Serena William's Game Matters

Serena Williams’ Game Matters

So Serena Williams had a complete meltdown at the US Open this past weekend and the reactions have been varied.  What I haven’t seen is what I think is an absolutely critical observation about what this episode says about society in general and certain segments in particular.

If you haven’t seen it, look it up on Google.  In the second set, Williams is assessed a “warning” about being coached.  I’m not a tennis expert but apparently, it is against the rules to get any advice from your coach during a professional match.  Williams was upset and had some words for the referee and then slammed her racket onto the court, breaking it.  She was assessed another penalty for that.  She then started berating the referee and yelling at him that she doesn’t cheat and that her daughter watches and needs to know she doesn’t cheat.  She was apoplectic and continued to argue her point with tears in her eyes but was also very disrespectful to the referee.  She was then penalized one game which is stunning at this level. 

I watched all this happen live.  I was shocked.  Maybe I don’t watch enough tennis, but this kind of meltdown doesn’t happen at the top levels of any sport.  Sure, some argue and I’ve seen baseball managers get kicked out of a game for it, but the hysterics seemed way out of line.

And then it struck me.  I was watching a microcosm of a much larger problem. 

Let’s back up.  When I was a kid, John McEnroe used to have tantrums on the court.  He would make a complete fool of himself when protesting a call.  He was disrespectful and rude.  I remember my dad talking to me about it.  He made it crystal clear that treating any authority figure like this was unacceptable.  He didn't care if McEnroe was a top tier player and whether or not he was right was beside the point.  

But the lesson doesn't stop with sports.  I was raised to understand that one approaches authority figures differently than peers.  People in authority have a job to do.  Some do it better than others and some make fewer mistakes, but they are all human.  When they make a bad call, confronting them publicly is never a good idea.  

This is true not only of referees in sports, but also applies to teachers, bosses, coaches, judges and yes, police officers.  Any of those people may accuse you of doing something wrong.  They might do this because of a simple error, a bad perspective or even because they are actually bad people themselves and are doing something that could harm you.  They might also be right and have a very good reason to penalize you.  

So how does one react to being caught/corrected by any authority figure?  Does it really matter if you are in the right or not?  I don't think it does.  If a person has a position that is responsible for enforcing rules, and you get accused of breaking a rule, you remain polite and professional and move on with life.  

Let's look at what could have happened to Serena Williams if she had handled the initial warning differently.  Imagine if she had approached the referee and calmly said, "I'll accept your warning, but I disagree.  I don't want to get a penalty so would you mind letting me know what you saw so I make sure it doesn't happen again?"  And then go about the game.  No racket smashing... no crying... no yelling or making a scene.  Respecting the referee's perspective would have made this a teachable moment in a very positive way for a lot of people.  

So many in today's society think that any injustice requires immediate redress.  It doesn't and demanding it can lead to a lot more problems than it could ever solve.  Challenging an authority figure in public is to say that you don't recognize their authority.  The moment that happens, that authority figure has to get control very quickly or chaos is coming very soon.

Let's take this out of the world of sports.  Let's look at a traffic stop.  My dad taught me how to handle that as well.  I've been pulled over a number of times in my life and sometimes, it wasn't deserved.  In each case, I was humble and apologetic.  I knew that if I became confrontational, only bad things would result.  Cops have a job to do and when they do it poorly, me pointing it out isn't going to improve my life.  The only thing that will work when I was truly innocent was to remain calm and wait for my day in court.  That lesson has served me well.

Serena Williams disappointed me.  She had the chance to show young people how to deal with adversity in a constructive manner.  She instead chose to be confrontational and then wrap herself in victim status.  We are all supposed to feel sorry for her that a referee treated her differently than a man would have been.  Whether that is true or not is beside the point.  

The next time you see a video of young people in front of a cop, remember Serena Williams.  Are they making the situation better or worse?  Who taught them this behavior?  Who told them it is acceptable to mouth off to authority?  Who demonstrated that confrontation allows one to be wrapped in victimhood status?  

