A Game to Remember

A reflection for a post Superbowl morning:

The columnist, David Brooks, recently observed that “Throughout Western history,  there have been three major athletic traditions. First, there was the Greek tradition. Greek sports were highly individualistic. There was little interest in teamwork. Instead sports were supposed to inculcate aristocratic virtues like courage and endurance. They gave individuals a way to achieve eternal glory.

Then, there was the Roman tradition. In ancient Rome, free men did not fight in the arena. Roman sports were a spectacle organized by the government. The free Romans watched while the slaves fought and were slaughtered. The entertainment emphasized the awesome power of the state. (Remember the movie, “Gladiator.”)

Finally, there was the British tradition. In the Victorian era, elite schools used sports to form a hardened ruling class. Unlike the Greeks, the British placed tremendous emphasis on team play and sportsmanship. If a soccer team committed a foul, it would withdraw its goalie to permit the other team to score. The object was to inculcate a sense of group loyalty, honor and rule-abidingness — traits that were important to a class trying to manage a far-flung empire.” (Remember the film, “Chariots of Fire.”)

It’s interesting to ponder – on the day after the Superbowl, how the Greeks, Romans, and British created a context for today’s sports world. In Miami we witnessed  individual excellence (Drew Brees), the power of the state, (the absolutely over the top extravagance of the event itself, complete with the Star Spangled Banner — Air Force flyover and The Who), and of course the sense of loyalty and honor that were displayed among teammates.

I’d like you to focus, though, on Brooks’ last line – that the object of sports was to inculcate loyalty and honor.

A few weeks ago,  you may remember my complaining –ok, ok, maybe I was whining  (you see I’m not Greek, Roman, or British) – about Thierry Henry, the French soccer player whose handball ousted Ireland from the World Cup. At the time, I said that, while I didn’t like it, it’s hard to imagine anyone doing anything other  than what the French did – which was to accept the goal and move on.

But then Mr. White, our Athletic Director at the Prep, reminded me of something that once happened at a Prep hockey game. Some of you may have been on Mr. Perren’s team that is described in a letter I received February 15, 2005, 5 years ago this week:

“Dear Sir,

I would like to take this opportunity to comment the Upper Canada College athletic program and coaches. I recently watched the performance of the Upper Canada College Under 14 hockey team. The team played at a high level and showed great sportsmanship.

Attending the recent LCC Tournament in Montreal, I watched a game between Appleby College and UCC. (I happen to be the father of an Appleby player).

During the first period, a UCC player shot the puck towards the goal. Due to poor positioning by the officials, some controversy arose over whether the puck crossed the line. Following a conference between the officials, a goal was awarded to UCC. The Appleby coach politely presented his case of an errant shot without success. Next the UCC coach signaled the official for a conference. My first reaction was that the AC and UCC rivalry must start at an early age. To my astonishment, I saw the official proceed toward the AC goalie, signal for a face off near the goal, and wave off the goal.

With the score remaining tied during most of the game, the contest was most enjoyable for the parents and fans. The efforts of both teams were at a maximum level in this close athletic match. They hockey game remained close until later in the final period when UCC scored additional goals. The UCC coach later said, “My players on the ice said the shot was not a goal.”

I am compelled to write to ensure you are aware of this great act of sportsmanship by your coach and players. An athletic competition is played, not only for the outcome but also for the activity itself and to learn sportsmanship. UCC’s hockey team displayed true sportsmanship. As Old Boys, this will be a proud moment for them to reflect on.”

I don’t know if our players remember that moment or even that game, but clearly what happened at the LCC tournament 2005 involved much more than hockey. What Mr. Perren and the U-14 hockey team did – in that simple yet completely counter-cultural moment, was to show all of us what honour looks like. I hope that their example will stay with all of us as we continue to compete on the ice, hardwood, fields, and courts of life.

Greasey Thoughts

Don’t get me wrong. I thoroughly enjoyed the BSS-UCC production of “Grease.” The students did a great job of singing and dancing, and by the end of the night, many of us were tapping our toes and pining for “Happy Days.”

But they weren’t necessarily better days. Hidden behind the pink ladies and the greasers, the audience found more than just boy meets girl in the middle of adolescent awkwardness. There is something very dark going on there at Rydell High. The intellectual is, as always it seems, the object of ridicule, and the innocent is alone and alienated until she compromises her values.

Once Sandy succumbs to peer pressure –  once she realizes it’s more important to meet Danny’s expectations than her own — then she is able to don the black outfit and command centre stage. Once that decision is made, Sandy not only fits in, she is celebrated.

But something in me thinks that Sandy’s metamorphosis — and the joy with which it is greeted – should give all of us who know and care about high school boys and girls reason to pause.

