Global Crisis

Image Description: Me on CNN. Michigan Ave/Chicago River behind me. David Perry: Associate Professor, Dominican University Headline: Oregon Massacre, Campus Shooter Kills 9, Wounds 9

I went on CNN on Friday, 10/1, to discuss the terrible shooting on a community college campus in Oregon. CNN hasn't released a clip so I can't show it to you.

I'm glad to have had the chance to go on the air and say some of the things I believe. I was originally supposed to be paired with John Lott, a man who believes that more guns equals less crime (they don't). The show decided instead to separate us and so by the time I came on, the host wanted to talk about other things. I had about 90 seconds and said three sentences. I described our upcoming active-shooter drill at Dominican, about which I will write next week. I said that I do not want guns on campus.  I said that I do not believe adding more guns in the form of armed civilians will make us safer. Then my segment ended fairly abruptly.

At any rate, 90 seconds is a difficult time to make one's stance perfectly clear. Here are four things I wish I could have said more clearly on CNN.

1. I have no problem with highly-trained law enforcement positioned appropriately near campuses. Some universities are basically cities unto themselves, so they likely need their own armed police. My small suburban campus needs to coordinate its security with our small suburban police, the tactical units assigned to our area, and other highly-trained law enforcement officers.

2. I do not believe that allowing civilians, whether teachers, staff, faculty, or just random visitors, to carry arms on our campus is the right response. First, college campuses are sacred spaces to me, and I do not want to see them further profaned by these weapons of murder. More importantly, though, we cannot arm our way out of this crisis. If we turn every school into a fortress, mass shootings will move to the malls. Arm the malls, killers will go the churches. Arm the churches, then it will be little league games. We can take appropriate measures to defend against copycat killers, but cannot stop gun violence by reacting to the specifics of the last attack.

3. Around the world, there are people who are angry and potentially violent. People hate other people. People get personally slighted. People have mental health breakdowns (though people with mental illness are vastly more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violence). It's only in America that these individuals are likely to react to their anger by using a firearm to commit an act of mass murder.

4. The only solution is to find ways to make access to firearms more difficult for people in those moments. There are simple steps - ban assault weapons, close gun show loopholes, expand background checks and waiting periods, share information across state lines, slow down the ability to purchase lots of handguns at once (used to buy from suburban gun shops and bring to illegal urban markets), and remove the Congressional ban on government-sponsored research on gun violence. None of these steps will restrict the ability of Americans to acquire firearms to hunt, for home defense, or even for conceal-carry purposes. But it will slow the flow, and that's what we need right now.

We cannot arm our way out of this crisis.

Some resources on gun violence. Whitehouse.gov on gun violence.

OPINIÓN: No debemos temerle al síndrome de Down http://t.co/3YRfPluotm pic.twitter.com/zKsFTjcSgO
— CNN en Español (@CNNEE) February 19, 2015

I have a new piece up at CNN (here's the English language version. I've just never, to my knowledge, been translated before, so sharing this!). I try to make some big points, but at the core there's an amazing story.

I got a message about an expectant mother of twins, one of who had Down syndrome, who was thinking about leaving her child with Down syndrome at the hospital (under safe haven laws this is not a crime). Still, it's not the best answer, so I got in touch with a friend, Amy Allison, who then put me in touch with Stephanie Thompson, the head of the National Down Syndrome Adoption Society. Stephanie reached out to "Jane," the mother, and eventually Jane decided to keep both children. To my mind, contact with the community - information - helped ease the fear of the unknown.

Here are a few points I want to emphasize:

1. I did nothing much. This isn't a story of me saving the day, but just sending a couple emails. As a result, lives changed. That's astounding.

2. We don't know the end of the story. This is not a "happy ending," but a better beginning. I wish Jane, her spouse and her children the best, but I also don't want to pretend the challenges aren't real.

3. This argument applies to all kinds of niche groups. The link was dropped in edits, but I wanted to link to Seth Mnookin's New Yorker article on fighting rare diseases. I know many people in the Queer community feel similarly that internet contacts are amazing for people, especially kids, who are isolated. There's a dark side too - hate groups find these connection tools equally powerful.