It is all very disappointing to me. 

Faith and immigration policy

I’m going to try to do something here without getting into a political argument, which is difficult because the current political climate is what has prompted me to write this missive.  I’m going to take a little different approach here because, for right or wrong, religion has been injected into the argument.  I see posts from well-intentioned Christians and from angry atheists who all want to tell me how Jesus would view the current political situation with immigrants.  I think they are all entitled to their opinions but it is offensive to me to be told how I must view the word of God.

I am Episcopalian and as such, my faith stands upon 3 legs:  Scripture, tradition and reason.  Some denominations rely more heavily on scripture and others more on tradition but I am proud that reason (or logic) plays a strong role in my faith.  It allows one to ask questions to make sure things make sense and are taken in the context in which they were written or spoken. 

So let’s start by talking about context.  Did Jesus ever offer suggestions to government and how to govern people?  Did he ever discuss public policy?  He didn’t.  His mission had nothing to do with how government functions.  His mission was to teach the world how individuals related to other individuals and how to relate to God.  Taking anything in the Bible outside that context gets dicey.

Dicey how?  Well, we get into the world of “unintended consequences” which is a place that is hard to justify with Biblical quotes.  For instance, if we allowed all immigrants into this nation without any regard for how they will contribute to the betterment of this country, how long would this country be the bastion of liberty and justice that it is today?  If the people coming here do not appreciate the culture into which they are moving, will they uphold that culture?  Our national culture is built upon individual rights, responsibilities and freedoms but what if those coming here don’t like that part of our culture?  How many generations will it take before this nation descends into poverty, injustice and/or repression because too few people were willing to defend the God given (and Christian based) rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights?  Is that a Christian thing to allow?

How about another unintended consequence?  How about respect for the communities from which these immigrants are coming?  Let’s look specifically at the tide or immigrants coming in from Central America.  That part of the world is a mess.  Gang violence, corruption in the government, repression of basic civil rights and very limited ability to better oneself is the reality for many people.  But how are those people’s lives improved if more and more good people move North?  Who is left to build the houses, tend the fields, run for office, vote, start a business or help their neighbors in need?  The more good people who are lured to America, the fewer there are to effect change in a part of the world that desperately needs it. 

Being Episcopalian also means I participate in the baptismal covenant from time to time.  That covenant requires a number of things, including a promise to “strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being.”  There are a number of ways to honor that charge.  In my opinion, it does not require an open border immigration policy and in fact, I view that as anathema to it.  “All people” includes those still residing in Honduras, Guatemala and others.  It includes people who would be adversely affected by mass emigration from those areas. 

To my mind, the more Christian approach is to encourage policies that create incentives for people to stay in their own country and focus on improving the culture there.  Every country in Central America has a rich cultural heritage that deserves to flourish.  Attempting to move that culture to America would destroy that culture or turn it into something different.  Working with governments, churches, NGOs and charitable organizations to improve things there, rather than luring them away just makes more sense and to my way of thinking is more in line with my Christian values.

I am human and I have human failings, but I do strive to have God’s love for my fellow man.  This is true on both a micro and macro scale and it irritates me to no end when either Christians or atheists try to tell me how my faith is defined.  There is no cognitive dissonance between my faith and my public policy views. 

On a final note, there is obviously a LOT more to the discussion and a lot more nuances and specific policy issues that could be discussed.  This is meant only as a way to get people to understand that one’s faith and politics can’t be assumed.  It may also serve as a way to illustrate that the “hate” that some ascribe to opponents of open immigration policies is the opposite of reality.

(edited to add on 7/3/2018)

In reading this again, I realize that I failed to make the distinction between private action and public policy.  The Bible is very specific about how people should relate to other people.  On an individual level, one should not display cruelty or prejudice to any human being.  Showing God's love to everybody is part of the Great Commandment.  Being kind to the immigrant and showing respect and compassion is not incompatible with laws that attempt to preserve our national heritage.