AN EVALUATION OF FILMS FOR USE IN DEVELOPING
LEADERSHIP MOMENTS
WITHIN A CONTEXT OF DIVERSITY & SOCIAL JUSTICE
A Dissertation Presented
by
J. W. Wiley
to
The Faculty of the Graduate College
of
The University of Vermont
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Education
Specializing in Educational Leadership and Policy Studies
October, 2010
Accepted by the Faculty of the Graduate College, The University of Vermont, in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education, specializing in
Educational Leadership and Policy Studies.
Dissertation Examination Committee:
___________________________________ Advisor
Susan Hazasi, Ed.D.
___________________________________
Judith Aiken, Ed.D.
___________________________________
David Shiman, Ph.D.
___________________________________ Chairperson
Susan Comerford, Ph.D.
___________________________________ Dean, Graduate College
Domenico Grasso, Ph.D.
Date: May 20, 2010
ABSTRACT
Film has been used by educators, leadership trainers in professional development
activities, and workshop leaders engaged in diversity and social justice education.
However, I did not find in the literature reviewed evidence of work that has brought
together the use of film to educate leaders to address and engage the diversity & social
justice dimensions of what they do. This dissertation offers a step in that direction.
This research, which employs the methodology of content analysis, evaluates 47
film clips in terms of their contribution to not only the professional development of
leaders within the context of diversity & social justice, but also engagement with the
concept of a leadership moment. Narratives in the film excerpts, which had been
previously used by the researcher in leadership training classes, were evaluated according
to the following criteria: 1) capacity to engage the viewer emotionally; 2) potential to
reveal the complexities of human behavior; 3) potential to explicate major leadership
themes; and 4) capacity to raise social justice questions.
This study utilizes content analysis and involves critiques of the narratives within
selected film excerpts that highlight moments of potential leadership. In essence, I have
attempted to frame, using leadership scholarship, a rationale for action, a leadership
moment, within a context of diversity & social justice.
This research provides a critical evaluation of each film clip in terms of its
potential contribution to the education and/or professional development of leaders with
respect to diversity & social justice. These are organized around the following themes
related to leadership: The Complexity of Leadership; Leadership at Risk; Authenticity &
Duplicity; Virtue Redefined; Integrity; Courage; The Necessity of Leadership Outreach;
Modeling the Way; and Understanding Leadership.
The dissertation offers analyses of excerpts from the 47 films that have been
organized around leadership themes that establish leadership moments. The reader may
select a film and review it for possible usage in their educational and/or professional
development work, choose a film for usage relative to its diversity & social justice theme,
or select a category and review the films that fall within it. The dissertation provides the
substance, i.e. the film clips and the criteria for their selection, for the construction of an
educational framework that may be employed in the education and/or professional
development of leaders. In addition, it provides criteria to employ in evaluating the
content of films other than those included here, for educational purposes and/or
leadership training.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
!
"
#$
"
%
#
%
!
&
'
"
*
)
#
(
%(
+
"
,
$
-
$
.
/
0
$
-
"
,
"
$
-
12
$
3! .
/
.
#
0
$
%
-
$
% 617( *
(
4
-
12
#,$05 $05 5*$ '&2,
'
8
7
8
ii
"
!
"
/
"
* "
9
"
,
2
2
"
,
:
/
"
$
/
$
6
-
.
$
64 5
)
:
/
#
%
"
0"
'
$
6
4
12
-
#
%
$ -; .
(
$
4
#
%
/<
64
!
"
iii
5
)
<
<
&
0
;
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. ii
CHAPTER I - Introduction ............................................................................................. 1
CHAPTER II – Literature Review .................................................................................. 6
Critical Inquiry & Social Justice ................................................................................ 6
Changing Roles of Teachers and Students................................................................ 16
Film as a Conduit for Classroom Dialogue.............................................................. 19
Emotion’s Impact on Learning ................................................................................. 26
CHAPTER III – Research Methodology ...................................................................... 32
CHAPTER IV – Data Analysis and Presentation of Findings.................................... 46
Examining/Developing Leadership Through Film ....................................................... 51
Justification of Our Perspectives .............................................................................. 52
Inclusion as Stereotype ............................................................................................. 60
Stereotypical Inclusion.............................................................................................. 62
Systematic Exclusion ................................................................................................. 69
Film Excerpts ............................................................................................................ 73
Music Within ............................................................................................................. 75
Birth of a Nation ....................................................................................................... 81
Reservoir Dogs.......................................................................................................... 83
Pleasantville.............................................................................................................. 88
He’s Just Not That In To You.................................................................................... 91
He’s Just Not That Into You (2) cont… ..................................................................... 93
Cross Listing of Films Grouped by Leadership Themes ........................................... 97
Cross Listing of Films by Diversity & Social Justice Themes .................................. 98
The Complexity of Leadership ................................................................................ 100
North Country ......................................................................................................... 102
G.I. Jane .................................................................................................................. 107
Bobby ...................................................................................................................... 109
A Time to Kill .......................................................................................................... 119
Snow Falling on Cedars.......................................................................................... 122
Leadership at Risk................................................................................................... 125
Casualties of War .................................................................................................... 125
Casualties of War (2) .............................................................................................. 127
Casualties of War (3) cont…................................................................................... 128
Casualties of War (4) cont…................................................................................... 130
Casualties of War (5) cont…................................................................................... 134
Casualties of War (6) cont…................................................................................... 135
Rosewood ................................................................................................................ 140
Glory ....................................................................................................................... 145
Mona Lisa Smile ..................................................................................................... 147
Very Bad Things ...................................................................................................... 149
Authenticity and Duplicity ...................................................................................... 156
Coming Home ......................................................................................................... 157
School Daze ............................................................................................................ 160
v
School Daze (2) cont… ........................................................................................... 162
School Daze (3) cont… ........................................................................................... 164
Crash ....................................................................................................................... 168
School Daze (4) cont… ........................................................................................... 171
Boiler Room ............................................................................................................ 174
Virtue Redefined...................................................................................................... 181
Storytelling .............................................................................................................. 181
Three Kings ............................................................................................................. 185
Three Kings (2) cont… ............................................................................................ 186
As Good As It Gets .................................................................................................. 190
Santa Fe Trail ......................................................................................................... 195
Matewan .................................................................................................................. 198
Bulworth.................................................................................................................. 202
Malcolm X ............................................................................................................... 205
Integrity ................................................................................................................... 207
The Tuskegee Airmen .............................................................................................. 207
Good Will Hunting .................................................................................................. 212
Geronimo: An American Legend ............................................................................ 214
Santa Fe Trail (2) cont… ........................................................................................ 216
12 Angry Men .......................................................................................................... 217
12 Angry Men cont… .............................................................................................. 223
Courage................................................................................................................... 226
Grand Canyon ......................................................................................................... 226
Finding Forester ..................................................................................................... 234
Good Will Hunting (2) cont… ................................................................................. 239
Crash (2) cont… ...................................................................................................... 244
Hart’s War .............................................................................................................. 249
ER ............................................................................................................................ 252
ER (2) cont…........................................................................................................... 253
ER (3) cont…........................................................................................................... 256
ER (4) cont…........................................................................................................... 257
The Necessity of Leadership Outreach ................................................................... 261
What Women Want .................................................................................................. 261
What Women Want cont… ...................................................................................... 266
Soldier’s Story......................................................................................................... 270
Modeling the Way ................................................................................................... 278
Seinfeld - The Outing .............................................................................................. 278
Boondocks: Return of the King ............................................................................... 282
Milk ......................................................................................................................... 284
Milk (3) cont… ........................................................................................................ 286
Big Daddy ............................................................................................................... 287
Lars and the Real Girl ............................................................................................ 289
Malcolm X (2) cont… .............................................................................................. 292
Malcolm X (3) cont… .............................................................................................. 295
Glory Road .............................................................................................................. 298
vi
Courage Under Fire ............................................................................................... 300
Courage Under Fire (2) .......................................................................................... 306
The Contender ......................................................................................................... 309
Understanding Leadership...................................................................................... 314
Remember the Titans............................................................................................... 314
Remember the Titans (2) ......................................................................................... 318
Seinfeld - Handicap Parking Spot........................................................................... 320
Remember the Titans (3) ......................................................................................... 323
Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 325
Wizard of Oz ........................................................................................................... 325
CHAPTER V – Discussion and Implications ............................................................. 330
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 345
vii
CHAPTER I - Introduction
As a young man I realized one day that my primary role models for masculinity
came through films.
The men in my life were essentially non-existent due to prison, drug habits,
cluelessness regarding the mentoring of younger males, or just blatant dereliction of the
duties societies imagine a man would assume when siring offspring. So, sadly if not
ironically, some of the most significant lessons I learned came to me after they were
captured on film. Humphrey Bogart in the Maltese Falcon and Casablanca; Sidney
Poitier in To Sir with Love, Paris Blues, The Defiant Ones, Guess Who’s Coming to
Dinner, and In the Heat of the Night; Jimmy Stewart in It’s a Wonderful Life, and Henry
Fonda in 12 Angry Men all demonstrated different dimensions of maleness that I
naturally gravitated towards. It is not an exaggeration to say that these men’s
performances, coupled with books I had read like Les Miserables, A Tale of Two Cities,
The Autobiography of Malcolm X, Manchild in the Promise Land, and Pimp: The Story of
My Life, by Iceberg Slim were all co-contributors to the development of my passion to
use film, coupled with literature and/or scholarship, to tell an educational tale.
As an educator and diversity director at a university for over a decade now, who
has taught an array of classes and facilitated a plethora of workshops within academia
and private businesses, I have first hand exposure to how powerful the experience of
using film can be for all involved. It is the success I have had with using film as an
educational tool to broach traditionally awkward or difficult conversations about social
ills that convinced me film was the vehicle to access the seeming inaccessible. At times,
1
nothing seems more inaccessible than finding the proper instruments to promote
dialogues about leadership, relative to the engagement of social “isms.”
Approaches to the preparation and/or education of leaders are grounded in a wide
variety of leadership theories (behavioral, charismatic, participative, service, situational,
transactional, transcendental, transformative, etc.). However, few, if any, of these
approaches embed the leadership training in the extensive body of literature addressing
diversity and social justice themes. Furthermore, when the necessity of being well versed
in knowledge of diversity & social justice is occasionally articulated in the body of
literature on leadership, rarely are films and film text suggested or used to highlight
leadership themes. Conversely, film is being incorporated more and more as an
educational medium in courses and trainings that address diversity & social justice
themes. I believe that there has been under-utilization of films conveying diversity &
social justice themes in leadership education. This under-utilization has resulted in a lost
opportunity for educators and trainers to make leadership development as vibrant as it
might be.
Non-formal learning is common, important and lifelong. Knight, Tait, & Yorke
(2006) suggest that “through non-formal means, professionals learn six times as much as
through formal means” (p. 322). Film, especially film that reflects popular culture, when
used as an educational device, has the semblance of non-formal learning due to its
nontraditional feel. In terms of confronting professional obsolescence, non-formal
learning is a more significant response than formal learning and confronts professional
obsolescence. In terms of non-formal and non-intentional learning, the question ‘why do
professionals learn?’ leads to the answer ‘because their workplace evokes learning’.
2
Knight and colleagues endorse “event based professional development having
significance, especially when it comes to promoting new strategies into prominence,
perhaps in response to changes in national or local policies. However, it is also suggested
that “critical incidents” as one of four motivating types is very germane to “intentional
professional learning. Critical incidents can range from a professor making an insensitive
statement with no regard for its effect on his/her students to an historical event like the
Japanese interment, as portrayed in the film Snow Falling on Cedars, or the Rosewood,
Florida massacre, as portrayed in the film of the same name (Rosewood). When framed
with film’s highly evolved technical trappings, films can seriously dismantle professional
obsolescence through the emotional poignancy of its messages.
Film, especially film that meets students where they live, is as authentic as you
can get in a classroom environment. The only medium that surpasses the poignancy of
film is honest, open student narratives, which are often hard to access. Discussion of film
can actually inspire the discussants to open up and reveal aspects of their lives that
parallel what occurs on the screen.
My passion to utilize film as a method to create leaders who are grounded and
engaged in diversity & social justice concerns is directly related to the emotional impact
that film had on me throughout my life, its vicarious effects upon me at those times
within a movie that someone stepped into a leadership role, and the impact it appears to
have when I have used it to educate the students I have taught in very different venues
(e.g., seminars, general education courses, and professional development workshops).
This study provides specific instances within film where opportunities for
leadership action within a context of diversity & social justice have occurred, or could
3
have occurred. Those opportunities are what I call leadership moments. A leadership
moment is that moment where a single person could make a difference, educating others
by the actions, within the context of diversity & social justice, that a potential leader
takes, or perhaps even inspiring others to take similar actions. On some level, the
concept of leadership is essentially a continual assertion of leadership moments.
Conversely, a leadership moment is also unfortunately a missed opportunity where
someone was situated to make a difference, to be proactive and was not.
Using content analysis, I have researched an array of films and present within this
dissertation a broad range of leadership moments occurring in films that accentuate
leadership opportunities within a context of diversity & social justice.
The purpose of this research is to develop and describe an evaluation of film for
use in leadership development within a context of diversity & social justice. My research
questions are:
Sub-question 1: What films meet the criteria (listed below) as potentially effective tools
for leadership preparation grounded in diversity & social justice themes?
1. Rich emotional content;
2. Potential to challenge the biases of viewers;
3. Potential to be viewed from different perspectives;
4. Potential to reveal the complexities of human behavior;
5. Potential to provide engagement with, and accentuation of multiple
identities;
6. Capacity to raise social justice questions.
4
7. Potential to engage various dimensions of leadership in response to social
injustices within a context of diversity
8. Potential to explicate major leadership themes (transformative, visionary,
etc.) within a context of diversity & social justice.
Sub-question 2: In what ways does film conjoin leadership with diversity & social
justice?
Sub-question 3: What is the educational potential for leadership development by using
film to promote consciousness that leads to action?
The methodology and data analysis related to these sub-questions are discussed in
detail in Chapters III and IV.
5
CHAPTER II – Literature Review
My review of the literature relative to my research begins with a consideration to
critical inquiry and its relationship with social justice, which assists me in framing social
justice as inseparable from diversity for this project. I then engage what various scholars
have articulated about the need for changes in the roles of teachers and students within
classrooms. Thereafter I highlight how various scholars have approached the use of film
in the classroom, providing additional insight into my desire to use film as a tool for
social justice education. Lastly, I reveal what other scholars’ claim is significant about
emotion in the educational enterprise to explicate film’s power in promoting leadership
development within a context of diversity & social justice.
Critical Inquiry & Social Justice
Michael Quinn Patton (2002) identifies critical inquiry as necessarily connected to
confrontations with particular social injustices. This type of research becomes
transformative in that it is unembarrassed by political labels and not intimidated about
embracing an emancipated enlightenment (p. 131). In her articulation of critical race
theory Maurianne Adams in Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice states that by using
metaphorical tales and counter-narratives that reflect “multiple historical, sociological,
and personal anecdotes educators are able to be innovative” (p. 25). All of these methods
provide a unique depiction of “the experiences of peoples of color, from the perspective
of peoples of color, challenging” the hegemonic majoritarian narratives and unexamined
assumptions in personal ways” (Adams, Bell, & Griffin, 2009, p. 25).
Critical race theory is just one of the pedagogical frameworks utilized to advance
social justice education. It is not necessarily a surprise to consider how race, along with
6
gender, have contributed to the evolution of social justice education. While much of the
general public may not be aware of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Frederick Douglass’
roles as two of the architects for social justice, their foundational efforts at acquiring
voting rights for Women and Blacks were invaluable to the acquisition of civil rights for
many Americans who might have not achieved those rights without their efforts.
David Miller’s Recent Theories of Social Justice looked to scholars of justice for
their part in establishing the foundation of social justice. Miller’s query of justice as
often multi-dimensional in its presentation challenges me to not limit my interpretation of
justice, as well as staying ever vigilant to the fact that interpretations of justice must
remain as inclusive as logically possible. Miller agreed with the Rawlsian claim that an
“aim of justice is to have a ‘reflective equilibrium’ where firmly held beliefs are
incorporated and systematized in a theoretical framework which can then give us
guidance in areas where our opinions are less certain” (Miller, 1991, p. 372). This
reflective equilibrium would inhibit a social justice educator from defaulting to her/his
own position as flawless simply because of a familiarity with the relevant empirical
research. Miller also notes that justice is not necessarily the all encompassing value but
just one in many. Thus, Rawlsian theories premised on the assumption that justice is “the
first virtue of social institutions” can be critiqued for their role in expanding the concept.
Additionally, justice should be analyzed so that its unifying features are exposed because
formal definitions are inadequate. Finally, an adequate analysis should bring out the
links between legal justice and social justice, showing why the same concept is used to
evaluate the structure of law and social distribution (p. 373).
7
Miller (1991) also cites Barry who elaborated a framework for discussing
contractarian theories of justice that articulated justice as what would be agreed upon by
individuals placed in appropriately specified circumstances (p. 374). This type of relative
justice is problematic in that it allows notion of justice to be contextual, which at times is
sufficient, and at times insufficient. An example of the injustice that can occur is
provided by Miller when he states that “the naturally powerful can only be kept within
the scheme of social co-operation by allocating them benefits in proportion to their
advantages” (p. 374).
In other words, if benefits—or more to the point, privileges—are not guaranteed
to those accustomed to receiving an inordinate amount of goods compared to the
underprivileged, notions of social justice are in jeopardy. In response to Barry’s
contractarian (polarizing sense of) justice, Miller (1991) refers to David Gauthier’s book
Morals by Agreement, cautioning that Gauthier’s bottom line is similar to John Locke’s
state of nature in that individuals are endowed with rights that they may use to improve
their own situation but not to worsen that of anyone else (p. 375). Miller further asserts
that critics argue you cannot derive two differing principles of justice by considering
what principles rational individuals might choose to adopt behind a veil of ignorance that
deprives them of their knowledge, tastes, talents, social opposition and so forth. Any
expectation that men and women would value the same notions of justice if we stripped
them of their gendered considerations is senseless. Miller asserts that our necessities only
become germane to justice when connected to enticements. When people are dependant
because of being denied what they earned from hard work or when they cannot compete
on equal terms in the marketplace, they then must endure unfulfilled basic needs and
8
therefore cannot obtain benefits. In this situation the satisfaction of our necessities is left
to benevolence or humanity (although it is often said that justice is only one among many
social virtues and has no especial priority over the others). Miller seems to interpret
justice scholars as essentially saying that people cannot genuinely claim social benefits
until they positively earn them. It appears as if these social justice scholars support the
notion of unearned privilege as problematic. Essentially the assumption is that
meritorious people are entitled to obtain benefits from society unless that entitlement is
eroded by making “foolish or immoral choices” (p. 384). In other words, all we must do
to obtain our necessities is to show that we are not remiss in deserving them.
Miller (1991) recalls ancient notions of justice whereby justice was earned in “the
context of practices such as warfare, athletics, the performing arts and politics” (p. 384).
In all of these practices there were standards of excellence established that allowed others
to gauge each person’s performance, and justice was done when each achieved the honor
and recognition he deserved and his proper share of external goods, such as wealth, social
status and power. In contrast, Miller claims that today’s notion of justice has the goods
of effectiveness as the goal of individual’s pursuit, and justice “becomes a matter of
formulating rules to avoid destructive competition in the scramble for wealth, status, and
power” (p. 385). So, in contemporary times it appears as if Miller believes that justice is
far too often obtained through manipulation. Miller’s take on contemporary justice is that
it can only be viewed as “the outcome of a bargaining game, in which the rules that
emerge will reflect the advantages enjoyed by the various parties… justice is understood
in terms of adherence to a set of rules, these rules being designed to achieve co-operation
between individuals with potentially conflicting goals” (p. 385).
9
Respectful of Cady Stanton and Douglass, precursors of social justice that I
mentioned earlier, Miller cites Susan Moller Okin’s work on gender. He refers to her
book Justice, Gender and the Family when he states that, “One consequence is that the
woman continues to do the lion’s share of domestic work even where she is doing outside
work too” (p. 389). He says that Okin produces American evidence which shows women
performing very much more domestic labor than men in cases where both partners work,
and substantially more labor overall, putting domestic and paid labor together. He further
states that the husband’s position as primary wage-earner gives him greater power within
the family. This is partly because of the norm that the person who brings in the money
should decide how it is spent. However, it is more evident when we consider that the
costs of quitting relationships are far greater for women than for men. Women are
usually given custody of children and, for reasons given above, their earning power is
typically less. Okin argues that when women exit from a relationship, it is very costly
and therefore their voices, when they must remain within dysfunctional relationships,
“tend to be stifled” (p. 389). As a result, Okin argues for:
More modest reforms that would help to erode the injustice by degrees: in
particular, the public provision of child care to enable both sexes to combine
paid work with raising children; changes in work practices to allow work life
and family life to harmonize; gender free education which prepares both sexes
equally for work and political life; alterations to the divorce laws to guarantee
equal living standards to both partners in the period following divorce; and a
requirement on employers that earnings should be divided equally between
both partners even in cases where one partner chooses not to work. (p. 390)
10
If justice is not limited to husband and wife but also between parents and children,
considerations of need appear unavoidable. Miller does take Okin to task for focusing
exclusively on the distribution between spouses, ignoring questions of justice between
different generations of family members.
Miller (1991) concludes that attempts to conceive a “simple, monistic principle of
social justice” (p. 391) are misguided. Instead contemplation should be given to the
many different sorts of goods that need to be distributed fairly. Miller also engages what
he calls concerns of dominance—but what I refer to as privilege—the possibility that
people who are advantaged in one sphere can leverage their advantage illegitimately to
their benefit in another sphere (as when money buys political office or educational
privilege). The solution at times is to ensure that the spheres remain separate, but not
always. Miller again cites Okin’s work on gender as revealing that “sometimes in order
to obtain justice in one sphere (say the world of employment) there must also be a certain
distribution of resources in another, nominally independent, sphere (say that of the
family)” (p. 391). Essentially, Miller insists that we cannot stand pat on the simple
assertion that social justice is done when every kind of good is allocated to its own
internal criterion of distribution. Miller concludes that:
Theories of justice will continue to proliferate, but there will be fewer that are
both comprehensive and simple. Either they will involve the application of a
single principle to a particular sphere of distribution (the household, the
economy, international relations, etc.), or else they will be more
comprehensive but pluralistic in their content. (p. 391)
11
So, in Miller’s estimation, social justice is contextual. This is particularly important
so as to avoid a one size fits all approach.
David Smith writes in Social Justice Revisited that, “If we accept that the
distinction between matters of justice and those of the good life is not given by some
moral dictionary, but evolves as a result of historic and cultural struggles,” then to the
debate over alternative theories of social justice, which continues to trouble Harvey and
others, must be added the deeper question of what constitutes a good way of living for
humankind in all its diversity” (Smith, 2000, p. 1150). Smith is not just espousing moral
relativism, but the true conundrum that looms in discussions over what social justice
actually entails. Smith is firm in his position that a primary concern in social justice is
identification of the differences among persons and groups which are morally significant
to the distribution of benefits and burdens, including the very notions of “justice” and
“good” (p. 1150).
Smith (2000) suggests that efforts to protect the integrity of both individual and
group identities are invaluable considerations to any notion of the good life, though such
claims often indicate more material ends associated with economic and social equality.
As a result, defaulting to an inclusion of difference mandates that one’s race, gender, or
culture should not “disadvantage her/him in social life” (p. 1151). Smith goes on to
assert a rather profound insight when he states that “difference is simultaneously a source
of inequality grounded in domination and oppression, and of solidarity manifest in
struggle against injustice” (p. 1151). Smith also states:
Resolving the tension between difference and sameness involves
understanding that the rationale of the politics of difference is for those
12
‘others’ to become part of a ‘we’ which is a source of social unity
(Sypnowich, 1993, pages 106-107), as a community or nation but potentially
including all of humankind. (p. 1151)
Smith (2000) appears to open the door to a global consciousness that transcends
notions of social justice for a conception of global justice. Smith states that
considerations of differences broaden the range of social justice, drawing attention to the
privilege of specific groups. As a result, there has been a deterioration of the sense of
“human sameness, or close similarity, required to ground a broader egalitarian project”
(p. 1151). While understanding that pertinent dimensions of difference may help to:
Counter oppressive aspects of a universalizing modernism, some of the
greatest struggles for social justice in recent history (for example, for Black
civil rights in the USA and against apartheid in South Africa) were more a
case of the universalist notion of equal moral worth countering particular
social constructions of difference. (p. 1151)
In essence, Smith asserts that “diverse voices challenge the contemporary preoccupation
with difference and seek a more universal perspective without abandoning insights
gained from poststructuralists critiques, and especially from awareness of the
particularity of persons and places” (p. 1152). Smith’s assertion sounds a bit DuBoisian
in its similarity to W.E.B. DuBois’ notion of double consciousness. DuBois asserted that
so-called Negroes—in their efforts to assimilate into American culture—still needed to
embrace the fact that their struggle provided them (and others mired in similar struggles
for civil rights and social justice) with a perspective that the world could benefit from
knowing.
13
Smith (2000) did caution that consideration of rights raises problematic concerns,
with respect to what rights, their priority, whose rights, and who is obligated to ensure
that rights are fulfilled (p. 1154). Smith also suggests that any notion of universal
welfare rights is fragile and impractical for social justice, and “patently ineffective for
most of the world’s population, without the moral force, political will, and economic
resources required for their fulfillment” (p. 1155). Smith provides evidence of this when
he claims that:
The chance of birth in a particular place on the highly differentiated surface of
resources carries no greater moral credit than being born male or female,
black or white. And such initial advantage as arises from the place of good
fortune is readily transferred to future generations, similarly devoid of moral
justification. As for the possibility of the disadvantaged seeking better
opportunities elsewhere, for most people the capacity significantly to change
their place, from a poorly endowed to richly resourced location (or state), is as
limited as it is to change their gender or skin pigmentation. (p. 1155)
For Smith (2000), the unearned privilege that some of us are fortunate to have as
birth rights should not be taken lightly and makes the notion of social justice, or more so,
global justice, hard to ascertain and more difficult to obtain. The substantial
improvement of the quality of life of the globally underprivileged is more of a challenge
to undertake. The potential backlash from the unearned privilege bearers, due to threat or
loss of privilege by the varying cultural hegemonies, would be a threat throughout the
globe. Limiting global resources by attempts at satisfying everyone’s basic needs, not
including provisions for future generations, greatly limits the scope for inequality. The
14
consequent redefinition of the good life would impact the privileges currently enjoyed by
“a small minority of the world’s population at the expense of the more modest needs of
the vast majority” (p. 1157). For the purposes of my research, this affirmation of global
justice within Smith’s scholarship challenged me to not limit my conception of social
justice to a nationalistic framework.
Smith (2000) frames as elementary any notion of a necessary moral rationale
where relations are not entirely face to face. Without a moral rationale, discussions about
global solidarity are frivolous. Smith concludes his take on social justice by referring to
Bryan Turner (1986, p. 97) who posits: “If there is a universal emotion it may well be a
sense of outrage which emerges from our experience of injustice when the innocent are
dominated. This is not hard to imagine because humans have the ability to empathize
with others (Smith, p. 1159). Additionally, Smith agrees with Robert Sack, author of
Homo Geographicus: A Framework for Action, Awareness, and Moral Concern, that
transcending local partiality is part of our maturation process, knowing more about the
world and its peoples and the consequences of our actions. Sack states that, “A moral
position must be justified to others on the basis of a less partial or impartial reason, not on
self-interest, custom, or practice” (1997, p. 6). Smith further endorses Sack’s statement
that “conversations with real others from particular, partial, situated contexts is an
essential component of applying reason and moving to a less partial position” (Smith, p.
1159).
Smith (2000) closes his article with a reference to Stuart Corbridge, who suggests
that “the difference principle is a powerful exposition of ‘there but for the grace of God
go I’” (p. 1159). He cites Corbridge’s reference to John Rawls’ forcing us to empathize
15
with people who are less fortunate than us just because they were born that way, and that
“the needs and rights of strangers could easily, and but for the ‘accident’ of birth, be the
needs and rights of ourselves” (p. 1159). For the purposes of my research, Smith’s
framing of a type of social justice that transcends parochial perspectives is directly in line
with my desire and instinct as an educator to create new avenues to access and ultimately
embrace leadership within a context of diversity & social justice.
Changing Roles of Teachers and Students
In today’s world there is a different type of educator necessary to advance
leadership lessons that include diversity and social justice. Adams et al. (2009), in
Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice, bring the notion of social justice fully into
contemporary times with their articulation of an awareness of the multiple and complex
ways that oppressive socialization as a result of dehumanizing sociopolitical processes,
influence us to be disrespectful and/or inconsiderate of others. They appear to focus their
lens upon a more domestic perspective of diversity & social justice which makes sense
since they articulate it within a context of teaching and learning. They identify their goal
as social justice educators to assist in reflecting on their identity as well as their own
position(s) in relation to social processes so as to consider the consequences of
oppressive socialization in their lives, and think proactively about their possible action.
They further assert that they believe that “traditional lecture methods do not adequately
support the active involvement necessary to reach their goals (p. xvii). This assertion is
consistent with my rationale to use film to advance discussions on leadership within a
context of diversity & social justice. Their assertion, as stated below, is why I see film as
one of those tools.
16
The goal of social justice education is to enable people to develop the critical
analytical tools necessary to understand oppression and their own
socialization within oppressive systems, and to develop a sense of agency and
capacity to interrupt and change oppressive patterns and behaviors in
themselves and in the institutions and communities of which they are a part.
(p. 2)
Using film as a conduit to advance leadership within a context of diversity &
social justice education is consistent with the core frameworks of social justice education
practice articulated by Adams et al. (2009), as shown below:
1. Establish equilibrium between the emotional/cognitive components of the
learning process.
2. Acknowledge and support the personal and individual dimensions of
experience, while making connections to and illuminating the systemic
dimensions of social group interactions.
3. Pay explicit attention to social relations within the classroom.
4. Make conscious use of reflection and experience as tools for student-centered
learning.
5. Reward changes in awareness, personal growth, and efforts to work toward
change, understood as outcomes of the learning process.
All five of these core frameworks can be specifically advanced if not
accomplished through the use of film in a context of diversity & social justice. Core #1 An equilibrium can be established between the cognitive and emotional dimensions of the
learning process by the selection of film clips that have universal appeal to which
17
potential learners can personally relate. Core #2 - All social groups are made up of
diverse individuals so utilizing film to promote any assessment of an individual within a
given society, or society’s impact upon an individual will have systemic implications in a
contemporary era, especially when aligned with pertinent scholarship chosen and used
specifically for that purpose. Core #3 - Close scrutiny to social relations/interactions
within the classroom will be encouraged and observed, especially since in the ideal
classroom that I strive to develop everyone is a contributor, everyone is a potential
provider of invaluable information, everyone is both teacher and learner. Core #4 - The
use of film is precisely to encourage a conscious use of experience and reflection as tools
for student-centered learning. Core #5 – Changes in awareness, personal growth, and a
desire to become a change agent will be acknowledged/endorsed when observed in
response papers and classroom discussions.
Adams et al. (2009) further assert that they believe that “traditional lecture
methods do not adequately support the active involvement necessary to reach their goals”
(p. xvii). This assertion is consistent with my rationale to use film to advance discussions
on leadership within a context of diversity & social justice.
As a social justice educator, the university environment or campus climate that I
am studying, for the purposes of my research, is its own society fraught with injustice.
My research is imbedded in an attempt to transform an environment, address a particular
society’s woes, and injustices (that are not necessarily noticeable to its members because
of their privilege). One of the privileges that socio-economic class affords is
COMFORT, which means we can ignore the need to take action, or really do not have to
take action as long as we publicly acknowledge that we are aware of it and will support
18
something or someone more inclined or motivated to address it. We just will not be the
ones to do it. Fortunately, there is a push to develop scholars who will actively do their
part to transform the academy.
Film as a Conduit for Classroom Dialogue
Lindman and Tahamont (2006) claim U.S. higher education is experiencing a
transformational movement. This practical and engaged liberal education movement
appears to challenge traditional disciplines by necessitating engagement between general
education and discipline-driven content courses. This transformational movement
accentuates the authentic experiences of students and addresses societal concerns of
contemporary society by promoting undergraduate education which reflects the
transformational movement. Lindman and Tahamont assert that higher education is
committed to challenging perspectives and accentuating skills for informed decisions
about moral choices. Higher Education is one of the few remaining venues where
discussion, philosophical argument, and thoughtful engagement are coveted for all of
their requisite benefits. Lindman and Tahamont cite David Tritelli’s (2003) assertion that
undergraduate education “must be situated within a larger vision of the kind of
intentional learners students must become to thrive in the complex, interdependent,
diverse world of the twenty-first century.” Lindman and Tahamont critiqued campus
injustices like intolerance and prejudice by creating new team taught interdisciplinary
courses that address diversity and democracy. The creation of these types of courses
accentuated with the power and poignancy of film can also serve various purposes.
These courses can expose students to multiple perspectives by creating safe conversations
19
where the issues addressed are relative to the films being assessed, instead of students
being made uncomfortable speaking specifically to their own realities.
Chism, Lees, and Evenbeck (2002) argue that traditional teaching has evolved.
There is much more emphasis on supporting faculty efforts to focus more on teaching to
facilitate student learning as opposed to outdated practices of “teaching as transmission of
content.” This type of teaching is now recognized as essential, rather than optional. This
new level of engagement between student and faculty brings new possibilities to bear. It
challenges faculty to not settle for the mere possibility or assumption of their students
learning.
Faculty development now is considered necessary. Historically, stereotypes
portrayed those using faculty development as “excessively needy” or “the converted,”
having been replaced by the notion of faculty professional development as an important
component of healthy career development (Chism et al.). Lindman and Tahamont (2006)
claim that changing the curriculum at a university is tedious; with resistance coming from
campus constituents (administrators, faculty, and staff) who may be more inclined toward
a particular pedagogy, epistemology, or institutional structure. Regardless, curricular
transformation is possible when clearly orchestrated, occurring moderately with clearly
defined objectives, and when reform is seen as an endless effort that advances a particular
part of the curriculum. Key issues must be addressed in formulating a plan for
transformation, combining ideals with realistic expectations (Lindman & Tahamont).
Faculty need to know the strength and weaknesses of their academic institutions and
formulate realistic objectives that align with their unique environment.
20
Various scholars insist that it is possible for students and teachers to
simultaneously educate one another (Ouelett, 2006). Teachers can acquire new
perspectives when they are able to work synergistically with students from diverse
backgrounds and that both teacher and students profit from a heightened understanding of
the society that they live in. Leask references Ramsden’s argument that teaching is never
ending lessons from students about growth and adaptation. Teaching students from
backgrounds that vary from their professor places that professor into the role of
‘intercultural learner’ (Leask, 2006). Faculty committed to the fundamentals of
productive teaching will be as concerned with conforming their teaching to different
learning styles as they might be to developing new learning strategies in their students.
This adaptation cannot happen unless faculty recognize that their approach to teaching
and learning is as culturally defined as is that of their students; and that as teachers we
have the potential to learn from students as much as they have to learn from us. Everyone
benefits from intercultural learning because of the interrelationship of our lived and
teaching identities in connection with our student’s identities and the ways they learn.
Intercultural learning allows differences to become “a resource rather than a nuisance”
Leask, p.196). This assists in the exploration of the complexity of the relationship
between who we are and how we teach, and who our students are and how they learn.
Leask says that, “Rather than being about ‘How can we make these students from
different cultural backgrounds more like the stereotypical ‘us’ it becomes, what can we
learn from these students about effective learning and teaching strategies?’” (p. 196).
Leask believes that academics must also learn how to expand their repertoire of teaching
strategies. He states that the relation between teaching and learning is fraught with
21
problems, uncertainty, and contextual. Thus good teachers are also good learners, willing
to question their own practice and to work cooperatively with students. The utilization of
film, especially film strategically chosen as a point of departure for provocative
conversations on leadership in a context of diversity & social justice not only
compliments my criteria, but affects my research in that my every day experiences tweak
my lens enough to reshape the way I see as well as the layers available to me when I
assess film and its narrative.
Film is used and assessed by many scholars today. I recognize that evaluating
film to develop leadership within a context of diversity & social justice is still in some
ways foreign to the academy, at least in terms of the way I am proposing its use.
However, it can assist all constituents by framing complex issues from the safe haven of
the point of departure that film provides, as articulated by Jun Xing in his book Reversing
the Lens (Xing, 2004, p. 15). For example, consider these three assertions by Xing:
a. Many students, regardless of racial group membership, have been socialized
to think of the United States as a just society;
b. Many students, particularly white students, initially deny any personal
prejudice, recognizing the impact of racism on other people’s lives, but failing
to acknowledge its impact on their own; and,
c. Race is considered a taboo topic for discussion, especially in racially mixed
settings. (p. 15)
To address (a), Xing’s point about many student’s socialization that the U.S. is a
just society, in my Examining Diversity through Film course we watched the films
Geronimo, Rosewood and Snow Falling on Cedars to create a conversation about how
22
just, or unjust U.S. society is or has been to all of its people. To address (b), Xing’s point
about the failure of White students to own their racism, throughout the semester we
created enough opportunities through the utilization of film to encourage if not inspire
enough White students to articulate their epiphanies with denying their racism, which
modeled for other hesitant White students to self reflect. In response to (c), Xing’s point
concerning discussions about race being taboo, we ask students is Xing’s assertion
accurate. Obtaining affirmation from an overwhelming majority of the students, we
discuss why it is so difficult to discuss race. We then emphasize the fact that the
difficulty with conversations about difference is not just germane to discussions about
race, but visits us in many conversations, including ability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic class, and gender.
Ward Churchill’s caveats and concerns about the dangers of using film in the
educational enterprise affected my way of approaching my research. Churchill cautions
film users to deconstruct the hegemonic discourse by reconstructing the knowledge base
of listeners with knowledge adequate to the purpose at hand. While Churchill is
responding more to the injustices perpetuated on American Indians in film, his narrative
still implies that the students we immerse in film criticism must become “functionally
conversant” with the depicted subject matters (Churchill, 2004, p. 48). The probability of
becoming “functionally conversant” is enhanced by discussions on leadership that are
accentuated by using film as narrative. Churchill goes on to state that it is imperative to
guard against convenient rationale dispersed by those with privileged perspectives out to
protect their privileges with arguments like “everyone knows” movies are fictions—
dramatic fantasies, to be precise—and that it is therefore “unfair” to assess films in the
23
same sense that one assesses works of ostensible nonfiction (Churchill, p. 51. Churchill
also states, “Those taking cinema to be a conveyer of literal fact are at best ‘fools,’
themselves responsible for whatever misperceptions—or delusions—they incur” (p. 51).
As well, he further cautions that “generations of children—none of whom might
reasonably be expected to exercise the sort of critical discernment at issue—have grown
up on movies and TV segments, much of it especially developed for their
consumption…. Thus conditioning an insidious sort of receptivity to conflations of fact
and fantasy among child viewers as and after they reach maturity” (p. 51).
Churchill (2004) summarizes his feelings on some of the essentials necessary for
the productive use of film as narrative by stating:
Hollywood’s filmmakers should in every respect be as much subject to the
methods of assessment—and as accountable to concomitant standards of
factuality—as are the historians, anthropologists, and other more “scholarly”
types whose material they have so enthusiastically assimilated, reformulated,
and to a noticeable extent, supplanted in the public mind. Arguing to the
contrary under the circumstances described in this section—or brought out in
corresponding class discussions—is to be actively complicit in a sophistry the
film industry has been allowed to perpetrate for far too long. (p. 53)
Churchill’s (2004) point is that using film as an educational tool is a viable
consideration that needs to be measured and mitigated or it is more problematic than
worthwhile. Churchill suggests that to use film as a teaching tool there must be a
commitment to providing as large a context as possible for the viewers of film selections.
Without implementing this strategy in a painstaking manner, we open up the door to film
24
contributing to the “conflation of fact and fantasy” (p. 51). Using film to advance
leadership development in a context of diversity & social justice is already a daunting
task in terms of the research involved. Attempting to synthesize pertinent film clips with
cutting edge scholarship on leadership is also a challenge. It is wise to take precautionary
steps in response to the potential problems that the powerful medium of film can cause.
Film also provides a certain type of immediacy and poignancy that literature often
lacks. Nina Rosenstand, building on Paul Ricouer’s theory of narrative time—the time in
a film where three days of reading a book are equivalent to generations when movie time
is considered—proposes the “narrative zone”, where people can live their lives
vicariously, acquiring life experiences that they simply may not have encountered
otherwise (Rosenstand, 2003, p. 62). Any effort to introduce students to dimensions of
leadership is advanced when passivity is avoided. This is paramount if you really want to
affect significant change in the students. Students cannot visit stereotypes repeatedly
without the threat of them absorbing those stereotypes. A leadership course that uses
film where students are taught to critically view a film or enter the narrative zone is one
of the best methods to countermand the seductiveness of stereotypes. However, as I
revealed and was suggested earlier by social justice educators Adams et al. (2009), the
establishment and equilibrium between the emotional and cognitive components of the
learning process is invaluable. My research effort endeavors to promote the
establishment of the emotional with the cognitive as what is best accomplished in the
utilization of film for leadership development.
25
Emotion’s Impact on Learning
The first and perhaps most significant criteria I used to select film as a potentially
effective tool for leadership preparation grounded in diversity & social justice are films
with emotional content. In John Dirkx’s article, The Power of Feelings: Emotion,
Imagination, and the Construction of Meaning in Adult Learning, he states that
“personally significant and meaningful learning is fundamentally grounded in and is
derived from the adult’s emotional, imaginative connection with the self and with the
broader social world” (Dirkx, 2001, p. 64). It is my contention that the utilization of
strategically chosen film clips that reflect compelling and inspiring leadership will
generate meaningful learning. Dirkx identifies the process of “meaning making,” of
engaging “emotionally charged images, as potentially providing opportunities for more
profound access to the world by inviting a deeper understanding of ourselves in
relationship with it” (p. 64). Dirkx claims that emotions inspire us to access the
dimensions of our irrationality. He suggests that the experience of emotion can reveal a
complex, contradictory self. It is my belief that Dirkx is correct when he endorses the
notion that an understanding of our multiple identities is achieved not only through
conscious, rational, and self-reflexive practices that come to populate consciousness” (p.
65), but best appropriated through film. Dirkx argues for the experience of emotion as
imaginative engagement. He explicitly states that through the perception of images with
emotional weight, individuals and groups potentially emote and connect with this deeper
reality, vicariously. We then use these vividly charged images to perceive and
understand ourselves and the world.
26
Dirkx (2001) suggests that “through the formation of images, emotion and
feelings express the personal meanings that arise for us within any given context and
serve to animate our thoughts and actions (p. 66). Films that we can relate to, that are
chosen specifically for the emotional content, can have exactly this personal meaning.
When Dirkx asserts that “these meanings arise through our imaginative connection and
engagement with these contexts,” he essentially is endorsing the fact that films chosen to
accentuate various contextual moments where we could find ourselves vulnerable are
invaluable (p. 66). Dirkx believes that because “our initial construal of meaning within
particular emotional situations is largely an act of fantasy and imagination guided by our
emotional connection with both our inner and outer worlds,” we consistently find
ourselves unexpectedly emotional over a scene in a film (p. 66). Our emotions, per
Dirkx, help us understand and make sense of ourselves, our relationships with others, and
the world we inhabit. Our experience of this inner life is inherently emotional and deeply
connected to the sense of self we construct, and maintain.
When manifest as images, emotions can be interpreted as “messengers of the
soul,” seeking to inform us of deeply personal, meaningful connections being made
within an experience (Dirkx, 2001, p. 66). Images circumvent the controlling purposes of
the ego and put us in touch with a deeper aspect of our being.
What Dirkx (2001) is saying here is that our emotional state, as shaped by the
type of images we are exposed to in film, can inform us of subconscious realities that
exist for us that without film may not have been available to us. When we watch film,
the images we perceive and process that reflect our external environments are interrelated
to our emotions and feelings and their contribution to our learning. For example, once
27
while watching a film that was set in the timeframe of my father’s adolescent years, I
watched a character that I envisioned was emulating the type of behavior that my father
exhibited, which ultimately contributed to his demise. As a result of this personal
connection to the film, I shed tears for the character on the screen in a way I never shed
them for my father in the 19 years since his death.
Dirkx (2001) goes further by stating that the text in adult learning, which can be
broadly interpreted to include film, often evokes emotionally charged images. These
images, this “text,” which can be evoked through the use of film, “are not merely
constructions of our conscious, cognitive egos” (p. 68). Emotionally charged images are
not under the willful control of the ego. Rather, they tend to appear “spontaneously
within the learning process” (p. 69). Dirkx believes that:
Images beckon us to vistas and realms of meaning not open to ordinary,
waking, ego-based consciousness. Their presence within the learning context
suggests an engagement with the soul, a deep emotional and spiritual
connection between our inner lives and some aspect of our outer experience.
(p. 69)
In essence, Dirkx is asserting that the images we connect with in film and the manner in
which those images resonate with us, can be profoundly perspective altering. Not
resisting our imagination or fighting the urge to not succumb to the emotion that films
provoke can “help us connect to and establish a relationship with this powerful, nonegoic
aspect of our being” (p. 69). By becoming aware of the images behind our emotions and
feelings, we connect with the inner forces that populate our psyche. As we learn to
participate with them in a more conscious manner, we are less likely to be unwillingly
28
buffeted around by their presence in our lives. Entering into a conscious dialogue with
these images creates the opportunity for deeper meaning and more satisfying
relationships with our world. So, embracing the emotional ride that film is often apt to
take us on can provide quite a bit of insight into our world and our place in the world. As
Dirkx suggested, “We transform ordinary existence into the ‘stuff of soul,’ establishing
through imagination a meaningful connection between the text and our life experiences”
(p. 69).
Dirkx (2001) defines text as journal writing, literature, poetry, art, movies, and
story-telling, all specific methods used to accentuate images in our relationships with
adult learners. Dirkx claims that:
By approaching emotionally charged experiences imaginatively rather than
conceptually, learners locate and construct, through enduring mythological
motifs, themes, and images, deep meaning, value, and quality in the
relationship between the text and their own life experiences. (p. 70)
Dirkx makes a compelling argument for film’s transformative impact. Dirkx’s assertion
that imagination can be an invigorating bridge between the text (in my case film) and our
lived experiences when ignited by the emotion that film can provide. Emotion igniting
imagination elevates my confidence in film as an educational resource.
Robert Sylvester’s How Emotions Affect Learning makes the case that educational
organizations often focus too much on “measurable rational qualities” (like spelling)
(1994, p. 60), as opposed to emotional well-being. However, Sylvester claims that
“emotion is important in education—it drives attention, which in turn drives learning and
memory” (p. 60). He also asserts that knowledge of how to manage emotion in an
29
educational setting has seldom been comfortably incorporated into the curriculum and
classroom. In support of the effect of emotion on learning, Sylvester states that neural
fibers project from our brain’s emotional center into the logical/rational centers much
more than the converse, demonstrating that emotion is often more of a determinant of our
behavior than our brain’s logical/rational processes. Sylvester helps explain why films
with poignant moments loaded with emotional context can be quite inspirational.
Sylvester comments that endorphin levels can be elevated by positive social interactions.
An embrace, music, a friend’s supportive comments, all can assist us in feeling good
about ourselves and our social environment. An upbeat classroom ambiance encouraging
such behaviors produces internal chemical responses in students that make them more apt
to learn how to successfully solve problems in potentially stressful situations.
Sylvester (1994) frames memories as essential to the enhancement of emotional
contexts conducive to learning.
Memories formed during a specific emotional state tend to be easily recalled
during a similar emotional state later on… Thus, classroom simulations and
role playing activities enhance learning because they tie memories to the kinds
of emotional contexts in which they will later be used. (Sylvester, p. 63)
It is the assertion Sylvester (1994) makes of memory being contextual and school
activities that inspire emotion—simulations, role playing, and cooperative projects, for
example—that may provide important contextual memory prompts that will help students
recall the information during closely related events in the real world. Film discussions on
controversial actions taken by leaders, or not taken by potential or anointed leaders, are
the type of prompts that are apt to be recalled during similar real life events.
30
In summation, this literature review, covering four significant sections, sets the
stage for my evaluation of the excerpts presented later in the dissertation. The critical
inquiry & social justice research conducted in support of this study reaffirms the
transformative nature of the film’s researched through their natural connection. The
changing roles of teachers and students accentuate the need for both of these two groups
to recognize that learning is reciprocal. Film as a conduit for classroom dialogue is vital
to efforts to transcend “teaching as transmission of content.” Emotion’s impact on
learning suggests the potential emotion has to inspire more investment in the subject
under discussion, sometimes putting a voice to someone’s shyness, or making even more
passionate the engagement with films as a medium for discourse.
31
CHAPTER III – Research Methodology
The purpose of this research, employing the methodology of content analysis, is
to evaluate 47 film clips in terms of their contribution to the professional development of
leaders within the context of diversity & social justice. Narratives in the film excerpts
were evaluated according to the following criteria: 1) capacity to engage the viewer
emotionally; 2) potential to challenge the biases of viewers; 3) potential to be viewed
from different perspectives; 4) reveal the complexities of human behavior; 5) provide
engagement with, and accentuation of multiple identities; 6) Capacity to raise social
justice questions; 7) potential to engage various dimensions of leadership in response to
social injustices within a context of diversity; 8) potential to explicate major leadership
themes (transformative, visionary, etc.) within a context of diversity & social justice
questions.
Within this study I critique the narrative within selected film excerpts that
highlight moments of potential leadership, or more concisely, leadership moments. A
leadership moment is the moment where a situation arises where someone can choose to
either take action, or not. Within my analysis I have attempted to frame, using leadership
scholarship and strategically selected film excerpts, a rationale for action within a context
of diversity & social justice.
Most of the film excerpts I selected were because they represent problematic
exchanges over identity differences and exhibit leadership moments. In all these film
scenes someone either did/did not take a leadership role. Many of them are unabashed in
their authenticity because they are depictions of stories that primarily—as a result of their
emotional content—immediately got my attention when I first viewed them. More so, I
32
chose them expecting the reader to be incapable of escaping the emotion either. I also
provide my rationale for the anticipated emotive impact of each excerpt prior to sharing
my analysis.
I provide a critical evaluation of each film clip in terms of its potential
contribution to the education and/or professional development of leaders with respect to
diversity & social justice. I organize the presentation of my research around the
following leadership related themes that emerged from my study of leadership over the
years: The Complexity of Leadership; Leadership at Risk; Authenticity & Duplicity;
Virtue Redefined; Integrity; Courage; The Necessity of Leadership Outreach; Modeling
the Way; and Understanding Leadership.
To accomplish my goals of providing an evaluation of films for the development
of leaders within a context of diversity & social justice, I posed three sub-questions.
Below is the methodology I used to accomplish my goals.
Sub-question 1: What film clips listed below meet the criteria as potentially effective
tools for leadership preparation grounded in diversity & social justice themes?
1. Rich emotional content;
1. Potential to challenge the biases of viewers;
2. Potential to be viewed from different perspectives;
3. Potential to reveal the complexities of human behavior;
4. Potential to provide engagement with, and accentuation of multiple
identities;
5. Capacity to raise social justice questions.
33
6. Potential to engage various dimensions of leadership in response to social
injustices within a context of diversity
7. Potential to explicate major leadership themes (transformative, visionary,
etc.) within a context of diversity & social justice.
Sub-question 2: In what ways does film conjoin leadership with diversity & social
justice?
Sub-question 3: What is the educational potential for leadership development by using
film to promote consciousness that leads to action?
I will address all three Sub-questions individually. In response to Sub-question 1,
every film used within this dissertation meets the criteria of potentially effective tools for
leadership preparation grounded in at least one diversity & social justice theme. The
specific primary themes that I address here are ability, race, gender, sexual orientation,
socio-economic class, and privilege. I will, however elaborate on the criteria.
A film clip with rich emotional content is one that has something about it that gets
an audience’s attention rather quickly and keeps it throughout the duration of the film
clip. It is the type of film clip that has a moment in it that people continue to discuss after
they have finished viewing the film. This is why most of the film clips included within
this dissertation are from dramatic film. Dramatic film seems to take us to those places
where we might experience the emotions that often occur in our daily lives (anger,
disbelief, angst, fear, shock). However, some of the film clips are from comedies (like
Seinfeld), though the rich emotional content within my comedic choices of film usually
come from the irony the film reveals.
34
While all the film clips included reflect rich emotional content, they are all from
popular culture or classic films, with no documentaries referred to in this dissertation.
This helps enhance the possibility that the film clip will be more familiar to the viewing
audience, which helps increase the possibility of some of the viewers entering the
conversation quicker, with their own unique perspectives.
A film clip with the potential to challenge the biases of viewers is one that either
directly presents the hypocrisy of a character (As Good As It Gets, Music Within) or
groups’ actions (12 Angry Men, Casualties of War). It is a film clip that introduces us to
our own biases through our witnessing the biased behavior within others (North Country,
Mona Lisa Smile). A film that has the potential to challenge the biases of viewers is one
that might create conversations as a result of you seeing a friend or family member within
one of the film’s moments (A Time to Kill).
A film clip with the potential to be viewed from different perspectives is virtually
any scene. Since every person sees the world differently, viewing any moment within a
film will generate a different perspective. However, I chose film clips that would truly
challenge our notions of normality or tradition because of their nuances and subtleties. I
chose film that when discussed, would reveal how very different the audience’s ways of
seeing the film may actually be, especially within a context of diversity & social justice.
For example, in the film He’s Just Not That Into You, the couple featured in the clip I
chose have a conversation that most of us have not had and possibly cannot imagine
having, and provide insight into how very different women and men might see a topic
like marriage. Or in the film clip I chose from Storytelling, the perspectives on how
different people in the classroom setting could have initiated a leadership moment is also
35
powerfully poignant. The right film clips can contribute to challenging our expectations
or societal conventions.
A film clip with the potential to reveal the complexities of human behavior is one
that has the viewer considering the actions taken within the film versus the actions the
viewer herself may have taken in her own real life situations. Again, all my film clip
choices have this potential as a result of the conversation that could ensue in response to
the leadership action taken. When we witness behavior in a film that we have never been
exposed to in our own lives (Courage Under Fire, Very Bad Things), the complexities of
human behavior are further revealed to us.
A film clip with the potential to provide engagement with, and accentuation of
multiple identities is one that often frames the protagonist/antagonist as possibly both
oppressor and oppressed. These multiple identities that may conflict with one another
occur when, for example, maleness is dominant and yet an oppressed Blackness is
present as well. So, a Black male’s inconsideration to the point of leveraging his gender
privilege is problematic if in that same moment he is complaining of racism against him.
A person’s social class status may find her privileged (Meg Ryan as commanding officer
in Courage Under Fire), yet oppressed because of her underrepresented status as a
woman officer. These conversations are rich in their complexity and provide tremendous
insight into multiple identities.
A film clip with the capacity to raise social justice questions is one that reveals
some type of social injustice (abuse of power/privilege) within the scene that requires
leadership action, or discussion on the leadership action that might have prevented or
resolved the social injustice. As well, film clips that reveal discussion, albeit
36
philosophical, (G.I. Jane, School Daze [4], Lars and the Real Girl) about alternative
action(s) also have the capacity to raise social justice questions.
A film clip with the potential to engage various dimensions of leadership in
response to social injustices within a context of diversity is one that demonstrates an array
of options available to potential agents within a given dysfunctional moment (12 Angry
Men, Soldier’s Story, Remember the Titans). These film clips usually have some type of
group think or decision making occurring that is not necessarily like minded.
A film clip with the potential to explicate major leadership themes
(transformative, visionary, etc.) within a context of diversity & social justice is one that
presents a variety of leadership styles. These styles represent responses to leadership
opportunities that threaten or may have disenfranchised someone primarily as a result of
some unique aspect of their identity.
In response to Sub-question 2, film conjoins leadership with diversity & social
justice when the film clips chosen are addressing various aspects of marginalization and
nihilism in response to differing identity and an opportunity arises where one person can
make a difference. Additionally, when a moment of injustice occurs and the person who
takes a leadership role in engaging the injustice is from a non-traditional profile of
leadership (physically challenged, woman in a typical male moment, socially oppressed
person challenging a dominant structure), the film clip provides a profound opportunity
to explore provocative conversation.
In response to Sub-question 3 the educational potential for leadership
development by using film to promote consciousness that leads to action is enhanced
through the storytelling, modeling and projection that occur in film. Film is another
37
medium that presents the narrative of our lives. Within the stories that we experience
through film are dimensions of our past and hints about our future. Characters in film
portray real people in real situations. At any given moment within a film we are apt to
see ourselves and agree or second guess the actions of the characters within the story
because in seeing ourselves within the film we become connected to it. The educational
leadership potential for leadership development through using film is never more evident
than at those times when we project ourselves into the film somehow challenging the
actions or inaction of a leader, or so-called leader.
The educational leadership development through using film to promote
consciousness that leads to action is accentuated when a strategically chosen film clip is
appropriated to accentuate a leadership theory or leadership scholarship. When done
well, the film clip provides a visual that better frames the message within the scholarship.
Film clips that aptly accentuate the scholarship it accompanies have the potential to be
better imprinted on the minds of the recipient of both these two mediums.
Data Collection Methods
The use of documents often entails a specialized analytic approach called content
analysis. The raw material for content analysis may be any form of
communication, usually written materials (textbooks, novels, newspapers, e-mail
messages); other forms of communication—music, pictures, or political
speeches—may also be included. (Marshall & Rossman, 2006, p. 108).
I use descriptive analysis to interpret my collected data (film narrative) that
reflects dimensions of document review with film. With film excerpts as my documents I
supplemented “observation with gathering and analyzing documents produced in the
38
course of everyday events or constructed specifically for the research at hand” (Marshall
& Rossman, 2006, p. 107). The observation I supplemented is exemplified in my passion
for movies and my ability to recall moments in film that represent problematic realities
reflecting leadership opportunities in a context of diversity & social justice.
The events constructed for the research at hand to be assessed critically are the
specifically selected films clips that you will see analyzed below. In these film excerpts,
which reflect socially unjust moments within a context of diversity, I engage leadership in
terms of the action/inaction, and whether leadership succeeded or failed. The documents
I scrutinize using a specialized analysis that are equivalent to the raw material that
Marshall and Rossman (2006) refer to are the transcribed narrative of conversations that
occur within the film clips I have chosen. I use content analysis upon the raw material of
scripted narrative to make my argument that leadership is best developed within a context
of diversity and social justice.
As Marshall and Rossman (2006) explain, content analysis “is viewed more
generously as a method for describing and interpreting the artifacts of a society or social
group” (p. 108). The artifact I describe and interpret is film. The society I assess,
utilizing the artifact of film, is America. The social groups that I assess are the various
subcultures, including those that have derived from social constructions that reflect or
evolved out of a response to some notion of a so-called American ideal.
Data Analysis Procedures
I recognize that the strength of content analysis is that is it “unobtrusive and
nonreactive” as well as easily checked by the reader to ascertain the details of the
analysis (CITE and page #). I also realize that the weakness of content analysis “is the
39
span of inferential reasoning” entailing my ability to parse out my “way of seeing” the
data under scrutiny (CITE and page #). I reconcile myself to the fact that my assessment
of the narrative and reasoning regarding the action taken in response to the leadership
opportunity is not necessarily the assessment everyone would concur with. Ideally, all of
my analysis of the content under scrutiny should be deemed as insight from a social
justice educator/consultant and perhaps more so, a point of departure for provocative
conversation.
Having taught classes using film to engage diversity & social justice realities for a
decade, presented workshops on diversity & social justice across the country, co-wrote
and co-directed a film on bullying Dissed Respect: The Impact of Bullying that articulates
bullying as a diversity & social justice concern, consulted (academic colleagues,
university presidents, school superintendents, high school principals, and business
leaders), and studied leadership theory at the doctoral level, I synthesize all of these
experiences into my analysis.
I opted to not attempt to be too broad based, figuring I would ultimately cover
more territory simply through the exploration of leadership themes through film. I then
decided to focus on leadership themes derived from my years of study. These are:
leadership at risk, authenticity & duplicity, virtue/integrity, courage, role modeling, the
necessity of leadership outreach, modeling the way, and understanding leadership. I
decided on these themes so as to better frame an evaluation of films for developing
leadership within a context of diversity & social justice. With a well conceived theme
and the appropriate film to accentuate the never ending lessons imbedded within that
40
theme, the lessons to be learned from the marriages of film with leadership as well as
leadership with diversity & social justice could be extremely noteworthy.
In terms of “managing, analyzing, and interpreting data” (Marshall & Rossman,
(2006, p. 151), I interpreted the data/narrative conversations from film clips in the
following ways:
1. I managed my data by recording (via transcription) the data (narrative
conversation) that occurs in all the film scenes I assess for inclusion in this
dissertation.
2. I analyzed/interpreted the data excerpted from the researched film clips for its
value in terms of the active/inactive contribution to and/or representation of some
type of a leadership opportunity. By value I am referring to its emotional content,
potential to challenge biases of viewer, potential for film to be viewed from
different perspectives, potential to reflect the complexities of human behavior,
engagement and accentuation of multiple identities, capacity to raise social justice
questions, etc. I analyzed/interpreted the data excerpted from the film clips to be
researched in terms of their contribution to the preparation of leaders in a context
of diversity & social justice.
3. I interpret/assess the data for its value in terms of engaging the possible realities
of various dimensions of leadership in response to social injustices within a
context of diversity
4. I analyze/interpret, through my lens as a social justice educator/consultant, the
merit of the film clips and narrative conversation with them, for its value to
41
explicate major leadership themes (transformative, visionary, etc.) within a
context of diversity & social justice.
5. I cross list (by film title, diversity & social justice theme, leadership theory/theme,
and other categories that emerge from the analysis that appear important) for
easier practitioner access.
6. I include a section of observational notes (about my criteria) that reflect preconsiderations of film clips selections, pre-consideration of leadership theory and
diversity and social justice research to be included.
This is the method I used to collect and analyze my data. Below is an articulation
of my subjectivity, how my personal experiences and identity affect my interpretation of
the data.
Subjective I
Reflection on one’s identity and one’s sense of voice and perspectives and
considering assumptions and sensitivities are keys to a discussion of the
researcher’s choice of questions and of researcher role. (Marshall & Rossman,
2006, p. 58)
As someone born to a racially oppressed group (once so-called Negroes), reared
in a socio-economically disadvantaged group, and reared underprivileged within the U.S.,
I recognize to the extent I can that I have a predilection of empathy towards the
oppressed. Yet as an individual privileged by gender, born able bodied, and of
heterosexual orientation, and as an adult now situated in a comfortable socio-economic
class, I understand how I might struggle if not be quite incapable at times to assess my
own dominance/privilege. In essence, these multiple conflicting identities, including a
42
consciousness relative to my identities, have provided me with an intriguingly unique
way of seeing.
My dual appointment as a lecturer in Philosophy and Interdisciplinary Studies,
along with the appointment as a director of a diversity center for a SUNY college, have
enabled me to burgeon, to some extent, into an educator with a social justice
predisposition. My philosophical interests lie in applied ethics, existentialism, and
pragmatism. My African American Studies academic pursuits have introduced me to
many of the struggles of African Americans pursuing an egalitarian status in a
historically socially unjust country. My interdisciplinary academic background has
allowed me to consider as well as explore various academic disciplines and diverse
themes from multiple perspectives. My position as the leader of the diversity initiative
on a SUNY campus has challenged me to make sure that the manner in which I promote
and educate my constituency on the campus and within the community reflect the ways I
have experienced oppression with a blind spot to my own privileges.
My never ceasing passion to develop expertise in my field has provided me
additional avenues of opportunities. I am a filmmaker, having co-wrote and co-directed
and starred in a film: Dissed-Respect: The Impact of Bullying. I have provided diversity
& social justice consultation and presentations with clients, including Wyeth
Pharmaceuticals, Princeton’s Junior Scholars Institute, Norwich University, Paul Smith’s
College, Bombardier Transportation, Pace University, and City of Seattle. All of these
experiences and subsequent insight have me passionate about this research project and
aware of its potential impact upon various constituent groups. I understand that we each
carry our way of seeing into everything that we do, which is why I have always worked
43
diligently to create conversations that allow others to contribute their voice and vision to
any perspective of diversity & social justice under consideration. This approach has
allowed me ongoing opportunities of growth. I understand that being able bodied
requires me working doubly hard to remain vigilant against being inconsiderate of people
who are differently-abled. I understand my blackness at times grants me insight into
others struggles and yet other times denies me access to certain dimensions of racial
otherness. I understand my maleness at times inhibits/prevents me from relating to
dimensions of femininity. I understand how my heterosexuality has contributed to a
degree of dysfunction relative to my gender/maleness and social class. Often the societal
conformity I acquiesce to ensures that my heterosexuality does not prevent me from
retaining my sexual orientation privilege. I also, and perhaps more importantly, believe
that developing an evaluation of films for use in leadership development within the
context of diversity & social justice can have the effect of releasing any one individual
from making their personal narratives public. Additionally, as a result of film’s
packaging and strategic engagement, the public discussion of general narratives can
become quite personal and therefore invaluable within an educational moment.
