Author: Susan Nevin

For this leadership class, I read the piece, “Attacking the Fourth Estate,” by Allison Archer. Archer opens this piece by explaining that President Donald Trump is not the first political leader to attack the press and media. Ironically, Archer claimed that Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and many others have also launched attacks on the media in a bid to control what was said about them. However, Archer argues that in recent times there has been a shift in our access to worldwide communication, and, because of this, the way that Trump attacks the media is different than the leaders that came before him. Specifically, she claims that “journalistic accounts suggest the nature of such attacks in more recent years is qualitatively different than before,” and a prime example of this can be seen through President Trump’s twitter account. 

One thing I found interesting while reading this article is that Archer argued that there “should be an inherent tension between elected officials and journalists who seek to poke and prod at them, asking tough questions to inform the public of their representatives’ motivations and actions.” I had never thought about this before, but I realized that this was necessary in order to maintain transparency between the people and their leaders. Additionally, I found it interesting that many leaders before Trump did have issues with the media, but spoke of those issues in private. This could have been because of their personalities, but also because they didn’t have the social media platforms that Trump holds today to speak their minds. And, while social media gives many opportunities, Trump needs to keep a balance because too much aggression can cause distrust within his followers. I never really thought of this, but realized that there is a very delicate balance that needs to happen in terms of one’s projection on social media platforms.

1 Comment

Pure Confidence

Susan Nevin

Last night I attended the play, “Pure Confidence.” This play was about a black jockey who raced right before and during the start of the Civil War. This man, Simon Cato, and his owner’s horse, “Pure Confidence,” were known as some of the best racers in all of America. Simon Cato asked to be free, and his owner agreed if he made enough he could buy his freedom, along with his wife Caroline. Tragically, Cato got in a riding accident with two white jockeys, and his legs were badly broken. He could never ride the same again. However, once the war hit, Cato went to go fight for the union, and ended up working as a bellhop in the Saratoga hotel. Even though he was a free man, he was treated like trash at his job. But, his former owner found him, and begged him to come “home” and be his horse trainer. Simon said he would consider, and claimed that freedom isn’t really about being free, but it is about having the power to choose which path you want to take. 

This play was quite sad, as it showed that Simon Cato’s owners’ truly loved him, but didn’t have the confidence to stand up for what they believed in, as they did see Caroline and Simon as people. Additionally, this production showed that while Simon escaped during war and was eventually free, he was never treated as an equal. This part was heartbreaking, because all he wanted was to be seen as a man, but no one gave him the decency of that but his former owner, who didn’t have the balls to stand up to slavery and treat him as a friend.

Leave a Comment

Digital Dystopian Event 

Susan Nevin 

The speaker for this event was Yasha Levine, who was born in the Soviet Union, and escaped to the United States as political refugees, and came to live in San Francisco. He then became an investigative reporter, and has been researching the internet as a weapon. Levine claims that the Internet started as something new and magical. However, the sheen is wearing off and people are becoming afraid and paranoid of the internet. People are convinced that the internet has been hijacked and is now used as a weapon of meddling, and is not what it was before. Additionally, some people think that the internet is what caused Trump’s election. 

Levine also argued that never before in the history of mankind had the internet been used to convince people of things in the way it did in 2016. The internet is not an innocent technology. The Internet has been used for surveillance and propaganda for years. Fear after the 2016 election was based on the idea that the internet was never used for a weapon. People are now seeing how the internet is giving dominance to monopolies and people are making money selling things to us. Altogether, we just saw the internet in the wrong light, and Levine is shining a spotlight on it.

Leave a Comment

The Vietnam Protest was a movement against the United States involvement in the war, in addition to the draft. This draft would kill thousands of young American men to die, and protests were being held during this time on college campuses throughout the nation. Many young men claimed that the reason they were protesting was because they didn’t want to be forced to fight in a war that wasn’t their, and one they barely knew about.  According to this film, the draft was initially created to give all men an equal chance to fight and represent their country in times of war. However, as it was soon discovered, there were many loopholes in the picking process. If a man was in college or was college educated, his draft admittance was deferred. Additionally, if a man was married, he was also deferred. This concept angered many people, and from this came the Vietnam Protest Movement. 

