Irshad Manji, founder of the Moral Courage Project, appears on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” She discusses the healthcare debate, addresses leadership in America’s divided political culture, and even spars with Pat Buchanan over Iran!
21 responses to “Our founder, Irshad Manji, on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe””Write yours at the bottom of the page!
Twitter Updates
Moral Courage Heroes
|
September 30th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
It was very early this morning in California when I saw Ms. Manji on MSNBC. It was a coincidence because I have never watched that channel before. I’m usually on CNN. Anyway, I could hardly believe what I was hearing. I thought I was the only educator who was using this concept. I work in a learning center that focuses on students who are having problems in their academics; I work with teens. Getting them to believe that they are in the process of finding and developing their voice underlies virtually everything I do in the classroom. It is a challenge, to say the least. These young people come to me believing they are losers. Their parents and classroom teachers comment that they are somehow “different” after some time with me. Their walk, their talk, their dress, even their grades are changing. Yes, we all see it. Give them the mortar and they will build skyscrapers. I have a sign in the front of my classroom, “Be yourself. Everyone else is already taken.” Thanks for your website.
Adair
[Reply]
Janice Formichella Reply:
September 30th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
@Adair Gasparian, Janice Formichella, Moral Courage Project Campaign Manager here.
I enjoyed your comments. I wanted to let you know that my post from two weeks ago, “what-do-you-think-moral-courage-means” generated several comments from teachers. I thought you may be interested in joining that conversation. You can find a link to it in the same section that you found this video or http://www.moralcourage.com/get-involved/what-do-you-think-moral-courage-means/
Thanks for visiting the Moral Courage Project!
[Reply]
Bill Reply:
October 1st, 2009 at 11:53 am
@Adair Gasparian, It is great to hear there are teacher’s teaching people to be themselves and develop their full potential. By accepting themselves as individuals they truly can interact and contribute to and with others. That inner respect fosters the respect in and of others.
As a teacher you must continually fight for the uniqueness we all bring to the plate. To reinforce that each of us can and do learn, you justify education itself. Potential is not what we know right nows, but what we can learn and then apply.
One of my most surprising developments of my own education was that learning was not just an art, but a science. That I have never seen any education system teaching the skills of learning itself. But rather left each student to fend for themselves.
[Reply]
Irshad Manji Reply:
October 1st, 2009 at 6:13 pm
@Adair Gasparian, Thanks very much, Adair. I’m gratified that so many educators – from elementary school teachers to university professors to volunteer mentors – are writing to say they dig the concept of moral courage. Many have been trying to practice and/or teach it for years. Almost all of them thought they were alone. Clearly, they – and you – are not alone. Welcome to the community that Bobby Kennedy, MLK Jr and other change agents would have been personally proud of.
[Reply]
September 30th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Let me first simply say thanks for taking up such a commendable topic “Moral Courage”.
You just said on Morning Joe that John Kennedy did not show Moral Courage with the Bay of Pig disaster. NOT quite TRUE!
Kennedy stood up to the Joint Chief of Staff (DOD), the CIA and the HAWKS by refusing to invade Cuba. This took GREAT MORAL COURAGE.
He made a personal mistake of going along with the Majority of his Cabinet to support the Bay of Pigs with a US Military and CIA fly over. Later he said the buck stopped with him and he took credit for the lack of CIA coordination. Stating he would listen to his Cabinet, but make the final decision in the end like he did with the Cuban Missle Crisis
[Reply]
Janice Formichella Reply:
October 1st, 2009 at 10:35 am
@Bill, All true, but it was a very public and very embarrassing debacle that could have been prevented had even one of those close “advisors” had spoken up, which many of them admitted afterward that they wanted to do.
I agree with you in general about Cuba, but the Bay of Pigs is a classic example of how destructive group think can be, even when the stakes are incredibly high.
[Reply]
Irshad Manji Reply:
October 1st, 2009 at 6:24 pm
@Bill, Interesting lesson, Bill. Curious to know: Have you read the Bay of Pigs case study in “Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascos,” by Irving Janis? It’s part of the syllabus that I teach in my course, “Public Leadership and Moral Courage.” I’ll ask you to at least check out the context in which I’m teaching this book, even if you don’t read the book or case study itself. You can consult Lesson 9 in the syllabus of my course (which explains the context):
http://www.moralcourage.com/images/MC_COM_PL_MC_Syllabus.pdf
[Reply]
October 1st, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Irshad,
I usually have Morning Joe on in the background on my computer until I can’t stand their noise any longer and have to switch to CNN. Fortunately, for me, I was able to take it until at least your segment. I didn’t even know you were scheduled! I happened to close a window and there you were! Your talk was not only important, but timely. Moral courage is needed now moreso than any time I can remember (and I was 15 when Bobby was assassinated). More Americans have died due to lack of healthcare than have been killed in recent wars. This is shameful for a country as wealthy as ours. We finally have a President who cares about us and a Democratic “Super Majority” in the Senate and still cannot pass a “public option” for healthcare. This is where the concept/reality of moral courage must surface! Thanks for being on the front-lines (again) to remind us of our responsibilities as citizens!
