Dear Professor Adams:
I must say, I sympathize a little with you for your “recent pain”:http://www.townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/ma20050328.shtml. As a child, I was very sensitive and always told the teacher when someone said a bad word or flipped me the bird, even if it was in the hall during class and even if I had no hall pass. Fortunately, I learned to disregard minor offensive remarks as I started to grow up, and I’ve been a lot better off for it. These days, I still have to manage people with dissenting opinions, and I’ve found a couple of techniques that you can use the next time you are trolling your email account for urgent messages on Easter. These techniques will even work on Christmas, Thanksgiving, and the Fourth of July. Your mileage may vary during the other times of the year.
The first technique is to keep private conversations private until there is a compelling reason to do otherwise, such as safety or escalation of conflict resolution in the workplace. I find that if I disclose the name of the discussant and full contents of the conversation (or monologue, as the case may be) to the public, that damages my credibility. Perhaps you did not feel safe after reading the missive? While I did not detect any violent intention in the missive, perhaps I misinterpreted. Even then, you can disclose the information to a public safety officer before going to the public.
The second technique is to increase the repertoire of responses to such missives. As a professor who espouses conservative views, you probably get letters like this a lot, right? Certainly you have found the value in ignoring letters devoid of content and, for those that contain useful discourse, engaging the discussant in a healthy debate. A healthy debate works as follows: one side presents views and logical justifications for them. The other side tries to understand the first side’s logic. Then change roles and repeat. Then, as often happens in debates, there will be several rounds of counter-arguments. During each of these rounds, one side speaks, and the other side listens with the intent to understand. This dialectic procedure often leads to growth for both sides, and the more you do it, the easier it becomes.
The third technique is to anticipate the actions of the other discussant. This skill is admittedly difficult, and those that have mastered this skill have often become great generals, debaters, or corporate strategists. Fortunately, many of the basic principles are rather simple, and this should give you a head start. For example, different behaviors are expected of different types of people. For example, one might expect different behaviors from, say, a college student and another from, say, a college professor. Society has defined different roles for the student and professor, and, whether, while some of the expectations of these roles may be bad, most are quite good. To wit, one expects a college professor to handle dissent with poise and equinimity while the college student may still be developing these skills. So don’t be surprised if you ever receive a reprimand for sending an email with, “My penis is mad at you,” but the administration lets an email from a student saying, “My vagina is mad at you” slip through.
The fourth technique is to lighten up. I’ve taken a few opportunities to read the material you write for “Town hall”:http://www.townhall.com/, and you usually seem upset at some issue or another. I’ve found that this results from several sources:
* not laughing at funny things (usually do to the fear of appearing too childish),
* thinking that everything even of minor offense, including emails with two or three curse words, must be met with a nuclear response,
* worrying about whether I’m being treated the same way as people who are in different stations of life than me (e.g. college students),
* trying to maintain some façade of privacy on work email systems,
* saying up nights fretting about people who say that you are bigoted and immature,
* compulsively checking your email during a federal and religious holiday (i.e. slow email days) worrying about whether someone sent you something “urgent,”
* understanding that not everyone agrees with your assumptions, religion, logic, philosophy, etc.,
* and, finally, looking for things to be upset about.
I’m really concerned about you for this, because stress is perhaps the leading cause of health problems in this nation. Some doctors estimate that 60-90% of physician visits come from stress-related symptoms and illnesses.
I hope you are able to come to a mutual understanding with your students, even if they seem liberal and off-base. After all, liberals as well as conservatives and libertarians are off-base a lot of the time.
Sincerely,
John Johnson
© 2005 John D. Johnson
Filed under: Nutcases left and right | Leave a comment »