We are struggling as a nation to silence the voice of hate that have risen over the past few years in a frenzied increase in extremism. In many ways these voices of ethnic and political dissention have been there for some time, just under the surface, but have increasingly bubble up as of late highlighting existing schisms in society. There are times to challenge, there are times to wait before acting and there are times to forgive. Decisions must still be made by leadership of both of our political parties to decide what type of nation we will be going forward (I believe we have made some progress toward unity as of late after the public display of extremist type behaviors at our capital could have caused a much larger issue that would have likely lead to irreparable damage for a long time and snuffed out the opportunities of the next generation. We could have easily bounced from #1 position on the world market to something like #6 as well as impacted all of our international partners in a worst case conflict scenario. You may want to review metrics that try and explain how conflict destroys prosperity in host countries in a World Bank study by Murdock and Sandler 'Civil wars and economic growth: a regional comparison'.). Despite this positive momentum to reclaim our national purpose there are lingering pockets of people and institutions that still may be following values inappropriate/antithetical to our American ideals. It becomes a public service to challenge them to be better versions of themselves for the furthering or our American philosophies and fulfillment of the social contract embodied in our Constitution.. Our national future depends on singularity of vision and purpose! (Something our political leadership should incorporate into their decision making.)
If you have been reading my blog for a while you may be aware that my children and I were targets of a coordinated hate group and at least one associated officer (likely more) for violence, ostracization, incognito stalking, rumor spreading, and corruption. While there appears to be many public complaints against that officer (and seemingly others within the group) they nevertheless were given a free pass to engage in what appears to be highly inappropriate behaviors that risked the safety and well being of others (Its actually a shame that manipulation exposed a bigger group-institution issue but fate lands where it should. 🤷. I guess better me than someone else as these behaviors were dangerous outside the scope of most people.)
Truth can sometimes be subjective so I spot checked my assumptions by enquiring why this group was targeting my children (and me). I received the flat response, "Because you are Muslim" almost as though I should have known better and the question was an annoyance. While I suspected that bigotry was one of the factors to justify aggressive behavior it masked a more pressing issue of group hate that couldn't be ignored for the benefit of the community and other people that don't "fit in" their distorted world. (At least it couldn't be ignored in good moral conscious. Remember, this is a still a free country and people have the right to be treated as valuable members not based in race, religion, ethnicity or other superficial differences.). So the options were little and based in my history, background and personality I decided to challenge (You never really know people until you put them into a tough spot. where values are deeper then the false shadows we show to each other.)
While some of those challenges have been matched and met there are still left over sentiments and passive aggressive behaviors by those who blindly support these inappropriate beliefs (Prior it was officially now its more closet unofficial support. Its a little like rooting for the wrong team but being too embarrassed to admit it to yourself. 😬 See Cost of Embedded Groups). They persist in their perception of control over "their town" as they use their social networks to determine who is allowed to engage (in public and private) and should not be allowed to engage (There is often called by a distorted sense of entitlement. My family's history in the area actually predates many of the other families pressuring for a homogeneous town but it was the "name" and children's race that makes the difference in the evaluation of "local" that includes subjective value over me and my children. By extension, based on the inappropriate usage of slang terms by group members and history of local bullying, they also devalue most of the other minorities in the country as a "mental category" of understanding others in the fish bowl in which they were raised. You can notice from this group the absence of nearly all minorities and that includes those that are locally in abundance such as Native Americans {They don't have a very higher perception of them either.😢. Most of my Native American friends would likely sort of agree with the unmentioned divide.}. Unchallenged these distorted beliefs grow to infect others without the self-development to have their own opinions. Like a disease.).
One of the tools this group used was public smearing to gain as many supporters of their agenda as they could through their sports and other social networks (No different then the propaganda of other extremist groups that seek to solidify a base of supporters against someone seen as a "threat". What they don't realize if my presence is only a "threat" to someone's ego and they need to work on that to build the self image needed to determine what is their problem and what is someone else's problem. False projections. In more factual terms those that have met me and my kids would say were rather nice. 🤷). That creates a problem when applying for positions within the community where reputational damage has occurred and continues to impact the targets in one way or another (See Transferring Risk). It leaves difficult choices as to how best to ensure that the propaganda of ethnic cleansing campaigns do not continued unchallenged and the institutions are doing what is in the best interest of society (i.e. versus their groups, ideologies, self interest, etc...).
