by Bob Kuczewski » Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:48 pm
I'm going to again make a comparison to racial discrimination, and I can already hear the complaints. Please hear me out.
Our country has had a long struggle with the issue of racial discrimination. It's forced us to look at the principles of fairness between humans who often don't want to be fair. It's forced us to look at justice and the kinds of guarantees that we want to grant to each other to live in a civil society. These were hard fought lessons that cost many people their lives. It is foolish to ignore them or to narrowly define them. We should build on these lessons and use the clarity that we've gained in hindsight to improve our fairness and justice in all of our endeavors.
If we were in Jack's coffee shop or living room and he ejected one of our friends for racial reasons, I'd like to think that each of us - each of us - would be offended and we would leave as well. We wouldn't stand around making excuses about it being a "private" coffee shop or even a private residence. We would grab our things and head out the door ... maybe with a few choice words on the way. If there's anyone here who would stay under those circumstances when our friend was ejected, SPEAK UP NOW.
.
. tick ... tock
.
. tick ... tock
.
O.K., I'm assuming everyone would have left. That includes Frank, Tom, and Mike. But now you're going to complain that Joe wasn't kicked out for racial reasons. He was kicked out for something else. Fair enough, let's talk about that.
In the case where you would have left for racial discrimination, what were you saying by leaving? You were saying that YOU would NOT be a party to the mistreatment of another person. You weren't kicking anyone out, but you recognized that staying would be both a betrayal of your friend and an implicit condoning of the actions against him. How is the banning of Joe Faust for promoting USHGRS any different?
There has been some muddled thinking that YOU wouldn't have banned Joe Faust, but it's somehow O.K. if someone else does it. But it was either right or wrong by YOUR own standards. Those are the standards that should guide YOU in deciding what YOU should do. If there is a judgement day, YOU won't be judged by Jack's standards or what Jack did. YOU will be judged by YOUR standards. So all this crap about Jack doing what he wants in his living room or coffee shop is just a bunch of excuses because YOU don't want to do what YOU know is right. I can see that, Joe can see that, Scott can see that, and I'm sure - if He exists - God can see that.
So stop trying to use Jack's ownership of his property as an excuse for what YOU should be doing. In the end, it's not about Bob or Joe or even Jack. It's about each of YOU and what kind of people YOU are. We're trying to build a better hang gliding association here at the U.S. Hawks. I firmly believe that a better hang gliding association will require BETTER PEOPLE. We will need BETTER PEOPLE than Mark Forbes, BETTER PEOPLE than Jack Axaopoulos, and BETTER PEOPLE than Davis Straub. In my opinion, the banning of Joe Faust is a litmus test to separate those who have what we'll need from those who don't. That test may reduce our numbers, but the quality will go through the roof. Despite the harsh words we've had, I believe in each of you or I wouldn't be writing this. I know I've made it much harder for any of you to reverse course with this public rebuke. But that shouldn't matter either. You should do what YOU know is right regardless of what anyone else says or does.
Thanks for your time.
Join a National Hang Gliding Organization: US Hawks at ushawks.orgView my rating at: US Hang Gliding Rating SystemEvery human at every point in history has an opportunity to choose courage over cowardice. Look around and you will find that opportunity in your own time.