4. I cannot imagine a more pro-life story than this one. It's about a family trying to stay together after receiving better information and good contacts. I am, as anyone who reads me knows, pro-choice and anti-eugenics. I want people to choose life. I want people NOT to choose to abort based on pre-natal diagnoses of disabilities. But it is NOT the job of the state to regulate women's bodies. It is not the job of the state to make abortion, of any kind, illegal. It is ALSO not the job of the state to practice eugenics itself. Pro-choice, pro-information, anti-eugenics.

Now that stance is going to upset some of you in the Down syndrome community, and I regret that. What I really regret, though, are the reactionary voices who, because they disagree with me on abortion, can't celebrate the story I'm sharing here.

The Jérôme Lejeune Foundation is a strongly pro-life Down syndrome group. We don't see eye-to-eye on many things. But in the end, both of us want better lives for people with Down syndrome and to help parents, children, adults with Down syndrome, and communities do better. So they shared my story. And then came the reactionary backlash.



Sullivan basically wants to exclude anyone from the Down syndrome community who doesn't cleave to his hardline on abortion. He enters threads and demands that every conversation be solely about abortion and banning abortion. He's not alone, but rather an egregious example of a type.

So let's be clear. I welcome collaboration to my pro-life colleagues to our ongoing efforts to make life better for people with Down syndrome and other disabilities. I will try to persuade you that state regulation of women's bodies is not an ethical OR practical solution (it will just made Down syndrome code for poor as, elites will continue to abort, for example). I expect you to try to persuade me that I'm wrong. I am ready for that debate.

We have to build coalitions. I'm here. Are you?

Response was mostly very positive, but I always pay attention to criticisms, even though I don't let them wound me. The two interesting ones were:

1) I was letting West off the hook for his ableism. I wasn't, and most people saw the clear condemnation of his actions in the essay, but I could have said a more clear KANYE WEST WAS BEING BAD clause, I guess to make it more obvious to casual readers. That's actually a good note for me as a writer - never assume a point is too obvious. 

2) The second criticism basically agreed that West was a bad man, and that people with disabilities have it rough, but then try to shield themselves from my criticism of their suspicion and doubt. They say - and I had roughly 25 of these comments and emails and tweets - there's so much fraud! What can we do but doubt? (and no doubt more in the 1300 CNN comments, but I have not read those carefully, as there's so much noise it's hard to find signal there).

To this, I point to the many more people who took time to write about their experience with disability and the way that the suspicions affect them. I'm going to quote two emails, identifying marks removed, with permission of the senders. And then offer a few more comments at the end.

Email 1: Criticism. I have bolded a paragraph I find interesting.

Dear Dr. Perry,
I read your essay on CNN’s website, "Kanye West and proving your disabilities.” So many of your comments were spot on, but you failed to mention at least one motive for why people want to see proof of disability: that many people are abusing the system. Those of us who have to cope with genuine disability issues resent the abuse. In my opinion, the number of people who are abusing the system is growing.

My mother is 85 years old, has Alzheimer’s disease, depends on a walker for balance, and cannot walk far. She has had several accidental falls. We carry a handicap hang tag in our car for the times when she is with us. My mother loves to go out on errands with me. It is a marvelous treat for her to leave her “Reminiscence” residence and spend time together. I take her out when I can (about once a week), even though her mobility problems, cognitive impairment, and incontinence slow me down a lot. It is my gift to her. My wife’s 89 year old father is also disabled with arthritis and gout. He uses a walker and sometimes must resort to a scooter/wheelchair. We use the hang tag when he is with us. We do not use the hang tag unless my mother or father-in-law is with us. 

All too often when we arrive at a destination, EVERY handicapped parking space is occupied. All too often, I see people who appear to be abusing the handicapped parking spaces. I am not so callous that I do not give them the benefit of the doubt. I do not glare or stare or judge or express disapproval. You are right, there is no way to know for sure. 

Nevertheless, I have seen many people who are unquestionably abusing the system. They do not have invisible disabilities. I am not a doctor. Obviously I do not have access to their specific diagnoses. I do have basic common sense. I have seen young mothers swinging and tossing their children as they all skip to their cars in the handicap slots. Trust me, none of them were disabled, invisible or otherwise. I have friends who have worked as insurance investigators. They have told me about cases where they photographed “disabled victims” doing decidedly non-disabled activities. I can cite other examples, but you get the idea.

