Posted in Political

Beyond Tokenism, Tribalism, and Wokeism

The issues and consternation we face with Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility aren’t new. Humanity is predisposed to tribalism and discrimination. We like to be around those who are like us….whether race, gender, creed, hobby, or sports team. This country has had an issue with DEIA from its start. The idea that someone gets something to fill a quota rather than being the most qualified just isn’t American.

We stand on a merit-based system. As a country, we have struggled with DEIA laws thrust upon us since post-Civil War reconstruction and especially since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We reject the concept of merit and privilege being replaced with legislation trying to eliminate discrimination because the result is systematic alienization and reverse discrimination.

Diversity is not just a preference; it’s a necessity in business, sports, education, social interaction, and life. The ideas, experiences, prowess, and insights of other nationalities, races, genders, and creeds enrich our lives and country. It’s a vibrant aspect of our nation—a nation of immigrants.

Equity is not equality. It’s about ensuring everyone is on an equal footing. The privileged should not be treated any better or worse than the impoverished, and the rich should not have any more access to political officials than the hoi polloi. The challenge is: How can you ensure equity when the playing field has never been level? None of us start with the same privileges or handicaps. Treating everyone equally only perpetuates and extends inequities. And if you believe the education system and/or medical care in this country is equal for all, you’ll struggle to understand any of this.

We stand on a merit-based system. We reject the idea of nepotism and ‘pay to play’ influence. Right? Yet, we all know the person who got the job because their parent knew someone, had money, or owned the company. We stand on merit, right? I understand the frustration with DEI. I was once told I would hire a specific person for an open, publicly posted position. The job description was unambiguous. Looking at the resume, the new hire didn’t appear to be a good match, but that didn’t matter. Quickly checking my DEI card, I recognized there was, in fact, justification for the hire, regardless of qualification. The new employee was part of an exclusive minority. With a little extra time, patience, and training, the company finally had a good employee. The child of a sitting U.S. Senator allowed us to check a box and have an amazingly unique perspective at break time. Merit didn’t matter then; to some, it doesn’t matter now. Of course, the good-ole-boy, nepotistic system was always so much better in so many ways, right?

Remember that DEI never intended to mean ‘Don’t Ever Integrate.’ It was meant to be a way to give opportunities to all people, not just those with connections. Is the current direction and directives about merit or returning to our country’s quasi-legal racial segregation state? As cop killers and killing cops are pardoned, the answer may already be self-evident. Courage and Be Bold   

#NeverFearTheDream   simplebender.com @simplebender.bsky.social

This was first printed in the Bend Bulletin 1/30/25 titled: Measuring merit and diversity

Posted in NeverFeartheDream

Never Fear The Dream…

The hardest part of any task is simply starting. Take a deep, calming breath and begin. Don’t worry too much about your course—just know your “why”; your “how” will follow.  Don’t hesitate to pause, assess, and adjust your direction if necessary. It’s better to make corrections than to fail. It’s also easier to alter your course at the beginning than near completion. Have patience and faith in yourself—your creativity and focus will rule the day. 25.03

#NeverFearTheDream simplebender.com

Posted in Communication

No Comprehension, Just Digital Skimmers and Clickbait

A-Digit:gettyimages

In our rapidly evolving digital age, we face a critical challenge: a widespread decline in reading comprehension. This isn’t merely about reading less; it’s about how we process and understand information in ways that threaten the foundations of an informed society. Like crossing a pond, hopping from rock to rock, one headline to another, never pondering the depth of the pond.

The modern media landscape has transformed how we consume information. We are now digital skimmers racing through headlines and social media posts without pausing for deeper understanding. Our attention spans have dramatically shortened, trained by endless streams of bite-sized content and algorithmic feeds designed to keep us scrolling. While technology has democratized access to information, it has simultaneously fragmented our ability to process it meaningfully.

When we lose the capacity for deep reading, we sacrifice more than comprehension. We lose the essential tools for critical thinking and reasoned decision-making. Without these, we become vulnerable to misinformation and make snap judgments based on emotional triggers rather than careful analysis. We share articles without reading beyond headlines, allowing confirmation bias to override intellectual curiosity.