The research topic of providing an evaluation of films for use in leadership
development within the context of diversity & social justice is something I have been
pursuing informally for approximately 10 years. As the director of the Center for
Diversity, Pluralism, and Inclusion, a faculty member in Philosophy and Interdisciplinary
Studies, and a diversity consultant through my own business, Xamining Diversity, I have
had the opportunities to situate film within a diversity & social justice context to
challenge my students in college courses I have taught. I have also had the privilege of
44
challenging both colleagues and clients through professional development opportunities.
In many of these opportunities, developing or promoting leadership consideration or
action was not the emphasis or priority, though creating allies was always a goal.
Through immersion in my doctoral program in Education Leadership, I have come to
realize that to a large extent I have been doing exactly that, developing and promoting
leadership, only without the focus on leadership scholarship. In this dissertation the
leadership element that was the missing link in my work is now the primary focus.
45
CHAPTER IV – Data Analysis and Presentation of Findings
The following chapter begins with my analysis and presentation of findings,
which in essence begins with film clips that establish some of the reasons we see film the
ways we do. Thereafter I provide a more detailed excursion into assessing film makers as
leaders, since it is their art I am using to advance leadership development. I thought it
important to encourage consideration of other facets and/or various contexts of the
excerpted film clips. One of the primary arguments I am suggesting is that as a result of
our multiple identities, our dominant identities and unearned privileges often prevent us
from easily seeing or considering our biases. Film directors would not be absolved from
this phenomenon. While I do not begin to go into this facet of analysis extensively, I do
delve into it enough to hopefully imbed the need for consideration of the artist’s point of
view when doing film analysis.
Additionally, while assessing the artistry and biases of the filmmakers, I introduce
some key concepts that contribute to my analysis of the actual excerpted film scenes.
An Evaluation of Films for Use in Leadership Development
Within the Context of Diversity & Social Justice
In this dissertation I intend to introduce the reader to the use of film as an
instrument for provocative, insightful conversation on leadership within a context of
diversity & social justice. As an educator who came to his profession as an avid film fan,
I have come to know the power of film, especially when it is coupled with the appropriate
scholarship that allows the film to have more depth and the scholarship to have more life,
or perhaps to come to life. And scholarship can truly come to life if it is wedded to a
compatible film clip. The type of films that I use and highly recommend to provoke
46
and/or entice people are loaded with emotion, humor, intensity, humanity, frustration,
horror, earthiness, suddenness, anxiety, honesty, insight, politics, subtleness, love,
friendship, distance, anger, and hatred. We are, to varying extents, the films that we
make. And every film has something worthwhile in it that can be used as a conversation
starter, even if it is to be used as a sample of how not to make a movie.
So, while I know I just named a plethora of adjectives to describe what should be
looked for in a movie to educate someone, I have selected certain criteria I employ. Of
those I accentuate “emotion” or more precisely the potential of a film to provoke emotion
as an invaluable ingredient to look for. When I say emotion I do not mean tears,
necessarily, but as articulated in dictionary.com, “An affective state of consciousness in
which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like is expressed as distinguished from cognitive or
volitional states of consciousness.”
Emotion is also expended by a viewer when specific instances within film call for
a leadership moment. Leadership moments are when opportunities for leadership action
within a context of diversity & social justice have occurred, or could have occurred. A
leadership moment is that moment where an individual could make a difference,
educating others by the action she takes, or perhaps modeling actions that inspire others
to take similar actions. Unfortunately, a leadership moment is also a missed opportunity
where someone was situated to make a difference and did not. Within this study every
film clip assessed features of a leadership moment that accentuates leadership choices
within a context of diversity & social justice.
The choice of a film excerpt that an extraordinary film maker probably herself
celebrated after shooting the scene may be doubly impactful on the audience receiving it.
47
Add to the use of an engaging film clip a large, critical, passionate discussion, like one
occurring in a classroom, and you have got the ingredients for something powerful to
occur.
For an example of this, let us take two film makers that are widely successful and
focus on two of their both highly praised and box office hits, albeit to varying crowds and
thus varying extents: Steven Spielberg’s Jurassic Park – The Lost World and Woody
Allen’s Annie Hall. These films, in some intriguing ways, stand alone for their merits as
educational tools. A person with a predilection towards changing the world in a globally
just manner could find it difficult not to want to use them as educational tools. A person
with a disposition towards social justice—coupled with a moderate sense of fair play and
an understanding of the power and subtlety of media messages—who watched both of
them might find it difficult not to engage them for their imbedded messages. I actually
do unpack both of these films within this paper because they are the two films that ignited
my intellectual curiosity and perhaps assisted in cultivating my critical lens. Upon
screening Jurassic Park – The Lost World once, and admittedly Allen’s Annie Hall
multiple times, I was taken directly (immediately in the case of Jurassic Park) to the
places I unpack within this paper. However, I would not define the Jurassic Park scene
that I unpack within this document as emotional. It is not, but my
assessment/engagement of the scene could possibly be construed as philosophical,
sociological, methodological, political, educational, and perhaps inseparable from an
edgy street perspective. All of those tools are important to try to open your mind to the
possibility of receiving layered or textured messages that you may have somehow
missed. I mean, after all, when you really think about it, do you really think you get the
48
full message of any film that you see? After teaching essentially film classes, or classes
where I utilize a lot of film clips, I am convinced that my way of seeing films is quite
different from the average person and is more so now because of how much I have
learned from orchestrating well formulated conversations that featured an array of
perspectives on film moments that I really thought I had fully accessed.
I do not think I can express any clearer how much we can learn from film more
than stating how I once had the thought that Woody Allen and Spike Lee were the same
person somewhere in an alternate universe. As a graduate student in Southern California,
I once began a research project that I preliminarily named “Spike and Woody, Different
Sides of the Same Coin?” I soon realized that was a book project for the future, not a
paper to end a semester. I also realized though that Woody and Spike are both social
commentators with cultural passion packaged differently. Spike has always been so proBlack that he can appear anti-White. Woody, on the other side of the coin, has always
positioned himself as an enlightened liberal. However, he is living proof of Anais Nin’s
famous quote: We Don’t See Things as They Are, We See Them as We Are.” Woody is
about as enlightened towards racism as I was about sexual orientation coming out of
South Central Los Angeles, where I was reared from age two to adulthood. I was
clueless about any aspects of a gay person’s humanity because the only reference I had to
gay people was profanely dysfunctional having never been in a discussion about sexual
orientation. Sexual orientation, what is that? But my dysfunction was played out from
no platform at all, at least none outside of my neighborhood in Los Angeles. I had little
or no influence worthy of mentioning back in those days. Woody’s dysfunction plays out
on the international stage for all to see, though many of his viewers may not actually have
49
known they were processing it. In his defense, I believe he did not know the impact he
might have been having, or is even still having when people watch his earlier films about
New York City living. Woody, as you will see within this document, was guilty of
perpetuating what I frame as stereotypical inclusion and systematic exclusion, two
concepts I will explicate later. However, he did not go out of his way to learn them. They
are with us all the time and two of the reasons why I have undertaken this project.
Film can be used in so many powerful ways. A film series ran across a semester,
quarter, or school year can allow you to create a conversation and keep it ongoing,
attracting like minded individuals. On the right campus, in the right community, at the
right time, with the right films, it can take on its own life. A class that uses the right clips
for any given class meeting, or even full film(s) throughout a semester, can have the most
amazing and provocative discussions from the point of departure that film provides. The
diversity, in a broadly conceived sense, that can be used as a starting point for gender,
socio-economic class, or privilege conversations abounds in even a film like The
Godfather, when upon its initial release it was not necessarily being assessed for its
sexism, classism (ironically as if that is taken to task today within a Capitalistic society),
or heterosexism. So, as part and precursor of an evaluation of films for use in leadership
development in a context of diversity & social justice, I analyze in detail Woody Allen’s
racism in film. In Allen’s defense we really could focus on most filmmakers and pick
one of their societal blind spots and take them to task as well.
I use Woody Allen films, which accentuate his inability to transcend America’s
way of further perpetuating “isms.” His films reveal him succumbing to many
dysfunctional messages around differences, and then subjecting others to his re50
presenting them as well. I think it serves my purpose better to assess not just individual
film clips for their momentary value as conduits for difficult conversations, but also
specific filmmakers for the constant deluge of dysfunctional messages that they
inadvertently subject their fans too simply because they are not consciously aware of
their blind spots. However, it is only three high profile film makers that I engage. I by
no stretch of the imagination am trying to suggest every film maker does this, or that this
study delves that deep into the film making process.
Examining/Developing Leadership Through Film
Leadership and learning are indispensable from one another! -- J.F. Kennedy
We may not have polluted the air, but we need to take responsibility, along with
others, for cleaning it up. Each of us needs to look at our own behavior. Am I
perpetuating and reinforcing the negative messages so pervasive in our culture, or
am I seeking to challenge them -- Beverly Tatum
I am a strong proponent of the fact that leaders that understand how important it is
to be savvy and sophisticated about the needs of the constituencies they may lead must
continually pursue knowledge, as indicated by the John F. Kennedy quote. As well, as
suggested by the Beverly Tatum quote, a leader looks inward and is realistic. It does not
matter if this situation that requires leadership from someone was not caused by us. If we
have the skills to alter an adverse course of events, then we need to make that happen. In
the process of leading, we should also be ever vigilant in not only guarding against any
negative messages that we could inadvertently put out there, but also challenging the ones
that we recognize are occurring.
51
Utilizing film to examine leadership within a context of diversity & social justice
makes sense since film inevitably represents a wide array of scenarios that ultimately
reflect the wide ranging reality of any given constituency at any given time. Leaders care
about their constituencies and not coincidentally their constituencies are always quite
diverse. A common misconception with diversity is that when racial diversity is lacking
there is no diversity present. This thought dismisses the other elements of diversity as
inconsequential.
Film grants its viewers much easier access to examine the lives of others. More
so, when the processing of film clips is orchestrated to accentuate leadership
development, this orchestration can occur in various forms. Too often in articles/books
that address leadership development the topics of diversity & social justice are invariably
left on the editing floor, if they were ever included beyond a placating sound bite of what
I call stereotypical inclusion or systematic exclusion. Stereotypical inclusion occurs
when underrepresented people are represented in a (not necessarily deliberate)
problematic fashion. That representation features them in limited ways that further
exacerbate their various realities as somewhat dysfunctional. Systematic exclusion can
be seen in the storylines in film that would logically have various social dynamics
unfolding but for some reason the writer/director has made a decision to not include
certain images or personalities. Woody Allen films, centered in New York City are
prime examples of stereotypical inclusion and systematic exclusion.
Justification of Our Perspectives
Is it justifiable to take an artist to task for having limited vision in their art? Some
jazz musicians do not feel the need to record country music, and rock artists do not have
52
to perform rap. Neither is it the case that a director like Steven Spielberg has to direct a
movie and perhaps undertake a socially just leadership role by undertaking a theme
outside of his national character or national origin. The fact that he may choose to do so
would often be predicated on economic considerations of return on investment and a
belief that he might influence others more than anything else. However, here I am
scrutinizing Woody Allen for what could be interpreted as his duplicitous movie making.
Omissions that do not make sense or appear to transgress the borders of reason must be
evaluated for their content. It just does not seem possible that Allen could articulate a
New York perspective in sixteen films without a significant characterization of a racially
underrepresented person in one of his (16) earlier films. Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David,
writers of the hit television show, Seinfeld, articulated Judaism in many of their episodes,
but occasionally included some of the other cultural characters that reside in New York
City. Because of this constructive inclusion, Seinfeld parodied the “other” without being
unduly censured or chastised.
Steven Spielberg in The Lost World cast in the role of Jeff Goldblum’s character’s
daughter a young Black girl. In the movie, Jeff Goldblum’s character is a White man.
There was no portrayal of Goldblum’s character’s ex-wife, his daughter’s mother, in the
film. Because of this omission, there was no reason to portray the daughter as anything
other than White as well. Spielberg’s casting of a Black in the role of the daughter of a
White man in a major motion picture was bold and provocative and perhaps the act of a
visionary leader. I interpret this act by Spielberg as not just a moment of visionary
leadership, but also calculated and extremely political. It was calculated because
Spielberg knew that portraying the daughter of a White man in a movie with a Black
53
daughter would not be inconspicuous. It was a political action because Spielberg knew
he was making a statement about race and society that could be interpreted across
multiple aspects of the movie production process, including motion pictures in general,
film casting, and interracial relationships. It was visionary because he may have been
telling a tale situated in his notion of an ideal world.
The statement he made about motion pictures is that there is not and does not
have to be a one-dimensional approach to film making. Just because the traditional postmillennium method of romantic seduction in a movie is boy meets girl, boy kisses girl,
boy makes love to girl, does not mean that the escalation to ecstasy cannot be like the
more two dimensional approach depicted in the film The Truth About Cats and Dogs,
where the seduction went more like woman meets man, man and woman have phone sex,
woman kisses man. Spielberg cast off conventions with his lineage of Black girl from
White father with no necessary relationship having been established in the story line prior
to the revelation of the relationship between daughter and father. What is more,
Spielberg never went back into his narrative to explicate the tension that this unique
aspect of the story caused for his racially cognizant viewers.
Spielberg’s casting of a Black person in a role traditionally and logically reserved
for a White actress reveals Spielberg’s incorporation in his work of a calculated
ambiguity. His inclusion of blackness in his film has the language of nation creating a
language of race, except from a conflicted position. Spielberg, a Jewish liberal, is
inverting Paul Gilroy’s conception of calculated ambiguity by giving an authentic voice
to an underrepresented constituency (Gilroy, 1991). Spielberg’s wealth and Hollywood
influence allow him to position himself on the right where the language of nation is
54
normally articulated while disregarding the necessity for populist power in his attempt to
advance the language of race.
An undeniable statement, which Spielberg made regarding interracial
relationships, is that he approved of them. If he had not approved of them, then he would
not have presented the audience with a scenario that could have only come from such a
union. Spielberg made an overt statement about his politics on the issue of interracial
romance when he gave Jeff Goldblum’s character a Black daughter. Spielberg’s impact
though is manifested best through his ability to express his “vision” in a non-threatening,
non preachy manner.
Spike Lee, a Black film maker who often is likened to Allen for a similarity in
their style of film direction and movie themes, believes that all art is political, even to the
point that the conscious effort to not be political in a film is a political decision (Breskin,
1997). Along that line of thinking, Spielberg’s political ploy is apparent on so many
levels. Woody Allen’s movies, however, are done with a higher level of subterfuge if
conscious, and if actually unconscious or subconscious in their significance, then his
political faux pas are done without any sense of political correctness.
What Allen is doing in his early films is creating an image of New York City that
is without the tensions that the other brings into the various sub-cultural contexts.
Eliminating any significant Black presence in his films makes a similar, albeit more
subtle, statement than the negative representations Allen often provides in his more
stereotypical portrayals of Black lifestyles. Michael Eric Dyson’s notion of race in
subtext from his book Race Rules frames the elimination of a significant Black presence
in Allen’s films as a possible form of racism (Dyson, 1996).
55
Dyson (1996) suggests that the concept of racism should be separated into three
categories, “race as context, race as subtext, and race as pretext” (Dyson, p. 33). Race
as context Dyson defines as helping the nation to “understand the facts of race and racism
in our society” (p. 33). Race as pretext assists in understanding the function of race and
racism in America. It is his concept of race as subtext, however, which is germane to my
assessment of Allen’s racism.
For Dyson (1996), race as subtext reveals how arguments have been utilized as a
means of mystification or deliberate vagueness in regards to racism. It describes the
“different forms that racism takes, the disguises it wears, the tricky, subtle shapes it
assumes” (p. 35). Dyson states that the understanding of race as subtext helps grasp the
“hidden premises”, “buried perceptions,” and “cloaked meanings” of race as they show
up throughout our culture (p. 35). Race as subtext enables us to see how the exclusion of
any ethnic presence in an array of films centered in culturally diverse New York City and
written and directed by the same person is difficult not to interpret as a “hidden premise”
or “cloaked meaning” of some type of subtext.
Stuart Hall (1997) states:
The exclusion of blacks from the confines of [popular cinematic genres] made
them precisely, peculiar, different, and placed them ‘outside the picture.’ It
deprived them of the celebrity status, heroic charisma, the glamour and
pleasure of identification accorded to the white heroes of film. (p. 271)
The exclusion Hall (1997) addresses perpetuates an already negative historical
narrative. While the exclusion does have these deleterious effects, is also serves to frame
the excluded as people without history or presence. A significant concern with
56
filmmaking should be that directors seriously consider what they include and exclude in
their films. David Breskin, author of Inner Views, a collection of conversations he had
with a variety of filmmakers, asked Spike Lee, “Do you still feel that when you write you
are writing for a black audience?” Spike replied, “Look, Woody Allen writes for
intellectual New York City Jews and I write for Blacks. I don’t think there is any crime
in writing for a specific audience” (Breskin, 1997, p. 183).
Spike is correct that writing for a specific audience is not criminal, but his
assertion also could imply that there is no moral responsibility for a writer to address the
proper realities of the community from which their narratives originate. Allen can
represent what Lee identifies as the “intellectual New York City Jew” but not to the
chagrin of the intellectual New York City other. Allen almost makes it sound as if there
is an unspoken sentiment amongst Jews that Blacks/underrepresented people are
inconsequential outside of a context of utility for Jews.
Lee gives the impression that both he and Allen write for specific audiences, but
that cannot be true. They both are aware of the international market for their films. They
both are aware of the criticisms that normally follow their films. Conscious decisions are
made as to how Allen and Lee want to represent the characters in their films. Spike
necessarily must include in any lengthy narrative on blackness an articulation of some
element of whiteness. This is due to the irreducible linkages that exist between Whites
and their construction of the so-called Negro as precursor to the contemporary version of
the American Black. Allen, however, benefiting from being both part of a hegemonic
culture with tremendous influence in the movie industry as well as a White male with the
power to assimilate, can easily dismiss any importance or agency associated with the
57
minority population. (It should also be mentioned that if Allen does include a minority
presence in his films, it more than often is Black. Hispanic/Latino culture is more absent
than Black, and if/when present, are cast in the role of extras). Asian Americans and
Native Americans are almost non-existent in his early films situated in New York City.
If foreigners to American custom were to attend a film festival of Allen’s early
work, their image of Blacks in the U.S. would be bereft of any respect for the intellectual
contribution from Blacks. Allen’s early films portray Blacks without a voice, negating
any legitimizing momentum that is often appropriated from within the varying vehicles of
pop culture. For example, in the depiction of Sigourney Weaver in the films Alien,
Aliens, and Aliens 3, the audience is provided with a non-linear, non-traditional
representation of a hero. More to the point, in Weaver’s case, the audience is presented a
heroine within a science fiction genre that at best traditionally only framed the woman as
support for the hero, in essence framing women as limited leaders. Limited leaders I
define as part time leaders that provide companionship to the protagonist of the film and
when necessary, can and will step into a leadership role, only to relinquish it the moment
the prototypical leader has resolved whatever conflict mandated that she/he temporarily
relinquish her/his role.
In the Western movies the Unforgiven and Silverado, Morgan Freeman and
Danny Glover, respectively, were cast as supporting heroes in a genre that traditionally
provided no space for an ethnic representation other than the role of victim or extra.
Nonetheless, they were also essentially situated as “limited leaders.”
In the film Bound, Gina Gershon and Jennifer Tilly portray two women who
conspire to manipulate a mobster for the ultimate rip-off. That there are two women
58
going against the mob in a major motion picture is still somewhat peculiar (with respect
given to the film Thelma and Louise). Combine their gallantry with the fact that they are
also lesbians who act on their attraction to one another and suddenly the film and their
performances are taken out of the context of formulaic filmmaking. (Of course
sometimes the portrayal of these roles are for the potential attraction of a cross-over
audience.) All of these films legitimate appropriation of non-traditional portrayals, which
can affect or influence societal perspectives. They all are representative of a calculated
ambiguity imbedded within the story line.
If we accept Spike Lee’s position that writing for a specific audience is not
criminal, then Allen does not have a responsibility to present anything in his films except
his vision as an artist. In other words, Allen can be as nationalistic in his projects as he
chooses to be. Omi & Winant (1994) claim that nationalist projects “stress the
incompatibility of racially defined group identity with the legacy of white supremacy,
and therefore advocate a social structural solution of separation” (p. 58). What this
means for Allen’s project is that in his incorporation of Judaism into whiteness, there is
some marginalizing of “racially defined groups” that will occur due to the “social
structural solution of separation.”
Omi and Winant (1994) define a social project as “racist if and only if it creates or
reproduces structures of domination based on essentialist categories of race” (p. 71). The
essentialism that they speak of is exemplified in statements like, Asians are naturally
gifted in mathematics. Allen both creates and reproduces structures of domination based
on an essentialist category of race in his disallowance of visibility or voice of
underrepresented people. He reproduces the structure of silence by reinforcing the
59
unimportance of a voice from the underrepresented. His films are created structures that
repeatedly perpetuate the problem. Allen’s exclusion of ethnic representation in his films
suggests that there is no need to receive what these cultures might offer. This exclusion
revisits the primitive presence prescribed within the contexts of a post-slavery, newly
immigrated, newly emancipated hegemony.
Inclusion as Stereotype
Allen’s films that feature a New York environment within his story line are listed
below in descending order.
Deconstructing Harry 1998
Mighty Aphrodite 1996
Manhattan Murder Mystery 1993
Husbands & Wives 1992
Alice 1991
Oedipus Wrecks 1989
Crimes & Misdemeanors 1989
Another Woman 1988
September 1987
Hannah and Her Sisters 1986
Purple Rose of Cairo 1985
Broadway Danny Rose 1984
Annie Hall 1977
Sleeper 1973
Everything You Wanted To Know About Sex 1972
Take the Money and Run 1969
This is not Allen’s entire corpus of work. With the exception of Purple Rose of
Cairo, all of the above listed films are set in contemporary times. In none of these films
was there a central character of underrepresented status. However, there are marginal
characterizations of underrepresented people in stereotypical roles. In Hannah and Her
Sisters, there is a Black maid who services a party of about 40 people for Thanksgiving.
She does this for three consecutive Thanksgivings, and only once do we hear her voice.
It is in response to a question of when will dinner be ready. In the film, Take the Money
and Run, the representation Allen offers is atrocious. There are plenty of Blacks in this
film, but they are representing either convicts or gang members. Another scene finds
60
Allen on a chain gang where, in a depressed state of mind, he joins in on the singing of an
old Negro spiritual to pass the time away.
In the film Sleeper—a futuristic film at the time it was made—it does not look as
if Allen thinks that things will change much for underrepresented people, since the only
ones represented in the film are Black, and they are not in any role of significance.
Within the film, Allen refers to himself as a mulatto to justify why he is not a good
clarinet player and later said, “I always thought you had to be Black to be a good jazz
musician.”
In the film Alice, we finally get an ethnicity other than Black when Allen gives us
an Asian presence. An acupuncturist who is known for his “interesting” drugs, the guy is
actually portrayed as an opium smoking drug dealer. Allen justifies this characterization
by submerging the acupuncturist so deep in a stereotype of antiquated Asian culture that
you can tell that Allen believes it is acceptable. This film also gives us a depiction of a
private school that looks to be populated only by White children who all have Black
nannies picking them up from school. Also the protagonist portrayed by Mia Farrow has
a private trainer who is played by a Black man. These images of blackness are consistent
with the images that Allen is comfortable representing in his films. Two Blacks, one as a
servant and the other as an athlete, are utilized as support systems for the White
protagonist. The consideration that these stereotypical afflictions might have been the
result of a young, naive Allen was dismissed after seeing a later film, Deconstructing
Harry. In this film, Allen finally has a significant Black character as part of the story
line. She, however, is a prostitute.
61
The representations of underrepresented people in these Allen films are symbolic
of the way Allen includes underrepresented people in all his early films situated in New
York City. They are either criminals, domestics, athletes, or people on the street without
a face or voice. Below is a more detailed analysis of stereotypical inclusion within some
of Allen’s films.
Stereotypical Inclusion
Examining his seminal work, Annie Hall, Allen is portraying an up and coming
Jewish comic named Alvie Singer. Early in the film, Allen establishes his Judaism with
some off handed paranoia to a White friend concerning someone muttering the word
“Jew” under his breath. He then follows this by sharing with his White friend a
conversation he has with some guys from N.B.C. The conversation went something like
this:
How the conversation went
N.B.C. Man 1: Did you eat yet?
How Allen heard the conversation
N.B.C. Man 1: Did Jew eat yet?
N.B.C. Man 2: You?
N.B.C. Man 2: Jew?
N.B.C. Man 1: What?
N.B.C. Man 1: What?
N.B.C. Man 2: You eat, you?
N.B.C. Man 2: Jew eat, Jew?
So in these early conversations Allen firmly establishes not only his paranoia,
which is pivotal to the character he portrays in the film, but he also pays homage to the
plight of Jewish people. Allen is acknowledging that Jews are persecuted in subtle ways.
Other examples of his establishing his Judaism are found in Annie telling him that
he is what Grammy Hall would call a “real Jew.” When meeting Grammy Hall,
62
identified by Allen as a Jew hater, Allen displays Grammy Hall as only being capable of
seeing him as a Jew, to the extent of her envisioning him as a Rabbi.
Allen however, a bit later in the film, while attempting to demonstrate his wit,
resorts to stereotyping. When approached by two male Italian autograph seekers clad in
leather coats with heavy urban Italian accents, Allen responds to them saying, “What is
this, a meeting of the teamsters?” The men, who are enamored with Allen’s celebrity,
ignore the ethnic insults to which they had just been subjected, and so, Allen, almost as if
he is talking to the audience, thereafter said, “I’m standing here with the cast of the
Godfather.” Then, in his very next breath he says, “I’m standing here with two guys
named Cheech.”
Allen, as director and writer, developed this entire scene. In doing so, he must
know that it is acceptable, even politically correct, for him to satirize his culture, but
satire or humor directed at other cultures is a very delicate venture that often misfires.
Allen was comfortable satirizing the Italian culture, a culture he easily assimilates with
because on some level he has been accepted by them in their shared whiteness. It is
commonly accepted that Italian, Jews, and mostly all of Europe’s ethnicities become
categorized as White within a generation or two of their migration to America. Allen
would not have said to two Black male autograph seekers clad in leather coats, “I’m
standing here talking to the Crips (a notorious Black street gang). Allen is aware, on
some level, of what he can get away with.
Allen later in the film proceeds to categorize a woman who would become his
first of two wives in the movie. Upon hearing her thesis topic, “Political Commitment in
the 20th Century,” he responds and by doing so verbally regiments her to the status of, or
63
affiliations with following ideologues/ideologies, when he explicitly situates her as a
“New York Jewish, left wing liberal intellectual, Central Park, West Brandeis University,
Socialist summer camps, strike oriented....” He ends his attack on her with a plea for
help, “Stop me before I make a complete idiot of myself.” Her response is, “I love being
reduced to a cultural stereotype,” to which he responds, “I know I’m a bigot, but for the
left.” She then tells him, “I think you’re cute.”
Allen always positions himself on the political left. If Allen is as liberal as he
portrays himself to be in his films, it is strange that he only allows himself the company
of a restricted constituency from that left. It appears that Allen is only as liberal as he
needs to be.
He displays his homophobia when he admits to Annie Hall, portrayed by Diane
Keaton, that he “never takes a shower in public places because he never likes to get
naked in front of another man. He doesn’t want to show his body to a man of the same
gender because you never know what’s going to happen.” What is going to happen?
Will some raving mad homosexual see Allen’s nude body and not be able to constrain
himself? While the attempt at humor in the statement is obvious, does not Allen
recognize that he also is making a pejorative statement about homosexuality? He is
basically representing them as potential rapists and/or not discerning in their sexual
attraction towards others.
In a lovemaking scene with Annie Hall, Annie informs Allen that she is going to
get a cigarette (meaning marijuana). Allen responds to this with, “Grass, the illusion that
will make a White woman more like Billie Holliday.” Allen’s appropriation of the
sensuality of a Black cultural icon for his attempt at wit is racist. This is the covert,
64
coded form of racism that Dyson articulated. What Allen is saying here is that Black
women are more primitive than White women, and therefore less inhibited or perhaps
even more ferocious in bed than civilized White women. So, by Annie taking a mindaltering drug, it might allow her to escape her reality and appropriate a reality that she
might not otherwise have access to achieving.
Am I overstating the case here by pointing out Allen’s racism and sexism? In a
society that has largely been judging different groups from a distance, until that society
begins to authentically portray a range of behaviors indicative of the different groups in a
manner that they would embrace themselves, Allen’s advancing stereotypical inclusion is
not only problematic, but morally irresponsible, or better stated, reflective of
“irresponsible leadership.” Irresponsible leadership is a position of leadership that an
individual attains through either earned or unearned effort, but then willingly or
ignorantly abuses. Allen, as a celebrated film maker, has ascended to a societal position
where his voice is valued and perspective lauded. As a result of our all too often selfsegregated society and xenophobic fears, negative depictions of the other only contribute
to a dysfunctional exacerbation of the seeming negative differences at the expense of the
unseen positive attributes that should/could/would be celebrated if we could only
transcend the hype. Allen’s stereotypical inclusion contributes to the hype.
In a flashback scene of his childhood, Allen revisits a conversation between his
parents. They are arguing about the firing of the cleaning lady. The conversation goes
like this:
Dad: You fired the cleaning lady?
Mom: She was stealing!
65
Dad: But she was colored!
Mom: So!
Dad: So the colored have enough trouble!
Mom: She was going through my pocketbook!
Dad: They’re persecuted enough.
Mom: Who’s persecuted, she stole!
Dad: All right, so we can afford it.
Mom: How can we afford it, on your pay, what if she steals more?
Dad: She’s a colored woman from Harlem, she has no money. She’s got a right to steal
from us, after all, who is she going to steal from if not from us.
George Lipsitz, in his book, Time Passages, identifies this type of rhetoric as the
“dominant cultures’ version of legitimate expectations” (1990, p. 50). Allen provides a
myriad of messages within this dialogue between his parents. One is that people need to
be more understanding of Black people than they would most people, basically to the
point of condescension. He also suggests that blackness and crime often are inseparable
when his Dad says “But she was colored.” Allen also generalizes all of Harlem as an
impoverished lot with his statement through his father that, “She’s a colored woman from
Harlem, she has no money.” Allen also implies that the only people compassionate
enough to provide Blacks with an opportunity are Jews in his assertion that she had the
right to steal from them. In essence, Allen consistently does not provide the minority
presence in this or any of his films with any redeeming qualities. Now, an argument
could be made that Allen is writing his screenplays this way to advance provocative
discussions about dysfunctional conversations. However, where’s the evidence?
66
In 1997, Jack Nicholson won the Best Actor Academy Award for his portrayal of
an obsessive-compulsive sexist, racist, homophobe who converts because of obtaining a
level of familiarity with different people, if not also because of love. Nicholson’s
character and the stereotypical Archie Bunker character are acceptable because they were
written for that specific purpose. Far too often Allen’s character is unacceptable because
his character is not written to show the ignorance of prejudice. He must think it is
showing his wit and sometimes his charm. And the amazing thing is that one of his most
problematic characters is the one he portrayed in Annie Hall, which went on to win three
Academy Awards, Best Director, Best Actress, and Best Picture. It is not farfetched to
state that Annie Hall was, at minimum, a celebration of irresponsible leadership by a
duped society, and at maximum a framing of exactly how dysfunctional American
society still actually was in the mid-70s at a time when we thought at least our liberals
had a sophisticated perspective.
In The Purple Rose of Cairo, once again Allen’s lack of political correctness
becomes readily apparent. It is visible in his stereotypical treatment of the husband of the
Mia Farrow character, an unemployed Italian worker with gambling and alcohol
problems. In addition, with only one Black actor in the entire film, Allen portrays her as
an actress in the role of a maid in a motion picture where a primary character in the
movie (portrayed by Jeff Daniels) simply walks off the screen into the real world. The
reaction of the performers who are left up on the screen is one of frustration and
impatience. They are not capable of exiting the screen to experience the real world, like
their colleague did, and therefore are relegated to waiting for his return. The Black
maid’s reaction however is anachronistically uneven. Right when the Daniels character
67
leaves the screen, the Black actress enters the scene to say her lines and notices
something amiss. She exclaims, “What the hell is goin on, somebody trying to hustle
me!” This is not how a Black person would have talked to White people in an obviously
wealthy social setting in 1929. What we are given is Allen’s interpretation of how a
contemporary Black woman may have handled that moment, and that itself is a negative
assumption. Or perhaps it was Allen’s attempt at comedy. With a history in stand-up
comedy it is understandable that Allen might want to entertain his audience. However,
with the same genius that he wrote these marvelous screenplays, why would he continue
to take shortcuts in representing the other? In the scene in question, the Black actress is
the only entertainer of approximately seven left on the screen who used any type of
irreverence. Allen appears to be content with the statement her profane statements make
about Black people.
Later, in response to the soliloquy of one of the entertainers, the Black maid tells
him that he should, “Sit down and shut up, you are working my last nerve. Lord have
mercy, I can’t take all of this.” Allen’s representation of the Black woman through this
character and her dialogue is stereotypically mammyish. She is portrayed as rude,
boisterous, ill tempered, and religiously dependent.
When the entertainer returns to the screen, in the most stereotypical voice that can
be mustered, we hear the Black maid saying, “Well, it’s about time you got back!” When
the character’s love interest displays indecisiveness about whether or not she should enter
the screen world forever with her newfound love or stay off-screen with a real life person,
the camera gives the Black maid a close-up just to hear her say in the most inarticulate
68
broken English, “Go wit sumbody chile, cuz I’ze getting bored! Lord have mercy, what a
day!”
Allen has no significant roles for underrepresented people in his films. His
representation of Blacks in his films is atrocious, insulting, or non-existent. He only
assigns underrepresented people peripheral roles. In doing this, it is obvious he does not
give his peripheral performers the thought he gives his primary performers. More to the
point, as an irresponsible leader, he does not stop to consider the ramifications his
inadequately developed or stereotypically included characters might have on both the
people exposed to these images and the people who are framed by these images.
Systematic Exclusion
The exclusion of a minority presence in Allen’s films can be interpreted as
instances of Dyson’s (1996) race in subtext, racially coded moments when all of Allen’s
films fail to reflect realistic representations. The way Allen represents minorities in his
films it might be more beneficial for him to exclude the minority presence. Allen
however has answers for the questions of stereotypical inclusion and systematic
exclusion. Below is a conversation that Allen had where he was asked a specific question
regarding Blacks in his films.
S.B.:....there are almost no black people in your films. Why?
Allen: Do you mean in principle roles or in general.
S.B.: In general. We almost never see any black extras in the films even.
Allen: Well, usually there are two different situations when it comes to extras. One is
that we just call up the extra people and say, ‘Send over a hundred extras or twenty extras
or something.’ And they usually send over a mixture of Hispanics, black, and white
people. But that’s just something we call up and order for background. I mean, we don’t
buy them by the pound. Then for principle roles, I don’t know the black experience well
69
enough to really write about it with any authenticity. In fact, most of my characters are
so limited locally. They’re mostly New Yorkers, kind of upper class, educated, neurotic.
It’s almost the only thing that I ever write about, because it’s almost the only thing I
know. I just don’t know enough about these other experiences. I have, for instance,
never written anything about an Irish family or an Italian family, because I don’t really
know enough about it.
One does tend to get more blacks in the film business. But for instance, when I did
Hannah and her Sisters, I was writing about a milieu that I know quite well. And I made
the maid black because in those families 90 percent of the time the maid is black. I got a
lot of criticism from black people who wrote me letters and said, ‘You never use blacks,
and when you use one, it’s in a menial job.’ Now, I’m not thinking of that when I write
the character. In my political life -- whatever that is -- I’m always very pro all those
candidates who want the most generous accommodation for blacks. I’ve marched with
Martin Luther King in Washington. But, when I’m writing, I don’t believe in equal
opportunity or affirmative action. You can’t do that. So when I was trying to draw a
picture accurately, it just seemed to me that those families on the upper West Side almost
always had black help. So that’s the way I did it. But I did get criticized for it. I’m just
trying to depict the reality as I experience it, my own authenticity. In the same sense, if I
was depicting the kind of Jewish family that I grew up in, I would depict them accurately,
with that which is flattering and that which is unflattering. I’ve also had an enormous
amount of criticism from Jewish groups who feel that I have been very harsh or
denigrating or critical. So there’s a lot of sensitivity always on these matters. But the
only thing I try to let guide me is the authenticity of the scene. (Bjorkman, 1993, p. 46)
Applying the method of discourse analysis used by Margaret Wetherell and
Jonathan Potter in their book, Mapping the Language of Racism, we can extract from
Allen’s interview elements of justification, rationalization, categorization, attribution,
naming, blaming, and identifying.
These elements are present in everyday conversation. So the presence of them in
language determined racist is not necessarily alarming. What is alarming is when these
elements can be distinguished from true and false accounts or when the words of an
individual provide us with an outline of that individual. Allen’s words from the above
interview do not provide a feel for the reality of the situation and its pertinence within
society. The reality of the situation is that as a writer Allen is attempting to justify
70
excluding an ethnic group for lack of experience with that group; as if it were not
possible to include that group within the context of the culture articulated in the film.
There is no written law that mandates that the presence of a Black actress in a film
regulates that film to a Black cultural experience.
Allen must see Blacks as different. His justification for not having written
anything for Blacks, Italians, or Irish actors becomes ridiculous when you see Irish and
Italian actors in principal parts in his films where their culture is not a factor within the
movie.
Perhaps Allen is implying that Blacks and others are not “upper class” and
“educated” when he says I just do not know enough about “these other experiences.” His
insistence on an inability to incorporate the other comes across as bizarre when he
defends himself by saying, “When I’m writing, I don’t believe in equal opportunity or
affirmative action.” Perhaps Allen is simply attempting to rationalize and justify his guilt
of sub-textual racism as a result of systematic exclusion.
In Allen’s admittance of non-familiarity with the Black experience as a reason for
non-inclusion within any of his narratives, why does he still attempt to include an
underrepresented presence? He could just as easily have had a White domestic as
opposed to the Black maid that he had in The Purple Rose of Cairo. He could have done
without a domestic in those scenes at all. He could have simply left her without a voice,
which he did in so many of his other films (ref. September, Manhattan Murder Mystery,
Another Woman, and Crimes and Misdemeanors). Instead, he felt compelled to represent
within the film’s discourse people he is totally unfamiliar with.
71
Allen also informs us that because he has aligned himself politically with
platforms that supported a Black political agenda that he should be given the benefit of
the doubt. Perhaps on one occasion, that might be true. But his indiscretions have been
far too numerous. He sounds like he is using the standard line, “One of my best friends is
Black” when he says, “I marched with Martin Luther King in Washington.” Allen must
believe that his march with Dr. King must legitimize or serve as a panacea for any
cultural transgression or racial controversy of which he could become a perpetrator.
Allen identifies the writing he has done as authentic, stemming from his personal
experiences and life. His interpretation of blackness is that it is voiceless, and when not
that, then boisterous. Allen’s interpretation of blackness is that it is okay to include it on
the margins, but not centralized.
Our ability to recognize Allen’s art form for the problematic entity that it happens
to be is more important than we realize. As George Lipsitz claims, “The powerful
apparatuses of contemporary commercial electronic mass communications dominate
discourse in the modern world” (Lipsitz, 1990, p. 5). No longer is it safe to categorize
the type of messages garnered from Allen’s film as harmless drivel. Lipsitz states that we
are remiss in not inquiring about the origins of the messages we receive from the mass
media.
Lipsitz, like Spike Lee, allows for an artist to produce her narrative as she sees fit.
Lipsitz (1990) recognizes that there will always be another narrative that will present a
challenge to the former one. Competing narratives are not simply contests of superiority
in storytelling, but also “serve to transform cultural identity and political dialogue” (p.
34). In this regard, Allen’s narratives can be something to welcome as much as
72
something to be wary of. If the transformation in cultural identity and political dialogue
is one that accepts the marginalized, voiceless, stereotypical roles of the other articulated
in Allen’s films, then this is not a transformation that is welcomed. It is also just as
important that we recognize that if inaction as a concept is still considered a form of
action, then a parallel argument can be made that irresponsible leadership as a concept is
important to consider within a discussion of responsible leadership.
If the transformation in cultural identity is one that has the public eye more alert
to the realities of this type of mass media manipulation, then this is a transformation that
is most welcomed. One thing that is certain, though, is that assessing film in the way it is
told, or the similarities that exist between the stories it represents and what unfolds in our
real life, is a goldmine in terms of how it can serve as a point of departure, a framework
for developing leadership within a context of diversity & social justice.
Film Excerpts
The 47 films used in this study are strategically chosen. They were excerpted
from full length films and used/presented in this study in a non-thematic manner. The
clips cover many of the themes explored in diversity & social justice education, including
the topics of ability, race, gender, sexual orientation, class, privilege, and general
disenfranchisement. Many of them are quite gritty in their situational authenticity
because they are depictions of stories that as a result of their emotional content
immediately got my attention when I watched them (Sylvester, 1994). I have chosen
them for the specific reason that I am hoping you, as reader, cannot escape the emotion
either. I have also provided my rationale for the anticipated emotive impact of each film
chosen prior to sharing my analysis.
73
One concern I have about this study is the fact that to convey authenticity from
the film’s dialogue, and with most of these films having an R rating, the language is not
consistent with what you necessarily find in academic writing. However, one of my
major purposes of writing this dissertation was to inspire others to use these films, or
others to advance leadership conversations within a context of diversity & social justice.
These are the types of films that happen to reflect the social injustices we unfortunately
encounter in our everyday lives. As well, I have come to realize that it never hurts to
have a plethora of examples or additional insights into the myriad of ways we can engage
the language that often permeates many of our problematic isms.
Featured Presentations: Excerpts and Analysis
All of us can be inspiring as leaders. Most of us won’t have a public persona like
Eleanor Roosevelt’s. And most of us are unlikely to face a crisis in which we’re
asked to condone or support racial prejudice. But we will have to face different
situations where remaining ourselves, fully authentic, will be difficult, and
holding true to who we are and what we believe will make us inspiring to the
people who work for us. (Halpern & Lubar, 1998, p. 198)
The quote from Halpern and Lubar (1998) appropriately frames the potential
humans have to be inspirational as leaders. It also accentuates how—during moments
where we are challenged to exemplify authenticity in our leadership, and actually
accomplish it—we become that inspirational leader. This was sufficiently mirrored in the
film Music Within, when the protagonist (Richard portrayed by Ron Livingston) has an
opportunity to simply blend in while listening to a conversation in a bar concerning
74
President Bush’s position on inclusion of individuals who are physically challenged.
Richard does not blend in, cannot, or opts not to.
Music Within
Scene 21: (A bar owner, bartender, and one sole patron are all sitting at the bar
watching television. The bar owner then chooses to criticize President Bush for his
unappealing stance in support of the Disability Rights Act)
President Bush on Television: I’m gonna do whatever it takes to make sure the disabled
are included in the mainstream. For too long they’ve been left out, but they’re not going
to be left out anymore.
Man at Bar: (Exclaims) Jeeze, It’s Bush. Bush , Bush, Bush. If Bush wins, you know
what that means? That means I’m gonna have to renovate this whole place just to service
these retards. You know what that’s gonna cost me?
Richard (Ron Livingston): No, what’s it gonna cost you?
Man at Bar: I’m just talking about this Disabilities Act, it’s gonna…
Richard: Yeah, What’s it gonna cost you?
Man at Bar: It means I have to put in ramps. I have to put in all these kinds of things.
It’s gonna wind up…It’s gonna be a big deficit.
Richard: Right. You might have to spend, what, $1000 to get a wheelchair ramp and
widen a toilet stall so somebody can take a piss?
Man at Bar: Sir…I don’t mean anything by it, all right…
Richard: Yeah, you do. I’m one of those retards, okay. I lost my hearing in the war. You
wanna talk about how much that’s gonna cost you? Tell you what, go ahead. Go ahead,
talk about it, all right? I won’t listen. Say something funny. Tell him. Why don’t you tell
him a joke about a guy who’s got a 180 IQ but he has a brain disorder so he can’t tie his
shoe? Huh? Or a world-class skier who breaks her neck and how she needs a machine to
breathe? That’s funny stuff. And poor you, cause now you gotta sink a little bit of money
into this piece of shit restaurant. You know what? Here you go. (Richard tosses the bar
owner some money). Sorry for the inconvenience. Buy yourself a conscience.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: This scene has emotional impact as a result of the bar
owner’s apathy towards the plight of people with disabling conditions, the bartender’s
75
role as a silent bystander, and the protagonist’s response to the bar owner. It will impact
some more than others, as with most film clips, but specifically people with physically
challenged family members or friends. It could emotionally impact people who
genuinely consider and care about others, and people who are aware of the reality of
unearned privilege, and how it often creates an insensitivity in some towards the plight of
others .
Analysis: In the above transcription from the film Music Within there is an unbridled
retort from Richard to the man who was speaking from his privilege—of his privilege—
without perhaps realizing it was a direct challenge to Richard. Richard as a deaf man
with low visibility hearing aids could easily have “passed” as completely able bodied and
never exited the identity closet. But while the story itself may not necessarily serve as
inspirational because Richard’s interest and effort may have been more germane to
defending himself, it can also be argued that his actions should be assessed as more than
reactions of a member of the mythical mainstream. Richard’s indignant outrage at the bar
owner’s inconsiderate and insensitive comments inspired Richard to step full into a
leadership moment and confront the bar owner as a perpetrator of ableism and (unearned)
privilege. The scene does not just reflect Richard’s passionate rebuttal of the man’s
veiled bias and blatant ignorance, but as film does, accentuates the incident by situating it
as a possible everyday regular occurrence played out between any two individuals at your
local bar. In this case though, as is far too often portrayed in our actual daily existence,
the protagonist is an antagonist. Instead of Richard (the “film’s” protagonist) actively
engaging an episode as social injustice, Richard (as “real life” antagonist) far too often is
76
a bystander in this episode of bullying and 1) silently endorses, 2) laughingly and/or
ignorantly supports, or 3) creatively contributes.
Richard, the film’s protagonist, exhibits leadership that might have inspired others
if there were a crowd present, but there was not. On the other hand, the bar owner and
bartender both experienced the full brunt of Richard’s intense response. There is a
chance that the very next day Richard’s comments might be in either of their rear view
mirrors as they head down the road towards another insensitive statement. There is also a
chance that the bar owner’s obnoxious comments were a result of his inconsideration of
other’s realities and all he needed to experience was a moment with someone like
Richard who could poignantly place emphasis on how egregious their attitudes were.
There is a chance that the bar owner and bartender may have been slowly initiated into
the social justice movement and are only a few actions away from themselves becoming
leaders like Richard.
What is the reason that the bar owner’s way of seeing was socially unjust? The
bar owner did not exit his mother’s womb with a desire to deny people with disabling
conditions fair and equitable access. Charles Peirce (1958), one of the founders of
American Pragmatism, in his essay Fixation of Belief, posits four differing methods
whereby individuals assuage doubt. The scientific method and a priori method are two
of the four articulated by Peirce. For the purposes of my argument, though, it is the first
two methods, the method of tenacity and the method of authority that Peirce frames as
appropriate to engage as arguments for why most Americans succumb to socially unjust
perspectives.
77
Peirce (1958) argued that one of the reasons people believe in the things they do
is their fear of doubting. Fear of doubt, while operating in our subconscious mind,
nevertheless contributes to our holding onto ideas that we may be apt to dismiss if we
truly reflected upon our position.
Doubt is an uneasy and dissatisfied state from which we struggle to free
ourselves and pass into the state of belief; while the latter is a calm and
satisfactory state which we do not wish to avoid, or to change to a belief in
anything else. On the contrary, we cling tenaciously, not merely to believing,
but to believing just what we do believe.
Thus, both doubt and belief have positive effects upon us, though very
different ones. Belief does not make us act at once, but puts us into such a
condition that we shall behave in some certain way, when the occasion arises.
Doubt has not the least such active effect, but stimulates us to inquiry until it
is destroyed. (Pierce, 1958, p. 99)
The bar owner’s belief that any additional effort to service “retards” was beneath
him may have been bought into by the bar owner because of his lack of knowledge about
the realities of people with disabling conditions. Evidence of this is the fact that most
people who have familiarity with the disabled community do not refer to them as
“retards.” The bar owner could be “clinging tenaciously” to his belief that he had no
moral responsibility to the “Other” represented by people with disabilities. His lack of
familiarity with this population of people unjustly framed and too often regarded as
retards might have him situated to believe that they do not deserve any assistance that
78
might level the playing field, even though their tax dollars directly contribute to the
various realities of so-called able bodied individuals.
While the bar owner may believe that people with disabilities are “retards” and
undeserving of equal opportunities in contrast to him, his belief could waver if not for
another contributing factor as to why Peirce (1958) argues our beliefs are fixed. Peirce
calls this the method of tenacity and frames it this way:
The instinctive dislike of an undecided state of mind, exaggerated into a vague
dread of doubt, makes men cling spasmodically to the views they already take.
The man feels that, if he only holds to his belief without wavering, it will be
entirely satisfactory. Nor can it be denied that a steady and immovable faith
yields great peace of mind. It may, indeed, give rise to inconveniences, as if a
man should resolutely continue to believe that fire would not burn him…. (p.
102)
Either the bar owner had an unwavering belief in the fact that most people would
be able to appreciate his concerns about rising costs due to new governmental regulations
for an ostracized segment of our population, or he was clueless about the fact of six
degrees of separation. It was quite unsophisticated of him to think he could speak
insultingly to a stranger about a group of people with an expectation of solidarity in their
perspectives. More so, the metaphorical fire that could metaphorically burn the bar
owner could come in the form of his child or grandchild being born disabled into a world
that he littered with dysfunctional sentiments about people who could easily be deemed
as precursors to the oppression his child/grandchild might experience.
79
Peirce (1958) also articulated another method that we subconsciously adhere to,
the method of authority:
Let the will of the state act, then, instead of that of the individual. Let an
institution be created which shall have for its object to keep correct doctrines
before the attention of the people, to reiterate them perpetually, and to teach
them to the young; having at the same time power to prevent contrary
doctrines from being taught, advocated, or expressed. Let all possible causes
of a change of mind be removed from men'
s apprehensions. Let them be kept
ignorant, lest they should learn of some reason to think otherwise than they
do. Let their passions be enlisted, so that they may regard private unusual
opinions with hatred and horror. Then, let all men who reject the established
belief be terrified into silence. Let the people turn out and tar-and-feather such
men, or let inquisitions be made into the manner of thinking of suspected
persons, and when they are found guilty of forbidden beliefs, let them be
subjected to some signal punishment. When complete agreement could not
otherwise be reached, a general massacre of all who have not thought in a
certain way has proved a very effective means of settling opinion in a country.
If the power to do this be wanting, let a list of opinions be drawn up, to which
no man of the least independence of thought can assent, and let the faithful be
required to accept all these propositions, in order to segregate them as
radically as possible from the influence of the rest of the world. This method
has, from the earliest times, been one of the chief means of upholding correct
80
theological and political doctrines, and of preserving their universal or
catholic character.
In judging this method of fixing belief, which may be called the method of
authority, we must, in the first place, allow its immeasurable mental and moral
superiority to the method of tenacity. (p. 103)
The institution that was created by the U.S. Government to protect and promote
social justice is the U.S. Government itself. At times the U.S. Government has exercised
“its immeasurable mental and moral superiority” as a method to fixate belief. Perhaps
never so much as in this excerpted film clip from Birth of a Nation.
Birth of a Nation
Scene 12: Second Part-Reconstruction (Excerpts from Woodrow Wilson’s “History of the
American People” included in the film as a presidential endorsement of the film)
(The three quotations below are excerpts from the film that were rolled across the screen
to a backdrop of music. There were only these quotes on the screen, and were used to set
the stage for the film.)
The agony which the South endured that a nation might be born. The blight of
war does not end when hostilities cease. This is an historical presentation of
the Civil War and Reconstruction Period, and is not meant to reflect on any
race or people of today.
…Adventurers swarmed out of the North, as much the enemies of one race as
of the other, to cozen, beguile, and use the negroes… In the villages the
negroes were the office holders, men who knew none of the uses of authority,
except its insolence.
The policy of the congressional leaders wrought…a veritable overthrow of
civilization in the South…in their determination to ‘put the white South under
the heel of the black South.
The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self-preservation…until at
last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a veritable empire
in the South, to protect the Southern country.
81
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The anticipated emotive impact in this scene that prompts
me to use it in my classes is shock that a U.S. President’s words were actually used as
endorsement for such a racially problematic film, and that a U.S. President actually saw
the situation the way he did.
Analysis: To read the words “agony which the South endured that a nation might be
born” and “not meant to reflect on any race or people of today” imbedded within a film
that was known to be one of the blockbuster films of its time is a bit mind blowing every
time I consider it. While there is no doubt that the South endured agony in having its
way of life overturned, the fact that a U.S. President would/could choose to phrase the
historical reality of the Civil War in such a way with no mentioning of the agony endured
or yet to be endured of the emancipated and to a large extent homeless and voice less
people begs far too many questions that require answers. Unpacking Wilson’s statement
that the historical presentation of the Civil War is “not meant to reflect on any race or
people of today” makes it difficult to fathom that Wilson could even say such a thing in
good conscience. The film makes the so-called Negro look appallingly ignorant (though
ignorance should be expected of a people who were denied educational opportunities as a
part of the strategy of slavery), unsophisticated, and outright lazy. In contrast, it makes
the Southern White look like the innocent victim of Northern White gamesmanship and
nothing more. Wilson’s statements suggest that Negroes were unthinking pawns of
Northern Whites and that terrorist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan were birthed to
protect a nation unjustly assailed against. This type of rhetoric within a highly touted
film is the epitome of an example of the method of authority, if not the method of
tenacity.
82
The U.S. government’s inability, through progressive federal policies, to structure
social justice education that specifically addresses the problematic differences associated
with diversity in our society somewhat reflects the odd success of the method of
authority. If one facet of the method of authority reflects the “power to prevent contrary
doctrines from being taught, advocated, or expressed,” the U.S. government could be
taken to task for its inaction in challenging inadequate, inefficient, or insensitive and
often antiquated policies. Without these policies being challenged, antiquated notions
about possible policies that might make a difference are not seriously considered. Hence,
the bar owner in the film Music Within, who has never acquired an understanding of the
reality of people with disabling conditions, is less inclined to “think otherwise than [he
does].” Instead, Peirce (1958) would assert further, “Let their passions be enlisted, so
that they may regard private unusual opinions with hatred and horror” (p. 103).
Peirce’s (1958) articulation of the method of tenacity and the method of authority
reflect the bar owner’s position in that the bar owner was tenaciously/passionately
espousing a socially unjust position (costly ramps for people with disabling conditions)
with “hatred and horror.”
These two methods are powerful reflections of Peirce’s (1958) contribution to
American thought, which are also reflected in this scene from Quentin Tarentino’s first
film, Reservoir Dogs.
Reservoir Dogs
Scene 1: (Eight Members of an organized crime mob, all men, are having breakfast at a
diner/restaurant. All the men are identified by randomly assigned colors (i.e. Mr. Pink,
Mr. White, etc.). The Boss of the mob exits the table to pay the bill at the front door. With
everyone still sitting except the Boss, a conversation ensues…)
83
Nice Guy: Alright, everybody cough up some green for the lady. (Everyone at the table
except for Mr. Pink throws in tip money. Nice guy looks at Mr. Pink.) C’mon, throw in a
buck.
Mr. Pink: I don’t tip.
Nice Guy: You don’t tip?
Mr. Pink: I don’t believe in it.
Nice Guy: You don’t believe in tipping?
Mr. Blue: Do you know what these chicks make? They make shit.
Mr. Pink: Don’t gimme that. She don’t make enough money, she can quit.
(Mr. Blonde chuckles.)
Nice Guy: I don’t even know a fuckin’ Jew that’d have the balls to say that. Let me just
get this straight, you don’t ever tip, huh?
Mr. Pink: I don’t tip because society says I have to. Alright, I mean, I’ll tip if someone
really deserves a tip, if they really put forth the effort I’ll give ‘em somethin’ extra, but, I
mean, this tipping automatically…it’s for the birds. (Nice Guy chuckles.) I mean, as far as
I’m concerned, they’re just doin’ their job.
Mr. Blue: Hey, this girl was nice.
Mr. Pink: She was OK. She wasn’t anything special.
Mr. Blue: What’s special? Take you in the back and suck your dick?
There is laughter around the table.
Nice Guy: I’d go over 12% for that.
Mr. Pink: Look, I ordered coffee, alright? You know, we’ve been here a long, fuckin’
time, she’s only filled my cup three times. I mean, when I order coffee, I want it filled six
times.
Mr. Blonde: Six times? Well, you know, what if she’s too fuckin’ busy.
Mr. Pink: The words, “too fuckin’ busy,” shouldn’t be in a waitresses’ vocabulary.
84
Nice Guy: Excuse me, Mr. Pink, but the last fuckin’ thing you need’s another cup of
coffee.
Mr. Pink: Jesus Christ, I mean, these ladies aren’t starvin’ to death. They make
minimum wage. I mean, I used to work minimum wage and when I did, I wasn’t lucky
enough to have a job that society deemed tip worthy.
Mr. Blue: You don’t care, they’re countin’ on your tips to live?
Mr. Pink: (He rubs his thumb and index finger together.) You know what this is? It’s the
world’s smallest violin playing just for the waitresses.
Mr. White: You don’t have any idea what you’re talkin’ about. These people bust their
ass. This is a hard job.
Mr. Pink: So is working at McDonald’s, but you don’t feel the need to tip them, do you?
Well why not? They’re servin’ you food. No, society says, don’t tip these guys over here,
but tip these guys over here. That’s bullshit.
Mr. White: Waitressing is the number one occupation for female non-college graduates
in this country. It’s the one job basically any woman can get and make a living on. The
reason is because of their tips.
Mr. Pink: Fuck all that. (There are chuckles around the table.) I mean, I’m very sorry
the government taxes their tips. That’s fucked up, but that ain’t my fault. I mean, it would
appear that waitresses are among the many groups the government fucks in the ass on a
regular basis. I mean, if you show me a piece of paper that says the government shouldn’t
do that, I’ll sign it. Put it to a vote, I’ll vote for it. But what I won’t do, is play ball. And
this non-college bullshit you’re givin’ me, I got two words for that, “Learn to fuckin’
type.” ‘Cause if you’re expecting me to help out with the rent, you’re in for a big, fuckin’
surprise.
Mr. White flings something small at Mr. Pink with his spoon.
Mr. Orange: You just convinced me, gimme my dollar back.
Nice Guy: Hey! Leave the dollars there.
Boss: (enters from paying the bill) Alright ramblers, let’s get rambling. Wait a minute,
(begins counting the tip) who didn’t throw in?
Mr. Orange: Mr. Pink
Boss: Mr. Pink? Why not?
85
Mr. Orange: He don’t tip.
Boss: He don’t tip? (Turns to Mr. Pink) What do you mean you don’t tip?
Mr. Orange: He don’t believe in it.
Boss: Shut up. (Turns to Mr. Pink) What do you mean you don’t believe in it? Come on,
you. Cough up a buck, you cheap bastard. I paid for your goddamn breakfast.
Mr. Pink: Alright, since you paid for the breakfast, I’ll put in. But normally, I would
never do this. (He hands a dollar to Boss)
Boss: Never mind what you normally would do. Just cough up your goddamn buck like
everybody else. Thank you!
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The conversation between a group of criminals over such
an everyday occurrence as tipping at a restaurant should be intriguing to some simply
because we are not accustomed to hearing tipping engaged, philosophically. It may also
be problematic for some because of their experiences as servers or their vicarious
experiences relative to a family member or friend who served. Most people have eaten at
a restaurant. As a result, many of us would be curious about the behind the scenes
happenings, or inner workings of restaurants, as well as its customer relations. Also, the
conversation disparages women and Jews, so any person who does not want a front row
seat to sexism or anti-Semitism could also have an emotional reaction to this film clip.
Analysis: Mr. Pink exhibits the other side of the conundrum of fixed belief. Whereas the
bar owner in Music Within was clearly stating a position that he thought would be
popular with his other two discussants, Mr. Pink is the only person in the conversation
about tipping who has the courage to challenge this societal norm. By challenging this
societal norm Mr. Pink enters into a leadership moment. He refuses to tip automatically,
hence nonconforming to the method of tenacity whereby he would have just done it
because he always has. Additionally, Mr. Pink refused to adhere to the method of
86
authority, with society itself as the ultimate authority figure. Mr. Pink refused to
conform to the fact that “society says, don’t tip these guys over here, but tip these guys
over here.” Considering the fact that all these men were strangers, yet professional tough
guys, armed and ready for whatever, it is no small accomplishment of Mr. Pink’s to step
head on into the minority opinion.
Oddly enough, but the nonconformist Mr. Pink conforms into a bystander role
when someone refers to Jews in a disparaging manner. Mr. Pink also conforms with the
labeling of grown women (18 years of age or older) as girl, thereby further exacerbating
for all women the maintenance of men in a socialized center at the expense of infantilized
women. He also does not challenge insensitive sexual banter (as he probably would
around one of his impressionable children). Perhaps in his expectations of male bonding
he figured enough of a good old boys network still existed that misogyny in its various
forms would not be taken to task.
Mr. Pink also reveals a certain disdain for the labor of the server when he states
that the phrase “too fucking busy” should not be in the vernacular of a server. The leisure
time (perhaps even unearned privilege) available to Mr. Pink must be such that he cannot
imagine how overwhelmed a server can be at any given moment. So, Mr. Pink pushes
the envelope relative to unconsciously acting in certain ways, while exemplifying the
further perpetuation of unconscious biased/privileged/sexist acts.
Aside from the additional sexist comment relegating women towards a specific
dimension of their careers, he completely attempts to avoid any necessity of conforming
to tipping convention, even considering the threat of intervention that challenges the
87
government’s contradictory moves of necessitating a server’s reality of taxed tips as
coercion to supplement struggling young women.
Mr. Pink’s final assessment that “normally, I would never do this [tip] is as ironic
as it is problematic.” He adeptly, albeit unknowingly, represents the duality of our
humanity. Mr. Pink allows us to see him as both oppressor and oppressed,
simultaneously.
On the other hand, all the other men at the table steadfastly refuse to doubt that
Mr. Pink’s assertion about tipping could be correct. When Pierce (1958) stated that,
“Doubt is an uneasy and dissatisfied state from which we struggle to free ourselves and
pass into the state of belief” (p. 99), he was describing this crew. With the exception of
Mr. Orange at the very end, not one of them was receptive to the thought that Mr. Pink
suggested about rethinking the merits, the social conformity of tipping. Thus Pierce’s
assertion that, “We cling tenaciously, not merely to believing, but to believing just what
we do believe (p. 99) is framed tightly, repeatedly, and throughout the discourse of this
dysfunctional set of desperadoes.
A film that reveals the methods of tenacity and authority necessary to further
perpetuate conformity to doubt, or that prevents any sense of nonconformity is
Pleasantville.
Pleasantville
Scene 29: (Big Bob is in the bowling alley with some of his male friends (among them:
Gus, Roy, and Ralph). He bowls a strike and begins to chuckle with delight. Bob is
interrupted when he sees George enter the bowling alley drenched in rain water and
looking distraught.)
Bob: George? What happened? Are you alright? (Roy and Gus help Roy to a seat.) What
is it?
88
(A crowd of men begin to gather around George.)
George: Rain
Bob: Real rain?
(George nods his head as the lights flicker).
Oh, my God. Are you alright?
George: I came home like I always do… and I went in the front door…and I took off my
coat…and I put down my briefcase, and I said, “Honey, I’m home!” Only there was no
one there.
(The men all gasp.)
No wife. No lights. No dinner.
(Men gasp again and someone asks, “No dinner?”)
I went to the oven, you know, I thought she had made me one of those TV dinners.
Gus: Yeah, sure.
George: She hadn’t. She was gone. I looked and looked and looked. She was gone.
Bob: It’s gonna be fine, George. You’re with us now.
Gus: What are we gonna do, Bob?
Bob: Well we’re safe for now. Thank goodness we’re in a bowling alley. But if George
here doesn’t get his dinner, any one of us could be next. It could be you, Gus. Or you,
Roy. Or even you, Ralph. That is real rain out there, gentlemen. This isn’t some little
virus that’ll clear up on its own. Something is happening to our town, and I think we can
all see where it’s coming from. Roy, why don’t you show them what you showed me
before?
Roy: (Looks uncomfortably around.) Bob?
Bob: It’s OK, Roy. Come on up here. (Roy obeys. Bob touches Roy on the shoulder.) I
know, Roy.