In my opinion, there are two types of abuse: 

1. PEOPLE RECEIVE DISABILITY ACCOMMODATIONS WHEN THEY DO NOT REQUIRE THEM 

I recognize that our populace is aging. Furthermore, a growing percentage faces worsening health issues, some of them due to poor lifestyle choices. Both are contributing to an increase in the number of individuals who genuinely need and qualify for disability accommodations. The growing numbers of the genuinely disabled are a contributing factor to the declining availability of accommodations, such as handicapped parking. With that understanding, I also believe that more people than ever before have recognized the advantages of disability accommodations and found ways to game the system in order to qualify and use them even though they do not require them.  

2. PEOPLE ABUSE THE DISABILITY ACCOMMODATIONS OF OTHERS
Normal, healthy people abuse the handicap hang tag that belongs to a parent or other disabled person. I believe that the number of people who do this is also growing.  

CAVEATS:
I am not an expert in the field. The basis for what I have written is my personal observations and the observations of those whom I trust. I cannot cite specific data or research, but I believe that a well-run scientific study would confirm my assertions. 

SUMMARY:
I believe that many people are abusing disability accommodations. I feel frustrated and angry about it because of the direct impact it has on my mother and father-in-law. I recognize that many people have invisible disabilities that are not readily apparent, but I also believe that I have seen numerous examples of abusers, too.  

Those with invisible, latent disabilities have a right to feel oppressed and angry at those who would judge them and their situation. Your essay provides good examples of why we must avoid judgement or expect proofs of disabilities. I hope that those who have invisible disabilities share my frustration and anger at the people who abuse the system, for those disabled individuals must also deal with similar lack-of-available-accommodation situations. 

Sincerely yours...

So there we have it. One of the interesting things about this is that it opens with a discussion of fraud, but quickly turning to the thing we all focus on most: handicapped (or rather accessible) parking. I'd like you to notice that paragraph I bolded. It starts with "unquestionable," but then says, "I believe..." He perceives, he trusts his perceptions, and he judges. This is just one of the reasons I work so hard on how we portral/represent disability in our culture. People think they know what disabled looks like, but they have no idea. People think they know what "disabled activities" look like, what disabled people can do. So let me set you straight - disabled people, as a group, can do everything. Some can do some things. Some can do other things. Some can do some things some of the time, other things none of the time, and all things most of the time.

The author and I had a highly productive email exchange in which I talked about the ways in which our perceptions deceive us and ended on a good, open-minded note. I like this emailer and hope he's reading this blog (he said he'd check in). But rather than let me go on, here's email #2:

Dr. Perry,
Thank you for writing about those that have physical issues that can't be seen. 

I suffer from pulmonary fibrosis, my lungs are so scarred that breathing is pretty difficult when I'm in motion. I also have polymyositis and my muscles weaken pretty fast when I use them for anything. Up until about 5 years ago I did triathlons and was in terrific shape. Fortunately that is one of the major reasons that I am still alive today - that I conditioned my muscles and lungs so well. The problem though is that I look to be in top notch shape but my insides aren't worth a cuss! 

When I go to public places and am unable to find parking relatively close, I park in the handicap space. I've had a handicap permit for two years now. There have been times when I get out of the car and people give me the meanest looks. Just last week a lady approached me, she was so angry that she was practically spitting when she spoke to me. After I pulled out my iPhone, showed her my medical info with all of my conditions, the meds that I take, the team of doctors that take care of me and all the procedures that I've had, she was in tears. She was a nurse and knew very well how debilitating my condition could be. Also as I talked with her it became very apparent that my breathing was becoming very labored - at rest I get that way when I'm stressed and talking long. Anyway, she thanked me for teaching her a valuable lesson.

My son plays for the COLLEGE SPORTS TEAM REDACTED. Just this past weekend I attended the game, had to park far from the stadium. A golf cart drove by, with handicap sign on it for those that needed a ride. I put my hand out to signify that I needed them to stop for me, twice the people driving said no, wouldn't even listen to my explanation. The third guy stopped because I stood in his path. I explained my condition, he begrudgingly let me ride but made it very apparent that he didn't believe me and was pissed that I was even in his cart. 

I hope many read your column and think twice about judging those that look to be perfectly fine because they may very well have life threatening issues like I do.

