Failing the Test on Constitution Day

Yesterday was Constitution Day.

We didn't have Constitution Day when I was in school. But we did have what was called Citizenship Day, which was observed in May. Actually, Citizenship Day was observed on a Sunday so it had no specific influence on anything we did in school. In fact, by the time Citizenship Day was observed (the third Sunday in May), school either had dismissed for the summer or was about to dismiss for the summer.

Constitution Day, though, is different. It was created five years ago (September 17 was designated because it was on that day in 1787 that the Constitution was signed) and was officially named "Constitution Day and Citizenship Day." According to the law that created it, all schools that receive any federal funds must emphasize the history of the Constitution on that day. Many colleges and universities have turned it into week–long events that give some attention to the citizenship tests that immigrants must take to become U.S. citizens.

When I was a child, I was an exception to the rule. I have always been interested in American history. Maybe that was due to the fact that my parents invested in encyclopedias when I was young, and I had information sources readily available to me at home. I can't tell you how many times I heard a reference to something on the radio or TV that aroused my curiosity. When I asked my mother about it, she inevitably told me to look it up.

But even before I could read, I remember my mother reading stories to me about heroes in American history.

Somehow I developed an interest in the American presidency. I remember vividly that, when I was in first grade, I could recite all the presidents in chronological order — a talent that seemed to astonish all the adults in my world. For some reason, it didn't strike me as being anything remarkable, but I dutifully recited the presidents for any adult who asked me to do so.

I can still recite the presidents in chronological order. There are more of them now, of course, but the additions to the list have come in my lifetime. I guess that makes it easier.

Sometimes, when I was a child, I received a small reward for performing this "trick." I must confess, there were times when I felt like a puppy who was encouraged to "beg" before being given a favorite treat. But, even when I was 6 years old, I remember being aware of the fact that this was something that not everyone could do.

I guess I realized that most people — adults as well as my peers — wouldn't be able to tell you who William Henry Harrison or Franklin Pierce or Rutherford Hayes were. But it seemed inconceivable to me that anyone would not know who George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were. Their portraits always seemed to adorn the classroom walls when I was in school — and they were particularly prevalent in February, the month in which both men were born.

Things have changed more than I thought since I was in elementary school.

This week, News9 in Oklahoma City reported the results of a survey of Oklahoma high school students. The survey was commissioned by the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs in observance of Constitution Day. Questions were taken from the citizenship tests that immigrants must take to become American citizens.

The results were not encouraging.

Only 23% of respondents gave the correct answer to this question: "Who was the first President of the United States?"

Students were asked 10 questions. Immigrants who take the citizenship test must score 60% or better to pass, but only 3% of the students in Oklahoma would have scored that well.

A spokesman for the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs observed that this outcome is not unique to Oklahoma. He reported similar results in Arizona. That doesn't bode well for schoolchildren in the rest of the nation.

No child left behind?

Readin' and Writin' and Polarizin'

Back in July, I wrote about Sarah Palin's decision to resign as governor of Alaska and what I saw as unjustified complaints about the press in her farewell address.

In that article, I referred to Barack Obama as a "polarizing president" — primarily as a transitional device — and I took a lot of grief from readers who were supporters of Obama. My article was never intended to be a discussion of Obama or a critique of his policies, but some people took it that way.

And they insisted that he was not a polarizing leader.

As I say, when I wrote that Obama was a polarizing president, it was intended as a transitional device. But I did mean that. Perhaps my choice of words was wrong. Maybe "polarizing" came off as being too negative. Maybe I should have said he was "controversial" or something like that.

But, really, has anything that has happened in the last six weeks proved me wrong? I don't think so.

Since I wrote that article, we've witnessed contentious battles over Obama's first Supreme Court nomination and a continuing fight over health care reform. Obama's Supreme Court nominee was confirmed. The final chapter of the health care fight has yet to be written.

And today, we've seen many school districts across the country that refused to show Obama's speech to schoolchildren. Both parents and educators expressed concerns about their belief that Obama was going to indoctrinate their children with some sort of political agenda.

I find it hard to believe that any of the people who raised objections to Obama's speech actually read the text of it, which was released yesterday. But, long ago, I got used to the idea that there are people who object to things like movies or books or recordings — or speeches — because they are convinced that those movies or books or recordings or speeches pose a threat to something they hold dear — even if the "threat" is pure nonsense.