(Roy pulls his jacket back and reveals an iron burn on the back of his shirt. The men gasp
and Roy puts his head into Bob’s chest as if finding sanctity or solace there.)
89
Thanks.
(Roy pulls his jacket back up and turns to face the men as Bob puts his arm around Roy’s
shoulder.)
He asked her what she was doing. She said “nothing.” She was “just thinking.” My
friends, this isn’t about George’s dinner. It’s not about Roy’s shirt. It’s a question of
values. It’s a question of whether we want to hold onto those values that made this place
great. So, a time has come to make a decision. Are we in this thing alone, or are we in it
together?
Ralph: Together
Gus: Together
The men all join in with chants of “Together.”
Anticipated Emotive Impact: In this film clip excerpted from a film that in the
beginning does not appear to necessarily be about social issues, we find ourselves all of a
sudden in a bowling alley listening to a conversation that, unfortunately, our fathers
might have been privy to. More so, it is a male conversation about our mothers,
daughters who may become mothers or wives, and women’s rights in general. It is one of
those clips that is proportionately as emotionally disturbing as you dare to ponder it
deeply. What makes it so potentially disturbing is not that once upon a time men thought
that way, but that many men still do.
Analysis: The poignancy of this scene from Pleasantville to the method of tenacity is
unsettling in how it truly frames a certain type of mentality. George’s wife’s thinking
represents the type of thought that occurs which leads to change. The men’s resistance to
that change is directly related to their loss of privilege. Who wants to all of a sudden
have to cook and iron if you can have a class of people who have always done it available
to still do it? The question of values articulated by Big Bob is a question of practicality.
90
Do the men attempt to find a way out of the impending change on the horizon, or might
they be prescient enough to recognize that imbedded within the emergence of thought of
the women in their lives is an opportunity for men to grow in response and support. The
method of tenacity is perhaps better framed by this exchange between a romantic couple
in the film He’s Just Not That Into You.
He’s Just Not That In To You
Scene 3: (Beth is sitting in the apartment she shares with her boyfriend Neil when he
walks through the door)
Beth: Hi
Neil: Hey, how ya doin’?
Beth: Good.
Neil: Yeah?
Beth: Yeah. I just got off the phone.
Neil: (He gives her a kiss on the cheek.)
Yeah?
Beth: Yeah, with my little sister.
Neil: How she doin?
(He goes into the kitchen to make tea)
Beth: She’s gettin’ married.
Neil: Really?
Beth: Yeah.
Neil: Great.
Beth: You really think that’s great?
91
Neil: Yeah. Devon seems like a great guy.
Beth: So you think it’s great that they’re getting married but you don’t ever feel like
we’re going against nature or something by not getting married?
Neil: No. (He walks into the room Beth is in.) Going against nature is like the cat who
suckled that monkey. You and I are just two people who happen not to be married. Let
me tell you something, people who get married are not to be trusted.
Beth: You are so weird.
Neil: (He sits down on the couch next to her.)
They’re not. You know why? Because if you were so legitimately happy, honestly, you
wouldn’t feel the need to make a big show out of it. You know? You wouldn’t have to
broadcast it. They do it because they’re insecure and because they think getting married
is what they’re supposed to be doing now; and so, you know, they’re lying to themselves
and they’re lying to other people. Seriously! Think about you and your friends, OK?
Beth: Uh huh.
Neil: These women you have great relationships with, you’re very close with them, some
of them you’ve known for years, right? But you don’t feel the need to go down and write
a $45 check to the State of Maryland for a friendship certificate.
Beth: Yeah. I get that.
Neil: Why should it be any different, you know, with me and you? We’re very happy. I
love you. I’m committed to you. We have a great life, you know.
Beth: Yes, you’re right.
Neil: Why can’t we just be happy?
Beth: You’re right.
Neil: I’ll make you some more tea.
Beth: K.
(He exits to make her more tea and the scene ends)
92
Anticipated Emotive Impact: Beth’s frustration with not being married may bred an
emotional response in many women who have experienced a ticking biological clock or
just impatience with promises that do not come to fruition!
Analysis: While I plan on analyzing these excerpts together and in detail later, I must
address Beth allowing Neil to suggest a parallel between friendship certificates (which do
not exist) with marriage certificates. It either was such an emotional situation for Beth
that she was not thinking straight, or Beth simply is not as adept at seeing disproportion.
The easiest route to undercut Neil’s argument would be to look at the impact of hurt on
the two states of relations, friendship and marriage. When two people end a friendship
there may be some ancillary damage (mutual friends) but in general, two adults go their
separate ways when the relationship ends. In marriage, when a relationship ends, the two
adults go their separate ways, but if they have or had kids, they are theoretically forever
linked. The same can be said of most friendships and marriages relative to property
ownership. Most friends do not own property together, while many spouses jointly own
property. Neil’s assertion that neither Beth, nor her friends, spends money on certifying
their friendships, so why should the two of them do it almost undercuts his more
powerful arguments that reflect the method of tenacity, exemplified in Neil’s statement,
“They do it because they’re insecure and because they think getting married is what
they’re supposed to be doing now.” Sometimes people need to know when to quit when
they are ahead.
He’s Just Not That Into You (2) cont…
Scene 7 Neil (It has been days since their last conversation about marriage. During that
time, Beth has been made to feel as if the world sees her as somewhat of a spinster in
93
contrast to her younger sister whose wedding ceremony is approaching. This evening
Neil is hanging up a painting in the living room. Beth walks in from outdoors)
Neil: Hey. Does that look straight to you?
Beth: Why are you hanging that?
Neil: Um, because you asked me to, about three weeks ago. I’m getting around to it.
Why? You don’t want it here?
Beth: No, I love it there, but just stop.
Neil: Why? Is it the painting? You know, it looks like kind of like a deflated boob, here.
Right? I know, it’s gonna be depressing. Should I take it down?
Beth: No, I want you to stop doing anything nice.
Neil: (Takes the photo down) This feels like a trick.
Beth: No, no, I just need you to stop being nice to me unless you’re gonna marry me
after.
Neil: (Chuckles, but uncomfortably so)
Beth: Is that funny? Do you think that’s funny?
Neil: No. I guess it’s not funny.
Beth: You can’t keep being nice to me and I can’t keep pretending that this is something
that it’s not. We’ve been together for over seven years. You know me, you know who I
am. You either wanna marry me or you don’t.
Neil: Or, (He walks over toward Beth.) there’s a possibility that I mean it when I say I
don’t believe in marriage…
Beth: Bullshit! Bullshit! C’mon! It’s bullshit for every woman that has been told by some
man that he doesn’t believe in marriage and then six months later, he’s married to some
24-year-old that he met at a gym. It’s just, it’s bullshit!
Neil: Where is this coming from?
Beth: It’s coming from a place that I’ve been hiding from you for about five years.
Neil: OK.
94
Beth: About five years because I haven’t wanted to seem demanding and I haven’t
wanted to seem clingy or psycho, or whatever. So I haven’t asked you. But I, I have to. I
mean, are you ever gonna marry me?
(They stand in silence, staring at each other for longer than is usually comfortable.)
I can’t do this anymore.
(Beth walks into another room and shuts the door, leaving Neil out in the living room)
Anticipated Emotive Impact: In a society that has built an enormously solvent industry
around the marketing of marriage, any conversation that explores such marketing is going
to be attention getting. These two scenes go there, and then some. As well, for two
people who apparently are in love to be potentially ending their relationship because of
their differing views on social conformity to a societal norm would be quite emotional.
Analysis: The fact that Beth sees Neil and her not getting married as “going against
nature or something” is intriguing, to say the least. However, that is how well marriage
has been marketed in our society. That is also how deeply entrenched the method of
tenacity is, in terms of our fixation of belief on certain cultural trappings we are
introduced to as members of our society and then far too often buy into wholeheartedly,
and perhaps even blindly. Or, stating it somewhat differently, how entrenched we are in
believing what we believe to assuage any doubt that may arise.
When Neil retorts that “people who get married are not to be trusted,” Beth’s
response is that he is “weird.” Well, it is very rare that we encounter people who not only
articulate a different way of seeing things, but then also are comfortable living
consistently with the vision they articulate to others. Neil actually should be celebrated
for responding to his leadership moment, if for no other reason than the fact he is willing
to challenge a daunting societal norm, even to the point of losing the woman he loves.
95
However, ironically Beth sees him as less weird when he challenges the notion of people
being happily married by using the actual celebration of marriage as evidence against
their happiness. In essence, Neil claims that people get married because of their
insecurities, which could also include their doubts, which takes us back to Pierce’s (1958)
fixation of belief as a cure for doubting.
In the second scene, after having endured more judgments about her non-marital
status from family and friends, Beth’s anxiety over not being married had her responding
to Neil’s refusal to marry her as a result of not believing in marriage in a very harsh, yet
revealing way. She tells him his assertion is ridiculous and basically nothing more than a
line men tell women when they are not interested enough in a certain woman. She also
admits that she had been hiding her desire to be married for about five years.
Unpacking the socialized ways we unconsciously see and respond to things—that
we often do not give a second thought to—is intricately linked to our ability to begin to
see not only a multitude of ways we are continually oppressed, but also opens the door
for our initial viewing of the role we portray in oppressing others. Establishing the
relationship between our socialization, its impact on our ability to engage a leadership
moment relative to diversity & social justice within the films Music Within, Birth of a
Nation, Reservoir Dogs, Pleasantville, and He’s Just Not That in to You is indicative of
what I will do throughout this dissertation. I wed the concept of diversity & social justice
to leadership theory to enhance the interpretation of both mediums through the use of
film.
96
The framework for my analysis of film excerpts is two pronged. Within the
analysis I am articulating how significant characters engaged leadership moments and
explicating the key criteria for the selection of the scene. As an additional resource
within this study below are two listings that should assist readers interested/invested in
developing leadership moments to better organize themselves in preparation of their
efforts. One listing has all the films that have been identified under a specific category
grouped together. The second listing provides interested/invested individuals who have a
desire to focus on diversity & social justice with a listing by excerpted clip of the specific
diversity & social justice themes to which the film clip could apply.
Cross Listing of Films Grouped by Leadership Themes
What follows is a presentation of film data built around leadership categories. I
thought it would be advantageous for the reader if I grouped the film clips used by the
specific leadership category I placed them in. I imagined it could benefit someone
interested in focusing specifically on a certain leadership style, method, or attributes, as
reflected in some of the sections in this study (i.e., Leadership at Risk, Integrity,
Authenticity and Duplicity, or Modeling the Way). Hence I have categorized them
accordingly. Parenthesis behind a film title indicates multiple usages/scenes. They are:
•
•
•
•
Preview of Coming Attractions
Music Within; Birth of a Nation; Reservoir Dogs; Pleasantville; He’s Just Not
That IntoYou
Examining Leadership through Film
Directors (Spielberg and Allen) and Their Perspectives
Complexity of Leadership
North Country; G.I. Jane; Bobby; A Time to Kill; Snow Falling on Cedars
Leadership at Risk
Casualties of War (5); Rosewood; Glory; Mona Lisa Smile; Very Bad Things
97
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Authenticity and Duplicity
Coming Home; School Daze (1-3); Crash; School Daze (4); Boiler Room
Virtue Redefined
Storytelling; Three Kings; As Good As It Gets; Santa Fe Trail; Matewan;
Bulworth; Malcolm X
Integrity
The Tuskegee Airmen; Goodwill Hunting; Geronimo; Santa Fe Trail 12 Angry
Men (2)
Courage
Grand Canyon; Finding Forester; Goodwill Hunting (2); Crash (2); Hart’s War;
ER (1-4)
The Necessity of Leadership Outreach
What Women Want (2); Soldier Story
Model the Way
Seinfeld: The Outing; Boondocks: Return of the King; Milk (1-3); Big Daddy;
Lars and the Real Girl; Malcolm X (2-3); Glory Road; Courage Under Fire (2);
The Contender
Understanding Leadership
Remember the Titans; Remember the Titans (1-2); Seinfeld: Handicap Parking
Spot; Remember the Titans (3)
Conclusion
Wizard of Oz
The categories by which I have grouped the films are not the only categories in
which the films could have been grouped. The films in the section of Authenticity and
Duplicity could just have easily been situated in the category of Integrity or
Understanding Leadership, but were not due to my interpretation of the leadership
scholarship’s fit with the excerpted clips, and of course my way of seeing as opposed to
someone else’s.
Cross Listing of Films by Diversity & Social Justice Themes
I also thought it would be advantageous for the reader if I cross listed the film
clips used for the specific moment where they addressed or could have addressed
leadership within a context of diversity & social justice. Therefore I have categorized
them according to the diversity & social justice theme to which I considered them
98
applicable. However, some fit into two categories and the list does not necessarily imply
they cannot be situated differently or somewhere else. Parenthesis behind a film title
indicates multiple usages/scenes. They are:
Ability Theme: Music Within; Storytelling; As Good As it Gets; Lars and the Real Girl;
Seinfeld: The Handicap Parking Spot; Wizard of Oz
Race Theme: A Time to Kill; Casualties of War; Crash; Finding Forester; G.I. Jane;
Glory Road; Hart’s War; Malcolm X; Remember the Titans; Rosewood; Grand Canyon;
Santa Fe Trail; Snow Falling on Cedars; Tuskegee Airmen
Gender Theme: Coming Home; The Contender; Courage Under Fire; G.I. Jane; He’s
Just Not That Into You; North Country; Mona Lisa Smile; Pleasantville; What Women
Want; Very Bad Things
Sexual Orientation: Big Daddy; ER; Lars and the Real Girl; Milk; Seinfeld: The Outing
Socio-Economic Class: Boiler Room; Boondocks: Return of the King; Bulworth;
Casualties of War; Coming Home; Crash (1&2); Good Will Hunting (2); Matewan;
Reservoir Dogs; School Daze (3 & 4); Soldier’s Story; Very Bad Things
Privilege: (While most of the film clips could be situated in this theme—because when
someone is oppressed as a consequence of their differences, often the oppressor obtains
an unearned privilege from that oppression—these specific films could be argued
belonging more in the privilege category than any other): As Good As It Gets; A Time to
Kill; Coming Home; Crash (1 & 2); Geronimo; Good Will Hunting (1); Glory; Finding
Forester; Malcolm X; Music Within; Pleasantville; Santa Fe Trail; School Daze (1 & 2);
Storytelling; Three Kings (1&2); Wizard of Oz; 12 Angry Men
Obviously some other themes (religion, age, disenfranchisement, etc.) could be
included here, but are not due to my inexperience with actually engaging them in the
extended academic context of a classroom setting.
The leadership moment is derived solely from the actions of primary characters
within the film clips and how they handle their leadership opportunity within a context of
diversity & social justice. A leadership moment is that moment, that opportunity where
an individual could make a difference, educating others by the actions the potential leader
99
takes, or perhaps even inspiring others to take similar actions. Conversely, at times a
leadership moment is unfortunately a missed opportunity where someone was situated to
make a difference, to be proactive, and was not.
The criteria for the selection of the film excerpts were established in response to
sub-question #1. It is provided below:
1. Rich emotional content;
2. Potential to challenge the biases of viewers;
3. Potential to be viewed from different perspectives;
4. Potential to reveal the complexities of human behavior;
5. Potential to provide engagement with, and accentuation of multiple
identities;
6. Capacity to raise social justice questions.
7. Potential to engage various dimensions of leadership in response to social
injustices within a context of diversity
8. Potential to explicate major leadership themes (transformative, visionary,
etc.) within a context of diversity & social justice.
At the beginning of the analysis of the various film excerpts I will specifically
identify the most significant criteria that contributed to the selection of the film clips.
However, it should also be noted that most of the film clips could be argued to feature all
eight criteria, which is why they are part of this study.
The Complexity of Leadership
Cornel West in his book Race Matters articulated that amongst the many
attributes of leadership are courageous defiance and moral vision (West, 1993). It was
100
his articulation of those two ingredients that inspired me to contextualize leadership in
relation to diversity & social justice. The crux of the diversity presentations that I have
presented at various workshops and student orientations over the years is that people need
to embrace leadership on some level or other. I define leadership in a broad enough
context where no one can avoid it. Leadership ties into diversity readily enough when
you consider that many of our interactions with our peers reveal moments where we can
exhibit courageous defiance or moral vision by challenging a statement about the
differences or dysfunctional behavior that exists between us or others outside of our
circle or respective crew. This type of leadership action (as seen in the earlier film
excerpt from Music Within) may be the beginning of a phenomenon that continues to
occur and simultaneously situates inconsiderate perpetrators to consider their actions and
perhaps begin to change their ways.
Challenging students to be leaders must be done in various ways. We know right
from wrong. We also know what hypocrisy is. When our knowledge of diversityconsiderate/socially just behavior contradicts our conscious acts, we should face the fact
that we cannot have it both ways. A leader should fully understand that if the right thing
must be done, then you do it. Perhaps a benefit of such action may be that you will be the
inspiration for others to follow. The other side of the coin is the situation where you
know what the right thing is, but you do not do it. In that case, it is hard to argue that one
is either exemplifying hypocrisy or idiocy. A hypocrite does not practice what she
preaches. An idiot is not clear on what the right thing to do may be. The generalized
moral of this story is if everyone would really take stock of their actions, considering the
consequences of those actions, would not the world be a much better place. The specific
101
moral of the story that we should be challenging our students with is that the reason
derogatory terms are often leveled at people is because we do not see the connection we
have to or with them. When we do see ourselves connected, all of a sudden a level of
respect is given that often is not available in our interactions with strangers.
I cannot imagine a clearer scenario of our inability to see ourselves connected to
others than the one that played out in the film North Country, which is based on a true
story. The film is centered on a woman named Josey (played by actress Charlize Theron)
and her battle with social injustice under the guise of sexual harassment and sexism while
just trying to maintain gainful employment in a mining town.
North Country
Scene 20: Josey and Bill enter a large auditorium where seated within is a room full of
hundreds of union members, mostly men with a few women seated in the back row.
Sharp: I never did anything to this bitch.
(people cheer)
That’s right! Now she wants to sue all of us? You know what a class action is, don’t you?
It means it’s all of them against all of us! That’s right, this bitch wants to take every
single swinging dick in this room to court. Now the other women have shown us
something here in the past few months. Telling the truth for a change. How about you?
How about that, huh? Who knew? Who knew? How about you, ladies?
(Men cheer)
I just hope nobody’s thinking of breaking the ranks. Okay, that’s it, let’s go.
Man with gavel: Ok. We all thank Mr. Sharp and the others for their enthusiastic
comments. Now before we take the oath, are there other brothers who want a turn at the
gavel?
Josey: Yeah, I’d like a turn at the gavel.
Woman (amongst other women in back of the room): Oh, she’s really lost it now.
102
(men boo as she approaches podium)
Men: Get the fuck out of here!
Get your ass home!
Man with gavel: I asked if any brothers would like to speak.
Josey: Bylaws say no meeting can adjourn if a member wants to speak his or her mind.
Man 1 stands up and grabs crotch: I got your gavel right here, bitch!
(men laugh)
Josey: I am s -- . I am still a member of this union.
Crowd: Well, come on. Say it!
Josey: My name is Josey Aimes, and
Man 2 from crowd: Hey Josey! Show us your tits!
(men cheer)
HANK (Josey’s father who is also an employee and union member stands)
Man 2 from crowd: Don’t look at me Hank! I’m not the one can’t control his family.
Hank: Listen. No. Rules say she gets to talk. You can have the gavel next but right now
she’s got it.
Man 3 from crowd: I’ll take the sucker next!
Hank: All right but she’s got it! She’s got it. (sits)
Crowd: Can’t hear you!
Josey: My father never wanted me to work here. Pretty much stopped talking to me
because of it. I know some of you here think I wanna shut down the mine.
Man 4: Don’t worry sweetheart, we won’t let it happen!
Josey: I don’t wanna shut down the mine. I just wanna go to work like everyone else. Get
paid end of the week, feed my kids, and hell maybe now and then have enough for a beer
at Tee-Gees Saturday night. And not a woman in that back row don’t know what I’m
talking about. You all know what’s been done.
103
Man with gavel: Time’s up!
Josey: We need these jobs. And it’s not gonna stop until we say stop!
Men: Three minute rule!
Josey: There’s no three minute rule!
Man 5: You heard the man! Get the fuck out!
Josey: It’s not gonna stop until we say stop. I have a right to say—
Hank approaches podium: Give me that please.
Man 6: Three minute rule!
Josey: There’s no three minute rule!
Hank: May I have it, please.
Josey: Pop. I’m not done.
Hank: I know. Please. (She gives him the mic and starts to walk away, but he grabs her
hand) Come here, baby. Stay with me. … My name is Hank Aimes. And I have been a
ranger all of my life. But I ain’t never been ashamed of it till now. When we take our
wives and daughters to the company barbecue I don’t ever hear anybody calling them
those names like “bitches” and “whores” and worse. I don’t ever see nobody grabbing
them by their privates or you know, drawing pictures of them on the bathroom walls
doing unspeakables. Unspeakables! So what’s changed? She’s still my daughter. Isn’t
she!? It’s a heck of a thing to watch one of your own get treated that way, you know.
You’re all supposed to be my friends, my brothers. Well. Right now I don’t have a friend
in this room. Fact, the only one here that I’m not ashamed of is my daughter. (puts mic
down.)
(BILL claps as others also join in.)
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The emotional impact of this scene comes from one
underrepresented person, in this case a woman, having the courage to articulate her
concerns in one of the most intimidating moments imaginable, to a group of irate people,
104
in this case men, who believe they may be on the verge of losing their most prized
possession, their gender privilege.
Analysis: As I previously mentioned, the specific moral of the story we need to
challenge our students with is that we are connected to each other; we just have to take
the time to consider the various ways. The men who overtly disrespected Josey were not
seeing her as daughter-like, or someone’s daughter. They were not seeing her as the
daughter of one of their own members. Just as significantly, Hank himself only acted out
of concern for his daughter. This is evident when he said, “She’s still my daughter. Isn’t
she!? It’s a heck of a thing to watch one of your own get treated that way, you know.”
Hank only steps partially into his leadership moment when he states that he may not be
challenging the disrespectful men’s actions if Josey was not his daughter. He actually
had stated this when he first began to speak and stated that “he had never been ashamed
of being a ranger until now.” What Hank failed to see is what most of us fail to see, that
in the grand scheme of things, any woman experiencing this kind of treatment is our
daughter. When we see ourselves connected to one another, a level of respect is extended
that often is not available in our interactions with strangers. Hank’s coworkers did not
just start to act that way. Hank had a front row seat to this type of dysfunctional behavior
and somehow stomached it by accepting a bystander role. The problem with that role for
Hank and other bystanders is that eventually the chickens will come home to roost.
Stated differently, if we do not take action when we should, we run the risk of one day no
one being there to take action for us when we may need it.
In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists, and I didn’t speak up
because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t
105
speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I
didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the
Catholics, but I didn’t speak up because I was a protestant. Then they came
for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak for me.
– Rev. Martin Niemoeller
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
– Martin Luther King Jr.
Hank’s leadership moment was not fully embraced. He did take a leadership role
in assisting his daughter, but could have done even more by identifying himself as a
hypocrite and acknowledging his shame because of it.
Aside from the inconsiderate and outright rude references to Josey as a “bitch,”
tirade laced profanity that is designed to intimidate her into silence, and some of the
men’s ill-articulated desires to see her anatomy, Josey was also subjected to what men
see as the less caustic application of terms of endearment like “sweetheart” that they
somehow deem appropriate. More so, Josey is at the mercy of a crowd that is angry at
her for taking ownership of her right to be gainfully employed without having to endure
violations of her civil rights. Josey fully engaged her leadership moment.
The fact that there were women in the crowd who viewed Josey as a threat to their
existence in the company is intriguing in itself. None of them saw Josey as a Sojourner
Truth/Jacquelyn Robinson (the female version of Jackie Robinson) breaking down social
impediments. Not one of the women saw Josey as a sister. None of the women
celebrated Josey’s initiative. Not one of the women stepped up to support her leadership
moment.
106
The membership of the union Josey addressed was all White and predominantly
male. The racial overtones of the situation are fascinating to consider in terms of whether
or not Josey would have stood alone if she had co-workers that had been subjected to
some level of racial discrimination, though her female colleagues had been subjected to it
and none of them joined her. In the film G.I. Jane, there is a conversation that covers this
territory quite well. After O’Neill (portrayed by Demi Moore) is not successful boarding
the boat, the commanding officer decides to leave her and the rest of her team out in the
water to fend for themselves to further teach them teamwork. It is during this so-called
lesson the soldiers are supposed to learn that the one Black soldier in the crew, McCool,
decides to add his perspective.
G.I. Jane
Scene 12: (In this scene O’Neill (portrayed by actress Demi Moore) is the only woman in
the crew)
Soldier on boat: Okay, McCool, get up there. Hoo-yah, baby! Come on, O’Neil. Get on
up here. Let’s go. Use your arms! God! Come on, O’Neil!
Chief: Cut her loose!
Soldier on boat: Let her go! Well, hoo-yah.
Chief: About time we dropped some dead weight. We don’t leave our people behind!
What the hell you waiting for? Get with your crew! Get in there! Let’s go! Come on, go!
You’re swimming home!
Soldier on boat: Wanna pick ‘em back up?
Chief: Let’s go home.
(The crew is then left in the water to fend for themselves)
Cortez: Well, that is bullshit. Now they’re hammering me just because she’s in my boat
crew.
107
Flea: If you kept your mouth shut, we wouldn’t be out here in the first place.
McCool (the lone Black solider in the crew): Had a grandfather wanted to be a Navy
man. He wanted to fire them big guns off them big-ass battleships. Navy says to him,
“No. You can only do one thing on a battleship, son. That’s cook.” I’m not talking about
100 years ago, either. I’m talking the United States Navy, middle of World War II. You
know the reason they gave him? The reason why they told my grandfather he couldn’t
fight for his country? ‘Cause Negroes can’t see at night. Bad night vision.
Flea: Damn, McCool. That’s unbelievable. Thank god times have changed.
McCool: Have they? So, you see, O’Neil, I know where you’re coming from. To them
you’re just the new nigger on the block, that’s all. You just moved in a little too early.
O’Neil: Thanks, man.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: This scene, though brief, will generate emotion for
women and allies of women who will enjoy hearing an underrepresented person frame
his struggle as similar to hers, and in support of her at a time she could benefit from
having an ally.
Analysis: On so many fronts, McCool showcased the complexity of leadership while he
created his own unique leadership moment. His complexity of leadership was
demonstrated in the courageous defiance he exhibited when he, as the lone Black solider,
exerted himself on behalf of O’Neill. His moral vision was exhibited in recognizing that
by asserting himself on her behalf, as an accepted male, it might leverage others to accept
her. McCool’s identification of himself to the entire group as one of the males that was
accepting of O’Neill when so many others were not, or were ambivalent about her
presence, was unabashedly embracing a self created leadership moment. He also
informed her that he could relate to her struggle, having struggled himself in some similar
ways with obtaining social justice because of socially constructed norms.
108
The struggle of two subcultures to relate, if not respect one another culturally,
while trying to consider actions to combat social injustices that threaten to cause more
tension between those same two underrepresented subcultures within American culture
(Blacks and Mexicans), as exemplified in this film clip from Bobby, is a true study in the
complexity of leadership.
Bobby
Scene 5: A group of cooks are seated around the table in the back kitchen of a
restaurant, ready to eat the food the chief chef has prepared.
Miguel: Chef’s special, Edward?
Edward: Miguel, you know if I could, I would.
Miguel: Bullshit, man. I see you servin’ the brothers the good stuff. White folks, too.
You don’t see them eatin’ this dog food.
Edward: Lord, today. Do we have to do this every day, Miguel?
Miguel: Every day you keep puttin’ the brown man down, Edward.
(Edward chuckles)
Keepin’ the brown man down.
Edward: (Chuckles) I’m puttin’ the brown man down. That’s right, let’s keep the brown
man down. Let’s send the brown man back across the border to his sweet senoritas and
refried beans.
The men around the table laugh and make, “Oooh!” sounds.
Miguel: First of all, we didn’t cross the border, the border crossed us; and our senoritas
are better than your fried-chicken eatin’ mama with the big backyard.
Men “oooh!” again.
Edward: Hey, you smell that? Look at that, my very own special berry cobbler, fresh out
of the oven! But, since you had to put my mama in it, excuse me, (hands the cobbler to
Jose, who is seated next to Miguel) here you go, Jose. Enjoy.
109
Jose: (Accepts the cobbler and chuckles) Oh, thank you.
Miguel: Come on, man.
Edward: (mockingly) “Come on, man.” (The men around the table laugh.) You Mexican
boys can’t play the dozens. I don’t know why you keep on, Miguel.
Jose: Yeah, man.
Miguel: (To Jose) Man, what do you know about the dozens?
Jose: I know that, I got some cobbler and you don’t.
Laughter around the table.
Miguel: Sellout, man.
Jose: You know.
Edward: Hey, it’s good ain’t it, Jose?
Jose: Mmm-hmm.
Edward: That recipe was handed down by my great-grandmother.
Miguel: Let me have some of that. Come on, brother.
Edward: We ain’t brothers, amigo.
Laughter around the table
Miguel: And we ain’t amigos, “bruh-thuh.”
Laughter around the table
Edward: Go ahead.
Jose: (To Edward) You um…workin’ a double shift like the rest of us?
Edward: I most certainly am not.
Miguel: You must be the only one.
Edward: And you know why.
110
Jose: Why?
Edward: Too good-looking for that mess.
Laughter.
Miguel: You ain’t workin’ a double, ‘cause whitey’s afraid of your black ass, man.
They’re afraid you’re gonna go all Huey Newton on ‘em, all violent. See, they ain’t
afraid of us yet Jose. Not yet, man, but one day, they will be, man. We’re gonna get the
respect that we deserve. We’re gonna take back California, take back our land, man.
Edward: (rises a bit so he is in Miguel’s face and hand is on Miguel’s shoulder) I want
you to take that anger and park it in my kitchen, young man.
Miguel: I want you to get your hand off my shoulder, Negro.
(Men “oooh”)
Edward: (sits back down) All right, keep it up. See, the first few times I tried to make
this dessert, I couldn’t get it right. Too much sugar one time, not enough sugar the next
time; couldn’t find the balance. I realized I was forcing it. Trying to make it taste like my
mama’s or her mama’s. Mine didn’t have any poetry, didn’t have any light. And then I
realized, I was trying to force it to taste like my mother’s, taste like her mother’s. See it
had to be Edward’s creation. Mmm-hmm. It had to come from me. Now you, Miguel,
you’ve got…shit to offer. You’ve got no poetry. You’ve got no light. You’ve got no one
looking at you and saying, “Damn, look at that Miguel. I want some of what he’s got.”
All you got is your anger.
Miguel: I ain’t angry.
Edward: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear you. Come on, speak up…
Miguel: (shouts) I said, I’m not angry!
Men around the room mutter
Edward: All right. I used to be just like you. I had anger. And then after Dr. King was
killed…well, anger like you can’t even imagine. White folks ain’t trying to keep you
down, Miguel. White folks just don’t like to be pushed into a corner. They’ll come
around. You just gotta make it look like it was their idea, like they’re the ones that
thought of it. They need to feel like they’re the great emancipators, like it was theirs to
give in the first place. Let ‘em have it. I mean, if that’s all it takes, let ‘em have it. Can
you dig it? Well, I know my man, Jose, can dig it. Can’t you?
Jose: Yeah.
111
Edward: Hmmm.
Daryl enters.
Daryl: Edward? Is that your famous cobbler I’m smelling down in my office?
Edward: (stands up) Yes sir, Mr. Timmons. I just pulled a fresh batch out of the oven,
I’ll make sure some gets to your office directly, sir. (sits down)
Miguel: (mockingly) “I’ll get some sent to your office directly, sir.” (Laughter around
the table) Step-and-fetch it motherfucker. (Edward takes Miguel’s plate) Hey.
Edward: I’m not workin’ a double shift today, though, am I…amigo? (Men “oooh.”)
Scene ends
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The emotional content in this scene may be largely in a
context of experiencing firsthand two somewhat cordial cultural allies flirting with a
hostile conversation about racial privilege. The viewer gets a firsthand glimpse at two
racially oppressed representatives of their respective races disputing over how they
engage the hegemonic culture, a rare conversation caught on film.
Analysis: Their banter across cultural lines starts off as light, witty, and harmless
amongst these two different racial/cultural groups. Miguel’s desire to take action against
oppressive forces is passionate in a manner that overrides his reason. He acknowledges
as an accomplishment of some Black organizations (Black Panthers, Black Muslims) a
respect that the hegemonic culture has acquired as a result of xenophobia around a Black
presence, or Blacks actually inciting fear by their actions or hype. He also, however,
implies that Black people were successful enough with their various social progress
movements to inspire Brown people (Mexicans) to adapt the same strategy. Miguel does
not recognize that he is revealing what appears to be his one dimensional knowledge of
112
Black struggle; that it all is violent and for it to be successful it must be predicated on a
fear of Black physicality as opposed to a respect for Black intellectuality.
Edward’s statement about challenging Miquel’s lack of poetry and inadequate
light could be a statement about Miquel’s inability to eloquently articulate his political
positions, hence no poetry. In the same sense of the poetry metaphor, Miquel’s inability
to demonstrate his “light” is reflected in his inability to see or situate himself to be seen
creatively in a light that might benefit him in a socio-political manner. Miguel’s lack of
poetry and light are what prevent him from becoming an effective leader.
Communication and self awareness are two invaluable qualities that you will find in most
successful leaders.
When Edward tells Miguel he has got “no one looking at [him] and saying,
“Damn, look at that Miguel. I want some of what he’s got,” he is telling him that not only
has he not modeled leadership, but he has not led either. He points out to Miguel that all
his anger has left him is just that, his anger, which has not much positive associated with
it beyond a release of tension.
However, it is Edward’s statement about White folk not being pushed into a
corner that could be somewhat rationalized away as an overstatement or worse, an
overreaction, when actually it might be quite accurate, and perhaps Edward’s most
significant leadership moment. Edward is suggesting to everyone within earshot a certain
type of behavior required of them and expectation by them regarding Whites. With
Whites having had the power, perhaps more to the point, dominion over someone simply
because of their whiteness, as the people with the power, making an adjustment to a more
even distribution of power that would not be in their favor can be challenging for anyone.
113
So, with whiteness as the hegemonic racial sub-culture, and many Whites accustomed to
things being done the White way as opposed to perhaps a so-called right way, Edward’s
assertion is not farfetched. Is Edward correct in that White folks will come around if the
idea of them becoming enlightened comes out of White mouths or considerations of
whiteness by Whites, as opposed to racially underrepresented mouths? Well, authors
Peggy Macintosh, Robert Jensen, and Tim Wise all get a great deal more mileage
enlightening hostile Whites to the realities of their white privilege than I, as a Black man,
could ever accomplish. When they frame White privilege they are articulating, on some
level, their enlightenment. When I frame White privilege, I am often seen as whining.
Edward’s last assertion that Whites need to feel as if their power is being
validated could not be more provocative. Is that assertion essentially Black paranoia at
its zenith, or a realistic depiction of how power is often leveraged in strategic doses, even
by those who are coerced into relinquishing small pieces of it? This is a question that
leaders must engage.
Humans are creatures of habit. A challenge extended to them to consider some of
the habits they internalize which may be counterproductive or dysfunctional is something
that may actually get their attention, especially if they are made to feel ridiculous for
succumbing to the way they have been socialized or are still being socialized. This
socialization process never truly ends.
This excerpt meets many of the evaluative criteria identified earlier. In particular
it can advance an initiative that endeavors to accentuate the relationship between
leadership and diversity. By challenging counterproductive perspectives that often
threaten to undermine the benefits of the diversity initiative and then coupling the
114
initiative with strategies on developing leadership, a more invigorated socially conscious
leader may be organically derived. This is important because many students begin their
college days already racially primed. William A. Smith (2004) in his essay Black Faculty
Coping with Racial Battle Fatigue: The Campus Racial Climate in a Post-Civil Rights
Era, insists that racial priming occurs in the socialization process for Whites, which
results in the internalization of their dominance through buying into a hype perpetuated
about them through multiple layers of discourse, imagery, transgressions and tradition
that Whites control. This is one of the reasons why in my many visits to educational
institutions when I asked groups of middle and high school students, mostly White, what
comes to mind when they hear the word “diversity,” a couple of students earnestly
replied “the N-word.” The N-word is one of the symbols of racial priming, and its
association with diversity—often itself associated with the angst of White guilt in
response to a complicated legacy of dominance over the Other—lives on even though
students who speak of it relative to diversity cannot articulate their reasons.
Hence, student leaders, or students who want to learn to lead, must be challenged
to consider the reasons they may interpret the world as they do instead of how/why their
neighbor interprets it similarly or differently.
Leadership can be promoted best when strategies are developed that assist in
speaking to students in their own language or a language that interests them. The films
evaluated here can be powerful vehicles for accomplishing this goal. If I can transform a
classroom into an environment where difficult dialogues became less problematic, I can
assist students by engaging complex issues from the safe haven of the point of departure
that film provides (Xing, 2004).
115
Ward Churchill (2004) cautions film users to deconstruct the hegemonic discourse
by reconstructing the knowledge base of listeners with knowledge adequate to the
purpose at hand. While Churchill is responding more to the injustices perpetuated on
American Indians in film, his narrative still implies that the students we immerse in film
criticism must become “functionally conversant” with the depicted subject matters (p.
48). The probability of becoming “functionally conversant” is enhanced by discussions
on leadership that are accentuated by using film as narrative. Churchill goes on to state
that it is imperative to guard against convenient rationale dispersed by those with
privileged perspectives out to protect their privileges with arguments like “everyone
knows” movies are fictions—dramatic fantasies, to be precise—and that it is therefore
“unfair” to assess films in the same sense that one assesses works of ostensible
nonfiction” (p. 51). Churchill also states, “Those taking cinema to be a conveyer of
literal fact are at best “fools,” themselves responsible for whatever misperceptions—or
delusions—they incur.” As well, he further cautions that “generations of children—none
of whom might reasonably be expected to exercise the sort of critical discernment at
issue—have grown up on movies and TV segments, much of it especially developed for
their consumption…. Thus conditioning an insidious sort of receptivity to conflations of
fact and fantasy among child viewers as and after they reach maturity” (p. 51).
Churchill (2004) summarizes his feelings on some of the essentials necessary for
the productive use of film as narrative by stating:
Hollywood’s filmmakers should in every respect be as much subject to the
methods of assessment—and as accountable to concomitant standards of
factuality—as are the historians, anthropologists, and other more “scholarly”
116
types whose material they have so enthusiastically assimilated, reformulated,
and to a noticeable extent, supplanted in the public mind. Arguing to the
contrary under the circumstances described in this section—or brought out in
corresponding class discussions—is to be actively complicit in a sophistry the
film industry has been allowed to perpetrate for far too long. (p. 53)
Churchill’s (2004) point is that using film as an educational tool is a viable
consideration that needs to be measured and mitigated or it is more problematic than
worthwhile. Churchill suggests that to use film as a teaching tool there must be a
commitment to providing as large a context as possible for the viewers of film selections.
Without implementing this strategy in a painstaking manner, we open up the door to film
contributing to the “conflation of fact and fantasy.” Using film to advance leadership
development in a context of diversity & social justice is already a daunting task in terms
of the research involved. Attempting to synthesize pertinent film clips with cutting edge
scholarship on leadership is quite a challenge. It is wise to take precautionary steps in
response to the potential problems that the powerful medium of film can cause.
Jun Xing in his article, Media Empowerment, Smashing Stereotypes, and
Developing Empathy, claims that film also provides a “certain type of immediacy and
poignancy that literature often lacks” (2004, p. 15). Nina Rosenstand, building on Paul
Ricouer’s theory of narrative time—the time in a film where three days of reading a book
are equivalent to generations when movie time is considered—proposes the narrative
zone, where people can live their lives vicariously, acquiring life experiences that they
simply may not have encountered otherwise (Rosenstand, 2003).
117
Any effort to introduce students to dimensions of leadership is advanced when
passivity is avoided. This is paramount if you really want to effect significant change in
the students. Students cannot visit stereotypes repeatedly without the threat of them
absorbing those stereotypes. A leadership course that uses film to teach students to
critically view a film or enter the narrative zone is one of the best methods to
countermand the seductiveness of stereotypes (Xing, 2004).
Xing (2004) emphasizes the merits of film as an excellent vehicle to educate one
another. He prefaces his endorsement by asserting that to make it a viable venture there
needs to be planning and thought surrounding the use of this method. In attempting to
advance a leadership initiative, it is necessary to lessen the possibility of not losing your
desired audience. I anticipate that the subject matter is not necessarily overwhelming
and/or intimidating to some of the students. Regardless, I am concerned with how
leadership should be approached. Recognizing that in a dissertation there would be no
way I could cover all the areas that leadership represents, especially since new aspects of
leadership develop daily. As a result of this study, the leadership moment evolved.
Knowing that utilizing film to examine leadership within a context of diversity &
social justice can be challenging, I consciously pursued an “emotive strategy” (Xing,
2004, p. 12). I sought film that will generate emotion while framing an aspect of
leadership. I anticipate film to be somewhat appealing in inspiring students to process
leadership moments like the ones described in the film excerpts below:
•
•
Asian American communities herded off like cattle to internment camps because
America was at war with a country that they originated from, as depicted in Snow
Falling on Cedars.
A cadre of men must come together around the death of a “professional woman”
under dubious circumstances, as depicted in Very Bad Things.
118
•
•
•
A relatively inexperienced Vietnam soldier faces an existential crisis when he
must challenge his sergeant’s leadership, as depicted in the film Casualties of
War.
An African American leader succumbing to his double consciousness by ignoring
the report of a sexual assault on a Black woman by a White officer as depicted in
Crash.
A disabled war veteran comes to terms with the role he must play in enlightening
the world he lives in about its hypocrisy, as depicted in Music Within.
The array of films listed above demonstrates how very conscious I am of what
Xing refers to as “legitimacy politics” (2004, p. 22). Choosing films is not easy,
especially when the larger purpose of this dissertation is to select films that advance
cultural and discursive practices, as well as for their complex dialectical representation of
leadership exemplified with American narratives and xenophobic practices. This is one
of the reasons I use multiple narratives covering a vast amount of territory. Examining
leadership within an American socio-political reality is an intimidating exploration.
While films like Snow Falling on Cedars remind us of the American government’s
repeated failure to live up to its articulated ethic of “all men are created equal,” those
types of films at least provided the everyday person an opportunity to rise above the
limiting confines of their experience with social injustice by exploring other’s oppression.
Perhaps my point can best be exemplified by Jake (portrayed by Matthew
McConaughey), the defense attorney for Carl Lee (portrayed by Samuel L. Jackson).
Lee, a Black man, is on trial for the murder of the two men who brutalized and raped his
Black daughter.
A Time to Kill
Scene 20-Side B: (The scene is a packed courtroom)
Jake: Now, I had a great summation all worked out, full of some sharp lawyering but I’m
not going to read it. I’m here to apologize. I am young, and I am inexperienced. But you
119
cannot hold Carl Lee Hailey responsible for my shortcomings. Ya see, in all this legal
maneuvering, something got lost. That something is the truth. Now it is incumbent upon
us lawyers not to just talk about the truth but to actually seek it, to find it, to live it. My
teacher taught me that. Let’s take Dr. Bass, for example. Now obviously I would never
knowingly put a convicted felon on the stand. I hope you can believe that. But what is the
truth? That he is a disgraced liar? What if I told you that the woman he was accused of
raping was 17, he was 23, that she later became his wife, bore his child, and is still
married to the man today? Does that make his testimony more or less true? What is it in
us that seeks the truth? Is it our minds or is it our hearts? I set out to prove blacks could
get a fair trial in the South, that we are all equal in the eyes of the law. But that’s not the
truth. ‘Cause the eyes of the law are human eyes; yours and mine, and until we can see
each other as equals, justice is never going to be evenhanded. It will remain nothing more
than a reflection of our own prejudices. So until that day, we have a duty under God to
seek the truth, not with our eyes, not with our minds, where fear and hate turn
commonality into prejudice, but with our hearts. But we don’t know better.
I want to tell you a story. I’m gonna ask you all to close your eyes while I tell you this
story. I want you to listen to me. I want you to listen to yourselves. Go ahead. Close your
eyes, please. This is a story about a little girl, walking home from the grocery store one
sunny afternoon. I want you to picture this little girl. Suddenly a truck races up. Two men
jump out and grab her. They drag her into a nearby field, and they tie her up, and they rip
her clothes from her body. Now they climb on. First one, then the other, raping her.
Shattering everything innocent and pure with a vicious thrust in a fog of drunken breath
and sweat. And when they’re done after they’ve killed her tiny womb, murdered any
chance for her to bear children, to have life beyond her own they decide to use her for
target practice. So they start throwing full beer cans at her. They throw them so hard that
it tears the flesh all the way to her bones. Then they urinate on her. Now comes the
hanging. They have a rope. They tie a noose. Imagine the noose coiling tight around her
neck and a sudden blinding jerk. She’s pulled into the air and her feet and legs go
kicking. They don’t find the ground. The hanging branch isn’t strong enough. It snaps
and she falls back to the earth. So they pick her up, throw her in the back of the truck, and
drive out to Foggy Creek Bridge, and pitch her over the edge. And she drops some 30
feet down to the creek bottom below. Can you see her? Her raped, beaten, broken body,
soaked in their urine, soaked in their semen, soaked in her blood, left to die. Can you see
her? I want you to picture that little girl. Now imagine she’s white. The defense rests your
honor.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: This scene will have emotional impact upon anyone
interested in depictions of history that reveal racial injustice. It would also have
emotional impact upon anyone who has been oppressed due to their race, or indirectly
120
felt the sting of racism toward a friend or family member. It could also resonate for
anyone interested in seeing justice, or in this case, social justice upheld.
Analysis: One of the stereotypes that we often buy into, albeit subconsciously, is that we
do not see race. That stereotype also suggests that we are colorblind to race and hence,
oblivious to the disadvantages racism visits upon people who are racially
underrepresented. The stereotype implies blindness towards different skin that makes
one oblivious to the privileges racism visits upon people in the hegemonic culture. Jake’s
closing summation strips layers of racism away when he tells the courtroom audience a
horrific tale of the attack on Carl Lee’s daughter and then ends with a challenge for them
to apply their concerns, anguish, and sense of justice to this little Black girl’s plight in the
same fashion they would to a little White girl’s situation. This little suggestion that Jake
makes to the jury is something that you would think they would already do. However,
there is possibly more of a chance that the average person really does not have the ability
to empathize with a stranger at the level that would make that stranger really more of a
brother/sister that we have yet to meet.
One of the everyday people aptly depicted challenging the prevailing paradigm of
succumbing to xenophobic practice is the defense attorney for a Japanese American war
hero in Snow Falling on Cedars. The war hero is on trial for the murder of his childhood
friend, a White American, during the time of the Japanese internment. Because of the
fact that there was a land dispute inherited from their parents—coupled with the fact that
America was at war with Japan—the prosecuting attorney does not hesitate to play the
race card to further make the case against the Japanese-American soldier.
121
Snow Falling on Cedars
Scene 16: The Japanese American soldier (Kazuo Miyamoto), recognizing the reality of
the time, already is apprehensive as to whether or not an all White jury will believe his
story over what he is concerned might be considered prima facie evidence. The
prosecuting attorney further exacerbates the soldier’s plight by saying to him
Hooks: “What, you have no answer, you sit in silence with no expression? You are a
hard man to trust, sir.”
The judge, to his credit, admonishes Mr. Hooks by saying to him:
Judge: “You know better than that. Either asks questions that count for something or sit
down.”
Hooks, refusing to be undone by the judge continues a steadfast stare at the soldier,
which forces the judge to say to Hooks:
Judge: “Shame on you!”
This prompts Hooks to end his questioning. The defense then commences to present its
summation.
Defense Attorney: There’s no evidence of rage, much less murderous rage. No reason
for premeditation, no evidence of it anywhere. He had asked his childhood friend Carl to
sell him some land. Carl was considering it. Carl’s own wife testified…that her husband
had not made up his mind. [Clears throat] A strange moment to follow and kill a man.
Don’t you think? What Mr. Hooks asks you to believe is that no proof is
needed…against a man who bombed Pearl Harbor. [Sigh] Look at his face the
prosecutor said, presuming that you will see an enemy there. He’s counting on you to
remember this war and to see Kazuo Miyamoto as somehow connected with it. Indeed he
is! Let us recall that First Lieutenant Kazuo Miyamoto is a much decorated hero of the
United States Army.
Now, Kazuo Miyamoto did…one thing wrong. He wasn’t certain he could trust us. He
was afraid that he would be made the victim of prejudice, as Mr. Hooks, indeed, is urging
you to do. And there’s reason in his uncertainty. Well, we sent him and his wife and
thousands of Americans, to concentration camps. They lost their homes, their
belongings, everything! Should we now be unforgiving of his mistrust? [Sigh] Now, our
learned prosecutor will have you do your duty as Americans, proud Americans. And, of
course, you must! And if you do, Kazuo Miyamoto has nothing to fear. Because this
great country is supposed to be founded on a set of principles of fairness, of equality and
justice. And if you are true…to these principles, you’ll only convict a man for what he’s
done, and not for who he is.
122
I, I’m an old man. I, I don’t walk so well anymore. One of my eyes is close to useless.
My life is drawing to a close. Why do I say this? I say this because it means that I
ponder matters… in the light of death, in a way that most of you do not. And I feel like a
traveler descended from Mars, astounded by what I see here. The same human frailty…
passed on from generation to generation. We hate one another. We are the victims… of
irrational fears, of prejudice. [Sigh] You might think…that this is a small trial in a small
place. Hmmm, well, it isn’t. Every once in a while, somewhere in the world, humanity
goes on trial. And integrity. And decency. Every once in a while ordinary people just
like you, ladies and gentlemen, get called on to give the report card for the human race!
In the name of humanity, do your duty as jurors. Return this man to his wife and
children. Set him free, as you must!
Anticipated Emotive Impact: This scene will probably emotionally impact JapaneseAmericans because of its historical accuracy in terms of the societal injustice levied upon
the Japanese-Americans as a result of the U.S. being at war with Japan. It may also
impact other Asian Americans because of the fact that America has placed specific
cultural groups (Japanese, Chinese, Korean, etc.) all into one category, hence forcing
upon them a shared responsibility for group identity. It potentially has emotional impact
upon anyone interested in real life depictions of film based on relatively accurate
historical facts that reveal racial/cultural injustice. It would also have emotional impact
upon anyone who has experienced racial oppression, or vicariously experienced racism.
It could also resonate for anyone interested in seeing justice, or in this case, social justice
upheld.
Analysis: In their summation, both attorneys attempted to play their best cards.
Prosecuting attorney Hooks challenges the jurists to “look clearly at the defendant. See
the truth… self evident in him, and in the facts of the case. Look into his eyes, ladies and
gentlemen. Consider his face. Ask yourself, each one of you, what is my duty as a
citizen of this community? Of this country? As an American?” Hooks was obviously
123
situating their potential verdict within a context of American patriotism, or perhaps
jingoism would be more precise.
The defense attorney however, in summarizing his case, addresses the reality of
his client as a victim within the U.S. justice system. His point that Kazuo Miyamoto was
less than forthcoming with evidence or certain aspects of his testimony has already been
accentuated by the actions of Hooks in the courtroom. It is the defense attorney’s
personal statement and personal challenge to them as a jury that redefines his actions as a
leadership moment. The defense attorney was not only fighting for justice, but for
diversity & social justice as well. The defense attorney states how intriguing it is to be an
aging, soon to be dying person. He claims that with his mortality directly in front of him,
he may have more of an unencumbered perspective than ever before. He states that on
some level when he reflects upon the happenings in this courtroom he feels as if he is a
visitor from outer space who has the ability to get outside of American cultural norms
and can see them for what they really are. He acknowledges having a degree of insight
into how Americans hate, irrationally fear, and prejudge one another. He ultimately
informs them that they need to recognize that their participation in deliberating over a
verdict transcends their case and the trappings of the courtroom they currently sit in. He
challenged them to accept the fact that their case is an opportunity for them to not just
deliver a verdict for Miyamoto, but to also make the case for the potential justice the
human race can begin to provide one another if we can move beyond our biases. He
essentially challenges the jury to themselves step into a leadership moment.
124
Leadership at Risk
Michael Jinkins and Deborah Bradshaw Jinkins in their book The Character of
Leadership: Political Realism and Public Virtue in Nonprofit Organizations suggest that,
“Sooner or later all leaders must face that crisis, that conflict, that threatens their very
survival” (Jinkins & Jinkins, 1998, p. 31). The survival that is threatened often can be
one’s livelihood or place in an organization and not necessarily translate into a life-death
situation. However, there are also those times when there is more at stake than the
monthly paycheck or a promotion. This is exceptionally exemplified in the Brian
DePalma film Casualties of War. Situated in the Vietnam era, this war film features a
young Sean Penn as the leader of a troop of men who are denied access to a Vietnamese
village for what they refer to as R&R (rest and relaxation) but in actuality would have
been procuring prostitution. As a result, Penn, as the Sergeant of a troop of five men,
decides it would be advantageous of them to commandeer a Vietnamese woman for their
exploration of the Vietnamese countryside. By doing this they would have access to her
sexuality whenever they so pleased. Michael J. Fox plays the character of Private
Eriksson, who is the only dissenting voice. The plot thickens more so because earlier in
the film the Sergeant (Penn) rescued Eriksson from imminent death.
The following segments from the film Casualties of War assist us in engaging the
development of Eriksson’s leadership style in response to crisis.
Casualties of War
Scene 11: (A group of soldiers are relaxingly sitting around their barracks)
PFC. Herbert Hatcher (John C. Reilly): Do one of you guys got a Playboy on you that
I can borrow?
PFC. Eriksson (Michael J. Fox): Geez on me?
125
Hatcher: Yeah.
Cpl. Thomas E. Clark (Don Harvey): No, man.
Hatcher: I gotta find one.
(Their Sergeant enters the room accompanied by a soldier.)
Sgt. Tony Meserve (Sean Penn): Clark, somebody sent you a present. This is Diaz from
Third Platoon. He’s Brown’s replacement. We’re out of here in the morning at 0500. I
want everyone carrying two frags. Make sure you got smoke. Sit down. Leave your vests
behind. I don’t wanna take any heat casualties out there. Beyond that, wear what you
wanna wear as long as it’s charmed… as long as it’s what made you survive to this day.
Our destination is hill two-zero-niner in the Tra Khuc River Valley. The hill overlooks
this blue line. There are caves. Battalion thinks there might be VC. We’re lookin’ for
tunnels, bunkers, unmapped trails, whatever. Now, orders are we don’t shoot except in
self-defense. But you get one of those motherfuckers out in the open, you waste him. All
right. We’ll be leaving a full hour early because at this point we’re gonna detour 2,000
meters to the south to the ville of Nghia Hanh. What we’re gonna do is requisition
ourselves a girl. A little portable R and R. It’ll break up the boredom, keep up morale.
Now, I want nothing but charmed people around me on this one, gentlemen, so bring
your good luck stuff.
Clark: [Brandishing a large, menacing knife,] Like this?
Meserve: Does it feel lucky?
Clark: It looks lucky.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The scene above and the following scenes from
Casualties of War will have emotional impact upon anyone who has a sister or daughter,
or who may desire to one day have a daughter. This scene will emotionally impact
anyone who loves and cares about protecting women. It will emotionally impact
Vietnamese as well as the general population of Asian-Americans who must endure being
seen as a monolithic Asian culture instead of their unique cultural realities. It could also
have emotional impact upon members of a culture who have had rape rationalized or
justified so as to minimize the lack of morality in the actions of the perpetrators (i.e.,
126
African Americans during slavery). It could also emotionally impact anyone who has
been oppressed due to their race, or indirectly felt the sting of racism toward a friend or
family member. It could also resonate for anyone interested in seeing justice, or in this
case, social justice upheld.
Analysis: At this point Eriksson is struggling with what he heard, or more so, thought he
understood the Sergeant saying. A direct contradiction to military orders to not shoot
except in self defense is somehow encouraged by the Sergeant by labeling the enemy a
“motherfucker.” No one in the group seems to have a problem with the new directive of
exterminating what might appear to be a soldier of the Viet Cong. Perhaps it is in the
silent assent to the suggestion of wanton murder that the Serge acquires the
empowerment to then further assert another heinous crime, the kidnapping of a village
girl for their unrequited pleasure.
(Later on, while still developing a response to the Serge’s possibly serious suggestions,
Eriksson finds someone to commiserate with.)
Casualties of War (2)
PFC. Rowan (Jack Gwaltney): Did he really say that?
Eriksson: He wouldn’t do it, would he?
Rowan: Bring a girl? Are you crazy? I mean, as short as he is? He is out of here in less
than 30 days.
Eriksson: So why did he say it?
Rowan: I-I don’t know. Well, what did the other guys think?
Eriksson: Everybody’s jokin’. Clark – Clark says, “What’s this? Some new addition to
rations?”
Rowan: Right, I mean, some broad in your pack. You see how nuts that sounds? That’ll
never happen, GI.
127
Anticipated Emotive Impact: Whispered conversations about potential kidnapping and
rape will put most people in an emotional state, anxious about the outcome.
Analysis: Unfortunately, the clandestine conversation between the two soldiers reveals
the fact that Eriksson is uncomfortable with Meserve’s leadership and the direction it
potentially is threatening to take them in. Eriksson’s consultation with Rowan appears to
be a precursor to other actions he may consider later if the events he is concerned with
actually occur.
(Later, shocked and dismayed by the ordeal that actually did occur, Eriksson struggles
with the fact that he didn’t take action to prevent the abduction.)
Sometime thereafter Eriksson initiates a conversation with Sergeant Meserve:
Casualties of War (3) cont…
Scene 14
Eriksson: Hey, Serge?
Meserve: Yeah?
Eriksson: We on track?
Meserve: Just follow the little red Crayola line. Give us about two and a half hours, we’ll
be there.
Eriksson: You gotta give me a minute here on this thing we’re doing. I mean, what we’re
doing. What are we doing, Serge?
Meserve: We’ve incarcerated a VC suspect. Is that what you’re talking about? She’s a
VC whore and we’re gonna have a little fun with her.
Eriksson: Yeah, but she’s just a farm girl, ain’t she?
Meserve: Look, you’re the cherry here, right? So lighten up. Just let me carry the weight.
Clark: What’s the problem, Serge?
Meserve: Eriksson don’t think our VC whore is a VC whore.
128
Clark: He don’t? Wow, man. You’ve been in town, Eriksson. They sell you their
children.
Eriksson: Clark, these people were sleeping in their hootch.
Clark: He got the whole wrong outlook on this thing, man. He’s all discombobulated.
You got the whole wrong outlook on this thing Eriksson.
Eriksson: What are you talkin’ about?
Meserve: He’s talkin’ about how she’s a VC.
Eriksson: She ain’t.
Meserve: I’m tellin’ you, Eriksson – This ain’t a VC. Clark ain’t. And Hatcher, he ain’t
no VC. Diaz ain’t no VC. I ain’t no fuckin’ VC. Now, this… (as he grabs the young
woman by the arm, then the noose around her neck which jerks her entire body) this is a
VC. And you – Oh, you I don’t know about.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The emotional impact in this scene comes from the
innocent young woman’s situation as a captive with horrible happenings hovering on the
horizon.
Analysis: Sergeant Meserve is now using the tactic of dehumanizing the prisoner. Not
only does he frame her as not American, but to justify what he and the other soldiers
under his command plan on doing, her humanity must also be made less evident.
Ironically, while they attempt to reduce her humanity by verbally sexualizing her, they
prepare to rape her, or perhaps in their demented minds, to have unwelcomed sexual
relations with a person they have designated as an enemy and a whore. They are
positioning themselves to punish a whore for being a whore by achieving some type of
sexual satisfaction at her expense. Meserve even takes it further by suggesting that if
Eriksson does not get onboard with everyone else, he ultimately will be all alone fending
for himself, perhaps even against some of them.
129
Casualties of War (4) cont…
Scene 16: (They have now settled in at a hut that they have commandeered. The young
Vietnamese woman is inside, bound and gagged so as not to escape or give away their
location. The soldiers are all outside the hut milling about, anticipating their so called
R & R; perhaps subconsciously preparing for a rape.)
Meserve: Mind if I pull up a chair?
Eriksson: Go ahead.
Meserve: C-rats, huh? What you got there?
Eriksson: Franks and beans.
Clark: Army don’t wanna surprise us.
Meserve: Leave it to the dinks for that, huh? How you doin’?
Eriksson: I’m all right.
Meserve: I’m sorry I jumped on you back there. Well, it’s just we’re out here, right? It’s
the fuckin’ boonies with the Cong hangin’ in every tree waiting to grease us out of
existence. What’d we hump, five, six hours of the baddest bush?
Clark: Gooks had half a brain they’d be fighting to get the hell out of this stink hole, not
to keep it.
Meserve: It’s five, six hours of the ugliest snakes and stinging spiders. Who we got to
count on in all that but each other, right?
Eriksson: Yeah.
Meserve: Come here. [He and Eriksson walk over towards the hut] Now I don’t want
any problems with you, Eriksson. I’m counting on you, as a matter of fact, in particular.
Eriksson: Yeah, well, I don’t know what the hell’s going on here, Serge.
Meserve: We’re going to, uh…interrogate the prisoner.
Eriksson: This isn’t right. We ain’t supposed to be doin’ this.
Meserve: Don’t fuck with me. You’re taking your turn in here.
Eriksson: No, I ain’t raping nobody.
130
Meserve: You think you’re saying no to me? You ain’t hotshot enough to be saying no
to me! Motherfucker! Motherfucker! You think you’re standing up to me? Huh?
Eriksson: I ain’t doing it! No way!
Meserve: What’s the matter? Don’t you like girls? Haven’t you got a pair? Is that your
problem?
Clark: What’s going on here, Sergeant?
Meserve: Eriksson don’t want to ball the dink.
Clark: How come?
Meserve: I don’t know.
Clark: He’s a chicken shit.
Meserve: Is that it? Is that your problem, Eriksson? Huh?
Eriksson: No.
Meserve: So what is it?
Clark: Maybe he’s queer.
Meserve: Is that it? You’re a faggot. Is that your goddamn problem?
Eriksson: No.
Meserve: So what is it? Everybody else is up for this! What are you looking at Diaz
for? Diaz is with the program. You got a problem with this? Huh?
PFC Antonio Diaz (John Leguizamo): Hell no, Serge.
Meserve: Okay. Would you stop lookin’ at Diaz! Oh, wait a minute. Maybe he is
queer. Maybe Eriksson’s a homosexual. We got us two gals on our patrol. Is Eriksson a
faggot, Hatcher?
PFC Herbert Hatcher (John C. Riley): I don’t know, Serge.
Meserve: I think he is.
Clark: He’s a chicken shit, man. I’m gonna cut his heart out.
131
Meserve: How are we gonna count on you? You’re a goddamn VC sympathizer. You
could get killed real easy. Don’t you know that? Somebody stumbles. They don’t mean
to shoot you. They’re sorry. Friendly fuckin’ casualty. I mean a body bag’s a body
bag, right? Who’s countin’? Your mama’s cryin’, your daddy’s pissin’ and moanin’.
Eriksson: He’s dead.
Meserve: What?
Eriksson: He’s dead. My father’s dead.
Clark: Who cares, man? Nobody cares about your goddamn family history, pal.
Nobody’s asking about that.
Meserve: You’re taking your turn in there.
Eriksson: No.
Meserve: Well, maybe when I’m done with her, I’m gonna come after you. Maybe
when I’m done humping her, I’m gonna come hump you! [Eriksson pushes away from
Sergeant Meserve and draws his rifle]
You’re gonna take an attack posture with me? Now, you got a weapon. Clark got a
weapon. Clark got a knife. We all got weapons. Anybody can blow anybody away, any
second. Which is the way it ought to be. Always. The army calls this a weapon. But it
ain’t. This is a weapon [Meserve grabs his crotch]. This is a gun. This is for fighting
[Meserve once again grabs his crotch]. This is for fun. You gonna watch.
(Serge then enters the hut, grabs the noose that is tied to the Vietnamese woman, and lifts
her up by her neck. He then walks her over to the table, tears her clothes off of her, and
commences to rape the woman. She can hardly fight back resulting from her lack of
nourishment and exhaustion for days).
(After he is finished, he departs the tent and we are left with an image of the sexually
abused woman attempting to recover from being sexually terrorized as another soldier is
chosen as next.)
Clark: You take security, Eriksson. You got security.
Hatcher: Who’s next, man?
Clark: Not you, man.
Hatcher: I wish we had some beers, man, you know? I’d really like an ice-cold beer
man, you know?
