jeremyrsolomon

The Struggle of Having Empathy for Men

by

Struggles of Having Empathy for Men

Men are having problems these days. 

Now let’s stop right there. Do you disagree? Does the idea make you roll your eyes? Does it seem trivial to focus on problems men might have? After all, women have always had it worse in life, from biology to societal submission. So to think of men as victims may seem absurd. At best, a waste of time to think about, and at worst, a sexist way of taking attention away women’s issues. Men will be fine. And even if not, let them take a back seat for a while. They’ve driven the car through all of history. The future is female.

If any of these are your thoughts, please keep reading. Even better, read the book that sparked a national discourse on the topic. If not, then maybe catch this video for a short summary from the author. If you’re inclined to go further, listen to this podcast as part of the ongoing dialogue. If you do any or all these things, I’m grateful you gave the opening sentence a chance to resonate.

Current issues facing men are striking. Higher suicide rates. Drug abuse. Fatherlessness while having a general aimlessness in achieving goals. Unrealistic dating standards from women, with neglect from a society that tailored education to be ill-fit for men. There are a lot of consequences, and it has been an uphill battle for people to take men’s problems seriously. But the issues can’t be denied. From lower fertility rates, to the psychological development of mass killers, to the young men who now follow Andrew Tate – someone who truly does have issues with women. We’re living with the results of men’s issues now, and it’s an ugly place for the world to know.

Still, the instinct is strong to scoff at men’s problems. With this, let’s go back to the reasons for objecting to the first sentence. As noted, you might see women having the short end of the stick through time. You see patriarchy today, still dismissive of the contributions women bring. You see families with abusive fathers – whether overbearing, or just dead-beat dads – who make their wives and children suffer. You see the natural disadvantages women have always faced, and you wonder why we should start worrying about men. They’ve only had problems for 40 years, versus 4,000. With all of this, it might be hard to have a heart for the XY half of the human race.

We should acknowledge the extent to which women have had the disadvantage. Consider alone the physical features of men and women. Men are stronger, and it’s easy to understand why girls would be prone to natural distress. Societies always have half of their population more physically dominant than the other. Isn’t it natural that this would create an atmosphere of intimidation for the other half?* Add to this the acts of violent men. When dating, my wife explained that when leaving a building, she feels compelled to check the back seat of her car, knowing a woman who was assaulted in this way. I thought it an odd practice, but being male, I had the ability to never have such a concern. It’s a privilege to not have this thought for myself, and my wife doesn’t have that. Neither do women.

Along with disparities in physical strength, think about periods and pregnancy. Women have them, and men don’t. The former have been debilitating to women through all of history, only for the most recent decades to offer products to assist.** As for pregnancies, the sky is the limit on the physical consequences, both spoken and unspoken in our lives. From postpartum depression, to benign tumors on your gums, it’s a rough road on the body, through nine months and beyond. Men should have a sincere gratitude for not having to live with these things, and sympathy for all who do.

All of this said, the sufferings of a gender do not stop the other’s from happening. Does the pain of women in pregnancy cancel the pain of men lacking fathers to direct them in life? Not every problem is equal, but a problem doesn’t mean that others aren’t occurring. To women who begrudge men’s problems, I’d ask to not think of us as men. Think of us as human. “Tickle us, do we not have. Prick us, do we not bleed,” etc.  If we have to have the battle of comparative pains, then men folk might have things better. But it doesn’t take away from what is there. The sorrows of a woman, strong as they are, will not erase those of the man down the street. Life doesn’t work that way.

So I would appeal to us all to take more time to think of the needs of men. The men who can’t find a home for their talents and instincts in the education system. The men who need around 1,000 scrolls online just to find a woman who won’t ghost them on a first date (Seriously, listen to the podcast!). The men who won’t leave mom’s basement because they lack hope for a future worth fighting for. The men who will turn to the enraged views of online personalities who have no problems demeaning women. For the sake of all people, we should hope for men’s turnaround.***

 

*I have read that there are studies showing girls by default have a psychological distress with these conditions. And I almost wrote “Studies show…” here, but I can’t reference anything now. Still, it makes a certain sense that this would be the mental situation for girls as they grow up with the other gender having a natural dominance.