Those people usually don't bother to watch the movie or read the book or listen to the recording before they object to it so it would come as no surprise to me if none of them read the text of today's speech before Obama gave it.

They are the people who probably needed to hear a president speak about the importance of staying in school, maintaining an open mind and learning from your mistakes back when they were schoolchildren. It's probably too late for those people now — their school days ended long ago — but it isn't too late for most of their children.

I don't know how many school districts refused to show Obama's speech today. Some of Obama's supporters will blame it on racism. Others will blame it on irrational fear.

But I have to ask — what is wrong with a president giving a 21st century spin to "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country?"

The president who uttered those words originally — nearly half a century ago — also was a polarizing leader. He produced strong responses from both his supporters and foes, and he wound up dying in the streets of my home city — where a handbill accusing him of treason was circulated the day before his assassination.

Ironically, Obama also gave his speech on the 74th anniversary of the shooting of another polarizing leader, Huey Long.

Those who have expressed concerns about Obama's so–called socialist tendencies should read about Long's career. He proposed to redistribute wealth through his "Share Our Wealth" program, which used, as its motto, "Every Man a King." That was seen as a direct threat in some quarters.

People become known as polarizing leaders because they take stands that are greatly admired by one segment of the population — and, usually, equally reviled by another segment.

I don't advocate violence as the answer when you disagree with someone, and I sincerely hope that Obama does not meet the same fate as John F. Kennedy or Huey Long.

Nevertheless, that is the price people often pay for taking polarizing stands.

Even if such a stand is something we should all be able to agree on — like the value of education.

The Silly Season

I don't know what Barack Obama plans to say to schoolchildren in the speech he is going to give when classes resume after the three–day Labor Day weekend. Odd as it may seem, he never sought my opinion on either the content of the speech or the wisdom of giving it.

So I can't comment on the former, and I can't reach a conclusion on the latter without access to the former.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs has called this "the silly season," and he's probably right about that. But it's a silliness that Obama himself has invited.

In a way, these are uncharted waters for me. I have no children of my own, so, lately, I've been trying to remember if a president ever gave a televised speech when I was in school.

When I was growing up, I don't think a president ever did what Obama plans to do on Tuesday. In fact, the only presidential address I remember being given on a school day was the inaugural address given by Richard Nixon in 1969.

Inaugurations, of course, only come around once every four years — unless the president dies or resigns. For most people, there are three inaugurations during a typical school career.

In 1969, I distinctly remember that my teacher brought a TV into the classroom, and we watched Nixon take the oath of office and then give his inaugural address. His second inaugural, as I recall, was on a Saturday in January 1973. Nixon resigned in the summer of 1974 so Gerald Ford's inaugural happened while school wasn't in session. Jimmy Carter took the oath of office on a weekday in 1977, but we had had a snowfall overnight in my central Arkansas hometown and school was canceled for the day.

Of course, a presidential inauguration is an historic occasion. So, too, was Ronald Reagan's address to the nation following the Challenger disaster. As I recall, Reagan gave his speech late in the day, so most schools in the eastern half of the country probably had dismissed for the day. But his speech may well have been watched by students in the western United States.

But neither Nixon's inaugural address nor Reagan's Challenger speech were delivered specifically for schoolchildren — and that, I suppose, is the difference. Many parents seem to be under the impression that Obama has something sinister up his sleeve — that he wants to unduly influence young, impressionable minds.

I don't know about that. My understanding is that he plans to speak about the virtues of education. As the son and grandson of educators (who also happens to have four years of teaching experience under his belt), I believe in the importance of education, and I'm in favor of a president promoting it. There are things about which Obama and I disagree, but the value of getting an education is not one of them.

However, there clearly are some parents who are worried that their children are going to be subjected to some sort of mass brainwashing/indoctrination. I think they should be free to decide to keep their children home from school on Tuesday if they wish.

That wouldn't be my decision. But it isn't my decision to make.

I could be all wrong, you know. Obama may be planning to mass hypnotize millions of young people and plant health care talking points in their brains, thereby wielding unprecedented influence on their parents.

On the other hand, if Obama really was capable of doing that, wouldn't it be simpler to just mass hypnotize the members of Congress in a speech to a joint session of the members? Why bother with the millions if the same goal can be accomplished by cutting out the middle man and indoctrinating a few hundred?

