A Gentleman and a Scholar

Dr. W. Judson and Mrs. Linda Vaughn

In the academic experience, there are those rare professors that really stand out.  Each professor has a different personality and teaching style, and over the years I have had several memorable ones.  Some of them were pompous, others delightfully eccentric, and many were decent people who knew their material and were fine examples of scholarship.  This past week, I have been reflecting upon one of my old instructors in particular, and this one is in a class by himself because he is truly both a true gentleman and a scholar, and I wanted to talk about him some today.

When I was fresh out of high school and started my first semester at what was then Florida Baptist Theological College (now known as Baptist College of Florida) in August 1989, I was somewhat unsure of what to expect and what my first classes would be like.  I was fresh out of high school from a small town in West Virginia, and had spent most of the summer working at a beachfront Holiday Inn on Jekyll Island, GA, prior to Dad finally dropping me off on campus at this small Baptist college in the Florida Panhandle town of Graceville.  I was, as many a young college student could probably relate, both excited and apprehensive at the same time.  The day class officially started, I had signed up for a New Testament course that was taught by a professor by the name of Dr. Judson Vaughn, and I don't recall if he was my first class that first day, or a later class.  However, I do remember the first impression of Dr. Vaughn as he walked into that class - he was dressed in a modest suit, and he exuded humility as he greeted us by name as "Brother" or "Sister," which is how he always addressed his students.  Then, he prayed for us - his prayer was that of a humble servant rather than a haughty academic, and he prayed for our health, our anxieties, and just for our well-being that semester.  Immediately, any apprehension I felt about that class melted away, as I realized that this humble man standing in front of the class was nothing to fear - indeed, he would prove to be a formidable prayer warrior for many students who faced challenges either academically and personally.   I want to first talk a little about who Dr. Vaughn is, and then my own personal reflections of this great man of God.

Dr. William Judson Vaughn was a native of Montgomery, AL, where he was born in 1943.  Although he was ordained a Southern Baptist minister in 1961, he completed his seminary studies in 1971 at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in KY, and afterwards pastored four Baptist churches in addition to later teaching Greek and NT hermeneutics at both Southern Seminary and later at what was then Baptist Bible Institute in Graceville, the latter of which he began teaching in 1982.  He married his wife Linda in 1966, and later had two sons with her.  Dr. Vaughn taught in Graceville up to the year 2009 (27 years to be exact), when he retired.  He was in Graceville at a college that went through at least 3 name changes - when he started it was Baptist Bible Institute, later changing its name in 1989 to Florida Baptist Theological College, and most recently to the Baptist College of Florida.  He also served through two college administrations, that of Dr. Joseph DuBose until 1990, and then Dr. Thomas Kinchen (who I also had known previously, as he was at one time the head of the West Virginia Convention of Southern Baptists prior to accepting the post as President of FBTC).  At the college, Dr. Vaughn pretty much taught most of the New Testament curriculum, although he also shared some of that responsibility with Dr. Jerry Corley and a couple of other professors then.  In the news release about his retirement the college issued in 2009 ("Vaughn Retires After 27 Years," published 4/30/2009 at https://www.baptistcollege.edu/news_events/press/2009/vaughn_retires.asp - accessed 6/26/2019) a number of people had similar observations about their relationships to Dr. Vaughn over the years.  One former associate said of him, "Dr. Vaughn radiates respect toward others," and Dr. Kinchen said of him, "Dr. Vaughn is a passionate scholar clothed in the humility of a servant," and further noting that it would benefit all of us to follow his example.   Having sat under Dr. Vaughn's teaching myself over the years, I would agree totally - never had I met a more humble person than Dr. Vaughn personally, and to be honest I often mused if it was possible for the man to ever be upset about anything.  He never had a bad word against anyone, and he greeted every person he crossed paths with on campus - whether it was old Carlton Enfinger, the groundskeeper, or President Kinchen - with the same friendly and respectful manner.  Even some of the most argumentative and trouble-making of the students (and we did have several of those back in the day!) respected him, and these were people who badmouthed others for reading the wrong Bible translation in their view.  Therefore, I wanted to just give a few observations about Dr. Vaughn of my own.

A typical class with Dr. Vaughn could be downright dry - he was a soft-spoken man and he never really raised any concern for debate, and at times he could even lull you to sleep honestly when he lectured - but the apparent dryness of his delivery should not be taken as lack of passion.  Dr. Vaughn was in love with the Gospels, and what he taught on them was from a quiet passion that surpassed even his academic qualifications for doing so (which he definitely had as well).  And, what endeared him to so many people was the fact he never acted, as do many academics, like he was omniscient and he never talked down to or pulled rank on anyone in his classes.  As a matter of fact, he displayed his humility in his teaching - if a student asked him a question he didn't know the answer to, he would always say this: "Well, Brother So-and-So (or Sister, if the case may be), I am not sure about that, but let me look into that and we can address that question next class."   And, he always kept his word on that - often, a student would even forget the question, but the next class Dr. Vaughn would have an answer for them.  That left a lasting impression upon many students, and his integrity just with that spoke volumes.  Many professors I have encountered over the years are often just the opposite - if you question them and they don't know the answer, some just make crap up or they treat the student as an inconvenience for even asking.  But, not Dr. Vaughn - he viewed his professorship as a ministry, and he felt a genuine call to serve the students he taught, and he did so in such a way that much of the intimidation younger students would have felt with him melted away.  I took that lesson Dr. Vaughn taught by his example to heart - the lesson is that even the teacher still learns at times, and it is perfectly fine not to have an answer, but always be able to find one if you can.  I apply that same lesson to my sixth-graders I teach as a catechist in my parish church, and many of them appreciate that.   He also made the opening prayer at the start of a class an important part of the class as well - he would literally write down and pray for every concern a student would mention, and he would pray for each student by name.  This too drew people to him, in that they knew that Dr. Vaughn was one who took their personal welfare seriously, and he genuinely did so in an active way.  To this day, I still think a lot of him for that personally, as he was one of the few people you could see the love of Christ radiating from.  And, that leads to a few concluding thoughts.

