You Can’t Have It Both Ways

It may come as a surprise to some of you, believe it or not, but there is no one who agrees with everything that you do. I know, I know, this is shocking but true. Here’s the thing, if the rule for cooperation depended on always agreeing we are all in trouble.

Simple anatomy of the human body requires that opposing forces (things that work against each other) are necessary for us to do the simplest of things. Walking causes the four muscles on the front of our thigh to work against the two muscles on the back. It should be considered shameful for those four big bullies on the front working against those two slender fellows on the backside of our legs but it has to be for us to walk, stand, sit or move about.

As I was listening to the call for resignations from some university presidents for the answers that they gave to Congress concerning the issue of genocide, it left me a little confused. Why would giving a broad answer to a broad question create such a furor? Why did this turn into the theatre of the absurd when the answer that is the answer is given to the question asked? Regardless of whether you like the answer, it is the answer.

Watching players argue over an official making the correct call during a sporting event only reveals what team they were on. If the call worked for you, you thought it was great, but when it went against your team the doubts and questions begin. The rule book does not exist for the players, it exists for the game. An innumerable number of players can take the field, or the court, and it does not matter who they are the rules must remain the same. Circumstances and situations come up that we discover the need to make adjustments to those rules, but it does not change previous outcomes. Players in a game must adapt to the rules in order to navigate their way to victory.

The question asked by the congressional representative was about whether a calling for an action violate rules of the institution or code of conduct when it comes to bullying or harassment? The responses centered around the process for determining if it was in fact bullying or harassment. Not liking the procedural response and then demanding a resignation because you did not like the response to a gotcha question only works to reveal what the whole point of the inquiry was all about. It had nothing to do with the stated subject matter, it only had to do with a person grandstanding to elevate themselves and not the people, in this case the Jewish people, used as props for the true purpose which was to try and embarrass the leaders of all universities and not just the ones sitting at the table.

Freedom of expression is the most precious freedom we have, even when the one expressing theirs does not agree with the one you have.

HHJ News