Politics Archives | Jared Kuruzovich

Diversity & Difference: Lessons from Junior’s

Jared Kuruzovich — Wed, 16 Mar 2022 05:13:49 +0000

Each day began the same. I woke up and pulled the curtains open, looking across the Manhattan skyline from the 28th floor of the Marriott Marquis. Down on the street directly below my room, the lights at Junior’s Restaurant were already on, inviting me to step back in time. Just like the diners of the ’50s and ’60s, you don’t go to Junior’s only for the food. You go knowing you’ll get great music and a waitress who asks “What can I get you, honey?” while filling up your cup with strong black coffee. What I didn’t expect was that my morning ritual would so strongly resonate with the theme of the Association for the Advancement of International Education conference I was attending, one that called us to examine diversity and difference, and how our institutions and systems both encourage and inhibit these.

In his poignant essay “America Needs a Miracle,” writer Andrew Sullivan details two radically different takes on the state of American society, both of which agree on a fundamental point: the political and social crises we now face in the United States originated in the laws enacted in the 1960s, setting us on what was perhaps an inevitable trajectory. While the Civil Rights Act and Immigration & Nationality Act of 1965 have undoubtedly done great good, they also opened the floodgates. In the decades that followed, the shifts in population and protections for minorities expanded opportunities for many, creating far more diverse communities that often lacked the tools and understanding to easily adapt.

Globalism brought this to a head, amplifying differences not only in ethnicity, but also socioeconomic status. More importantly, it also replicated the tensions and conflicts we faced in other countries around the world. as cultures negatively reacted to unprecedented levels of migration and technological advances, and in turn diversity. In many cases the animosity is grounded in legitimate concerns: job losses, economic inequity and cultural misunderstandings. It’s not an issue of whether our systems were, and are, right or wrong. It’s about acknowledging that they’ve pitted us against one another, creating clans that ultimately define us: liberal and conservative, left and right, black and white, and countless other allegedly diametric opposites.

Sullivan captures this eloquently: “If humans simply cannot help their tribal instincts, then a truly multicultural democracy has a big challenge ahead of it. The emotions triggered are so primal, that conflict, rather than any form of common ground, can spiral into a grinding cold civil war. And you can’t legislate or educate this away.” Yet legislate and educate are precisely what each side has attempted, but with a blunt hammer swung with insults and blame. Through it all we forget that our issue is no longer solely a lack of diversity. It’s the failure to recognize that we all have differences, and that those differences will always exist. We should be seeking to understand these, not using our voices and positions to dominate in a vain attempt to create utopian communities and workplaces.

The opening “un-keynote” of the conference, delivered by Berkeley professor Dacher Keltner, clearly highlighted our shifting understanding of power wielded in this manner. As opposed to the traditional Machiavellian conception based in fear, coercion and force, Keltner argues that we are increasingly understanding how empathy, courage and generosity allow us to more effectively influence others and instigate change. Far from simply being a theory, this stance is grounded in research. From children in a classroom to billionaires on Wall Street, numerous behavioral studies consistently point to the universal way in which those we are most willing to respect and follow draw upon this common set of tools and, crucially, use gratitude and humility to ground themselves as their power grows.

You don’t need to have a title, certificate or public recognition to influence others in this way and bridge differences, a fact reinforced on the final day as Firoozeh Dumas stepped onto the stage. A native of Iran who grew up in the United States just as her country entered the public consciousness through the hostage crisis in 1979, she experienced firsthand the animosity that can arise from national and racial differences.

During our stay in Newport Beach, the Iranian Revolution took place and a group of Americans were taken hostage in the American embassy in Tehran. Overnight, Iranians living in America became, to say the least, very unpopular. For some reason, many Americans began to think that all Iranians, despite outward appearances to the contrary, could at any given moment get angry and take prisoners.

Many of us are fortunate enough to never endure the stares, the questions and the sneers that others grapple with on a daily basis. I suspect for some the reaction would be to lash out in anger, in frustration over being seen as different. Dumas has never held a position of authority, yet through sharing her experiences with humor and grace, she accomplishes far more than most.

