But his last scalding of President Trump caused me to re-evaluate my views of Mattis and when I added up the string of awful lapses in judgment, I conclude that his PR has outrun his performance, especially when I realized that his self proclaimed "duty of silence" had a rather short expiration date.

Enviro-Hysteria

My blog sometimes writes itself.  I have begun the practice of posting responses to email correspondence that I receive from friends and family in which I take an opposing position.  I take care not to identify the recipient of my correspondence since in this day and age of doxxing or otherwise outing, I do not wish to cause damage to someone else's livelihood or reputation but at the same time, I will not hesitate to respond with an appropriate counterargument.  In this case, the recipient had sent me some arguments on climate change and the suggestion that I read a book in which the author proposes that the solution is to radically reduce human consumption and, presumably, with a similar reduction in economic activity (after I had forwarded a presentation by Lars Peter Hansen on climate modeling).  Below is my response:

Dear ______:

Happy 4^th  of July,  if in fact you are celebrating.  I no longer take saying that for granted since it appears that a significant part of our nation is quite unhappy over the nation’s founding. 

But as to Lars Peter Hansen, it is certainly the case that he is not as effervescent as, say, the patron goddess of the climate change religion, Greta Thunberg.   To be sure, he does not present with as much flair and drama.  But he did win a Nobel Prize in economics, with his work centered around risk and modeling.

Which brings me to the point of the proposal, which, without reading the entire book, suggests that the solution to climate change (if, in fact, it has anything to do with human activity) lies in radically reducing human consumption, and, logically, economic activity.

An analysis of climate change actually consists of three independent parts, which must be viewed independently and together in order to formulate a sensible approach.   The issue I have, without reading the book (and I will at some future time) is that it jumps right to a proposed solution, which is likely the very worst possible solution to climate change.

But before I explain why, let me tell you why I have a high level of skepticism over the whole issue. The environmental hysterics have a perfect track record.  They have been consistently wrong for over 50 years.  Not just wrong once.  And not just a little bit wrong.  Spectacularly wrong.  The Godfather of Environmental Whiffs is Paul Ehrlich.  I still have the book for which I prepared a book report in 7^th grade. In Population Resources Environment, Ehrlich proposed Nazi-like restrictions on population growth because of the fallacious “carrying capacity” of the earth.  He predicted that if nothing was done, we would face mass starvation on the planet, among other horribles, by the mid 1980’s.  None of that occurred.  By 2016 in fact, abject poverty had been reduced from about 40% of the world population at the time Ehrlich made his claims, to about 10%.   Rather than an overpopulation, many countries are now facing a population swoon.  China, Russia, Japan, and much of Europe are not reproducing at replacement rate and are having terrible demographic issues as a result.   Poland and Hungary are engaged in various incentives so that women will have more babies.  Had the world’s nations followed Ehrlich’s prescription, it would even be in more desperate demographic shape.  Worse, Ehrlich’s proposals relied on enforcement mechanisms that the Third Reich would have been proud of.

Ehrlich was the first enviro-flop, but certainly not the last.  Enviro-hysteria is nothing, if not consistent. The hole in the ozone layer was supposed to go global and we were all going to fry like bacon, remember?  The hole magically healed with the elimination of fluorocarbons.  Then there was the hysteria over acid rain.  Acid rain was going to denude all trees and other foliage in North America by the mid 1990’s and poison all the lakes and rivers.  As I write this, and look out my window, all the trees have bright green leaves and I just got back from Bass Pro Shop where people were stocking up on fishing gear, so we apparently still have some fish in our lakes and streams.   Then, there was “peak oil.”   “Peak Oil” has apparently been supplanted by “Systemic Racism” as the apparition issue de jure.  Because oil is a finite commodity, and we already had found the easy-to-get-to stuff, our economies would have to adjust to a scarce and expensive commodity.  Again, none of that came to pass.  No one talks about “peak oil” anymore.  We are literally drowning in the stuff.  Technological advances such as horizontal drilling and fracking made yet another enviro-scare not come true.