I guess logic gets in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

When All Things Seem Possible

An old friend of mine sent me an e–mail reporting that he went to his brother's son's high school graduation last night. He didn't have much to say about the actual ceremony, but he did say that he had dinner with his family afterward. His nephew apparently wants to pursue a career in law enforcement and is planning to continue his education with that in mind.

My friend and I grew up in Conway, Ark., the hometown of recent "American Idol" winner Kris Allen. Earlier this week, I wrote about my memories of the Conway of my childhood and Allen's improbable victory at my Birth of a Notion blog, so it isn't my intention to go over that territory here ... except to make a couple of observations.

I don't know how many of my classmates went on to college. When I graduated from high school, I know there were some in my class who chose not to continue their education and went straight into the workforce. Some got married and started having kids right away.

In many ways, that was a different time — in others, it was not so different. We didn't realize it then, but we were about to encounter a severe recession that has frequently been compared to the one we face today. But when my high school friends and I walked across that stage and received our diplomas, all things seemed possible. Unemployment was a source of concern, of course — the rate at the time was around 6% — but the rate had been declining in the months leading up to graduation. So, whether our plans included college or not, the future looked bright.

Today's graduates face a different set of circumstances. There are a lot more of them, for one thing. From what I've been reading on the website for my hometown newspaper, there were nearly 600 graduates in my old high school this year. That's close to twice the number who graduated when I did.

The account of the graduation ceremony indicated that, while the graduates may have been from a different generation, they experienced the same conflicting emotions that we did. They were glad to leave, yet sad at the same time. And, in today's economy, I'm sure there's some ambiguity about what to do next.

My advice would be to go on to college or community college or trade school or whatever.

I don't know if there is a perception among today's graduates that a college degree is a ticket to a lifetime of security, as there was in my graduating class, but I think the current recession has pretty much disabused many of that notion.

From a practical standpoint, staying in college means one can continue to receive health care coverage through his/her parents' employers. Elizabeth Cohen writes about this issue for CNNhealth.com, but she approaches it from the perspective of recent college graduates, not recent high school graduates.

Even so, I think anyone who is finishing one level of schooling these days would be wise to strongly consider moving on to the next level — if only because most policies will continue to cover dependents as long as they are students. It isn't as easy as it once was to get health care benefits with a job offer.

While it is possible that current conditions are more favorable for health care reform than they were when Hillary Clinton tried to achieve it in the 1990s, that isn't a sure thing. The smart thing for young people to do these days is to remain in school and take advantage of their parents' coverage while they can.

And times may change again. An advanced education may be more valuable in the future than it seems to be today. Having a college degree may once again be the advantage that it was.

We can all hope that the recession will be over by the time today's high school graduates walk across that stage again.

My Academic Record

---

My parents posed with me when I received
my master's degree from North Texas in 1991.

---

Recently, I applied for a job that required me to submit copies of my college transcripts.

I didn't have copies of my transcripts on hand, but I mailed requests for them, received them about a week later and scanned them, then e-mailed them to the H.R. office. But I wasn't sure then — and I'm still not sure — why it was necessary.

If you look at the right-hand side of this blog, you can see that I mention that I received my B.A. in 1982 and my M.A. in 1991. Both of these degrees were granted by accredited universities. I've never had to go through the procedure of confirming anyone's college degrees, but I wouldn't think that it would be difficult for anyone to verify that I graduated in those years.

And, if the schools need me to sign some sort of release form, I will be happy to do so.

In fact, the school where I got my B.A., the University of Arkansas, has a tradition called "Senior Walk," in which every member of every graduating class has his or her name chiseled in the school's sidewalks. It shouldn't be too hard to find my name on one of the sidewalks on campus. I'm not sure of the location — it's been a long time since I was on the U of A campus — but my advice would be simple. Just look for the class of '82.

The school where I got my master's, the University of North Texas, doesn't have a tradition like that. But, again, I imagine that the Registrar's Office could confirm that I graduated from that school in 1991.

And, if that employer needs further proof, I have the degrees themselves.

I'm not sure there is much to be gained from looking at the courses I took or the grades I received. And they can't tell you what I've learned since I graduated or how I've applied what I learned in college to my life and work.

Even after looking at the transcripts, I don't think I learned much about myself — except that I apparently took a few classes that left so little impression on me that I have completely forgotten taking them.

