My desire to be a lawyer began when I was twelve years old and visited the United State Supreme Court. Three women were being admitted to the bar on the day of my tour. It was the first time that I knew that women could even be attorneys. In high school, I interviewed as many lawyers and judges as I could in Ashtabula County and learned that many of them had graduated from Ohio Northern. So here is where I wanted to be. I envisioned that I would be some sort of international lawyer.
For some perspective, this was toward the end of the Viet Nam War, the riot at Kent State had occurred a couple of years before I came to college. A few of my friends had been part of the draft and either avoided or served time there. A few of my friends never made it home and some are irrevocable affected till this day.
I wanted to see the world. ONU then had a study year abroad that I was able to take advantage of in 1973-1974. This was the era of the US trying to impeach Richard Nixon. I was in Basel, Switzerland. My European friends criticized America vehemently. I found myself trying to defend and ultimately valuing our American system of government, the checks and balances as well as such tenets of our system of laws where one is innocent until proven given guilty.
While abroad, I was taught in English by European professors. My curiosity about how the countries I visited, Germany, France, Italy and England were affected by World War II was of great interest to me. My parents married in 1945 and across the Atlantic the ravages of war had been in full force for years. Yet no one wanted to talk about it.
Fran Lebowitz has a wonderful quote: “Polite Conversation is neither.”
If polite conversation is an oxymoron, then I want impolite conversation, albeit kind.
First, I would like us to identify what is conversation.
Secondly, I would like to discuss how we might allow for change or cause change.
Third, I will discuss a need for what I call the cauldron.
Conversation
Polite conversation does not generally involve feeling. How’s the weather? What’s on your schedule for the day? So, quite simply if “polite conversation is neither”, then I am proposing that we need to have impolite conversation, a give and take of feelings, ideas and information. Clearly, we could have a dialogue or conversation and it could escalate into an argument. Yet we “argue” in debate and before the courts. Terms like conversation, argument, and fight can often be confusing. They are subjective. But I propose that conversation is a form of communication and a willingness to listen.
My year abroad was full of true conversation with many people. What a blessing! Whether it was a discussion about literature, art, politics, love, the dangers of smoking, our group of students and our professors and new friends were full of strong opinions. Many of us were idealists and believed we could change the world. Some of us were females and our opportunities were just beginning to explode.
When I returned to ONU for my senior year, I was engaged to be married the week after graduation. Betty Friedan who had published the Feminine Mystique a mere ten years before might think I drank the “soup”, ie, to choose to be educated in order to adjust within the world of home and children, to avoid critical thinking.
Alas and hopefully, that has not been the case.
Dr. Ludanyi, who taught political science at ONU, had a class that spent a semester studying myths, i.e., political myths that spurred leaders and nations to form certain belief systems. It is essential that we critically analyze and understand, why we think the way we do. What we accept as truth may, in fact, be false.
We can point the finger to Germany and how Nazi beliefs in the superiority of the Aryan race led to the holocaust and execution of millions of Jews and others. It is difficult to comprehend how people like Hitler, Himmel, Eichmann, Heydrich, Goebles and other were able to systematical get rid of millions of people.
One of my book clubs a while ago read HHHH (loosely translated Himmel’s Brain is Named Heydrick) by Laurent Binet. It is a Meta fiction. i.e. It poses questions about the relationship between fiction and reality, usually using irony and self-reflection. Our discussion of this book allowed my friends to relay their experiences abroad in Germany and the Czech Republic. It was still somewhat shocking to learn that some people to this day believe that Hitler was a good man because of how he improved the infrastructure of post World War I Germany.
More recently the mass killings in Sarajevo, Rwanda, North Korea and by Terrorists groups throughout the world, have shown the dangers of belief systems that fail to tolerate opposition. Sadly, I cannot even identify all of the mass killings in my lifetime based upon some leader and their supporters’ righteous beliefs.
But also we need to examine or our own American Culture that has promoted beliefs in the inferiority of Indians or African Americans or Hispanics, Muslims and even white males and females. Gang violence is essentially premised upon the same kind of myths, i.e. Belief that one’s own survival dictates that opposition must be eliminated or exterminated for one’s own religious, political, or financial survival.
Speaking with my driver as I rode to the airport awhile ago, I learned Kahlib was an immigrant who won the lottery to come to this country in 2006. Now he feels afraid and angry and isolated.
I question how much fear, some of it uneducated fear, stops us in our tracks from having conversations with those we perceive or believe have different view.
