I Lose My Job

Many people today are worried about losing their jobs, especially those with government jobs. In his recent speech to Congress, President Trump read a long list of wasteful and unnecessary spending on the part of the federal government and promised significant cuts. Even state and local government employees are worried since the loss of Federal grants might cause them to lose their jobs.

I know from experience that it is a hard thing to lose your job. Back in 1972 I lost my job as an Assistant Professor of History at a small Catholic college in Connecticut. The college had only come into existence ten years earlier as an experiment in Catholic higher education. It was to be run entirely by lay people although the local bishop would still head the Board of Directors. In addition, there would be no dorms, and the students would all be commuters or day hops. 

Initially, the school flourished as students and parents took advantage of the low cost. Also, during the Vietnam war many young men enrolled to avoid the draft. However, by 1972 the war was winding down and enrollment was dropping. As a result, administration decided to cut costs by trimming the faculty and did so by declining to grant tenure to anyone eligible that year.

Seven of us were denied tenure that year. Tenure is an unfamiliar concept to most people. For academics, it meant that once you receive tenure, it was almost impossible to lose your position thereafter. You have a job for life. In effect, the seven years I had been teaching there were a probationary period. 

I did have some paranoia about my dismissal. I thought that the administration had decided to terminate seven people just to get rid of me since I was the elected head of the faculty association. In academe it was not called a union, but it had some resemblance although there was no collective bargaining. I had also been overwhelmingly elected to the Faculty Senate during the years of student unrest that accompanied the increasingly unpopular war in Vietnam. 

Looking back now, I can see that while administrators might have been glad to see me go, I did not have a strong case for tenure. I was not a popular teacher since I had a reputation of being a hard grader. As an academic, it took seven years for me to complete my doctoral dissertation, and I had no publications to my credit. Coincidentally, I received my doctorate on the same day my tenure appeal was denied. 

So, in the Spring of 1972, I was thirty-three years old and out of a job. Complicating things was the fact that my wife and I had five small children ranging in age from 8 to 2. We had bought a small house in Fairfield with help from my father who provided the $2000 down payment. We lived from paycheck to paycheck and had only meager savings. Teaching jobs were nonexistent in the area, and we did not want to relocate our family.

I had to find work out of academe, but my doctorate made me virtually unemployable. Prospective employers would only laugh and say that someone with your education would not be happy or useful working for them. Eventually, the only employers interested in me were insurance companies always on the lookout for new agents who basically worked on a commission basis. No sales meant no pay. 

At that time, most academics looked down their noses at people engaged in business. Today, practically everyone goes to college to study business, but back in 1972 the business department at our school had only a few majors. Just as today, people in higher education tended to frown on those who worked for profit. Insurance agents were regarded as the lowest of the low in the business world, maybe just a notch above used car salesmen.

Nevertheless, I had no choice. I interviewed with a couple of companies but one seemed to have a novel approach. It was then among the leaders in the nascent mutual fund industry and offered low-cost life insurance as a supplement to mutual fund investing. I did fail their aptitude test that showed that I was an academic with no aptitude for sales. The office manager, whose contempt for academics matched mine for salesmen, informed me that he would not be able to take me on, but when I asked if I could borrow the study materials he had given me, he admired my persistence and immediately changed his mind. It was no skin off his nose since it was a commission only job. So, I became a salesman, a peddler of life insurance and mutual funds.

Needless to say, it was extremely difficult. Most new agents flunked out in weeks or months. The aptitude analysis was correct, but it only measured what I was and not what I could become. Only with the help and unflagging support of my wife, who went back to nursing, was I able to survive the first year and develop the knowledge, skills, and experience needed for success in this very competitive field. As the years went by, successful sales agents would morph into financial planners no longer dependent on commissions. Over the next 35 years I was able to build a very successful financial planning practice with hundreds of contented clients. 

In my case, losing my job was one of the best things that ever happened to me and my family.

 

###

Ash Wednesday

 

                                             

A few years ago around Ash Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal published an opinion piece by Michael S. Roth, the President of Wesleyan University, on the reluctance of modern students to consider topics like the soul and salvation. In addition to his administrative duties Roth taught a class in which he tried to inculcate historical imagination in his students by asking them to consider and discuss the questions that deeply concerned people in the past. However, he was disconcerted when he discovered a particular blind spot among his students.

Whenever he tried to discuss the interest of philosophers and other thinkers in the past with questions about the soul and salvation, he found a decided reticence on the part of his students to engage. Although usually eager to discuss any of the pressing issues of the day, the students generally clammed up and avoided eye contact by looking down into their notebooks. 

Unfortunately, Roth did not go into the reasons for the students’ reserve but took most of his essay explaining why it was important to understand why such issues had such importance to great thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas. Roth admitted that he was a secular Jew and an atheist, and insisted that he was certainly not trying to “convert” the students. 