The environmental movement boasts a forecasting track record so poor that economists and weather forecasters look like soothsayers in comparison.

But we only have to look at our current catastrophe to see how “science” and policy based on “models” interact, especially when “experts” and international bodies are involved, as is the case with climate change.  We were initially told by W.H.O. that COVID19 could not be transmitted human-to-human.  The W.H.O. then told us that China self reported the virus and that turned out to be false.  Then, relying on models predicting 2 million deaths, we shut an entire economy down.  The initial models turned out to be off not by 5 or 10% but by 1000% or more.  Worse, we have terrible and extremely unreliable data, as deaths by other causes are lumped into the data.  Initially, we were told that the death rate might be as high as 2%.  It’s really probably around .3%, and much less among those younger than 65. And if you throw out the deaths that were CAUSED by putting infected people into nursing homes, it may be even less.  We were told that it could survive on surfaces for 9 days and be able to be transmitted that way.  Then we were told that transmission from a surface was rare.  Dr. Fauci first said masks were largely symbolic.  Now, he wants us to wear them in public at all times.  Most recently, Dr. Fauci said that we should not “balance lives against the economy” which tells you that he doesn’t understand risk assessment at all.  We do that in all things, like driving cars.  And we MUST do that with COVID19. The “deaths” of despair,” i.e. suicide, drug overdoses, alcohol related deaths, deaths due to social discord, are piling up and our children are being prevented from receiving an education while the “experts” are advising us to “play it safe.”

COVID19 provides insight into risk assessment and risk balancing of science and policy, and we see how awful, misguided, and unnecessarily damaging to peoples’ lives when poorly understood science is met with bureaucratic policy blunders.

After the disastrous management of COVID19—the inaccurate and misleading measurement, widely incorrect model predictions, and catastrophic policy response, does any thinking person really believe that all of these aspects (and you need ALL of them to work properly) will do any better in reducing global temperatures by a degree or two in 100 years, especially given the track record of the environmental hysterics so far?  The COVID19 modeling was as if the team lined up for a field goal and kicked it into the stands at midfield.  What faith do you have that the climate change crew will do any better?

Finally, it is fine if people want to voluntarily reduce their consumption of certain goods.  They are free to do so now.  But any government mandate or coercion that would require that involves the kind of tyrannical government that I will resist with every fiber of my body until my last breath.

Lars Peter Hansen may not be the most exciting person to listen to, but he is skilled at inducing a little epistemic humility before we are condemned to living in one room shacks with our allotment of rice and beans that the environmentalists would like to place us in.  It is the opposite strategy, a vibrant, free and innovative economy that is most likely to lead to less environmentally impactful energy technologies.

Demasculinization and the Mob

One of the most eye catching posts on Twitter regarding the pandemic was this one:

We were so afraid of dying that we forgot to live.

The announcement that the statue of Teddy Roosevelt would be removed from the American Museum of Natural History in New York was one of the most significant actions by the Radical Left in their zeal to tear down all of America’s historical markers.  TR exemplified American masculinity.  Robust, swashbuckling, intelligent, fearless, Roosevelt was probably one of the most accomplished Americans of the late 19^th and early 20^th century.  Among his many accomplishments, he established the National Park system, a man devoted to “green” before it was cool.  In addition to his deep intellect, Roosevelt was a big game hunter and lived the life of a cowboy and demonstrated his courage in the Spanish-American War.  His prodigious life was masterfully captured in Edmund Morris’s biographies.  Roosevelt was a true American, and a man’s man—the kind of man the Radical Left cannot tolerate.

Indeed, “toxic masculinity” became one of the pet vacuous phrases concocted  by the Radical Left to undermine American society (along with “social justice,” “the patriarchy,” “privilege,” “racial justice,” and the litany of phobias designed to put hard working, family oriented Americans on the defensive). 