Stereotypes, misinformation or doing something because that is how it has always been thought to be or how it has traditionally been done can be dangerous. Just because a father beat his wife, does not mean that the son should do the same to his wife.
In 1865 British Art Critic and Social Reformer, John Ruskin, argued that women should be educated; however, he also asserted that their education should be appropriate to their own unique interests and capabilities, essentially to be a “helpmate of man.” Quoting from “Lilies” a woman ought to know the same language or science, only so far as may enable her to sympathize in her husband’s pleasure and those of his best friends.” No disrespect to my husband and his friends, but sometimes we need to question another’s point of view.
Jerry Spense, a well-known trial attorney, had a very effective tool he used to explain viewing evidence. He would hold up his hand and say these are the facts that the prosecution has very eloquently laid out for you; however, now I am going to turn my hand and show you another way to look at this same hand.
Whether looking at any topics or issues, it is vital to have conversation with those who may have an opposing view. We need to communicate, to keep a willingness to listen, learn and look for solutions.
Differences of opinion are based upon our own knowledge, experience and feelings. I am challenged to be able to express myself while being open to listening to opposing views.
First: Words Matter.
Mark Twain has said that you can tell a lot about a man’s character by the adjectives he uses in every day conversation.
Think of the wealthy potential client that you are about to meet. Are you going to give them a pitch about your services or a presentation?
Or think about being a financial planner – are you interested in their performance or their results? I’m not watching a play, I want results.
The First Amendment – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”
Clearly, I have the right to free speech. But does that mean I can say whatever I like?
Terms of such sites as Facebook, Yelp and Amazon.
Excerpted from Facebook:
“You will not bully, intimidate, or harass any user.
You will not post content that: is hate speech, threatening, or pornographic, incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.
You will not use Facebook “to do anything unlawful, misleading, malicious or discriminatory.”
Excerpt from Yelp: “You may expose yourself to liability, for example, if your content contains material that is false, intentionally misleading, or defamatory;…
Amazon permits posting reviews, comments, communications and other content…..”so long as the content is not illegal, obscene, threatening, defamatory, invasive of privacy”
Twitter, Snap chat and other sites have similar posting.
One of my first cases was to represent a woman who was sued for her scathing letter to the editor regarding the practices of her local mayor. The mayor sued her for damage to his reputation. We had to prove that what the woman said was true. In that case, we were able to do so. However, sometimes proving the truth of what we say or believe is not so easy.
Defining hate speech, threatening speech, discriminatory may in many instance be subjective.
How We Might Allow For Change Or Cause Change
So am I advocating protest? Well, I do agree with Elie Wiesel who said, “There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest. “
However, like one speaker I recently heard say: “protests are like yogurt, they are quick, available and satisfying for a short period time.”
But I challenge you to have a conversation, to think, speak and write as well as to read and listen.
Every time I have been on a college campus I come away with a renewed sense of awe in the idealism, hope, and energy of the students. They are part of my future. They are the people who will bring about the changes that we want to see in the world.
What are those changes? (more than just “world peace”)
Saving our Planet – we have issue of climate change, water scarcity, energy shortages
Lifting People out of Poverty (food, security, health issues)
Advancing Economic Growth (empowerment of the underprivileged)
Protection or Advancement of our rights
Nelson Mendella has said, “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.”
When I was in Switzerland over 50 years ago, I had the opportunity to spend a day in Berne and meet with the staff and the ambassador at that time. I became acutely aware how vital being aware of what is going on in our own country as well as abroad can be, not only from casual interest in international affairs but as it can affect business relations, jobs and people’s lives.
And while I recognized that my goals of balancing career, marriage and motherhood might not blend well with a career in the diplomatic core or the practice of international law, I nevertheless began to see the global world becoming much smaller.
A friend who knows some of the changes I have experienced in life, asked that I prepare a speech about change. I laughed and told her that I could sum it up in two sentences:
1. Change is good; transitions sucks. Or
2. If you prefer my more spiritual approach, life gives us life, and when we make a plan, God laughs.
Regardless, as human beings we have three choices:
Accept the change , that is, allow it ;
Fight the change; or
Cause change.
Wonderful writers have spoken about change: Norman Vincent Peale: “Change your thought and change your world.” Have you ever been depressed or anxious? You can control how you feel. – You can change your world.