Not a Phony

J.D. Salinger, who passed away yesterday at 91, will be forever known as the author of “The Cather in the Rye. ” While he didn’t invent adolescent alienation, Salinger captured it in a way that has made high school boys smile knowingly for over half a century.

If “Huckleberry Finn” is the great coming of age novel of the 19th century, you can make the case for “Catcher” being the same for the 20th.

Taking a Stand

A few years ago I was completely intrigued by something called “The Greatest Canadian” contest. For me, it was an easy  way to learn a little bit about Canadian culture. (And I was surprised to see how well Don Cherry did. It gives all of us hope!

Last week would have been Martin Luther King’s 82^nd birthday, and if there were a “Greatest American” contest, I’m confident that he would be at or very near the top of that list.

Many of you have seen King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, and while it’s a wonderful piece of black and white footage, the impression it may give you is that King was always wildly popular. You need to know that giving a speech in front of the Lincoln Memorial before a quarter of a million passionately enthusiastic supporters was NOT a typical day at the office for Dr. King.

If you want to know what the other side of King’s life was like, I would encourage you to read his “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” In it, King talks directly to all of those who, with the best of intentions, chose to sit on the sidelines of the civil justice question. He was writing to all of those said, “Slow down. Don’t rush this thing. We need to wait and see how this will turn out before we get involved.”

Theirs was and is a perfectly understandable response. They had seen the water canons, the police, and the dogs, and the thought of being arrested and spending time in jail, as a black or white man or woman in the American South in the 1960’s was more than sobering.

Their response is perfectly understandable because it is so much like our own today. Don’t most of us, when we see even minor issues of injustice, don’t we have a tendency to look the other way? Who among us relishes confrontation? Who wants to get involved in the ugly moments of life? Even in small things. Show me, for example, the driver, in a car full of friends, who wants to say, “No. I am not starting the car until everyone’s buckled up.” Who wants to be that guy? That takes courage, something that’s often in short supply.

So my two take aways for you this morning are:

1. Remember that even Martin Luther King had his tough days. He wasn’t always performing on the Washington Mall like some civil rights rock star.
2. Most people, despite being well intentioned, are reluctant to act. Most people includes me, and it may include you, too.

Despite the obstacles, don’t be overwhelmed. Fight through that natural reluctance to get involved by starting small. Dr. King pointed out that “Injustice anywhere threatens justice everywhere.” Rosa parks didn’t budge on a bus, so where will you and I make our stand?

A Reader’s Response

A friend sent this response to my question about inviting Dr. Ball to UCC:

1) It’s not a question of libertarianism. Eg at Columbia : Columbiacould have invited any one of almost 200 heads of state to speak …but there aren’t that many school days in term. School time is a scarce resource, there’s no obligation to extend it to everyone, and Ihope that UCC won’t feel obliged to eg invite the boycott Israel people because after all they have a point of view too. Schools have educational missions, and invitations should be based on that mission.

2) In this case, however, we are close to the core of the school’s mission. Here is an important public policy debate that rests on technical knowledge, not only scientific but also economic, that students cannot possibly begin to comprehend all by themselves. It’s actually MIS-educating them to deny them the range of information they need.

3) It’s especially destructive to suggest that there are only 2 points of view: “for” and “against.” In fact there are many different points of view about this issue, including those who say

a- we don’t know whether the climate is warming or not;

b- yes the climate is warming, but we don’t know why

c- yes the climate is warming, and greenhouse gases are the cause, butwe don’t know whether the increase in greenhouse gases is man -made. (Remember the most abundant of the greenhouse gases is water vapor, which is not man-made.)

d- yes the climate is warming, and yes it’s because of man, but it’s not a super-serious problem. (this is probably closest to my view.) A degree or two warmer might well turn out to be a good thing, we cant say, so we should not pay a very big price to avert it.

e- yes we’re warming, yes because of man, yes it’s a serious problem, but not SO serious as to justify the even more serious costs involved in immediate action. Better to spend the money fighting malaria and water pollution.

4) Of the arguments on the con side, there’s one good one: that the speaker is paid by oil & gas interests. I dont want to overstate this. If a credentialed scientist earns money by consulting, that does not bother me. But somebody who earned the larger part of his living from a particular industry probably should not be speaking to school  assemblies on topics of concern to that industry.

Climate change remains a lively and real debate.

To Invite or Not Invite — That is the Question

We have the opportunity to have a scientist – a scientist who doesn’t believe in global warming theory – in to talk to the Upper School students. Because his is a controversial perspective, I’ve asked a variety of folks for their thoughts on this issue, and those in favour of our hosting him tend to believe:

• We should be free to look at this issue from multiple perspectives.
• “Settled” and “science” is an oxymoron. It was “settled” that bacterium caused ulcers.
• The peer reviews have been manipulated. We now know there’s been a conspiracy to discredit dissenters.
• We can trust our students to handle this and challenge falsehoods.
• Isn’t this what a liberal arts education is all about?
• Free speech should outweigh other concerns in this case.
• Even though I disagree, it will spark a healthy debate.
• The ToK side of me says let’s hear more sides on this argument!
• We should give the boys the opportunity to read all the arguments before the mtg, and we need to have Q and A after he speaks.
• Isn’t this what “inquiry” looks like?