Although I eventually chose to become a Catholic Christian (of a very traditional sort) in 2000, and as a Catholic Christian often I come across other traditionalists who seem to think that only Catholics can be Christians.  I tell those people about Dr. Vaughn, and I also tend to chide them about how his faith could put them to shame in that he reflected more of the love of Christ than they ever did.  What is even more interesting is the fact that over the years on occasion I still keep in touch with him, and when I corresponded with him last several years back, I mentioned about my becoming Catholic, and his response was one of the warmest and most disarming things I have ever heard - he said, "Well, praise the Lord Bro. David!  It is so encouraging to see you still serving God and His Church."   In that statement, he was genuinely happy that I served God still, and it really didn't matter to him what denomination I was part of - to him, we were both doing the Lord's work where He wanted us.  And, that was classic Dr. Vaughn - always encouraging, and never a bad word about anyone.  Although he is now 76 years old and has been in retirement for close to 11 years now as of this writing, Dr. Vaughn is still an amazing individual, and one day soon I probably should drop him a line and say hello to him.  There are few people like the Dr. Vaughn's that cross our paths, and we need to appreciate them more, because they remind us of what our own faith should be about.  I pray Dr. Vaughn has many more years ahead of him, and may he have good health and may his legacy always be cherished by those of us who have the blessing of knowing him.  

Jazz, Philosophy, and Other Thoughts

Back when I was around 15 years old and was about three years into record collecting, I was a bit of a misfit teenager in middle school at the time.  I was not the popular kid and often was even persecuted by my peers for just being who I was.  I found a great deal of comfort in the vintage big band music I collected, as well as in classic jazz in general.  Beyond the records though, my interest also permeated other areas of my life, including my reading material.  One day in the library at Romney Junior High School, I stumbled across a very interesting little novel that was written in 1965 by renown jazz writer and critic Nat Hentoff, and the book was entitled Jazz Country.  It was a sort of coming-of-age story of a young White middle-class teenager named Tom Curtis, who has a passion for jazz, and when he finally gets to experience the jazz culture of Harlem's Black community, he faces many challenges about his music, as well as being a White kid "digging" a music that was considered primarily the domain of Blacks.  Tom really loves jazz, and plays trumpet himself, but his new Black friends note he is missing something - he has no real life experience to communicate who and what he is (called "the blues") and Tom quickly finds out he has a lot to learn, both in the world of jazz and in basic life experience.  At the time I read this book initially, I was a poor out-of-sorts White kid from the Appalachians, and while on one hand, I identified with Tom, on the other I also identified with his Black friends, many of whom had to overcome some big challenges to get where they were, and some were still struggling.  The book was also written at the dawn of the Civil Rights era too when a lot of racial tension and other things gripped the country.  As Hentoff writes though, the problem was not just with "racist White folks," but even some Blacks (personified by the character of Mary Hitchcock in the book) harbored their own brand of racism too.  After almost forgetting about the book over the years, a few years back I came across a copy of it on Amazon for less than a buck and purchased it.  It has set on my bookshelf for a while until I decided to pull it out and give it another read this past week.  There are a few insights I wanted to share that I gained from the second reading of that little book, but first a little about Nat Hentoff, the author.

Nat Hentoff (1925-2017)

Nat Hentoff, as I mentioned before, is renown among record collectors and jazz enthusiasts as being one of the most prolific jazz critics and historians - he ranks up there with the likes of people like Leonard Feather, George T. Simon, and Richard Sudhalter.  I have been familiar with him for years, as he has written extensively on jazz and vintage big bands, and his work can also be found on the liner notes of many classic jazz albums over the years as well.  But, there was another side to Nat Hentoff too, as he was also somewhat socially conservative in his political and social outlook, and he was a staunch advocate for both the sanctity of life as well as for free speech.  His involvement with the pro-life movement, as a matter of fact, has made me respect his legacy even more, and although technically an atheist of Jewish heritage, he is also truly what America was all about at one time.  He also embodied the true legacy of Martin Luther King's vision as far as civil rights, and he was opposed to the tyranny of "political correctness" and its related ills over the past couple of decades.  Interesting enough, you can even see this in his writing even back in 1965, as many of those convictions shine through in Jazz Country.  

Getting back to Jazz Country, I wanted to write today about several observations I am gleaning from my journal entries last week, as there is a lot to cover.  The book itself has a goldmine of practical wisdom that really could apply to any life situation, and as that skinny White jazz-loving kid myself who read that book at the age of 15, I connect with both Tom and the fictional jazzman Moses Godfrey - I had a lot to learn at that age, but I also had my own "blues" even then as I was a poor disadvantaged kid who had a lot of "scuffs and dirt on my shoes," to use the book's metaphor.  However, let's talk about how Hentoff and others viewed jazz - for people like Hentoff and later Richard Sudhalter, jazz was an American art form which was not the exclusive domain of Blacks, although their contribution cannot be underestimated either.   Jazz could be seen as a sort of icon of the "melting pot" that is America, and it is that premise which is a major reason why writers like Hentoff, who was an enthusiastic participant in the Civil Rights movement of the time, could easily be part of that while at the same time making a stand for what is considered more conservative issues such as free speech and the right to life.  Hentoff rightly saw these various issues as being one and the same rather than opposed to each other (a sentiment that MLK's surviving relatives share, as did Bill Cosby and others).  As Hentoff's Wikipedia bio states, he was often more socially conservative on many issues than he was liberal, despite him being confessionally atheist and sort of the archetype of the "progressive" intellectual.  And, his stands on these things mirror mine, and I find myself appreciating Hentoff not just as a jazz writer, but as a person too, due to the fact the man actually knew how to think rather than being a shill for the Establishment.  One of the things that reflects this in Jazz Country is the fact that Hentoff is trying to get across via a fictional story that racism is not just a White man's problem, but that Blacks and others are just as guilty of it at times.  If more people knew of Hentoff's book, as a matter of fact, it would probably be branded as "hate speech" by the loony Leftists running their mouths about this stuff today.  The character in the book that best personifies this is Mary Hitchcock, who is the somewhat militant wife of Godfrey's bassist Bill Hitchcock.  Mary comes across as bigoted, nasty, and her condescension of Tom in the book just makes the reader want to slap her upside the head for being a nasty skank.  However, there is a good side to this as well - as the book progresses, Mary begins to be educated, and at the end, she actually appreciates Tom and they become close.  That now leads me into a brief discussion of one of the pivotal characters of the book, Moses Godfrey.

When one reads the book, if that reader is a jazz aficionado, they pick up quickly on the fact that Hentoff's development of Moses Godfrey as a character is based on jazz legend Thelonious Monk.  Like Monk, Godfrey is eccentric, and he even imitates in his performances many of Monk's characteristics such as getting up from the piano and dancing a jig if the mood hit him.  Godfrey is, like Monk, also unfettered by convention, and at this point, his character takes on a bit of another jazz legend as well, Duke Ellington.   Like the Duke, Godfrey is contemplative and somewhat philosophical, as well as speaking eloquently and getting across points in a quiet manner.  He is the type of character you would love to get to know, but at the same time, he's also a bit intimidating too, being somewhat impervious to the hero-worship of his young fans.  His responses to certain things, as a matter of fact, can come off somewhat offensive and humbling, although this is not the anticipated intent of Godfrey's character.  His real intent, as you continue reading, is to gauge how serious the person he is talking to is.  