Masculinity has been attacked with a number of tactics, many of which have been enormously successful in feminizing our population: We have labelled energetic boys as ADHD and drugged them.   Normal sexual advances that are at all persistent are now harassment, and any physical contact with a woman without express consent is considered sexual assault (attempting to steal a kiss from a girl like Jimmy Stewart did in so many films will get you bounced out of almost every college campus).  Colleges have shifted the burden of proof and removed due process across the country. 

Institutionalized demasculinization is occurring earlier and earlier.  Little boys are disciplined for showing “finger guns” in school.  Games like dodgeball have been removed from recess (if you even have recess). Drag Queen Story Hour, aimed at young children, has been implemented in libraries across the country.  Combat sports are being attacked.  Most disturbingly, the American Psychological Association recently put out statements that contended that traditional masculinity was harmful, linked to homophobia and misogyny (https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/american-psychological-association-links-masculinity-ideology-homophobia-misogyny-n956416).  In other words, the "experts" have determined that being a man is a disorder. 

We now see with real clarity what has been behind this push against manhood.  Because men resist.  Men take risks.  Men will defend their nation and their families.

This is all relevant now because we are nearing a time when men will need to step up.  The Radical Left has exploited our federal system and has been able to ally with feckless mayors to cause havoc in a number of our cities.  The real men of our country have been doing what they always do--- go about their business, obey the laws, work, help provide for their families.  So far, they have left the job of defending the country to those whose job it is to do so- through the function of government.  So far, that is failing.  The police aren’t policing.  Republicans in Congress have been meek and timid.  Even the boastful Donald Trump has done little more than Tweet in all caps.

Despite the fecklessness of our politicians, and despite the decades long effort at demasculinizing our society, I would not do too much gloating if I were on the Radical Left. 

If I were going to send a message to Antifa/BLM terrorists, it would be this:

You’ve had your run of the table so far.  You’ve had your easy early victories, enabled with winks and nods by leftist mayors.  You’ve torn down some statues and you’ve wrecked some businesses.  And you’ve been able to do so without incurring any costs.  You undoubtedly feel that the wind is at your backs right now. Enjoy the moment.

Because it’s about to get tougher.  A lot tougher from here on out.  Think of this like the NCAA basketball tournament.  You have just made it through the first couple of rounds.  But conversations are occurring.  And men are quietly preparing. A man will not jeopardize his safety to save a statue in the park, but if his family or nation are seriously threatened, the stakes will get higher.  And the risks will get higher for you if you insist on going down this progression. 

And there are now some red lines.  So far, you have been careful not to cross them, but you keep inching toward them.  If you are smart, you will stay away from them.  I can’t tell you exactly what those red lines are but I suspect we both know at least some of them.  You would be wise not to pee on that electrified third rail.  American masculinity is not dead, despite your best efforts, and if you do cross those lines, you will see it in all its glory.  It will not flinch.  It will not hesitate. It is not afraid of death.  And, yes, it will become toxic to you if you go too far.

Perhaps no other image of the week exemplified our current state as the film clip of the scrawny guy with the man bun screaming at the impassive black cop towering over him.  Whatever insults Mr. Man Bun threw at him, the cop just stood his ground with perfect discipline.  The image was striking because you know that if that cop unleashed his fury on Mr. Man Bun, the confrontation would be over within 45 seconds. 

The Radical Left needs to be very careful not to unleash that fury. 

It is silently but firmly lying in wait.

black lives matter

I must give credit where credit is due.  Ilhan Omar and Black Lives Matter are incredibly efficient and organized, much more so than our lumbering and ossified republic.  Ilhan Omar, reviled by conservatives, immersed in controversy about fraudulent transactions with regard to her immigration and campaign funding fraud and blatant anti-semitism was able to turn Minneapolis into Mogadishu in 3 short years.  That is no mean feat.  I am even more impressed with Black Lives Matter   With the use of a mere label and brand, Black Lives Matter has been able to create a smokescreen and impenetrable forcefield around itself.  True marketing genius.