Those who are strongly opposed to our inviting the scientists say things like:

• This guy is a paid consultant to oil and gas companies.
• The speaker might confuse our students.
• This issue has been settled already! Why debate it?
• What’s next –  Evangelical Republicans?
• This will be bad science.
• Assembly time is too precious for this individual.
• By putting him in front of the students, we are legitimizing his point of view.
• He’s inflated his own credentials.
• We have an optics issue. We are a Green School and it will look bad to bring him here. We need to take a stand.
• I’m not sure our students understand the nuances and the science behind all of this.

I’ve asked our Green School and Theory of Knowledge students to discuss the issue and will ask others if they are interested in holding a debate on this issue. The real question is where do we draw the line, when it comes to inviting outsiders to address our students? After all, we’d never invite people who promote racism, for example.

A personal aside: I remember being opposed to Columbia University’s decision to invite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak on campus two years ago. But I later  had seconds thoughts when I read that, after he had confidently stated that there were no gay people in Iran, Ahmadinejad was visibly stunned by the loud hooting and laughter that greeted his remark. (I don’t think Mahmoud gets laughed at all that often in Tehran.) I also remember the protesting students’ waving the banner, “Ahmadinejad is not a baller.”

But I digress. I tend to lean libertarian on issues such as this, but I wonder what you’d recommend?

What Boys Need

Ray Lewis, no – not THAT Ray Lewis but the London educator who specializes in working with at risk boys — believes that boys from disadvantaged backgrounds can still succeed if they have one or more of the following:

One, a teacher, coach, or advisor who forges a meaningful relationship with the boy:  A caring adult whose presence says, “I’ve got your back” can help a boy through the slings and arrows of outrageous adolescence. (A male mentor is particularly beneficial for boys who are raised in female-headed homes.)

Two, an area of strength: It may be French or football, it almost doesn’t matter what the field, but having a skill can be a psychological safety valve or an inoculation against self-doubt. A boy can tell himself, “I may be bad at X, but I’m good at Y.”

Three, sit down dinners: This may sound like an anachronism, but remember that breaking bread is a physical act, sharing it is a spiritual one. And please remember to turn off the TV.

I can’t help but think these three variables also to apply to all boys.

Confessions of a Cardinal

I try to avoid cynicism as much as I can, but after listening to Mark McGuire’s admission – 5 years after he went “Gumby” before a Congressional hearing – that he did, in fact, use steroids, it’s tough not to be a bit jaded.

The cynic in me thinks that, while it’s better late than never to admit wrongdoing, McGuire’s attempt at coming clean is far too convenient. Now that he’s been hired as the Cardinals’ hitting coach, had he not admitted his guilt, he certainly would have been bombarded by questions at each and every pit stop along the long baseball season ahead.

His attempt at down-playing the impact steroids had on his career also seems disingenuous; it’s hard to believe he injected himself with a witches’ brew of chemicals simply to speed up the healing process.In addition to the doubly tarnished Sosa vs. McGuire homerun chase through ’98, McGuire will be remembered for his ghastly appearance before Congress.

I was reminded of this one morning when I asked my then ten-year old son if he’d made his bed. He looked up from his Coco Puffs and replied, “Dad, I’m not here to talk about the past. I’m here to talk about the future.” Big Mac might have been proud.

Coaching Error

A friend told me this story about a turning point in his life:

“I was 12 years old, and I’d just been awarded the MVP trophy at the fall baseball banquet. Life couldn’t be better for a 12 year old, right? It was one of those ‘savour the moment” moments.  After giving me the trophy, my coach came over to the table to congratulate my parents, but what stays with me – even to this day – is that at the end of the conversation, I heard him whisper to my dad, ‘I can’t wait to coach Jay (my younger brother) because we all know he’s the REAL player.’

I didn’t say anything then, of course, but it hit me like a bolt of lightning. On the drive home, I asked my father about what the coach had said, and of course, my dad denied it. But he knew what I had heard, and I knew he knew, but what could he say?

And as I sat there and fumed in the back of the car, what hit me was, not just the pain and the sense of complete betrayal by my own coach, but the awful truth that the coach was right. My brother did end up surpassing me, and he became a star athlete and played right through university. But that night in the backseat of my parents’ car, as I heard my father lie to me, I realized then and there that while I was pretty good, athletics would never be MY thing, and that I’d have to find some other way to make my mark in the world.”