**Even today, much of the world faces the struggles of lacking this technology.

***A quick political after thought: A popular subject from the 2024 election is the loss of Democratic male voters. Personally, I think the problem for them is overblown. Trump won men 53 percent to 45 percent, with Harris having the same favorability from women. This isn’t a chasm of difference. If the ratios were more like 2:1, then the issue would be more striking to me. That said, if you’re compelled to break down the reasons why the 53/45 split happened, it’s still an interesting conversation.

A Four-Minute Masterclass on Empathy

by

A Four-Minute Masterclass on Empathy

Long ago, I found a clip of The Dr. Phil Show from online scrolling, and it has been a gem to me ever since. Like a favorite verse from a song, or a resounding quote, the scene is packed with meaning we should all consider. A masterclass of empathy, demonstrating its beauty and power when speaking to others. No matter what you might think of Dr. Phil – the show itself, or his recent dive into politics* – I will always appreciate the lessons from this conversation.

Addressing the strained relationships in a family, Dr. Phil plays the role of mediator between a violent son and beleaguered parents. The latter receive a blunt summary of the medical issues their son has suffered through life, disarming the son by showing a genuine understanding of the things he has gone through. We’ll also come to find that the father has made his own bad decisions, but with an understanding his trials as well. All of this was wrapped in a four-minute clip – an exchange worth watching with reflection on considering another’s point of view.

At the start, Dr. Phil connects the son’s lifetime of medical conditions to his crimes and distress. Multiple surgeries with chronic pain since the age of nine, with ailments being a continual influence on his emotions. By the end of the timeline, it feels silly to need a psychology degree to connect the dots of his life. Still, it may have been profound for the parents to see their son’s life in one image on screen. An outsider was guiding them through two decades of painful memories, perhaps forgotten or dismissed in time. But in any case, Dr. Phil has given the best case for us to have sympathy for their son.

By the end of the timeline, we see how the family and society were unable to give the son peace in life. “It can get a little frustrating,” Dr. Phil quips with sarcasm that puts an exclamation mark on the point. It’s likely that no one ever studied the litany of pain the son had experienced. It’s not the job of law enforcement to do this, but it should be a moral conviction for the family. The son, now teary-eyed with a runny nose, has an expression of mournful gratitude. Dr. Phil has offered a full recognition of his pain, giving it a name with respect and compassion. An outsider – albeit a famous one – has shown him an understanding of his trials with respect and compassion. A beautiful act for his viewers to watch.

Perhaps even more profound than the empathy is the brief but powerful point that Dr. Phil makes after. Leaning in with a hand on the son, the host says, “Your behavior’s still bull——.” The joke comes out of nowhere, and in any other context, the son may have rejected it. Just one more authority figure getting in his face about what he’s done. But the son was now disarmed, chuckling as the crowd laughed and applauded. The laugh seems indicative of a man saying, “Yeah, you’re right.”. So while it was a joke, it wasn’t really a joke. By sharing an understanding of his life, Dr. Phil has brought the son to a place where he may come to listen, embracing wisdom that will turn around his life. This is the powerful accomplishment of empathy. To soften the hardest of hearts.

With the joke, we can also take a lesson in the need to have balance between compassion and accountability. Dr. Phil just spent two minutes showing all the reasons to be sympathetic to the son, but in two seconds, the joke brought back to center the need for the son to address his wrongs. The school troubles. The domestic violence. The gross irresponsibility of acts like drinking and driving. Empathy was the aim, but it shouldn’t bring us to overlook his harms. With this, it occurs to me that liberals should have the same balance in mind when dismissing people’s bad behaviors as uncontrollable diseases. Or perhaps conservatives should think about this when condemning criminals. Both schools of thought have value, but both will fall short of an ideal approach to justice.

Now having a degree of trust with the son, Dr. Phil takes a side trip by pointing out the empathy we should feel for mom and dad. “…parents don’t sign up for this.” The “this” refers to everything about the son’s life, with our attention now shifting to the heartaches and suffering of the parents. Feelings of inadequacy, helplessness, and descent to behaviors of anger and self-medication to cope with the situation. We’re now understanding the reasons a father may become part of the problem in a dysfunctional family. “It hurts to see that happen to your boy.” An understatement for any parent.

