Some thoughts on… Jumping In

Two weeks in Kenya and Tanzania with seven days and six nights of safari provides fascinating insight into animal behavior. The vacation, with our friends Jerry, Wai, Rishi and his mother, was through Nairobi, Mombasa, Ngorongoro Crater, Northern Serengeti and Zanzibar.

After days of viewing surreal landscape, taking in breathtaking vistas, and engaging with wildlife, it’s natural to reflect on how similar human interaction is to animals - lionesses protecting their cubs; ostriches strutting to attract a mate; hippos lying on top of each other in the water. The most striking interaction for us though was watching the migration of wildebeest. Due to annual rain patterns, wildebeest migrate over the vast plains of the Serengeti from central Tanzania up to southern Kenya and then back down. On their journey they follow greener grasses to the north crossing several rivers to get to their Elysian fields of the Masai Mara.

Not particularly picturesque beings, the creatures remarkable talent is survival by maintaining strength of their herd. Their movements can be orchestrated – forming a single line to wander down a hillside – or haphazard – fleeing from an approaching airplane - but they always move together. The Mara River is where we saw the crossing of our herd of wildebeest that we had been tracking for the past three days.

Any crossing is fraught with danger from hungry crocodiles, uncooperative hippos, or the inability to dive and swim safely without breaking a leg. It takes a considerable amount of time for the wildebeests to determine if they should cross. They delay or change their mind with the slightest adjustment of the wind or the smallest ripples in the water (thus 3 days of waiting). As our guide Ishmael put it, “They are very skittish, but you would be too if your life were on the line.”

But when they do make a decision to traverse, they go with all their heart. The entire herd, 1000 – 2000 individuals at a time, will run to the crossing point that was chosen and just jump in. They know that there is less danger for any one individual if they all go in at once – there is strength in numbers and though one or two may get hurt – those are reasonable odds to preserve the larger community.

In the US, we are faced with two major issues that need crossing.

New York City and the country are debating the building of a Muslim community center and mosque near the site of the twin towers. The edifice is meant to symbolize tolerance, yet it has embroiled the nation into a debate suffused with fear of Islam and memories of 9/11. Some see the building of Cordoba House, the name of the center, so close to Ground Zero as a slap in the face to the families who lost members. The conservative right has used the issue as a way to stir anti-terrorist fervor. The local community board has approved the construction, and national religious groups have endorsed the idea.

Recently, Obama joined the debate proclaiming “I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground zero is, indeed, hallowed ground. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are.” [New York Times, August 14, 2010]

Mayor Bloomberg (a Republican) who historically has given his strong backing to the cause declared that “This proposed mosque and community center in Lower Manhattan is as important a test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetime, and I applaud President Obama’s clarion defense of the freedom of religion tonight.” [New York Times, August 14, 2010]

The mosque is moving forward, despite the protestations of conservative politicians from around the country who may never have set foot in Lower Manhattan. This is a good path and is a testament to the constitutional separation of church and state. American Muslims should be proud of a country that supports minority rights despite the stream of hatred against the site.

The second issue has bubbled up across the country in California. In a striking ruling, Vaughn R. Walker, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, overturned Proposition 8, the California referendum banning same-sex marriage. In a 136-page well-reasoned decision, the Judge found that the basis for the Proposition was unconstitutional because “Animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women… is not a proper basis on which to legislate.” A law based on the hatred of one portion of the population for another is not the foundation on which our country is based.

The impressive part of the ruling is that the beginning 109 pages are devoted to the “Finding of Facts” which is typically uncontested findings from the broad review conducted by the court. Written in a clear and logical tone, the order is surprisingly easy to read and can be found at the New York Times website. Similar to Cordoba House, the case brings up the question of separation of church and state and protection of minority rights. A primary argument from religious groups is that granting marriage rights to same-sex unions diminishes heterosexual marriages and lead to non-productive unions which can’t produce children. As Walker points out:

“Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law.”

Religion can sanctify a marriage but the church has no ability to prevent the state from authorizing marriage. The fact that the same-sex union does not produce off-spring is irrelevant since as Walker relates:

“Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or intent before issuing a marriage license; indeed, a marriage license is more than a license to have procreative sexual intercourse… [I]t would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse.”

The ruling is impressive but the arguments still need to make it through Circuit Court and the Supreme Court before becoming the law of the land.

