I was watching the news this morning and the big story was how so many people are up in arms about NBCs opening of the golf tournament yesterday. They are talking about boycotting NBC, NBC apologizing, etc. All because they took the words "under God" out of the opening where a part of it was kids saying the Pledge of Allegiance. My first thought was, "ok if that's what they did, and it was on purpose, some people have the right to be upset about it if they want to".
However, they then played what really happened. It wasn't that just the words "under God" were removed as they are making it seem. Yes, they were the only ones omitted in the first part, in the 2nd part "one nation, under god" was omitted. Are people upset that "One Nation" was omitted... not so much. I don't think it was a slam to God at all. I think they were trying a montage of things, the pledge being one of them and started with a few lines, ended with the last, and the middle was gone. It happens it was the same timing, but not only the "under God". Not just two words.
Why do we always dissect everything to death to the point of calling for apologies or boycotts over everything. Maybe they actually were trying to make a statement. But maybe that statement was that not everyone believes in one God or the same God and they were trying to not offend just one particular group. It is the biggest group, but it isn't the only group. Maybe they were making a statement about our countries supposed religious tolerance. After all, if you go back pre-1954, "under God" wasn't a part of the Pledge. I'm happy to say it when I saw the pledge, but not everyone does. That doesn't make them wrong any more than it makes me right.
Or maybe they weren't trying to do anything at all and it was poor editing. Maybe (as Tim would say), sometimes a smoke is just a smoke.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Saturday, June 18, 2011
The lessons of disappointment
A few years back, I wrote on how schools in our county were thinking of doing away with Valedictorian and Salutatorian awards in our schools. I was crazy about it because the big reasoning seemed to be based on the fact that other students not up for the honor, somehow felt bad for not getting it. That seemed a very crazy reason for the change to me.
So today, my own school district announced it had approved a plan to do away with the distinction. Not surprisingly, they site reasons such as moving to new standards with tiered approach for honors of Summa cum laude, magna cum laude and cum laude so that MORE kids can achieve the honor. However, the underlying theme is, again, "often pits students against each other" while trying to attain the top 2 spots. I say that's a trumped up reason and has been for years. And here's why...
I don't mind them changing the criteria for the top rankings (AP classes should be considered higher than non-AP classes. This would stop the folks that only want to be in the top spots so they take easier classes that they know they can ace. There should be a better weighted ranking then there was in our school district. I'm all for changing those. What I'm not for is even after those changes, they should NOT take away the honor of those that hit those top two spots.
If the real reasoning is so the kids that don't make the honor don't feel bad, then maybe we should spend more time on managing expectations. I have a very clear example of that I can share.
I have a daughter that has been working for years towards and end goal with very specific timing in mind. Her timing was this year. I have done my very best to support her in her goal and even push her to do everything she can to try to achieve it. However, while supporting, I have also counseled that she may not make it. There are rules, there are very specific things that need to be done. And sometimes those things can change along the way. You just never know. If she makes this goal, I will be very proud of her as I know her dedication and hard work that has gone into it. If she doesn't make her goal, will she be disappointed? absolutely. But the true lesson in it will be how she handles that disappointment. And frankly, even if she makes her goal, how she handles that too will be of importance to me. Both of those things show character and her ability to march on.
I believe in setting goals for oneself. But in doing so, you need to also know that there could be disappointment. It comes with the territory. I'd be more concerned if someone didn't have goals just because of the disappointment they'd feel if they didn't achieve them. I have faith in my daughter that she'll be able to do what's required of her. But if she can't for some reason, she can't. And sometimes, even if you can do what's required, that doesn't automatically guarantee success either.
Take the working world for instance. How many times have you seen people apply for jobs that were already pre-determined? They need to post jobs to everyone even if they already know the outcome and know who they want for the job. I've been on both sides of that situation. I've interviewed for jobs I knew I wouldn't get because they had someone in mind for it already. I hated that. Unfortunately, I've been on the other side as well, interviewing for a job that I basically knew would already be mine if I wanted it. Which interview do you think I prepared more for? Competition is good for people. It shows strength, determination, perseverance,etc. However, how people handle disappointment shows important qualities as well.