132
(Meserve’s insistence that Eriksson follow his order and rape the Vietnamese woman
may be buttressed with the fact that earlier in the film Meserve saved Eriksson from
imminent death. Though the viewing audience does see it, it is conceivable that this huge
incident would be/should be foremost in Eriksson’s mind as he contemplates all of his
actions in response to Meserve’s dysfunctional leadership. It definitely adds a layer of
complexity as to how Eriksson may see the enigmatic Meserve.)
(After raping the young woman, Meserve returns to the men awaiting an opportunity as
well and sums up his exploits very cavalierly)
Meserve: Better than nothing.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: Both women and men will be greatly affected by this
dehumanizing tale of male inconsiderateness, disrespect, wanton abuse of privilege, and
sexual assault. Asians or Asian-Americans will shudder to think how easy it was/is for
some people to see them as less than human. Other underrepresented people should be
able to imagine how easily the type of dehumanization occurring towards the Vietnamese
could be extrapolated towards their group.
Analysis: As a mechanism to further control the dynamic of the men resisting sexually
abusing the young woman, Meserve and Clark have referred to her as a “dink,” “whore,”
and to anyone who might hesitate to comply with raping her, a “fag” or “homosexual.”
The assertion of homosexuality of the men who would not join in the rape is problematic
on two fronts. First it insinuates that there is something wrong with a homosexual
lifestyle. Second, it takes away the right, the choice to not participate. This ploy works
well on Diaz, the only soldier other than Eriksson who demonstrated some hesitancy in
participating in the rape. Earlier in the film Diaz had agreed to stand with Eriksson
against any attempted effort to rape the young woman. To further seal their demonic
deal, Meserve leverages the individual safety of those outside of the mainstream
(Eriksson and Diaz) as susceptible to serious harm if not death itself. Eriksson has tried
133
to respect the Sergeant’s leadership but not to the extreme of putting aside his own ethic.
He fully recognizes that his life is in jeopardy by challenging the Sergeant’s orders, but is
so entrenched in his own position of violating the young woman’s personhood as a grave
moral crime that he is willing to risk it all. After much hesitation with many other
possible leadership opportunities, Eriksson fully entered his leadership moment.
After the ordeal has resolved itself to a certain extent, with everyone except
Eriksson participating in the rape, ultimately culminating in the brutal murder of the
young woman, Eriksson is still morally outraged and looking for some semblance of
social justice with the situation. He never states it specifically, but it is not difficult to
imagine Eriksson has concerns that his fellow soldiers could be free and capable of
similar actions again on another unsuspecting innocent victim. As a result, he seeks
counsel with other leaders, while not necessarily seeing himself as a leader yet, primarily
because no one has yet acknowledged the merits of his actions, nor followed his lead.
Casualties of War (5) cont…
Scene 22
Lt. Reilly (Ving Rhames): On the day I was born my mama grunted. I popped out, took
one look around. “Shit,” I says. It’s Two Creeks, Texas. So, about eight years ago, I’m
still in Two Creeks. My wife’s about to give birth to our first child. I took her to the
hospital. Natural thing to do. Well, she was refused admittance to this hospital on the
basis of her race. Which is, as you might guess, Negro. Next thing I know, the baby ain’t
about to wait. And so my son is born on the goddamn floor of this hospital’s reception
room. Eriksson, I flipped the fuck out. I started turning over chairs, kicking lamps.
Wasn’t long before I was in jail. Now, wasn’t I on the side of righteousness? So what was
I doing in jail? What I was doing – let me advise you – was fixing to shoot some
motherfuckers working in that hospital. That’s what I was doing. But you know what? It
was like they could read my mind. And they just kept me in that jail until my mind was
turned around completely. By the time I got out I wanted nothing but to see my baby and
my wife. And I started thinking to myself, “What happened is the way things are so why
try and buck the system?” Now I’ll tell you what I’m gonna do. I’m gonna break up the
squad and send you five men off in five different directions.
134
Eriksson: Sir, I think –
Reilly: No, you don’t think. You listen. Be advised you best just relax and try to forget
about this thing. You can’t expect anything different in the combat zone. Is that clear?
Eriksson: Sir, yes, sir.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: After the ordeal of witnessing the rape and murder of an
innocent Vietnamese village girl— who had been abducted and abused for the pleasure of
the troop, — A relieved Eriksson owning the fact that he didn’t prevent the rape from
occurring decides to pursue a socially just resolution. The viewers’ emotion in this scene
can be pride in Eriksson seeking justice, or anger and frustration in the army’s response
to a crime.
Analysis: Frustrated, but not daunted, Eriksson’s moral compass still is not assuaged.
Reilly’s story about his own social injustice and its subsequent consequences disappoint
him, but not to the point where he is prepared to discontinue his mission to have the rape
morally addressed. Eriksson, unbeknownst to himself, is further situating himself for a
bold, quite precocious move as a burgeoning leader. Unlike his commanding officer’s
boss (Lieutenant Reilly), he is not satisfied with the status quo. He is not deterred by a
more experienced opinion on a resolution to the social injustice of another human being.
He then initiates another leadership moment when he goes up a rank higher from the
lieutenant to a captain.
Casualties of War (6) cont…
Scene 24
Eriksson: PFC Eriksson reporting, sir.
Capt. Hill (Dale Dye): At ease, Eriksson.
135
Eriksson: Captain Hill, something happened, sir.
Hill: I’m aware of why you’re here, Eriksson. Lieutenant Reilly detailed it to me just
after you brought it to him. I’m handling everything.
Eriksson: Sir, I didn’t know that, sir.
Hill: That just about covered as far as you’re concerned, trooper? I am max attentive to
this situation.
Eriksson: Yes, sir. Is there someone I ought to speak to, sir? I mean, has the
investigation started?
Hill: I hope you understand how serious this situation is.
Eriksson: Yes, sir. That’s why I reported it, sir.
Hill: This kind of thing can cause a major international incident. Are you aware of that?
Eriksson: Yes, sir.
Hill: These men fucked up good. But you bringing formal charges against them is that
gonna help that poor girl one little bit?
Eriksson: Maybe if you had been there, sir. Maybe if you had heard her screaming –
Hill: Don’t tell me shit about screaming! I’ve heard a lot of fuckin’ screaming in this
country. Most of it’s come from wounded American boys. I’m going to transfer you out
of my company, Eriksson. That all right with you? I’ll get you out of the bush. Out of the
infantry. Any fuckin’ place you want to go, you name it. I saw your 201 file in the rear.
Said you volunteered to be a tunnel rat. Is that what you want, Eriksson?
Eriksson: I’d like to get out of this particular company, yes, sir.
Hill: Well, that’s a roger, Eriksson. You’re a tunnel rat. We get to the rear, you pack your
trash.
Eriksson: That’s not gonna keep me from trying to bring this thing out, sir.
Hill: Nobody’s trying to keep you from doing a goddamn thing. My function here is just
to tell you how something like this is gonna come down. And you ought to be advised
that military court-martials are notoriously lenient. Stateside review boards are even more
lenient. Even if these four guys are convicted they’re not gonna do any real time.
136
Eriksson: Yes, sir.
Hill: In fact, they’re gonna be out of the stockade before you can flick flies off of shit,
Eriksson. And if I were them, I’d be pissed off. Wouldn’t you? I’d be looking for a little
payback. Now, a man like you - wife, baby daughter – I’d be considering those factors
very carefully.
Eriksson: Pardon me, sir. What’s your point, sir?
Hill: There ain’t no point, Eriksson. I’m simply trying to illuminate the terrain in which
we currently find ourselves deployed. You don’t mind that, do you? And if you do, fuck
you!
Eriksson: Yes, sir.
Hill: You on my frequency?
Eriksson: Yes, sir.
Hill: You fuckin’ maggot! Who the hell do you think you are? You’re in that report
recommending Meserve for a bronze star. He pulled you out of a VC tunnel, boy. Now,
the shit with that girl, that was wrong. But he’s a kid, Eriksson. He’s 20 goddamn years
old. And you’re gonna ruin his life. He saved yours.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The emotional impact of having your efforts to right a
wrong dismissed are difficult to imagine beyond obvious responses of disappointment,
distrust, and disrespect.
Analysis: The complexity of Eriksson’s situation is made clear to Eriksson in a way that
must have been troubling to him. Without a doubt Captain Hill has articulated the
various realities associated with actions that Eriksson might take. Additionally, it is very
easy to lose sight of the fact that both Lieutenant Reilly and Captain Hill have been thrust
into a crisis situation themselves. The difference between the three men is that Eriksson
does not see his actions potentially limited, whereas Reilly and Hill have both had
experiences from their leadership positions that make them believe their actions can only
have so much impact. Or maybe they actually see the raped and murdered victim as
137
somehow deserving of such treatment because she reflects or represents the death of so
many of their fellow soldiers at the hands of people who look like her, speak like her, and
are related to her (culturally, nationally, spiritually). Eriksson’s lack of experience, his
“cherry” status, his naiveté may all be reasons he has not yet lost respect for the deceased
woman’s humanity. Or maybe he intuitively understands that all sentient beings deserve
respect.
Because leaders have power, the question of whether they use it for good or ill
continues to be desperately important. We could argue forever over whether
Hitler was an authentic leader, or whether leadership, by definition, implies a
kind of virtue… Certainly, Hitler had many of the competencies of
leadership—a vision, the ability to recruit others to it, insight into what his
followers needed, if only in the most demonic parts of themselves. (Bennis,
2004, p. 336)
Interestingly enough, Sean Penn’s Sgt. Meserve is not far removed from the
complexity of describing Hitler as a leader. Like Hitler, Meserve had loyalty amongst his
men. He also knew how to play to their needs. As well as a result of knowing how to
play to their needs, he constructed a vision he was certain they would buy into. Bennis
(2004) states: “Perhaps we should reserve the word leader for those whose leadership is
morally neutral (if that is possible) or tilted toward the good (pp. 336-337).
Bennis (2004) claims leadership styles like Hitler’s or Meserve’s should be
reframed or not considered leadership at all because they are slanted as opposed to
avoiding bias. While not necessarily a case of irresponsible leadership due to its lack of
putative responsibility being neglected (at war there is often no defined expectation of
138
civility to the other), it nonetheless was a leader not exemplifying the ethic of a
traditional leader. Perhaps there is an attorney somewhere so determined to win a case
that he could rationalize Meserve’s leadership as “tilted toward the good” of satisfying
his men. Perhaps there is an attorney somewhere so committed to providing his client
with the best possible defense that she would even settle for a defense that varnishes the
truth. I just do not think there is an attorney that can tilt the good in such a fashion that it
can be articulated that—no matter how much these men frame their female captive/victim
as the other—if/when they have daughters, a paranoia because of the scars they have
inflicted upon the Vietnamese woman (someone else’s daughter) might not revisit them
forever.
The assertion by Jinkins and Jinkins (1998) that at some point leaders will face a
crisis and/or moment that threatens their very being is not too dissimilar to what we can
imagine must have been the case for Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane as he deliberated
on whether he should sacrifice his humanity the night before his persecution, or Martin
Luther King as he proffered his demise days before he was murdered. Eriksson daring to
assert himself to challenge Sergeant Meserve’s dysfunctional leadership accentuates a life
threatening crisis/conflict. If his military unit is bodacious enough to go outside of
military routine to kidnap a young woman, what compunction would there be for them to
exterminate anyone who would dare to threaten their reputations, in addition to their
freedoms, by revealing their transgression.
This same type of boldness is reflected in the film Rosewood when the character
Sylvester, a Black man (portrayed by Don Cheadle) challenges two White men in 1923 in
Florida for their treatment of his young niece.
139
Rosewood
Scene 4: (A so-called Negro (extended) family of about 12 dining in their home).
Sylvester: (Portrayed by actor Don Cheadle, who is speaking to his teenage niece)
Scrappie! Now, I had a talk with Mr. Andrews on your behalf today.
Aunt Sarah (Portrayed by actress Esther Rolle): What about Mr. Andrews?
Sylvester: Mama, that old cracker called hisself whistling at Scrappie and all that.
Mann: What?
Sylvester: Yeah, that’s right. I went over there and gave him some words.
Aunt Sarah: Sylvester, what you say to them people now?
In a flashback scene we see Sylvester in a conversation with two White men sitting on a
porch.
Sylvester: Mr. Andrews, I come to have a word with you about my cousin. Now, I expect
you to show her some respect.
Henry Andrews (Muse Watson): You expect, boy?
Sylvester: I don’t like Scrappie feelin’ scared around nobody.
Poly (Mark Boone Junior): Is that a threat?
Sylvester: Ain’t no threat needed. I’m just saying I don’t mess with your peoples, I don’t
want you messin’ with mines. Now, I thank you very kindly, sir.
The flashback scene ends here and once again Sylvester and his mother are in
discussion:
Aunt Sarah: Sylvester, you can’t talk to white folks like that and not expect a rope
around your neck.
Sylvester: Look. Times is changin’, Mama. Now, I ain’t no sharecropper. I’m a music
teacher.
Aunt Sarah: Times ain’t never changed for no crackers, boy. Don’t you forget they
burned a colored man over in Wylie last summer for winking at a white woman.
James Carrier (Paul Benjamin): Sure did.
140
Sylvester: I know that, Mama, but it’s all right for them to whistle at Scrappie?
Aunt Sarah: No, that ain’t right.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: This scene is an emotionally loaded scene for anyone
intrigued by the historical injustices leveled on Black people, and especially emotional
for Black people who must relive the pain and horror their ancestors were subjected to.
As well, the scene may have emotional impact upon Whites, some of whom may grapple
with White guilt. Ultimately, it may have impact on any person who knows and/or cares
about Black people and as a result struggles with a snapshot of Jim Crow times for socalled Negroes where White whims could be fatal to the life and livelihood of any nonWhite group.
Analysis: A Black man challenging two White men about their treatment of a Black
woman was quite a rare occurrence, extremely provocative, life threatening, and a
leadership moment. For the viewing audience, Sylvester’s actions demonstrated the
courage that is necessary to challenge social injustices. Nonetheless, Sylvester in
Rosewood parallels Eriksson’s actions in Casualties of War in that both of these men
overcame concerns about their personal safety to challenge social injustice by not shying
away from a leadership moment. They also both exemplified leadership characteristics in
that Eriksson could have influenced the troops to not follow the Serge and ultimately did
influence the military regarding incidents like this. Sylvester’s actions were leader-like
in that he represented his race and his burgeoning township and the position that times
were changing. It should be noted that both of these films were based on true stories.
Also in both films their respective actions would have differing consequences perhaps
141
predicated by their race. Sylvester’s pride in demanding respect for his civil rights would
ultimately be trumped by outraged White privilege cloaked as an accusation of rape that
would affect every so-called Negro within and without his immediate community.
Eriksson’s accusations of rape against his colleagues would have him alone, solely
singled out for retribution. The power of White privilege works better against those who
are not White or Whites that are too closely affiliated with Blacks. While both Eriksson
and Sylvester stepped into a leadership moment that was extremely complex in terms of
consequences, Sylvester’s actions threatened to put in mortal jeopardy hundreds of his
community to address the verbal disrespect of one. Eriksson’s actions in contrast
threatened to put in legal jeopardy five men for their disregard and ultimate murder of a
young woman.
That leaders must take risk goes without question, but how many leaders are
willing to take risk that are life threatening. Sure, leaders consider the weight of financial
moves or organizational restructures, but how many leaders must weigh life and death
consequences when they make their decisions? Jinkins and Jinkins (1998) would see
Eriksson’s actions as extraordinarily reflective of the best moments of “leadership at
risk.” Eriksson’s ability to not succumb to the cultural assumptions of his fellow soldiers,
soldiers that somehow rationalize a lesser-than status to their enemy in war’s personhood
or life, is what allows him to maintain his perspective that he is doing the right thing.
Leadership requires a sensitivity to cultural context that is grounded in the
willingness to recognize, to accept (to some degree), and to accommodate the
entire web of invisible assumptions and values that constitute culture’s
identity, and in the insight to see the equally subtle potentialities and
142
limitations bearing on this culture because of its assumptions, its values, its
identity. Survival as a leader depends on the former, sanity and integrity on
the latter. (Jinkins & Jinkins, 1998, p. 88)
What comes to mind when considering Eriksson’s actions is this excerpt from the
Rudyard Kipling poem “If:”
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you…
Without giving away the poem’s overall message or profound ending, rest assured
it celebrates those individuals with the strength of character that Eriksson exhibits in his
time of crisis, his moment of leadership in crisis. Eriksson’s moral stance allows him to
continue to reconcile the slow process of any type of moral redress on behalf of the
victimized young woman. His simply knowing that he has put the wheels in motion for a
moral reckoning might allow him to not lose sight on the fact that though he could not or
did not stop his fellow soldiers’ heinous actions, he can make sure they do not recur.
An understanding of this type of leadership, thought, and action, discussions
situating Eriksson’s thoughts, actions, and other possible actions he could have taken, are
the building blocks for the creation of a template for social justice. The problematic
Casualties of War paradigm is a worst case scenario. If a discussion about social justice
can be accessed using this scenario as a point of departure there is a good chance all the
participants in such a discussion will benefit.
Michael J. Fox’s character, Eriksson, looked into the soul of his unit and saw a
void. The void may have been an extension of traumatic occurrences while tasked with
waging war. The void may be a result of Sean Penn’s character Sergeant Meserve having
143
a horrendous upbringing and yet somehow ascending to a leadership position. After all,
for quite a long time it is not hard to imagine the fact that many people in our society that
ascended to leadership positions had not necessarily received any extensive leadership
training. Eriksson’s challenge to the authority and leadership of his unit, at least in terms
of their carrying out despicable orders, was on some level a test by him to see if the unit
and the Sergeant himself might respond affirmatively to his challenge.
The leader of an organization must diligently seek to assess the civic virtue of
the institution in order to know what kind of leadership is needed, how well
this organization will respond to participation in the management of the
organization, and how responsive the organization is likely to be to the needs
of its constituents in a rapidly changing environment. (Jinkins & Jinkins,
1998, p. 91)
Meserve was the appointed leader of the organization that he was leading.
However, he did not “diligently seek to assess the civic virtue of the organization.” If he
had, then Eriksson’s concerns would have been addressed instead of dismissed.
Conversely, Eriksson’s inadvertent entrance into a leadership role found him assessing a
group of extremely dysfunctional soldiers tasked with protecting his back as well.
The character Rawlins (portrayed by Morgan Freeman) in Glory, a Civil War
film, provides another opportunity to assess leadership in crisis.
The effective leader is not only the best trained, the one who understands the
latest research, or the most dedicated to the highest ideals of an organization;
the effective leader is also the one who learns the lessons of history and goes
144
to school on the experiences of others so as to survive long enough to put a
program into effect. (Jinkins & Jinkins, 1998, p. 57)
In the full length film (though not in the scene depicted below) we have the
opportunity to witness Rawlin’s growth as a soldier. We witness him grow into one of
the better soldiers on his way to becoming the first so-called Negro Sergeant in his unit.
In this manner he exemplifies the above quote from Jinkins and Jinkins (1998). It is in
his learning “the lessons of history” while going “to school on the experiences of others
so as to survive long enough to put a program into effect” that make the most significant
difference in his moment of crisis, as evident in the excerpted scene from the film. Prior
to the start of this excerpt, there is a heightened amount of tension between Trip
(portrayed by Denzel Washington) and Thomas (portrayed by Andre Braugher). This
tension largely comes from Trip bullying Thomas due to Trip’s possible jealousy
combined with Thomas’ relative ineptness and discomfort with a daily flow of interaction
with uneducated so-called Negroes. Thomas was reared near Boston and appears to be
highly respected by many of his White peers. Rawlins has sat somewhat idly by during
most of these episodes and finally decides to get involved.
Glory
Scene 21: (Two soldiers are quarreling with other soldiers standing by observing.
Rawlins (portrayed by Morgan Freeman) interrupts before a fight can break out between
Trip (portrayed by Denzel Washington) and Thomas (portrayed by Andre Braugher),
with Rawlins interpreting the scenario as another instance of Trip attempting to bully
Thomas):
Rawlins: Alright, alright!
Trip: Get your hands off me, gravedigger.
Rawlins: Goddamn it. Does the whole world gotta stomp in your face?
145
Trip: Nigger, you better get your hands off me.
Rawlins: Ain’t no niggers around here, you hear me?
Trip: Oh I see, so the white man give you a couple stripes, next thing you know, you
hollerin and orderin everybody around, like you the massa himself. Nigger, you ain’t
nothin but the white man’s dog.
Rawlins: (Rawlins slaps Trip) And what are you? So full of hate you just wanna go out
and fight everybody cuz you been whipped and chased by hounds. Well that might not be
livin, but it sure as hell ain’t dyin. And dyin’s what these white boys been doin for goin
on three years now. Dyin by the thousands. Dyin for you fool! I know, cuz I dug the
graves. And all the time I’m digging I’m askin myself “When, When O Lord, is it gonna
be our time?” Time’s comin when we’re gonna have to ante up. Ante up and kick in like
men. Like men! You watch who you call a nigger. If there’s any niggers around here, it’s
you. Smart-mouth, stupid-ass, swamp-runnin nigger. If you ain’t careful, that’s all you
ever gonna be. You men go on back to business.
(Rawlins exits)
Anticipated Emotive Impact: Anyone offended by bullying could feel the emotional
impact of the scene when Trip bullies Thomas. Conversely, there is also an emotional
rush when Rawlins rescues Thomas from Trip, who has been bullying Thomas
throughout the film. Black people who hate to see Black people fighting (instead of
working together to overcome oppression) would possibly be sitting on the edge of their
seats during the altercation between the men.
Analysis: Jinkins and Jinkins (1998) assert that a program needed to be established by a
leader, which Rawlins appears to be invested in making effective was the emancipation
of slavery, a precursor to the social justice movement. The lessons of history Rawlins
was recalling were the sacrifices made by White soldiers to preserve the union and
perhaps albeit indirectly, free the slaves.
The experience of others he was going to school on was the front row seat he had
to the tensions that existed within the community comprised of so-called Negro soldiers.
146
Rawlins had sat quietly watching all these different oppressed men from different
backgrounds attempt to get along. In his determination that his efforts on the battle field
would not be in vain and that his attempt to contribute to battles for his freedom would
not be undercut by petty bickering amongst so-called Negro soldiers that were already
being doubted for the merits of their contributions, Rawlins entered into a leadership
moment.
The apprehension that visited the deployment of so-called Negro men as Union
soldiers caused a crisis in leadership, both amongst White men interacting with so-called
Negroes, and amongst so-called Negroes themselves. Jinkins and Jinkins’ (1998)
assertion that effective leaders learn history’s lessons and go to school on the experiences
of others to put their programs into effect describes this next excerpt from the film Mona
Lisa Smile.
Mona Lisa Smile
Scene 19: (Professor Katherine Watson prepares to show her class some slides on an
overhead projector in her class room some days after she has been taken to task for
inciting the young women at Wellesley towards independent thinking)
Watson: Slide.
(Two female students work the machine to produce an image from a slide onto the
overhead.)
Contemporary art.
Female: No, that’s just an advertisement.
Watson: Quiet! Today you just listen. What will the future scholars see when they study
us? A portrait of women today? There you are ladies. The perfect likeness of a Wellesley
graduate. Magna cum laude, doing exactly what she was trained to do. Slide.
(Another slide comes across the overhead)
A Rhodes scholar. I wonder if she recites Chaucer while she presses her husband’s shirts.
Slide.
147
(Another slide)
Now you physics majors, can calculate the mass and volume of every meat loaf you
make! Slide. A girdle to set you free! What does that mean?
(Pauses)
What does that mean? What does it mean? I give up. You win, the smartest women in the
country. I didn’t realize that by demanding excellence, I would be challenging…what did
it say?
(She walks over to a paper and reads.)
“The roles you were born to fill.” Is that right? The roles you were born to fill?
(whispers)
It’s my mistake. Class dismissed.
(She exits)
Anticipated Emotive Impact: This scene could affect women who are not mindful of
those certain moments of transition or transformative individuals whose daring advanced
women’s rights in American society. It could also affect men who abhor any notion of
women being oppressed, but especially men and women who find it difficult to witness
women willingly complicit in their own oppression.
Analysis: Jinkins and Jinkins’ (1998) assertion that an organizational leader must
persistently evaluate the ethical imperative of her institution to determine the type of
leadership that may be necessary, “how well [the] organization will respond to
participation in the management of the organization,” and how the organization will
acknowledge the necessities of its constituents becomes that more significant (p. 91).
Professor Watson stepped fully into a leadership moment when she determined
that the type of leadership she needed to bring to bear was that which would shake the
148
foundations of the young women to their core. She may have underestimated the
university’s reaction to her challenging the way the young women were being educated
towards “the roles they were born to fill.” In other words, Watson may have
underestimated how the young women were being socialized in ways of domesticity.
However, Watson was undaunted in knowing her role as a leader was to prepare her
students for the world they would be entering, not the world that she herself had been
prepared to enter years before. Watson, as a transformational leader, needed to be
understood due to the fact that she offered “individualized consideration,” sparked
“intellectual stimulations,” provided “inspirational motivation,” and engendered
“idealized influence” (Diversity, Leadership, and Organizational Culture in Higher Ed,
p. 36).
In the film Very Bad Things we see another dimension of leadership style that
Jinkins and Jinkins (1998) probably never would anticipate being used to frame their
articulation of “leadership in crisis.” In the scene below, Boyd (portrayed by Christian
Slater) takes action to address the problem he and five other male friends face, the death
of a stripper in their hotel room, hired by them to “accentuate” their bachelor party.
Very Bad Things
Scene 5: [Men enter, gasping and heavy breathing]
Adam: Oh my god.
All: Oh!
Charles: Jesus Christ!
Adam: Don’t touch her! Don’t touch her! Call 9-1-1!
Boyd: Don’t move.
149
Mike: We were playin’, we were playin’.
Adam: I think she’s dead.
Charles: How do you know she’s dead?
Adam: She’s got no fucking pulse!
Boyd: Listen, you don’t know what the hell you’re doing. Just get back. All right, where
do you look? What side of the neck?
Charles: Left, left, left side.
Adam: Either side you idiot! I’m calling 9-1-1.
Mike: We were playing, and she bumped her head.
Adam: Bumped?! Bumped?! She’s got a fucking spike in her head!
[Adam and Boyd exit to bedroom]
Boyd: Adam wait.
Adam: What?
Boyd: What are you doing? What are you talking about? What do you think you’re
doing?
Adam: I’m calling the ambulance!
Boyd: Just wait one—wait one second, ok?
[Back in the bathroom]
Charles: Michael? Michael?
Mike: I’ll take it out. I can take it out.
Charles: What the fuck have you done?
Boyd (to Adam): Why are you calling an ambulance? She’s dead.
Mike (to woman): I’m sorry, sorry.
150
Kyle: Oh, God, just call the police.
Boyd: No.
Kyle: Just call 9-1-1.
Mike (coming out of the bathroom): I slipped.
Adam: What did you do, goddamn it?
Mike: Nothing.
Adam: What the fuck did you do, you little shit?
Charles: Get out of here!
Boyd: All right, all right, just calm down.
Mike: It was an accident!
Boyd: Everybody just get a hold of themselves, all right?
Adam: You are a lying deviant!
Mike: It was an accident!
Boyd: Are you sure—
Mike: Yes, I’m sure!
Adam: What were you doing?
Mike: The floor was wet, and so I slipped.
Adam: Why was the floor wet?!
Mike: I don’t know. I don’t know.
Adam: Why was the floor wet?! Why, goddamn it! Why, you little fucking pervert?!
Boyd: Come on, damn it. Take it easy.
Mike: You don’t fucking know!
151
Boyd: Calm down. We’re not helping anything by losing our temper. Let’s just get our
heads together, ok? Whatever we associate in our nervous system determines our
behavior.
Kyle (looking at woman): You fucking guys. You fucking guys. You fucking guys.
Charles: Just relax.
Kyle: You fucking guys!
Boyd: Now let’s just take a second here, and take the hole of the situation and review our
options.
Adam: We call the police!
Boyd: Ok, call the police. That’s good. That’s one option.
Adam: That is not an option! This is not multiple choice here!
Boyd: Yes, it is! There are always options, Adam.
Kyle: You fucking guys!
Boyd: We can definitely call the police. That’s an easy call. Now if we call the police,
what happens? They come up here, they find a dead prostitute in the bathroom, and then
they ask us what happened. What the hell are you going to tell them? You had nothing to
do with it? You didn’t know she was a prostitute? I mean, that it was all Michael here?
Your brother, by the way!
Adam: You don’t mess around with a homicide—
Boyd: What about the alcohol, narcotics—Don’t tell me there are not options. There are
always fucking options.
Kyle: What is the choice? What options?
Boyd: We can bury her out in the desert.
Adam: Oh, sure, why not?
Charles: No, no he’s right. He’s right, he’s right, he’s right.
Boyd: We could take her up to Red Rock. Find some nice quiet place and just put her in
the ground. We can do this. We can get her out of here.
152
Adam: Have you lost your fucking mind?
Boyd: Nobody knows she’s here. I called her personally, nobody knows.
Adam: Her blood is all over the bathroom! Don’t you think we got a little bit of a DNA
problem here?
Boyd: It’s a marble floor. We can clean it up.
Charles: They’ve got us on accessory to murder, Adam.
Adam: It’s not accessory, ok? I didn’t do shit.
Boyd: That’s not the point, Adam. I mean the room is covered with blow [cocaine].
Moore looks like he went at it with a fucking mountain lion. I mean the room looks like
the Manson family stayed here a month. This is a major thin-ice situation we got here.
Kyle: I’m getting married, guys. I’m getting married.
Adam: I have got a wife, and I’ve got two boys, ok? Don’t tell me.
Boyd: Lets just take a vote, a simple vote. We got two choices: one, we clean up this
mess right now, bury it out in the desert, go home, and never look back. Or, we can easily
call the police, roll the dice, take our chances, and pray to God that it’s only Michael who
falls. The choices are simple: it’s desert or police. (pause) Desert. [raises hand]
Charles: [raises hand] The fucking desert.
Mike: Fish, I owe you bro. I owe you man. [raises hand] Desert.
Kyle: [sobs]
Boyd: Nobody knows she’s here.
Kyle: Oh, God… oh God. [raises hand]
Adam: (pause) How do we get her out of here?
Boyd: [sighs] We can wrap her up in blankets, bring the car around to the back of the
hotel, lower her gently down off the balcony, put her in the car. We’re done.
Adam: Jesus Christ, have you done this before?
Boyd: The reality is, you take away the horror of the situation, take away the tragedy of
the death, take away the moral and ethical implications of all the crap that you’ve had
conditioned and beaten into your head since grade one, what are we left with? What? It’s
153
a 105 pound problem. 105 pounds that’s got to be moved from point “A” to point “B.”
Now a straight line is the shortest distance between two points, but we’re denied the
luxury of a visible straight line, but that line exists, and I see it. I see that line. Trust me.
Adam, trust me.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The scene’s emotional impacts are all over the place.
First and foremost, experiencing an unexpected death is overwhelmingly emotional.
Compound that with the fact that the death is one that will be difficult to explain and it is
a scenario that is dauntingly vicarious. As well, anyone who has had an accident (which
we all have), anyone who has sympathized with someone who had an accident, those of
us who have had friends in trouble, those of us who have had siblings in trouble, all these
scenarios apply. Lastly, the emotional intensity of having a front row seat to the
conversation that ensues with a room full of men trying to figure out their next move may
keep viewers riveted in their seats in anticipation.
Analysis: Obviously her death was a mistake, but this gets lost in the shuffle of the
commotion surrounding the death of a woman whose sole purpose was supposedly to
intensify the men’s celebration. Boyd has assumed a significant role amongst his friends
by being the only one to unabashedly enter the leadership moment, albeit an extremely
dysfunctional moment of leadership. He first becomes the voice of reason. As a voice of
reason he even leverages their moral upbringing against them, directly insinuating about
the impact of the methods of tenacity and authority upon them. He then assumes a more
sagacious position by assuaging their panic during this crisis by assuming the leadership
role.
One’s leadership style matters less than one’s adaptability to varying contexts
and situations that require a range of leadership styles. The challenge, what is
154
a matter of style and what is a matter of substance, what is a core value and
what is of secondary value, what can be sacrificed in the short term to hold
onto authority so that certain goals can be achieved in the long term. (Jinkins
& Jinkins, 1998, p. 88)
Aside from Boyd’s suggestion that they consider a democratic vote to determine
the direction the men would take to resolve their situation, Boyd’s natural leadership style
also became somewhat insignificant in the grand scheme of the moment they found
themselves immersed in.
We must acknowledge Boyd’s initiative to put the essence of the situation and its
pertinent choices on the table, no matter how despicable they are framed. Whatever
contributed to Boyd’s not including some of the more salient moral choices as options he
nevertheless had made a determination of “what [could] be sacrificed in the short term to
hold on to authority so that certain goals [could] be achieved in the long term.” Boyd’s
goal of envisioning the stripper’s death as not the daunting proposition most would
encounter in a similar situation but instead as a 105 pound problem is eerily
disconcerting. Boyd’s reconciling the stripper’s death as an opportunity for the men to
test their mettle through an organized effort was the epitome of someone maximizing
leadership in crisis. Once again, if you can think on your feet in a situation of this
magnitude, the atypical office situation/crisis would probably feel quite typical.
The leader who cannot learn to represent (and re-present) the culture
of the group will not remain leader. (Jinkins & Jinkins, 1998, p. 89)
The above quote can apply to Boyd’s ability to “go with the flow” and makes the
case that if Boyd and other leaders are not malleable in their approach they would not be
155
in leadership positions long. Often though film clips just do not give you the full flavor
of a film. To better understand the range of behavior that Boyd must learn to represent
and re-present in Very Bad Things you must see the entire film, especially if you are into
character studies. While most would not call it a classic, in some ways it has the breadth
of range, in terms of personalities, to be on par with 12 Angry Men. The largest
difference between the two is that we do not have a problem in American society taking a
look at our legal system. However, provocative conversations about dimensions of our
sexuality are still taboo. What is most intriguing about this little tidbit is that almost
every human being walking this earth was created from sex (until recent medical
miracles), and many humans will never set foot in a courtroom. Film makers, as leaders
themselves, need to continue to push the envelope in different directions to assist us in
transcending our moral constraints.
Authenticity and Duplicity
When Edgar Schein (2004) observed that “leadership consists largely of the
leader’s ability to step outside a particular culture, even if that culture has shaped the
leader, so the leader can assist that culture to start evolutionary change processes that are
more adaptive,” he was articulating authentic leadership (p. 2). This ability to perceive
the limitations of one’s own culture and to “develop the culture adaptively is the essence
and ultimate challenge of leadership” (Schein, p. 2, as quoted in Jinkins & Jinkins, 1998,
p. 93). Both Sally (portrayed by Jane Fonda) in the film Coming Home and Dap
(portrayed by Laurence Fishbourne) in School Daze exhibit a propensity for provocative
adaptive behavior, while unmasking through interactions with so-called leaders, a
duplicitous form of leadership.
156
Coming Home
Scene 4: Sally in room with other “Volunteer Wives” at a hospital during the time of the
Vietnam War
Sally: There’s not enough beds, there’s not enough staff. It’s really crowded. Guys have
to wait in line. They’re not prepared for the number of wounded guys that are being sent
back.
Woman 1: I don’t think we’re really clear on what you’re asking us for, Sally.
Sally: It’s what I said. I think we could do an article in the paper, you know, maybe using
these photographs, interviewing some of the guys maybe.
Woman 2: Isn’t it difficult for the men to be around young women? When I joined
Weight Watchers I didn’t want any candy around the house.
Connie: I don’t think that that’s our function, Sally. It seems we’re more a base gossip
sheet. You know, fun and games for the fellas.
Woman 1: I agree with you, Connie. I’m sorry, Sally. I hope you understand. What’s
next on the agenda?
Woman 3: Oh, uh… we have the Little League playoffs and the officer-son baseball
game.
Woman 1: Uh-huh, that’s the 25th and the 27th, isn’t it?
Sally: I want to say that I’m really shocked. I’m just shocked that you’d rather write
about a goddamn home run than about what’s going on in this hospital.
Woman 4: Sally, please…
Sally: I mean, you wouldn’t feel that way if they were your husbands.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: This scene would probably generate emotion with people
who are apt to volunteer their time for a worthwhile cause, soldiers and veterans, or
friends/family of current or ex-military personnel. This scene might also generate an
emotional reaction amongst people who would be very much offended at the priorities
that the women deem important. Emotion would probably also arise in support of the
157
emotion that Sally demonstrates at the indifference of the officer’s wives as a result of
their unearned privilege.
Analysis: Sally’s exposure to the ways of the hospital volunteer wives organization could
have had her potentially indoctrinated into that organization’s culture. Sally initiated a
leadership moment when she challenged them to transcend their “fun and games for the
fellas” mentality. She further challenged them to adapt a more socio-political level of
engagement that would possibly benefit the disabled veterans just as much if not more.
Like many leadership moments, Sally’s challenge could not have been easy for her.
More so, it was a definite distancing from the norm of what was expected in hospital
volunteer wives. What is not articulated in this isolated scene is the fact that all of these
women are officer’s wives. For the most part, their husbands have a bit more security
from daily debilitating injuries, since more often than not they would not be found in the
trenches. It appears as if the wives also have made the decision that they would not
venture into the trenches either, exhibiting what Schein (2004) frames as a duplicitous
leadership style with them leaving that type of engagement up to others, perhaps even the
wives of the foot soldiers. Sally’s ability to “perceive the limitations of [the volunteer
wives’] culture truly reflects her authentic leadership. Her statement admonishing the
disconnected, lackadaisical approach to implementing pertinent change further frames her
authenticity.
Sally’s frustration with the situation was not dire, but it was challenging. While
her initial efforts were not received by the volunteer wives, Sally nonetheless discovered
some things about herself—that she may not have otherwise discovered—when she
mustered up the courage and attempted to challenge their privilege.
158
Again and again, we found that something magical happens in the crucible—
an alchemy whereby fear and suffering are transformed into something
glorious and redemptive. This process reveals, if it does not create,
leadership, the ability to inspire and move others to action… Countless gifted
people are broken by suffering. But our leaders discovered themselves in
their crucibles, for reasons we still do not fully understand. However searing
the experience, our leaders were able to make sense of it or organize meaning
around it. Instead of being defeated by their ordeal, each of our leaders saw it
as a heroic journey. (Bennis, 2004, p. 334)
In this quote from his book The Crucible of Leadership Warren Bennis (2004)
appears to be speaking specifically about Sally. There is a chance that Sally’s motivation
to act may have come out of considering the reality of the soldiers in relationship to that
of her husband and the husbands of the other volunteer wives. In considering their
differing social classes, it may have become apparent to her that the enlisted men did not
have anyone to advocate for them. Sally’s journey of discovering “the other” appeared to
have become a passion as well as a cause. As a result Sally was as heroic in revealing the
duplicity in the leadership of the volunteer wives as the efforts of the soldiers she was
endeavoring to have respected.
The leader’s integrity and authenticity are fundamental to the development of
a trustful relationship with the organization, and to indulge in any degree of
duplicity, for whatever reason, is to flirt with disaster. (Jinkins & Jinkins,
1998, p. 94)
159
The integrity of a leader can be challenged sometimes in ways that are
problematic to their organizations, as evident in this scene from School Daze.
School Daze
Scene 4: (Chairman of the school board, Cedar Cloud, meets with President Harold
McPherson of Mission College in the president’s home study)
Cloud: Mission College was founded to educate the sons and daughters of slaves…
McPherson: You don’t have to recite our history to me. Now, we have been and will
continue to be grateful for the support of the Snodgrass family.
McPherson’s wife: (opens the door to the study and halfway steps in)
The food is getting cold.
McPherson: All right.
(He gets up out of his chair.)
Cloud: Hold it; I’ve got something else to say. This is a new day. There is a feeling that
the predominately black college for all intents and purposes has outlived its usefulness.
Over the years, it has been vital to our elevation in this great country but the need no
longer exists in an integrated society.
McPherson: That’s absurd. It does exist. It exists at Notre Dame…at
Yeshiva…Brandeis…Brigham Young. Now you tell me, what is the difference?
Cloud: You want to know the difference? I’ll tell you the difference. The difference here
is that the Catholics alone support the Notre Dames. The Jews alone support the
Yeshivas, Mormons support the Brigham Youngs. Who supports the black colleges? I’ll
tell you who! The federal government, and…and…and philanthropists like Snodgrass.
Harold, why won’t blacks support Spelman, Tuskegee, Morehouse, Howard?
Harold: We do.
Cloud: Barely! Look, as chairman of the board, I was sent here to talk with you. Now, he
does not like this divestment mess and I don’t like it either. Now you better snip it right
here at the bud or I will. ‘Cause if you don’t, you stand a good chance of losing them.
McPherson: There it is.
160
Cloud: People like them don’t like to be told what to do with their money. Old, old,
money.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: Watching two Black men argue over whether they should
divest from South Africa because of its apartheid practices could range from cognitively
disturbing to physically sickening if you are a socially and/or politically conscious
individual.
Analysis: As leaders of a historically Black college that is largely supported by financial
backers/philanthropists who could have an array of reasons to be a benefactor, President
McPherson’s and Chairman Cloud’s integrity and authenticity can be taken to task if they
do not divest from South Africa. Their integrity comes into question by the fact that they
appear to be turning a blind eye to their investment in a foreign country that represents a
social structure similar to that of American slavery which socially disenfranchised the socalled Negro to the point of historically Black colleges and universities becoming
necessary. Their authenticity is an issue because as the leaders of the organization they
have a responsibility to their constituencies, especially students, to be representing an
ethic in the late 20th Century that is socially just. Cloud somewhat suggests that they
should “flirt with disaster” by succumbing to the ideal of their most prominent investor as
opposed to an ethic that would honor their ancestry, and doing it under the auspices of
reasons other than financial fears of losing benefactors. Ironically, Cloud’s assertion that
they compromise their values to keep the university financially solvent would probably
do just that, keep the college financially solvent, but at a cost to their integrity and
authenticity, with unanticipated, undetermined, and unfortunately some unwanted
consequences.
161
The leader’s integrity and authenticity are fundamental to the development of a
trustful relationship with the organization, and to indulge in any degree of
duplicity, for whatever reason, is to flirt with disaster. (Jinkins & Jinkins, 1998,
p. 94)
The character Dap (portrayed by Laurence Fishbourne) also reveals an
authenticity in his leadership style while effectively removing the lamb skin from the
duplicitous leaders he is in conflict with.
School Daze (2) cont…
Scene 16: (Dap sits in the President McPherson’s office on campus in a meeting with
McPherson and Chairman Cloud)
McPherson: Vaughn Dunlap.
Dap: Yeah, President McPherson.
Cloud: How’d you get the name, “Dap”?
Dap: (shrugs) Just a nickname, that’s all.
McPherson: Anyway, Vaughn, you been a good student these past four years…and
you’ve grown into a fine young man.
Dap: Thank you, sir.
McPherson: That’s why I’m so surprised at your recent activities.
Dap: Activities?
McPherson: You’ve become a disruptive force on this campus. You’re hindering other
folks from an education. (Dap begins to interject but is silenced by Cloud’s hand
touching his shoulder for a second.)
Cloud: Let me make it plain. You don’t really have a choice. If you continue these
antics, you’ll be expelled. Plain and simple, short and sweet.
McPherson: This is Cedar Cloud, chairman of the board of trustees. What he says is true.
162
Dap: True? With all due respect, President McPherson, I don’t believe this man knows
the meaning of the word. (Turns to Cloud) So what? You marched with King in the ‘60s.
Big deal. That was over 20 years ago! Black people still catchin’ hell all over the world,
you know!
Cloud: Sit down, son.
McPherson: We have made progress.
Dap: Says who? There is no way you can defend not divesting completely. No ifs, ands,
or buts about it.
Cloud: It’s your program we don’t like.
McPherson: You cannot hinder other students from getting an education.
Dap: I’ll do what I have to do.
Cloud: So will I. You know…look at me! (This startles Dap and he looks at Cloud.)
You’ve got a lot of living to do. I had classmates here at mission just like you. And now
they’re old and bitter.
Dap: You still don’t understand, do you?
McPherson: Make us understand.
Dap: Is there anything else?
McPherson: You may go.
Dap: Thank you. (He gets up to leave.)
Cloud: We’ll be watching you.
Dap: You do that. (He exits.)
Anticipated Emotive Impact: It is disconcerting to witness two older Black men
haranguing an idealistic young student for his ideals that are consistent with the ethic one
would assume is within an academic institution.
Analysis: The duplicity in this scene is more apparent because the two putatively adept
leaders are not forthcoming as to their reasons for not divesting. Instead, they attack Dap
163
for his leadership role in publicizing what Dap sees as a breech in the college’s ethic,
especially as a historically Black college. President McPherson and Chairman Cloud
accuse Dap of hindering other student’s education. An argument could be made that
McPherson and Cloud, by not owning the fact that their fear of divesting is due to a loss
of support from an investor, are denying the inquiring student population a lesson in
international politics while Dap is actively facilitating that lesson through his political
actions.
Dap’s leadership moment occurs when he admonishes his elders by dismissing
their role in historical struggles as inadequate to justify a lack of acting socially just.
Dap’s leadership moment is powerful in its symbolism if we imagine that both of the
Black men he is in dialogue with may have been as passionate about their position on
civil rights decades before.
Sometimes people’s authenticity dissipates when with peers, or when challenged
or threatened by physical harm instead of theoretical musings. Dap’s leadership has an
attribute of consistency in that it surfaces when necessary, as evidenced in the following
scene that reveals Dap’s leadership ability amongst his peers.
School Daze (3) cont…
Scene 19: (Inside a restaurant in a southern city there is a mild altercation that occurs
between an older group of local men (townies) and a cluster of college men (students at
Mission College) when the college men attempt to borrow a salt shaker from the townies’
table. This mild altercation escalates as the young men attempt to leave the restaurant to
avoid the conflict, but are followed outside by the local men, where it appears that the
townies would like to start a fracas)
Outside the fast food restaurant:
Leeds: Yo, Missionaries.
Voice in Dap’s crowd: Yo Dap, the jerry-curl is poppin’ shit!
164
Leeds: Missionettes…
Voice in Dap’s crowd: Ready for the world is poppin’ shit! Now what’s up with that?
Dap: Yeah, brother? What do you want?
Voice in Leeds’ crowd: You ain’t no kin to me.
Leeds: That’s right and we ain’t your brothers. How come you college motherfuckers
think ya’ll run everthing?
Voice in Dap’s crowd: Is there a problem here?
Voice in Leeds’ crowd: Big problem!
Voice in Dap’s crowd: I heard that!
Leeds: You come to our town year after year and take over. We was born here, gonna be
here, and gonna die here; and can’t find jobs ‘cause of you!
Voice in Dap’s crowd: Yeah, uh, right. Can we go? Can we just go?
Leeds: We may not have your education, but we ain’t dirt neither.
Dap: And ain’t nobody said all that, aight?
Leeds: You Mission punks are always talkin’ down to us!
Dap: Look brother, I’m real sorry you feel that way. I’m really sorry about that.
Leeds: Are you Black?
Voice in Leeds’ crowd: Take a look in the mirror, man.
Dap: Look man, you’ve got a legitimate beef, aight, but it ain’t with us, okay?!
Leeds: ARE YOU BLACK?
Dap: Hey look man, don’t ever question the fact whether I’m Black. In fact, I was gonna
ask you’re country ‘Bama ass why you got them drip-drip chemicals in your hair.
Voice in Dap’s crowd: That’s RIGHT, god damn it!
165
Another Voice in Dap’s crowd: And then come out in public with a shower cap on your
head.
Voice in Dap’s crowd: Like a fuckin’ bitch.
Voice in Leed’s crowd: Who you callin’ a bitch, bitch?
Voice in Dap’s crowd: If the shoe fit…
Leeds: You know, I bet you niggers do think ya’ll white. College don’t mean shit. Y’all
niggers, and you gonna be niggers forever just like us. Niggers!
Dap: You’re not niggers.
Leeds: Com’on, man. I’ll fuck you up. Get the fuck out of here before I bust a cap in
your young college ass. Go on!
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The scene is edgy, with a potential for violence, Black on
Black crime to be more precise. For some viewers of this scene who find it suspenseful,
what may be unfolding is a potential waste of lives, a possible homicide, over one group
of Black men taking advantage of opportunities available to them. In contrast the other
group of Black men appear to be a step away from assault due to jealousy because they
did not pursue similar opportunities. They may not have had the opportunities, known
about them, or known how to seize them.
Analysis: The dysfunction in this scene is extreme. There are so many opportunities for
the combatants to step into leadership moments, but instead the tension escalates
unabated. The sexism is seen in the reference to one another as a “bitch.” What they
really are saying as an insult to one another is “woman,” which in a disparaging way
means you are not a real man, or you are less than a man. The college students, possibly
to diminish the confidence of the townies, possibly because they have not truly
considered how they contribute to the moral decline and perturbing perspective of women
166
every time they use derogatory terms like “bitch,” have appropriated this dysfunctional
language to belittle the local men. The local men appear to also lack respect for women
when they refer back to the Mission men as bitch. In addition, the townies call the
college students “Missionettes,” another offhanded comment that again implies that the
Mission men are somewhat feminine and therefore less than.
There also are socio-economic class overtones to some of the assertions made by
both groups. The college students’ reference to the townies’ Jeri-curls (a hairdo that has
a chemical affect which straightens out kinky or nappy hair) is a class reference because
of its implication that the townies are so lacking in a sense of self (a sense of self
acquired through education or educated parents) that they are trying to be White in
doctoring their hair up to be unnatural to what it would be. Additionally, the blatant
references to the mobility of the college students versus the reality that most of the
townies will probably die in the same town they were born in, indicates class awareness
and conflict. While the townies want to take the young men to task, they are incapable of
separating themselves from the fact that they somewhat admire the student’s ability to
escape the limiting confines of their reality through their education. This may be better
accentuated by the use of the word nigger by the townies, and the challenge from Dap to
Leeds that he is not a nigger. Dap’s assertion that Leeds revisit his identity is a
leadership moment. It is conceivable that Leeds has never been told he is not a nigger. It
is imaginable that Leeds has been called and has called someone a nigger everyday of his
life. If so, then altering a mentality that has been dysfunctional in its development is as
daring as it is daunting.
167
We see racism through a very different lens in that it manifests itself in an
internalized way. Both groups of men are challenging one another’s blackness,
suggesting that the level and style of blackness that they project is authentic, with the
others being duplicitous. This race baiting brings to mind the house slave-field slave
dichotomy that ensued during the slavery era, and then permeated American society
afterwards as so-called Negroes were striving to assimilate, thus attempting to divorce
themselves from any pre-enslavement trappings as they feverishly mimicked everything
White.
This is a recurring theme in much mainstream film that possibly is not processed
or accessed by non-Blacks the way that Black folk receive it. Another case of it can be
found in the Academy Award winning film Crash, where a Black couple, Christine
(Thandie Newton) and her husband Cameron (Terrence Howard) after being bullied and
sexually abused by the White police officer (Matt Dillon) and his bystander partner
(Ryan Phillippe) return home and attempt to put the event and their actions or lack
thereof into perspective.
Crash
Scene 5: (A married couple disrobing after a traumatic evening out where the wife was
sexually abused by one of two police officers).
Cameron: Who are you calling?
Christine: I’m gonna report their asses. Sons of bitches.
Cameron: You actually believe they’re gonna take anything you have to say seriously?
Christine: Do you have any idea how that felt? To have that pig’s hands all over me?
And you just stood there!
(She then hangs up the phone)
168
And then you apologized to him?
Cameron: What did you want me to do? Get us both shot?
Christine: They were gonna shoot us on Ventura Boulevard! Pathetic.
Cameron: Well, maybe you would’ve been satisfied with just being arrested.
Christine: Oh, I get it. Much better to let him shove his hand up my crotch than to get
your name in the paper.
Cameron: You finally got me figured out, “cause see, that’s exactly what I was worried
about right there.
Christine: Oh? You weren’t afraid that all your good friends at the studio were gonna
read about you in the morning and realize he’s actually black?
Cameron: You need to calm down right now.
Christine: What I need is a husband who will not just stand there while I am being
molested!
Cameron: They were cops for God’s sakes! They had guns! Maybe I should’ve let them
arrest your ass. Sooner or later you gotta find out what it is really like to be black.
Christine: Fuck you, man. Like you know. The closest you ever came to being black
Cameron, was watching The Cosby Show.
Cameron: At least I wasn’t watching it with the rest of the equestrian team.
Christine: You right Cameron. I got a lot to learn ‘cause I haven’t quite learned how to
shuck and jive. Let me hear it again. Thank you, mister policeman. You sure is might
kind to us poor black folk. You be sure to let me know next time you wanna finger-fuck
my wife.
Cameron: How the fuck do you say something like that to me? You know, fuck you!
Christine: That’s good. A little anger. It’s a bit late, but it’s nice to see!
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The emotional impact of this clip is so intense that I have
yet to watch it and not emote in multiple directions and I believe it could have this type of
impact on virtually anyone with an intimate knowledge of Black history. A husband and
169
wife discussing her assault at the hands of a law enforcement officer is virtually
impossible to imagine and just as difficult to comprehend. Cops just do not molest
people’s wives. And then to have access to the conversation between two people who
were assaulted and bullied because of their race and class is even more interesting. The
couple’s argument—out of frustration of course over the socio-economic implications of
their current situations—is something that most of us can relate to.
Analysis: There are links between School Daze and Crash that mandated that I diverge
here to delve deeper into the internalized racism that sometimes exists in Black
relationships. The leadership moment that Dap undertook to challenge Leeds and his
friends is powerful in that if Dap or someone does not do it, then Leeds and the other
townies may never recognize the subconscious baggage that is strewn in their way,
unbeknownst to them, that perhaps adversely affects their relationships with others. In
the scene from Crash, the husband and wife, wounded by the sexual assault on the wife,
attack one another’s racial authenticity by implying that their bourgeois upbringing
prevented them from really being Black. Their conversation invokes memories of the
house slave/field slave dichotomy that I previously mentioned. During slavery times the
house slaves were often resented for the better quality of life they were perceived to have.
The house slaves themselves often might buy into some overinflated sense of self, until
an incident occurred that reinforced the fact that they were still so-called Negroes, and
subject to the whims of the poorest White at any given moment. The scene from Crash
exemplified just this reality. The wife’s accusation that her husband was afraid to reveal
he was Black and his statement that the incident itself may have provided her with a
glimpse of what it really feels like to be Black are both in response to their feeling that
170
the entire incident occurred only because they were Black. In actuality, with the viewer’s
understanding that the White police officer was struggling with some aspects of his own
socio-economic reality and his inability to assist his ailing father in his health care needs,
we know that his anger at the Black couple was race/class based. He resented the Black
couple’s relative opulence and leisurely demeanor at a time he, a White man, was
accepting some harsh reality about his socio-economic worth. This scene actually
symbolizes the complexity of classism that is far too often mistaken for racism.
Returning back to School Daze, it was the follow up conversation that actually is
the most intriguing, and perhaps the most profound instance of leadership.
School Daze (4) cont…
Scene 19: (The 5 young black men in the argument with the townies outside the
restaurant are now in a car immediately after the altercation, talking.)
Dap: Wait a minute. You know what? I don’t really want to believe that, I mean, but do
we really act like that?
Voice in Dap’s crowd: My name is Bennett and I ain’t even in it.
Voice in Dap’s crowd: No, but you know, what the guys were sayin’ about us.
Voice in Dap’s crowd: My name is Paul, and that’s just between y’all.
Dap: Yo, man, we’re not wanna-bes.
Voice in Dap’s crowd: They were ignorant.
Voice in Dap’s crowd: I don’t know, guys. I don’t think so.
Grady: Look, man, motherfuckers got to start and try and better “theyself,” man, just like
we’re tryin’ to do.
Voice in Dap’s crowd: Maybe they’ve tried it, and they’ve just given up.
Voice in Dap’s crowd: That’s the deal, man. You think everything’s so damn easy, don’t
you Grady?
171
Grady: Hell, yeah. You work or you starve. I want to eat sirloin.
Dap: Then the guy was right, man.
Voice in Dap’s crowd: I know the guy was right, I told you.
Grady: What do he know?
Voice in Dap’s crowd: He knows a lot.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: People who are reflective will connect emotionally with
this scene because it is one of those moments that is quite profound after an interaction
that could have taken many different turns. Questions and considerations about the
“why” and “how” of the moment are often in play in many of our minds, and here we get
to see them unpack that thought. The older men’s assertions about the younger men’s
attitudes are something that could generate concern for a viewing audience, hence adding
another element of emotion to the scene.
Analysis: Dap’s leadership amongst the college aged men was only enhanced by his
questioning whether he had engaged the local men appropriately. Dap may not have had
a finer leadership moment than self-scrutinizing himself aloud for his friends to see and
hear. The self questioning by Dap as to whether or not the townies were correct in
asserting that they act as if they are better than the townies is an existential struggle that
many black folk must engage, especially those who have acquired enough education to
take a realistic look at them self. When DuBois (1990) posed what I call his existential
question, “how does it feel to be a problem” (p. 7), he set the table for all Black people
who had lived with this problem status or were made aware of this problem by DuBois’
articulation of it, to have to engage their double consciousness. DuBois, in his essay “Of
172
Our Spiritual Strivings” from his classic book The Souls of Black Folk (1990 framed
double consciousness as essentially a so-called Negro’s struggle with self identity. This
identity conflict has so-called Negroes ashamed of their actual identity and believing they
need to strive to be someone that it is virtually impossible for them to become. As
leaders, to not address inner turmoil that others in your organization may also be
struggling with can ultimately be counterproductive to the organization itself.
The leader’s integrity and authenticity are fundamental to the development of
a trustful relationship with the organization, and to indulge in any degree of
duplicity, for whatever reason, is to flirt with disaster. (Jinkins & Jinkins,
1998, p. 94)
If “leadership consists largely of the leader’s ability to step outside a particular
culture, even if that culture has shaped the leader, so the leader can assist that culture “to
start evolutionary change processes that are more adaptive,” then Dap was articulating
authentic leadership as well. His ability to perceive the limitations of the self hatred
within his own culture and to “develop the culture adaptively” is truly “the essence and
ultimate challenge of leadership,” a challenge that he met so well by articulating his
anxieties about the interaction with the townies aloud.
For the sake of the health and well-being of the common life of the group, the
leader must possess a willingness to be accepted for what one is not (that is, to
be accepted as a virtual reflection of the organization’s values and
assumptions) so as to lead the organization to change to become what it needs
to be to meet the demands of the future. (Jinkins & Jinkins, 1998, p. 94)
173
Dap revealing that he is not always the self assured person that many of his
friends think he is might actually advance their organization, as Jinkins and Jinkins
(1998) imply in the above quote, especially if the other young men in his crew may also
lack confidence at times.
Though I have made a couple of points about the duplicity of leadership, an
example might be more apt. The film Boiler Room provides a glimpse of what it might
be like to be poised to enter the reality of Wall Street and a stock broker’s existence. In
light of 2008’s recession and economic calamity, if we listen to the character Jim
(portrayed by Ben Affleck), it is not hard to fathom how CEOs of major companies can
actually imagine how they should garner 20 million dollar bonuses as Rome burns, so to
speak!
Boiler Room
Scene 5: (The room used mostly for interviewing and on the rare occasion a meeting is
needed with someone outside the firm)
(Jim walks in to find Marc sitting at the head of the table. He laughs to himself.)
Jim: I'
m sorry, but that'
s my seat.
Marc: (scared) Oh man, I'
m so sorry.
Jim: It'
s alright.
Marc JUMPS to another seat. He is chided by one of his friends, the same kid who was
having words with Debbie.
Rude Kid: Fucking dumb-ass.
Jim: You can get the fuck out of here.
Rude Kid: (terrified) What? What?
174
Jim: Don'
t talk to me, don'
t look at me, just pick your ass up out of that Italian leather
chair and get the fuck out of this room.
The rude kid gets up and leaves without saying another word.
Jim (Cont'd): We expect everyone here to treat their co-workers with a certain level of
respect.
Everyone in the room is silent and staring at Jim.
Jim (Cont’d): (calm) Now before I get started I have a question. Has anyone here
passed the series seven?
One hand goes up. It'
s one of the few kids who wears a good suit and wasn'
t too worried
looking in the waiting room.
Dressed Young Man: SERIES SEVEN, I have a series seven license.
Jim: Good for you, now you can get out too.
Dressed Young Man: SERIES SEVEN, what? Why?
Jim: Because we don'
t hire brokers. We train new ones. See ya Skippy!
Jim waits for him to leave the room and then calmly continues.
Jim (Cont’d): This is the deal. I am not here to waste your time and I can only hope
you'
re not here to waste mine. So I'
m gonna keep this short. You become an employee
of this firm and you will make your first million within three years.
(pauses)
Okay? Let me repeat that. You will make a million dollars within three years of your
first day of employment at JT Marlin. Everybody got that? There is no question as to
whether you will be a millionaire working at this firm, the question is how many times
over.
Every kid in the room besides Seth is completely starry eyed at this point. Some mouths
even hang open. Seth is excited too, but is smarter than the rest... he doesn'
t show it.
Jim (cont’d): You think I'
m joking. I am not joking. I am a millionaire. It'
s a weird
thing to hear, right? I'
ll tell you, it'
s a weird thing to say. I'
m a fucking millionaire. Now
guess how old I am? Twenty-seven. You know what that makes me here? A fucking
senior citizen. This firm is entirely comprised of people your age, not mine. Lucky for
me, I am very fucking good at my job or I'
d be out of one. You guys are the new blood.
You'
re gonna go home with the kesef. You'
re the future Big-Swinging-Dicks of this
firm. Now you all look money hungry and that'
s good. Anybody who says money is the
175
root of all evil, doesn'
t have it! Money can'
t buy happiness? Look at the fucking smile
on my face. Ear to ear, baby. You wanna hear details? I drive a Ferrari 355 cabriolet.
(Jim throws keys on desk)
Jim (cont’d): I have a ridiculous house on the South Fork. I'
ve got every toy you can
imagine. And best of all, kids, I am liquid.
Jim takes a pause here and circles the room.
Jim (cont’d): So now that you know what'
s possible, let me tell you what'
s required.
You are required to work your ass off. We want winners, not pikers. A piker is someone
who walks at the bell. A piker asks how much vacation time he gets in the first year.
See, people work here to become filthy rich. No other reason. That'
s it. You want
vacation time? Go teach third grade public school.
Jim pours himself a glass of water from a carafe and drinks.
Jim (cont’d): Your first six months at the firm are as a trainee... you make one hundred
and fifty dollars a week. After you'
re done training, you take the Series Seven test.
When you pass, you become a junior broker and you'
ll be opening accounts for your team
leader. After you open forty accounts you begin working for yourself and then... sky'
s
the limit. Now a word about being a trainee. The other brokers, your parents, whoever:
they'
re gonna give
you shit about it. And it'
s true, a hundred and fifty a week is not a lot of money, but pay
no mind. You need to learn the business and this is the time to do it. Once you pass the
Series Seven none of it will matter.
He pauses to drink.
Jim (cont’d): Your friends are shit. You'
re gonna tell them you made twenty-five
thousand last month and they'
re not going to believe you. Fuck them! Your parents don'
t
like the life you lead? Fuck you Mom and Dad! See how it feels when you are making
their fucking Lexus payments. Now go home and think about whether this is for you. If
you decide it isn'
t, nothing to be embarrassed about. It'
s not for everyone. But if you
really want it, then give me a call on Monday and we'
ll talk. Just don'
t waste my time.
Alright. That'
s it.
Jim walks out of the room leaving the door open behind him. No one has moved from
their seat.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The opportunity to be a fly on the wall of an all male
conversation is probably as enticing for women viewers as it is for those of us who
176
cannot imagine the reality that takes place behind the stock market. Couple those
feelings with the manipulation of young minds with a marketing of capitalism cloaked as
consumerism, which is then further cloaked as a heightened level of care for parents and
friends who just are not capable of relating to their vision. Another dimension to the
emotional impact within this scene is the duplicity of the speaker. If you have not been
exposed to a dynamic speaker before, it is not difficult to imagine being easily duped by
one who represents, as within your reach, many things that are attractive to you.
Analysis: Engaging Jim’s comments within a context of leadership relative to
authenticity and duplicity is complicated, especially if the larger context is diversity &
social justice. While Jim is in a leadership position, no one, including Jim, steps into a
leadership moment. No one is challenging dysfunctional actions that are socially unjust.
Jim is out there doing Jim’s thing and promoting that thing to others. Yes, Jim easily
appears self centered, all about himself. On the other hand, if you believe in the notion of
survival of the fittest, Jim’s take is not dysfunctional. Instead, people who get wrapped
up in notions of loving thy neighbor may be the ones who are misguided. The essence of
this morality is deference to a removed deity or source of power that will rescue you or
come to your aid through believing and praying. The slave is taught to turn the other
cheek, while the Master himself (emphasis on the “him”) loves no one more than himself.
