Boycott

I, too, think I will boycott the Academy Awards.  Of course, I boycott them every year.  In fact, I don't do movies.  I think, say in the last five years, I've seen four movies at the theater(s).  I really liked Lincoln, the movie.  American Sniper was worth watching.  I can't remember the other two, although one had to do with Wall Street (?).  I remember, after one of the two, walking out, hearing Karen tell a friend who went with us, "I'll never get him to go see another movie."  And, so far, she's been right.

Out last night, some folks were talking about some black stars who will boycott the Awards because of some lack of minority nominees.  That seems amiss to me.

If the Academy, that is, the members who vote on what movies to nominate and eventually win (if that's how it works), is lacking minority/black members, that's one thing.  Of course, the Academy is under no legal obligation to set quotas on the make-up of its membership.  At the same time, people are entitled (Ooh, I almost hesitated to use that word!) to protest, boycott, speak up, etc. to try to get the Academy to change.

On the other hand, to insist that nominees include minorities (if that's what the protest is about) is quite condescending--to the minorities.  Perhaps the lack of minority nominees is a reflection of the Academy composition.  I don't know, esp since I don't do movies.  I heard it said that letting the actors, directors, etc. choose the Academy board is akin to letting students choose the teachers.  Maybe so.

But if a boycott can bring about effective change for the better, good.

The Detroit teachers' sick-out is still in the newspapers.  It's a boycott, in effect.  And a lot of critics are missing the point, a big point.  The teachers aren't protesting for more pay or any benefits.  They are trying to draw attention to deplorable conditions that inhibit both teaching and learning.  I wonder if the critics would have taken the same position back in the '50s and '60s with Martin Luther King's nonviolent protests.  Maybe the analogy isn't quite the same, but maybe it is.  How else to attract attention?  It's obvious people weren't aware of the rotten conditions--or were they?  But, if they were aware, then they weren't very concerned.  Hmmm......  Where was their concern for the quality education they claim students are now missing from the sick-outs?

I'm still thinking about Prof Kateb's book, Lincoln's Political Thought.  I really enjoyed it, but found it difficult to read.  It wasn't that it is poorly written; it's not. There are just so many ideas to digest, often with new perspectives, that it takes some time to wade through and mull them.  I'm not sure what to make of one thing, though.  I disagree with Prof Kateb??????  He writes, "[Oliver Wendell] Holmes's analogy between antiwar speech in wartime and shouting fire falsely in a crowded theater is very poor and not persuasive at all; it is amazing that he ever got away with it."  I don't think Holmes was making a direct analogy.  His intent was merely to show that freedom of speech is not absolute, that guarantees of freedom of speech don't mean that anything and everything is protected.  I don't know what to make of my disagreement.  In a sense, I've thought and thought, esp since I have great respect for Prof Kateb and his views.  On the other hand, I can't help but thinking I am reading Holmes right on this, more so than Prof Kateb.  And, it's daunting to say the least, doubting or disagreeing with one of my former professors.  I think I'm still intimidated, at least intellectually, by them.  But, at the same time, perhaps it's a passage of sorts--at my age, too!  Ha Ha Ha......