I want to cite a couple of examples of the above now, with the first one being on page 9 of the book. Tom and his friend Mike are situated outside the Savoy Ballroom where Godfrey's combo is playing - they are obviously not allowed inside due to age, but they can catch some of the music.  Godfrey comes out with his bass player Bill Hitchcock between sets, and Tom is able to engage him.  The first question - a rather innocent one by normal standards - that Tom asks is if Godfrey's group is coming out with a new record soon, to which he gets this answer - "What is soon?"   The semantics of the word "soon" then initiates a philosophical discourse from Godfrey, who turns to Hitchcock and asks, "If I told you that your arm is going to fall off next year, would that be soon?" To which Hitchcock replies, bemusedly (he has been down this road before!), "Too soon."  Then, a second question:  "But, if I told you there'd be no money this week; maybe soon, but not this week, would that be soon enough?"  Hitchcock, knowing now where this is going, answers that it would be soon enough to report Godfrey to the musician's union.  Out of all that, as the conversation continues, Godfrey is making the point to young Tom that he needs to clarify what he means by "soon," as one context may not mean the same in a different context.  The wisdom that is ingrained here is somewhat profound when you reflect upon it, but then it continues in the next couple of chapters of the book.  Forward to page 33, when Tom asks how a rich White woman (a socialite jazz enthusiast in her mid-50's named Veronica in this case) could gain acceptance in Black jazz circles, Hitchcock responds by saying it is by "being herself," but that abruptly rouses the catnapping Godfrey and he embarks on another interesting discourse.  Godfrey chastises Hitchcock for that answer by using the metaphor of "a tailor weaving the emperor's clothes," which references an old fairy tale.  The problem Godfrey has with Hitchcock's answer was that it was a generality, and Godfrey expounds on that by noting that "self" is a multiplicity rather than a singularity - he notes that one is a certain "self" in one context, but then another "self" in a different situation.  The idea here is that all of these various "selves" are different dimensions of one's identity, and one cannot be a "whole self" in every situation - you cannot be everything to everyone, and likewise, you cannot be everything you are to everyone in every situation either. I got what that was saying also, in that, for example, a sense of decorum dictates what you reveal about yourself to others in a given circumstance.  For instance, if you are in the workplace, it is not appropriate to walk around in one's "tighty-whities" or discuss a religious experience or your passioned political views. If you are at home, you also may not be able to display aspects of yourself even to one's spouse that maybe you can express when you are alone.  All of these are what Godfrey is getting at by different "selves."  It just means, therefore, that while on one hand, you do only have one identity, the way that identity is expressed is determinate upon the setting one is in. There is tremendous wisdom in that too.  So, if you are one person in the workplace and someone different in your social media accounts, does that make you a split personality?  Not at all - it means you are your true self when you manifest what is proper to a given situation, that is all.  That is the crux of what Godfrey is really saying in the book.  In the case of music then, which this whole conversation in the story comes back to, the question Godfrey has for young Tom is this - when you play, what do you say?  Music means more when it expresses the true self, rather than trying to imitate someone else, at which point it will become artificial and contributes nothing of you.  I guess that is fundamental to Jazz Improvisation 101.  

Moving on to page 35, Hentoff devotes a chapter of Godfrey telling the story of his mentor "Big Charlie," who was a blind Black blues singer in 1930's Texas somewhere that Godfrey as a young "Carnie" had run into.  There are many twists and turns in this storyline that really pique the imagination.  Godfrey, who was born to a single mother in a broken home in the Bronx in the early 1900s, later was sent to an aunt who proved to be overly controlling and somewhat mean to the young Godfrey, so he left home to work with a traveling carnival. It is at this point, on his off-time from working at the carnival, that he encounters "Big Charlie," and it turns out there is more to Charlie's story than his rough outward appearance dictates.  Charlie lives in this shack, but the inside of it is actually quite palatial, and he invites Moses in for a visit with him.  As Moses gets to know Charlie and comes to be close to him, he learns that the real instrument Charlie mastered was a little flute that is one of his cherished possessions.  When he first picks up on young Godfrey's marveling over his house, he says, "Ain't no reason why an old blind Black man can't have comfort, is there?"  The flute itself, as Charlie later confides, is a type of therapeutic release for him, and this reveals to the young Moses Godfrey another lesson - externals may not reveal who a true person is.  Charlie then has the young Moses go out with him and observe people at a local tavern, and when they return to Charlie's place he has Moses describe the people he observed - the profundity of this would take volumes to really examine, because Moses's initial impressions of various people were all wrong and didn't reveal much due to the focus on externals. A man, for instance, who appeared to be loud and boisterous was actually a pretty decent individual, while a more quiet, sedate guy was actually one not to trust.  The cliche lesson from this is that one cannot judge a book by its cover, which leads to some of my own insights now. 

The story of "Big Charlie" speaks a lot about human nature - we tend to judge people by externals without knowing the true story of who they are, and even Scripture condemns doing that.  In Matthew 7:1, an oft-misquoted verse in this day and age is found; it says simply "don't judge unless you are judged," and looking at what it says, it really will make one think.  The way this verse is misapplied so often in today's society is to often justify sinful behavior, but that is not the context of what it actually means. Rather, it is more of a warning against gossip, stereotypes, and related behavior, or the whole "bearing false witness" idea that is prohibited by the Decalogue.  Many people wrongly (and also traditionally in many cases) attribute that verse to the sin of lying, but it, in reality, has nothing to do with a mere lie.  While lying is a sin and is wrong, the sin that both the Commandment and the verse in Matthew 7:1 are referring to are one and the same - it is gossip and hearsay, which to be fair can have its genesis in a lie, and thus is in reference to false judgments based on said hearsay.  We are all guilty at some point of this if we are completely honest with ourselves, as we are quick to draw conclusions based on externals, but appearances can be deceiving so it requires digging a little deeper to get to the truth.  Recalling a few years back an incident that happened to Jase Robertson, of "Duck Dynasty" fame, when he was escorted out of the Trump Hotel for being a vagrant, we see what faulty judgment results in.  In appearances that could be an easy conclusion, as Jase had a full beard, long hair, and dresses like a hunter in the woods.  But, the real Jase is a celebrity who is also well-educated and devoutly Christian, which establishes that there was more to Jase than first impressions could ascertain.  "Big Charlie's" message to a young Moses Godfrey in Hentoff's novel is a similar observation - bottom line, if you have the fortitude to look past externals, a rich story with valuable insight awaits.  I can also speak from experience that basing things on mere externals at first impressions can later come back to bite you as well - that person you may have spurned and misjudged may end up being your "good Samaritan" when you are personally in a bind.  That has happened on occasion with me, and it can be humbling.  But, it also can be the start of a new and lasting friendship with that person as well.  Although you may initially feel like a jackass for misjudging such a person, it has a good ending to the story.  That is another reason why a Scripture passage such as Matthew 7:1 is important. Many people this day and age would benefit from a healthy dose of this too, and I have a couple of in-laws in particular who would benefit from the lessons afforded by that.  These particular in-laws are noted for being judgmental and condescending to those they feel are not "their caliber," and then they do the double-standard of spouting off religious talk and acting sanctimoniously.  Those types, like my offending in-laws, could use exposure to a guy like "Big Charlie," as they may actually learn something and be a bit humbled.  I am not going to waste a lot of time ragging on my jackass in-laws - they are in God's hands, so he'll deal with them - but suffice to say their judgmentalism has more or less invalidated any Christian witness they have to those they treat with contempt without getting to know them better. 