For example, apparently I took a botany course in the fall semester of my junior year. I was mostly a B student in college. I got some A's in my major — journalism — and I got a few C's in some of my general requirements courses.

I was never particularly strong in science, although I did receive reasonably good grades in an astronomy course I took one summer and a physical science course I took in the spring semester of my junior year.

But I got a D in that botany class. It is the only D I ever received as either an undergraduate or a graduate student. I can't justify the grade — but who can justify grades they got when they were 20? What I can say about that semester is that I took four other classes and received three B's and an A.

To this day, I can't remember anything specific about that botany course. I can't remember who the instructor was (the names of my professors are not mentioned on my transcripts) or what I studied. I vaguely remember studying cross sections of plant stems, and that is about it.

I'd like to think that my transcripts — and the degrees I received — demonstrate my commitment to achieving long-term goals. I knew several people in college who left school, for a variety of reasons, and never returned. But I stuck it out. I don't think I even dropped a class that I had enrolled in — if I was going to do that, I guess the botany course would have been a prime candidate!

Anyway, I have my transcripts now, and I'm going to keep the originals in a safe place. If another potential employer needs to see them, I will have them on hand.

But I still say, I have the degrees and that should be sufficient evidence of my personal dedication to long-term objectives.

It Tolls For Thee ...

---

"Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee."

John Donne

---

I guess it's human nature for the mind to reject, to block out, unpleasant images and thoughts that challenge the things we deeply believe to be true about people.

I frequently encountered that mindset in the blogosphere the other day, after the news began to spread of the tragic murder-suicide in California.

In the unlikely event that you haven't heard about this, I'll briefly recap what little is known about it at this point. After he and his wife had been terminated from their jobs, a man in southern California is believed to have killed his wife and five children, then apparently turned the gun on himself. I say he is the apparent perpetrator because police found the gun next to his body. There were no eyewitnesses that I know of.

Los Angeles police — who are no strangers to drive-by shootings and violent crimes — are describing the scene as one of the worst they've ever witnessed.

A neighbor told CNN, "There was an officer who came out of the house throwing up."

The other night, I was reading posts at other sites and blogs in which people were judging the man in some of the harshest ways imaginable. The man was "selfish," one person wrote, adding — with no evidence to back it up — that he worshipped money and the only thing that mattered to him was material possessions.

Actually, I wouldn't say that. I would be more inclined to apply the label of "selfish" to someone like John List, an unemployed accountant who planned and then carried out the murders of his family in 1971, then spent more than 17 years as a fugitive before he was captured after his story was told on "America's Most Wanted."

List died at the age of 82 last year, more than 35 years after he killed his mother, his wife and his three children.

The man in southern California, Ervin Lupoe, took the easy way out, someone else wrote the other night. I disagree. John List took the easy way out. Lupoe's actions were wrong, but he did not choose to start his life over after ending the lives of his family members, the way List did. He accepted the same fate he apparently forced upon his wife and children (some are suggesting that Lupoe and his wife made this decision together and that he was the one who carried out the plan).

Whether one believes in God or not, whether one believes in an afterlife or not, whether one believes that someone who takes his life and/or the lives of others will spend the rest of eternity paying for it in hell, it is a point, in my opinion, that is beyond dispute.

Some people will refuse to accept it, though. Some people are slaves to their lifelong conclusions about not only murder and suicide but also about unemployment and recessions and related matters. They simply refuse to consider other factors.

Some people treat economics like it's all a theoretical subject in school. Certain conditions lead to an increase in unemployment, therefore certain actions must be taken to improve the economy and, as a result, the number of unemployed will go down. It's all a numbers game.

No, it isn't. Fortunately, there are those who seem to understand that many people feel pushed to the brink. But the fact that many don't comprehend it fosters a feeling of further isolation.

That's people we're talking about. Not numbers. Not percentages. People.

And there are some who insist on seeing the unemployed as lazy and shiftless, people who would rather sit around at home and collect money from the government than earn a paycheck.

CNN reports that counselors are saying that it's bad out there. It quotes one counselor who says things have never been so bad in her tenure. "[T]he people that we're dealing with now, they have always had [money]," she says. "They went to school, they were able to get jobs. Now the jobs are not even out there."

That contradicts what I keep hearing, over and over, from conservatives who say that this is just a recession, that it is no worse than others we've seen. If the unemployed had any gumption, some say, they'd go out and find work instead of living off government handouts.