I completely see the argument that the protestors had, and if I were a young man during this time period I would be scared every day that I would randomly be called to serve in the war. Moreover, I also see why the draft was created and being used, and why it was hard to cut their cords with Vietnam after being involved. I also see why men wanted to serve, and why they were proud to be serving as American soldiers. However, I don’t agree with the idea that certain men were exempt from war and others were not. Just because a man wasn’t married doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have a family or girlfriend that loves him very much, and just because a man isn’t college educated doesn’t mean the value of his life should be measured in a different manner than someone who was. I also think that people should be working together during times of stress, and this movement created a huge divide amongst the men of America; those who wanted to serve, and those who didn’t. 

2 Comments

The Lottery, The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas

Susan Nevin

 

To begin, I read the Omelas story. To me, this had been one of the most impactful readings I have read for a class. This story showed the idea of a fake utopia, as the society tries to put on a front of “perfection,” when in reality, there is true suffering at its base. In addition, this story begs the question of the utilitarian perspective. Is it better for one child to live a horrible life for the happiness of the majority? This is something I could debate on for hours, and that many people continue to argue about. This argument is also seen in the city of Omelas. Some of the people once the see the child are very upset, but decide to return home. Others are so hurt by this idea that they cannot bear to live in these conditions anymore and walk straight off the city, and are never seen again. This story, along with utilitarianism, brings in the idea of groupthink. While every single member of this society knows that the treatment of the child is horrible, no one does anything about it. And those who cannot bear to watch it run from the city instead of helping the child and making a change. 

Next, I read “The Lottery” story by Shirely Jackson. This story showed many similarities to the Omelas story, however, the person who had to accept the suffering was an active member of their society. In detail, the town would hold a “lottery,” and whoever won was stoned to death. This again brings into light the idea of the “ideal” society, which isn’t ideal at all, but instead tries to cover up their suffering through a decision they believe to be better for the group. They also use the idea of a “lottery” which usually has a positive connotation to it, to cover up the horrible events that occur if you win. This argument is extremely popular within hollywood today, as they are making countless films to debate this idea. I first heard of this concept when reading The Hunger Games Series, and this idea has stuck with me since.

Leave a Comment

    Appropriate Play

Susan Nevin 

I chose to go to the production, “Appropriate,” as one of my out of class Jepson Leadership events. This play’s storyline was focused around a family in which the father had just died, so all the grown kids had to come back to their childhood summer home to clean out his belongings and sell the house. When the children arrive, there is a clear conflict and unresolved issues between all of them, and they struggle to each take charge of the project. However, all their issues halt when photos of lynchings are found in their father’s house, along with the body parts of a black person. 

After this horrible situation, the siblings start to take sides. The daughter, Toni, believes that it is just a coincidence, while the two brothers claim that they may not know their father as well as they thought. This also causes a huge divide amongst the siblings, as Toni doesn’t want to think of her father in a negative light, while the brothers claim that she was his obvious favorite. After this, one of their own children finds a Ku Klux Klan hat in the attic, and all hell breaks loose. The siblings begin to fight, and they all leave in a hurry, leaving the house with its horrible secrets.

Leave a Comment

Slavery Without Submission 

Susan Nevin 

To begin, I read author Howard Zinn’s article, “Slavery Without Submission.” This article regarding the United States and why they chose to support slavery was truly shocking, and explained things about slavery I had never known. For example, this article explained that the reason that the United States government decided to back slavery was because of the profit they got from it. Because of slavery, the cotton production boomed, and by 1860, millions of slaves were producing millions of tons of cotton. Personally, when reading this, I just don’t see how they justified production as a means to use a humans’ life. Yes, while this provided more jobs for white people in the poor class, it took away any opportunities that blacks and people of color had to make a life for themselves. It was very upsetting to read that they used job opportunities and money as a means to justify something this horrid. 

` In addition, I read another reading from Howard Zinn, but this one discussed the black revolt of the 1950s. This piece explained that while this revolt came as a surprise to many people, it really shouldn’t have been. Zinn explained that, “it (slavery) was not just a memory but a living presence–part of the daily lives of blacks in generation after generation.” I am truly surprised that no one thought that this would be a possibility, and that years of oppression would would lead to people wanting to take a stand. However, if they hadn’t we would not have experienced the Civil Rights Movement, and come to make the progress we can see today.

3 Comments

Tyranny is Tyranny

Susan Nevin

The reading we read for this lesson, Tyranny is Tyranny, focused on the process the United States had to go through to separate from British rule, and gain their independence. The reading opens discussing how the English needed the Colonies wealth for than the Colonies needed the support of England. This was one of the bigger reasons that lead to the rebellions and eventual war, because the English needed America more than America needed them. In addition, the article showed how the people had the power, especially the lower class. 