Two Men of 2009

If you are a Classics scholar, you may know that the month “January” was named in honour of the Roman god, Janus, who is depicted as having two faces, one looking forward, the other back.

As we begin a new decade together, it’s worth noting that back when the last one began – when we were bracing ourselves for something called the “Y2K bug” — YouTube, Facebook, the Iphone, and Wikipedia did not yet exist. We can only imagine what the world will be like when the futuristic sounding 2020 rolls around. We may all need to hold on to our socks, if indeed, we are still wearing them.

I’ll leave the future for another day. This morning I’d like to take a few moments to look back on this past year, a year that ended for me, alas, as I watched the US junior hockey team give up a 2 goal lead to our Canadian cousins before losing in a shootout in Saskatchewan.  In some respects, that come from ahead, grabbing loss from the jaws of victory seems like a perfectly appropriate way for me to bid adieu to 2009. It may have been that kind of year.

The unstated question at boys schools such as UCC is, “What does manhood mean?” There are two men who cast some light on this issue, two men who dominated the news last year – multi-racial men known simply by their distinctive first names: Barack and Tiger. Like Janus, they look at the question of promise from opposing perspectives: one of a promise fulfilled, the other of a vow broken.

Even if you don’t approve of Barack’s approach to expanding the war or deepening the deficit, you have to admire the man himself. He is the Jackie Robinson of political leadership. His calm demeanor, his keen intellect, and his quiet sense of pragmatic competence may have been just what we all needed during a volatile time.

Tiger, well, I’m sure you know the story all too well. I will leave the sordid details in the all too eager hands of those producing “Inside Edition” or “People” magazine. After all, inquiring minds need to know.

It’s worth noting that neither Tiger nor Barak got where he is by being lucky. Both were blessed with natural talent, of course, but each disciplined himself, honed his skills, and became known for extraordinary – almost superhuman focus, a kind of concentration that served to redefine what success looks like in golf and government.

In an interesting way, both men define themselves through their relationships with their fathers. Earl Woods molded and mentored Tiger in a way that makes most us dads feel profoundly inadequate. Barack, on the other hand, was completely abandoned by his dad, and his first book, “In Search of My Father,” details the impact this profound loss had on him.

For all of their similarities, though, what separates the two and what has caused all of the well-publicized hardship for Tiger, was his apparent ability to too easily compartmentalize his life.

Let me try to explain. We all have to compartmentalize things from time to time.  If your mom blasted you this morning as you left the house, you still had to go to school. You can’t let that unpleasantness paralyze you. You put the pain in a box, resolve to make amends tonight, and you move on to tackle the rest of your day. This kind of compartmentalization is a necessary skill.

But if you have too much compartmentalization in your life – if you find it too easy to put a box around parts of your life that clash – then you run the risk of losing your integrity. Tiger’s adultery is just an extreme example of how someone can play the devoted husband and father in one area, while behaving in a completely different fashion in another.

We all struggle with this tension to some degree, even if we aren’t paid millions of dollars to schill for Gillette. The challenge is this: Can we be the same guy in the library as well as the locker room? Do we behave the same way on a Monday morning as we do on a Friday night? And if there is a discrepancy, what is the cause of this inconsistency?

One of the highest compliments you can ever receive is to be described as a “stand up guy” because stand up guys don’t give in to the tyranny of the moment. They are the same — no matter the time, no matter the company, no matter the score. Come hell or high water, they are always the same. Always themselves.

The antithesis of the stand up guy is Eddie Haskell. I’m dating myself with this reference, but in old guy tv, a show called “Leave It to Beaver,” featured a smarmy high school boy named Eddie Haskell, who often peppered his conversation with saccharine comments such as, “That’s a lovely dress you’re wearing today, Mrs. Cleaver.” What everyone saw and understood was that Eddie acted one way in front of adults and a completely different way in front of his peers. You may know guys like that yourself.  I hope you don’t know too many.

Prep schools, by the way, have a reputation for breeding Eddie Haskells, guys who know what adults want to hear and see. They always have their shirts tucked in, their shoes shined, their gray flannels ironed. But it’s too easy for all of us to confuse the externals with the essentials. While you need to observe the dress code, the superficially flattering remark designed to curry favour eventually starts to ring hollow.

I hope that, as the year begins, we can all strive to be stand up guys, to avoid the easy hypocrisy of compartmentalization, to be the same guy in the student centre as we are in the Eaton Centre.

We may not all become prime ministers or presidents, but we’ll know who we are, what we stand for, and what we’re about.  If Janus is looking your way, forward or backward, hopefully he’ll see the same guy. When all is said and done, it’s personal integrity and not a close shave that is, as Gillette’s tag-line suggests, “The best a man can get.”