Those people, obviously, haven't been looking for work recently. And they're not paying attention to the fact that many of the people who are unemployed went to college. They worked hard, and they earned their bachelor's degrees and master's degrees — which they believed were their tickets to lives of security.

Now that they've been cut off at the knees, should we be surprised that they look at those degrees now as nothing more than expensive wall decorations?

Sure, those degrees represent accomplishments. They show a depth of dedication, a willingness to make sacrifices for long-term goals, and those people should be proud of those achievements. What's more, those are personal qualities that any employer should find desirable in his/her employees.

But, for those who have submitted hundreds of résumés but haven't received any calls from employers, that isn't much consolation.

Those who haven't lost their jobs should be thankful that they still have them and should do whatever they must do to keep them. But there is only so much a person can do. If an employer has to make an unpleasant choice in order to remain in operation, the employer will make that choice — and may not give much thought to the human consequences.

As the saying goes, it's a dog eat dog world out there. And, as the famous beer-swilling Norm from "Cheers!" once said, "I'm wearing Milk Bone underwear."

By the way, the quotation at the top of this post was inspired by the 1624 Meditation 17, from "Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions." In turn, it served as the inspiration for Ernest Hemingway's novel "For Whom the Bell Tolls" and Thomas Merton's "No Man is an Island."

The original passage is worth reading on this occasion:

---

"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee ... "

---

The Stimulus

It's admirable, I believe, that, in the current economic crisis, Barack Obama wants the government to leave behind its tendency to play politics as usual.

But I wonder whether very many Democrats or Republicans are taking that recommendation to heart.

As David Goldman reports for CNNMoney.com, the House is expected to vote on the $825 billion stimulus package later today — provided the wintry weather in the region doesn't interfere with the lawmakers' ability to get to Capitol Hill.

I wrote in this blog last night about the urgent need for a stimulus bill, and I encouraged both Democrats and Republicans to study the stimulus package and make logical recommendations for changes.

Such changes should be sensible. They should not be guided by political dogma and rhetoric.

Too many people seem to be losing sight of who needs to be helped in these troubled times. It isn't always who you might think.

But there are some who see the benefits that are there.

Sam Dillon writes, in the New York Times, about the ways education will benefit. I have no children, but I have many friends who do. And I think it's a good thing that the stimulus package "would shower the nation's school districts, child care centers and university campuses with $150 billion in new federal spending." Education got the short end of the stick under the previous administration, and if big corporations can get billions in bailout money, only to squander it on a new private jet or office renovations, the government can provide some long-needed funds to help education.

At the very least, government should be able to help create some jobs for people who can rebuild schools that are crumbling. It's got to be hard to concentrate on lessons that are being taught if you're worried about the roof above you caving in.

Robert Pear writes, also in the New York Times, that the stimulus package "is also a tool for rewriting the social contract with the poor, the uninsured and the unemployed." These are the people, not the corporate executives, who have been hurt the most and have the most to lose.

I understand the necessity of holding hearings on these matters, but as I've said before, time is of the essence. We can't dawdle and nitpick. Lives hang (literally) in the balance.

I wrote last night about the tragic murder-suicide that was being reported in the Los Angeles area yesteday. Initial accounts suggest that the apparent perpetrator, the patriarch of the family, may have been distraught after he and his wife lost their jobs. Some bloggers on the internet were writing that the tragedy was the result of the man's obsession with material possessions and money. Perhaps that is so, but I've neither seen nor heard any evidence of that.

I do, however, know about the desperation that can lead people to commit irrational acts.

As a California congresswoman told the New York Times, "This is as urgent as it gets."

Our government is supposed to exist for many reasons — one of which is to provide a safety net, but it permitted too many holes to go unrepaired in the last eight years. Now those holes must be mended. It is wrong to complain about the cost.

The Legacy of the 'Little Rock Nine'

---

---

As America prepares to inaugurate its first black president next week, it's worth remembering the sacrifices that have been made along the way.

Many people and places have been part of the story — Martin Luther King Jr., of course, whose birthday the nation will pause to remember the day before Barack Obama takes the oath of office, is probably the most prominent name on the list, and many cities and towns have served as the backdrop in the effort to live up to the high ideals the founding fathers established.