Robin Williams is quoted as saying: “No matter what people tell you, words and ideas can change the world.” Study the great philosophers, writers, and thinkers and really learn what ideas helped shaped our democracy and Constitution.
I personally, like Jim Rohn’s statement: “If you don’t like how things are, change it! You are not a tree.” Indeed, hold unto your idealism, struggle with the injustices, the poverty, the challenges that face you, your community and our world. Seek change.
Lastly, I said I was going to talk about the need for the cauldron.
My friend, Jeff Spahn, author of “We the Leader” has a company called “Leading Leaders”. He is a professional coach, if you will, to executives in some of the very large financial institutions and businesses here in the US. On one occasion a number of years ago, I had the opportunity to observe his daylong seminar with executives. He has a remarkable way of teaching conversation to executives. If you have ever participated in a committee to get something done, you may have been frustrated by a dictatorial leader, or the hours on end meeting of trying to get a consensus, or the competition to get your idea approved.
Jeff began the session I attended by breaking the groups into smaller groups and then putting puzzle pieces color-side down on the floor and then asking the small groups to put their puzzles together. It was a fascinating experiment to see how people need to communicate with each other to solve the puzzle.
Then he taught some fundamentals of conversation that apply not only in business, but in relationships as well. I am not articulating this as eloquently as Jeff could, but essentially, it is: Say what you want to say to the group (or another individual) and then be quiet. Admittedly, I have difficulty putting it out there and then shutting up. Let me see if I can give you an example:
Let’s say we are serving on the board for our local hospital and a doctor want to use an experimental procedure that may help a patient with Parkinson’s. Our job is to determine, if we as a Board, are going to approve or disprove the experiment. I can envision a myriad of questions that need answered. What limits should be placed on experimentation with human subjects? Has it been tried on a human before? What is the hospital’s liability? But the need for a decision is needed. Jeff teaches people to speak to the center and then let it go and wait for a response.
A business may be considering buying a building. You have a question about the structuring of the long-term debt that would be necessary, you are essentially opposed to expansion and incurring more debt.. Another person in the organization believes buying the building will give the business great visibility and believes that the business needs to spend money to make money. But again, a choice needs to be made.
In order to have a meaningful conversation about an issue, often it is absolutely essentially that we let go of what we suggest and conversely, that we listen to another’s suggestion and focus on the suggestion, not who is making it.
Lastly we come to the cauldron.
The cauldron is that center where you advocate your idea and then let it be, let it settle, let it mix with others’ ideas and be stirred by others.
Your effective advocacy of your ideas or arguments is based upon what you know, your experiences and your feelings or passions. Should you pursue law school, you will learn and study legal arguments. Wilson R. Huhn identifies 5 types of legal argument.
- Text, that is the Constitution, statutes, regulations, court rules
- Intent – drawn from the text itself or prior versions, history, official comment or commentary
- Precedent – cases that have interpreted the law
- Tradition – fundamental rights, e.g. Allocation of liability in a tort case
- Policy – this inquires into the underlying purposes of the law
The Court is a type of cauldron for ideas to be presented and argued, with the judge or jury being the arbiter of the respective arguments.
Most of my legal career has been focused on estate planning and small business.
Most of the cases that could have escalated to court cases were resolved with negotiation, with conversation.
Sometimes, however, we have to fight. Some laws need to be changed.
A few years ago, my business in LA was affected by zoning laws that were enacted. As a result of the change, we would no longer be able to teach boat safety on our boats. It’s a small example, but we had to go to hearings and speak out and offer a solution to the County. We were successful in getting a special use permit. Had we not been aware of the zoning law, however, we could have been shut down and exposed to hefty fines.
Proponents of same sex marriage, the right to die, legalization of marijuana and many other activists believe other laws need to be changed. Some of these issues lead to other discussion:
Is it right for a government to legislate issues of private morality?
Should a government be active or neutral on the question of what makes a good life?
Naom Chomsky has said: “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it all.”
Throughout my life, I have had the opportunity to meet with Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, Agnostics, African American, Chinese, Indians, Hispanic, houseless, CEO’s, politicians, I have friends who are proponents of same sex marriage and others diametrically opposed; friends who advocate the right to die and those who can only go so far as establishing health care directives.
At the end of the day I urge you to have some very impolite conversations, know why you want the changes you may or may not want and cherish the cauldron that can afford solutions.
I will close with one final quote by Thomas Jefferson: “I never considered a difference of opinion in religion or in philosophy as a cause for withdrawing from a friend.”