Well thanks for letting me vent in the middle of the night - can't sleep because of incredible pain from all of my medical issues. I will be forwarding you column to my friends, who understand but hopefully they'll share with others that are not sensitized to this issue.

So here we have someone who had to prove her medical condition to a total stranger in a parking lots. This is the quotidian version of the Kanye concert.

In my comments, in my email, I have dozens of these comments, these stories, in which a challenging medical situation becomes harder because of our suspicion and doubt, because even a smart nurse educated in disability issues still feels the right to demand a diagnosis in the parking lot. Not even the right - that nurse with her medical knowledge felt a duty to question, to challenge, to force proof.

I offer three conclusions.

1. Disability is not a binary, it's not a yes/no, disabled/abled. Disability takes place along a spectrum, or rather multiple spectra, as we move in and out of disability over our lives or even over the course of  a day. Read more on this here.

2. There is fraud. There will always be fraud. The question is how much fraud are you willing to tolerate in order to make sure people get the accommodations that they need? In the context of situations like social security, we have procedures in place designed to make it hard to get qualified. People do cheat the system, but there's lots of evidence that people with hidden disabilities actually have a hard time qualifying, even if they need it. Any system doling out benefits will have fraud. It's just a question of how much do we tolerate.

3. As for parking. Reader 1 is angry because it's a scarcity model. There are only a few parking spots, his mother and father-in-law sometimes can't use a spot, and that makes him mad. It intensifies his suspicion. Instead, we need more spots, more accessible parking, more golf carts for rides, more universal design. The scarcity model causes problems.

Also, I think, the symbol causes problems. We have formed a link in our minds between the wheelchair and the parking spot. Even Kanye West said, in his definition of disability, "Unless you got a handicap pass and you get special parking and s**t." The wheelchair, the parking pass with the wheelchair on it, these are the symbols of disability in our minds. That's a problem of representation too.

Today I have a new piece on CNN about Kanye West. I build on yesterday's blog post, expanding my argument that the Kanye West's behavior is a magnified celebrity egotistical version of the kinds of skepticism and suspicion faced people with disabilities all the time. In the piece, I write:

Reaction to this incident throughout social media and in numerous publications was swift and condemnatory. West, in return, lashed out at the media. But in fact, although West's celebrity magnifies the story, the bigger issue here is that his demand that his fans prove their disability is entirely typical.

Every day, in every context, people with disabilities get challenged to prove how disabled they are. This constant questioning isolates people with disabilities, increases stress and shame, and can lead directly to verbal or even physical abuse

I finish the piece with these thoughts:

Thanks to the Americans with Disabilities Act, to claim disability is to ask for reasonable accommodation -- accessible buildings, more time on tests, audible formats for books, Social Security disability payments, and more. Too many people seem to regard the request to accommodate as a burden and meet such requests with suspicion. The not-disabled exercise their privilege by demanding that people prove their disabilities; then, all too often, proof just generates pity, not understanding or inclusion.

By demanding everyone rise, by calling out the disabled members of his audience even as he grudgingly tolerated their inability to stand, West was being totally normal. If you think what he did was wrong, remember that the next time you are tempted to stare down someone walking from a handicapped spot at the grocery store. Remember that the next time someone managing pain can't make it into work. Remember that the next time a student needs a little more time on a test.

One key takeaway from the piece, I hope, is the understanding the disability is not a binary. People are not either perfectly disabled or perfectly abled. Rather, we are all at the most temporarily abled, moving in and sometimes out of states of disability throughout our lives, or even just in a single day as we expend whatever strength we have and then need accommodations.'

I like to think about disability, especially physical disability, as overlapping spectrum that people might move along it as conditions change or just when they've used up all their spoons (read about the "But You Don't Look Sick" spoon theory here, it's a useful analogy). It's more complicated for intellectual/development disability because one doesn't want to normalize "typical," but that's a topic for another post.

That's not how our culture sees it. That's not how Kanye West sees it. For them, you are either disabled or not. You can't need accommodations just some of the time, in such a perspective.

But that's not how disability actually works. And everyone who has ever been sick or had an operation knows this. Disability works in many ways. An inclusive society accepts all of these ways and tries to build an accessible world, for whoever, whenever, under whatever circumstances.