It’s too bad that Dr. Roth did not ask his students about their reasons for shying away from any discussion that smacks of “religion.” I can think of a number of reasons why the students might have been reluctant to engage, but I’m only guessing.

The first that comes to mind stems from the high probability that most professors at Wesleyan, then and now, neither believe that they have an immortal soul, nor think that they require salvation. Any student professing such beliefs would likely be ridiculed by teachers and regarded as a pariah by their classmates. Actually, I think that the animus towards religious subjects was inculcated even before the students went to college. It is part of the media world that they have inhabited since childhood.

Despite Dr. Roth’s good intentions, I doubt if he ever would have become President of Wesleyan if he had been a church going Methodist. Even though the school is one of many named after the eighteenth century religious reformer, a school like Wesleyan would probably never name a President today who shared John Wesley’s beliefs or concerns.

Practically all the great institutions of learning in Europe and America were founded by churches, but today a belief pervades modern society that there is a total disconnect between religion and reason when it comes to the search for truth. Nevertheless, our universities have not become centers of reason and science. Credulity of all kinds still prevails. Someone once said, “when people cease to believe in God, they will believe in anything.”

Look at the popularity of the supernatural and occult in films and videogames today. Vampire films are box office bonanzas. My grandson went to a Jesuit Catholic university where he could hardly find a course on Catholicism to fulfill his religious studies requirement. He had to fall back on a course on Voodoo taught by a truly committed believer. 

Ironically, Dr. Roth admitted that despite his atheism, he still felt the need to say the Jewish Kaddish for his deceased father. Of course, tradition would not allow him to say it alone and so he had to find a group of ten. It wasn’t easy for a non-practicing Jew but he eventually found a group. Not only was he able to say the prayers for his father, but he also found in the group a congenial community. So Dr. Roth is not really an atheist. Either he reserves his religion for special situations, or he just has gone back to ancestor worship, the earliest form of religion.

I suspect similar motives drive modern Catholics when they go to Church on Ash Wednesday. Years ago on a visit to our daughter in California, my wife and I attended the local church, St. Joseph’s Basilica, in Alameda. The church is an enthusiastic community made up of the descendants of the original settlers of the island right next to Oakland, as well as more recent immigrants from Mexico, the Philippines, China, and Vietnam. The dynamic but self-effacing young pastor from India scheduled five masses for Ash Wednesday. The morning mass that we attended was packed with people waiting to receive the ashes on their foreheads.

Maybe people don’t like to think about the soul and salvation any more but down deep they seem to want to be reminded that they are dust and to dust they will return.

### 

Russia: Twelve Angry Men

  

                                

 

As President Trump attempts to negotiate an end to war between Russia and Ukraine, politicians and pundits are flooding him with advice as if he had no competent advisors on his team. It is interesting to note that Trump has set a priority on ending the killing, while former President Biden did little to bring the fighting to an end. 

To my mind Biden's greatest failure as President was his inability or unwillingness to act as an agent of peace. Indeed, in his interview with Tucker Carlsen last year, Vladimir Putin claimed that then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson had quashed a peace settlement hammered out between Russia and Ukraine at a meeting in Turkey. It is hard to believe that the British P.M. would have acted without the support of the Biden administration.

In any event, I suspect that many people offering unsolicited advice to President Trump are not really aware of the situation in Russia today. Their repeated references to Hitler and Stalin indicate that they are living in the past. They do not understand that a second Russian revolution occurred after the break up of the Soviet Empire. The ineptness of our media makes it difficult for Americans to understand what is going on in Russia.

I have had an almost lifelong fascination with Russia. I suppose it started with literature during my high school and college years. I never took a formal course on Russian literature, but I read War and Peace, Crime and Punishment, the Brothers Karamazov and others with fascination although perhaps little understanding. A few years later I discovered the novels and histories of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, one of the greatest and most influential authors of the twentieth century. No one ever explained the nature of Communism in Russia netter than he did. Just a couple of years ago I waded through The Icon and the Axe, James Billington’s magisterial study of Russian history and culture.

Today, I doubt if any of my college educated grandchildren have ever read or will read any of these great authors. I doubt that they have even heard their names. I suppose that their knowledge of Russia, like that of our own politicians, is likely superficial and unhistorical. Since books are too time consuming, and seemingly irrelevant in our age, film may be the only way to provide insights into a country like Russia, especially after the revolutionary events that followed upon the collapse of the Soviet empire. Here is a brief review of a film that sheds much light on this extremely diverse country that extends over nine time zones. 