To summarize thus far, the fictional character of Moses Godfrey has taught us three important lessons:

1.  Clarify what you say, as a notion such as "soon" can have a lot of applications.
2.  "Be yourself" is likewise ambiguous, and there needs to be a determination of which "self" one is        to be and how it reflects on the true self of the person.
3.  Do not judge a person by externals, as more is under the surface.

"Blues," one's story, and the more academic subject we have touched on elsewhere of CNC's all communicate the importance of the personal "story" we each have.  That story is unique to us, as we have the unique experiences that shape it, and there is no such thing as a uniform experience although we may share certain universal affinities with others (including ethnic, regional, cultural, etc.).  These things are not to be confused with core convictions, although they play a role in shaping those also, they are vital in self-discovery and who we are as an individual.  So, what do I mean by that?  Simply, societal factors are formative, but not the form themselves - a huge difference.  This means that the "story" as it were determines which "self" one is in a given situation.  We don't reveal everything about our whole selves to everyone in every place, but our whole selves are carried with us regardless.  That is where Moses Godfrey's character was going in his soliloquies in the book.  Another way to say it is this - it is possible that one can be the true self they were created as without being their full self.  It boils down to plain honesty with discretion, simply put.  This begs the question if anyone can be one's whole self at all?  God possibly can, as he is omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent, and omnipresent, so he knows the whole self of his own as well as ours, as he designed each of us as we are.  What about a spouse?  To be completely honest, a husband and wife cannot truly be their full selves with each other at any given time, and there are two reasons for that.  One, there are parts of our real selves we don't even know, or if we do, we are not sure how to communicate them.  Secondly - and I am saying this after 27 years of marriage myself - a husband and wife don't know everything about each other automatically - as enjoyable and special as the conjugal union on the wedding night is, there is no magical enlightenment entailed with it, nor is it supposed to be so.  These things take time, and as a couple matures in their marital bond, they begin to understand each other better.  Even within the context of the sacramental bond of matrimony, human nature is still limited to a degree, and this means that there may be undiscovered dimensions of the "full self" a spouse may not even know about themselves, much less about the other partner in the union.  Still too, many things will go to the grave without revelation, and of course the old axiom "dead men tell no tales" applies as well there.  A couple will know more about each other at their 50th anniversary than they did at their courtship, but they may never know everything about each other.  But, that may be the way it is supposed to be anyway, a thought for another time.

Back to some further thoughts on the word "soon" as well, the word "soon" is at best an ambiguous response, and to be honest it is never the best answer for anything as it can mean almost anything.  The answer "soon" begs another question - the word "when."  "Soon" can mean seconds or years, and it is ultimately the opposite of the word "later," which is equally ambiguous honestly.  This means the two words are at risk of being used interchangeably as well, as "soon" often is "later."  That whole concept can prove frustrating, especially when a situation demands urgency.  Godfrey therefore in the book was right to ask young Tom what he meant when he asked about when Godfrey was releasing an album soon.  Godfrey could have given Tom a straight answer for sure, but he didn't because he saw the ambiguity of Tom's question and wanted to use the occasion as a lesson for young Tom.  I definitely learned from it, to be sure!

Now, lesson #3 - not judging from externals.  While "judge not a book by its cover" is an apt application of this principle, another is "appearances can be deceiving."  Over the years, I've noted this many times in ways both surprising and disappointing.  In surprising ways, often it is a person I misjudged as weird or somehow offensive to me for some stupid reason ending up being a person I gained great respect for and then I later feel like a jackass (as I should) for wrongly initially judging them.  It also can be disappointing, though, in that there are people who leave a good initial impression but later turn out to be people you wished you'd never met once you really get to know them.  I have been on both ends of that spectrum.  One area where this resonates particularly obvious is in religious circles, in that often the people who tend to shout "Hallelujah!" at everything and use Jesus as a point of reference in everything from a lottery win to a good bowel movement, or prefacing their addressing everyone they meet as "Brother This" or "Sister That," but when their true character emerges, they end up being obnoxious jackasses as well.  A person who tries to overcompensate by expressing the "religious act" is often trying to "prove" their Christianity, and that is first off not necessary but also it reveals a lot about such people too.  It is the quieter religious person who crosses themselves discreetly at meals and makes his or her faith known in a low-key way who is more impressive to me.  Why is that?  If you have true faith, you simply have nothing to prove to anyone, and thus you don't need to trumpet it with speech peppered with "Christianese" and calling everyone "Brother" or "Sister."  You don't call your biological siblings "Brother Bob" or "Sister Sue" do you?  Well, you don't need to do that with your Christian brethren either - they'll figure it out whether you are "part of the family" or not, believe me!