Hopefully I have given enough respect to Jim’s perspective to placate the
individuals that would see nothing wrong with Jim’s challenging and future mentoring of
this group of impressionable young men. For those who might see or intuit Jim as a
duplicitous leader, unpacking some of his assertions in his introductory session with his
burgeoning protégés might be worthwhile.
177
The first clue that something might be amiss is when Jim engages the young men
after dismissing the one rude prospect for his rude statements. Jim aims profanity at him
in a similar manner that caused Jim to dismiss the rude prospect for similar language.
Then Jim articulates to the collective that within their new company there is an
expectation of a “certain level of respect.” How much more vague could that assertion
be? One could only imagine what that level of respect is after Jim dismisses the rude
prospect, and then the well dressed young man who already had a Series Seven license.
Jim calls the well dressed young man “Skippy” for no apparent reason. The well dressed
young man was not rude, had not done anything disrespectful to anyone. He only
acknowledged he had a broker’s license, and even that was done at Jim’s prompting. Jim
still dismisses him in a somewhat less caustic manner than he did the rude prospect, but
nonetheless probably embarrassing to the well dressed young man.
Then Jim goes on to say that “becoming an employee of this firm you will make a
million within three years,” but he does not say if they will survive the three years in
what could be a cutthroat operation. He also does not talk about why he is a senior
citizen in the firm. What happens to the older staff?
Jim also proclaims that they will be the “future big swinging dicks” of the
company. Does this mean there is no room for women? Why is that? What is their
position on diversity, affirmative action, social justice? If they are an exclusive
organization, does that mean if you have been inclusive of others all your life, you will
have to change?
It is quite an intriguing statement, “Anyone who says money is the root of all evil
doesn’t have any!” Beyond the fact that the statement itself is more than likely to be a
178
gross generalization, these impressionable young men who may not have ever heard
someone give such a spiel might easily be impressed by Jim’s swagger. He then chases
his sweeping indictment of ethical perspectives about money necessarily originating from
the impoverished by listing his material merits (ridiculous house, cabriolet, every
imaginable toy, liquid financial state), all an appeal to an all consuming materialism.
These arguably non-essential assets that make him happy might be the reason he is only
prepared to give “a certain level of respect” to his “fellow” employees. Think he has
taken any courses on ethics (where he really engaged or considered the subject matter)?
His notion of piker, “someone who walks at the bell,” does not appear to include
any tolerance for anyone who might have a child with special needs, an ailing elderly
family member or parent. Perhaps that is what he meant by implying that 27 is old. At a
certain age people start to understand some of the dimensions of their reality and how it is
situated in the world. Often with this change in perspective comes an accompanying
lifestyle change. People get married, have children, etc. You have to appreciate his
honesty though. He straight up tells you that it is not for everyone. That would have
become apparent to me the moment he told me to tell my mother and father to go fuck
themselves. Maybe it is just me, but profanity laced tirades aimed at my creators simply
because they are asking questions about my reality out of concern for my well being
seems to be a bit over the top. Again, maybe it is just me!
There are times when a leader’s full intentions cannot be revealed to the
organization if the leader is to assist the organization to reach those goals that
are ultimately for its good. (Jinkins & Jinkins, 1998, p. 97)
179
Jim in the Boiler Room scene exemplifies the above quote from Jinkins and
Jinkins (1998). His full intentions are to assist the organization to reach its goals that will
ultimately be good for the organization. However, is it possible that Jim suffers from
myopia and is not capable of seeing that too much focus/emphasis on acquiring material
possessions and resources could contribute to the moral decline of both the company that
places such an emphasis on these things and the individuals who comprise the company?
Values are beliefs and principles that are held dear in people’s hearts. Moral
values are values that are regarded as good as opposed to bad, right as
opposed to wrong…A useful distinction is that values are personal and
subjective, whereas “corporate values’ or guiding principles are impersonal
and objective. Moral values may be institutionalized as ‘corporate values’ or
guiding principles for behavior for everybody in a group or organization.
Such values that are translated into rules of conduct in a business context are
known as business ethics. (Gill, 2006, p. 131)
Jim, as a leader of the firm, is articulating a corporate value system that is
putatively non-traditional because it transcends the “personal and subjective” for the
“impersonal and objective.” However, is anything really impersonal and objective?
Jim’s bringing into the conversation what he has gained personally makes his pitch
personal and subjective. As well, regardless of the desire to keep the organizational
values clearly defined, Jim continually conflates the two value systems when he frames
as bad/wrong their parents’ and friends’ potential reactions and good/right the crude
dismissal of their concerns. These institutionalized moral values of choosing the
corporation’s ethic over the learned morality taught to them by their parents and extended
180
families will be difficult to reconcile for any of the young men who came from healthy
and/or respectful relationships. The spiel that Jim proffers the endeavoring stock brokers
provides the impression that Jim knows his audience and believes that he has rounded up
a cadre with a moral caliber that would have them throwing their parents under the
proverbial bus for a fat check. Essentially, Jim takes full use of a leadership moment even
though his leadership opportunity is quite complicated if we consider its virtue.
Virtue Redefined
A leader is not guided by personal preferences, by private whims or private
interests, nor even by that sense of the good that might rule in a one-to-one
personal engagement (Jinkins & Jinkins, 1998, p. 105)
Storytelling as a film frames the difficulty of assessing virtuous leadership in an
array of ways.
Storytelling
Scene 3: Marcus is in the college classroom, reading his written piece about himself to
the class, all of whom are expected to critique his writing once he finishes reading.
Marcus: “When he saw her, it was as if he could walk like a normal person. His legs
didn’t swing, his arms didn’t spaz away. He wasn’t a freak anymore, for she made him
forget his affliction. No more cerebral palsy. From now on, CP stood for ‘Cerebral
Person.’ He was a cerebral person.
There is a long pause as students gather their thoughts.
Female 1: I thought that was really good, Marcus. Really…moving and emotional.
Female 2: Yeah, I thought it was really emotional, too.
Female 1: And, I mean, really good word choices. It kind of reminded me a little of
Faulkner, but East Coast and disabled.
Female 3: Or Flannery O’Connor. She had multiple sclerosis.
181
Female 4: And Borges…he was blind.
Male 1: Updike has psoriases.
Catherine: Uh, maybe I’m wrong, but um, I’m afraid I found the whole thing to be a
little trite. Its earnestness is…well…it’s a little embarrassing…and those adjectives are
flatfooted and redundant. I’m sorry, I mean…anyway, don’t…what do I know? Don’t
even listen to what I say. I mean…(she shrugs.)
Professor Scott: Anyone else? (He pauses and waits for anyone to respond. Nobody
does.) Catherine is right. Your story’s a piece of shit. You express nothing but banalities,
and, formally speaking, are unable to construct a single compelling sentence. You ride on
a wave of clichés so worn, in fact, it actually approaches a level of grotesquerie. (Students
around the class begin to squirm in discomfort.) And your subtitle, “The Rawness of
Truth,” is that supposed to be a joke of some sort? Or, are you just being pretentious. (He
pauses as Marcus looks as though he is close to tears.) Okay, who’s next? (A pause as
the scene ends.)
Anticipated Emotive Impact: School scenarios often grab our attention fairly quickly
because we have all been there. Whether the experiences were good or bad, we
experienced them and are familiar with the setting. Therefore, a classroom setting that
has a certain amount of energy in it (and most would because of the new personalities to
which we are about to be exposed) is more often than naught going to be attractive to us.
The emotional impact in this scene is enhanced because of the struggle that many of the
students have with trying to find the words to critique/support their classmate.
Analysis: If it is true that virtue lies on the mean between the extremes, then it is
difficult to state who in the film clip from Storytelling is actually situated on the mean or
truly being virtuous. It is just as difficult trying to argue that anyone stepped into a
leadership moment. The students quickly lose their way in their analysis of Marcus’
work. After acknowledging Marcus’ work as real and emotional, a parade of veiled
compliments come to light that ultimately reveal the students inability to disassociate
Marcus’ work from his disability.
182
Catherine actually comes closest to stepping into a leadership moment, but refuses
to own fully her criticism of Marcus’s work. Catherine’s perspective appears to be quite
authentic, even with a considerate effort upon her part to be forthcoming instead of
patronizing in her critique of Marcus’ writing. It is in this leadership moment that she
flirts with being a virtuous leader, “one that is not guided by personal preferences, private
whims or private interests.” As tempting as it may have been for Catherine to acquiesce
into feedback similar to the other students, she does not. Instead, she prefaces her
comments with a certain level of hesitancy, momentarily delivers them with painstaking
clarity, and then, after commenting, retreats back to a position where she can escape the
impact of her critique by insinuating it was frivolous. Her opportunity to redefine virtue
is lost in her desire to not hurt a classmate.
Professor Scott is not as gracious, and it is his assessment of Marcus’ paper that
can have him seen as virtuous on one hand, and overtly inconsiderate on another. Is Scott
guided by personal preferences, private whims/interest when he admonishes Marcus for
his far too often banally clichéd paper? Scott himself, a Black professor who has won the
Pulitzer Prize, may have an expectation that Marcus’ work should be a ground breaking
perspective on the disabled community, not too dissimilar from his own heralded efforts.
Is Scott’s assessment of Marcus’ paper more a statement designed to challenge Marcus to
creatively transcend his acceptance of the way disabled people are framed? Perhaps it is
a challenge for Marcus to find a way to articulate his reality so as galvanize if not
enlighten outsiders about the different dimensions of Marcus’ reality. Or does Scott not
process how very different Marcus’ way of seeing might be from his own? Scott may be
displaying a level of insensitivity to the plight of Marcus as a member of the disabled
183
community and not allowing for the articulation of that plight to be as difficult for
Marcus to transcribe as it might be for Scott to receive it.
Aguirre and Martinez (2007) state that what we see and how we frame concerns,
and are perspective laden values are all connected to our social class. This can be seen in
Professor Scott’s assessment of Marcus’ work. His condescending question that probed
the earnestness of Marcus’ title lends one to believe that he could consider Marcus’ title
“The Rawness of Truth” as pretentious, if not a joke. Somehow from Scott’s perspective
it appears as if it could not be anything more (Leadership in Higher Ed, p. 31). Perhaps
Aguirre and Martinez’s further point that, “Leadership in higher education is defined and
viewed differently by the different groups that make up the academy, with race, class,
gender, and structural factors influencing the perceptions of constituents and the
experiences of those who assume leadership roles” (p. 31) also explains the students’
inability to fully connect with Marcus’ work. Professor Scott does not distinguish
himself as a leader by any of his actions in his exchange with Marcus, but provides those
of us who consider ourselves leaders with some insights into things we may not want to
do in a similar situation.
It is not necessarily true that leaders are not guided by personal preferences and
private interests. The desire for success is often an overwhelmingly motivating factor.
However, what I interpret from the Jinkins and Jinkins (1998) quote is that an effective
leader is ultimately going to transcend the extremes and find the mean. This is what
Archie (portrayed by George Clooney) eventually does in the film Three Kings, which
depicts dimensions of the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War. However, before he can
begin to reflect anything virtuous, he visits the extreme of greed. Joining him on his visit
184
are Chief (portrayed by Ice Cube), Troy (portrayed by Mark Wahlberg) and Conrad
(portrayed by Spike Jonz).
Three Kings
Scene 8: (Four American soldiers are in the desert with their truck in the aftermath of the
Persian Gulf War. They have acquired a map that supposedly can lead them to Saddam
Hussein’s gold supply. They are currently considering the map’s accuracy and worth in
terms of not finding anything yet.)
Chief: Right here, right now (pounds on chest once)
Troy: What the fuck was goin’ on back there, Major? Civilians are spittin’ on the
soldiers, the soldiers are shootin’ civilians. They were ignorin’ us like we weren’t even
there.
Archie: They already surrendered to us. Now they’re after the civilians.
Conrad: Why’d they blow up that milk truck?
Chief: They’re tryin’ to starve the people out.
Troy: Why?
Archie: Bush told the people to rise up against Saddam. They thought they’d have our
support, they don’t. Now they’re getting’ slaughtered. (Takes paper out of his jacket
pocket)
Chief: So where’s the next bunker?
Troy: About 20 clicks on the map, according to what that guy said.
Archie: (Looking at paper) No it’s not. There’s something about that well.
Conrad: What well?
Archie: The well in the center of town? There were soldiers guarding it. I bet there’s a
bunker in there. Guy lied to us. It’s back where we came from.
Troy: Hey I don’t know if I could do this, OK? Hey! I got a family. If I’m gonna shit in a
bag for the rest of my life because I got shot at after the war was over, that’d be pretty
fuckin’ stupid, wouldn’t it Major?
Archie: (As he’s packing up his gear) What is the most important thing in life?
185
Troy: What are you talkin’ about?
Archie: What’s the most important thing?
Troy: Respect.
Archie: Too dependent on other people.
Conrad: What, love?
Archie: A little Disneyland, isn’t it?
Chief: God’s will.
Archie: Close.
Troy: What is it then?
Archie: Necessity.
Troy: As in…
Archie: As in people do what is most necessary to them at any given moment. Right now
what is most necessary to Saddam’s troops is to put down the uprising. We can do what
we want, they won’t touch us.
Troy: All right, I’m wearing fashionable Kevlar.
Conrad: Me too.
The rest of the men pack up their gear.
Troy: Come on Conrad
(In pursuit of a wealth of gold that has been rumored to be housed within a bunker,
Archie and his small squadron of soldiers decide to return to a village that they had only
recently left. When they do this they discover that Archie was correct and out of
necessity no one prevents them from taking the gold, which turns out to be hundreds of
bars of gold bullion. With the assistance of Hussein’s soldiers, having packed all the
gold away, they are ready to depart the village when Archie witnesses the cold blooded
execution of a woman in the middle of the street. The woman, shot at point blank range,
is executed within sight of her little girl and husband who is bound and gagged. Archie,
witnessing this, leaves his seat on the truck and walks over to the leader of Hussein’s
military unit)
Three Kings (2) cont…
186
Chapter 11
(The four soldiers have the gold and are ready to leave the town when they witness a
woman get shot. Her daughter and husband run to her but are quickly seized by Iraqi
soldiers)
Iraqi Captain: You go now please. (He salutes Archie)
Archie: I don’t think so.
Iraqi Captain: This man is leader of uprising.
Troy: Major, let’s just stick to the plan! The plan is for the gold, right?
Chief: Hold on, we can help these people first and then we’ll be on our way.
Troy: No we can’t! This is not what we’re here for! Let’s go!
(Civilians are on the ground and look confused as they watch the scene)
Archie: (Walks away from Iraqi Captain and thinks briefly.) Cover me.
(All 3 American soldiers get into cover positions as the Iraqi soldiers position themselves
for fire)
Archie: (As he’s walking toward the soldier holding the “leader of uprising” he speaks
to Conrad.) No unnecessary shots Conrad ‘cause we know what they do.
Conrad: They make infected pockets full of bile, sir.
Archie: That’s right. That’s what they do.
(Archie encounters a soldier and with a bit of force, restrains him, takes his knife and
gun, and tosses him aside. The “leader of uprising” and his daughter return to the
woman’s corpse and proceed to mourn)
Archie: (Walks back over to Iraqi Captain) I want you to leave this town.
Captain’s Assistant: Saddam kill us if we leave. Kill our family!
Iraqi Captain: We give you the gold. Now U.S.A. out of Iraq. (He begins to lift his gun
to shoot as Archie takes hold of it)
Archie: No shooting.
Captain’s Assistant: OK, OK, we work something out.
187
(Iraqi Captain tries to get Archie to let go of the gun by slamming it into the truck a
couple of times)
Troy: Take it easy, take it easy!
(Archie uses his hand to point the gun at the Iraqi Captain’s leg, causing the Iraqi
Captain to pull the trigger and shoot himself in the leg. The Captain screams)
Troy: What’s happening?
Archie: Accident. Stay cool.
Troy: No!
In slow motion, an Iraqi soldier shoots Archie in the chest. Troy shoots him and he falls.
Another Iraqi soldier shoots Troy in the chest and Troy falls. Chief shoots that Iraqi
soldier three times and Conrad fires a machine gun attached to the truck. Archie shoots
and kills the Iraqi Captain. The civilian children watch the scene with stoic faces)
Conrad: Put your hands up.
(Iraqi soldiers drop their weapons and put their hands up)
Troy?!
American soldiers watch as Troy undoes his jacket and removes a bullet from his vest.
Conrad: Troy?
Troy: I’m OK.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: A scene whereby American soldiers are in a tense
military situation would carry heightened emotion for most viewers with loyalty to
America. As well, the fact that Archie (Clooney) foregoes the money to instead help
people in a dire situation accentuates the emotional attachment to the scene.
Analysis: Archie, as the appointed leader of his military unit, enters an un-appointed
leadership moment when he puts himself and his men at risk attempting to right a social
injustice. The fact that Hussein’s men themselves and their families may come under
188
mortal scrutiny by their tyrannical leader might even be lost on Archie at this point. He
seems overly concerned with the fact that a woman’s life was brutally obliterated at the
bequest of a soldier for what appears to be some sort of political statement or
interrogative method to obtain information from her captured spouse.
And if we can learn to behave in ways appropriate to better leadership--and if
we can develop the habit of making better choices—our character can be
shaped in new directions. There is no need to feel stuck in counterproductive
ruts. We can change as leaders. (Jinkins & Jinkins, 1998, p. 103)
In our roles as leaders there are definitive moments that change us forever.
Archie’s moment was the senseless murder of someone’s mother in front of the victim’s
daughter and spouse. Ours may be witnessing a blatant form of nepotism, or the
termination of a diligent worker through tough economic times at the expense of
retaining an underachiever simply because the underachiever is networked to the powers
that be. Whatever the situation, virtue is developed through habitual action. If the
journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step, Archie took a huge step towards
becoming a virtuous leader. This proves itself out even more later in the film, but you
would have to see it to discover that.
It is clearly a greater and more perfect thing to achieve and preserve that
[good]of a community; for while it is desirable to secure what is good in the
case of an individual, to do so in the case of a people or a state is something
finer and more sublime. (Aristotle, 1955, p. 64, as cited in Jinkins & Jinkins,
1998, p. 106)
189
The noble aspects of Archie’s actions are noteworthy not just because they are
deserving of celebration for what he did as an individual to effect positive change for
others, but also because in a leadership moment he modeled virtuous behavior by
foregoing an acquisition of personal material wealth for, as Jinkins and Jinkins (1998)
claim, the more fulfilling wealth of knowing he attempted to advance his community.
In contrast to Archie’s virtuous acts in a leadership moment, we are given another
type of leadership response in the film “As Good As It Gets.”
As Good As It Gets
Scene 3: (Melvin Udall walks down the street to his regular morning breakfast joint. He
is careful not to touch anyone on the crowded sidewalk or let anyone touch him. He also
makes a point to avoid cracks in the sidewalk.)
Woman on street: Excuse me.
Melvin: Whoa, whoa, whoa, don’t touch.
Another woman: Get a life!
Man: Hey, watch it!
Melvin: Don’t touch!
Man: Hey!
Melvin approaches the restaurant as a waitress, Carol Connelly, is taking a table’s
order.
Carol: (To a woman at her table) Hey look at you, you’re all better, huh?
Woman: It’s that new medication.
Carol: You know all my son’s stuff, right? I got a date tonight. I’m walkin’ out the door,
he says to me, “Mom, I promise not to get one of my fevers or coughs during your date.”
Woman: Isn’t that sweet?
Carol: A little blond angel.
190
Melvin approaches the table he normally sits at. Two people are sitting there, having a
conversation.
Woman: It came out of me, “You love me the way you love your remote control. As
long as I switch every time you press one of my buttons.”
Man: Great, that’s terrific.
Melvin: People who talk in metaphors oughta shampoo my crotch. Eat up!
The couple looks at Melvin in shock.
Carol: (To Waitress 1. They are joined by other waitresses in a section of the restaurant
not meant for customers)
Good, stay there, I’ve got your money.
Waitress 1: No, you pay me next week.
Carol: No, I owe you. I told you today, that’s the rule.
(Melvin approaches them.)
Excuse me Melvin.
(She touches him in an attempt to move by.)
Melvin: Don’t, don’t, don’t…
Carol: Excuse me.
(She walks over to another table and hands a man his check.)
There you go, you take care.
Man: Thank you.
Carol: (She walks back to where Melvin is.)
Pardon me.
(She attempts to move around him without touching him. She insists that Waitress 1 take
the money again.)
191
Carol: Debts make me crazy.
Waitress 1: This way you take a cab home so you have time to get ready for the date!
Carol: Heh, ready is not my problem.
Waitress 1 chuckles.
Melvin: I’m starving!
Carol: Go on, sit down. You know you’re not allowed back here. (She pulls down a
counter to block his entry. She begins a conversation with Waitress 1 again.) Spence is
more excited about it than I am. He says, “Mom, I promise not to get a fever or cough
during your date.” Sometimes this kid, you just want to…
Melvin: (interrupts) I’ve got Jews at my table!
Carol: It’s not your table. It’s the place’s table. Behave. This once you can sit at
someone else’s station. (Other waitresses gasp.) Or you can wait your turn.
Melvin: (walks over to the couple he had interrupted earlier. Again, he interrupts their
conversation.) How much more you got to eat? Appetites aren’t as big as your noses,
huh?
Woman: What?
The owner of the restaurant, Bryan, overhears and is upset. Carol insists on speaking
with Melvin. The couple exits the restaurant in a hurry. Melvin sits down as Carol
approaches.
Melvin: They left.
Carol: Yeah, what do you know? Bryan says he doesn’t care how long you’ve been
coming, you ever act like this again, you’re barred for life. I’m gonna miss the excitement
but I’ll handle it.
Melvin: Three eggs over easy, two sausage, six strips of bacon with fries…
Carol: Fries today?
Melvin: A short stack, coffee with cream, and sweetener.
Carol: You’re gonna die soon with that diet, you know that?
192
Melvin: Yeah, we’re all gonna die soon. I will, you will, and it sure sounds like your son
will.
(She pauses to look at him as he rearranges the plastic utensils he brought from home.
He stops when he realizes what he has said.)
Carol: If you ever mention my son again, you will never be able to eat here again, do you
understand?
(Melvin is quiet. Carol sits down next to him.)
Give me some sign that you understand, or leave now! Do you understand me, you crazy
fuck?
(Melvin looks at her.)
Do you?
Melvin: Yes.
Carol: Yeah?
Melvin: Yes.
Carol: OK, I’ll get your order. (She exits)
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The scene is situated with a lighthearted, appealing,
perhaps even contagious soundtrack, so it can somewhat disarm the viewer (relatively
speaking) in that it feels as if you are watching a well made comedy. Melvin seems
eccentric, probably because he is exhibiting signs of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
(OCD) as he weaves his way through downtown traffic trying to avoid touching and
being touched while fixated on not stepping on cracks. So, viewers may develop
empathy for him, only to then see him become obnoxious to others while appearing
overtly self-centered.
Analysis: Melvin’s attempt to intimidate the patrons seated at the table he traditionally
dines at frames him as a bully. He makes a rude reference to them engaging his crotch,
193
then disparages them about their facial features. Thereafter though is where leadership
moments are missed, or disjointed. Melvin refers to the couple at his table as Jews and
Carol does not blink or bat an eye. If Melvin had said Blacks, perhaps Carol might have
taken action because of the obviousness of the racist statement, but was not “Jews at my
table” quite obviously an anti-Semitic statement as well? Melvin would not have said I
have “Germans” at my table, or “Italians.” Carol may have chosen to ignore the remark
because of Melvin’s seeming OCD. However, when Melvin makes an inconsiderate
remark about Carol’s son’s health the game changes, Carol, as the understanding woman
who turned the other cheek at the anti-Semitic remark, all of a sudden morphs into an
outraged person who is highly offended at the insult to her progeny. She is so offended
that she punctuates her response to Melvin with a profane outburst. Carol’s empathy
towards Melvin’s eccentricity or illness has been obliterated by it becoming personal.
We are left with the social justice consideration of why it was not personal for Carol
when two customers who were minding their own business, actually good paying patrons
to the business that employs Carol, and pays Bryan as well, were bullied. Why were
Carol and Bryan comfortable as bystanders? Why was the rest of the wait staff silent?
An argument could be made that they were all complicit with Melvin’s actions when they
stood by and did nothing.
If Carol had embraced her leadership moment and chastised Melvin earlier, with
fervor to make sure he understood that his behavior was unacceptable, then his statement
about her son probably would not have occurred, at least not that day. She also would
have probably mitigated the anxiety of the rest of the wait staff that was on pins and
needles not knowing who would be Melvin’s next victim. Bryan, the restaurant manager,
194
perhaps even owner, also could have taken a leadership role that day, if not
days/weeks/months before. It is obvious in the scene that Melvin has exhibited this type
of behavior before and because he is a celebrity author, who might attract other patrons to
the restaurant on the strength of his name alone, perhaps Bryan gives him a pass.
Roger Gill, in his article Leadership, Values, and Culture, says that “…effective
leaders identify, display and reinforce values that support the vision and mission and that
followers share, and they create a strong, positive organizational culture” (2006, p. 1). In
the scene from As Good As It Gets, Bryan as the leader of that restaurant, that
organization, failed as a leader, according to Gill’s assertion. There was no identified
value and probably no vision or mission articulated in their workplace. If there had been,
then Melvin would not have been able to get away with what he did.
From an historical perspective, it is difficult to find another individual who, as a
leader, sacrificed more for “a people or a state” than abolitionist John Brown. This is
made evident in this excerpt from Santa Fe Trail.
Santa Fe Trail
Scene 7: (John Brown (JB) is in a meeting with some men. Jeb Stuart has come to see
him.)
JB: What did you hope to achieve by coming alone to Pal Mire?
Stuart: The army has orders from Washington to bring you to trial. I hoped that if I came
face to face with you first, a lot of unnecessary bloodshed might be avoided, for your men
and mine.
JB: Were you innocent enough to think that I might surrender myself to you without a
fight?
Stuart: I hope that you might consider yourself innocent enough to do that. Half of the
people in America believe in your theory. A lot of them even condone your methods.
That’ll guarantee you a public trial.
195
JB: Fool…I’m not on trial but the nation itself. Are you too stupid and blinded by a
uniform to see what I see? A dark and evil curse laying all over this land… a carnal sin
against God…it can only be wiped out in blood.
Stuart: But why in blood? The people in Virginia have considered a resolution to abolish
slavery for a long time. They sense that it’s a moral wrong…and the rest of the South will
follow Virginia’s example. All I ask is time.
JB: Time. Time! For 30 years, I’ve waited for the South to cleanse its soul of this crime.
Since childhood I have been possessed with this fire of correcting this wrong. I tried
peaceful agitation. As God as my witness, I tried! Peaceful means failed, long ago. Now,
I shall force a decision by bringing both sides into armed conflict. None of this words,
talk, the time has ended for that. Strength and action are wanted now. Not a voice crying
in the wilderness but a David, armed with the power and the glory.
Stuart: David had a son, hadn’t he?
JB: A son? Yes, Absalom. He deserted his father and went over to the enemy. (Stuart
nods his head.) What are you trying to tell me, Stuart?
Stuart: And Absalom died because he failed his father.
JB: Jason’s dead. So be it. My son has paid for the sins of this world with his life as once
did the son of God.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: A behind the scenes look at an American patriot (though
not actually seen that way by many until recently) is fraught with emotional impact,
especially an American who sacrificed his life and the lives of his sons for others.
Viewers who support social justice will be invested in this scene. African American
viewers who know how rare it is to have anyone non-Black risk it all on their behalf will
be enthralled with this depiction of abolitionist John Brown articulating his passion on
behalf of disenfranchised Americans. I imagine even Americans who are nonsympathetic to the historical plight of so-called Negroes would have an emotional
reaction to the precociousness of John Brown, as depicted in the scene.
Analysis: If leadership is essentially a continual assertion of leadership moments, then
since childhood John Brown had a mission to challenge the prevailing paradigm that
196
painted slavery as non-problematic and, even more so, practical and prudent. Against a
socio-political climate of inaction against legalized slavery, John Brown took action and
by taking action became one of the forerunners of the diversity & social justice
movement, even though it is not necessarily apparent to many of the recipients that
directly benefitted from his actions, Black people.
Brown’s passion for social justice, chronicled in an odd if not historically
inaccurate way, still holds true to his overriding sentiment. While scholars and even
Hollywood attempted to frame Brown as crazy, the essence of his sentiment rang true.
When he stated in the film Santa Fe Trail that “I’m not on trial but the nation itself,” he
was condemning America in a manner it had not been chastised before. He had worked
and lived with darker men and knew that it was an inexcusable injustice to enslave
another, and an abomination to any notion of Christianity. John Brown was Malcolm X
before there was a Malcolm X. His statement in the film that slavery was “a dark and
evil curse laying all over this land… a carnal sin against God…it can only be wiped out
in blood,” was akin to the famous quote attributed to X, “By any means necessary.”
Brown’s words merit highlighting again (as I do below). People fought in the
Civil War, and arguably died for many reasons, some of which benefitted so-called
Negroes. However, those sacrifices came after John Brown and his family had already
sacrificed their lives for years to the cause of Black freedom.
Time. Time! For 30 years, I’ve waited for the South to cleanse its soul of this
crime. Since childhood I have been possessed with this fire of correcting this
wrong. I tried peaceful agitation. As God as my witness, I tried! Peaceful
means failed, long ago. Now, I shall force a decision by bringing both sides
197
into armed conflict. None of these words, talk, the time has ended for that.
Strength and action are wanted now. Not a voice crying in the wilderness but
a David, armed with the power and the glory.
With Brown dying at age 59 him having to wait not just 30 years (which would
have had Brown waiting since he was 29), but longer—since childhood Brown stated—is
quite significant in everything Brown represents in passion and commitment that is
framed as crazy. Brown is one of the best representatives of acting in response to social
injustice that history has ever known. Though he failed, his initial efforts to strategically,
albeit through violence, change a society—on behalf of societal underdogs from which he
did not originate, or belong—is unparalleled, and a level of commitment to a cause that
should forever be mentioned in conversations about acceptable actions against inhumane
treatment.
In the following excerpt from the film Matewan, with Joe Kenehan (portrayed by
Chris Cooper) as the protagonist and union organizer, we see more evidence of the
impact when a leader’s guiding principles are not personal preferences predicated on
private interests. Instead, Kenehan exemplifies virtuous activity as foundational for
leadership.
Matewan
Scene 7: (A large exclusive meeting of men is underway in a relatively secluded place.)
Man 1: First thing we got to have is all these niggers and all these dagos that come in
here and take our jobs thrown out of the mines.
Man 2: Mines? Hell, they got ‘em in our houses, they’re sitting at our tables right now,
and they’re sleeping in our beds, while we’re out living under a piece of canvas in the
back of the holler.
198
C.E. Lively (Bob Gunton): I’ve been a union man my whole life, I know the story with
these coal operators and their gun thugs. The only thing they understand is the bad end of
a bullet. And if we show them, we just assume, blow up their damn mine and seen ‘em
worked by a bunch of scabs - then they gonna listen.
Man 3: Someone’s comin’! It’s Ellix, he’s got someone.
(The man with Ellix at gunpoint is a so-called Negro.)
Lively: Where’d you find him?
Ellix (Michael B. Preston): He come right up on the steps.
Johnson (James Earl Jones): They told me that C.E. Lively’s is where the union mens
meet.
Lively: So?
Johnson: I got business with the union.
Lively: Is that so? What’s your name son?
Johnson: They calls me “Few Clothes.” (Crowd laughs) No, I didn’t come here looking
for no trouble. The mens got to eat.
Man 4: Then why don’t you go eat BACK where you come from?
Johnson: They told me there was jobs here.
Man 5: Go home, Nigger. Damn scab!
Johnson: You watch your mouth, Peckerwood. I’ve been called nigger and I can’t help
the way white folks says, but I ain’t never been called no scab! And I ain’t fixin’ to start
up now! I go turn for turn loading coal with any man here and when I do I expect the
same dollar for the same work.
Lively: You get out of this holler alive, son, you be doing good for yourself.
Joe Kenehan (Chris Cooper): Union men, my ass! You want to be treated like men?
You want to be treated fair? Well, you ain’t men to that coal company. You’re
equipment. Like a shovel, a (?) in the car, or a hunk of wood brace. They’ll use you till
you ware out or breakdown or you’re buried under a slate fall and then they’ll get a new
one. And they don’t care what color it is or where it comes from. It doesn’t matter how
much coal you can load or how long your family has lived on this land. If you stand
alone, you’re just so much shit to those people. You think this man is your enemy? Huh?
199
This is a worker. Any union keeps this man out, it ain’t a union. It’s a goddamn club. And
they got you fighting white against colored, native against foreign, hauler against hauler,
when you know there ain’t but two-sides to this world: them that work and them that
don’t. You work, they don’t. That’s all you got to know about the enemy. You say you
got guns. Well, I know you are all brave men and I know you could shoot it out with the
company if you had to; but the coal company don’t want this union. The state
government don’t want it. The federal government don’t want it; and the all of them –
just waiting for an excuse to come down and crush us to nothing. Fellas, we in a hole
filled with coal gas here, the tiniest spark at the wrong time is going to be the end of us.
So we got to pick away at this situation, slow and careful. We got to organize and build
support. We got to work together. Together. Till they can’t get the coal out of the ground
without us cause we’re a union. ‘Cause we are the workers, damn it! And we take care of
each other.
Man 6: How can we shut the mines down if we don’t dynamite ‘em?
Kenehan: The men walk out! All of ‘em!
Lively: Fat chance.
Kenehan: And every man who walks out on his own steam, we take him to the union.
Man 7: And all the dagos and the coloreds?
Kenehan: That’s what a union is, fellas. You better get used to it.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: Viewers of this scene who have any interest in some
intricacies of capitalism or labor strife/struggles may have an emotional reaction to this
scene. Viewers who have little or no knowledge of how race/racism also was a factor in
the advancement of America’s labor movement would possibly also have vested interest
in considering this little known tale of manipulation of the proletariat by the bourgeois.
Analysis: Both Few Clothes and Kenehan embraced leadership moments in the scene
above. Few Clothes, as representative of a group of disenfranchised so-called Negroes,
bravely risked life and limb to advocate for his voiceless co-workers. Kenehan’s
leadership moment was when he entered the conversation at an excellent time, especially
for the safety of Few Clothes. Few Clothes had entered a hostile environment for any
200
scab to be present, especially a so-called Negro scab who could suffer as much from
racism as from being a scab. C.J. Lively, as one of the leaders, appeared to have had
enough influence with the men that it would not have taken much for him to muster up a
crowd to commit a socio-economic hate crime (that would probably be somewhat
conflated into a racist action). Kenehan really pushes the men to recognize the value of
the strength they have collectively.
Kenehan was effective in challenging the men to consider how their employer
saw them and treated them as expendable pawns. He warns them about losing their
perspective, cautioning them that they should not get lost in their racism because frankly,
as White laborers, they have more in common with racially underrepresented people than
they do with wealthy people who cannot relate to them as laborers. This is a point that
throughout American history has repeatedly not been thoroughly processed regarding
racial antagonism. Underclass Whites should be capable of understanding that it is in
their best interest to fight with other underclass groups than against them.
Kenehan advises virtuous action as the recipe for enhancing their situation. He
posits that either extreme of too much action or too little action can compromise the
entire initiative that the union endeavors to establish, which is essentially fair and
equitable labor relations. The establishment of an ideal labor arrangement between
capitalist powerbrokers and labor can only occur alongside Kenehan’s encouragement of
the men to embrace diversity & social justice within their organization.
The leader must begin by examining the critical needs and interests of the organization.
(Jinkins & Jinkins, 1998, p. 113)
Kenehan’s assessment of the situation was direct and honest. He challenged the
men to open their minds and by doing so, they would ultimately help themselves. In the
201
next film excerpt, a political leader, for varying reasons, decides to speak unabashed truth
to power.
Bulworth
Scene 5: (Senator Bulworth enters a Black church, prepared to give a speech. He is
handed a script written by one of his staff members, Murphy. Once the applause ceases,
he begins)
Bulworth: (Reading directly from the script) We stand at the door…step of a new
millennium. Our obligation is to…
Murphy: (Whispers to another staff member, Feldman) Listen to this. I put a little time
into this.
Bulworth: …and at the same time restore its creative power…to reinvigorate our
society…(sighs) and uh…(he flips through the pages) bring about, a, uh…democracy,
uh…any questions?
Feldman: (To Murphy) Nice! Less is more.
Woman 1: When the riots and civil unrest went down about four years ago, you
promised us federal funding to rebuild our community. What happened?
The audience murmurs.
Bulworth: Well, what happened was, that, uh, we all knew that was gonna be big news
for a while so we all came down here…Bush, Clinton, Wilson, all of us…we got our
pictures taken, told you what you wanted to hear, and we, we pretty much forgot about it.
Murphy laughs nervously and the audience protests.
Woman 2: We can’t get insurance out here. We can’t get health insurance, fire
insurance, life insurance. Why haven’t you come out for Senate Bill 2720?
Bulworth: Well, because you haven’t really contributed any money to my campaign,
have you?
(Audience boos)
You got any idea how much these insurance companies come up with? They pretty much
depend on me to get a bill like that and bottle it up in my committee during an election
and then that way, we can kill it when you’re not looking.
202
Woman 3: Are you saying that the Democratic Party don’t care about the AfricanAmerican community?
Bulworth: Isn’t that obvious? (Boos continue)You got half your kids out of work and the
other half are in jail. Do you see any Democrat doing anything about it? Certainly not me.
So, what are you gonna do? Vote Republican? Come on, come on, you’re not gonna vote
Republican. Let’s call a spade a spade. I mean, I mean, c’mon, you can have a Billion
Man March, if you don’t put down that malt liquor and chicken wings and get behind
somebody other than a running back who stabs his wife, you’re never gonna get rid of
somebody like me.
(The audience is in an uproar. Murphy had snuck off during the speech to find the fire
alarm. It rang and the audience clears out.)
Murphy: Right this way, Senator, right this way! (Whispers) What are you doing? I
don’t get it.
Bulworth: That was good. That was really good.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The emotional impact in this scene can come from an
array of places. The shock of a White presidential candidate engaging an energetically
angry Black congregation that is caught off guard by his candid remarks can be
exhilarating, frustrating, alarming, and for some, sadly (in terms of the plight of the
people Bulworth is discussing), comical.
Analysis: Senator Bulworth, an elected leader, for some reason unbeknownst to the
viewer at the time of his speech, has decided to finally distance himself from the double
talk that often abounds in politicians and confounds their constituency, and be brutally
honest. He appears to represent the ideal proffered by Jinkins and Jinkins (1998) that
necessarily begins with an examination of the pressing concerns of their organizations.
The leader must begin by examining the critical needs and interests of the organization.
(Jinkins & Jinkins, p. 113)
However, his virtuous leadership is difficult to accept because of its extenuating
circumstances. What we want in our leaders is an authenticity and integrity in their
203
actions, not virtue by default of the reasoning, “Why not tell the truth?” However,
Bulworth exemplifies a model of how refreshing it would be to have politicians who
actually spoke truth instead of doublespeak.
A study of middle-level managers in the UK and Canada suggests that a high
level of moral reasoning tends to be associated with transformational
leadership (Turner et al., 2002). O’Toole (1995:9) says, “Moral and effective
leaders listen to their followers because they honestly believe that the welfare
of followers is the ‘end’ of leadership (and not that followers are merely the
means to achieving the leader’s goals).” Transformational leaders display a
strong morality both in their pro-social orientation—a desire to benefit others
in the organization or in society at large—and in their behavior that reflects
values of empathy, care, concern and respect for others; they take an altruistic
rather than egotistical stance. (Gill, 2006, p. 131)
Bulworth did project that the welfare of his followers seemed to be his end goal as
opposed to when he was keeping the truth from them he appeared to be situating them as
a “means to his end.” Bulworth’s candidness in a country where politicians veil most of
their comments does appear to situate him in a leadership moment as well as frame him
as a transformational leader who speaks truth to power. He was displaying the morality
of no longer speaking half-truths, and reflecting values of empathy, care, concern over his
previously egotistical stance.
If the U.S. is an “organization” of separate political states, then an examination of
the critical needs and interests of [an] organization occurs in the film Malcolm X, as
evidenced by the below excerpt of X’s assessment of American hypocrisy.
204
Malcolm X
Scene 34: (Malcolm X is in a crowded auditorium delivering a keynote address.)
Malcolm: If the so called Negro in America was truly an American citizen, we wouldn’t
have a racial problem. If the Emancipation Proclamation was authentic, we wouldn’t
have a race problem. If the 13th 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution were
authentic we wouldn’t have a race problem. If the Supreme Court desegregation
decisions were authentic we would not have a race problem. But you have to see that all
of this is hypocrisy. These Negro leaders are running around telling the White man that
everything is alright, that we got everything under control. That everything the honorable
Elijah Muhammad’s teaching is wrong. I’m telling you, Mr. Muhammad said these things
were gonna come to pass, and now these things are starting to come to pass. Now these
same Negro leaders are running around, talkin’ about there’s about to be a racial
explosion. (He chuckles) Yes, there’s gonna be a racial explosion. And a racial explosion
is more dangerous than an atomic explosion. There’s going to be an explosion, because
Black people are dissatisfied. They’re dissatisfied not only with the White man, but with
these Uncle Tom, Negro leaders, who’re trying to pose as spokesmen for you and I. Just
like you have a, just like you have a powder keg. When you have a powder keg and
there’s too many sparks around, the thing’s going to explode. And if the thing that’s
going to explode is sitting inside the house, and if it explodes, then the house is going to
be destroyed. I said the house is going to be destroyed. So the honorable Elijah
Muhammad is teaching you and I and trying to tell the White man to get this powder keg
out of his house, let the Black man separate from his house, let the Black man have his
own house. Let the Black man have his own land. The honorable Elijah Muhammad is
trying to tell the White man that this thing, this explosion is going to bring down his
house. This is what he’s trying to tell him. More importantly, he’s trying to tell him that if
he doesn’t do something about it, if he doesn’t do something about it, it’s gonna explode
any day now. … The honorable Elijah Muhammad’s solution is the only solution for you
and I. It’s the only solution for the White man. Complete separation between the Black
race and the White race.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: Malcolm X is an American icon that most U.S. citizens
have some familiarity with. Hence, the emotion that accompanies curiosity being satiated
would be in place watching this scene. As well, the emotion that we expend when we
have hypocrisy revealed to us would also be occurring as X reveals his perspective (and
that of the Nation of Islam) on so-called Negro leaders and essentially White Americans.
Analysis: It is easy to disagree with Malcolm’s examination and proposed ultimate
solution that to eradicate the racism visited upon so-called Negroes in America we need
205
complete separation by Black folk from Whites in America. It nevertheless was an
indicator that X’s brand and style of leadership often had him entering leadership
moments that were awkward in that he was making extraordinary, unpopular, and
provocative suggestions. As a leader, his debunking certain hypocrisies like the notion of
authentic American citizenship and the value or authenticity of the Emancipation
Proclamation was a direct result of X doing what Jinkins and Jinkins (1998) articulated,
that leaders (like Malcolm X) must “examine the critical needs of their organizations” (p.
113) and though they did not state it, leaders must also sometimes articulate a harsh
reality, no matter how uncomfortable it might be to hear it. X’s assessment of the
organization called America also includes an interesting level of impatience with an often
diagnosed ailment within so-called Negroes, double consciousness. When X says that
“Black people are dissatisfied not only with Whites, but with these Uncle Tom Negro
Leaders,” there is much imbedded in that statement. A White person who hears this
statement by a Black leader might wonder on what subconscious level might it be true
that “all” Black people might feel that way. It suggests that some Blacks are prejudging
other Blacks as an Uncle Tom, in essence, as not Black enough. Of course this means
that a notion of Black authenticity must exist, or X was attempting to establish it himself
by ridiculing anything and everything Black that did not reflect the Nation of Islam’s
ideology. If not noticed outright, a second reading of the speech will reveal X’s contempt
for the word Negro and comfortableness with self and group identification with Black. X
also appears to be calling all Negro leaders Uncle Toms, perhaps distinguishing Negroes
as compliant with their oppression as opposed to Blacks as defiant to any notion of being
oppressed. X is probably specifically chastising those so-called, often self-identified
206
Negro leaders who are Uncle Toms, overvaluing himself or his mentor, Elijah
Muhammad, as the Black leader, as opposed to a Black leader.
Integrity
Such integrity demands of the leader the art of discerning the right moment to
raise an issue or a question, the ability to balance political survival with
boldness and long-range vision, the political skill of persuasion, and beneath it
all, an intimate firsthand understanding of the organization, its heart and soul,
its bedrock identity and what it means to be consistent with that heart, soul,
and identity in the decisions the leader asks the organization to make. (Jinkins
& Jinkins, 1998, p. 115)
Engaging the integrity within leadership is quite intriguing. In any given moment
we can acquire a snapshot of two or more leaders with varying ideals of what is effective
leadership. Is it possible to really ascertain which of these leaders actually exemplifies
integrity in its truest sense of the word? I cannot think of too much better a film to assess
the merits and authenticity in leadership integrity than this scene from The Tuskegee
Airmen, which is based upon a true story. The Tuskegee Airmen centers on the program
in Tuskegee, Alabama to develop a fighter squadron of so-called Negro pilots. Like
many social programs or opportunities that arose to assist Black folk in transcending their
problematic origins in America, everyone was not supportive.
The Tuskegee Airmen
Scene 11: (a group of Senators in session discussing the merits of the Tuskegee Airmen
program)
207
Senator (Graham Jarvis): In terms of character, the Negro has been observed to have a
childish and impulsive character. Now, gentlemen, you must agree that this report is
highly inflammatory.
Conyers (John Lithgow): I have on my desk a War Department memo on a colored pilot
recently shot down in North Africa after breaking formation. As a description, impulsive,
quite appears the appropriate terminology.
Senator: Maybe, but this report smacks of a singular point of view.
Conyers: All points of view are singular if they’re not to your liking, Senator.
Meanwhile, I’ve got constituents who wonder why when they’re sufferin’ from war
rationin’ and over taxation, why we’re spendin’ their tax dollars on a bunch of college
educated niggers, who’ve convinced the press that they can fly expensive war planes.
Chairman Cassidy (Rick Snyder): Gentlemen, this experiment certainly had noble
beginnings. But the failures are evident and glaring. Perhaps the thing to do is abandon
this project until after the war when calmer conditions will allow for a more thoughtful
approach.
Conyers: Where are you goin’?
Senator: To give them, the representative of the accused, an opportunity to defend
himself.
The Senator exits the room for a brief moment only to return with a Black officer.
General Stevenson you know. This is Lieutenant Colonel Benjamin O. Davis the
Commanding Officer of the squadron in question. Be seated.
Cassidy: Colonel, you are aware of the accusations such as: malaise and fatigue in the
face of little enemy contact?
Davis (Andre Braugher): We’ve been in continuous combat for months with no
replacements, sir. My men are tired. Other units get four fresh bodies a month, but
something always seems to go wrong with our paperwork or movement orders.
Senator: How many missions have your men flown, Colonel?
Davis: Most have flown well over fifty, which is the standard cut-off point in which
white pilots are sent home.
Senator: And your men are still flying?
Davis: They don’t know what else to do with us, sir. White pilots rotate back to the states
as instructors. But since the Army won’t allow colored pilots to train white cadets—
208
Conyers: Nine months of training. Countless missions in Africa and not one air to air
kill. Is that right?
Davis: We can’t fight what we don’t see. We’ve been stationed so far from front line
action we rarely encounter an enemy plane, let alone, the opportunity to engage one.
Conyers: You recently lost a pilot who cut and ran from, what, an imaginary
Messerschmitt?
Davis: Those men understand Lieutenant Cappy’s action was a mistake.
Conyers: Mistakes are all we see, young man. Late for mission briefings, piss poor
discipline and leadership, and nothin’ but excuses. What I see is a unit that is an
embarrassment to the Air Corps, to the American people and to themselves! Might I
remind you, gentlemen, that this war is by no means won. And this sad experiment is a
drain and a hindrance to that effort. My vote is that we abandon the project and move the
agenda.
Davis: All we asked for was a chance to prove ourselves, a fair and impartial
opportunity. We thought we had that chance, but you invite us to a poker game, hand us a
fixed deck, and then wonder why we can’t win?
Conyers: Young man, we really don’t—
Stevenson (Ed Lauter): Let him finish, sir.
Davis: Every colored pilot in the 99th went through his own private hell to wear those
wings. Every one of those men carry not only the burden of their dreams of becoming
American Military Aviators, but the hopes of an entire people as well. Am I the only one
in this room that understands just what that means? I was brought up to believe that
beneath it all Americans are a decent people with an abiding sense of integrity and fair
play. The cheers are heard across this country when Joe Louis and Jesse Owens
humiliated Hitler’s “Master Race” didn’t just come from proud colored folks. They came
from everyone. How are we to interpret that? As a United States Army Officer, who
gladly puts his life on the line every day, there’s no greater conflict within me. How do I
feel about my country? And how does my country feel about me? Are we only to be
Americans when the mood suits you? A fair and impartial opportunity is all we ask.
Nothing that you yourselves, wouldn’t demand.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The emotional impact from this scene is rooted in a
historical glimpse of what the reality of so-called Negroes entering the U.S. military
might have been like. There is also a notion that federally elected officials are above and
209
beyond racism and classism. However, when we hear their conversation prior to Colonel
Davis entering the Senate hearing room, we get pulled rather rapidly into a moment of
surprise about their actions and embarrassment for our country. After hearing Davis
speak to the Congressmen a sense of pride for all those ashamed about America’s
treatment of Black people may begin to develop.
Analysis: The Senator had one agenda, Conyers another. Conyers’ use of the word
“nigger,” if nothing else reveals his disdain for so-called Negroes. His later ceasing use
of the word in the presence of Lt. Colonel Davis, a so-called Negro, and instead his
reference to Davis as “young man” reveals Conyers as a hypocrite and coward. His
White colleagues should take note of this hypocrisy, recognizing that if he changes his
speech in situation “A,” he may be apt to change his speech in situation “B.”
As the conversation unfolds between Lieutenant Colonel Davis and the Senate
committee, Davis displays his confidence to enter a leadership moment when he reveals
the double standard that Black soldiers were duty bound to oblige. Davis’ comments
about the Tuskegee pilots being overworked and without opportunity demonstrates the
type of leadership integrity that Jinkins and Jinkins (1998) claim is identified by “the art
of discerning the right moment to raise an issue or a question” (p. 115). Davis’
statements about “fair and impartial opportunity” and being “invited to a poker game,
handed a fixed deck, and then asked why they can’t win” speaks to his “ability to balance
political survival with boldness,” and “the political skill of persuasion.” Davis’ most
significant moment though is when he challenges the committee to stand behind the U.S.
by disclosing his “intimate firsthand understanding of the organization, its heart and soul,
its bedrock identity” by describing Americans as “a decent people with an abiding sense
210
of integrity and fair play,” though Conyers has shown nothing of the sort by his demeanor
throughout the conversation. Davis’ acknowledgment of his own version of a DuBoisian
existential question “how do I feel about my country?” (a similar question to DuBois’
“how does it feel to be a problem?”) is provocative if anything at all, perhaps only
surpassed in profundity by its two accompanying questions, “How does my country feel
about me?” and “Are we only to be Americans when the mood suits you?” If Jinkins
and Jinkins’ assertion regarding the integrity of leaders is correct, America failed
miserably in demonstrating integrity in its effort to be consistent with the opportunities it
made available to its underrepresented in response to them being underprivileged. Davis’
questioning of the spirit behind the Tuskegee initiative exemplifies the integrity he
expected to consistently find in a government that was socially just enough to launch
such a program. It was also Davis’ integrity that would not let America off the hook for
its inconsistency. “The integrity of politically realistic leadership is the determination of
the leader to face the truth of what is actually happening” (Jinkins & Jinkins, p. 119).
The hypocrisy associated with the double standard visited upon African
Americans throughout history, for many, is an over told tale that may not receive the
appropriate attention largely in part to the story being so familiar that now the retelling of
the tale breeds contempt. Conversely, there are other instances where a lack of integrity
is not so easily discernible because the socialization that traditionally enables the lack of
integrity is not aimed at an obvious victim. Will Hunting (portrayed by Matt Damon)
defines integrity by his questioning of “what is actually happening?” within a company
that is hoping to hire him because of his apparent mathematical genius
211
Good Will Hunting
Scene 5: (Will sits across from two N.S.A. Agents, Oliver Dytress and Robert Tavano
who are interviewing him for a job. These guys are smug, clean cut, gung-ho and looking
sharp in twin navy blue suits)
Will: So why do you think I should work for the National Security Agency?
Dytress: Well, you'
d be working on the cutting edge. You'
d be exposed to the kind of
technology you couldn'
t see anywhere else because we'
ve classified it. Super string
theory, Chaos Math, Advanced algorithms—
Will: Code breaking.
Dytress: That'
s one aspect of what we do.
Will: Come on, that'
s what you do. You handle more than eighty percent of the
intelligence workload. You'
re seven times the size of the C.I.A.
Dytress: We don’t like to brag about that, Will, but you’re exactly right. So the way I see
it, the question isn’t "why should you work for N.S.A." The question is "why shouldn'
t
you?"
Will: Why shouldn'
t I work for the National Security Agency? That'
s a tough one but I’ll
take a shot. Say I’m working at the NSA and somebody puts a code on my desk.
Something no one else can break. Maybe I take a shot at it and maybe I break it. I’m real
happy with myself because I did my job well. But maybe that code was the location of
some rebel army in North Africa or Middle East. Once they have that location, they
bomb the village where the rebels are hidin. Fifteen hundred people that I never met,
never had no problem with, get killed. Now the politicians are saying, “Send in the
Marines to secure the area,” cuz they don’t give a shit. It won’t be their kid over there
gettin’ shot, just like it wasn’t them when their number got called cuz they were in the
National Guard. It’ll be some kid from Southie over there takin’ shrapnel in the ass. He
comes back to find the plant he used to work at got exported to the country he got back
from, and the guy who put the shrapnel in his ass got his old job cuz he’ll work for 15
cents a day and no bathroom breaks. Meanwhile, he realizes the only reason he was over
there in the first place was so we could install a government that would sell up oil at a
good price. Of course, the oil companies used a skirmish over there to scare up domestic
oil prices. A cute little ancillary benefit for them, but it ain’t helpin’ my buddy at 2.50 a
gallon. They’re takin’ their sweet time bringin’ the oil back, of course. Maybe they even
took the liberty to hire an alcoholic skipper, who likes to drink martinis and fuckin’ play
slalom with the icebergs. It aint too long till he hits one, spills the oil and kills all the sea
life in the North Atlantic. So now my buddy’s out of work, he can’t afford to drive, so
he’s walkin to fuckin job interviews which sucks because the shrapnel in his ass is givin
him chronic hemorrhoids. Meanwhile, he’s starvin’, cuz every time he tries to get a bite
212
to eat, the only blue plate special they’re servin’ is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker
State. So what did I think? I’m holdin’ out for somethin’ better. I figure fuck it. While
I’m at it why not just shoot my buddy, take his job, give it to his sworn enemy, hike up
gas prices, bomb a village, club a baby seal, hit the hash pipe and join the National
Guard? I can be elected president.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The emotional impact of this scene is attached to our
feelings about Will. He is a rags to riches story and just knowing he is about to engage in
an interview has most of us invested in wanting him to succeed. The other dimension of
emotional impact in the scene is when Will as the interviewee turns the table on the
interviewers by asking and then answering questions that they just are not ready for.
Analysis: Will immerses himself within a leadership moment when he frames America’s
inconsideration in an unmistakable fashion. Will perhaps punctuated even more clearly
his insinuation that the irony of the most dysfunctional situations can often be attributed
to a leadership that lacks integrity. Will also does not hesitate to put socio-economic
class under analysis by situating a young man from Southie as the hapless victim of much
of these moves simply because he had no options. Ultimately, Will refused to be duped,
allow the two interviewees to think he could be duped, or to allow them to remain duped
by a series of events they may not have themselves unpacked.
The greatest enemy of integrity is our desire to be fooled into thinking that things
are better than they appear. The leader of integrity faces the music. (Jinkins &
Jinkins, 1998, p. 119)
It would be a hard sell (with the big picture available to us) to imagine that the
two men who are interviewing Will—who probably are in leadership positions within
their company—actually were somewhat less sophisticated, if not duped, by their
situation. It may have taken Will’s articulation of the not-so-obvious dimensions of their
213
employer. Whether the interviewers subconsciously welcomed being duped so as not to
demonstrate integrity is a good question. However, desiring to be fooled so as to not
have to face the reality of the situation might be more threatening than the traditional
notion of an enemy. It could be that they are protecting their unearned privilege, their
comfortableness with a status quo that represents them at the expense of others. It is also
conceivable that Will was intuitively assuming a leadership position in questioning his
potential employers. Will challenging two of his potential employer’s leaders in such a
provocative way might have raised the stakes for accepted behavior, especially since he
was such a uniquely sought after human resource.
The integrity of politically realistic leadership is the determination of the leader to
face the truth of what is actually happening. (Jinkins & Jinkins, 1998, p. 119)
Ironically, it is an even earlier role of Matt Damon’s in the film Geronimo that
frames the type of action that a leader of integrity initiates when she/he must “face the
truth.”
Geronimo: An American Legend
Scene 7: (The location is a U.S. Fort somewhere in the West, with a young officer
awaiting the opportunity to converse with a commanding officer.)
Man 1: Morning report, sir.
Britton Davis (Matt Damon): Mr. Glenville, I’d like to see the general.
Glenville: On what business?
Davis: It’s about Mr. Gatewood.
(After entering the general’s office, Davis speaks.)
Sir. I thought the U.S. Army kept its word. I thought maybe we were the only ones left
who did. What’s going on out there is a disgrace.
214
General Nelson Miles (Kevin Tighe): Lieutenant, you’re more worried about keeping
your word to a savage than you are fulfilling your duties to the citizens of this country.
We won. That’s what matters. It’s over, Lieutenant. Geronimo, the Apache, the whole
history of the West except being a farmer.
Davis: I don’t think Mr. Gatewood would want me to be a part of any of this.
Miles: I hate an idealist. There’s always something messy about them.
Davis: I’m ashamed. And you have my resignation.
To the disappointment of family and friends, I had ended my military career. Over the
years, the events surrounding the Geronimo campaign have continued to haunt me. I
carry the memory of those days, days of bravery and cruelty, of heroism and deceit. And I
am still faced with an undeniable truth: A way of life that endured a thousand years was
gone. This desert, this land that we look out on, would never be the same.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The emotional impact of someone taking a stand or
walking away from something they valued because of their disappointment with some
aspect of the opportunity or a leader of the opportunity is sometimes surprising,
sometimes awe inspiring, and sometimes deflating. However, usually the statement made
by the person is successful in getting our attention.
Analysis: Matt Damon as Davis displays quite a bit of integrity in walking away from a
promising career in protest of what he sees as American hypocrisy in the handling of the
Geronimo campaign and the abhorrent banishment of the Geronimo-friendly captain.
Obviously there is no opportunity for Davis to provide leadership during the isolated
conversation with the Colonel. There is a chance that his actions/words could have
inspired the General to rethink his position, though this scene does not show it occurring.
However, the courage it takes to act on principle often can have a ripple effect that lives
longer than the moment the courage was acted out.
215
The integrity of the leader spreads like a “healthy virus.” But the leader and
the organization of integrity will not arrive at this place without taking risks.
And that takes courage. (Jinkins & Jinkins, 1998, p. 120)
Perhaps no one better exemplified integrity than abolitionist John Brown, as
depicted in this scene from the film Santa Fe Trail.
Santa Fe Trail (2) cont…
Scene 9: (John Brown is in a meeting with a group of men, among them are Dr. Russell
and Carl Rader. At the moment they are reviewing a map and discussing plans)
JB: Here’s where I would attack first…the arsenal at Harper’s Ferry. Give me only a
hundred good men, Dr. Russell. Well armed and God fearing men who believe in the
cause. I will lead them through Virginia…arouse the thousands of discontented slaves
who will flock to join us. Then, sweep down through the south, through the Carolinas,
Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi. Then, with the entire nation in a state of chaos, we can
dictate our own terms.
Dr. Russell: Have you considered the army, Captain Brown? Surely they will be after
you in full force within a few hours of your first attack.
JB: Let them come, Dr. Russell. Let them come. I studied that country for years. It’s full
of good hiding places…natural forests where large forces of men can defy pursuit
indefinitely. Mr. Rader will go ahead of us and scout the town.
Mr. Rader: Yes sir.
JB: With his knowledge of military methods and the great advantage of surprise, we can
outwit the army at every turn.
Man 1: Captain Brown, this plan of yours is mad, worse than mad. It is high treason.
Man 2: Such an attack would lead to civil war.
JB: Exactly! That is exactly what I want!
Man 3: Is it your wish then, to destroy the Union?
JB: My answer to that is yes! To the devil with the Union! We’ve got to fight some time.
It might as well be now! (The men talk among themselves.) Gentlemen, I came here at
loss and at great personal risk. There’s a price on my head of $10,000 so my time is
216
precious. You’ve given me much help and encouragement up to now. But all that we
have done in Kansas and elsewhere will be wasted unless you see it through to the
glorious end.
Man 4: How much money will you need?
Anticipated Emotive Impact: There could be quite an emotive impact for an audience
that may not know this part of American history. As well, an introduction to John
Brown’s efforts to start a race riot is powerful and troubling. It is also probably
surprising that Brown was in conversation with some of America’s leaders over the
slavery issue.
Analysis: If the integrity of the leader spreads like a “healthy virus,” then Brown’s
passionate devotion to eradicating slavery and subsequent actions, including his desire to
“arouse a thousand discontented slaves,” had the potential to become an epidemic. If the
leader of an organization of integrity only arrives in a successful place by taking risks,
then Brown’s willingness to participate in a Civil War, his losses and personal risks,
including a bounty on his head reveal some of the risks he experienced and courage
required for him to endure (Jinkins & Jinkins, 1998 p. 120).
There may be no better example of a film that depicts the integrity of a leader than
12 Angry Men, starring Henry Fonda as Juror #8. In this film Fonda is one jurist amongst
eleven others considering the merits of the case presented on behalf of a young Latino on
trial for the murder of his father. In this scene the jury is about to begin its deliberation.
12 Angry Men
Scene 3
Juror #1: You fellas can handle this thing any way that you want to. You know, I’m not
going to make any rules. We can, well, discuss it first then vote on it. It’s of course – ahh
– that’s one way. And, ah, we can vote on it right now.
217
Juror #4: I think it’s customary to take a preliminary vote.
Juror #5: Yeah, let’s vote. Who knows, maybe we can all get outta here, huh?
Juror #1: Uh-huh. Ok. Then, uh, I think that we, of course you know, have a first degree
murder charge here; and if we vote the accused guilty, we’ve got to send him to the chair.
That’s mandatory.
Juror #4: I think we know that.
Juror #10: Let’s see who’s where.
Juror #1: Ok, anyone who doesn’t want to vote?
Juror #12: Fine with me.
Juror #1: Ok then, just remember this has to be a 12 to nothing either way. That’s the
law. Ok are we ready? All those voting guilty please raise your hand.
(Hands raise and Juror #1 counts)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Ok, that’s 11 guilty. Those voting not guilty?
(Juror #8 hand raises)
1. Right. 11 guilty. 1 not guilty. Well, now we know where we are.
Juror #10: Boy-oh-boy! There’s always one. (chuckling)
Juror #7: Well, what do we do now?
Juror #8: I guess we talk.
Juror #10: Boy-oh-boy!
Juror #3: You really think he’s innocent?
Juror #8: I don’t know.
Juror #3: I mean, you sat in court with the rest of us. You heard what we did. The kid’s a
dangerous killer. You can see it.
Juror #8: He’s 18 years old!
218
Juror#3: Well, that’s old enough. He stabbed his own father four inches into the chest!
They proved it a dozen different ways in court. Would you like me to list them for you?
Juror#8: No.
Juror #10: What do you want?
Juror #8: I just want to talk.
Juror #7: Well, what’s there to talk about? 11 men in here think he’s guilty. No one had
to think about it twice except you.
Juror #10: I want to ask you something. Do you believe his story?
Juror #8: I don’t know if I believe it or not. Maybe I don’t.
Juror #7: Then how come you vote not guilty?
Juror #8: Well, there were 11 votes for guilty. It’s not easy to raise my hand and send a
boy off to die without talking about it first.
Juror #7: Well now, who says it’s easy?
Juror #8: No one.
Juror #7: What, just because I voted fast? I honestly think the guy is guilty. Couldn’t
change my mind if you talked for a hundred years.
Juror #8: I’m not trying to change your mind. It’s just that we’re talking about
somebody’s life here. We can’t decide in 5 minutes. Supposing we’re wrong?
Juror #7: Supposing we’re wrong? Supposing this whole building should fall down on
my head? You can suppose anything!
Juror #8: That’s right.