Again, we can recognize from this the need to balance the thoughts of liberals and conservatives. We shouldn’t live in a world without empathy, but neither should we excuse people’s crimes. Does empathy take away from the need to call out the father for rage from alcohol abuse? Should our condemnations of him never consider the years of worry and guilt he endured? These are big questions for anyone who would judge the family, whether you’re a professional psychologist or a member of a TV audience. I don’t claim to have any grand answers for their situation. I’m only noting the need to ask all such questions as each person faces their situations.

I’ve never watched the full episode of this show, and at this point, I prefer it that way. The Youtube video is over ten years old, and who knows how many twists and turns have developed between the son and parents. If I knew more about their journey since, it’s possible my feelings about the clip would diminish. So I’ve saved the video as I might a work of art, coming back to it from time to time to reflect on empathy. We see from it a power to penetrate the strongest walls of someone’s psyche. We also see a father’s remorse for his actions, and perhaps the beginnings of a reunion. This is good enough for me to take as a lesson in life, and I hope you can take something from it as well.

 

 

*To me, it’s unfortunate that Dr. Phil has focused so much on politics in recent months. Not so much because I disagree with his views, but because I think the world would be better off with him as a sage figure of psychology, and not a political pundit. If I want political analysis, there are plenty of other people who lead those battles. Dr. Phil, on the other hand, has always sought awareness for mental and cultural issues, and it seems he’s more helpful to the world by sticking to that.

My Evolving Thoughts on the Zelensky Meeting

by

My Evolving Thoughts on the Zelensky Meeting

The White House press conference that shook the world was three weeks ago, and I’ve had a turbulent journey of thoughts on it since. I’ve held disgust for the leaders of my country, but later came to understand at least some of their views. What follows is a chronicle of this journey, from analysis of the meeting itself, and the situation with Ukraine in general. With an acknowledgement of my limited perspective, and hoping for malice toward none, I’ll share the waves of opinions I’ve had on what was suppose to be a simple photo-op between presidents.

While I would hope for grace from any reader, I hope in particular that fans of Donald Trump will bear with me. The first paragraphs show the raw emotion I felt from first watching the press conference. The anger would have made for a scathing online post, likely to change the minds of no one, nor giving me peace on the matter. This isn’t to say I’ve done a 180 turn on my views, but the following days presented to me the best (and worst) of arguments from conservatives. From this, I’ve refined my opinions while in the end just hoping that our leaders will work things out for the world.

Friday, the Day of the Press Conference, around 3:00PM:

I saw the ten-minute clip of President Trump and Vice President Vance attacking President Zelensky, and I was in a bad mood the rest of the day. I just watched my country’s leaders berate a persecuted president who’s faced three years of invasion and war crimes from Russia. In particular, I was infuriated by Trump’s criticism of Zelensky for having great hatred for President Putin. As if there was no good reason for it. As if Ukraine had equal responsibility for the war. As if the murder and sadistic treatment of the his people shouldn’t fill Zelensky with rage. At best, the moment was a horrid lack of empathy for a suffering people, and at worst, it renewed suspicions that Trump is pro-Putin, and always has been. With all of this spinning in my mind, I drove home for the weekend with contempt for the leadership of the United States.

Keeping up with the story the next day, I listened to conservative media mock Zelensky. Some arguments were ad hominem. “He should have worn a suit!”* “He should go back to doing bad TV!” (As if the same thing couldn’t be said of the U.S. President.). But most of all, they said Zelensky was stupid and despicable for having a lack of gratitude for America. Vance, seeming to want a seat at the big-boy table of global politics, interjected himself in the meeting with the accusation, and his political base was following suit. The complete lack of respect and appreciation for Zelensky and his accomplishments was revolting to me. In short, conservatives came off as a—holes, deepening my bad mood and making my family dinner less enjoyable.**

By Sunday afternoon, I had read social media posts from people making similar pro-Trump arguments, and I tried to restrain myself from judgements. They’re not bad people, I told myself. Opinions don’t speak to who we are. They’re not pro-Russia. They want what’s best for others… even if they’re being inconsiderate of Ukraine. Political events bring us to spit out our inner monologues online, and it wasn’t fun to read certain posts on the event.*** Still, I tried to resolve to not hate people I’ve known in life to be decent. I don’t want to hate them, just as I didn’t want to hate anti-vaccine people through Covid, despite the media’s encouragement to do so. With this, I breathed in, breathed out, and I felt a little better to start the week.

