Leadership and the Humanities Class Blog Posts

The Race Card: Observations on Race, Identity, and Inclusion 11/12 – Michele Norris 

  I really enjoyed getting to see and learn from Mrs. Norris (Peabody Award-winning Journalist, Founder of The Race Card Project, and Author of The Grace of Silence). I first learned about Mrs. Norris in the Sharp Viewpoint Speaker Series in a WCGA meeting weeks prior. How to have constructive, meaningful conversations about race is a skill that I have developed much deeper at my time at UR and am still developing. 

I really liked Mrs. Norris’s talk as it brought to light new perspectives and suggested productive ways to approach conversations about race with people who have opposing views to oneself in a productive way. She explains that it is never beneficial to tell someone you feel that their viewpoints and understandings are WRONG and then attempt to educate them on what you believe is right- that is not productive because people get defensive or become more close-minded to what you are trying to say for the simple reason that YOU were just closed-minded to what they were saying. She explained that you must recognize that their truth is real and logical to them and the only way to have a mature conversation is to first hear them out; she says to listen, you do not have to agree- but acknowledge how they feel because dismissing their truth is not productive. She addresses that she is aware this can be challenging when someone’s truth is hurtful to you but having the tools necessary to have a productive conversation about it is the only chance for change.

 

A main point of hers was that looking at everyone is the only way to look at race. Dismissing opposing mindsets is almost counterproductive in the long run. She uses the metaphor that bridges are held together and able to remain standing and functional only when there is tension form to forces holding it up. 

Leave a Comment

About a couple weeks ago I attended a talk for my Russian class called; Putin’s Nostalgia for the Soviet Union and it was run by Paul Josephson. It was super interesting and made me think about how similar Trump is to Putin. During the talk, Josephson kept mentioning that Putin was a charismatic leader just like many would say Trump is. He said that Putin is very infatuated with his appearance stood out to me the most. There are numerous pictures on the internet of him doing exotic things to make him appear perfect. He is pictured taming things in the wild and refers to himself as the “tiger whisperer”. I thought this was really weird and I would be amazed if a president in America ever did this. I don’t think Trump cares about his appearance as much as Putin but like Putin, Trump attracts some extremists. The youth have a cult-like love for Putin and I think we see this in some youth in America for Trump as well. Overall I enjoyed the talk and learned a lot more about Russia then I knew before.

Leave a Comment

One of the events I went to was a slave burial ritual. The event took place at a famous slave burial site under a bridge  on October 17, 2019. When I first arrived they gave me a pair of headphones to wear throughout the event. We listened to music that didn’t sound like music we listen to nowadays. There were also other people who were part of the event playing instruments like the drums. Right before the event started a lady who had what looked like a smoking torch was performing some sort of cleansing act by waving the smoke around the people attending the event. When the event started the people were all dressed and white and they started by looking up at other people dressed in white on the bridge. The people on the bridge were pointing and looking in the air. I wasn’t sure what was going on at this point. They then proceeded to start what looked like ritualistic behavior under the bridge. They carried this behavior all the way around the opposite side of the bridge and up the stairs around the corner. The behavior consisted of dancing and switching focus to other people dancing. The experience was very interesting and looking forward to going to more.

Leave a Comment

In the beginning of the year I went to a play called Appropriate and it was a very interesting play. The setting was an old farm house in a rural area in Kansas. The play started as a man and his girlfriend sneaking into their parents old house. His siblings are also in the house and he ends up finding them there. When one of the kids finds a picture of dead black people in an old photo album the family starts to be really suspicious of the picture. Then later in the play one of the characters finds human remains in a hidden place and the family freaks out. They soon find out that the house used to be a slave plantation and the theme of racism is presented. It was interesting to see the theme of racism be applied to a family that has learned about slavery and to understand that in their past they have had ancestors that were slaveholders.