The reader’s guide at the end of Funny in Farsi includes an interview, and the grounding for her ability to connect others shines through clearly: “I have always believed that there are far more good people in this world than bad ones and that most people want to be reminded of our shared humanity rather than our differences.” The simplicity of this view belies its powerful sentiment. People change when they have the opportunity to genuinely engage with others, find commonalities and learn to appreciate differences.

This strikes at the core of the issue. We will never build a diversity program that changes every heart and mind. We will never force those who fear difference to embrace others by prescribing accepted behaviors. Glenn Llopis captures this in “Is Diversity, Equity And Inclusion Bringing Us Together, Or Pushing Us Further Apart?” as he points to a simple approach we too often overlook: “It’s not that culture doesn’t matter. Quite the contrary: we’re all shaped by our backgrounds, our families, our upbringings, the environments we grew up in. It makes us who we are. So let’s lead with who we are.”

Sometimes we need simply need to acknowledge our own biases and lack of experience, let go of our urge to control, and be ourselves. More importantly, we must continually provide opportunities within our organizations and communities to connect with one another—without barriers or artificial structures—as unique individuals with our own experiences, beliefs and values. Listen, reflect, accept…and always maintain a healthy sense of humor. This absolutely will not rectify the collective mistakes of our past nor address every lingering challenge, but it’s a start.

Each day the conference began the same for me, but every breakfast at Junior’s was unique. Sometimes a regular settled on a stool, greeted by name and a “How you doin’?”. The staff would call out to each other across the room, mixing Spanish and English as they watched tennis matches on the widescreen television. Tourists ambled in, adding Mandarin, Japanese and other languages to the clamor. In the world we now live in, diversity is often more easily found than in the past. It increasingly surrounds us, from the towering skyscrapers of New York to the quiet hills of northern Thailand. Differences present a greater challenge. They provoke, needling us with discomfort and unease. But that’s why they are so important to acknowledge and accept.

Our natural tendency is to withdraw, falling back to the familiar. Only by embracing the differences that diversity brings, with openness and humility, do we push ourselves into a state of learning. We don’t always need more laws, programs or initiatives to do this; those already exist and have for many years. Perhaps sometimes the answer is simpler. Whether in our schools, social structures or workplaces, we need to begin purposefully providing more opportunities to explore difference. Crucially, these need to happen naturally. They emerge from sharing our stories and our hopes, from the everyday moments that we experience with one another, tempered with humor and empathy. Perhaps we all simply need to practice compassionate leadership, no matter the scale.

It was my third visit, and the harmonies of The Mamas and the Papas floated effortlessly through the room. Setting the full plate in front of me, the Latina waitress asked, “Can I get you anything else, sweetie?” Another stood by waiting to refill my cup while the white-haired man, a Vietnam veteran, behind the counter threw a towel over his shoulder and set down a jam holder. “Look at this. You got three people to wait on you!”, he joked in his Brooklyn accent. Just a few minutes earlier, he had been exchanging barbs with a black coworker, an immigrant who had thrown an arm around him, bantering about green cards and walls. The old man sighed. “Yeah, we’re gonna build a wall…to keep you in!” His coworker—and friend—walked away, prompting him to throw up his hands. “You see what I have to put up with?!”, he exclaimed. A smile tugged at the corner of his lips as he went back to work.

The post Diversity & Difference: Lessons from Junior’s appeared first on Jared Kuruzovich.

You’re a Doody Head: Debate & Rhetoric in Modern Society

Jared Kuruzovich — Wed, 11 Jul 2018 02:59:35 +0000

Should I respond or not? I mentally shifted gears several times, veering between amusement and annoyance. Several weeks before, I had read an opinion piece in The Nation, one of the most prominent newspapers in Thailand, which claimed that the international school that the writer’s children attended performed poorly in teaching STEM subjects. In his view this resulted directly from the school’s reluctance to hire non-Western teachers (who were deemed as superior in those areas), and he claimed “it is the same in all international schools in Thailand.” A few days later, a second submission took the claim a step further, decrying the hiring of teachers with “mere elementary education degrees” and declaring that those with science and engineering backgrounds (the “smartest graduates”) would be better equipped to teach English.