Juror #7: What’s it matter how long it takes? Suppose we do it in 5 minutes? So what?
Juror #8: Let’s take an hour. The ballgame doesn’t start until 8 o’clock.
Juror #1: Who’s got something to say?
Juror #9: I’m willing to sit for an hour.
Juror #10: Great! I heard a pretty good story last night…
219
Juror #8: That’s not why we’re sitting here.
Juror #10: Alright, you tell me… what are we sitting here for?
Juror #8: I don’t know, maybe no reason. Look, this kid has been kicked around all his
life. You know, born in a slum. Mother dead since he was 9. Lived a year and a half in an
orphanage when his father was serving a jail term for forgery. That’s not a very happy
beginning. He’s a wild, angry kid. That’s all he’s ever been; and you know why? Because
he’s been hit on the head by somebody once a day, everyday. He’s had a pretty miserable
18 years. I just think we owe him a few words, that’s all.
Juror #10: I don’t mind telling you this mister, we don’t owe him a thing. He got a fair
trial, didn’t he? What do you think that trial cost? He’s lucky he got it. You know what I
mean? Now look, we’re all grown ups in here. We heard the facts didn’t we? You’re not
going to tell me we are supposed to believe this kid knowing what he is. Listen, I’ve lived
among them all my life. You can’t believe a word they say. You know that. I mean
they’re born liars.
Juror #9: Only an ignorant man can believe that!
Juror#10: Now listen…
Juror #9: Do you think you were born with a monopoly on the truth? I think certain
things should be pointed out to this man.
Juror #7: C’mon, this isn’t Sunday; we don’t need a sermon.
Juror #1: C’mon, we have a job to do, so let’s do it.
Juror #12: Rice Pops… it’s a product I work on at the agency… The breakfast with a
built in bounce! I wrote that line!
Juror #11: Very catchy.
Juror #1: Do you mind?
Juror #12: Oh! I’m sorry! I have this habit of doodling – it keeps me thinking clearly.
Juror #1: Yeah, we have all this work to do. There’s no point in staying here forever.
Ok, now perhaps if the gentleman down there who’s disagreeing with us. Well, perhaps
you can tell us why; you know, let us know what you’re thinking and we might be able to
show you where you’re mixed up.
220
Juror #12: Well maybe this is an idea, I haven’t given it much thought, but it seems to
me that it’s up to the group of us to convince this gentleman that he’s wrong and we’re
right. Now, maybe if each took a couple of minutes just to uh… well it was just a quick
idea.
Juror #1: No, no, that’s a good one. Uhh…supposed we go once around the table.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The emotional impact in this scene probably is mostly
surrounding the fact that Juror #8 was brave enough to be the only one to vote not guilty.
Many if not most people would go with the flow rather than be the only one having to
defend their reason for non compliance with group consensus. The overall edginess of
the conversation after Juror #8 challenges the other jurors is also quite emotional in terms
of witnessing people scramble to defend their often unearned socio-economic privilege.
Analysis: Jinkins and Jinkins’ (1998) notion of the integrity of a leader resembling a
“healthy virus” parallels Fonda’s Juror #8. At the beginning of their deliberation Fonda
alone entered a leadership moment when he was invested in ensuring that the young man
on trial was truly given his day in court. One juror was in a hurry to get to a ball game.
Another juror was so appalled at Fonda’s interest in making sure the process was fair that
he framed Fonda’s actions by the phrase “there’s always one.” Most of us in a similar
situation would hope to have a Fonda in our camp, but somehow we lose sight of that fact
the moment our trial is over. Or perhaps many of us never attempt to imagine how
peculiar it is that certain types of people often seem to be the ones constantly in trouble
with the law. Instead of pondering what might be the reasons for this phenomenon, we
instead default to a perspective that has us as a better person than the unfortunate ones in
legal jeopardy.
221
It is easy to dismiss the blatant ignorance that took place during the deliberation,
but that would be a mistake. Comments like, “No one had to think twice about it” and
“Couldn’t change my mind if you talked for a hundred years,” permeate far too many
conversations in both our society and world. Comments like, “I’ve lived among them all
my life. You can’t believe a word they say. You know that. I mean they’re born liars,”
are applicable to all groups that represent something different to others not accustomed to
seeing it. When one of the jurors replied in response that, “Only an ignorant man can
believe that,” and then followed that comment with the question, “Do you think you were
born with a monopoly on the truth?” he may have asked the most pertinent question of
their entire deliberation. Does anyone actually possess ownership of truth? If not, then
what makes us so comfortable locking into the positions we hold so dear? Could it be
that people are afraid to think beyond the lessons they have been taught and so are quick
to judge, or prejudge, or succumb to their prejudice? These are the questions that leaders
must engage. Philosopher John Corvino once said:
Condemning people out of habit is easy
Overcoming deep seated prejudice takes courage. (1997, p. 144)
Far too many of us succumb to the habits of which we have been socialized to
respond. Fortunately for the defendant in the trial these 11 Angry Men were deliberating
on, one man was more rationale than angry.
Jinkins and Jinkins’ (1998) assertion that leaders and organizations that believe
they exhibit integrity will not actually be capable of possessing that type of integrity
without risk. In their time as jurors their potential to really honor their assigned
responsibilities would have fallen drastically short if not for Juror #8’s risk taking.
222
Fonda, as Juror #8, himself articulated this point when he said, “Well, there were 11
votes for guilty. It’s not easy to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking
about it first.” Most people will take major steps to avoid being the only person
dissenting on anything. He was actually challenged just because he did not conform.
Fonda really showed his mettle in the crucible of the deliberation, while other jurors,
many of them leaders in their own right, took verbal snipes at him.
Later in the film after much deliberation, the men would vote again.
12 Angry Men cont…
Scene 13: (The men are either still seated or moving about the deliberation room.)
Juror #8: I want another vote.
Juror #1: Ok, there’s another vote called for. I guess the quickest way is a show of
hands. Does anyone object? Ok, all of us voting not guilty raise your hands. (counting) 12-3-4-5-6-7-8, um, 9. All those voting guilty raise your hands 1-2-3. Well the vote is 9:3
in favor of acquittal.
Juror #10: I don’t understand you people! I mean, all these picky little points you keep
bringing up – they don’t mean nothing! You saw this kid just like I did. You’re not going
to tell me you believe that phony story about losing the knife and that business about
being at the movies. Look, you know how these people lie. It’s born in them. I mean,
what the heck, I don’t have to tell you. They don’t know what the truth is. And let me tell
ya, they don’t need any real big reason to kill someone either. No, sir! They get drunk –
ahh, they’re real big drinkers, all of ‘em. You know that! And bang, someone is lying in
the gutter! Well, no one is blaming them for it, it’s just the way they are by nature. You
know what I mean? Violent! (to Juror #9) Where are you going? Human life don’t mean
as much to them as it does to us. Look, they’re lushing it up and fighting all the time and
if someone gets killed, someone gets killed – they don’t care! Oh sure, there’s some good
things about ‘em too. Look, I’m the first one to say that. I’ve known a couple that are ok,
but that’s the exception, you know what I mean? Most of ‘em – it’s like they have no
feelings, they can do anything. What’s going on here?
(Most jurors are standing and putting backs to Juror #10)
I’m trying to tell ya – you’re making a big mistake, you people. This kid is a liar. I know
it. I know all about them.
223
(More jurors standing up)
Listen to me, they’re no good. There’s not one of them that’s any good. I mean, what’s
happening in here? I speak my piece and you…
(Another juror stands)
Listen to me, uh, we’re, we’re – this kid on trial here, his type, well don’t you know
about them? There’s a danger here. These people are dangerous. They’re… Why? Listen
to me. Listen.
Juror #4: I have. Now sit down and don’t open your mouth again.
Juror #10: (mumbles) Tell ya… (walks over to separate desk)
(Jurors start returning to table)
Juror #8: It’s always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. Where
ever you run into it prejudice always obscures the truth. I don’t really know what the
truth is. I don’t suppose anybody will ever really know. Nine of us now seem to feel that
the defendant is innocent. But we’re just gambling on probabilities; we may be wrong.
We may be trying to let a guilty man go free. I don’t know. Nobody really can; but we
have a reasonable doubt. And that’s something that’s very valuable in our system. No
jury can declare a man guilty unless it’s sure. We nine cannot understand how you three
are still so sure. Maybe you can tell us.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The fact that the jury has now, to a large extent, changed
its mind, and instead of being 11-1 in favor of a guilty verdict, is now 9-3 in favor of
acquittal has a tremendous emotional impact. It makes a huge statement about the power
of one, something easily forgotten but framed powerfully in the performances of the
jurors. The other quite emotional dimension to this scene is the outing of the racism in
one of the jurors and the other juror’s reactions.
Analysis: It is quite a daunting proposition to realize that Juror #10’s perspective is
shared by many people. His perspective on people like the defendant “lushing it up” and
“fighting all the time” is a one dimensional snapshot of the reality of some
underrepresented people. Where is the consideration of why life may not appear to be as
224
valuable to these others that we are so quick to assume we know so much about? In one
breath he states, “I’ve known a couple that are ok,” and just as suddenly states, “There’s
not one of them that’s any good.” Which is it? Could it be the case that Juror #10 is not
just ignorant himself, but a victim as well? The easiest thing for us to do is to get caught
up in someone’s dysfunctional opinion, lose our patience, and succumb to hating the
hater. This often occurs when we allow our emotion to override our reason and we lose
sight of the fact that the ignorant person, the person we see and/or frame as a hater, is as
much a societal victim as the person they hate. The difference is the hater often has
power while the object of the hater’s hatred is powerless.
There is a thin line between the integrity in someone’s convictions and the
courage to stand by those convictions. Juror #8’s actions provided anyone seeing this
brilliant film with a profile in courage that should be shown and shared again and again.
Moments like these in film are priceless and need to be utilized for the lessons they
inspire and additional questions that they bring to bear. A question that often goes
unanswered in discussions of this clip is not why is Juror #10 ignorant, but what are we
doing in our society to ensure that future Juror #10s are not as ignorant? Until we have
the integrity and courage to diligently work to prevent the creation of dysfunctional
citizens like many of the men on this jury, we need to be careful painting them as
anything other than victims as well, victims of a failed educational system. It is real life
conversation like the ones in 12 Angry Men or pseudo conversations that serve as a point
of departure like the one in the film 12 Angry Men that help convert haters into allies.
Also, hopefully, digging a bit deeper into these scenarios might allow us to prevent the
sympathizers of the victims to not become perpetrators of hatred themselves.
225
Courage
“History’s cowards are eternally relegated to the suburbs of hell” (Canto III).
Canto’s quote is complex because framing someone as a coward is a difficult
thing to do. To an outsider observer the coward’s behavior situates the coward on an
extreme—contrasted against a foolhardy person on the other extreme—with a
brave/courageous person in the middle. However, the coward sees the brave person as
foolhardy while the foolhardy sees the brave person as a coward. So where are they
really? In this scene from Grand Canyon, Mack (portrayed by Kevin Kline) can easily be
interpreted as all of the above, for various reasons.
Grand Canyon
Scene 3: (Mack (portrayed by Kevin Kline) is in his car singing with the radio when he
realizes the shortcut he took after the Los Angeles Laker’s game was a mistake. He is
now somewhere lost in an predominantly Black neighborhood. He turns off the radio.
Five young Black males pull up next to him with rap music blaring. One of them waves at
him as they pass by. He begins singing again to calm himself.)
Mack: Mmm…uh…fuck! (He looks around nervously as his car breaks down) God.
What the…(A car horn blares behind him) All right! All right! (He pulls the car off to the
side of the road and can’t restart the engine) No. God. Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! (He dials the
operator on his car phone)
Operator: Operator 349. What city please?
Mack: Yeah, uh, I need road service, for uh, I don’t know, let’s say Inglewood. (The
operator hangs up) Hello? God…damn!
Scene switches to him at a payphone.
Mack: Yeah, uh Buckingham. But remember it’s about a half mile, uh, west, I guess of
there.
Woman on phone: Stay close to your vehicle sir. It should be about a 45 minute wait.
Mack: Uh huh, I understand, but see, uh, if it takes that long I might be, like, dead.
226
Woman on phone: You might call the police.
Mack: The police. Oh shit, no. Nothing’s happened. Just get the truck here as fast as you
can.
Woman on Phone: Will do sir.
He hangs up the phone and the same young males who passed him earlier drive past the
payphone and see him. He jogs to his car. He is now waiting in his car when the young
males pass him again. He tries the ignition and sees them turn around in his rear view
mirror.
Mack: Mayday, mayday. We’re going down.
The young males’ park behind him and all five exit the vehicle. They walk toward Mack’s
car.)
Male #1: Hey man, you need some help here?
Male #2: This a nice car, mister. This one of them new Jap cars?
Mack: Yeah.
Male #1: Yeah you need some help? Or yeah it is a Jap car.
Mack: Thanks. No I’ve already called for the, uh, tow truck and the police.
Male #3: You called the police? What? On that phone there you called all those people.
Who else you call, your mama? (Young males all laugh)
Male #4: He been busy man.
Male #3: I see (does the handshake pound with guy 4)
Male #2: You know, this a nice car mister. I could use me a car with a phone in it.
Male #1: Maybe you want us to give you a ride somewhere or somethin’. You want a
jump start or somethin’.
Male #2: (Chuckling) Yeah man, how ‘bout a jump start.
Male #5 pounds on the hood of the car.
Male #3: Oh, he nervous ya’ll. What you so nervous about, man?
227
Male #2: Maybe he carrying Jim. Maybe he’s scared we goin’ bust him.
Male #3: Bust his ass.
Woman passenger in a car driving by yelling out of her window: “Leave that man
alone!”
Male #2: OK Grandma. Whatever, baby. (Chuckles)
Male #1: Why don’t you get out of the car, mister? You want me to have Jimmy take you
out of there. Or how about this, do you ever want to get out of that car again? (Reveals
gun in his pants)
Mack: Look, what do you want? You want my wallet? You want my watch? It’s a shitty
watch. You’re welcome to it.
Male #1: What I want, is you get out of the car.
Male #3: C’mon let’s get this shit over with.
Male #1: Now, motherfucker.
Mack gets out of the car with force and slams the door. At that very moment the tow truck
shows up and the driver, Simon, gets out.
Simon: Which one of you call for this truck?
Mack: Me, that was me. Uh, this is it. It uh, just sort of died on me, here. I’m the one
that called.
Simon: Ah, I guess it was you, huh?
Mack: Yeah.
Male #1: Hey man, we was doin’ fine here.
Simon: Uh, is it the battery?
Mack: Huh?
Simon: Were you stopped and it wouldn’t start again?
Mack: No, no uh, it-it just died on me.
Simon: We’re going to have to take it in.
228
Male #1: You dissin’ me man?
Male #2: You bet he is. You seein’ it now, man.
Male #3: Hey man, that’s right. That’s what he’s doin’.
Male #1: Is that right? You dissin’ me?
Simon: No I’m not. Nothin’ like it. I’m doin’ a job here fella. This is how I make my
living. I just ride out there, and do the job. I want it to go as smooth as it can be. I don’t
like it to be any harder than it already is. (Turns to Mack) You wanna make sure you’re in
neutral and the parking break is off?
Mack is blocked by Male #2 but manages to get around him and do what he is told.
Male #2: That’s bullshit man. He’s talkin’ bullshit.
Male #3: What’s goin’ down? This is fucked up.
Simon: Get in the truck. You’ll ride up with me.
Male #2 grabs Mack and Mack pulls away.
Simon: (Turns to Male #1) Are you the one I’m talkin’ to?
Male #1: We all decide what goes down. So don’t fly that shit.
Male #4: Yeah man, fuck you!
Simon: Am I talkin’ to the right man? (Male #1 nods) That’s what I thought. (Simon then
takes Male #1 aside) Look. I gotta ask you a favor. I got to ask you to let me go my way
here. Now, this truck is my responsibility. Now that the car’s hooked up to it, I’m
responsible for that too. Any shit comes down now, it’s my ass. Follow me?
Male #1: Do you think I’m stupid? Just answer me that first and then we could talk.
Simon: Look, I don’t know nothin’ about you; you don’t know nothin’ about me. I don’t
know if you’re stupid, or some kind of genius, but I do know this. I got to get out of here,
and you got the gun. So I’m askin’ you for a favor for the second time. Let me go my
way here.
Male #1: I’m gonna grant you that favor, and I’m gonna expect you to remember this if
we ever meet again.
229
Simon: Yeah.
Male #1: But first, you gotta answer one more thing for me, and you gotta tell me the
truth. Are you askin’ me a favor as a sign of respect? Or are you askin’ me a favor ‘cause
I got the gun?
Simon: Man, the world ain’t supposed to work like this. And may-maybe you don’t
know that, but this ain’t the way it’s supposed to be. I’m supposed to be able to do my
job, without asking you if I can. That dude is supposed to be able to wait with his car
without you rippin’ him off. Everything’s supposed to be different than what it is.
Male #1: So what’s your answer?
Simon: You don’t have the gun. We ain’t havin’ this conversation.
Male #1: (Scoffs) That’s what I thought. No gun, no respect. That’s why I always got the
gun.
Male #1 signals for crew to leave. Male #2 spits at Mack’s feet. The young males then get
in their car and drive off, bumping their rap music.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The emotional impact in this film excerpt is all over the
place. Most people would be in an emotional frenzy if they turned the corner and
discovered they were stranded in a foreign neighborhood where they are largely in the
racial minority. Then the emotion intensifies when the stranded stranger is threatened.
The emotion intensifies even more when someone attempts to rescue the foreigner and
the rescuer himself has to negotiate terms with the leader of the hostile mob hoping to
survive the situation.
Analysis: The intense situation presented in this clip from Grand Canyon really affords
the viewer the opportunity to consider leadership in an array of ways where one mistake
can have monumental consequences. There are many opportunities at leadership
moments but none are taken until late in the series of events.
Mack’s paranoia inadvertently contributes to him insulting the carjackers. He
actually tells them, “Look, what do you want? You want my wallet? You want my
230
watch? It’s a shitty watch. You’re welcome to it.” Fortunately for Mack the carjackers
were too ignorant to recognize that they had just been insulted. Or when asked by Mack
if they wanted “a shitty watch,” perhaps the carjackers were too fixated on the task at
hand, robbing him of his vehicle, to pay it any mind. This is followed by the
identification of the gang leader by Simon. It is easy to dismiss the gang bangers as
cowards, but it is all about perspective. It takes a certain level of courage to commit a
crime as well, knowing there are consequences that accompany the risk involved. So, a
look at the leadership roles played by Simon in rescuing Mack, and the leadership role
played by Male #1 in allowing Simon and Mack to not only leave, but live, is necessary.
Whatever we may call this quality—coolness under fire, the “right stuff,”
quiet confidence—the leader of courage must have it in order to take
advantage of those moments when many panic believing that all is lost.
Frequently those moments of crisis are precisely the opportunities for growth
and change that good leadership looks out for. (Jinkins & Jinkins, 1998, p.
122)
Simon (portrayed by Danny Glover) enters his leadership moment with due
diligence, deftly displaying what Jinkins and Jinkins (1998) describe as a “coolness under
fire” (p. 122) when he arrives upon the scene projecting a focused, “quiet confidence,”
business like demeanor. Any other type of attitude could have contributed to the
carjackers panicking “believing that all is lost,” in terms of their vaunted goal of
obtaining the automobile. Simon’s recognizing that he was entering a crisis situation and
accurately guessing just how far he could push it was as fortunate for him as it was
prescient. His respectful request to the young man with the gun to let him and Mack
231
depart with their lives probably played just enough to the lead carjacker’s ego that it
served to assuage the situation. Simon’s carefully cautious answering of the gang
leader’s questions allowed him to avoid further exacerbating the situation.
Until Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown we
seldom had films that visited the less than glorified gangster as human. However, though
the storyline in the film Grand Canyon itself does not visit the gang leader’s reality
outside of the potential carjacking, as a leader, albeit a dysfunctional one, he was also a
cool customer. Like Simon, he kept his cool, even when Simon arrived and immediately
went to work, disrespecting the gang and its leader in the process. The gang leader set
the ambiance for the carjacking, possibly not wanting it to get out of control so as to
avoid damaging the vehicle, or enhancing the consequences if he and the other gang
members were later apprehended for the crime, whatever the crime may have escalated to
during their engagement. It is even conceivable—and I know this may sound like a
stretch— but the gang leader may have had his own leadership moment when he
exhibited “precisely the opportunities for growth and change that good leadership looks
out for.” People’s personal epiphanies come in strange ways. Not jacking Mack’s
vehicle could have culminated in some conversation amongst the criminals that
effectively changed their ways. While this is not likely, it is certain that the way the
script was written, something special occurred that night in Inglewood, California that
does not happen often during your typical carjacking.
Coincidentally, this scene is filmed just a few miles from where I grew up in
South Central Los Angeles. That said, Simon’s arrival, as melodramatic as it was, is
Hollywood at its best and worst. While it gets your attention, the reality of that situation
232
is Simon probably would have been executed himself for his blatant disrespect of the
carjackers. Because the carjacking itself would need to occur rather rapidly, Simon’s
speech about the situation probably would have never occurred because the execution
would have been swift. However, for the Hollywood storyline to be feasible, let us say
the carjackers allowed Simon some latitude because of their respect for blackness, or
their elders, or the father figure he may have presented to the hood packing the heat
(holding the gun). Also, the carjackers themselves are not, for all intent and purposes, a
well coordinated military unit. They are hoods looking to come up (improve themselves)
by any means necessary. Since the car was not functioning, it is more likely they would
have not jacked it due to the hassle that would have been involved.
A courageous leader by contrast, engages analytical skills to assess the reality
of the situation, often redefining the “crisis” as a “great chance” or an
“opportunity that we cannot pass up.” Such a leader explores the problems
facing the organization so as to discover what options are hidden in the crisis,
without giving in to the hyperbole. (Jinkins & Jinkins, 1998, p. 122)
There is often a hyperbole associated with challenging so-called leaders, people in
positions of power. While it is a path that needs to be well considered, more often than
not the path to challenging a dysfunctional leader is one that is necessary. If someone
within an organization does not snatch the lambskin off of the wolf to reveal him/her for
what he/she may actually be (a bully), that person often will manipulate organizational
members that do not have the power or privilege to defend themselves. The film Finding
Forester provides an opportunity to witness a leader exhibit “analytical skills to assess
233
the reality of the situation,” when a student and professor are immersed in a
confrontation.
Finding Forester
Scene 23: (A classroom at an elite academic institution)
Professor Crawford: Ladies and Gentlemen, may I have your attention, please, if you
don’t mind.
Professor Crawford: “Ere sin could blight or sorrow fade. Death came with friendly
care. The opening bud to heaven convey’d…”
(Female student walks in late)
Professor Crawford: How nice of you to join us.
Professor Crawford: That’s not part of the poem, hmm.
Professor Crawford: “…And bade it blossom there.” Anyone? A little more early
morning reticence than usual.
Professor: Mr. Coleridge. Please, Mr. Coleridge. How many students would you say we
have here today?
Mr. Coleridge: (a student) I’m not sure.
Professor Crawford: Perhaps you could humor us with a guess.
Mr. Coleridge: Thirty?
Professor Crawford: Thirty. And of that 30, there isn’t one person who knows the
author of that passage. I find that remarkable. Don’t you, Mr. Coleridge? Perhaps we
should back into this. Mr. Coleridge, in looking at this, what, if any, conclusions might
we be able to draw?
Mr. Coleridge: You mean about the author?
Professor Crawford: About anything. Do any of the words strike you as unusual? Mr.
Coleridge, feel free to view this as the appropriate time for a response.
Mr. Coleridge: Ere.
Professor Crawford: “Ere.” And why is that unusual?
234
Mr. Coleridge: Because it sounds old.
Professor Crawford: It does sound old, doesn’t it? And you know why it sounds old,
Mr. Coleridge? It’s because it is old. More than 200 years old. Written before you were
born, before your father was born, before your father’s father was born. But that still does
not excuse the fact that you don’t know who wrote it, now does it Mr. Coleridge?
Mr. Coleridge: I’m sorry, sir, I don’t, um…
Professor Crawford: You, of all people in this room, should know who wrote that
passage. And you know why, Mr. Coleridge? I repeat, do you know why?
Jamal: Just say your name, man.
Professor Crawford: Excuse me; did you have something to contribute, Mr. Wallace?
Jamal: I just said that he should say his name.
Professor Crawford: And why would it be helpful for Mr. Coleridge to say his name?
Jamal: Because that’s who wrote it.
Professor Crawford: Very good Mr. Wallace. Perhaps your skills do extend a bit farther
than basketball.
Professor Crawford: Now, if we can turn to page-- you may be seated Mr. Coleridge.
Turn to page 120 in the little blue book that I’m certain-Jamal: Further.
Professor Crawford: I’m sorry?
Claire: (Whispers) Don’t.
Jamal: You said my skills extend “farther” than the basketball court. “Farther relates to
distance. “Further” is a definition of degree. You should have said “further.”
Professor Crawford: Are you challenging me, Mr. Wallace?
Jamal: Not anymore than you challenged Coleridge.
Professor Crawford: Perhaps the challenge should have been directed elsewhere. “It is
a melancholy truth that even…
235
Jamal: “…great men have poor relations.” Dickens.
Professor Crawford: “You will hear the beat of a horse’s…”
Jamal: Kipling.
Professor Crawford: “All great truths begin…”
Jamal: Shaw.
Professor Crawford: “Man is the only animal…”
Jamal: “…that blushes, or needs to.” It’s Mark Twain. Come on, Professor Crawford.
Professor Crawford: Get out! Get out.
Jamal: Yeah, I’ll get out. (He leaves the classroom)
(Claire follows him)
Claire: Jamal
Jamal: Leave it alone, Claire
Claire: Hold on, please.
Jamal: So that’s what they do around here, they kick you out if you know something
here?
Claire: You have no idea what Crawford does to students who do this.
Jamal: You are right about that.
Claire: Jamal!
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The emotional impact of this scene derives from the fact
that the professor is an intellectual bully and a student not only stands up to him, but
beats him at his own game. Another aspect of their encounter that adds to the intensity of
the scene is the racism, classism, and privilege that the professor reveals in his attitude
towards Jamal.
236
Analysis: If “a courageous leader by contrast, engages analytical skills to assess the
reality of the situation, often redefining the ‘crisis’ as a ‘great chance’ or an ‘opportunity
that we cannot pass up,’ it is hard to argue that Jamal did not act in his leadership
moment. Through trying to assist a classmate initially, Jamal’s analytical skills allowed
him to try to assist Coleridge. Professor Crawford, who for all intent and purpose was
engaging his class as an intellectual bully, was met with intellectual force by Jamal.
Jamal revealed himself as a courageous leader when he redefined his moment of crisis as
an “opportunity that he [could] not pass up.” Professor Crawford took an unfair verbal
jab at Jamal with his overtly racist, and covertly classist statement regarding his
expectations of Jamal’s intellectual abilities. It was racist because he insinuated that he
was surprised that Jamal skills surprisingly surpassed athletics, with athletics often a
racial stereotype associated with Blacks as a result of the breeding that occurred during
slavery. It was classist in that it suggested a limited level of achievement expected of
Blacks, hence a statement about Jamal’s social class standing as well as perhaps his race.
Jamal courageously refused to let him get away with it. Jamal, as a leader explored “the
problems facing the organization so as to discover what options are hidden in the crisis,
without giving in to the hyperbole” by revealing Professor Crawford as a bully. More to
the point, Jamal revealed Crawford as the stereotypical bully apt to back down when
someone with enough courage stares him in the eye without blinking, something that
Jamal did quite adeptly.
Jamal’s engagement of “the reality of the situation” had him step up to a
leadership position in an extremely awkward, perhaps even intimidating situation. He
revealed himself as a courageous leader by not “giving in to the hyperbole” of the
237
professor’s power inherent in his position and attempted to both assist another student
and then not be intellectually bullied by the professor. The professor’s mention of
Jamal’s “skills extending farther [than] basketball” was heavy handed, unfair, oppressive,
and disrespectful. The professor’s disdain for Jamal playing basketball is one thing, but
bringing it up in a class—when all Jamal had done was to whisper an answer to a
struggling classmate—is like killing an ant with a sledge hammer. Jamal, the only Black
student in the class, could have been humiliated. Instead, Jamal, perhaps representing the
entire class, made himself available for possibly more humiliation at the hands of
Crawford by entering the game Crawford established, ultimately defeating him and
revealing to the entire class the overwhelming insecurities that Crawford must have
stirring beneath the surface.
Jamal’s “beating him at his own game” is akin to what Jinkins and Jinkins (1998)
frame as discovering “what options are hidden in the crisis” (p. 122). For Jamal, the
option was to make the statement to Crawford and the rest of the class that you handle a
bully by looking him straight in the eye unflinchingly. In doing so, you often catch the
bully off guard.
Jamal easily could have ignored Crawford’s first or second remark and waited
until a break from class to discuss with Claire, Coleridge, or other students Crawford’s
insensitivity. However, in not doing this he displayed what Jinkins and Jinkins (1998)
articulate as the courageous leader’s ability to “assess situations quickly enough to
respond to favorable conditions that will not wait forever” (p. 122). By engaging
Crawford immediately and embarrassing him, Jamal may have given Crawford reason to
pause the next time he decided to prejudge/intellectually bully someone. Jamal’s courage
238
in taking advantage of that specific leadership moment just may have been more
powerful in revealing Crawford than any other action he could have taken. Sometimes
the courage that is required to be a leader is inextricably linked to a window of
opportunity.
The courageous leader is able to assess situations quickly enough to respond
to favorable conditions that will not wait forever. (Jinkins & Jinkins, p. 123)
In yet another excerpt from the film Good Will Hunting, Will exhibits courageous
leadership when he rescues one of his friends from embarrassment.
Good Will Hunting (2) cont…
Scene 4: (Four friends, none of whom has ever attended college, enter a bar near
Harvard University)
Chuckie: So, this is a Harvard bar, huh? I thought there'
d be equations and shit on the
wall. I will take a pitcher of the finest lager in the house… Time out. I’m gonna have to
bust a little move on them Harvard hotties down there at the bar. Work some magic. Oh,
hello. Hi, how are ya?
Lydia: Fine.
Skylar: Okay.
Chuckie: So, you ladies ah…
Lydia: Come here often?
Chuckie: Do I come here? I come here a bit. I’m here, you know, from time to time. Do
you go to school here?
Lydia: Yep.
Chuckie: Yeah, cause I think I had a class with you.
(At this point, several interested parties materialize. Morgan, Billy, and Will try as
inconspicuously as possible to situate themselves within listening distance. A rather large
student in a HARVARD LACROSSE sweatshirt, CLARK (22) notices Chuckie. He
[Clark] walks over to Skylar and Lydia, nobly hovering over them as
239
protector. This gets Will, Morgan, and Billy'
s attention.)
Skylar: What class?
Chuckie: Ah, history I think.
Skylar: Oh...
Chuckie: You don’t necessarily—you may not remember me. You know, I like it here.
It doesn’t mean cause I go here, I’m a genius. I am very smart.
At this point, Clark can'
t resist and steps in.
Clark: Hey.
Chuckie: Hey how’s it goin? How are ya?
Clark: Good. How ya doin? What class did you say that was?
Chuckie: History.
Clark: Just history? It must have been a survey course then.
Chuckie: Yeah it was. It was surveys. You should check it out. It’s a good course. It’d
be a good class.
Clark: How'
d you like that course?
Chuckie: You know, frankly, I found that class, you know, rather elementary.
Clark: Elementary. You know I don’t doubt that it was.
Chuckie: Yeah.
Clark: I remember the class, it was just between recess and lunch.
Skylar: Clark, why don’t you go away?
Clark: Why don’t you relax? I’m just having fun with my new friend.
Will and Billy come forward and stand behind Chuckie.
Chuckie: All right, are we gonna have a problem?
240
Clark: There'
s no problem. I was just hoping you could give me some insight intothe
evolution of the market economy in the southern colonies. My contention is that prior to
the Revolutionary War the economic modalities especially of the southern colonies could
most aptly be characterized as agrarian pre-capitalist and...
Will, who at this point has migrated to Chuckie'
s side and is completely fed-up, includes
himself in the conversation.
Will: Of course that'
s your contention. You'
re a first year grad student. You just finished
some Marxian historian, Pete Garrison prob'
ly, and you’re going to be convinced of that
until next month when you get to James Lemon. Then you’re going to be talking about
how Virginia and Pennsylvania were strongly entrepreneurial and capitalist back in 1740.
That'
ll last until sometime in your second year, then you'
ll be in here regurgitating
Gordon Wood about the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of
military mobilization.
Clark: (taken aback): Well, as a matter of fact, I won'
t, because Wood drastically
underestimates the impact of-Will: --"Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated
upon wealth, especially inherited wealth..." You got that from Vickers’ "Work in Essex
County," Page 98, right? I read that too. Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for
us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or is that your thing? You
come into a bar. You read some obscure passage. Then pretend—pawn it off as your
own. As your own idea just to impress some girls? Embarrass my friend?
Clark is stunned.
Will (cont'd): The sad thing is, in about 50 years you might start doin'some thinkin'on
your own and by then you'
ll realize there are only two certainties in life.
Will: One, don'
t do that. Two-- you dropped a hundred and fifty grand on an education
you coulda'picked up for a dollar fifty in late charges at the Public Library.
Will catches Skylar'
s eye.
Clark: But I will have a degree, and you'
ll be serving my kids fries at a drive through on
our way to a skiing trip.
Will: (smiles) Maybe. But at least I won'
t be unoriginal. And if you got a problem with
that, I guess we can step outside figure it out.
Clark: No, man, there’s no problem. Its cool.
Will: Damn right its cool. If you change your mind, I'
ll be over by the bar.
241
Chuckie: How do you like me now?
He turns and walks away. Chuckie follows, throwing Clark a look. Morgan turns to a
nearby girl.
Morgan: My boy’s wicked smart.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The emotional impact of this scene lies in the response to
the intellectual bullying initiated by the Harvard student. Will responds exceptionally,
defending and ultimately saving his friend Chuckie from being extremely embarrassed.
There is probably an emotional connection with the viewers of this scene for most people
who have been victimized by an intellectual bully and were not situated to respond the
way that Will does to Clark.
Analysis: Will, in response to his leadership moment, more than adequately reflected
Jinkins & Jinkins’ (1998) belief that “the courageous leader is able to assess situations
quickly enough to respond to favorable conditions that will not wait forever” (p. 123).
Clark’s confronting an ill equipped Chuckie (portrayed by Ben Affleck) and potentially
embarrassing him in front of the two women Chuckie was trying to impress was
something Will, as the intellectual leader of his group, needed to address immediately, or
the moment—the “favorable conditions” that would have allowed Chuckie to save face
and Clark to learn a lesson—would have been lost. If Will were to challenge Clark
outside of this context it could be Will looking like a bully. So, as I said earlier, a
leadership moment occurs within a context of diversity & social justice. Attempts to
have leadership moments outside of that context are in vain.
Jinkins & Jinkins’ (1998) assertion that “Courageous leadership listens to
criticism, reflects on mistakes, and translates this reflection into new understandings” (p.
242
124) is also quite pertinent to a lesson that can be learned by the bully in this scenario as
well. If Clark, as an intellectual bully, is actually a leader amongst his friends, then he
may have learned a lesson, albeit painful, from Will’s intellectually humiliating him,
especially since Clark’s pride seemed to come from having a superior intellect. Often we
do not challenge intellectual bullies because we do not believe or do not even consider
that they can experience a personal epiphany themselves. However, if the challenge is
packaged adequately, the bully may discover through being humiliated enough, the pain
they have caused others and will reflect upon their mistake and “translate this reflection
into new understandings.”
Leadership that is too timid to take advantage of new technologies or to
rethink the ways things have always been done is on a collision course with
extinction. (Jinkins & Jinkins, 1998, p. 124)
The courage or lack thereof in embracing a leadership moment in any given
situation varies. Clark in Good Will Hunting, a seeming leader, albeit a dysfunctional
one, was provided an opportunity to “rethink the way things have always been done” in
his circle of friends. If he has desire to continue to assume a leadership position amongst
his peer group, his only opportunity to avoid ‘extinction’ may be to change his ways.
Another example of leadership captured in film that may have benefited from
“rethinking the ways things have always been done” can be seen in this excerpt from the
film Crash in an exchange between Officer Hanson (portrayed by Ryan Phillippe) and his
commanding officer after Hanson attempts to report police brutality in the form of sexual
abuse of a woman during a traffic stop.
243
Crash (2) cont…
Scene 7: (Officer Hanson, the passive police officer in the situation with the Black couple
(Christine and Cameron) where the wife was molested, enters his bosses office to discuss
the incident).
Officer Hanson: I don’t wanna cause any problems, Lieutenant. I just want a new
partner.
Lieutenant: I understand. Your partner’s a racist prick. But you don’t wanna stir up any
bad feelings with him.
Officer Hanson: He’s been on the force for a long time.
Lieutenant: Seventeen Years.
Officer Hanson: I do have to work here, sir.
Lieutenant: So you don’t mind that there’s a racist prick on the force. You just don’t
want him to ride in your car.
Officer Hanson: If you need me to go on record about this, sir, I will.
Lieutenant: That’d be great. Write a full report. Because I’m anxious to understand how
an obvious bigot could’ve gone undetected in this department for 17 years. Eleven of
which he was under my personal supervision. Which doesn’t speak very highly of my
managerial skills. But that’s not your concern. I can’t wait to read it.
Officer Hanson: What if I said I wanted a new partner for personal reasons?
Lieutenant: So now you’re saying he’s not a racist prick, you just don’t like him.
Officer Hanson: Yes, sir.
Lieutenant: That’s not a good enough reason.
Officer Hanson: Then I guess I should think of a better one and get back to you.
Lieutenant: So you think I am asking you to make one up.
Officer Hanson: Uh, no, sir. I just can’t think of one… right now.
Lieutenant: You wanna know what I heard? I heard it was a case of uncontrollable
flatulence.
244
Officer Hanson: You want me to say he has flatulence?
Lieutenant: Not him. You. You have uncontrollable flatulence. You’re too embarrassed
to ride with anybody else so you’re requesting a one-man car.
Officer Hanson: I’m not comfortable with that, Lieutenant.
Lieutenant: I wouldn’t be either, which is why I understand your need for privacy. Just
like I’m sure you understand how hard a black man has to work to get to, say, where I
am, in a racist fucking organization like the L.A.P.D. and how easily that can be taken
away. Now, that being said, it’s your decision. You can put your career and mine on the
line in pursuit of a just cause, or you can admit to having an embarrassing problem of a
personal nature.
Officer Hanson: (sighs) Fuck.
Leadership that is too timid to take advantage of new technologies or to
rethink the ways things have always been done is on a collision course with
extinction. (Jinkins & Jinkins, 1998, p. 124)
Anticipated Emotive Impact: Quite a bit of emotion probably resonates with viewers
who are initially proud of Officer Hanson for attempting to take action to right a wrong
that he stood by earlier and witnessed. The emotion shifts when Hanson’s Lieutenant
reveals excessive paranoia about making any waves within the department. This scene
probably stupefies many White viewers who cannot understand the Lieutenant’s actions,
while many Black and/or underrepresented viewers are totally sympathetic and
empathetic towards the lieutenant’s situation and subsequent actions.
Analysis: Hanson’s attempt at righting a social injustice—not to mention a blatant
usurping of power— is nothing short of an assertive move into a leadership moment. It is
commendable in terms of the courage he displayed when we consider the fact that
Hanson, as a White male, is reporting another White male’s improper behavior.
Historically, White males have supported racist White male activity as opposed to
245
challenging it, as evidenced by Jim Crow, Negro peonage, convict lease system, Black
codes, the Dred Scott decision, and the Fugitive Slave Law. So what made Hanson report
the 17 year veteran’s activities this time? Who knows; perhaps Hanson had simply put
himself in the shoes of the Black husband watching his wife being sexually abused and
transcended the racial limitations of the moment. Hanson somehow was inspired to find
the courage to try to effect some dimension of change in his partner’s behavior if not the
department’s. Intriguingly enough, the Lieutenant himself, an appointed leader, reflects
Jinkins & Jinkins’ (1998) notion of a timid leader afraid to “rethink the ways things have
always been done.” The Lieutenant therefore has placed himself on a “collision course
with extinction” because he is timidly complicit, allowing the inmates to run the asylum.
His paranoia about how he will be viewed for supervising a reported racist for 11 years
without discovering it himself or confronting it— even though he possibly could have
been documenting aspects of it—provides a strong indication of his cowardliness and his
failure to embrace a leadership moment. The Lieutenant openly acknowledges his
paranoia by informing Hanson that both of their careers could be in jeopardy if they take
any action to address this instance of social injustice or any other social injustices that
may exist within the department.
The Lieutenant as a Black man who has risen to a position of prominence within
the department must have endured his share of racist slurs if it is true that the L.A.P.D. is
a racist organization. So, how is it possible that the Lieutenant could possibly not want to
at least hear Hanson’s story? Perhaps because there was never anyone available to hear
his story and he has bought into the dysfunctional culture as the norm. The Lieutenant
246
epitomizes Jinkins & Jinkins’ (1998) assertion that some leaders become immobilized by
the possibility of losing whatever it is they may have achieved in their careers.
There are leaders who are so cautious about risking themselves at all that they
never speak up or act on behalf of any idea. (Jinkins & Jinkins, 1998, p. 138)
It appears as if Jinkins & Jinkins’ (1998) assertion about voiceless leaders, at least
voiceless leaders in important matters that require their voice, is correct. The Lieutenant
went enough years “never” speaking up that the use of his voice now to correct any social
injustice on the force would be out of character for him, and therefore even more difficult
to do. The courage required to lead reveals itself in many forms. There are moments or
times when leaders have to muster up the courage to assert themself, but far too often, in
the interim—during the marshalling of their fortitude—they might be conceived as
cowardly.
Bennis (2004) asserts that, “You would hope that leaders in any organization
would have the ego strength to accept well-intentioned criticism from talented
underlings” (p. 339). His assertion does not appear to apply in the above scenario with
the Lieutenant who was approached with the best intentions by the younger officer in the
incident, whose talent—in the moment of approaching his superior officer to report the
incident—was his courage.
Bennis (2004) further states that, “You would hope that leaders would be wise
enough to know that what you do not want to hear is often the most valuable information
you can get” (p. 339). The Lieutenant should have acted out of concern for the
constituency he has been hired and subsequently promoted to protect and serve. The fact
that as a member of a racially underrepresented group—who historically have been
247
subjected to a double standard of inadequate police protection and substandard due
process—the underrepresented citizens should have been in the forefront of his mind. It
also is not hard to fathom that he might have been more invested in taking action to
ensure that this officer would know that abuse of power, as well as sexually abusing any
woman, or in this case a Black woman, in the community he was expected to protect
would not be ignored. Officer Hanson, approaching him with invaluable information that
he was actually fortunate enough to receive, was providing the Lieutenant an opportunity
to cultivate an ethic of earnest communication about social injustices, perhaps as a result
of racism or socio-economic class that was occurring within the department.
An intriguing question to consider is whether there are any other not so obvious
consequences that would exacerbate the Lieutenant’s paranoia about the potential
consequences that might ensue if he pursued action in support of the less experienced
officer? The fact that the men reporting to the Lieutenant are armed should not be taken
lightly. It is conceivable that a violent reprisal is possible, or at least in the mind of a
Black Lieutenant who may be familiar with White reactions to what historically was
often seen as an uppity nigger.
Another intriguing consideration is what might the young officer have said or
done to turn the situation around and perhaps empower the Lieutenant to take action?
Perhaps acknowledging the Lieutenant’s concerns about the fragility of the Lieutenant’s
situation could have aligned Hanson with his commanding officer. By revealing Hanson
as a savvy and/or sophisticated ally, in terms of racism, the Lieutenant may have been
more apt to fight the good fight that leaders often do.
248
Courage is also very much on display in the film Hart’s War. Lieutenant Scott is
the only remaining Black soldier/officer incarcerated in a Nazi prison camp. Racism has
led to the murder of the other Black soldier/officer and through a series of events
Lieutenant Scott is now on trial for the murder of the White soldier who set up Scott’s
friend (Lieutenant Archer) and colleague who he had known since flight school at
Tuskegee (where the opportunity to become pilots originated for so-called Negro
soldiers). After being questioned about the events that led up to his apprehension for the
murder, Lieutenant Scott is expected to leave the witness stand, but instead chooses to
stay and speak his mind.
Hart’s War
Scene 24: (A makeshift courtroom has been created in a German concentration camp to
facilitate a murder trial of one of the American prisoners, allegedly by another prisoner.
It also seems as if the Germans are allowing it for their own entertainment. One of the
interesting dimensions of the trial is that it features a racial element, with Lt. Scott (a
Black officer) on trial for the murder of a White enlisted man whose racist actions led to
the execution of Scott’s colleague Lt. Archer, the only other so-called Negro amongst the
prisoners.)
Col. William A. McNamara (Bruce Willis): Lieutenant Scott…
Lt. Lincoln A. Scott (Terrance Howard): You know how hard they tried to wash us out
of flight school – the colored flyers?
McNamara: Your testimony’s been entered, Lieutenant. You can step down.
Scott: It was test after test. I mean, anything they could come up with to turn us into the
cooks or the drivers or the shit shovelers.
Capt. R.G. Sisk (Sam Jaeger): Your Honor, this is highly unnecessary. The witness has
already –
Scott: But I refused to wash out. So did Archer. I mean, come hell or high water. We hit
the books. We were just determined that we were not going to spend the war being some
niggers.
McNamara: That’s enough, Lieutenant. You will take your seat.
249
Scott: With all due respect, sir, I would like to exercise my right to address this court.
Now, I’ve been sitting down ever since I got here. And you know, I should have stood up
and said something the moment that you threw us in with the enlisted men instead of
quartering us properly as officers. But it’s OK. You see, colored men expect to have to
jump through a few hoops in this man’s army. Archer knew that. We all did.
There’s a camp right outside of Macon, where I’m from, and there the army sends the
German POWs, puts them to work picking cotton. But what’s strange is every once in a
while we’d see them walking through town, going to movies, eating in diners, but if I
wanted to go to those same movies I had to sit way off in the balcony. And those diners
were closed to me even in uniform. But German POWs were allowed to sit there and eat.
And this must have happened to at least half the guys at Tuskegee. But the thing is we
just kept telling ourselves that no matter what as long as we did our jobs, it’ll all be worth
it because hey, the war would end, we could go home, and be free to walk down any
street in America with our heads held high as men. So that’s what we did. We did our
jobs. We served our country, sir, Archer and I. And what you let happen to him, what you
allowed to happen to him was appalling. And so is this.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The emotional impact in this scene runs high because of
the rarity of seeing racism play out behind enemy lines. The irony of our American
soldiers fighting one another instead of our so-called enemies (at war) is possibly difficult
for many to fathom, but just another part of America’s little known sordid past that tends
to shock its citizens when the history is revealed.
Analysis: The idea that Lieutenant Scott addresses in his leadership moment is American
hypocrisy. He recognizes inconsistencies about the American military and its use/abuse
of soldiers like him and finally found the courage to no longer be the quiet, voiceless socalled Negro soldier. Instead, like so many other underrepresented people who were
almost habitually treated as less than, Scott challenged all the people within the
courtroom to really consider the messages that are being sent by their actions, or the
actions of their so-called democratic government. Scott’s specific challenge to
McNamara’s leadership is actually respectfully poignant. He takes to task McNamara’s
250
inept leadership when he questions his own actions for not challenging McNamara’s
decision to relegate him and his now deceased friend/officer Archer to enlisted men’s
quarters solely because they were so-called Negroes. Scott further accentuates the
inequitable struggles of so-called Negroes in the military when he points out the irony of
German prisoners of war being treated in America better than so-called Negro soldiers
who are willing to die for their country, a country that inadequately reaffirms their
efforts. Scott’s challenging American hypocrisy, even in what probably appeared to him
as a losing cause, may have enlightened one of the courtroom observers, who in turn
could convert and become an ally for Scott or someone in a situation similar to Scott’s
one day. Lieutenant Scott, however, showed courage by not becoming voiceless.
Instead, he “redefined his crisis” with the option of educating all the soldiers about
American hypocrisy.
There are leaders who are so cautious about risking themselves at all that they
never speak up or act on behalf of any idea. (Jinkins & Jinkins, 1998, p. 138)
A courageous leader by contrast engages analytical skills to assess the reality of
the situation, often redefining the “crisis” as a “great chance” or an “opportunity that we
cannot pass up” (Jinkins & Jinkins, 1998, p. 122).
Such a leader explores the problems facing the organization so as to discover
what options are hidden in the crisis, without giving in to the hyperbole.
Some opportunities to take a leadership role are more daunting, with much more
at stake. Dr. Carrie Weaver, in the hit television show ER, provides viewers with some of
the complexity of exhibiting courageous leadership.
251
ER
Scene 7: (Robert Ramone and Dr. Carrie Weaver are sitting in his office.)
Ramone: You might have at least given me a heads up.
Weaver: Well this is the first I’ve heard of these allegations.
Ramone: You must have had some indication that she was a lesbian.
Weaver: What does that…got to do with anything.
Ramone: Well it seems to me, that’s the crux of the problem. Don’t you think?
Weaver: No. The problem seems to be a false accusation from a patient with
psychological problems. She could have just as easily made a similar indictment against
one of the male doctors.
Ramone: Yeah, but she didn’t did she? (Pauses) Have you had any other complaints
against Lagasby in the ER?
Weaver: Of course not.
Ramone: And she’s never displayed any unacceptable, sexual behavior that you’ve
witnessed? (He waits for Weaver’s response.) Well?
Weaver: What do you think?
Ramone: I’m getting a sneaking suspicion that you’re holding out on me.
Weaver: Oh please, Robert.
Ramone: I think you’re trying to protect her.
Weaver: Of course I’m trying to protect her. You should be too. She’s a damn good
doctor.
Ramone: I’m calling for an emergency disciplinary hearing today with you and Ansbo.
Weaver: Why? You know these charges are a joke.
Ramone: No one’s laughing, Carrie.
Weaver: This is a witch hunt.
Ramone: No, this is damage control.
252
Weaver: OK, are we finished?
Ramone: For now. (Weaver begins her exit.) Can I give you some friendly advice?
Weaver: No.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The emotional impact in this scene stems largely from
viewers being shocked or perturbed at Ramone’s insensitive comments that Weaver
might have some “indication that Ramone was lesbian,” and perhaps exhibiting
“unacceptable sexual behavior.” Viewer interest increases when a so-called leader
reveals a flaw. Verbal homophobia (as opposed to veiled) is a leader functioning in or
near an urban center is an oddity to some extent. Most leaders with Ramone’s sentiment
would play to his or her constituency with political correctness in full effect.
Analysis: At this early moment in the so-called investigation the only thing that we can
actually ascertain is that Ramone does not appear to be comfortable with Lagasby’s
lesbianism or alleged behavior and that Ramone and Weaver have contrasting if not
conflicting leadership styles. Ramone appears to have more of a leadership style that is
responsive to minimizing risk and Weaver is eager to appease. In both regards, neither
seems courageous to any noticeable extent and definitely not eager to enter into a
leadership moment. Weaver also seems to exemplify Jinkins and Jinkins’ (1998) concern
about leaders that are so cautious they become dysfunctional in their silence.
There are leaders who are so cautious about risking themselves at all that they
never speak up or act on behalf of any idea. (Jinkins & Jinkins, 1998, p. 138)
ER (2) cont…
Scene 8: (Dr. Lagasby and Dr. Weaver enter a hospital room.)
253
Weaver: Hey.
Lagasby: Hey. How’s she doin’?
Weaver: Better than I would be. (The woman closes the door.) Um…how was your
meeting with Ramone?
Lagasby: Homophobic, misogynistic, heh, the usual… degrading.
Weaver: What’d you tell him?
Lagasby: The truth…that Shanna Wallace was a young woman experiencing a severe
sexual identity crisis…that she needed to know that being gay is not an affliction.
Weaver: Yeah, and what did you tell him about us?
Lagasby: Oh…oh I see. Don’t worry, Carrie. (She begins to exit.) Your secret’s safe
with me.
Weaver: No, that’s not what I meant.
Lagasby: (She turns back toward Carrie.) No? Well what did you mean?
Weaver: No, no. You think that I ain’t the only one who has problems with this,
that…that…that this is universally accepted, but that is not true.
Lagasby: So what? So we’re supposed to skulk about in the shadows because some
narrow minded individuals disapprove?
Weaver: No, no. I just think that you are fooling yourself if you…how many openly gay
women do you know in hospital administrative positions?
Lagasby: Carrie…
Weaver: None, it doesn’t happen.
Lagasby: What does that have to do with anything?
Weaver: I’m trying to explain to you why this is difficult for me.
Lagasby: Guess what, Carrie, this isn’t about you. This is about a confused and
frightened young woman who would rather kill herself than deal with the stigma of being
gay. (She pauses for a couple of seconds.) Maybe this is about you. (She exits.)
254
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The emotional impact arises when viewers witness two
oppressed individuals (gay women) in dialogue about dimensions of the oppression one
of them endured within a recent moment.
Analysis: If the lesson to consider here is courage within leadership moments, Weaver
fails miserably by not responding to Lagasby’s statement that Ramone was homophobic
and/or misogynistic towards her. Later, we discover that she was hesitant to engage
Ramone’s homophobia for fear that she might reveal her own sexual orientation. Her
hesitation to reveal her sexual identity was to continue to remain in a position where she
could make a difference to the operation, especially if heterosexism was the norm and she
was often the only dissenting voice against discriminatory behavior. On the other hand,
if Weaver’s hesitation to reveal her sexual identity was about the change in people’s
opinion of her as a result of her living a convenient lie to insulate her from people’s
prejudgments, Weaver lacks the type of courageous leadership that fights the good fight
when it needs to be fought.
A courageous leader by contrast, engages analytical skills to assess the reality
of the situation, often redefining the “crisis” as a “great chance” or an
“opportunity that we cannot pass up.” Such a leader explores the problems
facing the organization so as to discover what options are hidden in the crisis,
without giving in to the hyperbole. (Jinkins & Jinkins, 1998, p. 122)
Weaver missed an opportunity to address Ramone’s homophobia when it was
pointed out to her by Lagasby. Challenging Ramone might have been the catalyst to end
the witch hunt that Ramone was mounting against Lagasby, and may have silently been
executing for months/years at other gay employees expense, unbeknownst to Weaver.
255
ER (3) cont…
Scene 9: (Weaver enters a hospital room where Nurse Hilay and another Nurse are
present)
Nurse 1: Carter?
Weaver: Yeah, he’s been restrained in there for hours.
Nurse 1: I hope so. Did you see all those bite marks? Those are self inflicted. That guy
practically ate himself alive.
Weaver: Well I’ll get somebody from psych down here, let’s get rid of him.
Nurse 1: We’ve been waiting. Psych’s been slower than usual answering their consults.
Hilay: I hear they got a shake up goin’ on up there. Dr Lagasby’s bein’ fired.
Weaver: Let’s keep gossip to a minimum, Hilay.
Hilay: That’s not gossip. The gossip is, she’s a lesbian.
Nurse 1: Lagasby?
Hilay: That’s what I heard.
(Weaver exits.)
Nurse 1: Really?
Hilay: Mm-hmm.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: This scene potentially pulls us in because it provides the
viewer with images of people openly gossiping about others in a professional workplace.
We know it takes place, we know we have probably been the target of it before, and we
may have even indulged in it, but are not provided images of it occurring enough to not
still be fascinated with it. Additionally, there is a certain level of emotional impact in our
watching them as they are discussing someone that they thought they knew—who is
256
different from what they imagined—while someone who is within earshot who also is
different from what they imagine her being, silently assents to their gossiping.
Analysis: Another leadership moment is missed by Weaver, even after she somewhat
approaches it when she challenges the two nurses to stop gossiping. Weaver was
comfortable enough in her management position to challenge their behavior when it was
a garden variety type of gossip. However, because she is an in-the-closet lesbian overtly
paranoid about being discovered, she lacks courageous leadership. Ultimately she
becomes silent the moment she is faced with exerting herself to address the speculation
the two nurses create around one of their colleagues who is not present to defend herself.
As well, the nurses seem to be discussing Dr. Lagasby in a way that they most likely
would not be if Lagasby was present.
ER (4) cont…
Scene 10: (Weaver enters the conference room where Drs. Ansbo, Ramone, and Lagasby
are awaiting her.)
Ramone: Dr. Weaver, better late than never. Let’s cut to the chase, shall we, so that we
can all get outta here and go home? OK, Dr. Lagasby, recently for whatever reasons, had
what I hope was a momentary lapse in judgment.
Lagasby: I take offense to that.
Ramone: Really? Well, I take offense to you having come out to your patient, which was
grossly inappropriate…
Ansbo: Dr Lagasby is a valuable asset to the psychiatry department as well as this
hospital as a whole. I think that her instincts were correct and her intentions very
honorable considering the situation.
Ramone: Honorable, perhaps…stupid, definitely.
Ansbo: Oh, come on, Robert. Patients with psychological problems falsely accuse their
doctors of all sorts of things. I had a guy today blame me for hypnotizing him in order to
drink his blood.
257
Ramone: Well, we’ll have to look into that another day, Donald, but the fact is to the
best of my knowledge you are not actually a vampire. Dr Lagasby, however, is a lesbian,
am I right?
Lagasby: I’ve never hidden that fact from this administration or my colleagues.
Ramone: Or from your patients for that matter, wherein lies the problem.
Lagasby: There’s a difference between being gay and being a child molester.
Ramone: (Pausing as if he is struggling with the difference between being gay and a
child molester, finally speaks…) OK, my recommendation is administrative leave,
pending the criminal hearing.
Ansbo: I think that’s premature.
Ramone: No, it’s preemptive. If we get really lucky there won’t be any charges and you
can come right back to work having learned a lesson, albeit the hard way. (He pauses for
a response.) Do you have anything to add, Dr. Weaver, considering you are one of them?
Weaver: Them?
Ramone: A female physician dealing with female patients.
Weaver: Yes, I think that Dr. Lagasby…is a wonderful doctor…and I don’t think that
she did any of the things that she is accused of doing.
Ramone: Well, that’s well spoken. Carrie, that’s very convincing. Please remind me
never to ask you to testify on my behalf. OK, meeting is adjourned. I have dinner plans.
(He exits.)
Ansbo: (Speaking to Lagasby in a caring, endearing way) Pay no attention to him, this
too will pass.
(He exits.)
Weaver: I’m sorry. (Lagasby exits.) I’m…Kim. Kim, please don’t…
(She follows Kim out to the elevator.)
Kim. Please, please stop. I’m so sorry let’s just get out of here and talk about this.
Lagasby: There’s really nothing to talk about.
258
Weaver: What did you expect me to say? I am so sorry Kim.
Lagasby: Me too. Go back to your life, Carrie.
Weaver: No, don’t. You can’t do this. We have something good.
Lagasby: What? What do we have? A relationship that you’re ashamed of,…to
acknowledge in public.
Weaver: I know you’re right. I wish I could be like you. I wish I could be as confident
and secure with this as you are but I am not you. I have been on the outside my whole
life, fighting for acceptance and respect and now you’re asking me to do it all over again?
Lagasby: I’m not asking you for anything. (The elevator door opens and she steps
inside.)
Weaver: Don’t, please. I just…I need more time. I can’t…I can’t do this right now.
Please, Kim…Kim?
(The elevator door closes with Weaver on the outside of the door.)
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The potential emotional impact exists with viewers who
recognize the heterosexism taking place and the ridiculousness of anyone (in this case a
lesbian) having to defend her sexual orientation, when others (heterosexuals) do not. As
well, the emotional impact also resides around viewers having access to a conversation
about the influence of a doctor’s personal identity on her patient.
Analysis: The fact that a doctor might share a relationship anecdote from her/his personal
life to help a patient gain more perspective on her/his personal situation is a leadership
moment that appears lost on Ramone with his admonition that Lagasby’s “coming out” to
a patient was stupid. Or Ramone’s heterosexist, homophobic leanings once again
dominate his reason and he reveals it without considering it as problematic because he
has been so steeped in his heterosexual privilege that he has never had to consider how
oppressive a lack of considering his heterosexual privilege actually is.
259
Weaver almost panics when it momentarily appears as if Ramone outs her as
lesbian as well. Perhaps as a result of not being outed, Weaver’s endorsement of
Lagasby as a worthy and capable colleague lacks punch. More to the point, Weaver, who
appears to be in love with Lagasby, because of her lack of courage in both her personal as
well as professional life, is willing to lose Lagasby as a lover and have Lagasby career
adversely affected.
“According to Weedon, a person does not possess just one identity (once and for
all); instead, identity is precarious, contradictory, and in process.” An
individual’s personal identity is constantly being reshaped, is incomplete, and
individuals often wrestle with competing interpretations of their identity. (Fraynd
& Capper, 2003, p. 94)
As Fraynd and Capper (2003) suggest, Weaver is conflicted as a result of her
multiple identities. As one of the few women in management, who also has physical
challenges, she has already fought significant battles to attain the position to which she
has ascended. It is very likely that Weaver had access to information about the struggles
of women or people with disabling conditions, but seldom if ever found herself being
empowered around taking ownership and being proud of her sexual orientation. They
write:
In our study, establishing a reputation above reproach was integrally tied to
Griffin’s third protection strategy that gay/lesbian educators used to protect
themselves –separation- which is maintaining “strict separation between their
personal identity and their professional identity.” (Fraynd & Capper, 2003, p.
94)
260
Weaver’s efforts to maintain “strict separation between [her] personal identity and
[her] professional identity” was the undoing of the relationship she may have been
looking for all of her life. Additionally, relative to leadership, because of the feeling that
she had to separate her personal identity from her professional identity, Weaver probably
often grappled with a level of double consciousness that her heterosexual counterparts
were not struggling with, an unspoken advantage that heterosexuals always have over
their gay/lesbian/transgender/bisexual colleagues who must compartmentalize their
realities in a heterosexist society. Weaver probably believed that being gay has
absolutely nothing to do with her leadership capabilities.
The Necessity of Leadership Outreach
When you know and acknowledge your people and their feelings, they feel
more motivated, work more productively, and they’re more likely to stay,
even if the going gets tough. (Halpern & Lubar, 1998, p. 89)
Leadership opportunities are often lost as evidenced in the scene from the film
What Women Want.
What Women Want
Scene 2: (Nick is waiting in an office room for a meeting with his boss, Dan.)
Dan: I’m sorry buddy, I was in a board meeting that would never end. Have you been
here long?
Nick: Oh, a couple minutes. That’s all.
Dan: (On phone) Jess, can I get a cup of decaf and a couple of Tylenol. And see if we got
any Echinacea. And I need some club soda. I got something on my tie. You know what?
Just get me another tie.
(He hangs up the phone and sits down with Nick.)
261
I saw the mock-ups you did for Johnny Walker. They’re fantastic.
Nick: Oh, that’s my job, Dan.
Dan: You know I’m not great at making speeches…especially when I haven’t got you to
write them for me. (Nick chuckles.) So I’ll do my best. I’ve been in this racket over 30
years and let me tell you something, it doesn’t get any easier. As a matter of fact, it gets
harder and harder. The ‘80s were our glory days. They were all about alcohol, tobacco,
and cars.
(Nick shifts in his seat.)
I felt like I was on top of my game.
(Nick chuckles again.)
And then in the ‘90s, men simply stopped dominating how the dollars were spent…and
we lost our compass. Women between the ages of 16-24 are the fastest-growing
consumer group in the country. We’re talking about girls who were born in the mid ‘80s
who control our advertising dollars.
(Jess enters the room.)
Jess: (Sets coffee down in front of Dan) Sorry, no Echinacea. Hi, Nick.
Nick: Hey.
Jess: (To Dan) Red or lavender?
Dan: Red. No, lavender. That’s good. Lavender’s good. (To Nick) While we’ve been
getting our rocks off shooting beer commercials with the Swedish bikini team, the
industry’s been transformed. We were the agency in town ten years ago. Now we’re
struggling to be third. If we don’t evolve and think beyond our natural ability, we’re
gonna go down.
Nick: “Think beyond our natural abi…” I’m not quite clear what you mean here Dan.
Dan: What do you know about Darcy McGuire? (He goes to a mirror in the room to
change his tie.)
Nick: Oh, hey, I heard on the whisper, she just left B.B.D. & O. I never met the woman
but I hear she’s a real man-eater. She won that Cleo last year that we should have won,
for the ad about the…
Dan: Oh, yeah, right, that was her? I forgot about that.
262
Nick: Yeah, I wish I had. Oh, boy, I hear she is a bitch on wheels.
Dan: That’s very funny.
Nick: (Chuckles) Yeah, why?
Dan: (Stammers) ‘Cause I just hired her.
Nick: (Loses his smile) To do what?
Dan: (Walks back toward Nick) You know I love you, Nick. But it’s a woman’s world
out there. And getting into a woman’s psyche is not exactly your strong suit. You can get
into their pants better than anybody on Earth, but their psyche is a whole other ball game.