Leave a Comment

Michelle Norris came to speak about her initiative “Race Card Project”. It is a 6 word identity exercise that forces people to dive into the deepest but most simplistic form of their identity. It was an amazing talk to listen to and to participate in. One of the most iconic things that she addressed was the melting pot theory. She said that the US is diverse and is unique because of it. There is a large mix of cultures that each group takes immense pride in. Why would we want to mix up everything that each of us identifies by? Instead Norris suggests that we build bridges. Instead of trying to pour my ideas onto someone and to make them believe it, through education and enlightenment I will teach others about my identity. Through this process we will build bridges across cultures and identity and educate people around us while we also learn. This is the first process required before we can earn equality because it requires awareness. However, before awareness can be attained people must be willing to teach and equally as willing to learn.

Leave a Comment

This play was amazing. There were many parallels between the end of the era slavery and the racial tensions that exists today. The author did an amazing job writing for the characters that played slaves and showing that they were multifaceted. I loved the character dynamic of Simon who refused to blindly align with the restrictions applied to him through slavery.

After the play ended there was a talk back where the playwright answered questions about the play and ideas behind some of his decisions. The audience addressed their discomfort in the presence of domestic abuse between the two married slaves throughout the play. People questioned why even black writers portray black people as aggressive and violent in the media made by and for people of color. A gentleman challenged the validity and accuracy of this relationship. Black men are not animals and not all abusive so why do we continue to perpetuate the presence these tendencies and stereotypes in the media as if it is true.

I heard these concerns but at the same time do not disagree with its presence in the play. It was not uncommon to find domestic abuse in this era because of how prevalent violence was in the everyday life of marginalized groups during this time period. Domestic abuse did not become as taboo and cautioned until recently. This is not to say that white men are not abusive too and I do agree that black men are very frequently villainized in the media but Pure Confidence was accurate. It depicted an accurate story for someone somewhere which is not to be generalized across an entire race of people. Pure Confidence is a story that needed to be told.

Leave a Comment

On November 21st I went to see the play Hamilton at the Altria Theater. This play was about the timeline of Hamilton’s life from the time he worked under President George Washington to the time he was in a standoff with Alexander Burr. Hamilton began as an immigrant who wasn’t very wealthy, simply looking for a chance to show his talent. Eventually, once Washington discovered his talent, he was employed as a writer for the American Revolution. However, he wanted to be on the field at war with the soldiers. It angered Hamilton further when the leader that Washington put at the front line was incompetent. Eventually, Hamilton was given his opportunity or his “shot” as he kept saying in the play but soon realized 1) he was better with writing and 2) his family was suffering with him never being at home. A major part of his life that was emphasized was his writing of the Federalist papers. The play noted that although he worked with John Adams and James Madison he ended up writing most of the papers because that is how strongly he believed in creating a foundation for the new country that was free. Apart from his role in the politics and forming of America, the play went into Hamilton’s family life and discussed his love interests in Angelica and Eliza, the Schuyler sisters. In addition, the play also went into his love affair with another woman while he was working abroad–exposing each part of his life even down to his flaws.

The part I enjoyed the most about the play was the ending when the focus shifted slightly from Hamilton to Burr. After the stand-off where Hamilton and Burr both stood in the circle and Burr shot Hamilton, the narration described that because of this moment Burr is seen as the villain in history. All of his accomplishments and the work that he did for the country were overshadowed by this one moment which he admitted himself was juvenile of him but at the time he could not see that. All he saw was an opportunity to get rid of his opponent which he took advantage of. I appreciated and liked the fact that this was included in the play because it showed a part of history that isn’t often discussed– instead of simply referring to Burr as Hamilton’s killer we were able to get an inside view on what actually happened to Burr after the shooting (he was hated by everyone) and that he himself regretted the action but knew no better.