Neither of the opinion pieces presented evidence to support their claims, nor did they consider the highly varied nature of international schools in Thailand. Being an educator who has worked in the field for over a decade, and someone who simply doesn’t like to let misconceptions rest, I penned a response, What (some) international schools are doing right, systematically addressing each of the points that had been raised. Not all international schools are the same. Many do hire non-Western teachers, including my own. Educational research has consistently shown that trained teachers using pedagogical approaches that incorporate conceptual understandings and inquiry have the greatest impact in the long term. Universities and employers indicate that they want graduates with greater soft skills, not solely technical expertise.

To me, this type of discourse is natural. A claim is made. Evidence is assessed. An argument is presented. But then the Google alert arrived in my inbox. A reply to the brief article I had written was posted, beginning with the equivalent of a schoolyard taunt:

“I think Jared Kuruzovich urgently needs the services of an Asian teacher who could teach him to write concisely. His grandiloquent essay was a big yawn.”

Never mind the irony of using the term grandiloquent (and the racist connotations that the writer claimed to be standing against). At no point was evidence presented to back the original claims. At no point was it mentioned that those claims in both his article and the subsequent one did not align with research, surveys of universities and employers, and standardized test data. At no point were the counterarguments addressed.

It all boiled down to essentially calling me a pretentious doody head.

In 2008 noted programmer and entrepreneur Paul Graham wrote an essay on his website, How to Disagree, that detailed the deterioration of discourse on the internet. The points he raised over a decade ago are more salient than ever, easily evidenced by the comments section on Yahoo! or any other major online news outlet. We relish disagreement, but we have increasingly lost the ability to present our opinions in a cogent, reasoned manner.

Graham broke this down into the Hierarchy of Disagreement, with name calling and ad hominem attacks occupying the lowest tiers and direct refutation representing the most effective approach. Despite the obvious importance of methodically analyzing and responding to evidence when debating or simply arguing, consider how rare this often is even for politicians and everyday citizens. We resort to labels, whether liberal, conservative, extremist, intellectual, redneck or many far less eloquent terms.

These kinds of insults are nothing new and have been present in debate from the time of the Greek philosophers. But the age of mass media has impacted us in ways we could not have fully foreseen. Conclusive figures are difficult to gather, but we do know that the prevalence of reading has been in steady decline, while the amount of time spent on smartphones and other technology continues to rise. Though the internet has made information more accessible than ever, a gradual trend toward media snippets and sound bites has created a culture of instant gratification, and in the process the patience required to read even an essay or listen to a reasoned debate has been lost.

I dread the future of society if people believe a 1,137 word article is too long. I cringe when the use of rhetoric is equated with pretentiousness. I sigh in exasperation when I hear pundits hurling insults of libtard, radical and elitist. What does it say about our collective intelligence and ability to reason if we cannot consider the views of others and the evidence they offer, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with it? We instead celebrate mediocrity and cheer for name calling. It’s simply easier to ignore, to insult and to dehumanize. And in the process we slowly lose the our ability to reason and, more importantly, to impact others.

One of the clearest examples of this shift away from intellectual debate and rhetoric is seen in the vast differences between American presidents. George W. Bush infamously carried the contest of which candidate voters would prefer to have a beer with in 2004 and, despite being an intelligent person, continued to make headlines for putting his foot in his mouth. When Barack Obama became president in 2008, a common refrain was that he was too intellectual, and the election of Donald Trump in some respects felt like a reactionary call to arms as many voters rejected a style of leadership they labeled as arrogant.

What felt like a sharp contrast between Bush and Obama became a gaping chasm when comparing Obama and Trump. While Obama embraced the nuances and complexities of issues, and openly addressed them with deliberate oratory techniques, Trump’s patterns of speech throw all the rules out the window. His stream-of-consciousness approach is punctuated by pauses as crowds cheer and exhibit virtually no logical structure or a desire to incorporate evidence for his wild statements. Excerpts from their speeches say far more than I can:

The genius of our founders is that they designed a system of government that can be changed. And we should take heart, because we’ve changed this country before. In the face of tyranny, a band of patriots brought an Empire to its knees. In the face of secession, we unified a nation and set the captives free. In the face of Depression, we put people back to work and lifted millions out of poverty. We welcomed immigrants to our shores, we opened railroads to the west, we landed a man on the moon, and we heard a King’s call to let justice roll down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream.