[Reply]
Irshad Manji Reply:
October 1st, 2009 at 6:31 pm
@Leslie Crawford, Thanks so much for your passion, Leslie! I have a question, though: From time to time, the number of healthcare-related deaths in America is compared to a genocide. It’s even been called a “holocaust.” Do you think such framing is appropriate or does it coarsen an otherwise serious debate? I’d like as many people as possible to weigh in on this question. I’m genuinely curious.
[Reply]
Leslie Crawford Reply:
October 2nd, 2009 at 7:42 am
@Irshad Manji,
I think people who use such powerful and highly charged terms like, “holocaust” and “genocide”, to describe the health care condition (actually, travesty) in the U.S. are simply attempting to bring as much focus and attention as possible to this condition. Are such descriptions appropriate? I don’t think so; not for such a discussion as serious as universal health care. Holocaust and genocide, while ancient terms, draw quick association to the most evil episodes of hatred and cold-blooded murder in this as well as the last Century and, I would say, using such words in this debate not only coarsens, but polarizes. This is the time for serious discussion, not rhetoric. Lives are, literally, at stake. As you correctly stated, people are dying because of a lack of available and/or affordable health care, and something must be done. As someone who began their student career as a history major, I often wonder how historians will view our era. We are a society in the U.S. of tremendous extremes, from demonstrations and examples of extreme promise to those of extreme greed, and extremes of wealth and poverty. What will the historians say about us and the opportunities we have at hand right now, this moment, to “be the change” that Ghandi spoke about? Rhetoric, like holocaust and genocide, in this discussion is like chaff that confuses radio signals and would only serve to cloud and myre the debate. I say, bring on the facts, and bring the passion too, but also be sure to bring intelligence (including patience for idiots) to this discussion.
[Reply]
Irshad Manji Reply:
October 2nd, 2009 at 10:39 am
@Leslie Crawford, I think you’re right. Inflammatory and inflated language such as “holocaust” and “genocide” only make both sides dig in their heels out of defensiveness. Moreover, I think such language is a slap in the faces of those who really did, and still, undergo mass extermination. There are people with no choices left. Nobody, and I mean nobody, can claim to be in that position in America — not even undocumented workers. I’m not for a minute suggesting that all is peachy here in the land of free and home of the brave. Many people are indeed desperate. Yet our standards of desperation pale to the sheer hopelessness of a displaced persons camp in Western Sudan or a contemporary gulag in Cambodia. Ironically, health care reform is about human respect, and bandying around words of the gravest implication amounts to the exact opposite of respecting human life. Your call to treat idiots on both sides with patience is a noble appeal. Sometimes, though, you just gotta call an idiot, an idiot. You’ve nailed it, Leslie!
[Reply]
October 2nd, 2009 at 3:03 pm
I’d like to thank those who took the time to respond to my comments. (Bill, is that a picture of Paramahansa Yogananda?) I’ve been talking with my students about labels, recently, eliciting from them reactions to those of various meanings and intensity. I must say I very much like the idea of being identified as a teacher of moral courage. I have another label that I apply to myself: a Christian Buddhist. This is a label I thought at first belonged only to me, but then discovered via the internet that there are many of us out there.
As for the role of too many educators in the United States, the Director of our learning center was in conference with a panel of public school teachers, yesterday. When she explained to them the thrust of my classroom, a sixty-something teacher responded, “Yes. We used to be able to teach like that.” What an extraordinarily debilitating situation America’s educators find themselves in. They are teaching not only to the test, but also to the clock. It seems that those in charge of structuring our educational system do not have sufficient experience with student involvement with their own learning to know that in-depth studies produce not only more informed students, but cover the four basic skills faster through correlated integration. Relative to this, I must show the moral courage to use this forum to advertise my own book. It is entitled, “Threads: a Memoir.” It covers the past quarter-century of my life as a teacher and teacher-trainer in developing countries on five continents. (Anyone interested can find it on Amazon.com.) I have introduced the concept of finding one’s own voice through the analysis of literary works in schools where resistance was staggering. After winning their confidence through much tea drinking, “my” Egyptian secondary school placed number one on the national end-of-year exams after our first year together. The second year they again won that honor. We were presented with a plaque from the Minister of Education stating that never before in the history of their record keeping had any school received the honor for two consecutive years. There was backlash to this; students began asking their families and teachers questions not much welcomed by the older generations. The youth had found their voice! And so it is.