Leave a Comment

Williamson mentions the common argument made that it does not matter which side— Red Republicans or Blue Democrats— wins elections because not much change takes place anyway. As a result, people are willing to vote for whichever side and whoever represents that side to shake things up a bit. This instance definitely took place during the 2016 election season. Many people thought it was pointless to vote because they either believed their voice did not matter, both political parties and their candidates were corrupt anyway, or neither candidate was good enough to take on the position and title of president. Some American voters knew it would be a huge risk to vote in either Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton. Although Clinton won the popular vote, Trump’s popular vote amount was not too far behind in numbers. It only makes sense that some people were willing to take such a big risk in voting for Trump because the policies and practices that he promised to the American people were outrageous. People were willing to risk Trump taking the presidency because his ideas were so out-of-the-box, so extraordinarily controversial.

Would the abolition of the electoral college allow for a more fair and practical application of democracy in the United States? I’m thinking, surely, if the pick for president was solely based on the popular vote then we would have gotten the chance to witness history— the first woman to be elected president— much, much sooner. This may also be where the dissatisfaction with “democracy” comes in for numerous people. The U.S. totes the title of democracy way more than it practices democracy. The American people wanted something different (a more overt, blunt, and emboldened manner to practice racism), so they did something different by allowing a bold racist to grab hold of the executive office.

McFarland strongly urges for leadership to take on a new definition, one in which leaders are supposed to encourage others to reach their best potentials to eventually become leaders themselves, or “facilitate excellence in others.” For this approach to work, leaders must throw out the old and embrace the new, avoid limiting themselves. Some of McFarland’s points about redefining leadership remind me of discussions from earlier on this semester about whether or not leadership is an innate or learned quality. The two outstanding points, everyone is a leader and the best can be brought out in everyone, speaks to this memory. I believe everyone may not have the potential to lead at the forefront in popular/mainstream ways, such as pastoring, social justice activism, being president, being a government official, etc. Yet, each person has a unique set of potential in something that they are good at, and therefore, they can be a leader in that category. A young kid may not have to be president to be a leader. But maybe the kid would be good at making pottery and have the potential to practice leadership in the art world.

2 Comments

In this discussion Joshua B. Kaplan discusses the Electoral college and potential reforms to this seemingly broken system. He boils it down to essentially two different cases if we would like to reform the institution. He says it is “the devil we know” or something with seen and unforeseen consequences that would completely change how a president is elected for better or for worse. He then for the majority of the talk talks about potential reforms and discusses the known consequences and the questions each proposed reform asks about future elections.

In regards to leadership the electoral college is an interesting factor in how we chose leaders and subsequently view our own power as leaders within the community. the most interesting thing Dr. Kaplan discussed to me was the popular vote system, it never occured to me that politicians would literally just hit up 5 or 6 states no matter their political affiliation. I just always assumed that the campaign system would always remain the same.

Leave a Comment

I just watched Raymond O. Arsenault’s lecture titled “Courage and Civility.” He talks about the life of Richmond born Arthur Ashe, who has been the focus of much of Arsenault’s career. Today, Arthur Ashe is remembered as one of the greatest tennis players of all time. However, Arsenault argues that Ashe is one of the “greatest Americans of all time.” Ashe’s impact as a civil rights advocate and activist against AIDS transcends his tennis career.

In 1968, Ashe won the first US open. During the same year, he was in uniform at West Point. Jefferson Roberts, a black minister in D.C., invited Ashe to speak in church. Although it was his first time speaking in public, Ashe became inspired to speak out against race matters, and motivated other athletes to do the same. We are no longer in the defined civil rights era, but that doesn’t mean that the fight for civil rights in our country has ended. The legacy of Arthur Ashe lives on as a model of a man who was able to leverage his platform in order to change the world.

Leave a Comment

In the reading, “Redefining leadership in the Next Century” McFarland talks about some points that were very interesting to me like when he talks about how he believes that everyone can be a leader it made me think of leaders and that they are after all just a normal person and that anyone can be a leader. The one thing that needs to change is the perception of who can become a leader he says in the reading. This made a lot of sense to me because when he describes the typical leader that is what I think of when I think of a leader. The typical leader figure that we all think it to be which is the autocratic, militaristic model empowering model.