In 2007 Russian filmmaker Nikita Mikhalkov produced, directed, wrote, and acted in “12”, a film based on the American drama and film “Twelve Angry Men.” Mikhalkov won a special award at the Venice film festival that year, and his film also received an Academy Award nomination for best foreign film. The film is a masterpiece that far exceeds the earlier American version in power and intensity. 

The film also opens a window, actually twelve windows, into post-Soviet Russia. "12" refers to the twelve jurors who are hearing a case involving a young man accused of murdering his stepfather. Complicating matters is the fact that the young man is a Chechen, a member of that ethnic group that has never been fully assimilated into Russian society. Chechens are, at the same time, hated and feared by most Russians. Alexander Solzhenitsyn claimed that even Gulag prison guards feared the Chechen prisoners who often terrorized the other prisoners.

The film, however, is not about the prisoner but about the jurors. These twelve men, each represents an aspect of Russian life after the fall of Communism. They are a diverse group that includes, among others, a successful post-communist businessman, a doctor educated in Moscow but originally from the provinces, a Russian TV executive with a degree from Harvard, a former Soviet bureaucrat who fondly remembers the good old days of Communism, and even a bigoted cab driver.

The case against the young man seems open and shut but doubts arise. Inevitably, each juror reveals himself in dealing with what turns out to be a very complicated case. In revealing their own stories, they tell us more about modern Russia than we will ever find in our own media.

As mentioned above the film is powerful and intense, and filled with often mysterious flashbacks that eventually come together like pieces in a puzzle. But most of the power and intensity takes place in the makeshift jury room where twelve fine actors strut their stuff.

###

Ukraine Settlement

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth stated this week that the way to a settlement of the war in Ukraine would be to give up the idea of Ukraine ever entering the NATO alliance. In other words, Ukraine would be independent of both East and West with no foreign troops on its soil. There is no doubt in my mind that when former President Biden opened the door to NATO membership for Ukraine, Vladimir Putin regarded it as a provocation. A few months later Russian troops invaded Ukraine. 

I have put up a number of posts on Ukraine in the past and readers who think I am too old or ill-informed, might be surprised to find that I anticipated the Trump administration position ten years ago. See the following post that originally appeared on February 13, 2015, seven years before the war began.

*****************

In an interview in last Saturday's Wall Street Journal, General Frederick B. Hodges, commander of U.S. Army forces in Europe, made the case for military aid to the Ukraine and for an increased NATO involvement. Nevertheless, the General made some admissions that make one wonder if there might be another alternative. 

The General argued that Russia is preparing for war some five or six years in the future with some unspecified enemy. He believed that the Russians regard China as their greatest threat but that at the same time noted that they were conducting simulations of a nuclear attack on the United States. He did not mention that they might be concerned with the threat of Islamic fundamentalism all along their southern borderlands.

To counter the Russian threat the General pointed out that our own resources are stretched thin. Nine out of ten of our divisions are currently engaged in missions all over the world. The General insisted that we cannot act on our own anymore and must rely increasingly on our allies. However, our NATO allies have not and will not live up to their treaty commitments. Only four of them dedicate more than the required 2% of GDP to defense spending.

Finally, the General admitted that we need a strategy, and that military aid to the Ukraine or any other country does not by itself constitute a strategy. He asks that we consider the outcome we want to achieve in the Ukraine.  Do we really want the Ukraine to become a battlefield where millions might die? Do we want a city like Mariupol on the Black Sea to become a desert like Mosul?

Why can't we consider Russia as an ally and not an enemy? Instead of confronting Russia with NATO, why not guarantee that an independent Ukraine will never be part of NATO. The Ukraine provides Russia with millions of customers for its vast energy reserves. After all, both the US and Russia will more and more have to deal with the growing power of China, as well as with radical Islam. 

The Journal has launched a barrage of editorial comment against Russia in the past week. One op-ed suggested that a military buildup is not necessary because we could crush the Russians economically with increased sanctions and low oil and gas prices. This is another dangerous suggestion since if we drive the Russians to the wall, they might become desperate. Why isn't a strong Russia to our advantage? If we think economic sanctions hurt the Russian oligarchs, what do we think they will do to the ordinary Russian citizen.

Journal columnist Bret Stephens, a longtime proponent of arming the Ukrainians, even quoted and praised a practically insane statement by U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham who claimed that he did not know what the outcome of military intervention would be, and did not care how many Ukrainians or Russians might die, or even if we lost. All that mattered was that the US not back down and appease Putin.

It would be so much less costly in terms of men and money to bring the Russians into NATO than to confront them with a flaming sword on their historical Western front. It would be better to have a strong, economically viable Russia as an ally rather than an enemy in the ongoing war against radical Islam.

###

Note: The flaming sword is the insignia of the U.S. Army in Europe.