The Following Week of Conservative Views:

I now listened to the Trump administration by watching a CNN interview with Marco Rubio, the U.S. Secretary of State. He explained the need to not agitate Russia – to not deter them from coming to negotiations. According to him, no matter what our feelings of Russia, it was important to restrain our criticisms, only for Zelensky to have publicly pushed the U.S. to condemn them. Trump himself made a similar point at the press conference – that if he says bad things about Putin, then where will that get us in stopping the war? As much as we want to condemn Russia, showing the (valid) righteousness of our side on all things Ukraine, maybe it’s reasonable for our government to not do this. It’s frustrating, but it made some sense.

Rubio also noted that the unsigned mineral deal would in itself have become a security guarantee for Ukraine, which is what Zelensky insisted on throughout the meeting (More on this later.). A similar thought had already crossed my mind: The fact that if the U.S. has an economic investment in Ukraine, then their concerns become our concerns. Therefore, Russia would face a significant deterrent in attacking again, and the world might enjoy a stable peace. I guess that makes sense, I thought. Still, I had heard Trump praise dictators too many times in the past to take a lot of comfort from the Secretary of State. By the end of the interview though, I wished Rubio the best of luck. For all of our sakes, and no matter who his boss might be.

Later, I listened to someone else in the administration talk about the risk of the U.S. publicly siding with Ukraine (I can’t remember who he was. Some older guy in a suit.). If the U.S. announced, “We now guarantee the sovereignty of Ukraine”, then the U.S. would seem to be promising all resources to fulfill that pledge. If Russia is fighting Ukraine in that moment, including in territory Ukraine has come to occupy, then couldn’t Russia consider it an act of war? When Trump attacked Zelensky at the conference for risking World War III, the argument now doesn’t seem so absurd, and Trump’s aggression seems a little more understandable. Take away every shady thing we think we know about Donald Trump, and maybe we can just see a guy who wants to stop a catastrophic world event. It’s a little harder for me now to condemn him, no matter what his manners or levels of empathy.

At some point later in the week, I listened to Ben Shapiro dissect the press conference, with an emphasis on the first 40 minutes. These were the minutes I hadn’t listened to yet. The minutes that many in media ignored since they didn’t have the fireworks of the later ten- minute exchange. Zelensky several times insisted on the need for security guarantees. Shapiro, while saying it’s a reasonable concern for Ukraine, describes Zelensky as adversarial with this throughout. While I wouldn’t put it so harshly, I can see how the public insistence could be counter-productive to negotiations. It’s reasonable for Ukraine to want guarantees, with the ambitions of Putin and years of Russian aggression. But presidents would normally demand such things behind closed doors, and after 40 minutes of public insistence in broken English, Trump felt the need to push back. Again, the behaviors of the U.S. president now felt a little more reasonable.

With all of this, I tried to have some respect for the aims of the Trump administration, and my possible short-sightedness on how to stop global wars. I still think their inconsiderations of Ukraine were repulsive, but I will hope for their success in solving it all. After the meeting, Trump was emphatic that he wants peace, and it seems odd to argue against that.

My Personal Opinions on the Whole Thing, Three Weeks Later:

A few final thoughts:

1. I still get angry when hearing complaints of the U.S. spending billions to help Ukraine. With a war-torn nation facing constant bombings and atrocities by foreign armies, it’s hard to care much about the billions we’ve spent to help Ukraine (I’m not sure where President Trump gets the $350 billion number, but the amount from news coverage makes it appear around $120.). The U.S. has defended a democracy while helping to bleed the resources of a dictatorial nation for three years. These things are a reward in itself for America, just as it had been through decades of the Cold War. With the U.S. having $37 trillion of rising national debt, our support for Ukraine isn’t breaking the bank. We’ll be fine. Ukraine is not.

2. On the mineral treaty left unsigned by Zelensky, I have mixed feelings. America strikes me as a mafia leader in the deal, extorting Ukraine for wealth in exchange for protection. I have scenes from Goodfellas in mind as I imagine our extractions of minerals from a nation that will need all the resources it can get to rebuild. On the other hand, as someone who is a fiscal hawk who laments of America’s massive debts, it’s appealing to have a means of recovering the money. While the amount spent isn’t $37 trillion, it’s not nothing either. Also, as noted, the agreement would give the U.S. an economic interest in Ukraine, making an informal guarantee by the U.S. to protect them. It’s hard for me to hate the idea, though it’s also hard to love it.