Specifically, Tom Paine, author of Common Sense, made the first real argument towards the idea of American independence. I found this super interesting, as Common Sense was a pamphlet geared towards the common people. After writing this, Paine became a figurehead for this movement, and emphasized the power of the common people. He did this through relating to them, as Paine was just a poor immigrant who came to America. He initially seemed to give a voice to the lower and middle class, but later on showed his allegiance to the wealthy, when he became an associate of Robert Morris. I found this switch of side interesting, as his rise to popularity through this speeches that connected to the lower class

2 Comments

Domination and Subordination Response

Susan Nevin

For this class, I read one article discussing dissent and another discussing domination and subordination. The ladder article, “Domination/Subordination,” by Jean B. Miller, discusses how people treat others who are different to them, and how people cope with the idea of these differences. Miller concludes that when there is some type of inequality among people, there becomes a dominant person or personality, and then by default there is a group of subordinates. The dominants then take over the group, and even when the subordinates develop positive traits like intelligence or charisma, the dominates overpower them and leave no room for their to be movement or success on the subordinates side, something they even go as far as blocking their growth, even when it’s unintentional. However, dominates, while they are overpowering, don’t like conflict, and will try to hide or suppress conflict at all costs. Because of this, subordinates are good at reacting and showing their emotion in hidden ways. 

In the first article, “Elevating dissent and transcending fear-based culture at war and at work,” George Cheny and Daniel J. Lair discuss how the use of media has created a very reachable social sphere, and how our work life is now interrelated with our political and public sphere. Dissent is the idea that there is a “voice that goes against the popular opinion.” This article claims that this can create problems because of access to social media, while others argue that this is the reason we have democracy. Altogether, there are positives and negatives to this freedom, and it does come down to how this concept in being used in relation to the general public.  

1 Comment

Transactional and Transforming Leadership 

Susan Nevin 

In the article, “Transactional and Transforming Leadership,” by James MacGregor Burns, he discusses what the definition of leadership is. Burns claims that leadership is “leaders inducing followers to act for certain goals that represent…both leaders and followers.” I would agree with Burns in that being a leader is not only having this power over your audience, but rather the motivation to get them to make a stand for a certain topic. The strongest movements usually have an inspiring leader or figurehead that brought them together is some way. Burns then discussed two types of leadership, transformational leadership and transactional leadership. He explained that transformational leadership raises the motivation of his audience, while transactional leadership is more doing something for the exchange of valued things. I would agree that these are accurate, but I would argue that transformational leadership has a bigger and longer lasting impact on society. 

In the next article, Bass mentions Burn’s work on the topic, but claims that our current society calls for more transformational leaders, as we live in a time where we leaders need to empower their followers. This is because transformation leaders inspire motivation and confidence, and don’t just have one end goal in mind, but are looking for improvement as a whole. Altogether, transformational leadership is the most important kind, as change is the first and most necessary thing needed.

1 Comment

This novel by Kenneth P. Ruscio discusses what traits are needed to be a good leadership, and what virtues will make someone a strong leader. Ruscio argues that the most important trait to have is humility, as it not only makes the leader seem relatable to the audience, but will also allow the leadership to make better decisions regarding liberty, tolerance, and law if they are looking at issues with a humble perspective. In addition, this article claims that many traits are emphasized within social media, but humility is not one of them. 

The example of Washington and his troops is given, and how his “rejection of formal power” led to an “innate ability to establish a bond, a trait that ultimately led him, in more significant historical moments, to acquire authority and legitimacy.” The troops were moved by his speech, and felt connected to him because he explained he was one of them. I think that this analogy is completely accurate, and something leaders hold the most power by “cutting it back” so they seem more relatable to an audience. I also think it helps the leader, as it gives them an emotional connection and an inside look into their audience, and may make them more passionate about something.

3 Comments

Leaders, Followers, and the Cave Allegory

Susan Nevin

The whole idea of the Cave Allegory is extremely interesting. The concept that the prisoners are living in what they believe to be a reality, when in fact, shadows aren’t real beings, but rather just a part to a whole. However, the prisoners have no idea, and think that the shadows and echoes of voices may be the real being. But, Socrates questions that if one of the prisoners were to break free and see the whole world, would the prisoners reject his radical ideas and try to kill him? I think that this whole idea is really compelling, and it begs the question that is it better to be aware but be killed or permanently hurt for the knowledge, or it is better to live in harmony and ignorance with everyone else. 