At the time I was reflecting on Jazz Country in my journal, I felt the urge to listen to some Thelonious Monk.  I got a CD reissue of Monk's landmark 1963 Columbia LP Monk's Dream, and the title cut of the album is one of my all-time favorite classic jazz recordings.  The early 1960's, for classic jazz, was an age of pianists - Monk, Vince Guaraldi, Brubeck, and others were making some great records at that time.  One other album from around the same time featured who was then a young pianist named Herbie Hancock, and the 1965 LP was Maiden Voyage.  The talk in Hentoff's novel about "letting the music speak" applies well to the title cut of that LP, as everytime I hear it I am taken back to those days when I was fresh out of high school and spending my summers in Brunswick, GA, with my dad - one thing I liked to do then was go over to St. Simons and Jekyll Islands fishing or just walking around, and Hancock's recording transports you to the scene where you can smell the ocean, hear the seagulls squawking, and see the sunlight on those summer afternoons.  You feel the calm, see the sand of the beach, and even can envision dolphins and large rays leaping out of the water in the distance. It evokes simpler times for me in other words, which is one reason I really appreciate that record.  On the original 1965 release of Maiden Voyage, Hancock is a mere 25 years old, and he features another young up-and-coming trumpeter who would 5 years later release a landmark album of his own that ushered in jazz fusion by the name of Freddy Hubbard.  Hubbard's 1970 LP Red Clay is also one I have in my collection, and despite the fact I personally am not a big fan of jazz fusion, Hubbard's album is fresh and innovative for its time.  What Hancock's Maiden Voyage exemplifies for me is that it embodies truly what was the last generation of true classic jazz legends, and bookending that era was the young trumpeter Wynton Marsalis, who is for me the last true classic jazz artist of innovation (many of Marsalis's albums were released during my middle school years in the mid-1980s, not long after the time I started collecting records).  The important thing in my mention of those old classic jazz records is that they also take me back to a place when I was young as well.   Talking about the various "selves" we manifest reminded me of something also - although I am definitely by all definitions a political conservative and a religious traditionalist, I also have that underlying eccentric and nonconformist streak that defines a certain aspect of my identity too.  I have been a fan of classic jazz for at least 40 years now, and although I primarily focus on vintage big bands (which although intersecting with classic jazz, the big bands are more than that for sure), I also appreciate good classic jazz.   As a matter of fact, up until the mid-1940's or so, jazz and big bands were pretty much entwined with each other, until a group of young jazz musicians starting around 1944 or so began to evolve a separate identity out of the big band setting (although some of this new jazz was played masterfully by big bands too, granted) - they included people like Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, Miles Davis, Gerry Mulligan, Thelonious Monk, and others.  These new jazz pioneers - the style was called "Bebop" - began to move the focus away from the big dance band format to small groups, and they also went beyond dance music to embody innovation and experimentation.  That type of jazz - which later also manifested as "cool," "third stream," and "fusion" - persisted until the mid-1980's when the tragedy happened.  A series of musical abominations with names such as Chuck Mangione, Al Jarreau, and Kenny G came along with a monstrosity called "smooth jazz," and at that point, classic jazz went the way of the dinosaur.  What is called "smooth jazz" is, in reality, nothing more than Muzak with a backbeat and saxophones, and it has nothing to do with true jazz.  Modern "jazz" stations today are mostly slick commercialized FM venues that play crap like Kenny G, which is so lacking in innovation and originality that it has essentially become sterile rock music honestly.  It is artificial, overly-electronic, over-commercialized, and has nothing in common with great legends like Miles, Bird, or Dizzy.  To use jazz lingo, I just don't "dig" this "smooth jazz" jive because it is what used to be called "square" and "vanilla."  That being said, I also consider classic jazz to be Western Civilization's last true art form, and although there are those who carry on the legacy (Vince Giordano comes to mind, and thank God for him and those like him!) it has been relegated to a small community of aficionados like myself.  Classical music likewise has declined, although there are fortunately young talented composers like my friend Adam Gilberti who still embody the continuation of the legacy of serious musical composition and performance.  But, for the most part, classic jazz has had its run - thankfully though it leaves behind a rich recorded legacy for those who appreciate it to keep it alive and preserved.  And it is in the hands of those of us who do appreciate those legacies to preserve them, and I try to do my part in doing so. 

That concludes a lengthy number of insights I had today that I have reflected on over the past couple of weeks, and I hope to see you all again soon. 

Ethical Decisions - Some Thoughts From Occupational Training Videos I Viewed the Past Couple of Weeks

One thing about starting a new job - in particular with a Federal contractor - is that there are a lot of training exercises you have to undertake.  I had some of those in a series of videos I was required to watch (and did of course), and surprisingly there was some solid information on them.  Occupational training videos often tend to either be so bland you fall asleep watching them, or they are so common-sense that you don't pay attention to them anyway and you still understand them.  In this case however, there were some good things that I feel can be applicable to life in general, which is why I wanted to discuss them.

The video I watched focused on three steps to ethical decisions, and they are as follows:

1. Investigate
2. Evaluate
3. Activate

Let's now take these one-by-one and explore them further, as there are some good insights regarding them.

First, what does it mean to investigate in regard to an ethical decision?  Essentially, it emphasizes the importance of gathering all the facts about a given situation before drawing any conclusion.  This is a valuable lesson for people who mess around on social media a lot, as dumb arguments and dogfights happen simply because the facts are either ignored or the parties involved create their own false set of "facts" that then spark controversy.  Essentially, the step here is to know what the hell you are talking about before going off on something.

So, now what does it mean to evaluate?  Once the facts are gathered, it is up to the person to determine if those facts document actions that are right or wrong.  It is also important to differentiate in this process that just because something is legal does not mean that it is moral - legality and morality are different things, and in today's society for instance, there are a lot of immoral things that are completely legal ("same-sex marriage" comes to mind).  Often, in a workplace situation, some actions may be legal and compliant with company policy, but they may conflict with one's moral compass.  I had a situation like that last year that cost me a job honestly.  The company I was working for was processing mail for non-profit client organizations, and what those who were opening and processing the mail items were instructed to do was to save checks or other monetary donations while throwing out notes and other things from the donors. I personally saw this as wrong, and contacted one of the client companies about it, which was against our company policy.  That action on my part got me fired, but it was the right thing to do.  I had the moral conviction that if a donor takes the time to write the organization they are giving money to, and if that organization accepts the money, they should also respect the donor enough to read and respond to correspondence, not throw it out.   That was what bugged me in that particular situation.  While the company allowed one thing, the thing they allowed was not morally good, in other words.  So, upon evaluating that this was wrong, I acted, and that leads to the next step.

Once you know what the facts are, and you have evaluated the facts based on your moral convictions, you then need to do something about that.  Appropriate action must be decided, and then it is up to the person making that decision to act upon what is decided.  Factoring into this is weighing the risks - what are the consequences of how I choose to act.  If you are willing to take that risk and act upon it, then some consequence will naturally follow. 