As I continue to write about language, politics, and ethics, I thought it would be useful to place statements all on one page, without comment. Eden Foods, Whole Foods, The Wedge Co-Op, Willy Street Co-op. I also have links to major reporting on the topic, especially from a year ago when their first suit was decided.

I will have a CNN piece on the topic this morning and will update the blog when it's up.

Here are some good resources.

• Irin Carmon at Salon (and now MSNBC) was all over this topic, including this first piece and then an interview with CEO Potter.
• A recent piece from USA Today.
• The controversy comes to Whole Foods.
• A good overview of the post-Hobby Lobby situation from Grist
• Potter tells his local paper that Obama is a dictator.

Eden Foods:

Eden Foods is a principled food company. We were convinced that actions of the federal government were illegal, and so filed a formal objection. The recent Supreme Court decision confirms, at least in part, that we were correct. We realized in making our objection that it would give rise to grotesque mischaracterizations and fallacious arguments. We did not fully anticipate the degree of maliciousness and corruption that would visit us. Nevertheless, we believe we did what we should have.
The objection we filed has never been part of the Hobby Lobby lawsuit

Whole Foods:

“We really do appreciate everyone who has reached out to us to share their feelings about Eden Foods. When reviewing products for our shelves, our primary consideration is whether the product’s ingredients meet our Quality Standards. We recognize and respect that customers may have their own personal criteria for buying or not buying a product, and it’s every shoppers’ right to vote with their dollars on that basis. We hope that if people have feedback for Eden Foods, they share it with them directly.”

The Wedge:

Thanks so much for sharing your views about the Eden Foods situation with the Wedge. We are aware of the recent news, and while we are disappointed by Eden Foods' stand on this issue, the Wedge has a long-standing tradition (since our earliest days as a co-op) of not engaging in boycotts that are called for political reasons. Our membership includes a wide swath of political, religious and cultural viewpoints, and we leave decisions of this kind to our members.
As an organic foods co-op, we have our own set of values to consider; Eden Foods sources from North American organic farmers. Dropping their products would punish regional organic growers who have no part in Eden company decisions and would leave our co-op with nothing but Chinese-sourced organic beans, in direct opposition to our commitment to healthy regional farm economies and a domestic organic food shed.
Basing health insurance on employment is an altogether different conversation that needs to move forward. This most-recent situation is just one part of that larger discourse, which will get worked out in the courts and in the political arena. Until then, we encourage our members to make their own purchasing decisions based on the values they hold most important to them, and we will follow your lead."

Willy Street Co-op:

A higher-than-average number of Owners have raised objections to the Co-op continuing to carry Eden Foods. The Owners who have already commented feel that the company’s legal action to avoid providing certain types of health care coverage for certain people may run contrary to our Food and Product Selection Philosophy.
On March 20, 2013, Eden Foods filed suit against the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) for the right to opt out of contraceptive coverage for its employees (Eden Foods, Inc v. Sylvia Burwell). Eden Foods objects to a provision of the Affordable Care Act requiring companies that offer employee health care to cover an array of contraceptive choices. Eden Foods is among roughly 70 companies objecting to contraceptive coverage on account of religious freedoms. The case has been reopened in court.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby was a Supreme Court case decided on June 30, 2014. The plaintiffs were Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, who refused to pay on religious grounds for emergency contraceptive pills and intrauterine devices as part of their employee health care. Eden Foods was not a plaintiff in this case, however, in their Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling, the Supreme Court ordered the lower courts to reconsider their earlier decisions against Eden Foods.
Read Eden Foods’ statements pertaining to their HHS lawsuit and the impact of the Hobby Lobby lawsuit.
The Co-op appreciates Eden Foods’ frontline commitments to organic, natural, and sustainable foods and practices. Eden Foods has been an industry leader in maintaining organic standards and bringing BPA-free packaging to the U.S. market. The Co-op carries a lot of Eden Foods products (almost 100). Removing their product outright would significantly change our store inventory. Potential replacement products may cost more, and may not have as pure packaging. Some products may simply be no longer available to the Co-op.
However, our Co-op also strives to support a healthy, just, and tolerant food system in which workers are valued and compensated fairly across the board. Out of respect for the diverse values of our Owners and a commitment to transparency, we now bring the question of whether or not the Co-op should continue to carry Eden Foods products to the Ownership itself.
To address Owner concerns, the Co-op has initiated a 30 day Owner comment period on Eden Foods. At the end of the comment period, we will use this input to determine the status of their product. We are currently in the process of updating our Boycott Policy so that we will have a more structured process for Owners to initiate the comment period in the future.