Let me give you a scenario of applying for an adjunct job within the area and being told by the HR representative I was "more than qualified" and wanted me to start teaching the ASAP ( next semester in a couple of weeks I believe) and abruptly without incident being ghosted (Indicating a lack of professionalism and soiling of institutional purpose). All of the interactions were polite so this behavior is unlikely to be from our interactions alone meaning. Trying to understand the catalyst I contacted the HR hiring representative that reached out to me a few times (followed up on email and when I didn't get a response I called and left a message) but no response. I then followed a natural authority chain upwards by emailing the HR manager (whom appears to be well known in the community and may have some connection back to the propaganda group) and cold shoulder no response. Figuring it may be just an inappropriate HR problem I contacted the president of the school indicating I had a concern. No response! (See how it starts looking like minorities applying are the problem and are quickly stonewalled when they have a question. It makes you wonder how common this problem is and what are the avenues for fixing it if it impacts our institutions of learning? 🤔💁. What are the motivators and why would normal professional expectation of behaviors be abandoned? Then, if done for the wrong reasons how are such people entrusted to make decisions over important functions such as the development of the next generation of workers and leaders?. Lack of transparency, misaligned selection criteria, inappropriate/unprofessionalism, and the importance of higher education all leads to a number of open questions.).
So I'm at a cross roads. What is the right path forward morally?
I can't undo the damage that was done from this hate group and while I'm not that concerned about the adjunct job I still feel that unprofessional behavior should be discouraged and if discriminatory (as an extension of this group and/or as a personal philosophy) there should be a necessary correction to ensure such behaviors don't limit the quality of education for their students or misuse tax payer dollars for private and/or group agendas based in racial, religious, or cultural bias.
Breaking Down the Percentages:
Thinking through all the actions and interactions and their possible behavioral justifications I came to some temporary explanations. Knowing which is occurring is a challenge with significant grey area in data and information (Some of it requires extrapolating backwards.). Unprofessionalism mixed with context and lack of logical explanation based on experience and performance leaves me (and should leave others) with open questions. I broke down the possibilities based on the information I have at this time (meaning new information changes those percentages and categories. While the specific observations are documentable and appear factual the explanation of those facts is subjective to knowledge and interpretation. It would take an investigation/analysis to pull facts and create the most logical explanation.):
Nothing Wrong: 40% (actually 43%) there is nothing legally wrong or the selection criterial appear to be acceptable. That doesn't mean there was or wasn't inappropriateness but its doesn't constitution a violation as how the law is currently defined. A thumb or two thumbs up. 👍 or👍👍
Mixed Wrong:40% (Actually 39%) my suspicions are partially correct and the selection criteria are inappropriate to the actual position and some of the issue are "managers discretion" not based in actual factual or appropriate measures. Issues reside in the legal grey area (i.e. things like spelling errors that are not applied universally across candidates. Could be bad policy design, personnel issues, or unconscious projected bias. A process review might be helpful in improving the functioning of the school.). A thumbs down. 👍👎
Danger Zone: 20% (Actually 18%) that the things I indicate are possible might be happening actually are happening (I actually don't know and am open to whatever is the reasonable truth.) In this category there would be discriminatory policies and/or choices(based in their social networks, values systems, or political-personal beliefs) that can be supported through documentable evidence (review of hiring practices, demographics, recruitment processes/advertisements, etc...) That might constitute an intentionally manipulation of posted values (i.e. mission) versus realized values (What might actually be going on.). In a worst case scenario it could mean information is being manipulated to various stakeholders (i.e. EEOC, public, accreditors, students/mission statement, others, etc...) as to what the actual administration's value systems are and how institutional resources are being used "real life" scenarios. It isn't likely to be this bad but in a grotesque situation where such behaviors are found to impact systemically faculty/staff recruitment, student diversity, disciplinary processes, etc... it could be a little more serious (I don't believe widespread systemic discrimination is occurring but I can't rule it out completely without more information. Its interesting because a memo released by Princeton University in systemic racism/bigotry indicates many of the same things I'm advocating for transparency, diversity & inclusion, access to different scholars, appropriate faculty selection, etc... See Institutional Equity and Diversity) Two thumbs down. 👎👎
Where its Currently At?
Thus at present I'm thinking there is a 43% chance not much is going on and 57% a "look see" might find concerning outcomes that in turn warrant some changes (Remember, this isn't a private institution. This is a public institution, accredited, and using tax payer monies for a publicly posted mission. If it was private, uncredited and/or privately financed it would likely have a lot more choices to select candidates as they wish; I will bet much smaller. At present they are expected to do what is in the best interest of society within our norms and values.)
If it was me and I knew that there is significant room for multiple interpretations of institutional (or individual) behaviors (meaning I wasn't 100% sure significant errors wouldn't be found) I would review my processes, discuss them with someone knowledgeable, and make the appropriate adjustments (That would be what I would do if I was in a leadership role and had only limited training on labor laws. 🤷 ) If I was very very sure everything is being done according to our posted policies and value systems then I would feel confident in my decision and stand by them. At a minimum the concerns, or at least perceptions of inappropriate behaviors, should lead to an understanding of increased transparency and professionalism (Assuming the best interest of the public is at the forefront of their concerns.). As with all things in life choice determines intent and time answers all questions (It should be remembered that observations can be supported by documented incidences but interpretation of those incidences are subject to more data and the interpretation of that data. See Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason.) Some challenges are actually hidden opportunities...but only for a limited time....where adaptation can occur in a more organic fashion. See GDP Human Capital Stock and College Hiring and Global Competitiveness.