Each and every time, a new generation has risen up and done what’s needed to be done. Today we are called once more – and it is time for our generation to answer that call. For that is our unyielding faith – that in the face of impossible odds, people who love their country can change it. That’s what Abraham Lincoln understood. He had his doubts. He had his defeats. He had his setbacks. But through his will and his words, he moved a nation and helped free a people. It is because of the millions who rallied to his cause that we are no longer divided, North and South, slave and free. It is because men and women of every race, from every walk of life, continued to march for freedom long after Lincoln was laid to rest, that today we have the chance to face the challenges of this millennium together, as one people – as Americans.

Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart—you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s true!—but when you’re a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it’s four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.

Ideological differences aside, there is a clear difference between these two men in style and an even clearer divide in their ability to present a reasoned argument. Trump is notorious for attacking and denigrating others, building his case by belittling opponents rather than relying on clear, reasonable arguments and evidence to support his views. His approach is replicated thousands, if not millions, of times every day across the internet. Yet as Graham pointed out in his essay, “if you have something real to say, being mean just gets in the way.”

The bottom line is that constructing a logical, reasoned argument does not make a person pompous. Intelligence should not be portrayed as a character flaw, and using effective rhetoric should be celebrated in the same way that we celebrate good writing in literature and film. When we take the time to listen to the views of others, consider their arguments and present a logical response, we’re giving them the same respect that we want to be treated with. Unfortunately, it appears that incivility is not going away, as many now celebrate the online culture of insults, particularly within American politics.

I for one think that if making a polite, reasoned case for my views makes me a grandiloquent doody head, I’ll take it.

The post You’re a Doody Head: Debate & Rhetoric in Modern Society appeared first on Jared Kuruzovich.

Understanding the World of Donald Trump

Jared Kuruzovich — Wed, 09 Nov 2016 15:51:29 +0000

“No two persons ever read the same book.”

― Edmund Wilson

Last night a notoriously outspoken entrepreneur and former reality television star became the leader of the United States of America, the most powerful country on Earth. How did we reach this point? Why have we seemingly lost our path, however we each interpret those missteps? When did we begin to differ so radically in our views of our country, and of the world at large? I live in Thailand, where everyone I know views Trump with dismay, confusion or—at best—amusement. Though I do not believe him to be capable, or even a good person, I recognize the appeal he holds for so many. After all, I came from the idealistic world of Donald Trump—the America he so often depicted in his campaign.

Growing up as a child in Wisconsin, I attended a small elementary school that had perhaps a hundred students. Nearly every face was white, excluding the single Hmong girl whose family had settled in the area. My parents, along with several other families, founded an evangelical Christian church that largely defined my early years. I distinctly recall being unable to understand why my peers could support a “radical liberal” like Bill Clinton during our middle school mock election. Many in my high school class dropped out or at the very least did not go on to university. In short, the course of my life as a white male in a small Wisconsin town could have placed me within the 60% of voters in my county who just supported Trump.

That traditional, sheltered experience profoundly changed in 2001. While my family and friends woke on September 11th and soon saw planes striking the World Trade Center, I heard of the attack as I sat on a sofa in Dalkeith Palace in Scotland. An event that altered the course of my country—and arguably sparked a renewed trend toward isolationism—felt distant and disconnected from an ocean away. I moved in the opposite direction. That first experience overseas fostered a hunger to explore more of the world.

I settled in Bangkok nearly ten years ago after traveling around the globe. My wife is a Thai Buddhist, my best friend an Indian atheist, and I work at a school with students who represent over 50 nationalities. Yet the young, conservative boy from Wisconsin is still in me in many respects. I still believe in the veracity of Christianity, both intellectually and at a more visceral level. Though my home is one of the largest cities in Asia, I sometimes crave the isolation and slow pace of rural Wisconsin. My life has woven together the conservative and liberal, both worldviews that seemingly perplex and enrage the other.

Which is more valid? Each time I return to my hometown, I am always struck by the eerie sense of how much it has stayed the same. The idealistic lens I once viewed it through no longer exists for me, yet for many I grew up with, it is the only home they have ever known. Their daily lives, their concerns, their worries and their values are far removed from my own in Thailand. Is the support of Trump by so many there a mistake? Is it a reflection of our now differing perspectives?