Nick: You hired Darcy McGuire to do what?
Dan: I know she hasn’t done it totally on her own yet, but somebody else was gonna grab
her. And she’s smart, Nick. She’s very smart.
Nick: You made her creative director, didn’t you?
Dan: I’m sorry, Buddy. This isn’t easy for me. But I’ve got the board breathing down my
neck. She’s coming in this afternoon, you’ll meet her. Come on, roll with this. (Nick
coughs.) Work with her…because she’s got what I need to keep this place afloat.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The emotional impact in this scene comes from the
viewers feeling as if they are flies on the wall of a private male conversation. As the
conversation ensues, the viewers’ emotional impact may increase from one of two things.
Some viewers may take umbrage with the sexism that comes out in their conversation.
Other viewers may feel validated by the misogynistic comments that Nick makes,
rationalizing them as just some things that men say when they are alone.
Analysis: Halpern and Lubar (1998)in their book, Leadership Presence: Dramatic
Techniques to Reach Out, Motivate, and Inspire, must have been consultants on this film,
or at least on this scene. Or perhaps the writer of the film researched the Dan character to
determine how a business owner would ease the pain of not promoting a valued employee
263
into the position he desired and believed he deserved. Dan was adept at acknowledging
Nick’s feelings, strategically endeavoring to keep him “motivated” so that he might be
“more likely to stay, even if the going gets tough” (p. 89). Of course the going just did
get tough for Nick with Darcy being promoted into the position Nick coveted.
There are some other dimensions to their exchange however that are worth
examining. While Dan is consistently playing all the right cards to get Nick acclimated
to support a new opportunity for the business, he misses out on opportunities to step into
a leadership moment. His leadership abilities fall off drastically when it comes to Nick’s
sexism. Dan owns the fact that “if [they] don’t evolve and think beyond [their] natural
ability, [they’re] gonna go down.” He openly acknowledges to Nick the value of a
woman’s perspective in the company. But when Nick backslides into statements about
Darcy being a “real man eater” and “a bitch on wheels,” Dan laughs it off, essentially
dismissing Nick’s comments as harmless. Granted he might know Nick enough to
“think” that the statements and Nick himself are harmless, but are they truly harmless?
Dan may know Nick to some extents, but he does not know the Nick who just lost his job
to what Nick referred to as a real man eater. He also does not know Nick enough in this
newfound context to be sure that Nick will not turn to other colleagues, probably male,
and undermine Darcy with the same problematic language before she has had a chance to
be judged on her own merits.
Michael Eric Dyson (1996), in his essay “Do We Hate Our Women” from his
book Holla If You Hear Me: In Search of Tupac Shakur engaged the word bitch by
stating that:
264
As the debate over the word “nigga” makes it clear, what we are called and
what we answer to is a deeply political matter. In such a view, gender epithets
are seen as linguistic bombs exploding on the identities of assaulted women.
Or to switch metaphors, “bitch” is a one word thesaurus for male supremacy.
(p. 178)
Nick’s casual reference to Darcy as a bitch on wheels and Dan’s casual dismissal
of its usage does not negate the fact that Nick was responding to a threat to his
masculinity and Dan was complicit with that assault. Nick’s verbal assault on Darcy is
something that he would not dare say to her face, and something Dan would not stand for
if Darcy was present, so it should not have been green lighted by Dan in their solely male
moment. Granted Nick was venting, but Dan could have easily acted like a leader in the
social justice movement and challenged Nick about his actions. It would have been quite
refreshing to hear Dan ask Nick, “So why do you think she has acquired the moniker of
‘bitch on wheels’?”
Ironically, if we consider Dan’s efforts to persuade Nick to accept Darcy as the
new leader of the organization, we are left with the lesson that those who have leadership
desires must often patiently await their opportunity. Additionally, they must also
sometimes struggle with not being a disruptive force within the organization. Nick is left
with being passed up for the promotion and still must find a way to be receptive to the
type of leadership Darcy has to offer.
Formal authority—giving someone a paycheck—will get simple obedience.
Only leadership—reaching out and connecting with people on their terms—
can capture hearts and minds. (Halpern & Lubar, 1998, p. 82)
265
Dan’s formal authority, as the leader of the organization, was not enough in their meeting
to get Nick’s loyalty to Dan’s vision regarding Darcy’s worth. This becomes all the more
evident in this next scene.
What Women Want cont…
Scene 3: (Nick walks into a conference room where other employees are up and about
waiting to start a meeting. He sits down next to a male friend.)
Friend: Hey, I heard. I can’t believe this.
Nick: My next headache.
Friend: Don’t worry. We’ll get through it. (He slaps Nick on the back.)
Nick: (Begins tapping a pen) Yeah.
(Dan enters, laughing.)
Dan: Everyone? Everyone, meet Darcy McGuire.
(The employees welcome her with applause.)
Nick: (His pen goes flying over his shoulder.)
Oh, jeez.
(He slides out of his chair to gather his pen from the floor.)
(Darcy enters.)
Darcy: Oh my, my goodness. Everybody showed up.
Employee 1: Darcy, how are you?
Darcy: Nice to see you.
Employee 2: Darcy, pleasant surprise.
Darcy: Hi! God, what a small world.
Employee 3: (Chuckles) Welcome aboard.
(Nick is distracted by Darcy’s physique as he is retrieving his pen.)
266
Darcy: I’m so glad to meet you.
(She walks over to Nick’s pen and picks it up for him, as he is still distracted.)
Hello I’m Darcy.
Nick: Hi. I’m Nick Marshall.
Darcy: Oh, I’ve heard a lot about you, Nick.
Nick: Oh, and I’ve heard a lot about you too, Darcy.
Darcy: Well, don’t worry. It can’t all be true.
Nick: (Chuckles) Let’s hope not. (Dan greets Nick with a slap on the back.) Hey.
Dan: Hey, standing room only. That’s a first. I’m very, very excited for you all to meet
Darcy McGuire. (Applause) I know Darcy’s extraordinary reputation as a leader in the
field precedes her. At B.B.D. & O, Darcy led a creative team that snagged $5 million in
new business wins. And that was just last year alone. Here at Sloane-Curtis, we’ve
always prided ourselves on our strategic thinking. Now it’s time for us to step up and
once again prove ourselves creatively in the market place. And I’m thrilled that Darcy
has consented to move across town, join our team, and lead us into the 21st century.
(Darcy chuckles as the employees welcome Darcy with applause.)
Darcy: Thank you, thank you Dan. And thank you all for that warm welcome. Let me
start off by saying the feeling is mutual. I am absolutely thrilled to be here. When I first
started in this business it was my dream to work at Sloane-Curtis. In fact, I believe I even
applied for a job here twice.
Dan: (Joking) Somebody call personnel. (The employees laugh.)
Darcy: But, it was B.B.D & O that offered me a home. And what I learned there was that
any success I had was a direct result of the team of people that I work with. I know that
two heads are better than one. I know that five heads are better than two. And I know that
if we put our heads and hearts into this company, we will deliver. I know that. Now, I
love challenges. I love hard work. I look forward to sitting at this very table tossing out
ideas around until what I fear will be the wee hours of the morning. (Laughter) But most
importantly, I want the work we do to say something about who we are. How we think,
what we feel. (Nick’s friend turns to Nick and motions as if he is masturbating and has
ejaculated and hit Nick in the face. They cause enough of a commotion for Darcy to
pause and wait for them to finish.)
Nick: (Coughs) Excuse me.
267
Darcy: So, as our friends in Hollywood say, “Let’s cut to the chase.” How are we gonna
turn this company around? (Pauses) When Sears began to go after women in their
advertising and said, “Come see the softer side of Sears,” their revenues went up 30%.
Thirty percent. That’s huge. Female-driven advertising totaled $40 billion last year. And
Sloane-Curtis’s share of that was? (Pauses) Zero. If you want to sell an anti-wrinkle
cream, or a Ford Mustang to a woman, forgive me (She touches Dan’s shoulder as she
walks by him.) this is the last place you bring your business. And we can’t afford to not
have a piece of a $40 billion pie. So, I have put together a little kit for everybody.
Nobody panic, this is supposed to be fun. (Darcy hands a box to one employee who is
supposed to pass it to the next, and so on.) Every product in this box is looking for new
representation right now, and they’re all made for women. I’m pretty sure all of the
women here are pretty familiar with most of these products (Nick doesn’t take a box.) so
for the men, let’s just briefly run through them. (Nick cracks his knuckles as Darcy
notices he doesn’t have one.) Here you go, Nick. (She slides a box down the very long
table toward him.)
Nick: Thank you.
Darcy: Each kit contains anti-wrinkle cream, mascara, moisturizing lip stick, bath beads,
quick-dry nail polish, an at-home waxing kit, a more wonderful Wonder Bra, a home
pregnancy test, hair volumizer (Nick’s friend is fooling around with the volumizer and the
top flies off. He apologizes aloud.), pore cleansing strips, Advil, control-top panty hose
and a Visa card. Now, I want everybody to come up with something for one product, for
two, the whole box…whatever moves you. We’ll get together tomorrow and have a little
show-and-tell and see where we are. How’s 8:30 for everybody? (Pauses as employees
begin talking quietly among themselves) Great. See you at 8:30 tomorrow morning.
(Applause)
Nick: A nightmare. Read my lips, night-mare.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The potential emotional impact in this scene is around
how Nick’s sexist mentality will actually play out in his initial meeting with Darcy.
There is also some emotional energy located in viewers’ perceptions of Darcy as a leader,
chosen over Dan, or more specifically, a woman chosen over a man.
Analysis: Even though Nick’s immaturity continues on unchecked—as a result of Dan
missing the opportunity to challenge Nick about his sexism during their office
conversation—Darcy is the consummate professional and her leadership presence is
268
extraordinary. She fully recognizes that “Formal authority—giving someone a
paycheck—will get simple obedience. Only leadership—reaching out and connecting
with people on their terms—can capture hearts and minds” (Halpern & Lubar, 1998, p.
82). She makes every effort to do just that. Her statement that “any success I had was a
direct result of the team of people that I work with” was a deliberate attempt to declare to
her new colleagues that she recognizes that her success is tied to theirs. She basically
attempts to reach out and connect with them when she informs them that she values them
as teammates.
Nick referring to Darcy as his “next headache,” and “nightmare” are very
immature reactions from a supposedly mature individual. His participation in the
symbolic masturbation and ejaculation as Darcy is talking though is reprehensible. It
should make us wonder why men act the way they do, not just what women want. Eagly
and Carli (2007) claim that:
Prejudice against women as leaders flows from the incongruity that people
often perceive between the characteristics typical of women and the
requirements of leader roles, as Heilman (1983) also argued. This
inconsistency follows from the predominantly communal qualities that
perceivers associate with women (e.g., friendly, kind, unselfish) and the
predominantly agentic qualities that they believe are necessary to succeed as a
leader (e.g., assertive, masterful, instrumentally competent). People’s beliefs
about leaders are thus more similar to their beliefs about men than women, as
Schein (2001) demonstrated in her “think manager, think male. (p. 293)
269
Darcy undoubtedly exhibits the “communal qualities” often associated with
women, or the “predominantly agentic qualities” believed necessary for success. She has
chosen to be mindful of her leadership presence and build a community of colleagues as
opposed to a fellowship of followers. Ironically, it is exactly that leadership style that is
probably what made her successful and why she got the job over Nick. Nick and his
friend in the scene succumb to pre-conceived expectations of what Darcy’s leadership
style should be and never truly give her a chance.
Eagly and Carli (2007) also assert that if women “increase their likableness” by
being more feminine they ultimately might increase their influence by “increasing their
interpersonal warmth.” “Warm women are better liked, especially by men, and this
increased likableness results in increased influence” (p. 296). I do not agree with this
recommendation for women because it suggests that they consider being inauthentic
without holding men accountable for being professional and mature. Darcy’s feminine
behavior seems to be natural. However, if she was less stereotypically feminine, it might
make inroads with the insecure men in her organization. She should not have to go to
those lengths.
Conversely, in the film Soldier’s Story, the leader of a platoon of soldiers,
Sergeant Waters, is a classic case of the necessity of leadership outreach.
Soldier’s Story
Scene: (The men are celebrating in a dining hall after winning their baseball game. They
grab beers and gather around CJ, who is sitting on a table with his guitar.)
Cobb: (To CJ) Who was that fine ribber thing you was talking to before the game? The
woman had tits like two ham hocks. (To Smalls)You see the size of them knockers?
270
Henson: No, he didn’t! Smalls couldn’t even see a ball go right into his glove, how the
hell he gonna see CJ by the truck.
Smalls: I saw CJ!
Cobb: Will ya’ll let CJ tell me about this woman? She looked mighty good to me, CJ.
CJ: All she asked me for was my autograph.
Cobb: She looked like she was askin’ for more than that. Movin’ close, breathin’ heavy.
Wavin’ them tits all in yo face!
The men chuckle.
Smalls: He’s right on that, CJ.
CJ: Before I give that gal what she asked me for, she’d give me somethin’ I didn’t want.
(Men laugh) Around home, there’s a fella…folks used to call Little Jimmy One-Leg, on
account of his thang was so big. (Men laugh) Couple of years ago, ol’ young, pretty
thang…lay clap on Jimmy so bad, he lost the one good leg he had. Now folks just call
him Little. (Men roar with laughter). That pretty, young thang taught me ain’t looked too
queeny. (Men still laughing)
Smalls: The dirty ones will give you the clap every time, right Henson?
(Men laugh and Henson playfully hits Smalls with his ball cap).
CJ: (begins strumming his guitar) I hear tell they on the verge of getting’ all us together.
The colored. The white. See they want one army.
Peterson: You can forget that CJ. White folks ain’t never gonna integrate no army.
CJ: I don’t know. If they do, I’m a be ready for ‘em!
(He breaks into a song) “Get me a bright, red zoot suit. And a pair of patent leather
shoes. And the woman, she left me there waitin’ for the day we get the news. Lord, Lord.
(Men join in) Lord, Lord, Lord, Lord, Lord, Lord. (CJ sings solo again) Look out, Adolf
Hitler. You and Tojo gonna be singin’ the blues. (The men egg him on with laughter and
shouts) Got a little problem, it’s about five foot 2. And they call him Sarge. And so do
you. (Sergeant Waters enters but CJ doesn’t notice him) Gotta watch what you’re sayin’.
Gotta watch what you do. ‘Cause that low down, dirty Waters, he’s gonna roll all over
you! Lord, Lord (Other men begin see Waters) Lord, Lord, Lord, Lord, Lord…”
(CJ sees Waters now and stops the music).
271
Waters: Knock it off. We don’t need no more of that guitar pickin’, sittin’-around-the
shack music today, CJ. I want all you men out of those baseball uniforms and into work
clothes. You report to me at 1600 hours. We got a work detail, painting the lobby at the
Officers Club.
Smalls: Why can’t those officers paint they own club.
Cobb: Aw, hell no, Smalls. Let the great colored cleanup company do it. Our motto is:
“Anything you don’t wanna do, the colored troops will do for you!”
(The men laugh and make the motto into a repetitive song, until….)
Waters: That’s enough. Let me tell all you fancy-ass, ball-playing Negroes something.
The reasons for any orders given by a superior officer, is none of ya’ll’s business. You
obey them. This country is at war! And you niggers are soldiers, nothing else. (He
marches over to Smalls) And something else! From now on, when I tell you to do
something, I want it done! Is that clear?
Smalls: Yes sir!
Waters: Now, get outta those baseball uniforms. I could smell you suckers before I hit
the door. (He turns to exit)
Peterson: What kind of colored man are you?
Waters: (He turns and walks closer to Peterson) I’m a soldier, Peterson. And the kind of
colored man that don’t like lazy, shiftless Negroes.
Peterson: Well sir, you don’t got to come in here, callin’ us names.
Waters: The Nazis call you Schwarze. You gonna complain to Hitler that he hurt your
little feelings?
CJ: It don’t seem like to me we could do much to them Nazis with paint brushes, Sarge.
(Men laugh but quickly compose when Waters looks at them.)
Waters: You tryin’ to mock me, CJ?
CJ: No sir, Sarge.
Waters: Good. Because whatever an ignorant, low-class geechie like you has to say ain’t
worth payin’ attention to. Is it? (CJ chuckles a bit) Is it?
CJ: (straightens up) I reckon not, Sarge.
272
Peterson: You a creep, Waters!
CJ: Sarge just jokin’, Pete. He don’t mean no harm.
Peterson: No, he does. I mean, we’re takin’ it from them white boys.
Waters: Yes you do. And if it wasn’t for you Southern niggers, white folks wouldn’t
think we was all fools.
Peterson: Well, where you from? England?
(The men seated near Peterson get up and Peterson stands alone.)
Waters: Wilkie? Looks like we got us a wise-ass, Alabama boy here. Yes, sir. (He walks
closer to Peterson and attempts to grab his tie.) Now don’t you get smart, nigger.
Peterson: Get your fuckin’ hands off me!
Waters: You wanna hit ol’ Sergeant Waters, boy? Come on. Please! Come on, nigger!
The captain walks in.
Man 1: Atten-hut! (The men stand at attention)
Captain: At ease. What’s going on here, Sergeant?
Waters: Nothing, sir! I was going over some batting techniques, sir. Is there something
in particular you wanted? Something I could do, sir?
Captain: No, no, nothing. I, uh, I just wanted to congratulate you men on the game you
won today. Now, the way I figure it, only seven more and we’ll be the first colored team
in army history to play the Yankees. (Men explode with laughter) The barracks is
counting on you. Sergeant?
Waters: Sir?
Captain: As far as I’m concerned, these men can have the rest of the day off. (Men cheer
and shout).
Waters: I beg your pardon, sir. (Captain turns to leave) Excuse me, sir. These men don’t
need any time off, they need all the work they can get. Our fellas in North Africa aren’t
getting any time off. Besides, sir, we have orders to report for a paint detail at 1600
hours.
273
Captain: And who issued that order?
Waters: Major Harris, sir.
Captain: Well, I’ll speak to the major.
Waters: Oh, sir? I don’t think it’s such a good idea to have a colored N.C.O mixed up in
the middle of your officers, sir.
Captain: I said I’d speak to him, Sergeant.
Waters: Yes, sir.
Captain: Oh, uh, Memphis? About that catch you made in center field today…how in the
hell did you get up that high? (He joins men in laughter)
CJ: They say I got bird in my blood, sir.
Captain: Ah, well I hope it’s American Eagle. (The men chuckle)
CJ: No sir, Crow. See a man told my daddy the day I was born… “The boy got the
shadow of a crow…”
Captain: Fine, fine, that’s fine, Memphis. Men, you played a great game today. Sergeant.
Man 1: Atten-hut!
Captain exits. The men cheer in excitement over their day off.
Waters: (Chuckles) How long a story was you gonna tell the man there, CJ?
Peterson! Oh, I ain’t forgot you, boy. It’s time to teach you a lesson.
Wilkie?
Wilkie: Sir?
Waters: Go outside and make sure everything is set up.
Wilkie: You want all the N.C.O.s?
Waters: (nods his head) I’m goin’ outside to wait for you, geechie. When you come out,
Ima whoop your Black, southern ass. Let the whole company watch too. You need to
learn respect for these stripes. And the rest of you, get those goddamn uniforms off like I
said.
274
Cobb: You ain’t gonna fight him, are you?
Smalls: He gonna fight you dirty!
Cobb: You can’t whoop the Sarge.
Peterson: You wanna fight in my place, Cobb? Shoot!
CJ: Pete, I got some farmer’s dust. Just a pinch of this will make you strong as a bull.
Peterson: Boy, would you get the hell outta here with that backwater crap? You can’t
even speak up for yourself, you let him treat you like you a dog!
CJ: Callin’ names ain’t nothin’, Pete. I know who I is. The Sarge ain’t so bad, he been
good to me.
Peterson: CJ, the man despises you.
CJ: You wrong, Pete. Plus, I feel sorry for him, myself. Any man ain’t sure where he
belong, gotta be in a whole lotta pain.
Peterson: Well look, don’t ya’ll even care about nothin’?
Henson: Don’t none of us like it, Pete. But this is the army, and Sarge got all the stripes.
Smalls: Look, I’ll go get the captain. Now, you don’t have to go out there and get your
head beaten in.
Peterson: Well, somebody’s got to fight him.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: Access to an intimate conversation between/amongst a
racial group that we do not belong to can be quite intriguing and emotional. Couple that
fact with the racial group’s history being one without political power, currently coerced
to be subservient to the hegemonic group and the emotional impact on the viewers can
range widely. Viewers, largely influenced by their racial backgrounds, can feel pity or
pride in the varying moments that occur in this scene.
Analysis: Halpern and Lubar’s (1998) assertion of leadership capturing the hearts and
minds of the people, and in Sergeant Water’s case, the troops, is impossible with the style
275
of leadership Water’s exhibits. In military careers that still have so-called Negroes
serving as second-class citizens, except only in a military context, it serves no purpose for
the Sergeant to make statements like, “We don’t need no more of that guitar pickin’,
sittin’-around-the shack music.” Or when a frustrated Peterson enters a leadership
moment by asking the Serge what type of “colored man” he was, his response was “the
kind of colored man that don’t like lazy, shiftless Negroes.” Serge’s inability to relate to
the men’s need to escape their reality through song and frivolity is exacerbated by his
judgments about them. He acts as if there is something wrong with guitar playing or
lounging about during down time. Waters has not considered the fact that people are not
born with work ethics, their work ethic is cultivated. Therefore his job of cultivating the
men towards action becomes complicated when he reveals himself as somewhat of a
Black man who while being oppressed himself, nonetheless is in agreement with the
oppressor’s assessment of them.
Sergeant Waters referring to CJ as an “ignorant, low-class geechie” is a powerful,
yet tragic moment in the film. It is powerful because the racism of the time is what we
focus on almost by default, often ignoring classist sentiments when they are overtly
apparent. It is a tragic moment because unfortunately the oppressive capitalistic ways of
the hegemonic culture have influenced the underclass to the point of class stratification
occurring even amongst an underprivileged group. The lack of their Sergeant leading
them towards the development of a group identity necessary to combat their oppression
could not be more evident than in his comment “if it wasn’t for you Southern niggers,
white folks wouldn’t think we was all fools” leaves the men with a perspective on the
Sergeant that he has, on some level, lost his soul. Conversely, for the men who may
276
actually see the Sergeant as a role model of sorts, their self esteem is constantly under
assault.
Sergeant Waters relies far too much on his “formal authority.” He does not
attempt at all to acknowledge, understand, or demonstrate that he can relate to their
feelings. As a result he would not have access to their feelings. Hence, they will become
deflated instead of motivated, unproductive instead of productive (Halpern & Lubar,
1998).
Peterson’s last statement about someone needing to fight the Sergeant is
intriguing in that to actually fight the Sergeant would require interrupting the fight he was
already immersed in. When later in the conversation CJ says, “Any man ain’t sure where
he belong, gotta be in a whole lotta pain” he is alluding to the fact that the Sergeant is
struggling with his double consciousness. When W.E.B. DuBois articulated double
consciousness, he was speaking of it primarily as a function of the racial identity conflict
that Black people had in response to their always having to grapple with the existential
question of “How does it feel to be a problem?” In this instance what the Sergeant is
struggling with is even more complex. He is attempting to reconcile the social class
between himself and some of his men who represent a type of blackness that he abhors.
He has somehow been duped into thinking that he lives in a society whereby he might be
accepted by the hegemonic culture if he can assimilate and distance himself from the
trappings of his culture and its history. This occurs to such an extent that he has been left
unaware of the necessity of leadership outreach, especially within a societal
disenfranchised group.
277
Modeling the Way
There are many ways we can model leadership. Leaders, knowing they are on
stage at all times, in terms of those that are apt to follow them, should be cognizant of the
fact that oftentimes it is the little things that make the largest statements. Our humor or
lack thereof at times makes statements about our world views. This is poignantly present
in this scene from the television series, Seinfeld.
Seinfeld - The Outing
Scene: (Elaine and George are sitting across from each other at a table in a restaurant,
eating breakfast. Jerry is on the payphone near the restrooms.)
Jerry: (away from the table where Elaine and George are seated, Jerry is speaking into
the phone) I’m trying to get in touch with Sharon Leonard. She works for the NYU paper.
This is Jerry Seinfeld. She was supposed to meet me at a coffee shop to do an interview.
Elaine: (to George) Oh, what are you gonna get Jerry for his birthday?
George: I got him a great gift.
Elaine: Really? What?
George: I got two tickets to see Guys and Dolls.
Elaine: Oh, that is a good gift. Maybe he’ll take me.
George: No, I’m gonna go with him. (Jerry begins walking to the table.) What did you
get him?
Elaine: I got him a two-line phone.
George: Really? That’s good.
Jerry: (Jerry reaches the table.) Unbelievable! She’s not there. (He sits down next to
George.)
George: What paper does she write for?
Jerry: She works for the NYU school newspaper. She’s a grad student in journalism.
Never been to a comedy club, never even seen me, has no idea who I am.
278
Elaine: Never even seen you? I gotta envy that.
Jerry: You know, you’ve been developing quite the acid tongue lately.
Elaine: Really? Who do you think is the most unattractive world leader? (A woman in the
booth behind Jerry and George perks up to listen to Elaine’s conversation.)
Jerry: Living or all time?
Elaine: All time.
Jerry: Well, if it’s all time, there’s no contest. It begins and ends with Brezhnev.
Elaine: I don’t know. Did you ever get a good look at De Gaulle?
George: Lyndon Johnson was uglier than De Gaulle.
Elaine: I got news for you. Golda Meir could make ‘em all run up a tree.
Jerry: (The woman in the booth behind Jerry and George shakes her head and smiles to
her friend in the booth with her.) Golda Meir. Good one, babe.
Elaine: Hey, come here. (Jerry and George lean in.) Those two girls behind you, they’re
eavesdropping.
George: Really?
Elaine: (Louder than normal tone) You know, uh, just because you two are homosexuals,
so what? (Jerry leans back and the woman behind him smiles) I mean, you should just
come outta the closet and be openly gay already.
George: (To Jerry) So what do ya say? (The women behind him lean closer together.)
You know you’ll always be the only man I’ll ever love.
Jerry: What’s the matter with you?
Elaine: Come on.
George: Go along.
Jerry: I’m not goin’ along. I could just see you in Berlin in 1939, goose-stepping past
me, “Come on, Jerry. Go along. Go along.”
Elaine: You’re no fun.
279
(The woman behind Jerry and George gets up to use the pay phone.)
Jerry: You know, I hear that all the time.
Elaine: Hear what?
Jerry: That I’m gay. People think I’m gay.
Elaine: Yeah, you know, people ask me that about you too.
Jerry: Yeah, because I’m single, I’m thin, and I’m neat.
Elaine: And you get along well with women.
George: I guess that leaves me in the clear.
Eavesdropping Woman: (On payphone, but away from the tables) Hi Jerry, it’s Sharon
Leonard from the paper. I’m here at the coffee shop and I was a little late. I guess we
must have missed each other.
Jerry: I’m goin’ to the bathroom.
George: Oh, me too. (They get up to use the restroom.)
Eavesdropping Woman: (On phone still) I’ll be here for a little while longer and I’ll try
to hook up with you later. (She hangs up the phone as Jerry and George walk into the
men’s restroom.)
(Scene ends with Sharon walking away smiling.)
Anticipated Emotive Impact: I imagine an emotional impact upon anyone gay, an ally
of the gay community, and/or anyone who is socially conscious in response to Elaine’s
believing that insinuating that Jerry and George are gay is funny.
Analysis: Elaine’s attempt to entertain the eavesdroppers through humor came at the
expense of a far too often disparaged group. It was evidenced earlier in their
conversation that they are comfortable being inconsiderate of others if it suits their
purposes. First, Elaine referred to the two women as girls in the typical manner that
infantilizes women but is far too often rationalized away by the perpetrator as not that
280
serious. On some level we can situate Elaine’s inability to recognize how she, as a
feminist, undermines her own agenda by contributing to keeping alive the sexist use of
terms like girl inconsiderately applied to grown women. Then Elaine embarked upon her
questioning of Jerry and George regarding the attractiveness of different world leaders as
if it was safe for them to do so. They most likely did not need to be concerned with one
of the world leaders they were discussing overhearing them. They could somewhat
disregard or expect no reaction to their conversation by most people apt to overhear them.
However, if Elaine had chosen the Jewish community for her attempt at wit, both Jerry
and George may have found her anti-Semitism unattractive. Conversely, Elaine herself
may not have appreciated jokes about women that implied being a woman was
problematic in some significant manner, though not explicated. But since no one was gay
at their table, Elaine felt comfortable making a mockery of a lifestyle that is already
under siege.
Jerry did attempt to embrace his leadership moment when he challenged both
Elaine and George to stop being insensitive. He even likened their encouragement of him
to “go along” with their prank as unacceptable, to the point of paralleling their attempt to
enlist him in their inadequate attempt at humor as similar to people “going along” with
the Nazis. The entire situation may have been better served if Jerry had explicitly
insisted that they cease the feeble attempts at wit at a socially oppressed group’s expense.
Instead, by not being crystal clear in his admonition for them to stop, they appear to have
interpreted his urging them to end their prank as a lighthearted resistance to their prank,
not a passionate response to a social injustice.
281
Leaders must find their own voice, and then they must clearly and
distinctively give voice to their values. (Kouzes & Posner, 2003, p. 14)
There is a scene from the television show Boondocks—a show that features two
urban Black youths (Huey age 10 and Riley age 7) living with their grandfather in the
suburbs immersed in a predominantly White population—that asks the question what
would happen if Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King had not died, but instead only been
wounded and fallen into a coma. Prior to the excerpted clip, Rev. King had been
astounded and dismayed by the state of Black America since his assassination. The loss
and co-modification of Black leadership, the moral decline of a unified civic engagement,
and the blatant disrespect amongst individuals up to this point have left Dr. King
speechless. Immediately before King approaches the microphone there were selfindulgent speakers that were literally feeding the audience what the audience wanted to
hear. Then Dr. King steps to the microphone…
Boondocks: Return of the King
Scene 1: (Crowd of Black people dancing, drinking, fighting, and basically acting
relatively foolish.)
Huey: (Narration) He looked out on his people and saw they were in great need. So he
did what all great leaders do. He told them the truth.
Martin: Will you ignorant niggers pleeeeeeeeeease shut the hell up. (Crowd is shocked
but they do cease) Is this what I got all those ass whoopin’s for? I had a dream once. It
was a dream that little Black boys and little Black girls would drink from the river of
prosperity. Freed from the thirst of oppression. But lo and behold, some four decades
later what have I found? But a bunch of triflin’, shifless, good for nothin’ niggers. And I
know some of you don’t wanna hear me say that word. It’s the ugliest word in the
English language, but that’s what I see now. Niggers. And you don’t want to be a nigger.
‘Cause niggers are livin’ contradictions. Niggers are full of unfulfilled ambitions. Niggers
wax and wane, niggers love to complain, niggers love to hear themselves talk but hate to
explain. Niggers love bein’ another man’s judge and jury, niggers procrastinate until it’s
time to worry. Niggers love to be late, niggers hate to hurry.
282
Black Entertainment Television, is the worst thing I’ve ever seen in my life!
Usher, Michael Jackson are not a genre of music!
And now I’d like to talk about Soul Plane.
I’ve seen what’s around the corner, I’ve seen what’s over the horizon, and I promise ya,
you niggers have nothin’ to celebrate. And no I won’t get there with ya, I’m goin’ to
Canada.
(Walks off podium and back stage to Huey)
Martin: Thank you, Huey.
Huey: Thank you, Doctor King.
Martin: Do what you can.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: Viewers who suspend belief enough to consider the
possibility of Dr. King not only walking the earth in the millennium, but also responding
to our current day situation, can get caught up in his emotional reactions to the change in
America since his shooting. The emotional reaction to his speech at the rally could range
from jubilant in terms of how he chastises the crowd’s dysfunctional behavior, to angry at
the words he chooses to use.
Analysis: Martin’s leadership moment occurs when he directly challenges his
constituency through the accentuation of their problematic language as attention
grabbing. Known for his “turning of the other cheek” style and grace, it was a great
departure from his ministerial posturing to hear “nigger” not only rolling off of his
tongue, but aimed at his constituency. To hear the legendary “I Have A Dream” speech
edited to refer to inconsiderate recipients of his dream is unsettling. However, in terms of
modeling leadership, it was exquisite. Dr. King’s patience in coming to terms with what
283
had been occurring while he was in a coma, and was still occurring in the community, for
which he had almost died, was too much for him to bear silently. Perhaps when hitting a
predestined threshold, Dr. King modeled for us the behavior we may want to consider
when our leadership leaves us wondering if our efforts were worth it.
Another person who not only took up the mantle of leadership out of necessity but
realized the importance of modeling the way was politician Harvey Milk. Interestingly
enough, his leadership moment was at a time when there was an undercurrent of intense
hostility towards gay civil rights and not a ground swell of support like that found by
King. However, that did not dissuade Harvey from understanding that someone needed
to take on a leadership role.
Milk
Scene 3A (Police are attacking people outside of a club. The scene cuts to a man
describing what took place from his point of view)
Man: Through the door there, the front door there was just an explosion of police
charging in here. I ran into the bathroom to hide with some other people. All we could
hear was screaming and crunching and smashing. It was frankly, the most terrifying
experience I’ve had in my life.
Scene cuts to Harvey nursing his partner, Scott’s, head wound in a bathroom.
Harvey: If we had someone in government that saw things the way that we see them, like
the black community that has black leaders that look out for their interests…politics is
theater. It doesn’t matter so much about winning, you make a statement. You say, “I’m
here.” You get their attention. I mean, it’ll be fun.
Scott chuckles. The scene ends.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The scene’s potential emotion comes from having to
recognize that because of a different sexual orientation, a group of American citizens are
under siege. The accompanying reality with the scene is that viewers will emote
284
empathetically or insensitively, depending on the degree of homophobia versus sense of
social justice.
Analysis: Kouzes and Posner’s (2003) assertion that “leaders must find their own voice,”
(p. 14) is quite appropriate to the scene above from the film Milk. Harvey Milk accepted
the role of leader for the gay community when it became apparent to him that if he did
not, there might not be anyone, or no one as well suited as him to speak to the needs of
the gay community. The next scene is poignant because it provides the viewing audience
with a rare film moment. Though the year I am writing this analysis is 2010 and there
have been gay people in existence since probably the creation of man, the rare moment is
a scene of the gay community in a moment where a leader is ascending.
Milk (2) cont…
Scene 3B
Harvey and his partner walk across a street and begin setting up for Harvey to give a
speech on a soap box.
Scott: (over a PA) Everyone over here, gather around! (He hands the PA over to
Harvey.)
Harvey: Hello, I’m Harvey Milk. A week ago, police officers came into our area, with
badges covered.
(Scott walks around the crowd, holding up a photo from the night of the raid.)
They sent 14 of our people to hospitals, to jail. The charges,“Blocking the sidewalk.”
Let’s let our tax money go to our protection, not our persecution. Worry about gun
control, not marijuana control! School supplies, Seniors, not the books we read!
(Scott reveals another photo of a man without a shirt, cut off before revealing his private
area. There is “hooting” in the audience and a bit of laughter.)
My fellow degenerates, I would like to announce my candidacy, for San Francisco City
Supervisor.
285
(Crowd cheers and scene cuts.)
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The scene is potentially exhilarating or deflating, hence
potentially emotionally impactful, dependent upon the awareness of the viewers’
unearned privilege and consciousness of American hypocrisy when it comes to the right
to fully express affection towards a love one.
Analysis: Sometimes it is significant in itself just to show a different representation to a
viewing audience that has not seen Latinos/Latinas as the majority in an educational
setting, Blacks at a gathering of some sorts where whiteness or oppression is not part of
their discussion, and yes, gays in political ascendency.
Milk (3) cont…
Scene 19: (Harvey’s voice is heard over a crowd of people marching with candles for the
cause he believed in. He had recorded his voice prior to his death)
Harvey: Last week I got a phone call from Altoona, Pennsylvania. The voice was very
young, and the person said, “Thanks.” You’ve gotta elect gay people so that the young
child and the thousands upon thousands just like him will have hope for a better life.
Hope for a better tomorrow. (Pauses) I ask this, that if there be an assassination, I would
want five, ten, a hundred, a thousand to rise. If a bullet should enter my brain, let it
destroy every closet door. I ask for the movement to continue because it’s not about
personal gain, and it’s not about ego, and it’s not about power. It’s about the “us’s” out
there. Not just the gays, but the blacks and the Asians, and the seniors and the disabled.
The “us’s.” Without hope, the “us’s” give up. And I know you can’t live on hope alone,
but without hope, life is not worth living. So you, and you, and you, you gotta give ‘em
hope. You gotta give them hope.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: Knowing that Harvey Milk was assassinated largely in
part because of his sexual orientation, the scene has tremendous potential emotional
impact, which brings the stark reality of heterosexism as a privilege to light.
Analysis: When Kouzes and Posner (2003) assert that leaders, after finding their own
voice, must then “clearly and distinctively give voice to their values” (p. 14), they deftly
286
describe Harvey. While he does this throughout the film, it is symbolized well in this last
scene from the movie when his voice remains to encourage activity in the aftermath of
his death. It is an odd occurrence that Harvey Milk’s leadership moment occurs on tape
after his death. His values of unrelenting effort towards social justice for gays in the
event of his death, that his death might be the catalyst to inspire new leaders who will
refuse to be closeted, are noteworthy. Perhaps the most significant value that the scene
provides is his hope for alignment with others whose struggles and causes parallel the gay
struggle. These scenes and the life of Harvey Milk provide a model of leadership for any
aspiring leader to heed.
Modeling the way, in terms of leadership, does not have to always occur with a
larger than life feel to it. As I stated earlier when speaking about Spielberg’s visionary
leadership in Jurassic Park, the director and writer of the Adam Sandler vehicle, Big
Daddy, also decided to make a statement that was specifically written to get attention.
Big Daddy
Scene: (Four men, all friends, sitting and dining at a crowded restaurant.)
Man 1: My client’s out $7 million. All we can sue on is breach of contract.
Sonny: Maybe you can try suing under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
Man 1: I gotta get back to the office. Sonny, you’re the king. (He turns to Mikey on
Sonny’s right.) Mikey, a pleasure. (Turns to his boyfriend) I’ll see you at home.
Boyfriend: All right. (They kiss a pretty significant open mouth kiss that last for a couple
of seconds. As a result of seeing them kiss with such passion, Mikey looks bewildered).
I’ll walk you out. (Boyfriend and Man 1 take hands and exit scene)
Mikey: I gotta admit, I’m still a little weirded out when they kiss.
Sonny: Why? They’re gay. That’s what gay guys do.
Mikey: Yeah I know, but they were like brothers to us back at school.
287
Sonny: They’re still like our brothers, only our very gay brothers.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: This scene provides an image with possible emotional
impact with a gay couple (two men) being comfortable with their affection towards one
another, very similar to a heterosexual couple exhibiting a public display of affection.
There is also the potential for emotion, in terms of a celebration of sorts, when one of the
men in the situation is not homophobic and instead takes the time to challenge the
rationale of uneasiness in his friend.
Analysis: Director Dennis Dugan and writer Steve Franks had other places they could
have gone with this scene, but then they would have missed out on their leadership
moment. They however chose to feature two attractive males in a display of affection
before two of their heterosexual male friends. When Mikey owns the fact that seeing the
kiss bothered him, Sonny challenges him to not just put it into perspective, but also
challenges him to get over himself and the homophobia to which he succumbs.
In their essay Do You Have Any Idea Who You Just Hired? by Fraynd and Capper
(2003), they tell the story of a man named Randy who “chose to broaden the term gay to
include “normal” people, like he and his partner and explained: “So, many older straight
men have no idea what being gay is like.” Randy further stated that, “They don’t
understand that my life is so routine, as much as any other couple in the world.” Randy
went on to share how his presentation of himself as a “normal” gay person (as opposed to
a gay stereotype) helped students in his school be more accepting of his identity” (p. 95).
Randy’s statement threatens to cast aspersions on a certain type of gayness that does not
reflect Randy’s modeling of the gay lifestyle. It somewhat suggests that a gay person
288
who does not conform with the type of gayness that Randy projects is less than, or
perhaps a caricature of what is often problematic with the presentation of homosexuality.
Considering Randy’s statement, is it possible that Randy is incapable of having a
relationship that he does not have to categorize as normal or abnormal? If Randy’s
interpretation of “normal” includes an inability to have displays of affection similar to the
two gay men in Big Daddy, how normal is his lifestyle? More so, what might be some of
the subconscious “institutionalized” moral values that are problematic for Randy in his
workplace and all gay men in their respective romantic lives? More to the point though,
Adam Sandler’s character, Sonny, in the excerpt from the film clip, reflects Kouzes and
Posner’s (2003) conception of a leader who models the way for heterosexuals to accept
the gay lifestyle. Especially since heterosexuals subconsciously want their heterosexual
lifestyle choices validated as non problematic, and essentially normal.
Modeling the way is essentially about earning the right and the respect to lead
through direct individual involvement and action. People first follow the
person, then the plan. (Kouzes & Posner, 2003, p. 15)
The attribute and strategy of modeling leadership also can be seen in this excerpt
from the film Lars and the Real Girl. Prior to the scene articulated in the film excerpt
below, Lars, a quiet young man of the town, after a significant personal tragedy,
purchases and publicly becomes involved with a female, very life like, mannequin. As
this relationship becomes public knowledge, the townspeople react in not necessarily
atypical ways.
Lars and the Real Girl
Scene 9: (A group of community members, including Gus, Lar’s brother, and his wife
Karen, are all cloistered together in the living room of someone’s home, deeply immersed
289
in a conversation about a extremely shy young man’s relationship with an anatomically
correct female mannequin he purchased on line. )
Arnie Hofstedtler (Doug Lennox): We don’t want anything to do with her. She’s a
golden calf. And we all know what happened with that.
Mr. Shaw (Joe Bostick): He’s not worshipping her, they’re just dating.
Arnie: These young people have no willpower.
Gus (Paul Schneider): He’s sick, all right? He’s sick.
Karin (Emily Mortimer): I guess, we were just hoping, if we came to you, you could
help, you know, just pave the way a little. If you could just try to understand, it’s…
Mr. Shaw: He is a nice man
Sally: We can try.
Arnie: I don’t even know why we’re here. This is absurd.
Mrs. Gruner (Nancy Beatty): Oh, for heaven’s sake, what’s the big deal? Sally, your
cousin puts dresses on his cats. Hazel, your nephew gave all his money to a UFO club.
And, Arnie, everybody knows your first wife was a klepto.
Arnie: She wasn’t.
Mrs. Gruner: Then why is she buried in a pair of my earrings?
Reverend Bock (R.D. Reid): Now, that’s enough.
Mrs. Gruner: These things happen. Lars is a good boy. You can depend on me.
Gus: Thanks, Mrs. Gruner.
Arnie: Well, he’s not bringing her to church, now, is he Reverend Bock?
Reverend Bock: Well, the question is, as always, what would Jesus do?
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The emotional impact in this scene comes from imagining
the care and concern for a community member with a very different level of sexual
orientation from what viewers are accustomed to witnessing in mainstream dating.
290
Analysis: Avoiding the subjective question of how Jesus might interpret the moment and
act, the leadership modeled by Mrs. Gruner is exemplary in that it is not connected to a
glorified position and does not come from a celebrity of sorts. Her leadership moment
happens when she states simply enough that not one of the community members is free of
sin and consequently should not be throwing stones. Quite effectively, Mrs. Gruner
projects her leadership by taking other community members to task for their inability to
see Lars’ relationship with a mannequin as not too dissimilar from things each one of
them has done that perhaps could not have been condoned either. Mrs. Gruner’s pledge
to do what it takes to support Lars was enough of an expression of “enthusiasm for the
compelling vision of their group” to galvanize their community into supporting Lars. Her
commitment to support Lars is what Kouzes and Posner (2003) refer to as people’s
propensity to first follow the person, then the plan (p. 15). Mrs. Gruner served as the
conduit for the community to buy into the plan by “forging a unity of purpose by showing
constituents how their efforts could be for the common good.”
Leaders breathe life into the hopes and dreams of others and enable them to
see the exciting possibilities that the future holds. Leaders forge a unity of
purpose by showing constituents how the dream is for the common good.
Leaders ignite the flame of passion in others by expressing enthusiasm for the
compelling vision of their group. Leaders communicate their passion through
vivid language and an expressive style. (Kouzes & Posner, 2003, p. 16)
Malcolm X (portrayed by Denzel Washington) was also exemplary in modeling
the way, especially by communicating his “passion through vivid language and an
expressive style.” In the conversation that ensues in this excerpt from the Spike Lee film,
291
Malcolm is cool, calm, and collected while nonetheless critical of other Civil Rights
constituents’ challenging the status quo.
Malcolm X (2) cont…
Scene 33: (Three men are in a conversation where two are being interviewed by one.
The interview is being televised for the public)
Interviewer: Mr. X, um, before we begin our discussion tonight, “The Black Muslims:
Hate Mongers,” would you mind explaining for us the meaning of your name, which is
the letter, “X”?
Malcolm: Yes, uh, during slavery time the slave master gave the Negro, so called Negro,
uh named the so called Negro after themselves. The honorable Elijah Muhammad teaches
us that once we come into the knowledge of Islam, the knowledge of ourselves, we
replace our slave name with an “X.” “X” in mathematics representing the unknown.
Since we’ve been disconnected or cut off from our own history, our own past, our own
culture, or own land, we use the “X,” the unknown until we get back to our country.
Interviewer: I see. Thank you. Um, Dr. Payson?
Payson: Mr. X is a…he’s a demagogue. He has no place to go so he exaggerates. He’s a
disservice to every good, law abiding, church going, American Negro in the country.
(Audience claps) Mr. Malcolm X, why do you teach Black supremacy? Why, why do you
teach hate?
Malcolm: Well, for the White man to ask a Black man, why he hates him, is like the wolf
asking the sheep or the rapist asking the raped, “Do you hate me?” The White man is in
no moral position to accuse the Black man of anything.
Payson: Well this is a Black man asking the question.
Malcolm: What would you call an educated Negro with a BA or an MA or a BS or a
PHD? I’ll tell you, you’d call him a nigger. That’s what the White man calls him, a
nigger. See you have to understand this type of thinking. To understand this type of man,
you must understand that historically, there were two types of slaves: the house Negro
and the field Negro. Now, the house Negro, he lived in the house next to the master, in
the big house, near the basement or up in the attic. He dressed pretty good, he ate pretty
good, what the master left him. He loved his master. I say, he loved his master, better
than the master loved himself. If the master says, “We got a nice house here.” You say,
“Yeah boss, we got a nice house here.” Master’s house caught on fire, the house Negro
be the one to run and put the blaze out. If the master got sick, he’d say, “What’s the
matter boss? We sick?” “We sick”! You see this is the thinking of the house Negro. Now
if another slave came up to him and said, “Let’s run away, let’s separate, let’s get away
292
from this cruel master.” He said, “Why? What’s better than what we got here? Run
away? I’m not goin’ anywhere.” This is the house Negro. In those days we’d call him the
house Nigger. And that’s what we call ‘em today because we still got a lot of house
Niggers runnin’ around here.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The emotional impact of Malcolm X, or any nonconformist so-called Negro in the turbulent ‘60s, was intense. Many people who are still
not accustomed to interacting with Black people comfortable enough to project
themselves with pride could be emotionally disturbed by X’s confidently intelligent role
as a leader. For many others his refusal to accept second class citizenship impacted them
emotionally in the most positive of ways.
Analysis: That Malcolm X was a leader is moot to discuss with the national following
that was and still is his legacy. However, there was a time that Malcolm was not seen as
an authentic leader by many people outside of his race and even by some within the socalled Negro race. Dr. Payson, the Black man in discussion with Malcolm in the
excerpted clip above, reflects exactly what Malcolm is describing, a house Negro who is
overprotective of his position within whatever hierarchy that Master has designated.
Today we can see that clearly, but years ago, at the time of the interview, Malcolm was
received much more differently by different segments of America, both Black and White.
Malcolm posed a direct threat to White hegemony. The threat that Malcolm posed to the
American racial hierarchy by presenting such an unattractive type of so-called Negro to
Whites created a concern of guilt by association amongst many Blacks. This was not the
first time of such an occurrence. The tensions articulated by W.E.B. DuBois (1990) in
his essay “Of Mr. Booker T. Washington and Others” from his book The Souls Of Black
Folk revealed DuBois as the Malcolm of his time in contrast to Washington’s
293
resemblance to Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. King’s more appealing approach was
obviously less intimidating, less threatening to notions of White privilege and hence,
more Washington-like in contrast to DuBois’ precocious assertion that Black folk given
the opportunity could one day rival the intellectual abilities of Whites. DuBois was the
Malcolm of his time, but since there is no popular culture movie that definitively frames
his contribution, allowing me to excerpt a film clip to better engage his merits, I digress.
Kouzes and Posner’s (2003) description of a leader could not fit anyone better
than Malcolm. He did “breathe life into the hopes and dreams of others and enable them
to see the exciting possibilities that the future holds” (p. 16). Malcolm did “forge a unity
of purpose by showing constituents how the dream is for the common good,” except in
that case, the common good he was discussing at the time was limited to so-called
Negroes (p. 16). Ironically though that common good actually included everyone since
Whites ultimately benefitted from being challenged about the hypocrisy of the American
dream being limited to only Whites. By opening up the so-called American dream to
others besides Whites, it has also been opened to others outside of a racial motif. Other
races and cultural groups within America, whether they want to acknowledge it or not,
owe a debt to Malcolm X as well for the role he played in dismantling social injustice,
which benefits all.
Kouzes and Posner’s (2003) assertion that, “Leaders ignite the flame of passion in
others by expressing enthusiasm for the compelling vision of their group” and “Leaders
communicate their passion through vivid language and an expressive style” is evident in
these speeches that Malcolm gave, excerpted from the film clip below (p. 16):
294
Malcolm X (3) cont…
Scene 32: (Malcolm is outside speaking to a crowd. With each pause, people in the
crowd shout comments of approval and understanding. Gradually, the crowd begins to
cheer as Malcolm picks up his voice)
Malcolm: I must emphasize at the out start, that the honorable Elijah Muhammad is not a
politician. So I’m not here this afternoon as a Republican, nor as a Democrat. Not as a
Mason, nor as an Elk. Not as a Protestant nor a Catholic. Not as a Christian, nor a Jew.
Not as a Baptist nor a Methodist. In fact, not even as an American. Because if I was an
American, the problem that confronts our people today wouldn’t even exist. So I have to
stand here today as what I was when I was born…a Black man.
(Crowd cheers and claps)
Before there was any such thing as a Republican or a Democrat, we were Black. Before
there was any such thing as a Mason or an Elk, we were Black. Before there was any
such thing as a Jew or a Christian, we were Black people. In fact, before there was any
such place as America, we were Black. And after America has long passed from the
scene, there will still be Black people.
(Crowd cheers)
I’m gonna tell you like it is. Every election year these politicians are sent up here to
pacify us. They’re sent here and set up here by the White man. This is what they do. They
send drugs in Harlem down here to pacify us! They send alcohol down here to pacify us!
They send prostitution down here to pacify us! Why, you can’t even get drugs in Harlem
without the White man’s permission. Every time you break the seal on that liquor bottle,
that’s a government seal you’re breaking! Oh, I say and I say it again, you been had. You
been took. You been hoodwinked. Bamboozled. Led astray. Ran amuck. This is what he
does.
(The scene now shifts to a different location and Malcolm is now in an auditorium. With
each pause, people in the crowd shout comments of approval and understand. Gradually,
the crowd begins to cheer as Malcolm picks up his voice)
Malcolm: You know, some people call this hate teaching. This isn’t hate teaching. This
is love teaching. I wouldn’t tell you this if I didn’t love you. I wouldn’t stick my neck out
for you if I didn’t love you. I want you to understand one thing: everything that I teach
you, everything that I’ve said to you, has been taught to me by this dear man. This divine
man. All praise is due to Allah for the honorable Elijah Muhammad.
(Now the scene goes back and forth between Malcolm watching images on TV of Blacks
getting attacked by dogs and police, hangings, burnings of crosses, etc., and him
speaking in the auditorium)
295
Malcolm: And the white people, who have practiced white supremacy, try to hide their
guilt by accusing the honorable Elijah Muhammad of being a Black supremacist simply
because he’s trying to uplift the mentality, the social and economic condition of his
people. And the Jews who have been guilty of exploiting Black people for I don’t know
how long, try to hide their guilt by accusing the honorable Elijah Muhammad of being
anti-Semitic, simply because he’s trying to teach you and I…hold it, simply because he’s
trying to teach you and I to be in charge of the businesses in our own community. To own
the businesses in our own community. To have economic leadership in our own
community. No, no this isn’t Black supremacy. This is Black intelligence. The Black
people in this county have been the victims of violence at the hands of the American right
wing for 400 years. Four hundred years. Four hundred years. And we thought that by
following those ignorant Negro preachers, that it was God-like to turn the other cheek to
the group that was brutalizing us. A hundred years ago, they used to put on white sheets
and sic blood hounds on us. Well nowadays, they’ve traded in the sheets-well some of
‘em have traded in the sheets. (Laughter, clapping) They’ve traded in the sheets, please,
please. They’ve traded in those white sheets for police uniforms. They’ve traded in those
bloodhounds for police dogs. And just like the ol’ Uncle Tom back during slavery
times…
(Image of Martin appears on TV screen:)
Martin: We must remain true to nonviolence. I’m asking everybody in the line. If you
can’t be nonviolent, don’t get in.
Malcolm: By teaching us to love our enemy and to pray for those who use us spitefully.
You’ve got these chicken pecking, Uncle Tom, so called Negro leaders today…You’ve
got these Uncle Tom, Negro leaders today that are tellin’ us we ought to pray for our
enemies. We ought to love our enemy. We ought to integrate with our enemy, who
bombs us, who kills and shoots us, who lynches us, who rapes our women and children.
No. No. No. That’s not intelligent. That’s not intelligent. The honorable Elijah
Muhammad is trying to teach you and I that just as the White man, and any other man for
that matter on this earth, has the God-given right, the human right, the civil right, the
natural right, and any other kind of rights you can think of, to protect himself. Just as the
White man has the right to defend himself, we have the right to defend ourselves too.
This is only natural. This is what the honorable Elijah Muhammad is trying to teach you
and I. He’s not teaching us to hate the white man. He’s teaching us to love ourselves.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: In his day, almost everything about Malcolm X
epitomized Black strength and thus many were left with the emotional anxiety of exactly
how far he would go to agitate for civil rights. In this and the earlier scene, Malcolm
represents a change in the projection of blackness that probably has a different effect on
296
people today. Malcolm’s emotional impact in the scene may be intimidation for
xenophobic Whites, anxiety for conservative Blacks, and exuberance for those committed
to social justice and raising consciousness and acknowledging X’s contribution.
Analysis: It is an interesting paradox for historians to revisit Malcolm X’s speeches and
overcome a desire to rewrite history. Malcolm’s assertions of Black people’s historical
longevity is fascinating to ponder, especially in light of ongoing discussions that often
suggest all people can be traced back to the Leakey’s archaeological discovery of Lucy in
Africa. If there is any validity to those arguments, they would then result in the fact that
every person walking the earth is of African origin. This thought alone could begin to
unravel the racism so many of us succumb to because of our socialized differences.
Malcolm’s arguments about fighting social injustices as a sign of Black
intelligence are also difficult to refute, but at the time he articulated them he was viewed
as a hate monger, not someone who was creating his own very provocative leadership
moment. Abolitionist John Brown also suffered the same slights largely for being a
White man that would die for the freedom of so-called Negroes. Our inability to
conceive others like abolitionist John Brown, who may be outside of a disenfranchised
reality as allies, still exists today. When I am passionate about the illogicality/social
injustice of homophobia, I have been told that it often results in my students wondering if
I am gay. What students may really mean by their interpretation of my passion as a
heterosexual man for the plight of oppressed people because of their sexual orientation is
that it is peculiar to witness someone outside of an oppressed community advocating for
that community. James Loewen once said John Brown was considered crazy for
sacrificing his life and his sons’ lives for the freedom of others. Loewen went on to also
297
say that not until the three freedom riders lost their lives doing the same thing did
historians start to readdress Brown’s actions as not necessarily crazy (Loewen, 1995, p.
176).
In the film Glory Road, the coach also represents Kouzes and Posner’s (2003)
belief that leaders can “ignite the flame of passion in others by expressing enthusiasm for
the compelling vision of their group” if they are creative and “communicate their passion
through vivid language and an expressive style” (p. 16). This is evident in the film
excerpt below.
Glory Road
Scene 12: (A basketball team is seated in the bleachers the day before they play in the
national championship game. Their coach then begins discussing the possibilities of
their victory.)
Don Haskins (Josh Lucas): Take a look out there. We can’t win tomorrow night. You’re
not a championship team. You’ve been lucky so far, but tomorrow your luck’s gonna run
out. To win at this level, you gotta have a… intelligence inside you out on that court. You
gotta be able to think. We just got too much of the wrong complexion. You’re athletes,
sure. But so are monkeys. Mm-hm. You can run. You can jump. Maybe even hit the
occasional outside shot with the right training, but to compete against a real team… Well
should I go on, or are you sick of this same old tired line of BS as I am? I’m so sick of it,
tonight I made a decision that we’re gonna put a stop to it - forever. Lattin. Flournoy.
Artis, Cager, Worsley, Hill. Shed. Five starters, two subs. 40 minutes, seven players. I’m
only gonna play the black players in the final game tomorrow. Just you. Togo,
Armstrong, Palacio, Myers, Baudoin. I know how hard every one of you worked to get
here. I don’t wanna hurt any of you.
Jerry Armstrong (Austin Nichols): Coach. I can’t lie. I wanna play. I do. We all wanna
play. But I just wanna say one thing. Tomorrow night, y’all go out there and show ‘em
how bad five brothers can be on the court. OK? And Flournoy, if you don’t get back and
play defense, I’ll be all over your black butt.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The championship game of any major college sport
already comes with its own emotional impact upon the viewer. The starting of an all
Black squad of players for the first time in college basketball is one of the most
298
significant moments in college sports and had to have some sort of emotional impact
upon most sports fans, including those witnessing the moment through the film Glory
Road. A coach possibly sacrificing his career to make a socio-political statement, White
players sacrificing their playing time in support of their coaches’ decision and their Black
teammates, all on the largest stage in college basketball, the NCAA Championship, is as
emotionally riveting as it gets.
Analysis: Most people can probably imagine the team’s response to Haskins’ negative
comments prior to a big game. His statements got their attention and his strategy of
embracing what others were saying was successful. Haskins starting a team of all Black
players ultimately would contribute, if not lead to, revolutionizing major college
basketball, not to mention college sports in general. Armstrong’s support of the coach’s
idea, even to the extent of affecting his own visibility in one of the most historical games
in college basketball history, was also an example of exemplary leadership.
The leader’s primary contribution is in the recognition of good ideas, support
of those ideas, and the willingness to challenge the system to get new
products, processes, services, and systems adopted. It might be more accurate
than to say that leaders are early adopters of innovation. (Kouzes & Posner,
2003, p. 17)
Haskins’ motivational technique brought his team together in a way that possibly
nothing else may have at that time in their season and in the history of American college
sports. It is not hard to imagine how his innovative leadership moment gave those seven
Black players an overwhelming sense of personal power and ownership.
299
Leaders make it possible for others to do good work. They know that those who
are expected to produce the results must feel a sense of personal power and
ownership. (Kouzes & Posner, 2003, p. 18)
Modeling the way is not always easy. Resistance comes from many places,
including some places that are not expected to be resistant, as demonstrated in this scene
from Courage Under Fire.
Courage Under Fire
Scene 6: (Colonel Sterling (portrayed by Denzel Washington) is interviewing one of the
survivors of a controversial military campaign that left the commanding officer dead and
yet, nominated for the Congressional Medal of Honor, as its first woman recipient)
Sterling: Mr. Rady, You were Captain Walden’s co-pilot?
Rady: That’s right
Sterling: Can you tell me what you remember about Al Kufan?
Rady: (pauses for a few seconds) I remember the earth. I remember…I remember Ilario’s
face. I wish…
Annie : (brings coffee to the table) She hadn’t needed to be a hero so bad.
Rady: Honey, that’s not fair. We were just doing our job. It’s not Ren’s fault I got hit.
She sure as hell saved the lives of those guys on the Blackhawk.
Annie: You always defend her.
Sterling: Why didn’t you like her?
Annie: She was so butch.
Rady: Honey, shut up. (Turns to Sterling) She was you know. (They both smile jokingly)
Annie: One of those women who want to be officers…
Rady: Annie, shut up. She gave her life for those men. She was a soldier.
300
(The scene cuts to Rady’s reminiscence of the Al Kufan mission. He is in a helicopter
with Walden and the rest of the crew. They are attempting to blow up an enemy tank on
the ground.)
Walden: Thar she blows.
(The crew is attacked by ground gunfire.)
Monfriez: We’re takin’ fire!
Ilario: Holy shit.
Walden: Kill that motherfucker, Monfriez!
Monfriez: I might as well be pissin’ on that sucker!
Altameyer: We need a fucking air strike!
Ilario: We ain’t got any fuckin’ bomb!
Rady: We makin’ another pass Ren?
Walden: Yep.
Monfriez: No! We should go for altitude, call for support, and get the fuck outta here!
Walden: After we slow down that tank!
Monfriez: How the fuck are we gonna do that?
Walden: Shut up and listen soldier! Altameyer, unhook the aux fuel bladder port side.
Get ready to push it overboard.
Altameyer: Push it overboard, ma’am?
Walden: Ilario, unhook the flare gun!
Monfriez: What the fuck…
Walden: Do it!
Ilario: (To Monfriez) It’s a bomb, asshole!
(They approach the enemy target once again.)
301
Rady: Target comin’ up!
Altameyer: (loading his weapon) Gimme more, damn it!
Monfriez: Ready, here!
Walden: (To Rady) You got it?
Rady: I got it!
Walden: Let us know when you’re there! He’ll kick it!
Rady: Altameyer, line up with the speed of the craft! The pod will drop with the same
velocity!
Walden: Aim down, damn it! (Pauses) Pick your moment!
Altameyer: Now!
(The bomb is dropped onto the target. Monfriez shoots it and it explodes. The crew
cheers for a moment until they are fired at again. Rady is hit and the plane begins its
unplanned descent.)
Walden: Oh!
Monfriez: Whoa! Shit!
Ilario: (Falls back, the upper half of his body hanging outside the helicopter) Whoa! Oh,
God!
Monfriez: Hang on, Ilario! Grab ahold of me!
Ilario: Don’t let go of me! Pull me in!
Monfriez: Hang on.
Ilario: Don’t let go of me!
Monfriez: Come on Ilario! Pull yourself up!
(Monfriez helps Ilario into the chopper. They are going down.)
Walden: Throw something! Down! Down! Rady, call in a mayday! (She sees Rady is
unable.) Ilario… call it in!
302
Ilario: Mayday! Mayday! Dustoff 3…we are goin’ down! Mayday! Mayday! This is
Dustoff 3! We’re goin’ down!
(More frantic)
Mayday! Mayday! This is Dustoff 3! We’re goin’ down! We’re goin’ down!
(His voice gets louder)
Mayday! Mayday! This is Dustoff 3! We are goin’ down!
(His volume increases)
Mayday! Mayday! This is Dustoff 3! We’re goin’ down! We’re goin’ down! Oh, my
god…!
(They crash into the ground among boulders. The scene cuts back to the present.)
Rady: That’s it. I woke up three days later on a hospital ship. Nearly bought it, that’s
sure.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: A military unit led by a woman who posthumously is
considered for the Medal of Honor is an emotionally loaded moment. Most people would
be on the edge of their seats watching this scene. Supporters of women in the military
would be rooting for Walden to fare well, while detractors of women in the military
might be hoping she did not succeed.
Analysis: By her disparaging comments, Rady’s female friend Annie reveals how
difficult it can be when a woman steps outside of her traditional role. It appears as if
Annie and Captain Karen Walden had interacted before and in that or those meetings
Walden somehow gave Annie the impression she was butch. Or perhaps Annie, hearing
so much about Walden from Rady, drew the conclusion that Walden was “butch” from
Walden having access to Rady and the other male soldiers that contributed to Annie
developing jealousy towards Walden. After all, Annie’s statement that Walden was one
303
of those women who want to be an officer was nonsensical. Walden as a soldier should
be performing her duties to her utmost ability if she wants to advance as well as
survive/thrive in her military career, as well as staying alive.