I and others have publicly excoriated Pope Francis for, among other things, his handling of the sex abuse scandals, his leap into politics, his secret deal with the Chinese Communist Party, his harsh criticism of Donald Trump while maintaining silence on the CCP.  None of this is met by a vituperative response.  Try that with BLM and your career and/or your company will face ruination. 

BLM has done an excellent job of building allies.  The NFL is kneeling before it.  The CEO of Chick-fil-A is shining your shoes.  National guard is submitting to you.  My email box is full of odes to BLM, with corporate breast beating and vows to do better.   Corporate America is showering millions upon it, without regard to where it goes or exactly where the money is flowing into.  It doesn’t matter to them. It’s protection money.  

At great risk to my own person, and whatever career I have remaining, I oppose Black Lives Matter categorically, unconditionally and without reservation.  Of course black lives matter (all lower case), and we all should remain committed to ensuring that black lives and all lives matter.

But Black Lives Matter is, well, another matter. Let’s scratch under the surface a bit.  You don’t actually have to look much beyond the label to see Black Lives Matter is all about.  My first exposure to Black Lives Matter was a few years ago when BLM marchers were in downtown Chicago, chanting “Pigs in a blanket. Fry ‘em like bacon,” and  “What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now.”  That’s hardly a way to persuade me to jump in on your side.  I’m sympathetic to disparate treatment, if that can be shown, and I am sympathetic to protesting overreaching government agents.  You lost me immediately upon the call for violence.

If you relabel BLM for what it really is, the label would read something like Blacks for a Marxist and Reverse Apartheid Future.  If you listen to what its founders have said and read what it purports to be, that about captures it.  It seeks to abolish capitalism, the traditional Western family (with a 75% illegitimacy rate, it’s well along its way), do away with the police and defeat Donald Trump.  The name itself is fraudulent. 

We know this from the symbols it has chosen to denigrate.  Over the past two weeks we have seen erase figures of black achievement. It pressured Netflix to remove Gone With the Wind, and with it, the first black Oscar winner, Hattie McDaniel.  It forced Quaker Oats to rid itself of Aunt Jemima, the model for which was an amazing story of a woman that went from slavery to one of the first black millionaires.  Most perversely, they vandalized the memorial to the 54^th Massachusetts, the incredibly brave and inspirational Union Army regiment popularized by the film Glory.

While denigrating black success, the movement has chosen to lionize black criminality.  While George Floyd’s death was a gross and gruesome overreach of state power, Floyd himself was hardly a pillar of society. He was so bad that society said he needed to be removed from it for 5 years.  He apparently didn’t get the message and continued to engage in criminal behavior after his release.  None of this justifies his death at the hand of officer Chauvin, but the fact that he was given a larger hero’s funeral than Neil Armstrong had a couple of years earlier says something about the priorities of BLM.  Likewise, ABC News perversely claimed that Rayshard Brooks was to be “remembered for hard work and dedication to family” while he was jailed for beating his family.  Neither Brooks or Floyd deserve any adulation.

But BLM elevates criminals while tearing down actual black successes.

Then, of course, there are the black lives that should matter most---the young people of the black community.  It was ironic at the time of all the mayhem, Chicago had its bloodiest day.  The Chicago Sun Times posted pictures of the 18 people murdered in a 24 hour period, most young blacks, children really.   The shooting deaths of 16 year old Simeon cheerleader Akiera Boston and beautiful young Kaylyn Pryor affecting me so much that I blogged about them.   And as I write this, 9 people were killed over Father’s Day weekend, 4 of them children, including a 3 year old and a 13 year old girl.  Yet, BLM is more concerned with the deaths of criminals than the murders of so many beautiful young people in their communities.  Why do I seem to care more about the slaughter of the innocents than BLM?  Even more perversely, Planned Parenthood, the abortion provider of choice for the black community tweeted out its support of Black Lives Matter.  BLM is conveniently silent about the future of black America being slaughtered in the womb.  And if they make it out of the womb, they are slaughtered in the streets.

