The infamous Google memo offers a few lessons – the most obvious being that it’s much too easy to get your name in the news these days.

James Damore, a software engineer at Google, decided to write a 10-page essay to explain why Google’s efforts to be more diverse were misguided and oppressive.

When the essay became public, many on the right and the left huffed and puffed until it ballooned into a media phenomenon.

From their theatrics, you might think it was the first time ever that an employee had disagreed with a company’s policies and practices. (Real news would be a company at which all workers agree with management.)

Damore’s essay was viewed by many as sexist, which it was.

But that’s not surprising. You don’t have to search the back offices of the tech industry to find bigotry.

It has been parading from coast to coast in the form of alt-right rallies, complete with slogans and salutes straight out of 1930s Germany.

The brassy audacity of today’s bigots is surprising, but it’s useful to remember that prejudice in various degrees is as old as civilization.

The degree of Damore’s bigotry, and whether he supports the support he’s getting from the far right, is unclear, although he certainly enjoys the spotlight. If you read Damore’s 10 pages of mish-mashed psychology and company politics, he says he doesn’t want to hold other people down. He wants to be heard. He writes in one part of his essay:

“I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).”

It’s too bad that he spent pages before that explaining why certain types of people – women – were biologically and culturally unsuited for high-stress, high-paying jobs.

That depiction caused a ruckus among many women at Google and many liberals in and out of the tech industry. It’s worth noting, though, that many of those same people have cited stereotypes – collaborative, inclusive, etc. – to argue that women are better than men in leadership roles and politics. Shouldn’t that count as sexism too?

Google’s response to the ruckus was to fire Damore, appeasing its critics on the left.

And providing conservatives with their martyr of the month.

Damore’s storyline – predictable as it was — is being used by the right and the left to reinforce their points of view.

As Damore told one interviewer:

“It definitely sucks, but at least I was proven right,” he said about losing his job. “The whole culture tries to silence any dissenting view.”

Conservatives can nod in sympathy with the latest white male to be victimized by liberals’ intolerance.

And liberals can shake their heads in disgust at the prejudice and insensitivity obvious in the claims that women don’t belong in technology jobs.

You might think liberals and conservatives would be happy in their separate realities to be proven right, but happiness is not their goal.

Many political activists and pundits aren’t looking so much for resolution as for campaign fodder. Rather than bridge our political divides, they prefer to blow up bridges and dig deeper rifts.

At Google, they succeeded. Already under attack and threatened with lawsuits over alleged gender bias, Google not only fired Damore, but also canceled a meeting at which executives were expected to talk about diversity and related issues.

It’s impossible to know how Damore and others would have behaved at such a meeting, but it’s usually wiser to acknowledge such conflicts and give people the opportunity to be heard – even if their views are refuted or ignored.

Instead the nation was treated to another shouting match between the offended left and incensed right.

And the politics of indignation – rather than persuasion – pull us farther apart.

 

Suing people isn’t as rewarding and easy as lawyers make it sound on their TV commercials.

The civil justice system has grown so expensive and unwieldy that for most Americans it’s no longer a practical means of resolving disputes.

Many of those in legal professions argue that, despite some excesses and abuses, the system is working. Others call for modest reforms – steps in the right direction, but which would have little significant impact.

Members of an American Bar Association panel discussed the need for reform at a conference in Miami earlier this year, following up on the publication of an ABA report that looked at about a million civil lawsuits. Here’s a snippet from the published report:

“Navigating civil courts, as they operate now, can be daunting. Those who enter the system confront a maze-like process that costs too much and takes too long. While three-quarters of judgments are smaller than $5,200, the expense of litigation often greatly exceeds that amount. Small, uncomplicated matters that make up the overwhelming majority of cases can take years to resolve. Fearing the process is futile, many give up on pursuing justice altogether.”

 

According to the ABA, institutional plaintiffs — debt collectors, and mortgage and lien holders, for example – are the mostly likely to file lawsuits in today’s environment.

 

The ABA also found only a tiny fraction of cases (0.1 percent) made it to trial.

 

“This landscape reinforced for me that we need to (do) something for common people who don’t have access to lawyers but who have real-life problems that deserve recognition and resolution,” said Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson, a member of the panel.

The report’s recommendations included better managing lawsuits, streamlining cases and making use of technology.

Such reforms, according to panel members, would allow the courts to handle lawsuits from
“common people” more efficiently.

The recommendations seem akin to prescribing chicken soup for a case of Ebola.

From the president down, we have become a nation of litigation-prone victims who turn to all-too-accommodating lawyers with the aim of exchanging our troubles for cash.

From the defendants’ point of view, it’s a system in which it can take years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to knock down even frivolous lawsuits. That’s money and time most of us don’t have, and the lawyers filing the suits know it.

The system often rewards those with unwarranted claims, usually through out-of-court settlements to which defendants agree to avoid even more expense.

Consider this sampling of lawsuits and threatened suits:

Parents in California sued concert promoters in Las Vegas after their adult son overdosed on ecstasy and died during a concert.

Similarly, parents in Pennsylvania sued a college for allowing their 23-year-old son to get high and jump out a window.