Also factoring into the three steps are what are known as core values.  Although each person may have a different set of core values, some of them are universal to everyone, and they include the following:

1. Integrity
2. Honesty
3. Respect for dignity of fellow human beings.

When talking about integrity first of all, it is important to know what it is.  Integrity is defined as two things:

1. A state of moral uprightness and consistency
2. A state of being whole and undivided.

In other words, one acts according to his or her convictions without conflict.  One cannot be double-minded, or be something they are not, in other words.  We as human beings often have a weakness here at times in that we set a bar higher than we can reach, and it ends up blowing up in our faces.  You see that in some religious communities, in particular some Fundamentalist Protestant denominations who stress personal holiness without understanding limitations.  Integrity is knowing your boundaries and doing your best to stay in them without over-extending your reach to do something you are not capable of.  If one can do that, one has integrity.  Now, on occasion, we all fall short of this (I know I have many times!) and we cannot allow ourselves to be beat up about it.  That is where the next core value comes in.

Honesty is an important albeit sometimes complicated value that we should all strive for.  Honesty basically entails being honest first of all with yourself, and then with others, but also within proper context.  If you do screw up with something, part of honesty about that is owning up to it, and then admitting that you need work in that particular area.  This is true to some degree of all of us, as we have all come up short.  Rather than making excuses for that however, we need to honestly acknowledge our limitations and move on - strengthening those areas where we may lack is also important in other words. 

As for respect, this too can be complicated, in that it involves a proper understanding of personhood.  As Dr. John Crosby, one of my former professors at Franciscan University of Steubenville, taught us in a Philosophy of the Human Person course, there are essentially four things we need to understand about personhood:

1. Persona est sui iuris - A person is his/her own and not the property of another.
2. A person is an end unto themselves and not a mere means.
3. A person is a whole in themselves and not a mere part
4. Every person is subject to fundamental rights.

In order to properly understand all this, there are two things we need to do.  First, we need to discourage and even prevent stereotypes based on race, gender, ethnic origin, religion, age, disability, or other factors.  Second, it is important for each of us to cultivate a proper code of conduct that centers around good manners irrespective of social position or other externals.  However, there are some things that respecting the personhood of others does not mean, and there are three of those.   First, respecting the dignity of the personhood of others does not translate as altruism - the respect and proper treatment of one's fellow human beings should never come at the expense of diminishing self to a point where one self-denies personhood.  Second, The common good is another factor that needs to be respected as well, and that means that many societal norms being peddled nowadays - a big one that comes to mind is the mythology of "political correctness" - may do more harm than good.  Third, the core values of honesty and integrity are proper for both parties involved, which means it is perfectly fine and even natural on occasion to disagree if such disagreement is honest yet respectful.  That leads now to a metaphysical dimension of the discussion.

We have discussed on many occasions something called central narrative convictions, which entail some important questions we need to ask based on our worldview.  Using the Catholic "Four-Fold Hermeneutic" that is often employed in Bible reading, we can ask those questions using the acronym LAMA:

1. Literal - corresponds to the question "Who am I?"
2. Allegorical - corresponds to the question "What do I believe about (fill in the blank here)?"
3. Moral - corresponds to the question "What is wrong, and what do I do about it?"
4. Anagogical - corresponds to the question "What will be the consequence of my choice/action?" or "Where will this choice lead me?"

The answers to these questions are the CNC's which also entail our personal core values.  Core values on an individual scale are important for each person to define, and these questions allow for that. In order to do so, one must do some major reflection, and there are some actions necessary resulting from those reflections.  One such action would be for the person to take a personal inventory of their own core values.  One can do so keeping a journal (something I would highly recommend) and listing them as they are able to do so.  If a list of these is undertaken, it leads to another step - one must elaborate the personal importance of these things.  In the case of the workplace, how do one's personal core values intersect with those of one's employer?  This is why, in addition to knowing your own core values, it is also vital to know those of an employer as well, and they are often readily available in a corporate mission statement.   Once all of that is accomplished, it is then important to employ classification of one's core values, and this entails a few things.  First, if a value is unique to the individual, it is called an incommunicable value.  If a value listed intersects with others' values or with the corporate mission statement, it is called an incommunicable or universal value.  If intersectionality does occur, it should lead to a willful and subjective acceptance of said value by both parties.  However, if one party is coerced or pressured to accept the value of the other unwillingly, and if the aggressive party keeps trying to impose this value upon the other party on those unwilling to accept them, then this is a form of coercion, and does not reflect the respect of the dignity of personhood of the party whom is subjected to that.   Coercion, first of all, violates dignity of personhood and is distinguished from willful subjectivism in that it is a form of subjugation.  Likewise, coercion is a form of bullying and should not be encouraged or tolerated.  This then leads to a discussion of what to do if there occurs a conflict of interest with the involved parties.

If there is a conflict in core values involved between two parties, there are measures that need to be taken.  First, should it happen, a person is within legal rights to take the proper steps to rectify the situation, preferably in a peaceful and conciliatory manner.  This may even entail calling in an indifferent third party or authority.  Second, a person does have the right to respectfully disagree with some things that go against their own convictions, provided they do so in a civil and professional manner.  This entails first of all getting the disagreement documented in some form, as it will more than likely articulate the issue better than trying to verbally express it.  It also is important to always observe proper protocol in such situations, meaning that one cannot go over the head of a superior if the superior is the other party in such a disagreement - in that case, there is a chain of command to be followed.  Third, documentation should be retained for one's own records, as well as for the public record if necessary.  This is simply the old CYA rule.   If these steps are followed and taken, often it leads to successful and meaningful conflict resolution.

You may have guessed by now that I have augmented somewhat the original material from the training videos, as I had my own insights while I was watching them.  I wanted to tailor the material to meet my own personal application of them, as they may apply to a given situation I myself may have faced or may yet face.  In time, I plan on codifying this into my own personal mission statement, something I really need to do.   There is always room though for modification and adaptation to different issues or events, and in time those experiences will be the basis for my own personal code of ethics.  If you are reading this, hopefully it will inspire you to do the same.  Thank you for allowing me to share with you today. 

More Thoughts About Classical Education

Over the past week or so, I have been reading some articles in a classical education catalog I receive monthly from Memoria Press called The Classical Teacher.  In it, there are two articles by Martin Cothran, a noted writer and classical education proponent, that got my attention.   The first was an interview that he did about what classical education is, and there are a few notes I wanted to comment on based on that one first.