He starts to say that this is the first step in changing how we think of leaders nowadays. He also starts to talk about what qualities leaders in the 21st century should have to be successful. He first states that leaders should have the ability to inspire others and bring out the best in them. I agree that this is true with all leaders so that if you want to be a successful leader than you should bring out the best in people. One thing I noticed is that he said most of your results come from the people themselves which was an interesting viewpoint. I would think that if you were a leader advocating for a change then seeing changes in the government side would be the best place for results. All in all I liked his arguments and viewpoints regarding leadership.

8 Comments

The article by Williamson was extremely interesting and brought to the surface some important content. The point that he made about how we must correct our past before we can move forward as country was very crucial to our day and age. The fact that racial bias is still occurring and has been practically since slavery is outrageous. Today we still have talks about racism and the topic gets circulated quite a bit but for some reason as a country we have not solved our problem and we are still having racist attitudes towards people who aren’t in deserving of it. His point really resonated with me because before I also know that you should move on from your mistakes with a lesson learned but never really thought of a bigger setting such as America. In a bigger setting, it is crucial to be able to go to the past and grab things in which need to be fixed in order to move forward in an efficient way. 

All in all, from both articles, the main points made find a way to focus on the strength of a community. For example the problems exemplified in Williamson’s article are in desperate need of a leader in which McFarland portrays. For a great idea or movement to be expressed to the full capacity a great leader needs to be able to compassionately get through the followers and make room for all people with all walks of life. 

5 Comments

Earlier this semester I attended the play held on campus, Appropriate. Appropriate was a very interesting show. The setting was a living area in a plantation house. Frank, who is the first character introduced in the play, has a dead father who was the owner of the house. Frank also has two other siblings, Bo and Tony.  Bo, is also at the house with his wife Rachel and their two kids. One of their kids discovers what Rachel says is pictures of “dead black people” and the other child discovers old body parts and bones being preserved in jars. This brings up one of the themes of the show which is racism. I think this play brought up a heavy topic in an interesting and creative way. It exposes horrible things from the past and brings them to the present. It reminds me of how our campus has a heavy connection with slavery. To buildings being named after slave owners, and our campus having the site of a salve graveyard. 

Leave a Comment

There are some qualities of leadership that will always remain constant, however, there are also some that must change with the times. The way leaders lead must always evolve based on their environment and what situations they are being put in. Leaders must also be flexible as what may work for one leader, won’t work for another. McFarland gives examples of some old beliefs that must be revised to form new habits. “If I’m the boss, I’m supposed to have all the answers. If I’m the boss, I’m not supposed to make any mistakes” (457). This type of thinking puts leaders on a pedestal and if followers start to believe in this, they begin to idolize these leaders. You need to reinvent and both the organization and the leaders, not just one or the other.

 

There are six different themes that emerge from this reading. The first is that “leadership is no longer the exclusive domain of the ‘boss at the top'” (458). Leaders are not the only ones in an organization who are responsible for leading. Followers are also given the opportunity and have the obligation to lead as well. The second is that “The new leader must facilitate excellence in others” (458). This reminds me of the transformational leadership we learned in class earlier in the semester. The third is looking for “The distinction between leadership and management” (458). It is important to be able to differentiate between the two as leaders have people who follow them while managers have people who work for them. The fourth looks further into “the newly emerging, sensitive, and humanistic dimension to leadership” (458). There has been a shift recently towards being more empowering and bring the best out of people, getting tied back to the second theme. The fifth is concerned with “the growing need for leaders to take a holistic approach, embracing a wide variety of qualities, skills, and capabilities” (458). Like many occupations, leaders have to be very well-rounded and have many qualities that span across many different fields. The last is “a mastery over change… predicting and redirecting change before it comes up” (458-459). Leaders should be open to change and embrace it, not try to stick to the status quo.

6 Comments

In the article “Beyond Red and Blue” by Thad Williamson, the fact that Democracy is failing is focused on, and addresses the things that people need to do in order to save it. I found that the point that our nation really needs to work on is the moral humility/ courage point. Williamson states that he means “awareness of the possibility that however deep one’s convictions, one might be wrong, that others views may have morally decent reasons for holding the views they hold” when talking about moral humility (p 7). I think that this is so important to our nation today due to the intense polarization between political parties, that impact how much our government can get done. People are so caught up in the mentality that the only right way is there way, and nobody will hear out the other side. This is key to Democracy, the art of compromising.