These are blunt, uncomfortable things to talk about.  BLM does nothing to help black success, improve black lives in any respect.  In Chicago, the looters started their dastardly deeds on the South Side, wrecking black businesses, destroying stores where African Americans shop and fill their prescriptions, and further obliterating job opportunities for blacks.

And this brings me to my view.  Many of my personal heroes have been black.  Willie Davis, who just passed away was a personal hero from the time I was about 8, first as a Green Bay Packer, then as a University of Chicago MBA and successful businessman.  Bill Curry’s description of him as a leader is inspirational and I urge you to watch it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRT6kjsIfC0 )     Alan Page of the Vikings and Bears, had a great second career in law and became Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court.  Two great highlights of my life were having an opportunity to meet the great Minnie Minoso, the first black player for the Chicago White Sox.  And then meeting the descendant of the great Frederick Douglass, Kenneth B. Morris, right after reading David Blight’s masterful biography of Douglass. We need more Willie Davises and fewer Nikole Hannah-Joneses (author of 1619 Project).

My message to BLM is this:

I know who you are and what you represent.  You may be able to fool some people with your clever label, but I know what you are.  You have done a good job of organizing to burn and destroy.  But you know nothing about growing and building.  Your actions damage actual black lives, especially young black lives.  You have learned your trade from Hamas. You hold yourself out as an advocate for the improvement of black lives but in reality, you are a Marxist terror and shakedown organization, with expertise in ruining people like U of C economics professor Harald Uhlig for daring to question you.  The funds that have poured into your coffers will only improve the black lives of those in a position to pilfer them.  I will oppose you and the chaos you seek to cause at every turn.

Actual black lives matter little to Black Lives Matter. I put my title in lower case because you can simultaneously believe that black lives matter and spurn Black Lives Matter.

To My White Friends

The social discord has become personal now, and demonstrates why we need to cool off, and soon.  This week, I received a nasty, caustic email from a family member (for which this person later apologized.  And then I received an email from a very old friend (whose name will remain anonymous) and is reprinted below.  I did not respond immediately to it, but its content and condescending tone set me back on my heels.  My face turned purple and it took all the discipline at my disposal to refrain from ripping a sharp reply.

Instead, I will attempt a more measured and rational, and do it here, publicly, and unashamedly. 

Dear J.:

I am writing in response to the email you sent to me last week, and, presumably to a number of people on your contact list.  To be perfectly frank, I found your letter demeaning, condescending and patently offensive. 

It bludgeoned me right from the beginning.  It began with “To My White Friends” which immediately took my breath away.  You see, my friend, I do not have white friends.  I do not have black friends.  I do not have Hispanic friends.  I do not have Indian friends.  I simply have friends.  I do not see them in that dimension.  I am sorry that you do.  If it is important to you to segment friends along that dimension,  I suspect you have issues around that that you might wish to work out.  I simply do not.  White people are not a monolithic group, and neither are black people.  I actually have a number of friends of Indian descent, and I’m not quite sure where they fit into your classification system.

Your letter lacks self-awareness.  Shockingly, it asks, "Do I remark in admiration, but not a little surprise, at how "articulate" that black man was."  Perhaps you are unaware that was exactly how Joe Biden (the fellow you are going to vote for in November) referred to Barack Obama.    Or have you conveniently forgotten?  Will these blatantly racist words cause any hesitation to vote for him, "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's storybook, man?"  Or has that quote been erased from history like so many Christopher Columbus statues?

Your letter speaks of a “turning point” because of the protests, but conveniently omits the lawlessness, vandalism, destruction of property, and, yes, the destruction to black lives, black employment and black owned businesses. The upshot of your letter demands that I engage in some sort of critical self examination regarding how I treat black people.  You ask that I do a thorough examination of my behavior [towards blacks]:

“I think each of us can make a difference by taking the tough step of examining ourselves and correcting where we fall short, by calling on our friends and neighbors to change themselves, and by refusing to sit by silently while racial injustice occurs around us.”