One group thrown at the center of these two debates is the American Muslim Community. Backing the construction of Cordoba House fundamentally uses the same arguments – “separation of church and state” and “equal protection” – as the issue of gay marriage. By making a case for one, it implies belief in the principles and support for the other.

The debates are interesting because the discussion has evolved beyond liberal versus conservative distinctions. Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich (conservative Republicans) are against the ruling and the construction, while Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mayor Michael Bloomberg (moderate Republicans) are supportive of both.

The Islamic community can not choose to be on one side of the Cordoba argument and argue against the other. Either we need to embrace the greener grasses of minority rights protection or we choose to stay on the drought side of the river. To maintain the strength of the community, it’s time for moderate Muslims to jump in and start swimming across these waters.

August 14, 2010

Some thoughts on… Choosing Our Destiny

The Obama Administration is implementing controls over unprecedented areas of society for the United States. As the government extends its reach, diverse voices have raised objections to the visible hand of the State – judicial arguments are working their way up to the Supreme Court to challenge the mandatory extension of healthcare to all US citizens; economic arguments proliferate against financial reforms on Wall Street to prevent conflicts like Goldman Sachs taking both sides on the sales of Paulson’s synthetic CDO’s.. Undoubtedly, with an open deep sea spigot spewing crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico, once that problem is resolved, further restrictions will be placed on drilling.

But is it not hubris for the government to believe that it should control and regulate these things? The neo-classical economic argument is that governments should interfere only when there is a public good, i.e. it is not in an individual or organizational interest to solve a particular problem. Shouldn’t we just let the events play out and let either markets, companies or individuals resolve these matters? Let’s see what the Arts have to say about these questions.

Sherri Renee Scott’s new show Everyday Rapture introduces us to the wide-eyed story of a Broadway semi-star as she moves from small time Oklahoma to Manhattan. Strutting her vocals and legs, Scott endears us to a proverbial tale – a person struggling to break from the espoused ideals of her conservative upbringing and to reconcile them with the morals of an adopted, cosmopolitan home. AIDS, abortion and fame are a few of the cherished memories she weaves into what one assumes is a semi-biographical story.

At the beginning of the program, we find her balancing two contradictory ethics – “The world was created for me” versus “I am just a speck of dust”. The first ideal plays to the narcissism of New York – demanding self-determinism and unbridled passion to succeed. The second commands a recognition that we move forward only through the communal interplay and dependence on the greater populace. Alone we are blown aimlessly by the universal winds, together we form permanence. True happiness is not found in the glory of an ephemeral Broadway hit or of an afterlife filled with angels. Instead, we find it through daily interactions – the minute joys of being mindful to the raptures we discover everyday. Scott’s show transcends us to this epiphany with glamour, glee and gravitas. It’s a jeweled performance not to be missed.

The final season of Lost completed this past week. Over its six year run, the series tangoed with two primary arguments: 1) Should people be driven by faith or reason to understand the secrets of existence and 2) Are we bound by destiny or do we have the ability to choose the outcomes of our lives. Stranded on a desert island due to a plane crash, the characters warp and weft through the two themes determined to live together and eventually die alone. The mythology is grand with crooked mysteries resulting in humanistic revelations.

Through the episodes, we find ourselves also lost and eventually found in the intricate stories of science fiction, boundless evil and human kindness. At the end of the interlaced plots, the storytellers provide a clear answer to the two arguments – people must balance faith and reason in order to choose their destiny. Although selected by circumstance to arrive on the island, the characters purposefully struggle to be together and choose to overcome their fate by meeting in the next life to reach enlightenment. This is Nirvana – the realization that we thrive only because we are linked and ultimate happiness is not individual gain but collective mindfulness that we are connected.

The government’s role on regulating finance, health care and the environment is contentious because at face none of the underlying issues are legally wrong – banks repeatedly buy and sell the same assets; people can choose not to have insurance; companies need to recover resources to fulfill the population’s needs. Goldman Sachs and British Petroleum may not have done anything illegal, but their motives seem ethically wrong, because they somehow go against our sense of community and need for watching out for each other. The actions are too self-oriented without regard to the concerns of the society that supports these companies and individuals.