In Florida, a tenured university professor was fired after writing that the Sandy Hook school shooting that left 27 dead was a government hoax. He sued, claiming his rights were violated.

Across the nation, attorneys known as patent trolls file unwarranted lawsuits claiming businesses infringed on their patents. The plaintiffs are betting defendants can’t afford a court fight and will settle. An opinion piece in The Hill estimates patent trolls steal $80 billion a year out of our economy, mostly from small businesses.

Even when cases are eventually dismissed by the courts, they still cost lots of money through years of motions, depositions, hearings, postponements and appeals.

The system won’t be fixed by modest reforms.

Rather, the legal profession needs to better police their own – taking disciplinary action against lawyers who file worthless suits. (Laws that allow defendants to sue for legal fees are ineffective; plaintiffs typically have little money.)

The courts also should be less tolerant of delays and junk claims. Currently, many attorneys maximize profits by using tactics that make the process longer and more expensive than necessary.

I don’t mean to be too hard on attorneys. They aren’t that different from the rest of us.

But the civil justice system no longer reflects the values and norms of our society.

Or at least what we should want to be the values of our society, and our justice system.

 

Battles over education in Kansas often seem to have more to do with money, power and politics than with trying to ensure students get a good education.

That could mean additional economic trouble for the state.

Education is the surest, most sustainable investment we can make in both children and in the state’s economic future. Nothing else – economic development zones, huge tax breaks or regulatory relief – comes with better odds.

But the education needs to be solid. Just funding public schools adequately isn’t enough. Funding schools and universities without also requiring standards and measuring results does little to ensure that students are well educated.

In Kansas, battles have been waged in the Legislature and the courts over how much money is enough for elementary and secondary schools. There also are arguments about whether the state should divert more funds to private schools and home schools.

There has been less discussion of standards for public schools. And the state has few requirements for private and home schools.

At the college level, funding cuts have left public universities struggling to maintain high-quality programs and to recruit strong faculty and staff.

Kansas schools, at every level, are still good. But we risk erosion in our standings, not only with other states but with other countries, if we don’t keep the focus on sufficiently funded schools that are affordable, accessible and high quality.

There are many in Kansas who would like to change that by virtually abandoning the state’s public education system in favor of lower taxes. They want to favor private schools, charter schools and home schools by offering vouchers, bigger tax breaks and other funding mechanisms.

No doubt, there are outstanding private schools and charter schools. And some parents do an extraordinary job with home schools.

But the record also shows dismal performance by some private schools. Charter schools, in their relatively brief history, have a spotty record at best. For each one that has done well, several have performed poorly. The primary aim of many seems to be to enrich administrative companies and property owners. As for home schools, it’s impossible to assess quality because of insufficient metrics and standards.

Public funding for alternatives to public schools needs to come with an assurance that the education offered is solid. Private schools, charter schools and home schools need to show that their students are making academic progress, and that they comply with the same rules as public schools regarding discrimination, accessibility, and discipline and expulsion.

In one respect, battles over education ignore one of the most important elements of a good education.

Just as studies show the importance of education in ensuring economic security, studies also make clear that parental involvement is the most important factor in determining academic success.

That doesn’t mean parents should helicopter their children. It does mean they should take an interest and set high expectations.

Those expectations should start with the kids and should extend to the schools.

A look back makes clear the huge role public education has played in the lives of Kansans.

Examples include Dwight Eisenhower, who graduated from Abilene’s public schools before attending West Point military academy.

And astronaut Steve Hawley, who graduated from Salina Central High School and the University of Kansas, and who is now on the faculty at KU.

And scientist Geraldine Richmond, who also grew up in central Kansas and attended Kansas State University before embarking on a career that has won her worldwide acclaim.

There are millions of others – including a majority of Kansas doctors, lawmakers, social workers, police officers, business owners and farmers – whose careers and lives were shaped in part by educations they attained at public schools.

It’s not that public schools are better than private, or that they are more deserving of support than another system that provides accessibility, affordability and high quality.

It is that Kansas public schools have shown what they can do, year after year, with kid after kid.

Take a look around, as kindergartners proudly climb on buses for the first time and as college freshman excitedly – and a little nervously – move into their dorms.

It’s the start of something big. For every one of those kids, and for the state of Kansas as well.

A year ago, much of America was bemoaning the sorry choice voters had between the Republican and Democratic nominees for president.

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were record-setting in that respect, according to an ABC/Washington Post poll.

The poll in August 2016 found 59 percent of registered voters viewed Cinton unfavorably, and the figure for Trump was 60 percent — the least liked duo of presidential candidates the polls had ever found.

Since the election, neither Trump nor Clinton has done much to change people’s minds about them.

Trump’s disapproval ratings are still setting records, and he has found one of the few effective responses is to argue that the Clintons, especially Hillary, are even worse.

It’s enough to make one nostalgic for those good old days, even if they weren’t so grand.

I’m not among those who think America used to be greater than it is now. I don’t believe we have lost our economic power or our moral compass.

The long view will show that we have become a better, stronger, more ethical country over the decades.