I have a new piece up on CNN on Trigger Warnings in the Classroom. I make two arguments.

1. Psychological disability involving trauma is serious and should never be dismissed. However, we have a mandate through the ADA to provide reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities. Let's increasingly support, fund, and use those services, make them more robust.

2. Let's practice good teaching. Good teaching involves preparing students for their homework, not springing things on them. All the people who study reading and learning focus on scaffolding (as one metaphor) so that students know what they are reading for. It definitely helps my students.

I write:

I would never want my students to be surprised by something horrific in their reading, whether the "Red Wedding" on "Game of Thrones" or the rape of Philomena in Ovid. Instead, I want them ready to work with challenging texts so they learn. Spoilers might be bad for entertainment, but they are good for education.

Once most students know what they are likely to encounter in their work, the surprise factor in triggering situations ought to be mitigated.

So I am coming out against mandatory trigger warning policies, but I also think that some of the demand for trigger warnings might be alleviated by scaffolding readings in advance. Why try and shock your students?

I see the issue linked to multiple factors, including the corporatization of the academy. It makes universities and faculty risk adverse, turning the syllabus into a EULA, and worried about being sued. In that context, a warning label on Shakespeare makes sense, so that if a student is upset, you can say, "warned you! Can't sue!" This is not good teaching, like so much else linked to the arrival of a corporate mentality in higher education.

That said, I really do not like the language that equates requests for trigger warnings with fragility, with being "special snowflakes," with "helicopter parenting." I put a big list of resources on trigger warnings in the classroom here. Both in some of the published pieces and in lots of academic conversation, I sense some scorn for students asking for these policies.

We can argue against trigger warning policies without dismissing the students asking for such policies. Instead, think about what they are really asking for and how, in responding, we might focus on learning.

Ultimately, when as academics we ask - what is the best decision we can make to enhance the opportunities for learning? - we usually make good choices.

I've been at the 49th International Congress on Medieval Studies, held annually at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, MI. It's an extraordinary event - over 3000 medievalists come to this small town and lovely campus and, over four days, work on everything from the most micro-specialized topic to giant sweeping questions about the academy and the nature of knowledge. Often followed by merriment and music.

I talked about being a medievalist on CNN.com - how it happened and why it mattered. Below is a version of my remarks with some supporting links and some of the images.

-------------------------------------------

GOING PUBLIC

I’m here to talk about my experience writing about the Middle Ages for mass media. I’m not a popular historian – in the sense of writing about my subject field for a general audience. Instead, I write popular essays for places like CNN, the Chronicle and the Atlantic some of which are about the intersections between the Middle Ages and now. I see these intersections everywhere.

I began by writing about the medieval echoes at play in Benedict’s surprise resignation and the intentional medievalism of Pope Francis – I often say to my students that the church is firmly in a 13th-century moment. I’m going to tell you a little bit about how that happened, what I wrote and why, and then shift to current events. But first what I really want to say is this:

As medievalists, as intellectuals, you have authority to weigh into public conversations. To the extent possible, to the extent that you can find a platform, to the extent that you feel safe – I think you should do it.


In February of 2013 Pope Benedict retired abruptly. He announced it in Latin, and an Italian Vatican reporter who happened to know Latin broke the news to the world. Go Latin! In general, it caught the media off-guard, media platforms were looking for content, and the content quickly turned to the medieval. Reporters were asking questions about whether Popes had ever retired before, how does papal retirement work, what comes next, what’s the canon law on the subject, and so forth. For a few weeks, medieval history was hot.

A lot of the commentary focused on Pope Gregory XII, who was indeed the last to retire, but who did so in the context of the fifteenth-century Council of Constance as part of a deal to get two anti-popes deposed, Gregory to retire, and a new legitimate Pope elected to unify the church. Hardly analogous to Benedict. I started looking at the late 13th-century canon law on the subject [all before breakfast], much of which was organized by the man who became Boniface VIII. Boniface became pope after his predecessor, Pope Celestine V retired in order to return to a life of contemplation.