Eagly and Carli (2004) state that:
Perceiving a female leader as very similar to her male counterparts may
produce disadvantage because such women can be regarded as undesirably
masculine. This disadvantage thus arises from the injunctive norms
associated with the female gender role, by which niceness, kindness, and
friendliness are especially valued in women. (p. 293)
Annie’s response to Walden’s so-called projection of “butch” appears to be consistent
with Eagly and Carli’s statement. Annie may be somewhat uncomfortable with women
in non-traditional roles and therefore succumbs to her xenophobia. As a result she
defaults into the dysfunctional behavior of labeling without recognizing that on some
level she may be suffering from a form of self hatred.
Women who are effective leaders tend to violate standards for their gender
because they are perceived to manifest male stereotypic, agentic attributes
more than female stereotypic, communal attributes. Unlike traditional women
who are considered warm and nice but not especially instrumentally
competent, women who excel and display leadership are considered
instrumentally competent but not particularly warm. (Eagly & Carli, 2004, p.
294)
While Capt. Walden displays some of the characteristics that might make her less
desirable because she violates the injunctive roles of “niceness, kindness, and
304
friendliness,” she is instrumentally competent. However, it is not difficult to see that
Monfriez has succumbed to preconceived expectations of what Captain Walden’s
leadership style should be, which for all intent and purposes in his mind negates her
instrumental competence because it leaves him only focusing on what he deems as
negative consequences of her leadership.
Given the incongruity between images of women and of leaders, women
receive less favorable reactions for their leadership than men do, particularly
if it exemplifies “command and control” leadership. Women who appear
dominant or directive are less well liked than men are for refusing to comply
with requests, expressing overt disagreement, and showing visual dominance.
People likewise express more negative reactions when a woman attempts to
lead or direct them than when a man does. In essence, people do not consider
it appropriate for women to overtly seek leadership or to directly or forcefully
attempt to lead others. (Eagly & Carli, 2004, p. 294)
Although it is in the heat of battle, Walden’s “command and control leadership” is
consistent with Eagly and Carli’s (2004) assertion of men’s struggle with dominant
women. The words “shut up and listen soldier” and other profanity that Walden used to
accentuate her orders helped accentuate her stepping into her leadership moment,
probably cutting Monfriez like a knife coming from a woman. As well, Monfriez’s
hesitation, perhaps as a result of doubting Walden’s plan, prompted Walden to forcefully
direct Monfriez into action with a short, curt “do it,” that probably also exacerbated the
incident even more. It is difficult to imagine the same actions coming from a male
commanding officer causing Monfriez any heartburn, unless of course he saw that officer
305
as not qualified to lead like in the case of a stereotypical 2nd Lieutenant who is
commissioned right out of college, has never before seen action, and is nevertheless
directing seasoned, war weary soldiers.
Courage Under Fire (2)
Scene 23: (After an earlier interview with Ilario that left Colonel Sterling doubting its
integrity, Sterling revisits the events of the fateful day that led to Captain Walden’s death
and consideration for the Medal of Honor. The scene is revealed as a flashback from
Ilario’s perspective)
Ilario: Mayday! Mayday! Mayday! Red-Con-3, we’re goin’ down! We’re goin’ down!
We’re goin’ down.
(The scene cuts to the present. Ilario and Sterling are sitting near a river in Ilario’s
home town.)
Sterling: And the chopper went down? What happened next?
Ilario: What happened next isn’t important. It’s what happened that night. Monfriez
wanted to make a run for it.
(Scene cuts to flashback.)
Monfriez: You know at dawn we’re dead. They’ll have reinforcements. Escape and
evasion, Captain.
Altameyer: Now’s the time to do it, Captain. Maybe we’d slip by ‘em in the dark.
Walden: I told you, Rady can’t be moved. Right, Ilario?
Ilario: That lung…any movement might kill him. Then again, he may die just lyin’ here.
Monfriez: You see? You see there? Rady’ll never make it. I say we go. (Walden begins
to get emotional.) Oh great. Great. The captain’s crying.
Walden: It’s just tension, asshole. It doesn’t mean shit.
Altameyer: Come on Captain, I don’t wanna wait here to die.
Monfriez: Ilario?
Ilario: I don’t know.
306
Monfriez: Come on, it’s a majority.
Walden: Well that would be great if this was a democracy, but it isn’t. We stay with
Rady. I wouldn’t risk your life. I won’t risk his.
Monfriez: OK. So maybe if we surrender, the Iraqis would doctor him up.
Walden: No surrender.
(Footsteps approach.)
Altameyer: I hear somethin’ movin’ out there.
Monfriez: I say we make for the chopper, now.
Walden: And I say I heard enough of that shit.
Monfriez: You don’t have to go with us, Captain. We don’t even need your permission.
Walden: I am in command here!
Monfriez: Well maybe not anymore.
(Ilario and Altameyer look back and forth between Monfriez and Walden, unsure of what
to do)
Walden: Give me the saw, Monfriez. I can’t stop you from runnin’. But you’re not takin’
our firepower with you.
Monfriez: (Points the gun at Walden) You’re not takin’ away my weapon.
Walden: (Points her gun at Monfriez) Yes, I am.
Ilario: Hey, I can make a white flag, all right?
Monfriez: There’s no way you’re takin’ away my weapon, cunt.
Walden: Section 28-J, code of military justice. Mutiny…an offense punishable by death.
Altameyer: Jesus, Monfriez.
Monfriez: Shut up! She’s tryin’ to get us killed! Ilario, who you with?
(Ilario looks at Monfriez, then at Walden)
307
Come on, Ilario, shithead. Do you wanna die?
Ilario: Please, Captain.
(Walden notices an Iraqi soldier coming at them over the hill above Monfriez. She shoots
him. Monfriez fires on her, then up at the Iraqis coming over the hill. Altameyer joins him
in fire and is hit. Walden is on the ground groaning)
Altameyer: They’re going away. It was just a probe.
Walden: Oh. Shit.
Altameyer: Are you all right?
Walden: Shit!
Monfriez: Oh, my God. Oh, my God.
Walden: Shit. I don’t fuckin’ believe it. (In pain, points her gun at Monfriez) Gimme
your weapon.
Monfriez: Oh Christ, Captain! I thought you were firing at me!
(Walden cocks her gun. Monfriez tosses the gun down at her.)
Ilario: You’re wounded, Ma’am. Let me see.
Walden: (Points her gun at Ilario.) You’re with him.
Ilario: You gotta let me look at it.
Monfriez: Oh Jesus Christ, let him look at it!
Walden: I gave birth to a nine pound baby, asshole! I think I can handle it!
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The emotional intensity of anyone in a leadership position
having their authority challenged is a sight to see. When the person challenged is a
woman, a scenario that we are not accustomed to witnessing, the scene becomes even
more provocative. Monfriez’ insecurities with Walden’s leadership are possibly
translatable to male viewers who have not been situated to follow a woman. Women who
308
have had to lead men—or who can imagine one day leading men who were resistant to
them—would also find this scene quite emotional.
Analysis: The leadership moments available to the crew of the crashed helicopter were
plenty, though no one embraced one. Monfriez, the most macho of the men in Walden’s
crew, was overtly anxious to escape the situation that they found themselves mired in.
His disdain for Walden’s leadership notwithstanding, he aptly framed his sexism even
more with his attempts to diminish Walden’s worth as a leader as a result of her tears. He
then attempts to rally the men in a mutiny against her, accusing her of “trying to get them
killed.” In essence, he is calling her an inept leader in her attempt to “model the way.”
The entire episode culminates at its nadir with Monfriez calling Walden one of the most
offensive words a woman can be called, and then inadvertently shooting her as she saves
his life.
The Monfriez siege on Walden as a leader is a sad statement on U.S. society’s
inability to accept women as leaders. It is exacerbated to an extreme in a war time
scenario. Less caustic, more subtle, but nonetheless problematic dimensions of male
insecurity around gender can be seen in the film The Contender.
The Contender
Scene: (Vice Presidential nominee Senator Laine Hansen joins Congressman Shelly
Runyon for an issue oriented lunch. He has been awaiting her for a small amount of time)
Shelly: Laine.
Laine: Shelly.
Shelly: I’m sorry I started. You were late.
Laine: I’m not too late I hope.
309
Shelly: A minute or two. Were you tied up with anything?
Laine: No, sorry. I’m just late. (Waiter approaches.) Hi Clem.
Clem: Senator. Nice to see you.
Laine: You too.
Shelly: I ordered you the porterhouse.
Laine: Oh no, I don’t eat meat. I’ll just have the penne.
Shelly: You should really…mmm. Try the steak. (Turns to Clem). Ask Hugo to burn it
on the outside.
Laine: No, thank you. I really don’t eat meat. I’ll just go ahead with the penne.
Clem: Spicy?
Laine: Yes, please. Thanks.
(Clem exits.)
Shelly: So, how are Will and the boy?
Laine: Let’s forego the small talk today, Shelly. It’ll make me feel cheap.
Shelly: Let the big talk begin.
Laine: (She lays a portfolio on the table.) Have you seen this?
Shelly: That’s my, um… my file on you Senator.
Laine: Mm-hmm.
Shelly: How did you get it?
Laine: Have you read it yet?
Shelly: How did you get it?
(He awaits her response.)
Have you read it?
310
Laine: What do you have to say for yourself?
Shelly: With all due respect…um, Senator…it doesn’t matter what I have to say for
myself.
Laine: Oh, it doesn’t. Well it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that all you can claim about
me…claim…is that I had sex while…
Shelly: Deviant sex.
Laine: Deviant? Who says it was deviant?
Shelly: I do. And what I say, the American people will believe. And you know why?
Because I’ll have a very big microphone in front of me.
Laine: Wow, you must really hate me, Shelly.
Shelly: I don’t hate you. It’s not possible to hate you. You’re um…what the hell was it
that Reynolds called you the other day?
(He pauses for a second.)
Groovy. You’re a groovy chick. No, what I, um, what I do detest is your selfishness.
Laine: (Scoffs) I have served this nation without regard for personal income for over ten
years, Mr. Runyan, I don’t believe...
Shelly: (interrupts) You are selfish because you wanna take on a job that positions you
to, to assume a mantle of gigantic responsibility and you do it, you do it full well with the
knowledge…(he pauses.)
Laine: Of what? (She awaits his response.) What?
Shelly: Greatness is the orphan of urgency, Laine. Greatness only emerges when we need
it most: in times of war, or calamity. I can’t ask somebody to be a Kennedy or a Lincoln.
They were men created by their times. What I, what I can ask for is the promise of
greatness. And that, Madam Senator, you don’t have.
Laine: Well then…I just wouldn’t be using sex as leverage if I were you, Sheldon.
(She gets up to leave)
No, because there’s one thing you don’t want. It’s a woman with her finger on the button
who isn’t getting laid.
311
Shelly: Will that be the argument the senator offers up before the committee?
(Laine turns away, laughing.)
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The emotional impact in this scene is often shock in the
fact that a man actually thinks or is clueless enough to believe he can get away with
sexism, especially with a confident, successful professional woman. Men will either be
repulsed with this scene or (as difficult as it is to believe) celebrate Runyon’s efforts to
hold onto his male privilege. In either case, there will be emotion accompanying the
male’s perspective. Women will be offended by Runyon’s actions, and/or celebrating
Laine’s responses to him. However, to acknowledge the full range of diversity in
perspectives out there, there are some women who might see Laine as too full of herself
and perhaps in need of a comeuppance.
Analysis: It is conceivable that Shelley would have taken a male colleague to task for
being late, but it is hard to imagine the same conversation occurring between two men
over a couple of minute’s tardiness. Shelley’s admonishing Laine for something so
trivial seems to fit into the adage that someone lacking the privileges of the hegemonic
culture must represent themselves as infallible or close to it. Thereafter, he orders for her
even though he did not ask her if he should/could, did not have any knowledge of her
dietary needs, and especially after she clearly articulates that she is a vegetarian. Is this a
power play, or is Shelley just clueless late in the 20th Century about the fact that men do
not necessarily order women’s food anymore. It is much wiser and safer to not order the
food of a politically progressive or professional woman that you do not have a personal
relationship with, or barely even know professionally.
312
Shelley then challenges her about an alleged report he has that insinuates she had
inappropriate sexual relations while in college. He further asserts that the so-called
inappropriate sexual relations are inappropriate simply because his power and privilege
allows him to define her as such. Laine’s leadership moment begins when she challenges
him over ordering her food and does not end until she proudly exits the restaurant by
standing pat on her perspective.
He refers to her as a groovy chick. Now this is a U.S. Senator, elected by the
people, and regardless of that fact, Shelley attempts to diminish her accomplishments by
framing her as nothing more than a caricature. In essence, he puts his perspective of he
worth above the voices of the people who elected her. Shelley then basically insinuates
that Laine is incapable of assuming “a mantle of great responsibility” with no criteria to
support his accusation other than she is not a man.
A somewhat less popular distinction was between leaders who (a) behave
democratically and allow subordinates to participate in decision making or (b)
behave autocratically and discourage subordinates from such participation.
This distinction, labeled democratic versus autocratic leadership or
participative versus directive leadership, was introduced in classic
experimental studies of leadership style. (Eagly & Carli, 2004, p. 284)
The leadership styles available here, in contrast, are fascinating to consider.
While Laine is modeling the way in terms of asserting herself and not being dominated
by a man, especially a man with a dysfunctional agenda, Shelly demonstrates directive
leadership at its worst.
313
Understanding Leadership
Leaders, or multiple leaders in the case of an Organic organization, also need
to develop a strategy for achieving the vision, thereby turning it into what is
sometimes known as a strategic vision. Strategy researchers have proposed
that an organization with a well-articulated strategic vision can achieve
sustained competitive advantage over those organizations lacking such a
vision. (Avery, 2004, p. 100)
Many organizations struggle to find their identity and if they never succeed in
doing it, their organizations fail. Some of the defining moments in the development of an
organization come about through happenstance, or a spur of the moment action/reaction
that inspires a leader to unscripted action. This is depicted vividly in the following
scenes from Remember the Titans.
Remember the Titans
Scene 5: (It is the late 1970s and the beginning of football season and the Titans have a
new coach, their first Black Coach, named Boone. In this scene parents and players are
saying good bye to one another as the atheletes are preparing to board the team bus.)
Boone: Good morning, good morning, good morning. Coaches, how are you?
Coaches: Good morning to you.
Boone: Looks good today, doesn’t it? Just wanted to let you know what the offense is
doing.
Coach Tyrell: Awful skinny playbook, ain’t it?
Boone: I run six plays, split veer. It’s like Novocain. Just give it time, always works. See
you on the bus.
A.D. Watson: Be patient, Bill. Your time will come.
Doc: Herman, here we go.
314
Boone: Here we go. Can I help you boys?
Gerry: I’m Gerry Bertier, the only all-American you got on this team. You want any of
us to play for you, you reserve half the open positions for Hammond players, half the
offence, half the special teams. We don’t need any of your people on defense. We’re
already set.
Boone: Uh-huh. Don’t need none of my people? What did you say your name was, Jerry?
Gerry: Gerry.
Boone: No, you must have said Jerry, like Lewis, which would make you Dean Martin,
right? Ladies and gentlemen, I got an announcement to make. We got Jerry Lewis and
Dean Martin going to camp with us here this year. Jerry tells the jokes, Dean sings the
songs and gets the girl. Let’s give them a round of applause. Where’s your folks, Gerry?
Your parents, are they here? (Gerry nods) Where are they?
Gerry: That’s my mother.
Boone: That’s your mama? Very nice. How are ya? Take a good look at her. ‘Cause once
you get on that bus, you ain’t got no mama no more. You got your brothers on the team,
and you got your daddy. Now, you know who your daddy is, don’t you? Gerry, if you
want to play on this football team, you answer me when I ask you who is your daddy?
Who’s your daddy, Gerry? Who’s your daddy?
Gerry: You.
Boone: Uh-huh. And whose team is this? Is this your team, or is this your daddy’s team?
Gerry: Yours.
Boone: Mm-hmm. Get on the bus. Put your jacket on first and get on the bus.
Gerry: Ok.
Boone: uh, Dean? Fix that tie, son.
Boone (on bus 1): All right, listen up, I want everybody off the bus. Let’s go. Follow me.
Everybody. Let’s go right now.
Boys: Why do we gotta get off the bus?
Boy on bus 2: What are they doing, man?
315
Boone (on bus 2): All right, everybody, off the bus.
Boone: Listen up, I don’t care if you’re black, green, blue, white, or orange, I want all of
my defensive players on one side, all players going out for offense over here. Right now.
Let’s move. Let’s move. Let’s move. Let’s move. You and you, offensive bus. Sit
together. You and you, defensive bus. Sit together. Get comfortable, too, because the
person that I have you sitting next to is the same one you’ll be rooming with for the
duration of this camp.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The emotional impact to viewers watching this scene
could be quite complex. Two athletes challenging their coach is an awkward moment to
witness. Two high school students challenging an adult in a leadership position is even
more awkward. Two White high school athletes challenging their Black coach brings in
a completely different level of anxiety. We feel their racism and wonder where it comes
from. It is not hard to imagine how this Black man, who most likely has endured his
unfair share of disrespect from White men as a result of his blackness and their racism,
now somehow has to put into perspective two young White men doing the same thing to
him. Viewers of this scene easily can have emotions that range from shock to amusement
to anger.
Analysis: Boone’s engagement of the two precocious athlete’s somewhat hostile
approach towards his leadership was edgy, ingenious, and the epitome of a leadership
moment. He immediately curtailed their disrespect of him and his position by
unabashedly demonstrating to them he would not allow it. Imbedded within their
disrespect for him was racism that they had been socialized into. He immediately
established the fact that the inmates would not be running the asylum by letting them and
their parents know that while he was the head coach he would be the head coach.
Overzealous racist parents and all-American athletes would not be dictating his policy.
316
He asserted an extraordinary amount of authenticity in projecting a voice that they would
consistently hear throughout the season.
A curious dimension of this scenario is what made the young men actually believe
they could get away with engaging Boone in the manner they did. Was it his race? Was
it his socio-economic class? Was it their race and class privilege relative to his?
Perhaps more significant in the scene was the decision that Boone made to
segregate the team, just not in the manner that anyone anticipated. While organizations
often experience a certain amount of self segregation in terms of their social atmosphere
away from their specific tasks, Boone started out making the case that his organization
was going to live and breathe their organizational relationships beyond the football field.
He took away some of the defense mechanisms that they could employ. Thoughts that
they may have had about tolerating one another during organizational time were
eliminated. Boone made the political social and the social political. Additionally, Boone
demonstrated the ability to learn while leading.
In his own study of exemplary leadership practices, Warren Bennis writes that:
Leaders learn by leading, and they learn best by leading in the face of obstacles.
As weather shapes mountains, problems shape leaders. Difficult bosses, lack of
vision and virtue in the executive suite, circumstances beyond their control, and
their own mistakes have been the leaders’ basic curriculum.” In other words,
leaders are learners. They learn from their failures as well as their successes.
(Bennis, 2004, as quoted in Kouzes & Posner, 2004, p. 17)
Many leaders get caught up in the fact that they are leaders and become
incapacitated in relationship to that moment when in all practicality they should have
317
relinquished some of their leadership role, if not actually all of it, and accepted a
comfortable role as follower. Boone as a Black coach of a newly integrated team that
was once predominantly White might have known he would be facing overwhelming
obstacles. While he could not allow the problems he would face to define him, he was
smart enough to let them influence his direction at times.
Just when it may have appeared he could not shake the team up any more, he
awakened them early one morning in the hopes to participate in reflecting on a historical
moment that might ensure they would not be too late awakening to their potential as an
organization.
Remember the Titans (2)
Scene 10
Boone: Let’s go, let’s go, let’s go, let’s go! Wake up gentlemen, it’s late. It’s 3 A.M. in
the morning. All right, listen up. You will follow Doc, myself, and the other coaches,
we’re gonna take a little run through the woods. If you get lost along the way, don’t
bother coming back to camp. Just hitch-hike your hind parts on home. Any questions?
Yoast: Coach, this is a high school football team. We’re not in the Marines here.
Boone: Let’s go.
Yoast: Let’s go.
Julius: Oh. No, no.
Blue: Shoot!
Julius: Come on, baby. Can’t take no rest.
(Arriving at what appears to be a significant place, a large field, Boone addresses the
team.)
Boone: Anybody know what this place is? This is Gettysburg. This is where they fought
that Battle of Gettysburg. 50,000 men died right here on this field, fightin’ the same fight
that we’re still fightin’ amongst ourselves…today. This green field right here was painted
318
red. Bubbling with the blood of young boys. Smoke…and hot lead pouring right through
their bodies. Listen to their souls, men: “I killed my brother with malice in my heart.
Hatred destroyed my family.” You listen and take a lesson from the dead. If we don’t
come together right now, on this hallowed ground, we too, will be destroyed. Just like
they were. I don’t care if you like each other or not, but you will respect each other, and
maybe, I don’t know, maybe we’ll learn to play this game like men.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The emotional impact of setting foot on the hallowed
ground of Gettysburg is not imaginable to me, and possibly not to a viewer of this scene
who is unfamiliar with its history. The presence of mind of Boone to take his team to this
sight to make a statement about their perspectives on one another is a lesson that
transcends the context of their football team and potentially resonates with the viewers
and their struggles with racism.
Analysis: Boone creates a leadership moment when he takes the young men out to the
historical Civil War battleground of Gettysburg and provides the team with a perspective
to which they otherwise may not have ever obtained or been introduced. Boone
deliberately appropriated a historical moment where much was lost due to America’s
inability to reconcile racism and racial privilege—so that his players could consider what
they were flirting with losing if they did not reconcile the racism/privilege that threatened
to undermine them.
Visiting Gettysburg enabled Boone to challenge the team to contemplate what is
lost when we wage certain wars, fight certain battles that may seem important at the time,
but in the grand scheme of things actually might have made more sense if they had not
been fought.
Without knowing a leader’s values, those in the leader’s group have no way of
knowing or predicting what he or she will do. Without a clear set of values,
319
clearly expressed and lived, a leader can only ask others to follow blindly,
something most people rightly hesitate to do. (Halpern & Lubar, 1998, p. 198)
However, there are times when certain battles, that may not seem so significant at
the time, still need to be waged, if for no other reason than to establish your values, so
that as Halpern and Lubar (1998) assert in the above quote, others will not feel like they
are blindly following when a leader exerts herself. This is made even clearer by Elaine
Benes in this scene from the Seinfeld episode, the Handicap Parking Spot.
Seinfeld - Handicap Parking Spot
Scene: (George is driving through a parking lot, looking for a spot with Jerry, Elaine,
and Kramer as passengers)
Elaine: So what are we gonna get him?
Jerry: Anything we want, we’re chippin’ in.
George: I like this area. I could live out here.
Kramer: Yeah, we oughta all get a house together and live out here.
Jerry: Yeah, that’s a good idea. I’ll tell you what, Chuckles, I’ll give you permission to
sublet my room right now.
George: Look at this. There’s no spaces here.
(To a man outside his window) Excuse me, are you gettin’ out? (Man shouts, “No!”)
Kramer: Why don’t you take that handicapped spot?
George: You think?
Elaine: No! No. We’ll find a space. There’s spaces in the other lot.
George: Oh, I don’t wanna walk that far.
Elaine: What if a handicapped person needs it?
Kramer: No, come on, they don’t drive?
320
Jerry: Yes, they do.
Kramer: Have you ever seen a handicapped person pull into a space and park?
Jerry: Well, there’s spaces there. They must drive.
Kramer: No, they don’t. If they could drive, they wouldn’t be handicapped.
Elaine: So if you can drive, you’re not handicapped?
George: We’re not gonna be here that long anyway, we gotta get to the party.
Kramer: I got news for you, handicapped people, they don’t even wanna park there.
They wanna be treated just like everybody else. That’s why those spaces are always
empty.
George: He’s right. It’s the same thing with the feminists. You know, they want
everything to be equal. Everything. But when the check comes, where are they?
Elaine: What does that mean?
George: Yeah. Alright, I’m pullin’ in.
Kramer: Go ahead, George.
Elaine: George!
George: Oh, come on. It’s five minutes.
(Scene ends as George pulls into the handicapped spot)
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The emotional impact of this scene comes from those of
us who drive having experienced the situation that George is in at some time or another.
Emotion also visits those of us who have been passengers in a situation similar to the one
that Elaine, Jerry, and Kramer are in. There is probably also amongst viewers of this
scene emotional impact on behalf of our empathy towards people who are physically
challenged that are often not considered or disrespected in ways that are too easily
dismissed.
321
Analysis: As we try to “understand leadership” we must also understand ourselves as
humans. We are not necessarily comfortable speaking in languages that we are
unaccustomed to articulating, especially in awkward moments. Elaine is the only one in
the group who hesitates to pull into the handicap parking spot and for some reason does
not mount enough of an argument to dissuade the others. Yet, when George makes an
off- hand comment about feminism, Elaine finds her voice and challenges him to further
clarify his point. Did Elaine go silent on her friends taking advantage of their unearned
privilege of health while violating one of the few societal privileges afforded a
disenfranchised group, because she was the only woman in the group? Did Elaine go
silent because she did not know enough about the reality of the other, in this case people
with disabling conditions—to effectively engage her friends? Or did Elaine go silent
because she simply did not focus on the fact that she had the power to change that
situation by adamantly stating she did not want to park in the space?
If Elaine would have exerted herself with her friends on behalf of respecting
designated parking spots for underprivileged people, she may have established herself
with them as someone who will protect the rights of others. She may have also redefined
herself in a powerful leadership moment. Instead, she did not, which allowed Kramer to
position himself as an authority on the reality of people with disabling conditions. It
should also be noted that Jerry most likely was sitting on the fence, unsure what to do in
this situation. An assertive Elaine might have pulled Jerry over towards her position that
it was wrong, instead of contributing to him remaining silent due to his uncertainty.
Returning to Remember the Titans, as Halpern and Lubar (1998) suggested, we
see a different set of values causing conflict between the coaches.
322
Remember the Titans (3)
Scene 18: (A disgruntled parent of one of the White players who isn’t playing as much,
having lost his position to a Black player, is complaining to Yoast)
Fred Bosley: 5 times – 5 times player of the week. He’s not some walk-on scrub, Yoast.
The boy’s a player. He’s a star. And he busted his butt for you. (Looking at Boone
approaching from a distance, Fred says) This is all your doing, you blacks.
Yoast: That is enough. It’s my call. Now listen. You just go on home now, Fred, before
you do something that you’re going to regret.
(Fred leaves)
Doc: Yeah, well…I guess we won’t be seeing much of him, huh?
Yoast: I will. He’s on the deacon board with me.
Boone: (Laughs) All right, listen, about Petey…
Yoast: No thanks required, coach.
Boone: Thanks? You challenged my authority in front of the entire football team, Coach.
Now, you think you’re doing these boys a favor taking them aside every time I come
down on them, protecting them from big bad Boone. You’re cutting my legs from under
me.
Yoast: Some of the boys just don’t respond well to public criticism. I tell them what they
need to know, but I don’t humiliate them in front of the team.
Boone: Which boys you talking about? Which one’s you talking about? I come down on
Bertier. I don’t see you coddle him, or come down on Sunshine. Don’t see you grab his
hand, take him off to the side. Which boys you talking about? Now, I may be a mean
cuss, but I’m the same mean cuss with everybody out there on that football field. That
world don’t give a damn about how sensitive these kids are -- especially the young black
kids. You ain’t doing these kids a favor by patronizing them. You’re crippling them.
You’re crippling them for life.
Anticipated Emotive Impact: The potential emotional impact of this scene is situated in
our ability to relate to the White coach’s desire to overcompensate, in terms of protecting
and nurturing the Black players as a result of his knowledge of their societal oppression.
323
Analysis: Boone and Yoast (portrayed by Will Patton) had been at one another’s throats
from the beginning of Boone’s selection as head football coach over Yoast, who was the
local favorite for the position. Somehow though they found a path on which they could
travel together for the sake of the team. However, throughout their process as coaches
together, Yoast had to struggle against succumbing to the temptation to become a
duplicitous leader. Many of the parents and boosters very much resented Boone’s
ascension to the ranks of head coach. In this southern town, the fact that Boone was
Black loomed large for many of those people.
There was nothing duplicitous about Yoast’s desire to be a resource to the Black
athletes on the team though. Boone’s battle with the White athletes may have appeared
somewhat oppressive to the socially sensitive Yoast. That this edge overlapped to the
Black athletes, who were not antagonistic to Boone at all, might have made Yoast
concerned that they were receiving undeserving edginess. Yoast may have been
overcompensating towards the Black athletes as well because of his knowledge of
society’s socio-political structures that inhibited or prevented Black athletes from having
equitable resources that the White athletes would seldom if ever be denied. Boone
chastising Yoast in the above excerpted scene should be interpreted as nothing more than
two caring coaches trying to do what is best to advance their organization and checking
in on their strategy for doing so. It was these strategy sessions that situated the Titans to
become champions that featured an interracial team and coaching staff during their one
momentous season. The blueprint laid out by the Titans is one that easily could/should
be considered by other teams looking to maximize diversity to obtain performance while
ensuring a socially conscious organization and progressive vision.
324
Poorly defined and often confusing, vision has various synonyms including
purpose, mission, goal, legacy, calling, personal agenda and looking ahead.
(Avery, 2004, p. 100)
We must ensure that negative dimensions of leadership and clearly defined vision
are addressed and/or framed as well. In an attempt to understand leadership, we cannot
lose sight of how most conversations about leadership gravitate towards good or effective
leaders. However, like most things, leadership is a relative topic and also very much
contextual. Adolf Hitler, Idi Amin, and Jim Jones were all leaders, very much considered
good and effective leaders (at least for some length of time) to the legions of people who
followed them. In retrospect, however, they are now widely recognized as duplicitous
leaders. In the films Casualties of War, The Contender, and Very Bad Things, we also
saw the tensions that exist when leaders have different points of view with others in more
profound positions of leadership, or who are not interested in sharing their leadership
roles. Creating conversations that allow potential leaders, if not leaders themselves, to
unpack or defend their positions on leadership are invaluable and truly leadership
moments. Conversations that only address leaders and leadership at its best are preparing
future leaders to only lead in ideal situations. There is nothing virtuous or authentic
about that type of leadership.
Conclusion
Wizard of Oz
Scene 1: (Dorothy is dancing and singing with the townspeople and Glinda, the so-called
Good Witch of the North, when the so-called Wicked Witch of the West arrives in a red
dust cloud. The townspeople flee in fear.)
Dorothy: (To Glinda) I thought you said she was dead.
325
Glinda: That was her sister, the Wicked Witch of the East. This is the Wicked Witch of
the West. She’s worse than the other one.
Witch: Who killed my sister? Who killed the Witch of the East? (Approaches
Dorothy)Was it you?
Dorothy: No. No, it was an accident. I didn’t mean to kill anybody.
Witch: Well, my little pretty, I can cause accidents, too.
Glinda: Aren’t you forgetting the ruby slippers?
Witch: The slippers, yes. The slippers.
(She walks over to where her sister’s body is trapped under Dorothy’s house. The red
slippers disappear and the Witch of the East’s legs shrivel up and disappear under the
house.)
They’re gone! The ruby slippers (She walks over to Dorothy again.) What have you done
with them? Give them back to me or I’ll…
Glinda: It’s too late. There they are (She points to Dorothy’s feet, which reveal she is
wearing the slippers.) and there they’ll stay.
Dorothy looks shocked and a bit worried.
Witch: Give me back my slippers. I’m the only one that knows how to use them. They’re
no use to you. Give them back to me. Give them back!
Glinda: Keep tight inside of them. Their magic must be very powerful, or she wouldn’t
want them so badly.
Witch: You stay out of this, Glinda. Or I’ll fix you as well.
Glinda: (giggles) Rubbish. You have no power here. Be gone, before somebody drops a
house on you, too.
Witch: Very well, I’ll bide my time. (She turns to Dorothy) And as for you, my fine lady,
it’s true, I can’t attend you here and now as I’d like, but just try to stay out of my
way…just try! I’ll get you, my pretty, and your little dog too! (She cackles loudly and
disappears into the red dust cloud, which turns into fire. The scene ends here.)
326
Anticipated Emotive Impact: Most of us have a level of familiarity with the Wizard of
Oz, but seeing it in an academic context can still impact us emotionally because of its
vibrancy, imagery, and rarity of seeing it in an educational setting. Also, depending upon
your first encounter with this film, considerations of the characters could range from
astonishment (the Munchkins) to anxiety (the Witch) to awe (Glinda).
Analysis: The scene itself appears to be quite direct in its message. The so-called
Wicked Witch of the West appears to be threatening Dorothy for no uncertain reason
other than Dorothy accidentally killing her sister, and somehow now possessing her
recently deceased sister’s shoes. Additionally, Glinda, the so-called good witch, is also
briefing Dorothy on the ominous characteristics of the so-called Wicked Witch of the
West. What is significant to consider in this scene is the fact that the so-called Wicked
Witch of the West does appear to have a chip on her shoulder, does appear to be angry
about something. Most people would not even probe possible reasons as to why she is so
edgy. I know I never did until I read a book named, Wicked, by Gregory Maguire. In his
book he walks right into a leadership moment when he paints a picture of the so-called
Wicked Witch of the West that gives her a name, Elphaba, and a story as well. After
reading Wicked it is hard to see the so-called Wicked Witch of the West as nameless.
Wicked forces us to consider the difficulties Elphaba must have endured as the only green
person in the land. This ingenious revision to one of our most told and revered stories
challenges us to reconsider the way we have bought into many similarly hyped anecdotes.
If leadership is essentially a continual assertion of leadership moments, then Elphaba
exemplifies what it means to be a leader.
327
Elphaba represents the reality of the other that has been typecast, stereotyped,
understated, marginalized, ostracized, vilified, and demonized. Elphaba is Josie in North
Country, seen by the union men in a one dimensional way. Elphaba is the brutalized girl
in A Time to Kill, whose reality is not considered until after her cunning attorney
challenges the audience to consider her humanity by seeing her as white. Elphaba is the
dead stripper in the film Very Bad Things, who is accidentally killed, and not given the
proper respect of having once been a living, breathing, caring person who loved and was
loved. Elphaba is the person on trial in 12 Angry Men with jurors who are hurriedly
deliberating so as to get back to their lives, but hypocritically, if they were on trial would
want thorough deliberation. It is far too easy getting caught up in the story of Dorothy,
the Scarecrow, the Tin Man, and the Cowardly Lion and losing sight of the so-called
Wicked Witch of the West’s personhood.
Some years ago dancer Ray Bolger, the scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz
movie, was asked what he thought was the underlying lesson or theme of the
story. He replied that a person who saw The Wizard of Oz should leave with
the understanding that every person has a heart, a mind, and the potential for
courageous action. (Sashkin, 2006, p. 19)
It is relatively easy to identify with Dorothy feverishly attempting to get home,
the Scarecrow seeking a brain, the Tin Man desiring a heart, and the Cowardly Lion
wanting courage. It takes a bit more contemplation to see that their journey is not
dissimilar from ours. If we take the time to think about not just ourselves, but others, our
world will be a better place. If we dare to show compassion, opening our hearts to others,
our world would be more caring and loving. If we find the courage to stand up to others
328
at times when it is easier to be a bystander or a coward (recognizing they are often one in
the same), we create a safer world. And if we live in a world where all these things are
taking place, then we do not need to seek home as a place of refuge. Everywhere would
be our home. As part of our journey home it would be nice if we somehow stopped
seeing the person that we do not know as the so-called Wicked Witch of the West, a
criminal or a stranger with no story. Everyone’s got a story if we take the time to
consider it.
329
CHAPTER V – Discussion and Implications
Discussion
I have responded to my research questions by evaluating an array of film excerpts
that provided varying insights into developing leadership within a context of diversity &
social justice. Interestingly enough though, while the insights varied, there is a family
resemblance in terms of an implied template for selection of the film clips. The subquestions and subsequent template/criteria developed for selection of film clips are
reflected below:
Sub-question 1: What film clips meet the criteria (listed below) as potentially effective
tools for leadership preparation grounded in diversity & social justice themes? The stated
criteria were:
1. Rich emotional content;
2. Potential to challenge the biases of viewers;
3. Potential to be viewed from different perspectives;
4. Potential to reveal the complexities of human behavior;
5. Potential to provide engagement with, and accentuation of multiple
identities;
6. Capacity to raise social justice questions.
7. Potential to engage various dimensions of leadership in response to social
injustices within a context of diversity
8. Potential to explicate major leadership themes (transformative, visionary,
etc.) within a context of diversity & social justice.
330
Based upon my criteria for selection, I chose film clips with emotional impact and
the potential to challenge biases by the film’s promotion of varied perspectives. Thus
each film clip had the potential to invoke within the viewer some type of passion or
energy that derived from joy, sorrow, fear, love and/or hate, with the pending question of
why the viewer experienced whatever emotions that occurred.
Each film was required to reveal and provide access to the complexities of human
behavior, while accentuating multiple identities and raising social justice questions. In all
the film excerpts there was some type of dysfunctional behavior resulting mostly from a
perpetrator’s unconsciously indoctrinated perspective. The unconscious responses of the
perpetrators often contradicted another dimension of the perpetrators’ identities, revealing
him/her as a hypocrite. An example of this is when a heterosexual male, poised to gay
bash, forgets how disturbed he was about his lower socio-economic plight, or how
disturbing it was for him to be ostracized throughout his childhood as poor White trash.
Every film clip was required to accentuate major themes that would enable the
engagement of various dimensions of leadership in support of diversity & social justice.
This was accomplished by situating all the film excerpts under a specific leadership
heading that fully reflected the pertinence of the chosen movie clip and the opportunity
for leadership to engage a pertinent social injustice (i.e., ableism, racism, heterosexism,
sexism, or classism).
From all of this, I learned that more often than not it took a level of acquired
consciousness to forge the leader in a context of diversity & social justice. Leading in a
context of diversity & social justice is often taking action to reenter or reexamine a
331
situation or community that contributed to our value systems and at the very least critique
if not challenge or change that leadership.
Sub-question 2: In what ways does film conjoin leadership with diversity & social
justice?
Utilizing film to engage diversity & social justice is a method to develop a
rationale for action. As David Smith stated in his article, Social Justice Revisited,
“Difference is simultaneously a source of inequality grounded in domination and
oppression, and of solidarity manifest in struggle against injustice” (Smith, 2000, p.
1151). When the differences that differentiate the exploited and exploiter are only
engaged in discussions, without any resulting action, diversity dialog is woefully
inadequate. Action of some type is necessary to maximize if not ensure social justice.
All the excerpted films under evaluation in this study offer a problematic moment relative
to a specific dimension of diversity. However, within all those problematic scenarios is
the prospect of a potential leader stepping into a leadership moment.
Sub-question 3: What is the educational potential for leadership development by using
film to promote consciousness that leads to action?
All the films excerpts selected offer an emotional intensity that accentuates the
anxiety of the victim within the film. As well, couched within all the film excerpts is a
leadership moment, an opportunity for activism in a context that is not easily forgotten.
Not only is the context of the problem clearly available for consideration in the film clip,
but the actions taken or available to a potential leader are also discernibly articulated so
as to lock in place the previously used logic for future use. As I said earlier about
memory being contextual, film discussions on controversial actions taken by leaders, or
332
not taken by potential or anointed leaders, are the types of prompts that are apt to be
recalled by someone facing a leadership moment during similar real life events.
Leadership development strategies should not avoid any issues. By design they
should be constructing conversations on difficult topics in ways that are less threatening,
but undeniably poignant and pertinent to the advancement of progressive strategies that
contribute to the creation of an invigorated environment. An excellent first level of
engagement that assists the development of potential leaders to move beyond outdated
notions of diversity—as far too complex a leadership topic—is the utilization of film. By
using film to transcend blind compliance to socialized indoctrination you can address
many things, including teaching leadership intertwined with diversity & social justice. In
a very different way, coupling film with an effort to promote leadership, diversity &
social justice dismantles walls and constructs bridges that eliminate the distances that
differences sometimes create.
Leadership development is also advanced when it is emulated, embraced and
endorsed through engagement with popular and/or hegemonic culture. Popular and
classic film is a natural conduit for this development. If we were to employ a strategy of
considering everyone as a potential ally, the recruitment of potential allies and promotion
of potential alliances by using one of the most powerful mediums available is a plan
worth developing and implementing.
In the exploration of film as a teaching tool, using film excerpts, I developed five
concepts that I believe warrant revisiting in this discussion. Those concepts are
leadership moment, irresponsible leadership, limited leadership, stereotypical inclusion,
and systematic exclusion.
333
The concept of leadership moment reflects that moment where a single person has
the potential to make a difference, educating others by the actions the potential leader
takes, or perhaps even inspiring others to take similar actions. On some level, the
concept of leadership is essentially a continual assertion of leadership moments.
Conversely, a leadership moment can unfortunately also be a missed opportunity where
someone was situated to make a difference, to be proactive and was not. Irresponsible
leadership is a position of leadership that an individual attains through either earned or
unearned effort, but then willingly or ignorantly abuses.
The concept of limited leadership provides definition for the type of a leader often
portrayed in films as temporary. Within far too many movies a disenfranchised
colleague, right hand person, or second in command ascends to leadership for a moment
or two, but is never fully projected as leader. The limited leader has opportunities, but
always returns to her/his second class status upon the projected leader’s return. The
profile of the limited leader seems to be written to placate the audience that might be
clamoring for a representation of diversity & social justice in film, and therefore is given
a limited leader, who does not love, live, or even like, but loathes the limelight, listens,
and is loyal. The fact that it is written or may be written to placate an audience has the
limited leader a victim of stereotypical inclusion and systematic exclusion. The limited
leader is stereotypically included by being a character that is arguably included to squelch
claims of inadequate representation of underrepresented people. The limited leader is a
victim of systematic exclusion in that she/he is only allowed to be a caricature instead of
full character, whereby as a result an absence of an authentic character is systematically
excluded. On some level the limited leader is a prototypical victim of whom I accused
334
Woody Allen of often creating in his films, stereotypical inclusion and systematic
exclusion. Other filmmakers are also guilty of, in my articulation of two new
problematic concepts, stereotypical inclusion or systematic exclusion.
The limited leader is often stereotypically included or either not included at all,
i.e., systematically excluded. When included, the limited leader is disenfranchised,
unloved except by the leader he/she supports, and without rights, or personhood of any
note. The limited leader has historically been an underrepresented character, usually
male, and mostly a racial minority. The storyline includes glimpses or statements by
them that tease us and challenge us to imagine them as leaders, but when the opportunity
arises, their leadership moment is temporary and seldom profound in comparison to the
protagonist. Dooley Wilson’s character Sam in Casablanca is a classic representation,
but Sam Jackson’s character in Die Hard III, and Danny Glover’s character in the Lethal
Weapon series all fit the description as well. Essentially the limited leader is a caricature.
Stereotypical inclusion though does not just occur with people in leadership
positions. Oddly enough, perhaps though as a symbol of minority representation in
American society, minority presence for years was either in film with a stereotypical
voice, or eliminated completely, as a result of systematic exclusion. This exclusion was
even to the point of illogical lack of representation in city scenes in urban centers well
populated with an underrepresented presence.
Besides the points raised above there are other concerns that relate specifically to
organizing learning that uses film as a means to develop leadership in a context of
diversity & social justice. They are below:
335
1. Structuring activities with emotional impact that challenge the belief system in
non-threatening ways. Challenges to film viewer’s belief systems through the use
of film have potential emotional impact upon them. Thus, film viewers who have
preconceived notions about ability, race, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic class, and/or privilege are more apt to lean into conversations that
feature not only professors challenging their world views, but other students also
calling into question their predispositions.
2. Use of Teacher’s Assistants (TAs) for student leadership development, as
weekend discussion facilitators, and as conduit to other students is highly
recommended as well. TAs are the key to deeper connections with students,
insights into the student’s perceptions of the class, and guaranteed additional
voices in the large discussions on film clips and readings. Thus selection of TAs
is predicated upon their 1) mastery of the subject matter when they took the class,
2) participation in class discussions, 3) perceived ability to connect with other
students, and 4) overall consistency in class participation.
3.
Organizing time effectively is important for good teaching and crucial when
films are involved. Ideally, the class meets twice per week, 90 minutes early in
the week and 3 hours later in the week for a total time of 4.5 hours. In the 90
minute session the class should begin with a 5-10 minute film clip to unpack
thoroughly so as to energize and initiate voices entering the discussion. The 90
minute class also ends with a short film clip and discussion. In the 3 hour class
meeting I recommend showing approximately 90 minutes of film excerpts which
leave about 90 minutes of in class discussion time surrounding those film excerpts
336
that are not designated for response papers or weekend discussions. All the film
clips are in a relationship with diversity & social justice scholarship so the
students and guest faculty who participate have potentially developed a lens from
which they can better participate in the discussions.
4. Guest Faculty (professional development, discussants, allies for the diversity
initiative, advertisement for the initiative) may participate in the class for
professional development opportunities as part of the facilitation of a campus’
diversity /curriculum inclusion initiative on campus. Based on my experience,
some relationships with this type of professional development opportunity are no
brainers (Education, Anthropology, Criminal Justice), but all faculty can benefit
from the opportunity because the experience and insight this type of course
provides on identity development and relationships can benefit any academic
professional who must interact with an array of different people. Other benefits
are the perspectives faculty from different disciplines bring to the conversation,
working side-by-side with faculty may build relationships that become alliances,
and any faculty that participate as guest faculty have the potential to assist in
marketing the course.
5. The use of high profile stars in early roles in their careers creates another
dimension of emotion or energy from the familiarity with the performers and
eagerness to see them in something new. For example, while I didn’t use it in this
study, the film School Ties, that features Brendan Fraser, Matt Damon, Ben
Affleck, Chris O’Donnell, and Cole Hauser is somewhat of a cult classic. Matt
Damon and Ben Affleck are now major stars still actively participating in the film
337
industry though at the time of the making of School Ties they were fairly new to
the industry. Since most college students in post millennium years have not seen
the film, they may lean into watching it even more upon recognition of it as one
of the early works of their favorite actresses/actors.
6.
The encapsulation of the audience’s energy and emotion during film screening by
having your audience seated as a group, essentially shoulder to shoulder. This
physical seating arrangement helps prevent anyone from escaping the emotion
that may arise from certain films that address the painful dimensions of the human
condition or human behavior (Boys Don’t Cry, Rosewood, Casualties of War, and
Very Bad Things). Conversely, if the class is watching Seinfeld, a Chris Rock
comedy routine, etc., then the emotion exhibited through laughter is also
something that ideally you want everyone to get caught up in. Classes I have
taught where students are allowed to sit anywhere in a large auditorium allows
them to somewhat disconnect from the group and drift off into texting, surfing the
Internet, etc.
7. Alternating the flow of the movie themes for the day also helps generate and
situate emotion. Starting the three hour class off with a comedy that assists in
getting the class discussion off on an emotional high sets the table well for a
connection to the more troubling subject matter that you want everyone plugged
into.
8.
Use of subtitles should be implemented whenever possible. Subtitles enhance the
processing of the messages in film, especially once viewers become accustomed
to reading them while watching film. Subtitles add to the depth of understanding
338
what is taking place in the communication between the characters. Also, and
most importantly, subtitles allow people with learning disabilities to have access
to the subject matter that they would not have without subtitles.
9. I highly recommend the use of films that are not necessarily considered diversity
films, like Pulp Fiction. People have an expectation that films like Remember the
Titans have a diversity message and go in prepared to receive exactly what they
anticipate that message to be. However, films like Pulp Fiction that explore the
diversity (ability, race, gender, sexual orientation, and socio-economic class) and
social justice implications in the film are not so obvious and sometimes as a
result, more profound. Essentially, most films have moments in them where
universal questions about relationships and identity are raised, but some are more
subtle and more ideal for searching for their meaning (i.e., Reservoir Dogs,
Casualties of War, and Boiler Room).
10. Inclusion of as many underrepresented and /or oppressed groups in the film
excerpts serves multiple purposes. First, it provides all viewers with a reality that
they may not be familiar with while celebrating or articulating a culture that may
not get the visibility it deserves or needs. Secondly, it provides the opportunity
for the underrepresented voices in the discussion to speak to the realities of their
communities in ways that are authentic, that bring scholarship to life, and that
often debunk stereotypical notions that permeate the literature or film.
11. Television episodes like Seinfeld and ER can be powerfully poignant and are just
as familiar, if not more than popular culture or classically acclaimed film and
strategic in terms of the familiarity with the storyline or actresses/actors. In a
339
classroom or professional development situation it is always beneficial to have at
least a few people who may have some familiarity with the film excerpts you are
showing. Their familiarity with the films provides them a second opportunity to
see it and perhaps be more comfortable sharing their perspective with others as a
result of their familiarity with the film and seeing it multiple times.
12. Comedy as another method to engage leadership/diversity & social justice
actually is another route to invoke emotion. Comedy is invaluable in its ability to
create energy through laughter, enhanced endorphins, and access to the
comedian’s social commentary. Humor in films like As Good As It Gets and Big
Daddy breaks the tension sometimes and lets us get at serious subjects with less
anxiety.
13. Sometimes showing more than just one scene is necessary, especially if you are
trying to convey a certain amount of history. Rosewood, Chasing Amy, Gattaca,
Losing Isaiah, and Crash are all films rich with an array of scenes that can be
utilized to educate. You can usually delve inside these films and use
approximately ¼ to a ½ of the film, accompanied by providing the context for
what you omitted that you deem necessary knowledge for your viewers, and you
have saved yourself ample time for discussion or more film clips that further
accentuate your point. When you do not use film clips that are concisely serving
your purpose, you are basically wasting valuable teaching time that you will not
get back.
14. Music as a mood setter for the film viewing/class discussions is highly
recommended. Having TAs arrive 15 minutes prior to the start of class to
340
establish the mood for those students who arrive early as well as those who drift
in a few minutes before class starts gets the energy geared up throughout the
classroom. When entering certain diversity themes playing music compatible
with the intensity or edginess of the films somewhat establishes a mood that
something different is taking place that day. The day Rosewood—a film about the
decimation of a so-called Negro township in 1923 due to a false accusation of
rape against a fictitious Black man—is shown in class we play edgy gangster rap
(Nigger With a Gun by Dr. Dre and/or Round Here by Snoop Dog) as students are
entering the class. In the gender theme we are more apt to play some energetic
ballads or vocals that address relationship concerns in contrast to the intense racist
encounter that would have music from a street wise gangster rapper.
Implications
The impact on educators and professionals who may opt to use film that conjoins
leadership with diversity & social justice can be significant. If the appropriate film clips
are used, they will assist in breathing life into scholarship that often is redundant or
mundane. The conversations that ensue may be much more profound and probing with
the scenarios within the film serving as the point of departure instead of waiting and
hoping someone will enter the fray with a personal anecdote.
I also recognize that while leadership may not always be enticing as a theme,
provocative films that frame leadership in constructive ways could be the motivation for
a heightened interest in leadership development. As well, introducing the reader to
engaging thought, excerpted from literature on leadership and supplemented with
341
rationale from such authors as Beverly Tatum, bell hooks, Ward Churchill, W.E.B.
DuBois, Jun Xing, and James Loewen would further frame various aspects of leadership.
The emotional impact of using film to accentuate leadership development in a
context of diversity & social justice may be access to conversations that do not
traditionally occur as a result of a lack of motivation to reveal anything personal in a
public discourse. The highs and lows within film often provide an emotional energy that
generates a vicarious engagement with the activity on screen, which personalizes the
moment for the viewers as well. The overriding significance of the emotional impact of
the film clips is that the actions occurring in the films are modeling the way for similar
actions to be taken/not taken. In other words, film’s emotional impact can be a catalyst
for framing potential leadership moments.
If I were to undertake this study again I would have surveyed students about the
emotional impact of film, inquiring specifically about film’s ability to inspire or influence
action. Additionally, I would survey students about their feelings on use of film as an
educational mechanism providing access to conversations that traditionally have been
difficult to broach.
As a consequence of this study, future researchers could evaluate film’s impact as
a mechanism for leadership development upon students studying diversity & social
justice. Future researcher’s could also analyze music (including movie soundtracks) for
its possible use in developing leadership in a context of diversity & social justice or
assessing music’s influence on how we process film.
It is my hope that educators (which can easily include parents, caring adults, or
any non-teaching individuals) will read this dissertation and discover some ideas on how
342
they can use film to advance conversations on leadership and diversity & social justice,
starting with the 47 film excerpts that I evaluated in this paper. I have utilized film as a
point of departure to educate my students in many of my classes: Philosophies on
Romance, Sex, Love and Marriage; Philosophy and Film; Examining Diversity through
Film; Social Justice and Societal Oppression; African American Culture; Moral
Problems; and Societal Dilemmas. In all cases leadership development was one of the
underpinning motivations and goals. I have never been shy about my passion to develop
a passion in others to become change agents in the social justice movement.
Often, people will respond to my question of whether they see themselves as
leaders by declaring that they are not leaders. I do not know how someone could shy
away from owning or identifying their role as a leader when they have not even heard the
context. I am a firm believer that people should not have children or be put into
leadership positions of vital importance if they cannot imagine themselves as leaders. If
you do not lead your children, who will? Yes, they always have the capabilities of
growing into a leadership role or acquiring leadership skills through training or osmosis,
but it still leaves the child you are rearing or the project you have been tasked with in far
too precarious a position. The same sentiment can apply towards career advancement. If
you do not accept a leadership role within your organization, why would you advance? It
is important to assume a leadership role because sometimes there is no one else to take
the lead, and if we do not lead, we cannot be sure that anyone will. Sometimes everyone
waiting until someone else accepts the mantle of leadership has perilous ramifications.
These are all reasons to invest in developing one’s leadership skills or at the very least
preparing ourselves for our entering a leadership moment.
343
I have found the utilization of film to be one of the most strategic methods to
quickly get inside of difficult conversations that might take weeks/months to access.
While people are not always apt to talk about the intimate details of their lives, they are
often more apt to discuss very similar happenings in their lives that are depicted in film.
It is my hope that this dissertation provides its readers more ideas of not just how to use
film, but specifically how they might be able to utilize these specific films and the wide
array of places they can take their discussions by using these excerpted film clips. Like
most educators, I have far too much material to cover in my classes to devote too much
time to any one film in its entirety. However, utilizing an isolated film clip, or editing a
two hour movie down to 20-25 minutes and then situating the movie in a context that
focuses your students to search for the relationship between their interpretation of the
film clips, scholarly articles they are assigned to read, and their own life experiences, is
one of the most exhilarating teaching experiences I have ever had, and one of the most
efficient. If you have not tried it yet, what are you waiting for?
344
REFERENCES
Aquirre, A., Jr., & Martinez, R.O. (2007). Diversity, leadership, and organizational
culture in higher education. Diversity Leadership in Higher Education: ASHE
Higher Education Report, 32(3).
Adams, M., Bell, L.A., & Griffin, P. (2009). Teaching for diversity and social justice
(2nd ed.). New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Ashby, H. (Director). (1978). Coming home [Motion picture]. Hollywood, CA: MGM
Studios.
Avery, G. C. (2004). Understanding leadership. London, Sage Publications.
Beatty, W. (Director). (1999). Bulworth [Motion picture]. Hollywood, CA: Twentieth
Century Fox.
Bee, G.N. (Director). (2000). ER: Seventh season: Episode 16-witch hunt [Television
series]. Hollywood, CA: Warner Brothers.
Bennis, W. (2004). The crucible of authentic leadership. In J. Antonakis, A.T. Cionciola,
& R.J. Sternberg (Eds.). The Nature of Leadership (pp. 321-342). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Berg, P. (Director). (2003). Very bad things [Motion picture]. Hollywood, CA: Universal
Studios.
Bjorkman, S. (1993). Woody Allen on Woody Allen. New York, Grove Press.
Breskin, D. (1997). Inner views: Filmmakers in conversation. New York: Da Capo
Press.
Brooks, J. (Director/Producer). (1998). As good as it gets [Motion picture]. New York:
TriStar Motion Picture Group.
345
Caro, N. (Director). (2005). North country [Motion picture]. Hollywood, CA: Warner
Bros.
Chism, N., Lees, N.D., & Evenbeck, S. (2002). Faculty development for teaching
innovation. Liberal Education, 88, 34-41.
Churchill, W. (2004). American Indians in film: Thematic contours of cinematic
colonization. In Jun Xing & Lane Ryo Hirabayashi (Eds.), Reversing the Lens:
Ethnicity, Race, Gender, and Sexuality Through Film (pp. 43-111). Boulder, CO:
University Press of Colorado.
Corvino, J. (1997). Homosexuality: The nature and harm arguments. In Alan Soble (Ed.),
The Philosophy of Sex: Contemporary Readings (pp. 135-144). Lanham, MD:
Rowman and Littlefield.
Curtiz, M. (Director). (1940). Santa Fe trail [Motion picture]. Los Angeles: Delta
Entertainment Corp. 2002.
DePalma, B. (Director). (1989). Casualties of war [Motion picture]. Hollywood, CA:
TriStar Productions.
Dirkx, J.M. (2001). The power of feelings: Emotion, imagination, and the construction of
meaning in adult learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education,
89, 63-72.
DuBois, W.E.B. (2004). The propaganda of history. In D. L. Lewis (Ed.),
W.E.B.DuBois: A Reader (pp. 201-214). New York: Henry Holt and Company.
DuBois, W.E.B. (1990). The souls of black folk. New York: 1st Vintage Books, Library
of America.
DuBois, W.E.B. (1997). John Brown: A biography. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
346
Dyson, M.E. (1996). Race rules: Navigating the color line. Boston: Addison-Wesley
Publishing.
Eagly, A.H., & Carli, L.L. (2004). Women and men as leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Estevez, E. (Director). (2006). Bobby [Motion picture]. Hollywood, CA: The Weinstein
Company Home Entertainment.
Fraynd, D.J., & Capper, C.A. (2003). Do you have any idea who you just hired? A study
of open and closeted sexual minority k-12 administrators. Journal of School
Leadership, 13.
Gartner, J. (Director). (2006). Glory road [Motion picture]. Hollywood, CA: Buena
Vista Pictures.
Gill, R. (2006). Leadership, values and culture. In Theory and Practice of Leadership
(pp. 131-173). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.
Gillespie, C. (Director). (2007). Lars and the real girl [Motion picture]. Hollywood, CA:
Twentieth Century Fox.
Gilroy, P. (1991). There ain’t no black in the Union Jack, the cultural politics of race
and nation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Griffith, D.W. (Director). (2002). Birth of a nation [Motion picture.] Hollywood, CA:
Reliance-Majestic Studios.
Haggis, P. (Director). (2004). Crash [Motion picture]. Santa Monica, CA: Lions Gate
Entertainment.
Haley, J. (Director). (1939). The wizard of Oz [Motion picture]. Hollywood, CA: Warner
Bros.
347
Hall, S. (1997). Representation, cultural representations and signifying practices.
London: Sage Publications.
Halpern, B.L., & Lubar, K. (1998). Leadership presence: Dramatic techniques to reach
out, motivate, and inspire. New York: Gotham Books.
Hicks, S. (Director). (1999). Snow falling on cedars [Motion picture]. Hollywood, CA:
Universal Studios.
Hill, W. (Director). (1993). Geronimo [Motion picture]. Hollywood, CA: TriStar.
Hoblit, G. (Director). (2001). Hart’s war [Motion picture]. Hollywood, CA: MGM.
Jewison, N. (Director). (1984). Soldier story [Motion picture]. Hollywood, CA:
Columbia TriStar.
Jinkins, M., & Jinkins, D.B. (1998). The character of leadership: Political realism and
public virtue in nonprofit organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kasdan, L. (Director). (1991). Grand Canyon [Motion picture]. Hollywood, CA:
Twentieth Century Fox.
Kitwana, B. (2005). Why white kids love hip hop: Wangstas, wiggers, wannabes, and the
new reality of race in America. New York: Basic Civitas Books.
Knight, P., Tait, J., & Yorke, M. (2006). The professional learning of teachers in higher
education. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 319-339.
Kouzes, J.M., U Posner, B.Z. (2003). Leadership challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Kwapis, K. (Director). (2000). He’s just not that into you [Motion picture]. New York:
Flower Films.
Leask, B. (2006). Plagiarism, cultural diversity and metaphor—implications for academic
staff development. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31, 183-199.
348
Lee, K. (Director). (2006). Boondocks: The complete first season [Television series].
Hollywood, CA: Sony Pictures Home Entertainment.
Lee, S. (Director). (1992). Malcolm X [Motion picture]. Hollywood, CA: Warner Bros.
Lee, S. (Director). (1988). School Daze [Motion picture]. Hollywood, CA: Warner Bros.
Lindman, J. M., & Tahamont, M. (2006). Transforming selves, transforming courses:
faculty and staff development and the construction of interdisciplinary courses.
Innovative Higher Education, 30, 289-304.
Lipsitz, G. (1999). Time passages, collective memory and American popular culture.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Loewen, J. (1995). Lies my teacher told me. NY: Touchstone.
Lumet, S. (Director). (1957). 12 angry men [Motion picture]. Hollywood, CA: MGM.
Lurie, R. (Director). (2000). The contender [Motion picture]. Hollywood, CA:
Dreamworks Studio.
Markowitz, R. (Director). (1995). The Tuskegee airmen [Television motion picture].
HBO.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th ed). London:
Sage.
Meyers, N. (Director). (2000). What women want [Motion picture]. Hollywood, CA:
Paramount Productions.
Miller, D. (1991, July). Recent theories of social justice. British Journal of Political
Science, 21(3), 371-391.
Omi, M., & Winant, H. (1994). Racial formation in the United States. New York:
Routledge.
349
Ortiz, A., & Rhoads, R. (2000). Deconstructing whiteness as part of a multicultural
educational framework: From theory to practice. Journal of College Student
Development, 41(1), 81-93.
Ouellett, M. (2006). Faculty development and universal Instructional design. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 37, 135-144.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pierce, C. (1958). Fixation of belief. Charles S. Peirce: Selected Writings. New York:
Dover Publications, Inc.
Rosenstand, N. (2003). The moral of the story. New York: McGraw Hill.
Ross, G. (Director). (1998). Pleasantville [Motion picture]. New York: New Line
Cinema.
Russell, D.O. (Director). (1999). Three kings [Motion picture]. Hollywood, CA: Warner
Bros.
Sashkin, M. (2006). Leadership that matters: A new vision of leadership. In W. E.
Rosenbach & R.I. Taylor Contemporary Issues in Leadership (pp. 7-20). Boulder,
Co: Westview Press.
Sawalich, S. (Director). (2007). Music within [Motion picture]. Hollywood, CA:
Twentieth Century Fox.
Sayles, J. (Director). (1987). Matewan [Motion picture]. Cambridge, MA: De Capo
Press.
Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey
Bass.
350
Scott, R. (Director). (1997). G. I. Jane [Motion picture]. Hollywood, CA: Caravan
Pictures.
Schumacher, J. (Director). (1996). A time to kill [Motion picture]. Hollywood, CA:
Warner Bros.
Seinfeld , Season 4, Episode 20. (1993). The handicap parking spot [Television episode].
New York: SONY Pictures.
Seinfeld , Season 4, Episode 16. (1993). The outing [Television episode]. New York:
SONY Pictures.
Singleton, J. (Director). (1997). Rosewood [Motion picture]. Hollywood, CA: Warner
Bros.
Smith, D. M. (2000). Social justice revisited. Environment and Planning, 2000(32),
1149-1162.
Smith, W.A. (2004). Black faculty coping with racial battle fatigue: The campus racial
climate in a post-civil rights era. In D. Cleveland (Ed.), A long way to go (pp.
171-190). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Solonoz, T. (Director). (2002). Storytelling, Fiction [Motion picture]. Hollywood, CA:
New Line Production.
Sylvester, R. (1994, October). How emotions affect learning. Educational Leadership,
Special Topic, 60-65.
Tarentino, Q. (Director). (2000). Reservoir dogs [Motion picture]. British Columbia,
Canada: Artisan Home Entertainment.
Van Sant, G. (Director). (2000). Finding Forester [Motion picture]. Hollywood, CA:
TriStar.
351
Van Sant, G. (Director). (1997). Good Will Hunting [Motion picture]. Hollywood, CA:
Buena Vista Productions.
Wetherell, M. & Potter, J., (1992), Mapping the language of racism, discourse and the
legitimization of exploitation, New York, Columbia Univ. Press.
West, C. (1993). Race matters. Boston: Beacon Press.
Xing, J. (2004). Media empowerment, smashing stereotypes, and developing empathy.
In J. Xing & L. Ryo Hirabayashi (Eds.), Reversing the Lens: Ethnicity, Race,
Gender, and Sexuality Through Film, (pp. 11-25). Boulder, CO: University Press
of Colorado.
Yakin, B. (Director). (2000). Remember the Titans [Motion picture]. Hollywood, CA:
Buena Vista.
Younger, B. (Director). (2000). Boiler Room [Motion picture]. Hollywood, CA: One
Race Productions.
Zwick, E. (Director). (1996). Courage under fire [Motion picture]. Hollywood, CA: 20th
Century Fox Video.
Zwick, E. (Director). (1996). Glory [Motion picture]. Hollywood, CA: TriStar
Productions.
352