3. Was Zelensky at fault for the fiasco of the press conference? I’ll resolve now that three things could be true at once: 

     a. Ukraine is on the right side of history.

     b. Trump and Vance were inconsiderate jerks to Zelensky.

     c. Zelensky was misguided.

If Zelensky’s goal was to shore up financial support from Europe by making America appear unreliable, then he succeeded as he later toured the E.U. to raise more billions. But if he wanted to show a righteous aggression for his cause, then it wasn’t necessary to do it at an event that was nothing more than a forgettable photo-op. He could have known that Trump and Vance were not the friendliest allies, and would bite back if pushed. While I’m not a foreign policy expert, maybe Zelensky’s persistence was an unforced error.

—

I’ve avoided news the past couple weeks, as I do when markets crash, raising worries on things I can’t control. But I’ve seen headlines on the U.S. and Ukraine discussing a ceasefire with Russia. “The ball is in their court,” Marco Rubio said, and so it sounds like Zelensky and Trump made some level of peace after the conference. So maybe the spectacle, as dramatic as it appeared, will become inconsequential. Or maybe the argument will affect foreign affairs for years to come. Who knows for sure. But in the end, most of us can do nothing about it but hope the world doesn’t spin further in chaos. Maybe peace will be created, whether by the imperfect leaders of the world, or God’s good grace.

 

 

*I can understand how some might not accept this as an ad hominem argument. One can say that if Zelensky truly respected his relationship to America, then he would accept the customs of formal dress and throw on a coat and tie. Still, the topic of his attire was outside the events of his country, and it seemed like those who would mock Zelensky were just looking to throw anything they could at him. So it’s hard for me to take it as a relevant point to the conversation.

**Though who am I kidding? The meal was Chick-Fil-A, and it was great as always.

***This is another reminder to me that while I might pay attention to social media, I wish social media didn’t exist. And it’s interesting that many from Gen Z would back me up on this: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/17/opinion/social-media-smartphones-harm-regret.html

“Diabolical Lies”? Let’s Just Let Women Choose their Lives without Judgment

by

“Diabolical Lies”? Let’s Just Let Women Choose their Lives without Judgement

Harrison Butker, NFL kicker for the Kansas City Chiefs, drew public condemnation for a commencement speech earlier this year. He shared conservative thoughts to a Catholic college – from pro-life views to “fiasco” Covid policies – but attention came to his praise of homemakers. “Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are the most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.” He also referred to women’s desires for job success over motherhood as “diabolical lies”, receiving a standing ovation from the crowd, but judgements from elsewhere.

Outrage at Butker stretched for months, and while I thought people misrepresented his words, I couldn’t get past the phrase “diabolical lies”. On one hand, I don’t take Butkler to mean that women should live the now-cliche image of red robes and white bonnets from “The Handsmaid’s Tale”. Rather, his point was that being a homemaker has its own rewards, and we shouldn’t discourage the natural excitement women may have for that future. At the same time, Butker didn’t give due credit to the positives of encouraging women to use their talents in the wider world. While he wanted to promote motherhood as admirable, women should be able to choose their own adventures in life with the same level of support.

By describing our support for women’s careers as devilish lies, Butker diminished the contributions of women who “may go on to lead successful careers in the world.” While they may not reach the greatest heights in their fields, the skills and labor of those graduates will benefit the economic and personal well-being of people in their spheres. From the creation of jobs to organization in their work environment, there are depths to what the women will contribute to society through their careers. Like George Bailey seeing the full impact of his life in It’s a Wonderful Life, the women Butker spoke to will have an impact on the professional world around them. I suspect Butker might agree with this in a more in-depth conversation, but in any case, his speech could have given more respect to their future careers.*

As an inspiring example of such a career, Doris Kearns Goodwin embodies the rewards of a culture that promotes career pursuits for women.** Goodwin may be the most well-known historian of our time, with several decades of research, writing and teaching inspiring us with tales of U.S. presidents. With her abundant skills in mind, let’s now imagine there was no movement of women’s liberation in the mid-20th century. Would our society have encouraged her to pursue her career? More likely, her influence would have been confined to her family, and while we shouldn’t look down on this path, there are other pursuits we can promote to our daughters. Let them choose what is right for them, and hope for the best in any case.