Our regulatory and legal landscapes have to catch up with our internal recognition that the world was not created for us alone—we are but specks dust. We can do this by moving beyond the focus on just our desires to connecting with individuals who also suffer or gain from our actions. Banks should not profit from selling an asset that they are also betting against. Energy companies should have an equal array of technology back-ups to halt oil removal as they do to extract it. An individual not carrying health insurance is similar to a driver not having car insurance – a liability to society. Unlike the characters in Lost, we will likely die alone, but we can choose how we live together.

May 31, 2010

Some thoughts on… Letting Go

I attended a goodbye party of two close colleagues on Friday. They were individuals with whom I have partnered for the past 13 years and who have been coaches, mentors and friends. We all know that our friendship will continue, and so this is not a “goodbye” in any way. But there is a certain melancholy in knowing that we will not be interacting on a daily basis moving forward.

With any departure, whether it is instantaneous (the end of an argument), temporary (the parting of good friends) or permanent (the death of a loved one), there is a sense of loss, of passage, and of change. We know we must spend the appropriate time acknowledging the alterations and understanding the revised world. But equally imperative, we should know not dwell on the past wishing for a revised set of circumstances. In the end, we have to let go and free ourselves from these attachments.

Inherently this is a necessary and difficult action, but why is it so important to let go?

In the musical Yank!, two WWII GI’s meet, fall in love and lose each other through the progression of the war. The show captures the aching for companionship, the longing for fraternity and the desire for purpose of a new, squad of recruits thrown into a drawn-out battle in the South Pacific. The star-crossed heroes attempt to defy the hypocritical strictures of military life that forbids homosexuality and at the same time inherently requires a draft to fulfill its quota of bodies. But this is not a time period for acceptance, and by holding on to the relationship longer than feasible, they create a false reality of stasis and permanence.

In the end, we forget the same-gender relationship of the protagonists, and view the show as symbolic of any individuals unable to live together due to societal circumstances, e.g. race, ethnicity, religion. The production story line is tautly held and the minimalist sets support imagining the varied settings of the two acts. In addition, the generation-appropriate music and lock-step lyrics of the production make the show a welcome entry into the musical theater repertoire. The run at the York Theater has closed, but people should be able to catch the show in its on Broadway reincarnation in the Fall.

Sondheim on Sondheim is a celebration of a Stage giant’s music, genius and wit. Recognized as the reigning composer of musical theater, Sondheim himself provides narrative on his work through the decades. Revealed in this intimate structure is a man who is obsessed with the creation of precise, finely drawn art, and simultaneously one who recognizes the eventual need to free the work to the public for scorn or acclaim.

The narrative is interspersed by performances from a stellar cast headlined by Barbara Cook, Tom Wopat and Vanessa Williams. Cook and Williams shine in their articulation and punctuated delivery of the Sondheim material. Although the high-tech production is distracting and clouds over the music at points, overall the talent of the composer and performers gloriously shines through.

Finally, in Xi’an, China, we heard a story from our guide. She related how two monks – one older and one younger – were taking a pilgrimage to another temple. Walking through the countryside, they encountered a brook through which they needed to wade. At the river-side, there was a young girl also looking to cross. Taking her hand, the older monk walked her through the current to the other side, and then they both bid her goodbye.

Upon reaching the temple by nightfall, the younger monk said, “I must report you now to the others, for you know it is forbidden to touch a woman.” The older man, looked thoughtfully at his companion, put his hand on the youth’s shoulder and replied, “Do as you wish but reflect on your motivation, for I know that I have already let her go.”

By holding on too long to our most precious desires, creations or relationships, we deceive ourselves that we can control the changing environment and alter the world to the best outcome. A song writer unwilling to share their art until it is perfect is analogous to a debater holding to an untenable argument, lovers defying an oppressive reality, a monk dreaming of an alternate path or a child refusing to accept the death of a parent. In all these cases, personal growth is hindered because people refuse to move on.

The fallacy is that we grow by holding on to things more tightly. The important lesson of moving on, is not that we shouldn’t perfect art, fight for love or argue passionately, but is that we are better people by knowing when and how to progress to the next level of learning by letting go of what we cherish and seeing how the external world reacts to our actions. This can be frightening, because it may result in immediate loss

Even though my fellow Principals and friends have left from the practice, by letting go this is an opportunity for them and us to grow.

April 25, 2010