Cothran's thesis proposes that there are three diverse strains in Western Civilization that have shaped and formed it, and we'll talk about those first.  The first Cothran calls "Athens," and the term is representative of ancient Greek culture which has such an enormous impact on our contemporary civilization.  The Greek culture as represented by "Athens" is one of a speculative microcosm, meaning that speculation is the catalyst for seeking knowledge, and thus leads to philosophical inquiry.  The Greek culture was obviously not perfect, in that it asked the right questions in many cases, but did frequently come to the wrong conclusions.  Thanks however to supernatural grace (more on that later), the Church produced great thinkers such as St. Thomas Aquinas that did lead us to the right conclusions.

Cothran's next diverse strain he notes is what he calls "Rome," meaning the ancient civilization of the Roman Republic and its successors, notably the Roman Empire and Christian Byzantium.  The best way to describe "Rome" is that it is a political microcosm, meaning that order and law were prime components in the shaping of its society.  It was noted for being innovative and constructive in building infrastructure and an administrative network to govern its massive domain.  Part of this is a major emphasis on the practical.  To add some of my own thoughts, Roman culture was the skeleton of Western Civilization, in that it had a continual legacy even into the earliest decades of the 20th century.  Let me elaborate on that.  Naturally, the Roman legacy was carried on by the Byzantines, whose political power lasted almost until the year 1500, when the last Byzantine kingdom, the Empire of Trebizond, fell to the Turks around 1475 or thereabouts.  This Roman legacy was likewise shared by Charlemagne's Holy Roman Empire, the later Hapsburg domains, and Czarist Russia under both the Rurikids (my own forebears) and the Romanovs.   The tragic end of this legacy, for me, came at the end of World War I, when many of those great empires disappeared, and with them a whole legacy of Western Civilization.  And, the remainder of the 20th century, as well as the 21st century that followed, have been marked by a tragic decline in Western Civilization.  Thankfully there are enclaves though which are preserving the best of this legacy, and I hope to be one of them.

The third diverse strain Cothran notes is what is called "Jerusalem," and in many ways it was the Jewish legacy that made the survival of Rome and Athens possible.  Ancient Hebrew culture could be described, based on the reading of the historical books of the Old Testament, as a spiritual microcosm - the king (when there was one) was to be an instrument of God, and he was as accountable for his actions as the priest, and they shared an authority that was ordered by God Himself.  The big lesson here is how divine intervention shapes and plays a role not only with individuals, but with nations as well.  One of my own spiritual mentors, the late Fr. Eusebius Stephanou, once wrote that rather than just one "Chosen People," God had two - the Jews and the Greeks.  And, through Rome, God allowed for a platform to institutionalize and later integrate the Judeo-Christian legacy into Western Civilization and its heritage as a vital part of its total identity. 

This is where the Church fits in.  The Church inherited this entire rich deposit, and like the inherited remains of a deceased relative, the Church preserved the best of this deposit while discarding the bad aspects of it.  And, the Church was able to do this through the phenomenon of supernatural grace, which is defined by both Aquinas and Bonaventure as healing, elevating, and perfecting Nature, both the individual human nature of each of us as well as the nature of the environment around us, and supernatural grace is endowed by God through the Church - specifically through individual Christians acting in accord with the Church's historical deposit of faith - and thus the Church should be at the center of Western Civilization, preserving the best of its legacy and healing the imperfections that have afflicted it over the centuries.

That leads now to the second article of Cothran's, which defines what a classical education is and how it is set up.  There are seven interrelated disciplines within a core classical curriculum, and they are divided into two groups.  The first, called by the Latin term Trivium, is primarily focused on the language arts - the three disciplines this entails are grammar, logic, and rhetoric.   The second, called by the Latin term Quadrivium, is more centered on mathematical and quantitative reasoning.  It has four disciplines entailed - arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music.  Now, what we have here honestly is a simplistic model, as obviously there are more things entailed than these.  They are more expanded, for instance, and also there is this Judeo-Christian worldview that should be incorporated into both groups of disciplines.  That naturally would also incorporate theology and philosophy (faith and reason) into the equation as well.  But, these should bind together the others, and be a catalytic force for a more wholistic education.

There is also a noted differentiation between Classical and vocational education, as they are two different systems.  Vocational training, for instance, has as its purpose to train people to do certain things well.   On the other hand, classical education teaches a set of academic skills (called the liberal arts) and a body of cultural knowledge (Western Civilization) that has the purpose of training people to do anything well.   However, I would expand upon Cothran's premise by noting that vocational training is not something to be slighted, and although I don't in any way believe Cothran would do that, there is a danger in doing so from some readers who may misinterpret his intention.  To expand upon what I say, vocational training should go hand-in-hand with Classical education and when that synthesis occurs, the results are always good.  The academic skills and cultural knowledge gained from the Classical curriculum, for instance, would aid in a more practical application via vocational training.  Therefore, unlike many models of vocational training today, which seem to focus on dollars and not intellectual growth, a true model of synthesis of the vocational and the Classical would make one's education more interdisciplinary, and thus would incorporate more vocationally-oriented skills such as culinary arts, the use and familiarity of technology, and other practical basic skills with a deeper aesthetic sense that transcends just getting an education to make a big salary only (although that would no doubt also happen).  The vocational training of the past was often accomplished in two ways - either by compulsory conscription into military service or assignment to a professional guild of some sort by apprenticeship.  These didn't diminish or exclude classical education, but rather often both Classical education and this vocational background were required to make men responsible citizens of their nations who aided in productivity and stability.  The vocational aspect would also instill a regimen of discipline and routine in order to make studying a Classical curriculum more productive as well, which means both of these went hand-in-hand rather than in opposition to each other.  It was only Enlightenment-inspired secularism that divorced the two, much as it also did faith and reason, and thus this disconnect between the academic and the practical led to an inevitable decline in society that we see in full force today. 

Language cannot be underestimated either, as both the studies of Latin and Greek were always traditionally considered the best way to master the discipline of grammar.  Latin as a language is regular, highly grammatical, and has rules in place that can be universally applied to any language.  Today, it is the root of 60% of all academic English, and is still considered the language of science and learning.  If you study law or medicine, for instance, Latin terms come up frequently.  However, Greek as well plays a major role too that should not be underestimated, and of the remaining 40% noted above of all academic English, Greek plays a significant role in the percentage.  Therefore, this sort of supplement's Cothran's assertion regarding Latin. 

In the second article of Cothran's which he authored himself entitled "The Living Order of Education," the opening thesis is that a benefit of knowing Latin is that it gives one the ability to understand more fully what English words mean, even when there has been no previous exposure to such words.   More importantly, it gives one the ability to better understand a word that one may see thousands of times on a daily basis, and may even frequently use.  There is now a part of the article that Cothran calls the concept of "Destruction," and it deserves some attention as well.