I’ve reflected on all of this as I’ve been working on a writing project with a fictional character – a young woman who will come to recognize her abilities as an executive. Taking place in 19-century Virginia, this carpetbagger will find new confidence in herself, directing others to achieve goals in educating former slaves. But her journey will be ripe with discouragement as family and others will speak of a more “proper” place for her in life. Should she abandon her new profession to be a homemaker and farmhand in life, as her father would have of her? How much have the talents of women been suppressed through centuries by limiting women in this way? The answer is incalculable, and we should encourage whatever paths someone will take.

Back to Doris Kearns Goodwin, the all-the-more amazing part to me is that she found the grit to choose both career and motherhood. In her latest book, she describes her days of research and writing while paying attention to her children through the day.*** How did she find the time and energy to have focus on these things? It seems incredible that some will have the burden of handling children while meeting the demands of a career, but women like Goodwin somehow do it. So the graduates like those who listened to Harrison Butker should also keep this in mind. It’s a daunting challenge, but still attainable.

From a personal example, I know the value and happiness that my wife takes from photography. It was in her blood since childhood, and she’s had the opportunity to share the craft with students and viewers for years now. She’s inspired others to pursue the trade, and she has been part of the art communities at universities as well. With this, should we describe past encouragements for her career as “diabolical lies”? Was her range of influence in the world best to be isolated to her children and unworthy husband? It’s hard to think this when hearing from a former student of hers, now also a photographer who enjoys the trade while having children of her own. We can be thankful for a society that didn’t demean her professional ambition while also believing she can find joy from motherhood.

So let us encourage all paths that each woman will choose for themselves. From Harrison Butker, let’s keep in mind that women can have great fulfillment from becoming mothers. In itself, the role will be satisfying and productive as their children make their way in the world with virtue. At the same time, let’s not diminish the careers that will call to them. The professions that will harness their skills to make for a better world. Women should choose one, or the other, or both, without any thought of judgement from conversations or liberals. Whatever their paths, we’ll be better off for them.

 
*When writing of “diabolical lies”, I suspect Butker also had the 1960s sexual revolution in mind – the message to women that promiscuity will lead to equality and self-satisfaction. Here, I would be more sympathetic with the NFL kicker, but it’s a discussion for another time. 
**Without Goodwin, we wouldn’t have the well-renown Lincoln biography “Team of Rivals”, and by extension, we wouldn’t have the movie Lincoln. For this alone, we should be grateful that our society didn’t push Goodwin away from her ambitions as a historian. The world is better off for having Steven Spielberg and Daniel Day-Lewis bring Abraham Lincoln to such popular attention.
***It was a joy to read this latest book, “An Unfinished Love Story: A Personal History of the 1960s”. With 7,970 ratings on the Goodreads app, the book has 4.67 out of 5 stars. When finishing it, I felt I had no choice but to give it five stars as well.

Arguments – Their Passions and Effects

by

Arguments – Their Passions and Effects

Years ago, a sociology professor dedicated two weeks of my class to dismantling Christianity. All topics stood in the line of fire – The resurrection of Jesus, the problem of evil, contradictions of the Bible, and so on. A graying gentleman with an impressive mustache, the professor didn’t need bullet points or Power Point to attack with his views. Only a career of research, with insights and counter-points worthy of academia.* Still, even beyond his job duties, he seemed to take pleasure in steam-rolling the religious thoughts of anyone in the room. He wreaked havoc on our minds, and it was uncomfortable to be in his class during that stretch.

Students from my campus ministry also attended his classes, and most of us took offense to his aggression. Going out of his way to attack our personal beliefs, there was a feeling of persecution**, though my own feelings about him were mixed. The professor had shown care for his students, and so it was hard for me to vilify him. But it was intimidating to have someone in his authority lecture us as he did. If nothing else, it felt rude for him to use his class as a stage to tear apart the beliefs of people just leaving their teenage years. With this, I was sympathetic to my peers when they gossiped about the professor, and I never said anything to defend him.

Looking back now, I regret that choice. Not to say my views now align with his, but it’s easier to see that his goals weren’t sinister. Instead, he likely saw the time as needed to burst the cultural bubbles of his students. Not everyone in the room was Christian, but most had grown up in the Upper Midwest, with childhoods including the lessons of pastors and Sunday schools. This would create isolation from other views, and while it wasn’t the fault of the students, it was something for him to address. Higher education should offer students different ways of seeing the world, and so maybe the Bible-thumpers of his class were too sensitive to his lectures. Myself included.