The problem extends beyond individual habits. Modern digital platforms, while offering unprecedented access to diverse perspectives, prioritize engagement over substance. Their interfaces exploit psychological vulnerabilities, training our brains to crave constant stimulation. Pressured by collapsing revenue models, traditional media outlets often choose clickbait over quality journalism and editing. The 24-hour news cycle demands speed over accuracy and gore over substance, making it increasingly difficult for nuanced, well-researched stories to find their audience.

Educational systems compound these challenges. Schools focused on standardized testing often prioritize rote memorization over critical thinking skills. Socioeconomic factors are crucial, as reading proficiency strongly correlates with economic status. Cultural stereotypes dismissing reading as uncool or elitist create additional barriers, particularly among young people—the very people we need to have open, inquisitive minds.

The consequences of this decline ripple through every aspect of society. In politics, discourse devolves into sloganeering and tribalism, while voters make decisions based on emotional appeals rather than policy analysis. Business leaders make snap judgments instead of studying data and long-term implications. In healthcare, the inability to comprehend medical literature leaves people vulnerable to pseudoscience, misguided health choices, and misinformation on diagnosis and treatment.

This crisis demands a multifaceted response. While individual efforts to read more deeply and verify information are important, they alone cannot address systemic issues. We need educational reforms that emphasize critical thinking and analysis. Media platforms should reconsider algorithms that prioritize engagement over understanding. News organizations need sustainable models that reward quality journalism. Authors must be succinct and reach their point without much fluff and dithering. Readers need to be able to read above a fifth-grade level.

Reading comprehension isn’t just about processing words. It’s about developing the cognitive tools to understand an increasingly complex world. Losing these capabilities will lessen our ability to engage in reasoned debate, empathize across differences, and make informed decisions about our collective future.

The decline in reading comprehension represents more than an educational challenge; it’s an existential threat to informed democracy and societal progress. While artificial intelligence and other technological advances pose their challenges, the erosion of human capacity for deep understanding and critical analysis may be our most pressing crisis.  #NeverFearTheDream   simplebender.com

Posted in Philosophy

Assessing Leadership: The Search for Quality

How do you assess a leader, or maybe just maybe even yourself? What are the qualities which make any person a good leader or a good person? For each of us the criteria for determination will vary but have similar threads. These are critical times for each of us to evaluate and assess our leaders, want-to-be leaders, and frankly ourselves. A recent Marquette Law School survey showed fifty-seven percent of us have little to no confidence in Congress*. These are our elected representatives and leaders. We should assess them differently.

Think about a few characteristics which can be used to understand if they are making progress in pursuit of being better leaders. Characteristics which we can use to figure out if there is improvement rather than feeling good or feeling satisfied. Decisions on who should be a leader should not be about good feelings, but on tangible qualities.

Ask a few simple questions, these ten might be a good start:

  • Are they criticizing anybody?
  • Are they blaming anybody?
  • Are they accusing anybody?
  • Do they react to criticism and complements the same?
  • When they face obstacles do they find solutions or find fault?
  • When wrong, are they contrite or vengeful?
  • Do they demand loyalty over honesty?
  • Do they say the ‘right things’ or do the right things?
  • Do they look toward the future or dwell on the past?
  • Do they lead through hope or fear?

These are questions we should be asking about those who want to lead. We should be asking ourselves if they are more interested in promoting themselves or our county, state, and country. Are they leaders who bring out the best in all of us, or the worst?

Interestingly, the Greek stoic philosopher Epictetus during his life (50-185 AD) routinely asked many of these questions. He asked them to assess whether he and his students were making progress simply in becoming better people. We can still use them to assess the quality of ourselves and our future leaders.

Every election is an opportunity for each of us to look at the candidates, and ourselves, and ask some hard, yet basic, questions. Elections have consequences. There will not ever be a candidate who will satisfy all of us, on every subject. But there can be candidates who have standards of decency which most of us can appreciate and support. There are those who do lead with vision and recognize to be a world leader you must be an active player in world events and not an isolationist. There are those who do not parse and spin the words and facts for their personal gain or quest to retain power. There are those. We need to find them, support them, and dispose of those who do not genuinely satisfy, at least most of, our expectations of a leader. Never fear the dream of a better political and social system. Face the issues and constructively correct deficiencies, one at a time. #NeverFearTheDream

*MLSPSC18ToplinesRV.knit (marquette.edu)

This was first published in the Bend Bulletin 3/7/24