Why does this medieval history matter today? Well, Benedict’s statement announcing his retirement echoed Celestine’s own bull of retirement. Benedict visited Celestine’s shrine twice as Pope. Benedict and Celestine are even featured on the wall of the church in L’Aquila.


Given the clear impact that Celestine’s example had provided for Benedict, I had an easy medieval story to write, and I wrote it for CNN.

Over the next few weeks, I kept writing in the run-up to the conclave, after Francis was elected, and even throughout the first few months of his papacy. I felt that a lot of reporters were mis-reading Francis’ early statements. It turns out that my PhD in medieval history makes me a good interpreter of papal texts; go figure.

I used these writing opportunities, as much as possible, to educate readers about the Middle Ages.

Here’s my favorite example – an essay in which I suggested ways to think about the upcoming papal election, but in which I really wanted to say that voting is medieval. Medieval people, as you all know, loved making groups, writing bylaws, and voting for stuff. They did it all the time. The College of Cardinals, no less than a faculty senate, offers a direct continuation of that tradition of medieval voting.

These are the kinds of stories that I think we can, and again as possible, should all write. We all have these moments that we observe a relationship between our scholarly subjects and modern conversations, whether about politics, religion, the environment, or culture. I’ve become an evangelist for writing local op-eds, national pieces, blogging, talking to school groups, participating in library reading groups, anything that might combat myths about the Middle Ages, get our perspective out of academia and into broader discourse.

Here is where current events take over my talk. I had planned to speak about the institutional challenges facing academics who want to do public engagement – namely; that our professions don’t see it as something that counts.

But then something happened that drove me to write a very different kind of piece about the Middle Ages.




There’s Sarah Palin at the 2014 NRA convention. She made an incredible speech. I’ve watched it many many times in whole and in part, and few demagogues in history could do much better. She knows her audience. She owns them.

The minute I heard these words – waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists – I started thinking about forced baptisms in both Visigothic and late medieval Spain, Saxony under Charlemagne, and in the context of massacres after the First Crusade and during the Black Death. I remembered Palin’s invocation of “Blood libel” after Representative Giffords was shot. So here was an extraordinary thing – a modern demagogue claiming the traditions of both Christian persecutor and victim.

I decided that this situation really did call for a medievalist.

This piece was published last Thursday, on May 1. I want to point out a few features of how I wrote about the Middle Ages.

First, I explicitly claimed my authority as an historian.

I quoted an episode on forced baptism from the Chronicle of Mathias of Neuenberg – a reference I actually chose from a Facebook thread I started on forced baptisms in medieval history. And hey, whatever you think of Sarah Palin, getting 14th century German chronicles time on CNN.com is pretty cool, right?

I described the ways she evoked both fear and dominance in her audience, making them afraid on the one hand, claiming absolute moral authority on the other, and assuring them that with the proper weapons, they could safe. In followup blog posts, I would describe her language as a form of militant Christianity.

I then looked back on her use of “blood libel,” which I defined as a medieval myth, as evidence of her consistent pattern of wanting to be both the unjustly victimized Chosen people and the Christian triumphalist. That rhetorical move is very familiar to medievalists who study the Crusades, for example.

I ended with a nod to apocalyptic thought, a subtext I see running throughout her work.

In my reading, Sarah Palin’s medievalism is evident throughout this speech and her speeches and writing over the years. Throughout, she echoes some of the worst moments in medieval history.


I’m a little nervous about showing you this, here, at Kalamazoo. More nervous than I was about writing it in some ways, because you are my peers. This is not a political conference and I know many of you won’t agree with my take. Moreover, I’m not just being an educator in this piece. I’m not just revealing the ways in which medieval history informs modern events. I’m not acting as a professor in public. I've left the safe spaces behind.

No, in this piece for CNN I am using my status and knowledge as a medieval historian to make an explicitly political argument that a modern politician is dangerous.

Here’s the thing.

I think she’s dangerous.

Moreover, it is my knowledge of the medieval past that has led me to that conclusion. What is our obligation to society as scholars when we draw such conclusions? What is one to do with such a thought other than to share it?

I’m not here to try to persuade you to adopt my politics, but I am here to say that our historical knowledge gives us a perspective that is valuable and usually missing in public discourse. Our status as academics, for all intellectualism can be derided, gives us entry into local and national conversations.

You have the authority to weigh in.

Please use it responsibly.

Thank you.