"Destruction" is the combination of two Latin words - de meaning "to undo," and struo meaning a structure or bulwark if you will.  Its literal meaning then is "the undoing of structure."  The implication behind the Latin terms that make up the word is of a shattering, crushing, and explosion of something.  But, underneath that is a more banal and less dramatic implication - it forcibly takes away a thing's structure, as well as its intrinsic organization and order.  So, we now turn to society today and see how we witness this.

Beginning with the most fundamental aspect of any civilization, there is the impact upon the family.  The dismantling of the family structure - brought about in this case by many so-called "progressive" policies such as the legalization of "same-sex marriage," the open advocacy for legalized murder via abortion and euthanasia, and the rise of a corporatist "crony capitalism" that doesn't embody true capitalism in that it seeks to subvert the productive small business and also impose a "cubicle culture" on the average American - has ultimate and inevitable negative affects on the individual. An individual without a supportive family structure loses a lot, in other words.  In education likewise, the urge to destruction has had catastrophic consequences.  For example, the dispensing of the orderly operation of the classroom by so-called "enlightened" or "woke" teachers who spout agendas that make them activists rather than true educators has caused a "dumbing-down" of younger generations.  Also, the avoidance of an orderly approach to academic subjects has produced a restlessness, distraction, and lack of focus in the classroom.  Of course this is symptomatic of a greater problem Cothran notes, which we will elaborate on now.

The current modern (or post-modern) world is at war with order.  In education, it is responsible for the disordering of classrooms and curriculum, and both of those in turn contribute to the disordering of young minds.  One casualty of this war on order in education is the modern aversion to teaching phonics.  It also has affected negatively the teaching of memorization and it is behind a refusal to emphasize formal grammar.  As an end result, it leads to ultimate destruction, as lack of education starves a civilization of its true progress.   And, Cothran's observations lead to a few of my own now.

In Catholic thinker Plinio Correa de Oliviera's seminal work Revolution and Counter-Revolution, he gives this destruction a name - the "Revolution."  He notes that this "Revolution" is a series of multiple aspects that stem from a crisis of contemporary mankind, and he notes that there are five defining characteristics of this crisis:

1.  It is universal - meaning that it ultimately affects everyone with some negative impact.
2.  It is a single crisis with multiple manifestations - meaning that all of the symptoms of the crisis, like those of a terminal disease, are interconnected.
3. It is total - this means that in due time, the crisis will engulf every aspect of life and the problems it generates will lead to the destruction that Cothran notes in education in his article, just for one example.
4. It is dominant - at the root of every problem is a dominant mindset that drives the whole thing.  These things do not develop out of a vacuum, in other words.
5. It is processive - This again means it didn't appear out of a vacuum, but the seeds were sown possibly centuries earlier.  My hypothesis points it back to the thinking of people such as William of Ockham, Marsilus of Padua, Machiavelli, Spinoza, Descartes, and others. 

If one were to synthesize Professor de Oliviera's and Cothran's observations, one would see a picture forming that notes that this crisis we face now - the "destruction" of Cothran's thesis and the definition of "revolution" that de Oliviera has put forth - is referred to by both as being the same thing but in different disciplines.  One of de Oliviera's students, John Horvat, notes on page 17 of his book Return to Order that the issues that Cothran notes in the destruction of education can directly be attributed to something called "frenetic intemperance," which Horvat defines as "a restless, explosive, and relentless drive inside man that manifests itself in modern economy by first seeking to throw off legitimate constraints and then gratifying disordered passions."   Cothran and Horvat are saying the same thing in other words - post-modern society is driven, in my words, by an "appetite for destruction."  Cothran and Horvat are talking about different areas (Cothran addresses education, while Horvat primarily is addressing economics) but they come to the same exact conclusion that they express in their own individual ways, and it is a conclusion I also agree with.  Taking de Oliviera's fifth characteristic of the "crisis," Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker also note this disturbing trend in theology (in particular how the Bible is interpreted) in their extensive volume Politicizing the Bible, as they also note that some of the same people I mentioned above were responsible for the current decline in their own way.  It also extends to other contributors - in philosophy, for instance, we see Nietzsche, Heidegger, Kant, and others.  In music and the arts, we see the rise of both "rap music" and rock music, as well as their permeation into other genres, and also the bad post-modern art of people like Andy Warhol.  In education, it is Horace Mann and John Dewey who are the culprits, while in economics the openly-homosexual John Maynard Keynes is the implementer.  In science there are several - Charles Darwin, Francis Galton, as well as a plethora of eugenics and transhumanist people such as Ray Kurzweil, Kevin Warwick, and Nick Bostrom.  In sexual ethics and morality, there are some blatant ones - Margaret Sanger, Alfred Kinsey, Simone de Bevoir, just to name a few.  In theology, we see Bultmann, Barth, Tillich, Niebuhr, Cone, Moltmann, and Hauerwas, as well as liberal Protestant "Emergents" such as Brian McLaren and Rob Bell.  Then, in politics, you have Marx, the Fascists, and people like Saul Alinsky.   Today, that legacy of destruction is being effectively carried out by the Silicon Valley "Billionaire Boys Club" of Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, as well as the CEO's of Google and other big communications monopolies, not to mention a host of activist politicians (primarily Democrats, although Republicans have their fair share of these as well).  In place of teaching solid academics and proper grammar, activists masquerading as "educators" now pump "political correctness" into kids' heads, and Classical education is often seen as "racist" and the symptom of a phantom strawman no one can clearly define called "White privilege."  When the question has changed from "What is a pronoun?" to "What are your pronouns?" due to the fact these agents of destruction are promoting agendas that include classifying 700 imaginary genders that only exist in the addled minds of lunatics and are not scientifically confirmed, we have a crisis in education that is also reflexive of the general crisis in contemporary society.  A well-grounded and well-rounded classical education, incorporating as well a balanced vocational curriculum, would easily correct this course in a generation.  Alas, though, not many are listening.  So, we have a culture of death and destruction, and thus a "revolution" that is characterized by excess and crisis, a revolution that is against fact and reason. 

I could go on with this, and perhaps at another time I can find time to share more in specific areas, but for now you get the idea.  Education is in crisis, but it is a crisis that is a symptom of a larger problem that endangers our civilization.  Only proper education and guidance can reverse this destructive course, and thanks to people like Cothran, there are roadmaps in place to make that happen.  If more catch on and are enlightened to the truth, there is a possibility for true change.  Let's pray it happens.   Thanks again, and will see you next time.