What I find most offensive about this demand to do a self examination is a baked in assumption that I do not do this.  Most Christian sects and Jews already have a well established set of guidelines on how we are to treat other people, regardless of race.

Further, I am a Catholic.  As a Catholic, we do self examinations under two circumstances:

1.      To prepare for confession.

2.      To check for testicular cancer (or breast cancer, if you are a woman).

That’s it.  As to the former, Catholics have a well-established, set of guidelines for treating other people, regardless of color.  If we breach any of those, it’s called “sin” and we have an entire process devoted to admitting guilt, confessing it, asking for forgiveness, and doing penance.  That process is so vital to our faith, it is elevated to the status of sacrament. 

Your last line in your letter belies what this is all about.  It reads:

“If I prayed, I’d pray that every one of us accept that challenge.”

And herein lies the issue.  The connotation is that you don’t pray, that you don’t practice a religious faith.   Yet you implore me to practice whatever pseudoreligion you ascribe to when mine already has taught me how to treat others.

I believe in reciprocal arrangements.  I won’t try to convert you to Catholicism and you don’t try to convert me to whatever religious practices that you adhere to.  I won’t make assumptions about your behavior.  And you don’t make assumptions about mine.

After two weeks of burning, looting, and rioting, your demand that I examine ways in which I alter MY behavior displays a special kind of chutzpah.

________________________

Friends,

You are receiving this email because I care deeply for you and because I have been deeply troubled, as I’m sure you have. I hope you will grant me a few minutes of your time.

    

We have all watched the events of the last two weeks unfold almost in slow motion. I suspect most, if not all of you, have watched as I have – in horror, starting with the video of George Floyd’s murder, followed on by countless videos of abuse of many peaceful protesters by some in law enforcement and the opportunistic actions of rioters and looters who defile the memory of George Floyd and others before him – but also in admiration, at the hundreds of thousands of peaceful protesters who have taken to the streets across our country to demand change.

As the protests continue, some have suggested this could be a turning point for our country, that it could be a catalyst propelling us toward the promise our nation has always had, but which has consistently eluded many of our countrymen. I agree that it could be that. I certainly wish it. But it won’t happen on its own. And it won’t happen if the only people seeking to effectuate change are those taking to the streets. Because protests tend to eventually stall and ultimately to stop entirely, until the next provocation that brings people back out demanding change. Also, it won’t happen if the only voices demanding change are those in the communities most at risk.

I submit that change can happen in each of us without waiting for that provocation. I also submit that lasting change can only happen if those of us who happened to be born white contribute our voices. Loudly or softly. Publicly or with friends, family, neighbors, and acquaintances. And we need to do it today, tomorrow, and in the days, weeks, months, and years ahead.

A starting point should be an examination of our own prejudices. It can be uncomfortable to do it, but we need to ask ourselves tough questions. At a minimum, I would propose we each ask ourselves what it is we do that perpetuates, or at exposes our complicity in, damaging racial stereotypes. Do I lock my doors when I drive through a black neighborhood? Do I assume that the chain wearing young black and Latino men hanging out in the neighborhood are “thugs” and criminals whom I should avoid because they no doubt mean to do me some harm? Do I clutch my bag a little tighter when I pass the black teenagers on the sidewalk but not do the same for the white teenagers? Do I assume that the young black guy in the fancy car is an athlete or a drug dealer? Do I assume that the black guy in the white neighborhood, or the group of black teenage boys in the store, is up to no good? Do I remark in admiration, but not a little surprise, at how “articulate” that black man was? These are just a few of the innumerable examples of pernicious racism that even the most enlightened among us engage in, often unconsciously, on a regular basis.