Everyone can't always win, but everyone will lose at some point in their lives. Teaching kids that they can always be the best is dangerous. We must always support them and their goals, but there comes a time when they should be realistic as well. It's that whole American Idol syndrome we all have to suffer thru each season where the contestant says their family has always told them they were the best. Unfortunately, we get to hear the truth. I'm beginning to wonder if the bigger problem isn't that at a very young age most parents tell their kids "if you try hard you can do anything". Well, that's really not true at all. What we should (and I've always tried to do) is tell them "Do the best that you can do for yourself, don't compete against others, compete against you". And maybe even a little bit more of "not everyone will win, it's how you lose that's important".
So, I'm very disappointed in the decision in Webster today. I believe those top 2 should still get their recognition. I believe that others should learn to be happy for the winners, even if it means you aren't one of them.
So today, my own school district announced it had approved a plan to do away with the distinction. Not surprisingly, they site reasons such as moving to new standards with tiered approach for honors of Summa cum laude, magna cum laude and cum laude so that MORE kids can achieve the honor. However, the underlying theme is, again, "often pits students against each other" while trying to attain the top 2 spots. I say that's a trumped up reason and has been for years. And here's why...
I don't mind them changing the criteria for the top rankings (AP classes should be considered higher than non-AP classes. This would stop the folks that only want to be in the top spots so they take easier classes that they know they can ace. There should be a better weighted ranking then there was in our school district. I'm all for changing those. What I'm not for is even after those changes, they should NOT take away the honor of those that hit those top two spots.
If the real reasoning is so the kids that don't make the honor don't feel bad, then maybe we should spend more time on managing expectations. I have a very clear example of that I can share.
I have a daughter that has been working for years towards and end goal with very specific timing in mind. Her timing was this year. I have done my very best to support her in her goal and even push her to do everything she can to try to achieve it. However, while supporting, I have also counseled that she may not make it. There are rules, there are very specific things that need to be done. And sometimes those things can change along the way. You just never know. If she makes this goal, I will be very proud of her as I know her dedication and hard work that has gone into it. If she doesn't make her goal, will she be disappointed? absolutely. But the true lesson in it will be how she handles that disappointment. And frankly, even if she makes her goal, how she handles that too will be of importance to me. Both of those things show character and her ability to march on.
I believe in setting goals for oneself. But in doing so, you need to also know that there could be disappointment. It comes with the territory. I'd be more concerned if someone didn't have goals just because of the disappointment they'd feel if they didn't achieve them. I have faith in my daughter that she'll be able to do what's required of her. But if she can't for some reason, she can't. And sometimes, even if you can do what's required, that doesn't automatically guarantee success either.
Take the working world for instance. How many times have you seen people apply for jobs that were already pre-determined? They need to post jobs to everyone even if they already know the outcome and know who they want for the job. I've been on both sides of that situation. I've interviewed for jobs I knew I wouldn't get because they had someone in mind for it already. I hated that. Unfortunately, I've been on the other side as well, interviewing for a job that I basically knew would already be mine if I wanted it. Which interview do you think I prepared more for? Competition is good for people. It shows strength, determination, perseverance,etc. However, how people handle disappointment shows important qualities as well.
Everyone can't always win, but everyone will lose at some point in their lives. Teaching kids that they can always be the best is dangerous. We must always support them and their goals, but there comes a time when they should be realistic as well. It's that whole American Idol syndrome we all have to suffer thru each season where the contestant says their family has always told them they were the best. Unfortunately, we get to hear the truth. I'm beginning to wonder if the bigger problem isn't that at a very young age most parents tell their kids "if you try hard you can do anything". Well, that's really not true at all. What we should (and I've always tried to do) is tell them "Do the best that you can do for yourself, don't compete against others, compete against you". And maybe even a little bit more of "not everyone will win, it's how you lose that's important".
So, I'm very disappointed in the decision in Webster today. I believe those top 2 should still get their recognition. I believe that others should learn to be happy for the winners, even if it means you aren't one of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)