[Reply]
Irshad Manji Reply:
October 3rd, 2009 at 5:45 pm
@Adair Gasparian, Congratulations, Adair! As an educator who’s interested in creative reform of the herd mentality that suffuses too many classrooms today, I’ll look up your book. In the meantime, why don’t you whet our appetites just a wee bit and post a couple of paragraphs (no more than 5, please!) that would give us a sense of your philosophy or the essence of your argument? Please don’t feel sheepish about “marketing” here; I’m inviting you to use this platform.
[Reply]
October 3rd, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Great segment Irshad. I think you guys covered a lot of critical ground in a short amount of time. I especially liked the question Pat threw at you (was it Pat?) about whether you think that Obama’s apologies to other nations is a sign of moral courage or a sign of weakness. I haven’t yet decided what my answer would be, but I really respected your response and think you illuminated an important distinction between apologizing for actions versus values. You were saying, and correct me if I’m wrong, that Obama was actually apologizing for those times in which America fell short of its own values or ideals. Recognizing that we make mistakes and apologizing for them is respectable and necessary. Apologizing for a fundamental philosophy or idea that is found our a nation’s constitution is, on the other hand, nothing short of treason and would surely be a sign of weakness on Obama’s part. I sincerely hope we never have a president who would go so far as to apologize for what America stands for, but you never know…
However, I wanted to raise the question and hear your answer to whether you thought apologies had their limits. In other words, once you apologize and you are clearly sincere, if the recipient does not accept your apology, do you believe you should continue to seek forgiveness? Also, think it’s important for Obama to understand that apologies mean different things to different nations and cultures, and you must know who you’re apologizing to because if you apologize to the wrong people, it sends a message of weakness, while to others, it sends a message of strength and a way to begin dialogue. Some regimes are so egocentric to believe that if you merely listen to them, let alone apologize, you are capitulating and agreeing with them, maybe even voicing you’re support for them. I think that would be the worst message Obama could give to a nation such as Iran.
Any thoughts?
[Reply]
Irshad Manji Reply:
October 7th, 2009 at 10:08 am
@karys rhea, To answer your questions, Karys, no, I don’t believe it’s necessary for a government to offer repeated apologies to another. As long as contrition is sincere, then one “sorry” is enough — regardless of how well, or not, it’s received. To beg for forgiveness is not only humiliating; it can be counter-productive, since a future generation can easily hold a grudge and take revenge the country that has been apologized to! (”Imagine it: “You made us grovel; now you’ll be the ones to say sorry to us!”)
I also take your point that apologies can be mangled for propaganda purposes. But let’s face it: authoritarian regimes will twist ANYTHING into “evidence” for their agenda. During the Tehran riots this past June, Obama restrained his rhetorical support for the demonstrators precisely so that the mullahs would not deem the protestors to be lackeys of America. But surprise! The regime took Obama’s relative silence as proof of the West’s manipulation and accused the dissenters of being puppets anyway.
That’s not an argument against apology; it’s actually a case FOR apology (where legitimate). The point is, worries about how words will be exploited by others should never stop a state or an individual from doing the right thing – for its own soul and not just for the benefit of others. As Alexis de Tocqueville pointed out, “America is great because she is good. If she ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.” I’ll be writing about this in my next book. Which reminds me… Back to my deadlines!
[Reply]
karys rhea Reply:
October 8th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
@Irshad Manji,
The fact that the Iranian govn’t took Obama’s silence as proof of western influence showcases just how dangerous silence can be…all the more reason for why Obama should have voiced loud and clear his rhetorical support for the demonstrators, because when a regime such as Iran has a hateful agenda that involves creating cultural barriers and moral boundaries to separate people and bring about conflict, they will take whatever Obama says, as you wrote, and turn it into a means to further their cause. You said Obama restrained himself so that America wouldn’t be targeted. In my opinion, this is precisely the type of behavior that Americans have to learn to rise above. We are the world’s superpower. Even if we are immaculate, people will hate us because power has come to have an inherent negative connotation. So I agree with you. We should never “worry about how words will be exploited by others”, as you wrote. Rather, we should stay honest (but courageous!) with ourselves and our neighbors.
…Love the Tocqueville quote by the way – that’s going on my facebook status
[Reply]