In addition, I think that this whole metaphor relates to the leader follower dynamic, and how sometimes people reject a leader because they are scared of their unique ideas, and the group mentality always wins against an individual. For example. John W. Gardner argues in his novel, Leaders and Followers, that, “leaders must have a capacity for rational problem solving; but they also must have a penetrating intuitive grasp of the needs and moods of followers.” Therefore, I would claim that these articles and videos argue there is a fine line between what they should tell their followers versus what should be kept in the dark to keep the peace and avoid utter chaos.

2 Comments

Although I think that King Charles was very stubborn and let his personal decisions get in the way of his thought process, I believe that Charles did not deserve to die, but argue that his death actually helped his legacy. I think that while Charles backstabbed the Parliament and other members of the government, he was not a tyrant. Yes, he had tyrannical behaviors, but was not thinking of himself at every given second. I think that this is seen during his trial, as it is heavily debated and if he were truly that horrible, there would’ve been no problem killing him immediately. In addition, he was not the first ruler during this time to have selfish motivations, and not the worst the world could’ve had. I also think that they ruled to kill him in a political effort to “win” against King Charles as he publicly put up such a fight. 

While I believe that Charles did not need to be killed, I actually believe it helped the public to see him in a more positive light, as it looked like he was dying for a cause he believed in. King Charles did not need to be executed, and could’ve easily argued his way out of it in the years between the war ending and his actual death. But, I think that part of his appeal is that he died, and the words that he gave before his death. Therefore, in this situation, I not only think that choosing to kill him was the wrong decision, but I think that it helped give Charles fame.

2 Comments

Tyrannicide

Susan Nevin

When I first started the readings on this subject, I had no idea what tyrannicide was. However, once learning that tyrannicide is the killing of a dictator or bad leader, I realized that this is a highly debated topic. I personally believe that yes while getting rid of the figurehead for an evil movement might help to dissipate some of its momentum, I believe that another leader will take his or her place, and that we need to act in other ways to truly get rid of a tyrant or dictator. 

There are many that argue that this is the only way we can truly show that something needs to end, and as Andrade said this idea of seeing a leader killed can be seen all the way back in history, even as far as Julius Caesar. The idea of the utilitarian viewpoint comes into play here, as it claims that one death who caused many is no problem at all. But, as seen with Brutus and Caesar, once you get rid of one tyrant, even more come into play, and more issues arrive. Therefore, while it might make people feel better to see the man die who cause them loads of suffering, in my opinion, all it does is satisfy the need for revenge, but doesn’t solve the issue at hand. 

The only way for us to truly shift the dynamic of a group is to work on its leadership from the inside out, which is something we are still debating, as it is hard to get that access from an outside perspective where we have little control. However, in some cases, like the killing of Hitler, it can cause an empire to crumble, but this is a unique circumstance, and one that has many moral dilemmas.

2 Comments

In this week’s readings, the focus was on charisma, and how that quality helps to create a good leader. According to Ronald Riggio, the word charisma actually dates back to religious movements that include Moses, Jesus, the Buddha, and more. The word charisma is thought to mean a “divine gift from grace,” and those who possess charisma hold a magical quality.  In addition, German sociologist Max Weber believed that those with charisma were able to hold command over people using their charm and likable nature, which he argued would enchant others. When someone has charisma, they are usually also seen as role models, and their followers look up to them in a way they would an older sibling or a parent. A charismatic leader, according to these articles, emulates a certain type of person that many people aspire to be. 

When someone possess charisma, they also possess many other positive traits. When someone is a charismatic leader, they are not always but usually very smart, intelligent, and communicate maturely and effective with their partner. Not everyone possess these traits, therefore when someone does, they usually become a successful leader. People who are charismatic also are very good at making positive first impressions, and therefore have people supporting them and believing in them before it is even needed. However, it is one thing to be a charismatic person, and another to be a charismatic leader.

For someone to lead a group of people, they need to be much more than charming and funny, but need to have the emotional stability and maturity to handle the decisions of a group. To become a charismatic leader, Ronald Riggio believes that it is a combination of choosing to be a leader, and being born to be a leader. Riggio claims that while one may have the qualities needed to be a charismatic leader, one needs to choose to pursue that path, and stay driven and motivation in that direction to succeed and stand out in a crowd.

1 Comment

Leader, Hero, and Role Model

Susan Nevin

Leader: Former President John F. Kennedy

Hero: Chris Kyle, American Sniper Movie Inspiration

Role Model: My parents

Leave a Comment