Weinstein, 2017

Male behavior toward women may change significantly in the aftermath of Weinstein’s involuntary “exposure” earlier this year.    2017 will be the year that heterosexual men were “outed.”  At long last, a bright line can now be said to separate men from women, making gratuitous verbalizations and uninvited hands-on contact  very clearly out of bounds, not to mention behaviors that were already illegal like sexual extortion and forcible sex.  Unspoken but clearly on the Jumbotron now are the words: “We all know what you’re doing, so cut it out.”

What an education the male world is getting already–these behaviors fall somewhere along the spectrum of uncool, unethical, and illegal.  Or did men already know this but find it sexually stimulating to cross those lines anyway?  Either, we are on notice.  Cut it out.

But will men be able openly to discuss pre- and post-Weinstein sexual ethics publicly, the way it is occurring, and has occurred for decades (millennia?)?  We never were before.   Talk about self-exposure!

And will college chaplains, or parish ministers and priests, have any way to open such conversations–face to face conversations?  Given the bad history on this subject of religious communities, particularly Christian ones, we don’t start with much credibility.

But if it were possible to bring men into the public domain where everyone else is talking, what a relief that should be to both women–and men.  If men couldn’t help ourselves before, under the daily and hourly pressures of the id, participating in the dialogue should should only aid us to keep in check.

There have been calls for men to have the frank conversations, heretofore unknown, about “the rhinoceros in the basement.”  You know, that creature which we hide away, feeding it secretly, trying to calm it until it just has to be taken out eventually for its “walk.”  The men’s movement was about celebrating male energy, not discussing it.  Drumming not talking.

So here is a challenge for clergy and religious leaders to take up: create public space for this conversation.  The blogosphere (like this one), Facebook, op-ed pieces are not enough.

What might we do to contribute to the advancement of the human race on this issue?  Let me know–I’m looking for ideas.

“A cultivated ignorance of all things public.”

Forgetting the unforgettable–an American trait.  So wrote James Baldwin in 1967 about Americans’ habit of forgetting what is unforgettable–racial history.  What we cannot bear to look at, we do not look at.  If we don’t see it, it didn’t happen.  Like, the lynchings.  The red lining.  Inner city schools.  Mass incarceration.  Any reference in public to these historical events prompts panic, denial, amnesia, discounting.  In private, it’s expletives.  It seems that we just can’t have this talk.

Could a good movie start some serious conversation?   Any one of at least a dozen movies on race in the last five years could do the job.  Collectively, they absolutely should do the job.

A Niagara of films by and about African-Americans has cascaded forth: 12 Years a Slave, Selma, The Birth of a Nation, 13th, I Am Not Your Negro, Fences, Hidden Figures.  Now Mudbound.  These are  not all “slave movies” whose violence people (understandably) have to avoid.  But the emotional violence is (understandably) unavoidable, and we just have to face it.

Simultaneously in the print media, Ta-Nahisi Coates addressed us from The Atlantic, and we have heard from Michelle Alexander (The New Jim Crow), and Bryan Stephenson (Just Mercy), Michael Eric Dyson (Tears We Cannot Stop).  Add to that the contribution of one white scholar, Jennifer Harvey (Dear White Christians).  This year a revised and updated edition of Beverly Daniel’s Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? appeared, with a new 79 page introduction.

An astonishing outpouring of heart to the country!

Can’t we connect with it??

Let’s at least connect with each other, shall we?  Tell me if you have seen these movies, or read these books, and what they mean to you.

I’m going to do the same at my church, and I’ll get back to you with the results soon.  Maybe I can start a study group dedicated to discussing these titles.

 

Leading dialogue is not easy.

Dialogue is the new watchword of our time.  To promote understanding.  To advance education.  To defuse conflict.  To co-exist.

What is the chaplains’ role in fostering dialogue on campus?  What can we as religious leaders on campus do to promote dialogue?

Can we be the convener? the sponsor?  the facilitator?  What would that take?

Leading dialogue presupposes have some creds.  It presupposes being known, and trusted.  It means having a public face, with a public voice, having made a public identity.

That means having made it into the public discourse of the community.  What means have we employed to this end?  How is a public identity established?

Write.  Make your thoughts and reactions to the events on campus known.  And to national events.  Once upon a time, that meant writing a column in the student newspaper.  Today, that might mean to blog, to do a Facebook page, to Tweet.  But the trouble with social media is that it depends on developing a following and that depends on a certain cheekiness and quotability.  Do we have those skills?  Or chuzpah?

Get invited to speak.  Every semester there are panels on public issues.  Do we have contacts on the faculty who would turn to us when a symposium on “Black Lives Matter” takes place?  Or when a panel on DACA students gets put together?

Host.  Create a teach-in.  Most important: be the lead speaker.

Chaplains must take steps to become primary resources, rather than just the supporting cast.