I think each of us can make a difference by taking the tough step of examining ourselves and correcting where we fall short, by calling on our friends and neighbors to change themselves, and by refusing to sit by silently while racial injustice occurs around us. I’m still optimistic enough that I think we can each make a difference. Individually and collectively, we can chip away at the yawning gap between the promise of our country and the reality that many of its citizens live on a daily basis.

In closing, if you have not read the open letter that Lee Pelton, the president of Emerson College, penned a few days ago, I’d recommend that you take the time to do so. I’ve included it below. It delivers a powerful message that cannot be repeated often enough. In that letter, President Pelton lays down a simple challenge I think can help move the needle in wiping out systemic racism. Systemic racism in our society won’t disappear overnight, but I think we can each make a start by answering the question President Pelton challenged us to ask:  “What changes will [we] make in [our] own life”?

If I prayed, I’d pray that every one of us accept that challenge.

Your friend,

Kristallnacht II

This week was a week like no other I have experienced in my adult life, and it will be hard to fully capture all of the swirling events in a single blog post.  But I will pick out a few observations that I think are relevant to the discussion.

As we know, Kristallnacht, The Night of Broken Glass, occurred on November 9 and 10, 1938 when Nazis torched Jewish businesses, synagogues, homes and schools, killed about 100 Jews and arrested some 30,000 Jews and sent them to concentration camps.  This week, in New York, DC, Chicago, Minneapolis, NY, and many other cities, looters went on a rampage following the death of George Floyd at the hands of a Minneapolis police officer.  With elements of Antifa mixed in, mobs trashed, burned and looted for days, turning New York into something out of a futuristic dystopian sci-fi film. 

Most revolting was that the looters clearly had targeted symbolic edifices.  Kristallnacht II was much wider.  Jews were a subset of the repression this time around.  Churches and synagogues were looted and defaced.  In Chicago, a church was vandalized, a Catholic bookstore was looted and in LA a Jewish neighborhood was targeted for destruction.  Ironically, in New York, police were dispatched to close down Jewish funeral and on the very day of the rioting, Jewish moms and kids were shooed off of a playground.  That same night, no police officers were in sight as Macy’s was trashed and looted.

In addition to religious symbols, the mob defaced American symbols.  The Lincoln Memorial, the Vietnam Memorial, and the College Football Hall of Fame.  They even vandalized the memorial to the 54^th Massachusetts , the statue of Gandhi, and Winston Churchill in Great Britain.  Virginia is taking down the statue of Robert E. Lee, but you know it won’t stop there.  Washington and Jefferson will be next.

NPR posted a message that we need to “de-colonize our bookshelves, actively resisting and casting aside the colonialist ideas of narrative, storytelling, and literature that have pervaded the American psyche for so long.”  Out with Gordon Wood.  In with the 1619 Project.  Our with Emerson, Thoreau and James Fenimore Cooper.  In with Ta Nehisi Coates.  If you object, you are a racist, a bigot, a xenophobe. 

Perhaps no other symbol carries more meaning than the mask, which we have been all forced to wear for months.  Dehumanizing, suffocating, it serves many purposes.  Under the guise of a barrier to pathogen transmission, it removes your individuality.  It makes it harder to breathe.  It makes it more difficult to talk.  They want you gagged and suffocated. 

This is how you know that this is not a protest.  It’s an attempt at a hostile takeover.  They go for symbols and intend to eradicate America’s glorious past completely. 

It began gradually a long time ago, but has picked up momentum with George Floyd as the accelerant. Prayer in schools was the first to go, then the pledge of allegiance.  What started with sex education morphed into Drag Queen Story Hour.  Study of the Declaration of Independence was replaced by LGBT history.  Instead of honoring the American flag at sporting events, the NFL will now defile it.   All of this is  is happening at a much faster, much more violent clip now.

ISIS and Al Qaeda knew the power of symbols.  ISIS destroyed precious, irreplaceable Buddhist statues.  Al Qaeda famously went for the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.  What we are seeing now is no different.