Racial and ethnic minorities won more rights. Citizens became better educated. Women took on expanded economic and political roles. Research and innovation made us a world leader in science. Society became more integrated, and most Americans became more tolerant of those who are different.

But in one respect there has been a setback. The standards we set for our government and political leaders have suffered serious degradation.

Not so long ago, most Americans grew indignant when they learned their president had lied to them. And such occasions were rare enough that disclosure of dishonesty made big headlines.

Now it’s a daily occurrence, remarked upon only as the president’s staff spins the lies.

The president was employing “alternative facts,” they say.  The president wasn’t lying because he didn’t know the facts – he just assumed that he did – his spokesmen explain. The president stands by his claim (despite proof that he is wrong), they announce.

But even Fox News’ Shepard Smith hit his limit recently. During an exchange with colleague Chris Wallace, he said:

“…The deception, Chris, is mind-boggling. And there are still people who are out there who believe we’re making it up. And one day they’re gonna realize we’re not and look around and go, ‘Where are we, and why are we getting told all these lies?’ “

It’s not that other presidents and politicians were always honest. They weren’t.

But Trump’s dishonesty is unprecedented.

Even before his political ambitions led him to the campaign trail, Trump’s style of business made clear that he believed honesty was for chumps. Whether it was paying his property taxes, dealing with contractors on his projects or signing up clients for Trump University, the now-president sought financial advantage, not an honest deal.

The same tactics have now been put to work in the White House.

It’s impossible to imagine Harry Truman or Dwight Eisenhower treating the American public with such disrespect. Even deal-makers such as Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan understood that building trust with Congress and the nation required a certain level of honesty.

Trump believes that trust doesn’t matter if he can cut a deal.

And it doesn’t matter whether the deal is a good one for the nation.

Much of the news coverage of the White House and the political coverage across the nation focus on partisan divisions. That makes sense because legislative initiatives and public policy are being driven by party politics.

Whether it’s health care, tax reform or immigration, the goal is not to improve public policy, but to score a win.

The White House has made clear, for example, that it doesn’t care if a new health care law is better or worse than Obamacare. It doesn’t even care if there is no replacement.

Trump just wants to notch a political win.

Americans should expect better from the president and Congress.

Policy should be about more than gratifying the egos of our leaders. Legislation should be considered for what it achieves for the country, not for a political party’s 2018 ambitions.

By tolerating such behavior, Americans are selling themselves and their country short.

Across the country, about 120,000 people are waiting.

Most are waiting for kidneys.

But some need livers, and a smaller percentage need hearts or other organs.

Because of advances in medicine and technology, many of those waiting will live longer and more active lives with transplanted organs.

Over the past 50 to 60 years, the numbers of organ transplants have multiplied several times, and survival rates for recipients are much improved.

Currently, more than 30,000 transplants are conducted in the United States each year.

But modern medicine can’t cure everything. No one has found a way to make supply meet the demand for organs.

That’s why the waiting list is so long.

I recently volunteered at a community event at Botanica in Wichita, helping children pot up little plants. I was teamed up with a volunteer who I learned was one of the 120,000 people awaiting an organ.

I’m not sure how the subject came up, but as we chatted with each other, I learned that he had a chronic health condition that had led to slow deterioration of his kidney function. His name had been placed on the transplant list a few months ago.

He talked about the restrictions on his diet, about how the disease limited his daily activities.

I also learned that he was married with three grown children and a new grandchild.

And that he loved to tell bad jokes and laugh at himself.

It was just a typical encounter with a person any one of us might meet as we go about our routine.

But I started wondering how many of us know people who are on that list, or will be in a matter of months or years.

And I wondered what it must be like, waiting for a call that might not come. Knowing that your life depends on the death – and generosity – of another.

More than 8,000 Americans die every year waiting for organ transplants.

That may not sound like a lot to you.

But more than 20 deaths a day is awfully large when you consider most of the people who die could receive transplants if only more of us would sign up to be organ donors – and let our family and friends know our intentions.

According to a website maintained by the federal Department of Health and Human Services, 95 percent of Americans support organ transplants. But less than half of us have actually registered or signed up to be donors.

To sign up, you can sign the back of your driver’s license. But you also can register online at https://www.donatelifekansas.com/join/

You might think that because your family knows your wishes, you don’t need to register or sign the back of your license.

But in times of grief and tragedy, the registration gives medical professionals information they need to start what must be a painful and hard conversation with the family of the donor.

Given that organ donations typically come from people who die suddenly and unexpectedly, having the registration helps ease the way into that conversation for both family and medical professionals.

Some countries have adopted systems that assume everyone wants to donate organs – and unless you opt out, you will be considered an organ donor.

Suggestions that the United States adopt the “opt out” approach have not gained much traction.

Medically, the “opt out” policy sounds reasonable and would be an improvement over the current system. But I admit it seems a little creepy in our culture to take a person’s body parts without their permission – even after death.

Because it appears the United States will continue to use a system of donor registration and family approval, voluntary participation is vital.

Sign up and talk about organ donation with family and friends.

For the thousands awaiting transplants, it could mean a longer, fuller life.