Charlie Kirk’s debates with college students remind me of my time with the professor. Kirk, the conservative founder of Turning Point USA, pokes the bear of a different sort, sharing conservative views with students who loathe his opinions. From foreign policy to culture wars, he and others tour campuses to engage with students of all stripes. According to YouTube, Kirk “DESTROYS” and “DISMANTLES” students in open-forum chats. He brags that he didn’t go to college, but he makes it clear that he’s well-read and prepared for verbal spars. While polite and inviting, he takes joy from debunking liberal thoughts, just as my professor did of religious ones. How ironic. Different beliefs, but with the same aggression and tenacity, they had much in common.

Just as Kirk takes the same pleasure in DESTROYING students, it’s clear he has the same hope of bursting cultural bubbles. Just as towns in fly-over country create Christian cultures, liberal students can shelter themselves in the intellectual bubbles of higher education. The signs of liberal domination in universities are evident. The ratios of liberal to conservative teachers has spiked in recent decades, and institutions have created climates that suppress speech for conservatives.*** To break through the walls of this environment, Kirk brings a sledgehammer with a smile on his face. He aims to own the libs and attract students to conservatism, just as the professor did of his views when inviting us into his class.

If nothing else, those like Charlie Kirk and the professor should inspire us with their pursuit of knowledge. For the professor, the commitments needed to reach his position are obvious. Graduate and Ph.D. work, and years of research and writing brought him to become a force in the classroom. Add to this his age and experience, and there was good reason to admire his debate skills. Charlie Kirk, in contrast, is only 30 years old, but his level of study is evident. With his organization and online presence, he must know that he represents conservative ideology to the world. With this, he needs to study and prepare for any topic, and it’s clear he does this well. Students and laymen like me, no matter what our views of the world, should respect the dedication of people like them, raising debate as a democracy should.

Funny enough, it’s also possible their arguments will have the opposite effect on a student’s opinions. In the satire The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis writes of a demon, Screwtape, rebuking a junior demon for his strategy in keeping a child from becoming a Christian. The demon had shared pro-atheistic arguments with the child, but Screwtape explains that it’s best to not have him think about the topic at all. He will go through life not thinking about faith, and he will preserve his status as an unbeliever. But if the demon tells him about atheism, then the boy will think about counter-arguments, and perhaps convert because from them. One can never know how an idea will fester in the mind, and in time, someone’s teachings can create other beliefs in a person.

For myself, the lesson from The Screwtape Letters applies to my experience with the professor. At the time (and probably now), there was no way I could have won a debate with him about Christianity, even if I had the heart to try. We were intellectual rubes – not of our doing, but from our natural place as students. Still, his passion made the lectures memorable, and in time, I would find the arguments that countered his. There were various reasons why I became devoted to faith in college, and I would have to give a measure of credit to his class. If his aim was to make atheists of us, then he failed in my case. But I’d like to think he’d respect my views now, even as he disagrees. They come from a place reasonable reflection and review, escaping the bubble I may have once enjoyed.

Regardless of what each person takes away for their words, we should know that arguments from those like Charlie Kirk and the professor aren’t invulnerable. No argument is impenetrable, no matter the chrisma, flare and experience of the speaker. Even if we can’t think of a comeback in the heat of an argument, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Taking the time to reflect and research may bring up counter-thoughts, and I take comfort from this. As someone slow in thinking, I wouldn’t be able to hold my ground against either man. In a public forum, they would DESTROY me, but we shouldn’t take that to necessarily mean they’re right. It’s just their thoughts, and the counter-thoughts of the world are everywhere for us to find. No one has the final word.

*There were two male students up front who nodded every few minutes, praising the words of the professor. Even then, it struck me as odd. The two couldn’t seem to think for themselves, always bowing to his lectures. It’s a harsh comparison, but they appeared as dogs waiting for their benevolent master to toss them a treat.

**For the record, I’m embarrassed to have once thought of his lectures as persecution. My apologies to God and to the martyrs of my faith for ever making the comparison. Modern American Christians have no idea what real persecution is, and we should recognize that. 

***See The Cancelling of the American Mind. Also, I’d recommend looking up David French and his experiences in courts on countering university policies on this subject.