The "Little Rock Nine," as the nine black high school students who earned a mention in the history books as the ones who brought integration to the public schools in Little Rock, Ark., are known, certainly did their part — even if most people today don't know their names.

But one of the nine, Carlotta Walls LaNier, tells CNN that she and the other black students in Little Rock played a pivotal role in laying the foundation for Obama's election.

No doubt she is right about that — but their contribution to Obama's victory is no greater than Rosa Parks' or Fannie Lou Hamer's or James Meredith's or the three civil rights workers who were murdered in the Freedom Summer of 1964.

Or the countless, nameless, faceless white Americans who participated in the effort to bring equality to America.

One of my favorite movies from the 1980s, "Mississippi Burning," presented a fictionalized account of that Freedom Summer. Early in the film, Gene Hackman, who plays an older FBI agent, chides Willem Dafoe, his younger, idealistic companion, for his youth and inexperience.

Dafoe tells Hackman that he's been through this kind of thing before, that he was with Meredith at Ole Miss and suffered a gunshot wound.

Hackman says, "Well, at least you lived. That's important."

"No, Meredith lived," Dafoe replies. "That's what's important."

Together, they wrote their chapters in the history of the struggle for equal rights in this country, a struggle that continues in the form of the efforts for equal rights for women, the handicapped and gays. Great strides have been made, but, in the years to come, other groups — religious groups, ethnic groups, and other minorities — may also emerge as groups that have been denied their rights in one way or another but have gone unnoticed by the majority of their fellow Americans.

To be sure, there is much on Obama's plate as he prepares to take office. There are great issues that affect all Americans. But perhaps, as a beneficiary of the black struggle in America, he will be more than a symbol to the downtrodden and will "give something back" to those who still yearn for their civil rights.

Claiborne Pell Passes Away

If you are one of the millions of Americans who received an education courtesy of the Pell Grants, your benefactor died today.

Claiborne Pell, a senator from Rhode Island for nearly four decades, died of Parkinson's disease today. He was 90 years old.

Pell Grants were created in 1973 to provide financial aid to college students. The relative value of the grants has decreased in recent years, with college costs increasing while there was virtually no growth in the Pell Grants.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that the money doesn't go as far as it once did. A maximum Pell Grant covered about three-fifths of annual college expenses 20 years ago, but a maximum grant will cover less than one-third of those expenses today.

The amount of a Pell Grant depends on severity of need. And a maximum Pell Grant is seldom awarded to anyone.

Nevertheless, Pell Grants still make it possible for many people to attend college who might not otherwise be able to afford it.

No man lives forever, but Pell's good work ensures his name will.

The March of Time

September marked the 50th anniversary of the Central High Crisis in Little Rock.

I grew up in Conway, just a short drive from Little Rock (shorter now, due to the highway and the expanding population of the town, than it was when I was a little boy), but the Central High crisis happened a couple of years before I was born. So I have no memories of what life was like in Little Rock before integration of its public schools.

I do know, however, that when I enrolled in first grade in 1966, it was the first time that the schools in my hometown were desegregated. Prior to that, I have memories of going to places like the local theater (one of those old-fashioned, single-screen theaters with the marquee out front and a balcony inside) and seeing the black patrons being ushered in to a section of the balcony from a back entrance.

I don't remember seeing separate water fountains or rest rooms, but I'm sure they were there. I just wasn't old enough to read yet. So I couldn't distinguish between "White Only" and "Colored Only" signs.

The experience of the "Little Rock Nine" in 1957 was a watershed event. It was a showdown between the forces of the past, embodied by then-Gov. Orval Faubus, and the forces of the future. Similar showdowns were destined to occur in coming years in other Southern states with other Southern governors at other Southern schools.

Today, Arkansas' largest school district is 70% black. All the problems have not been resolved. But things are different.

Nevertheless, it's a little baffling to me the fuss that was made over the anniversary this year. Sure, a 50th anniversary is a milestone, but from what I've heard from friends back in Arkansas, it was treated like an event to celebrate, rather than an event to be ashamed of.

Perhaps it's in the way you look at it. The event itself, with people spewing hatred at each other and challenging the basic right to a good education, was not praiseworthy. All across the South, Gov. Faubus and white citizens in Arkansas were praised by segregationists.

But they were on the wrong side of history. And that's the part that seems to be deserving of the praise. The Little Rock Nine helped Arkansas grow -- in spite of itself.