"Who're ya for"? was one of the first questions my wife was asked when she started working in Durham, NC. It was a question I was never asked. As a graduate student at Duke, it was (theoretically) clear where my loyalties were found. But the question to my wife stumped her. She had no context for it, but quickly learned that there was really only one-of-four acceptable answers, and they all had to do with sports loyalties: Duke, North Carolina, NC State, or Wake Forest. All four major research universities are located within an hour-and-a-half of each other. All have passionate fans . . . especially when it comes to basketball! But the loyalties, or rivalries, run through all of the sports, since all four universities are part of the same athletic conference. And, as is the case in many sports-besotted towns, the support for one's OWN preference turns into vilification of the rival. A frequently-seen bumper sticker in Durham read: "My two favorite teams are Duke and whoever is playing Carolina". Even when Duke would win (over any opponent), a common chant arose, "Go to [Heck], Carolina, Go to [Heck]!"!
The news out of that state over the last week, however, silenced some of that fervent rhetoric. And it raised, for me, a different evaluation of that question posed to my wife upon her starting work in the Tar Heel State.
The first news was of the death of former UNC basketball coach Dean Smith at age 83. Dean Smith was coaching at UNC when I was at Duke. The rivalry between his teams and Coach K's was fierce. The respect, however, of each coach for the other's work was immense. And even the Dukies would have to admit that the "Dean-o" (as some called him) was a great coach, and fielded some amazing players, like Michael Jordan and James Worthy. In the wake of Smith's death, one former Duke mascot suggested a very "worthy" way of honoring Smith: a Duke-blue t-shirt with the "Duke" on the front replace with "Dean." Mike Krzyzewski, ("Coach K" of Duke) honored him by wearing Carolina blue to the funeral. Regardless of the personal and team rivalries, the clear sentiment was, in answer to the question "Who're ya for?": integrity, great teaching/coaching (more than 95% of his athletes graduated), forward-thinking, passion.
The second news was more tragic: the death of three young people near the UNC campus. Yusor Abu-Salha, her husband Deah Barakat, and her sister Razan were brutally murdered, ostensibly over a parking lot and/or noise dispute. Others assert that, since all were Muslim, and the accused was a self-described "atheist & gun-toter", that the crime was motivated by anti-Muslim (or anti-Arab) feelings. Officials currently are investigating whether or not this shooting should be classified as a "hate crime". Given, however, the heightened anxieties and tensions over terrorism and killings with religious motivations (e.g., the Charlie Hebdo shootings and the death of the Jordanian pilot at the hands of ISIS), it is difficult NOT to see the Chapel Hill tragedy as a horrific example of "Who're ya against?"
Many have observed that our societies have become much more antagonistic. It is common, for example, in our American political system, simply for politicians to oppose anything the other party suggests. Why? "Because it's THEM, and they're not US! Some leaders, however, have pointed out that it would be better than simply saying "No!" to offer up something as an alternative . . . in other words, to say "Yes!" to something.
It is becoming too easy to fall into the "Who're ya against?" rhetoric, and then act accordingly. We wring hands and say "It's awful" . . . . and, of course, it is. But, as we take refuge there, we are stalemated. We can't move.
At universities -- but not limited to these halls -- we dedicate ourselves to what "we're for": knowledge, innovation, betterment of our world, service, understanding -- in other words, movement forward. We have to declare that we will not stand by and let others dictate the conversation in such negative ways. We must bring all of our best to creating something better. It is, I believe, our responsibility. To do anything less would be to deny our humanity. And, so I have to ask . . .
Who am I for? I'm for peace-makers of whatever religious (or non-religious) background. I'm for those who would look for solutions to local or global problems that don't rely on exploitation of others. I'm for those who teach our children that difference is an asset to be appreciated. I'm for those who would sit down with their opponent over a cup of tea and share their wishes for their respective grandchildren. I'm for those who would listen thrice before speaking once. That's a short list, but a beginning.
It's a beginning, but only that. Because even if I am "for" something in spirit or intent, that's not enough. There's an implicit call to action . . . not just to "be", but to "do". Our religious traditions -- at their best -- compel us to act to make things better. The Hebrew prophet Isaiah informs his people that God expects them to be a "light to the nations". Christians are commended to share good news. Other traditions have similar injunctions. I wonder how often have turned these around, thinking that our goal is to destroy those who disagree with us, rather than show them the benefits of what WE'VE found good . . . what we're for. So . . .
Who're -- or what're -- YOU for? And what are you going to do about it?
Blessings,
Chaplain Gary
No comments:
Post a Comment