The bottom line is that I do not know. It’s easy to lay blame for the perceived failings of our government and country. Ridicule Trump supporters for being ignorant, racist and sexist. Rail against Clinton supporters for being elitist and arrogant. Curse the Democrats for not nominating Bernie, who may—or may not—have succeeded where she failed. Condemn the Republicans for continually blocking Obama. Berate Obama in turn for failing to follow through in many of his optimistic promises. Revile liberals for being immoral and self-indulgent. Laugh at conservatives for being uninformed and judgmental.

Blame religion, blame atheism, blame gays, blame blacks, blame whites, blame everyone but ourselves.

The challenge we face is our collective inability to critically examine our own worldviews and recognize how they may not reflect the opinions, values and very lives of others—and that they never will. Until we begin to listen and honestly engage with those other viewpoints, and seek to understand their foundation, we will continue to foster a reactive society that generates conflict and animosity, and gives strength to individuals who will capitalize on our fears. Our government will continue to fail us as we feed into a culture that categorizes us in neatly defined demographics.

As someone who has gradually become more liberal over time and has benefited from the increasing globalization of the past few decades, I often forget that my experiences are deeply different from many I grew up with, as well as others across the United States. Just as I must often take a deep breath and remind myself that I bring my own preconceptions and cultural baggage when working in a highly diverse school, the same is true when interacting with fellow Americans who perceive the world in a profoundly different way.

Democrats, liberals and progressives must resist the impulse to lash back against Trump’s success, precisely because it is that unwillingness to engage with conservatives that enabled the gradual shift to the right. Only by actively seeking out and interacting with those who disagree with us will we ever begin to understand their concerns, fears and questions, and begin to bridge the gaps.

The very word liberal means open-minded and tolerant, yet collectively how tolerant have we been of those who hold particular religious beliefs? How accepting are we of those who believe in an absolute ethical standard? How willing are we to accept dissension, without ridicule, from those who may not share our views? By failing to hold ourselves to our own standards, we make the progressive worldview appear hypocritical or even dangerous to those who do not understand or agree with it.

Similarly, Republicans and conservatives—particularly those who see Trump as a leader who will enrich America—must recognize that most of the world, and indeed a majority of their peers, have changed. As I sat in my office today, colleagues from Finland, Canada, Thailand and other countries around the world stopped by and called, each asking about the election. With quiet incredulity, they expressed concern for the future, questioning how they will feel the impact of Trump’s presidency.

This interconnectedness and diversity is the reality of our modern world, and it will not go away no matter how much we wish for a return to an America that arguably has never existed. Our policies, for good and ill, affect lives around the globe, and we must begin to recognize that we do have a responsibility as the most powerful nation to more carefully consider the massive impact of our actions, and accept our many failings. More importantly, we must begin to recognize that there is no going back, and that even if we try, the world will move on without us.

Despite having lived through riots, bombings and a coup (as well as at least one bus on fire) in my travels and in Thailand, to me most of the world is not unfamiliar or frightening. It is not dominated by terrorists or by lazy immigrants seeking handouts. The interactions I’ve had with most people I have met, from the United States to Italy to Egypt to Thailand, have revealed the opposite: shared hopes, joys and experiences that bind us together. I see the world as a fundamentally good place, filled with people who have more commonalities than differences and are simply seeking a better life.

American politics has become defined through our negative perceptions of the opposing views. We have been too quick to assume, too quick to judge and too quick to accuse. We label those different from us as irrational and foolish, or even dangerous, yet are far too willing to ignore our own preconceptions and rationalizations. Through our insistence on bending others to our viewpoints, we have alienated one another. We taunt, we scream, we fight and we block.

We all created the void that Trump filled, and we all share a responsibility for whatever he may bring into it.

Shortly after writing this, I saw this video being shared by a friend on Facebook. Though I disagree with some portions of it, comedian/actor Tom Walker (as Jonathan Pie) accurately pegs many of the points I was trying to raise…though perhaps with a little more profanity. In attempting to vilify the opposition, we plant the seeds of our own losses.

“Being offended doesn’t work anymore. Throwing insults doesn’t work anymore. The only thing that works is…bothering, doing something, and all we have to do is engage in the debate, talk to people who think differently to you and persuade them of your argument. It’s so easy, and the left have lost the art.”

The post Understanding the World of Donald Trump appeared first on Jared Kuruzovich.