I find it very interesting how Williamson not only outlines what people should do to save and make Democracy better, but also discusses the problems that have led to the majority of the people’s frustration and dissatisfaction with the government today. Our political system is hyper competitive, and it makes it so the people in charge are not meeting the demands or needs of the people, instead they are trying to make sure their side stays on top. I think that this is a huge problem, and a major reason why people don’t really care about politics anymore because it’s about seeing who can get the farthest, not about who can do the most for the people, and I think that that is sad.

3 Comments

I thought this essay was very interesting. It brought up food points about democracy and the state of our government today. I found it very interesting that he brought up how our government has changed over the years and is not as efficient as it use to be.

The government today is very polarized. This is a problem when someone tries to pass legislation. I found the comparison of the political parties to sports team very effective because it seems like each side is trying to win now, not help the people out. I agree that in order to have a better government and society there needs to be change. Our democracy was created in a different state of society and changes need to be made. We can not live in the past and except it to work for the future.

2 Comments

In this reading the author touched on some interesting aspects of democracy.  The part that was most interesting to me is when Williamson talked about the three civic virtues. He says the three civic virtues are awareness of others, a sense of fairness and fair play, and the ability to find the right balance between moral humility and moral courage. I like how he then breaks down each virtue and explains why people need to know them and understand them for a democratic society to work. After reading his in depth description of each virtue, I agree that those things are needed for a democratic society to function.

Out of the three civic virtues, the one I found the most interesting was having moral humility/courage. I also think this is one that a lot of people in today’s society do not possess. The requirement of this virtue is the ability for a person to somewhat have an understanding to other people’s views even if they are opposing views. Most people have a set view of their own and if it’s not their belief then it’s just wrong all together.

3 Comments

I found the article by Williamson to be very interesting. The points made about how we need to first deal with our past, especially in terms of racial bias, was very accurate because we do still see race come up as some kind of inequality in America to this day. Bringing this point in with the leadership article, the difference between management and leadership is something I didn’t think about really but now that I am aware of it, it makes sense. It’s one thing to just tell people what to do but it’s another to have the skill of leading people to do better, and that’s the kind of service we need in our democratic state when dealing with these issues unsolved.

Overall, I think one of the main points from both articles is to focus on some kind of community strength because the issues brought up by Williamson need leaders in this new perspective given by McFarland. Leaders who understand human emotion and are sensitive and all that need those skills in order to bring people up and our government needs to work on equality of the people since, from the example of the founding documents, the people are the ones who should be the true leaders.

5 Comments

Williamson makes several great points about the origins of the Constitution of the United States in contrast with our reality. He talks about how the things mentioned in the constitution sound great but has never truly been enacted. All of these desires may have been the poor English white man’s dream which brewed inspiration to go and seek out a better life. However, to do so the “founding fathers” took those same realities from another group of people to promote their agenda and then reframed the picture to make themselves look good.

I love that Williamson talked about the definition and reality of the word democracy that the US claims so proudly. It requires “sense and fairness” and “democracy is not a form of government that guarantees justice.” Williamson also explains that when this equality is missing from the idea of democracy, doors are opened to constant grievances, moral resentment, social rancor, and social instability.”  In order to truly fix our government and create a nation that is what it has pretended to be for centuries, we must all be educated on the past. Everyone needs to learn the truth about the past and present horrors that exist in our country. You can never fix a broken pipe if no one ever acknowledges that it was broken. And it would equally as unwise to fix the pipe without investigating and finding out what caused it to burst in the first place. We need to fix the root cause and replace the pipe and we need to stop pretending like the pipe is not broken. Only after we acknowledge this will we be anywhere close to a truly democratic government that grants its people life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

5 Comments